Replies

"The point you miss is that this wasn't a diss on Mary. It was a diss of statue miracles. If you don't see the distinction, then you're a good candidate to believe in healing statue tears, grilled cheese sandwich miracles, etc.

Yes, I can see the distinction were there a distinction being made, and let me say that I do acknowledge your point. HOWEVER, and again, using the icon/statue/person of the Virgin Mary to show that SOME people "flock to a bleeding statue or a piece of toast" was not the best or only way to go to make the same point. That's all. Find something ELSE. Yes, it's offensive. Yes, there are worse things. Yes, I'll bet those writers had other ideas they probably nixed, thank (you'll excuse the expression) God. But they chose to have blood coming out of the Virgin Mary's "ass" (oh, how lovely). To those who do not find the Virgin Mary as anyone special, why would they care anyway? She's just a mythological person, etc. But not to everyone. Let's just agree to disagree. OK?

HOWEVER, and again, using the icon/statue/person of the Virgin Mary to show that SOME people "flock to a bleeding statue or a piece of toast" was not the best or only way to go to make the same point. That's all. Find something ELSE.

They don't flock to miracle images of Barbara Streisand looking for cures silly... it's always a religous figure that has these apparitions or there's no appeal.

I'll concede that the source of the blood was intentionally crude.

I think the depiction would have been more offensive if South Park had done the same thing with "tears" coming from the statue's eyes. They deliberately made it the most ridiculous thing they could do to exaggerate the point about the statue miracles and the people who see them as a sign of something.

So yes, we'll just agree to disagree and those who need directions to the shrine of the holy tortilla can easily find them on Google.