'God Was a Hard Act to Follow'

How edgy!

A RISQUE billboard that depicts Jesus's mother looking dejected after unsatisfying sex with Joseph has given Kiwi Catholics a nasty pre-Christmas surprise.

The huge ad erected in downtown Auckland today shows the unhappy couple in bed accompanied by the slogan: "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow".

In the fresco-style work, Joseph looks down red-faced while an anguished Mary looks to the heavens.

It was the brainchild of a progressive Christian church, St Matthew's, whose vicar Archdeacon Glynn Cardy says it was a cutting-edge strategy to engage non-believers.

"Progressive Christianity is distinctive in that not only does it articulate a clear view, it is also interested in engaging with those who differ," Cardy said.

"Its vision is one of robust engagement," he said.

But the city's Catholic diocese is not impressed, saying the implication that Mary and Joseph had just had sex was "disrespectful" and "offensive" to Christians.

Spokeswoman Lyndsay Freer told the New Zealand Herald it was particularly inappropriate given the inference was wrong.

"Our Christian tradition of 2000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph," she said.

It's gotten to where all you can do is roll your eyes at the silliness of it all. Simply designed to get a rise out of you, these people aren't even humorous. They're insipid.

Food for thought: Would anyone have the stones to portray Mohammed in bed with his nine-year-old bride looking dissatisfied?

Why You Can't Have Churches in the Muslim World

Much has been made of the ruling coming out of Saudi Arabia against allowing Catholic churches on its' soil, but the ruling applies to all religions save one. At least they didn't come right out and blame it on the Jews. No this time their reasoning was that religions that worshiped more then one god were the danger.

The Shoura Council last week defeated a proposal to adopt a law promoting respect for other religions and religious symbols. The proposal that would have had the blessings of the Arab League was opposed by 77 members and supported by 33.

In his reason for voting against the proposal, one member told Al-Watan newspaper that the negative effects might outweigh the positive ones as it would give legality to nonmonotheistic religions and consequently it would allow the building of houses of worship for those religions in Muslim countries.

Are we listening or paying attention to what they are saying? In their own words:

Their articles which were published in Al-Riyadh newspaper questioned the Sunni Muslim view that is standard in Saudi Arabia that adherents of other faiths should be considered unbelievers. Al-Barrak called them infidels and said they should repent or be killed: “Anyone who claims this has refuted Islam and should be tried so that he can take it back. If not, he should be killed as an apostate from the religion of Islam,”

So were do we start this peaceful dialouge at? Madame Speaker? Mr. Majority leader? Any presidential candidate? What is your plan?

While I am waiting, I think I'll go cut the grass.