In reverse order...
I considered your example of the double dick creed is weak because it misses that the piggybank icon itself is a benign, non-obscene icon unless you look real hard for it and try to make a stupid connection. Slapping two dicks in someone's face lacks that subtlety, though I grant that I still wouldn't be offended even if I were Christian.
PseudoStupidity wrote:The headline doesn't say what you think it says at all. Read the fucking headline.
Ho-kay.
"Newspaper draws piggy bank to show ISIS funding, Muslim groups attack it as pig is “unislamic”"
Now true/ or false. The people were protesting because the icon which was used to represent funding of ISIS and was alleged as something unislamic to the point of being blasphemous? True, right? That is exactly what happened and exactly what the headline said. There is more context, sure, but the headline is not wrong. The protesters are attacking because of the pig being unislamic.
PseudoStupidity wrote:The article's headline makes it sound like Muslims are mad about ISIS being portrayed as unislamic when that is obviously not what they're mad about.
Noooope.
Muslim groups attack it as pig is “unislamic”
The pig. Not ISIS. The pig. I don't know how you got mislead. The PIG.
The headline is way more informative and less misleading than your translation, since your interpretation leaves out the part where they are incensed that a piggybank is in the shape of a pig. A part that is explained better by the headline.
Moving on a bit.
It's not the newspaper's fault that ISIS uses words as their symbol that aren't allowed to be printed this way or that. I think the protesters are fucking hypocrites who should be protesting ISIS for using that text as their logo if they want to be honest in their complaints of blasphemy, but that's me.