Displaying decay at CMU I
Kudos to Bishop David Zubik for challenging Carnegie Mellon University's acceptance of the recent “papal parody” (“Zubik: Papal parody at CMU ‘crossed line,'” May 1 and TribLIVE.com).
CMU's tolerance of this student's act is beyond belief. It responded that “an inquiry is under way.” Exactly how long does it take for this inquiry to begin and end?
In 30 seconds, I was able to discover that the student, whose identity can easily be discerned from the clear photograph accompanying the story, committed a misdemeanor — exposing her genitals in public, in violation of Pennsylvania's indecent-exposure law.
Perhaps more important than the legal aspects of this act are its moral implications. What does CMU's and fellow students' tacit acceptance of it say about our society?
She mocked religion in general and the Catholic papacy in particular by being half-naked at a public parade (where I assume young children were present) with her pubic hair exposed. Was no one other than Bishop Zubik outraged? Why were there no complaints made to CMU? Are we becoming a society where behavior of this sort is tolerated in the name of “personal expression” and even found amusing?
It seems most are standing by, witnessing the moral disintegration and decay of our society. More like Zubik need to speak out and say this is not acceptable.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Animal abuse
- Food for thought
- Poisoned long ago
- Appreciate caregivers
- Trophy shot trumps learning
- EPA not the problem
- Quarantine quandary
- Voting insanity
- On right track
- Not ‘too stupid’
- Gruber, then & now III