Cartoon humor should be taken in larger societal context

Editor:

To those of you who feel that Proctor's cartoon concerning the Pope was in bad taste, we would like to tell you to JUST CALM DOWN!!! Can you say lynch mob? You all sound like that Jewish dentist who got insulted on one episode of "Seinfeld."

Why is it unacceptable to do satire on religion? We see no problem with it. As a society, we freely mock Bill Clinton, but hands off of John Paul II. Who understands that one? They're both human and they both lead a people. If a cartoonist disagrees with the president's policy he'll attack it with a very funny strip, but doesn't have to worry about

offending too many people. If a cartoonist has a problem with the Pope he'd better be careful not to offend anybody when illustrating a strip. Do religious views take precedence over political ones?

We are not against the Catholic Church or anything of the such. We are just here to say that there should be equality of insults. We are refreshed to hear a joke about someone other than Clinton or OJ. Who's to decide which topics are free from satire? Religion? Race? Politics? Gender? Hair color? Occupation?

The issue behind this comic strip is one of freedom of speech, and expression. As a country, we have been through this before. Proctor is entitled to state his opinions. If you are offended by his opinions, don't pay them any attention.

To Adam Hillier, do we need to explain to you that some people experience hallucinations when under the influence for you to understand the humor. Deep down, just like the comic on Monday stated, we know most of you guys found the strip to be a riot.

By Sokun Ross
Arizona Daily Wildcat
May 1, 1997