Observer discontinues ‘Mobile Party’ comic
Published: Monday, January 18, 2010
Updated: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 13:09
The Observer Editorial Board has discontinued the publication of the cartoon "The Mobile Party" following the submission and subsequent printing of the offensive Jan. 13 comic strip.
While accepting the apology of the primary authors, Notre Dame seniors Colin Hofman, Jay Wade and Lauren Rosemeyer, The Observer Editorial Board does not feel the comic strip aligns with community standards in terms of content and taste.
Per Observer Viewpoint policies, commentaries, including cartoons, submitted to The Observer for publication become property of The Observer unless otherwise discussed with the Editor-in-Chief. The Observer has been made aware of an outside blog authored by the writers of "The Mobile Party" that republished copies of their cartoons as well as cartoons deemed inappropriate for print and correspondence between Observer staff and the writers. This blog is in clear violation of Observer policy.
The Observer staff has been told the blog has since been removed from the Internet.
Writers of comic strips are typically paid for their submissions to The Observer. "The Mobile Party" authors will not be paid for the offensive submission.
44 comments
Chris M
JC72-You do not get to quote biblical demands to execute homosexuals, and yet state that you and your church goers do not hate or fear homosexuals. Those two things are incompatible. You either agree with the bible, or you disagree with it. And if you disagree with it, you're technically not in communion with your church for its dogma demands that you believe in it and all of its proscriptions and prescriptions absolutely.So you can choose to believe in one of two things:1. that your translations are wrong, which is what I will postulate because I've read them in Koine Greek and Hebrew and the English translations you've provided in Leviticus and Corinthians is not at all what's in the bible, to the point they are intentionally and grossly misleading, amounting to willful bigotry. That's how different they are, and how much lacking in context they are as well.2. that the founding text of your religion demands the immediate public execution of homosexuals for no other reason than they are homosexuals, the instant their existence is revealed.So which is it?This is but one example of what makes absolute compliance with Catholic dogma simply impossible in a modern civil society, otherwise we'd see routine public stoning at the grocery store, and the resumption of religious wars. These kinds of beliefs do deserve mockery because they are dangerous beliefs. They are certainly dangerous to that of homosexuals around the world wherever there might be someone who literally believes in the prescriptions of the old testament.By the way, the bible advocates the death penalty for smiting or cursing one's parents. Leviticus 20:9 and Exodus 21:15, 21:17. Working on Saturday? Put to death. Exodus 35:2. Worshipping another god? You are required to personally and immediately execute those who worship other gods. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.
JC72
Chris M- While there is not time or room in this space for a philosophical debate, the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus 18:22 states “Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.” Leviticus 20:13 further states, “The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.” Romans 1:26-27 also brings up homosexuality when it says, “That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.” You can also see an example in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10, “Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God." These do not even include the references to the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah. Among their multitude of sins was homosexuality. There are many other examples of the Bible saying it is a sin, but large or small, sin is sin… and we ALL sin. The key is to repent of your ways and turn from sin toward God. Despite generally being accused of bigotry, persecution and homophobia, I, and the majority of churchgoers I know, do not hate homosexuals or fear them. We are however allowed to disagree with their actions and state our feelings, and we shouldn’t be persecuted or bashed for our opinions. Freedom of speech for one is freedom of speech for all. m2c
Chris M
JC72:
Your hyperbole about any GLBT seriously, or jokingly suggesting bigots be burned at the stake is as absurd as it is ironic considering the ripe history of the Catholic church in actually burning people at the stake. And the reason why it was official policy for so long wasn't merely to commit political assassinations in this life, but to ensure there wasn't a body that could be resurrected in the next life.And by the way, the bible never asserts that homosexuality is a sin. The concept didn't have a word in biblical times. Same-sex sexual activity was considered toevah, "ritualistically unclean" by Jews because it reminded them of temple prostitution, i.e. idolatry. You will find many other things, including eating shellfish, and women menstruating or having just given birth to a child, also referred to as toevah. There's no room here to do justice to Paul's opinions on the matter, he was something of a peeping Tom apparently, but more than that he was easily angered by rejection of the word of God. He clearly lacked the capacity to understand such rejection.Homosexuality being considered an intrinsic moral evil is manufactured by Catholic dogma. That's a big difference compared to criticizing actual policies and events, past and present, of the Catholic church. I know of no GLBT person anywhere who's lifestyle is a source of denigrating the lifestyle of others, as is endemic in Catholic dogma, which demands and requires absolute belief. Extra ecclesiam null salus.It is a very different thing to say "it's probably not in your best interest or health to be sleeping around with a bunch of people" rather than stating as absolute irrefutable devine fact that the mere orientation even absent any sexual contact is officially considered a disorder, an intrinsic moral evil. That is such a complete crock, so hideously dangerous, so absolutely hateful that it deserves ridicule. There is no mockery that could possibly be taken too far in challenging such a position, which is the official position of the Catholic church on homosexuality.Not at all the same thing.
