Now I think this one is pretty funny. I’d probably laugh out loud and make sure to show it to everyone who came over.
The baby-as-Jesus is just kind of weird. And definitely tacky.
Ask “did I make him cry when I touched myself last night?”
Back when I lived in NYC, myself and members of our church participated in a “living nativity” that, year after year, got a positive response. In a public area (visible from the street but out of the cold), members of our church dressed as characters from the nativity in a life-sized model of a stable. Members with young (under about 9 months) children would take a “shift” with their kids in the role f Jesus. No one ever complained, and no one ever seemed to take offense. I don’t see this as qualitatively different.
Except, the way it was done sounds really tacky.
Having critiqued writing for over 25 years, this immediately strikes me as a typical writing error: not seeing how two juxtaposed things might look.
I’m guessing the family in question has no clue as to how the card might look. They’re putting a photo of their baby on a card using a standard phrase without realizing the people would automatically draw a connection. And, yes, even smart people don’t realize the impression they give; they only consider the two items separately.
As an example, I’m reminded of a novel I was critiquing in a writer’s group. The main character was a 70s pothead lived in Belgium and was fairly obsessed with sex. A married couple of friends in France had bought a new house. He visited. When he got there, there was this immortal line:
“Here’s my housewarming present,” I said as I dropped my pants.
Now, the author never realized what impression this gave until the writing group pointed it out to him. (The protagonist was smuggling pot in his underwear, but this hadn’t been established at all prior to the sentence.)
It’s the same thing with the card.
Hmmm. I’m a diehard atheist (raised Christian until I changed my mind about the whole thing) and I think it’s a little offensive, and rather tacky. Kind of like if someone sent Ramadan cards (if there is such a thing) with a picture of the sender dressed as Mohammed with the little balloon saying, “Have a ‘Ramadan-a-ding-dong’ good time once the fast is over!” Just kind of rude, to me.
On the other hand, that “three Kings bearing gifts” one with the dog is funny. So it’s a toss-up.
Since the phrase is “Glory to the newborn king” and they’ve changed it to “Glory to our newborn king”, it’s not out of the question to think that someone might justifiably be offended that someone else is likening their child to Christ. I’d give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t mean to offend but it wasn’t the wisest choice.
I’m a Christian. I wouldn’t be offended, but I’d sure roll my eyes if I received a card like that.
This sums it up for me as well. It’s not that I’m OFFENDED. It’s just that I would never want to be around those people out of fear of being bombarded by the latest update on what litlle child was doing. “He took the cutest poo yesterday. I had it framed.”
Okay, this made me laugh out loud.
As to the OP: I’ve seen a lot of elaborate home-made Xmas cards that were obviously the cutest thing in the world to the family that sent them, but everyone else can’t even figure them out. Usually the execution doesn’t live up to the intent, or it’s some kind of in-joke.
The Three Kings card is funny.
The OP’s card isn’t offensive; it’s on the stupid side of silly.
The fact the card is actually depicting Mohammed would be offensive enough in and of itself.
As to the card in the OP, it doesn’t seem to be offensive to me. If their name were “King”, then it would even be funny. If not, then it’s a bit tacky.
Yes, but as gigi pointed out, the phrase is actually “Glory to the newborn king” not “Glory to our newborn king”. That change added with the fact that the kid is wearing a crown leads me to believe it is not a misinterpretation of the card’s meaning; their intentions, IMO, are clear.
Their name is not King.
Yes, he is their first born. Yes, he will be ridiculously spoiled (that whole extension of this family is; bratty kids with entitlement issues are like their legacy).
The “Three Kings” card is hilarious.
Revtim is probably going to hell. 
So the card is unquestionably tacky - I figured that much - but probably not offensive.
Definitely tacky, and I find it a little offensive too. Blasphemous, really. However, I’m sure they didn’t mean it that way, so no skin off my nose in the grand scheme of things.
Me too. Of course, if one of MY friends sent that card they would do so ironically. If the family was being totally sincere, that would be even more hilarious.
If it was done all serious and soft-focus, I’d think it was a little eccentric.
But if it was done how I pictured it- a chubby baby with a greedy look in his eyes in clear focus, I’d think it was hilarious and that these are exactly the kinds of people I’d like to know.
I think it’s kind of tacky but I’m not exactly religious. I’m sure you could find someone conservative who’d blow their stack over it.
And the Three Kings card sounds hilarious. I doubt you’d find too many people who’d actually be offended by that, since they’re not actually portraying a religious figure/deity, just gift-bearers to one.
I would probably find it hysterical. Then again, I wish I had a kid so I dress it up in an elf costume and send out a picture of it crying with the caption “The Elves are on Strike! Hope labour negotiations conclude in time for Santa’s Sweatshop to re-open in time for Christmas! Happy Holidays!”
I am religious, but would take no offense; I would also regard it as just tacky, not an attack on my religion.
Extremely tacky. Let’s put it this way-there’s a rumor out that Britney Spears had her son’s crib made up to look like a manger with life-size nativity figures gathered around it, so it looks like her son is the Baby Jesus.
Why would you want to do something that Britney Spears thinks is classy?
So gauche.