The Catholic Sharia of Pittsburgh

As reported yesterday:

Carnegie Mellon University police on Friday filed charges of indecent exposure against two art students accused of public nudity during a campus parade sponsored by the College of Fine Arts.

One of the two would be the she-pope. The other was some guy who dressed as an astronaut and then disrobed (down to his shoes and nothing more) while standing on top of a float.

You'll note that Bishop Zubik had no problem with the non-female, non-papal public nakedness.

That being said, take a look at this piece from Michael McGough of the LA Times:

In the post-9/11 culture wars over Islamic fundamentalism, American conservatives — properly — have condemned attempts in Muslim countries to punish blasphemy or insults to the prophet Muhammad. It will be interesting to see if they are similarly outraged over what has happened to an art student at Carnegie Mellon University who insulted the pope.

Granted there were no death threats, no threats of violence from the Bishop to defend his faith - but as McGough points out:

But it’s hard to believe that the university would have pursued the matter if there hadn’t been a complaint by Bishop David A. Zubik, who said that the display was “offensive to me and the church that I represent.”

Considering the Bishop was silent about the naked astronaut, it was all about the religious insult.

And in a free society, that's just not good enough to warrant punishment.  Sorry, Dave.

McGough quotes Texas v Johnson and I can't think of a better message to send Bishop David Zubik and the church he's looking to defend:

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Especially since he thinks that:

...freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not constitute a freedom to dismiss or disrespect the beauty of anyone's race, the sacredness of anyone's religious belief or the uniqueness of anyone's nationality.

Wrong again, Dave.