Your hyperbole about any GLBT seriously, or jokingly suggesting bigots be burned at the stake is as absurd as it is ironic considering the ripe history of the Catholic church in actually burning people at the stake. And the reason why it was official policy for so long wasn't merely to commit political assassinations in this life, but to ensure there wasn't a body that could be resurrected in the next life.And by the way, the bible never asserts that homosexuality is a sin. The concept didn't have a word in biblical times. Same-sex sexual activity was considered toevah, "ritualistically unclean" by Jews because it reminded them of temple prostitution, i.e. idolatry. You will find many other things, including eating shellfish, and women menstruating or having just given birth to a child, also referred to as toevah. There's no room here to do justice to Paul's opinions on the matter, he was something of a peeping Tom apparently, but more than that he was easily angered by rejection of the word of God. He clearly lacked the capacity to understand such rejection.Homosexuality being considered an intrinsic moral evil is manufactured by Catholic dogma. That's a big difference compared to criticizing actual policies and events, past and present, of the Catholic church. I know of no GLBT person anywhere who's lifestyle is a source of denigrating the lifestyle of others, as is endemic in Catholic dogma, which demands and requires absolute belief. Extra ecclesiam null salus.It is a very different thing to say "it's probably not in your best interest or health to be sleeping around with a bunch of people" rather than stating as absolute irrefutable devine fact that the mere orientation even absent any sexual contact is officially considered a disorder, an intrinsic moral evil. That is such a complete crock, so hideously dangerous, so absolutely hateful that it deserves ridicule. There is no mockery that could possibly be taken too far in challenging such a position, which is the official position of the Catholic church on homosexuality.Not at all the same thing.
JC72
"Your Name"- You don’t find it ironic that the GLBT can say whatever they feel (and in some cases act on their radical views) without consequence, but any group of people that says something negative about them should be essentially burned at the stake? The cartoon was idiotic, even if it did not come across the way the publishers had intended. However, last I checked ALL people were free to say what they want under the constitution, not just the “minority” groups. These message boards are filled with people saying how this proves the big bad Catholic Church just wants to do them harm, etc etc. The entire church/school is being blasted by these people, not just the group who printed the cartoon. You can go online, as well as in printed publications, and find far worse things being espoused by the GLBT community toward “breeders” and especially toward churchgoers. Where is the backlash to those publications? There is none because if you don’t agree with them you are automatically labeled as homophobic. Also, in your previous post you repeatedly talked about the homophobic attitudes on campus. Taking issue with one’s chosen lifestyle does not make one homophobic. Believing the Bible in it’s assertion that homosexuality is a sin does not make one homophobic. It is possible to disagree with someone’s chosen lifestyle (sin) without being prejudiced toward the person. m2c
Your name
JC72 That is the most disingenuous post I have read. This is about publishing a cartoon that makes light of the brutal beating of gay people. Take your religious persecution argument, think it through, and try it somewhere else.
Your name
I know one of the authors well and I guarantee that the writers are not homophobic. Their intention was to bring to light the homophobia present on ND's campus. Though poorly and distastefully done, these students and their friends are accepting of all people and especially those who did not fit into the typical model of the ND student including the rare gay ND student. Although I am not denying the inappropriate nature of their comic, I think people should not necessarily defame their character and discredit their apology because knowing them.
