I imagine there are many liberals who took no offense at the black journalist's coining the term but then took great offense at the term being repeated by a person they loathe. In which case the offense was not the term but the very existence of someone hated.
I cannot judge offense taken as right or wrong. It is what it is.
But I can and do judge hate as wrong.
Indeed, the very sight of Bush waving and smiling might be an offense to those suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Hate in their case was making them sick.
Of a truth, not many have a judicial temperament allowing them in the normal course of a day to separate the matter from the person as we Christians learn to do (I Cor 6:1-8, Matthew 7).
Well that doesn’t really answer this question...
“And is it correct to come into a discussion on Rush’s bigotry and use “Barack the Magic Negro” as an example of it?”
Qualia is only a theory. It is not an absolute. There are many critics of it. So let’s put that aside for a moment.
If one is offended by a idea, with no explanation of the intent of that idea, should it be used as an example of a way to prove something?
In otherwords, is using “Barack the Magic Negro” as proof that Rush is a racist correct understanding that the song was a parody of one person rather than any black?
Simply, I’m not seeing proof that this was carved by a Catholic nor that it is on a Catholic grave and especially the context of the carving. We don’t even know that this was “Mary” and not the woman burried there. There is nothing but a title on a photograph by Ivan.
Yet, it was brought onto a thread with a heated discussion about “Catholics” putting Mary on a cross. Could it be that a Presbyterian carved it? A Lutheran grave? Or would that just be silly?