I read this searching for people's thoughts on what is going on here at UVa and I had no idea that this kind of thing was occurring at other universities as well. I hope both our colleges put an end to their respective Jesus-bashing cartoon strips. Good job for taking up the fight and thanks for letting people know what is going on up here.

I could have liked the driving one because He honestly has never driven an automobile (although in all reality, He could because of the whole all-powerful thing). But the Lord would never curse and as a result, I don't like the toon because it doesn't properly reflect who Christ was/is.

On a side note, it would be pretty cool to see a toon like this: The first few frames have the guys from "the Fast and Furious" or some other type of automobile-trick drivers doing their best tricks then a frame of Christ saying "Psh, amateurs.." and one or two frames of Him doing the type of unbelievable tricks you'd expect from the Lord. That would be funny.

And good point on the final sentence. Christian's toons are a whole lot better drawn than the ones at UVA. He's got a talent at drawing stuff. Judging by how the ones at the Daily were done, I was half-tempted to look for notebook paper lines on them but oh well.

I haven't checked over the UVA thing yet, so I can't really comment on them, except that they have every right to publish that, even if it is offensive, as we all know from our experiences at Radford University.

While you may find no tangible value in such exploration, and I, in fact, find very little value from your descriptions of it, value is not really the point. Students in student media at universities are faced with a rare situation in life: they have the ability to take advantage of what most higher education facilities provide--a true bubble from the outside world where the meaning and spirit of the first amendement are truly enforced. There are no ties to corporate money (except from self-righteous alumni) and the opportunity to spread all ideas, whether popular or not, is still there.

Maybe I did not like the article in The Tartan that condemned homosexuality, but I do understand that The Tartan had the right to publish it. The key concept in understanding this first amendment right is that The Tartan has the right to publish it, but it would also have the right to censor the article if it saw fit.

This is where I will find a way to tie this into UVA. The idea here is not to have the university challenge the writer or the paper legally, because they cannot. If they do, they would get taken to court and would have a significant chance of losing. The only course of action is to employ either the writer/cartoonist or the editors to change this, but they are under no obligation to do so.

As a final note, I would like to comment on "Christ on Campus" since I, of course, was involved. You mentioned, Blake, that Christian did the series to get laughs, but I think you failed to highlight that to us, many of the cartoons also examined philosophical issues--not all of course, but many. Now, we may disagree on the nature of this, but many of us felt that several of the messages ended up being pro-Christian.

Now, that is no barometer for publishing, that was just our position on it. At Whim, we always would have rather approached a controversial issue and provided something valuable, rather than approaching a controversial issue for the sake of being controversial.

"a true bubble from the outside world where the meaning and spirit of the first amendement are truly enforced"
I think this is where we will have to agree to disagree. I personally do not see why colleges, which are funded by the taxpayers, are not allowed to censor what is published in the newspapers they fund with their money. Yes, I am aware the Supreme Court gave the students almost god-like powers over their respective universities but I find that to be foolish. Universities, and not their students, should have the ultimate say of what can be printed in their papers like the high schools in this nation can.

"Maybe I did not like the article in The Tartan that condemned homosexuality, but I do understand that The Tartan had the right to publish it."
That is refreshing to hear, though. Although I'd like universities to have the power to censor, the laws are what they are. What I found to be comical was that there were a handful of folks who attacked me for wanting CoC censored but when Brian's article was printed, were so quick to demand that it be censored.

Students on university campuses enjoy the same freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment that most individual citizens enjoy as well. There are obviously exceptions to every rule and the first amendment is not absolute, but I believe Radford made an excellent choice by not getting involved--for the most part.

I'm a bit confused sometimes why you are in the student media, but so quick to want things censored?

Do you believe that the university should be able to censor things like the homosexual article?

"Blake, that Christian did the series to get laughs, but I think you failed to highlight that to us, many of the cartoons also examined philosophical issues--not all of course, but many."

I think you should re-read what I wrote. I said in the article above that "...that he was only making his series for laughs or to get students to think..." Now I will give that there was an edit on that sentence the day it was printed so it may not have shown up as Blogger was being a pain that day but I do believe Christian when he says he was trying to either get people to laugh or to make a point. I just hold that it is the responsiblity of Christians to project the image of the Lord found in the Scripture when referring to Him or talking of His works and when that does not happen, it is a bit concerning.

"I believe Radford made an excellent choice by not getting involved--for the most part."

In one of my earlier articles here at RUnderground, I commended the university for refusing to show a bias by either censoring Brian's article while allowing CoC to run or visa versa.

I guess the answer to your last question in short is that as a Christian, I'd like to see only pro-Christian (like we've established, this is an arguable point) things being produced in the world. Is that possible? Sure, but it's highly unlikely.

So I'm now even more confused. Are you saying you think the first amendment should only be applied to pro-Christian speech?