Chris M
"Dan from first post Mon Jan 18 2010 18:23" I feel gets this pretty spot on. Tools think and say ridiculous things, because they're tools (i.e. morons). As it turns out, the cartoonist(s) have unwittingly been tools as well, but such is often the case when one is young. I agree that expulsion is inappropriate.Do the authors believe that the sentiment conveyed by the tool is prevalent in their immediate community, presumably meaning Notre Dame? The tool's point of view isn't merely absurd, it's seriously dangerous. Or are the cartoonists insincere in both the cartoon's content as well as their apology, and simply wanted to shock the hell out of people. There is a white elephant in the room, where is it?If there is a genuine warning about a larger problem in the community, religion must take the backseat roll to that of human life at stake. The community has an indisputable ethical and social duty to preserve and protect that before anything else. I question the moral and intellectual solvency of anyone who values belief above life.
Nancy D.
I think a mandatory Theology of The Body class for all students at every Catholic University and High School would be beneficial.
David Lauri
Has the staff of The Observer considered holding some public forums at which the persons responsible for the cartoon (apparently not Jay Wade or Lauren Rosemeyer even though their names were signed to the cartoon and the subsequent apology) and its publication could talk about their thinking in creating and publishing such a cartoon, apologize publically and in person, and say what they intend to do to try to atone? They could also hear from members of the Notre Dame, St. Mary's and wider communities, perhaps learning just why LGBT people and our allies found the cartoon so offensive. Trying to handle the apologies and discussions online has not worked very well.
Mark Alan
Some folks need to mind their manners. Keep your bible and your cherry-picked values that persecute homosexuals out of our Constitution and the rights of Gay folks to their pursuit of happiness.
Peter Martin
This story is now well and truly international and Notre Dame's reputation is being quickly eroded. The responsible students should be expelled, nothing less. In the EU a cartoon such as this would be considered criminal and they would be facing prison.
JC72
What I find ironic is that everyone is allowed to say what they want about religion (and in turn religious people), but if someone with a religious viewpoint has something negative to say about another persons choice of lifestyle they are ostracized. While I do not agree with the cartoon, and feel it was in VERY poor taste, it shows how much one "minority" group's rights to say what they want are tolerated more than others. Love the person, hate the sin.
Nancy D.
Perhaps someone can explain how refusing to condone homosexual sexual acts or any sexual act that does not Respect the Sacredness and Dignity of the Human Person is discrimination to begin with?Since it is true that the cartoon depicts acts of hate that are not consistent with our Catholic Faith, it is clear that the intent of the creators of the cartoon was to include ALL those people who refuse to tolerate homosexual sexual acts, or any sexual act that does not Respect the Sacredness and Dignity of the Human Person, among the group of those "hateful" people that are depicted in this cartoon. This would include Faithful Catholics.
Your name
incase you had not noticed this is ND and anything ugly will be swept under the carpet.
Too bad
All the comments from the January 15th Viewpoint pieces regarding this incident have disappeared--another cowardly and shameful decision by someone involved with the Observer. It's also unfortunate, since many of those comments were well-written and provided a point of view that is obviously needful on campus.
MarkD
Notre Dame home of white robes and pointy hoods.
ScottChicago
The fact that this cartoon of bigotry and ignorance ever made it to print completely destroys my impression of Notre Dame as a university. Just appalling.
Your name
This is horrible and should be treated and addressed in every class via telecast. etc...
Not Fundie
To: Cynthia Cantwell
"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)Practice what you preach. And btw, your idea that the comic strip represents "traditional values" makes me sick.
"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)Practice what you preach. And btw, your idea that the comic strip represents "traditional values" makes me sick.
Peter, alumnus '69
What has not been discussed is the need to do something about the cultural climate at ND against gays and lesbians. It's not about a cartoon. It's about the culture that allows these things to emerge. ND can start to do something by recognizing gay student organizations as official ones, and by including "sexual orientation" in its non-discrimination clauses and statements. This is the 21st century -- get moving ND.
is a member of the 
