Ban all illustrated Bibles now!

Now, to address his contentions: 1) While I am willing to accept that it is governments' duty to promote happiness amongst its citizens, I believe that this responsibility should not be limited to their lives on Earth, but should extend to their prospects of happiness in the afterlife as well. Clearly, a devout Christian who has followed the teachings of the Bible throughout his time on Earth should expect an eternity of harmony and bliss in Heaven. However, this could be ruined if he got snuffed out in a pub fight with Jesus just because his Bible led him to believe that He looked like some hippy in a dressing gown rather than, say, Russell Brand. 2) Destroying all the illustrated Bibles, which as my opponent pointed out, represent the majority of all Bibles in circulation, would, on the contrary, be good for the economy. Thousands of jobs will be created in the publishing industry to help satisfy the demand for new un-illustrated Bibles. Furthermore, the confiscated Bibles could be sold on to heathens, heretics and other non-believers for use in their bathrooms – the exceptionally thin pages would make them ideal substitutes for toilet paper. Moving on now to address his arguments. "Through digital computer processing, scientists have actually identified some features of Jesus' face from the Shroud of Turin" Radio carbon dating proves this filthy remnant was created around 1355, probably as a hoax relic, and therefore the image no more resembles Jesus than the figure portrayed in, say, Edward Munch's The Scream. . http://www.mcri.org... . http://www.journeywithjesus.net... "Nobody is making anybody buy illustrated bibles. If you feel this way, simply buy a bible with no illustrations of Jesus" That doesn't mean they should be legal. It's not the words that are dangerous; it's the pictures. For example, a novel about child abuse that goes into graphic detail would not be banned but the film version of the book, which included graphic scenes of children being raped, would be. "Not all illustrations in books are of Jesus. Because my opponent only argues that the illustrations of Jesus are wrong, other illustrations (which, by the way, are a majority) are okay" An extension of the last analogy: if the police raided the home of a middle-aged former pop-star (who had been twice accused of sexually interfering with little boys in past and who was on record as saying that sharing his bed with young boys was the most natural thing in the world) and found a German DVD which showed boys being raped on a Bavarian mountainside, should they let him off if he claims he wasn't looking at the sick perverts molesting their victims, he was only admiring the beautiful scenery in the background? In conclusion, there is no consensus of what Jesus looks like, it depends on your version of the Bible. After all, Bible are specially produced for all sorts of people: porn stars: . http://fireproofnew.sellmerch.com... Cockney wide-boys . http://www.brf.org.uk... comic-book geeks: . http://www.theartofsiku.com... and people with learning difficulties / people from Norfolk, England: . http://www.thebricktestament.com... In each version Jesus is depicted very differently. So, in the hereafter, when it all kicks off in a blessed bar on a Saturday night on Cloud 9, and the fists start flying, a devout and pious Christian soul might condemn himself to an eternity in Hell, simply by making the innocent mistake of glassing Jesus in the face and then kicking Him in the bollocks when He was down on the ground – and all because He didn't look anything like His picture in the Bible. Therefore, for the sake of all divine debutants, I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.