[Ben Mugged]

As there was no intent or true meaning behind the quickly voiced obscenity, only meant to indicate a frustrating level of disgust so to is the Jesus doll. It is not a religious symbol to be revered but rather a season specific symbol. As I worship in church, the cross serves not as the object of my worship but rather as a symbol to remind me of where my focus should be. Objects are just that, objects. They have different meaning to different people. It is the true intent that is meaningful, not an object.

I have no intent on changing an opinion, only in voicing mine.

[Branzburg]

I hear ya, Ben. Only I do not view the image of Jesus as a season specific symbol. In the same way that you find the cross, not as an object, but rather as a symbol to be viewed in the context of the church. A cross viewed outside the understanding of Christian fellowship is meaningless. Some objects may be just objects, others are more than just objects. Further, I do not accept the pluralistic view that objects can be properly understood to have different meaning to different people. The significance of Jesus' birth, and the significance of the message that he conveyed can not be properly understood without also acknowledging the significance of the Cross.

Thus, the doll removed from its spiritual significance does become exactly what you suggest: just another object among many. And the true intent of his birth, of the Christmas season, is lost in the mix and tends to have a different meaning to different people. So, for some and I'm one, the doll becomes a caricature and/or a means for the manufacturer to financially exploit a religious symbol.

Like you, I am not attempting to change anyone's opinion--I am just voicing how some who are Christians might reasonably hesitate in distributing the talking Jesus doll.