We think this is one of the best "So & So Says" features we've ever run, because it not only covered a controversial band, but the conversation between vocalist Dani and editor Doug Van Pelt went beneath the surface, as you'll see near the end. It's also one of our most delicate, as the nature of the first topic of conversation was pretty smutty. Read on, but take the "parental advisory" warning to heart. We want to show what's going on here, but also want to warn the reader in advance. I read the story in Kerrang! about what's been stirring in England a little bit. But in your own words, tell me the story of your T-shirt court case controversy in England.

"I can't really give you a viewpoint on it, because it didn't actually happen to me, but we have some quite graphic artwork, and this was quite an old shirt, from like four years ago — but the shirt depicts a masturbating nun, like a photo of a nun masturbating, and the back of it reads, 'Jesus is a (bleep).'

"And I've got some details here . . . last year, I think, toward the beginning of the Summer, the person in question, who is a fan of the band, was returning from a night club, where he was stopped and arrested for wearing the T-shirt. Basically, it looked like, at one point, he'd get a short jail sentence. And basically, he was charged, but the police took the shirt off and they threw him out on the street, after leaving him without a shirt, not even making him wear it inside out, or what have you. And he argued in his defense that he was just attending a rock concert. And he showed up at the court wearing a suit, and said, ‘I was attending a certain brand of rock concert, and so I was wearing relating material.' The interesting point was that they weren't gonna let this go, for some reason, because it was in quite a prolific court in London, a quite snotty (bleep), as it were. And they dragged out a police act from 1839, especially for the case, and it was like, for blasphemy; profane, obscene and indecent things -- anything they could find to win, which they did. He lost his case. He tried to appeal, but he lost the appeal, lost his legal aid. It was important. It was publicized a lot. The repercussions of this could've been enormous, for example, if they're allowed to do that, the music business, any artist, the film business . . . and censorship in Britain is bad as it is, without having to deal with this kind of stuff. So this was all over the press. So that guy was basically charged and fined, and basically, the band decided to pay the fine. Basically, the record company asked us to do it. In other words, we felt obliged to do it, because it was our design. We pledged to support him and turn up and stand in his defense, but at the time they rescheduled his court appearance, we were on tour."

That's an interesting story. What do you think about the role of . . . do you think there should be any sort of censorship, like if someone prints up a bunch of T-shirts that say "Die Nigger Die," or something (horrible) like that?

"It's a very fine line, isn't it, because . . . I think so, yeah, because that kind of thing, I personally, am not the least bit impressed with. That's a racial attack, and the repercussions of that are deadly anyway. That's real. As far as I'm concerned, with the ‘Jesus is a (bleep)' thing, you're talking about spirituality, and not a physical entity. So, yeah, we draw the line. We could put anything on the shirt, and get as disgusting as we want, but that happened to be what was on our shirt. We've got a shirt coming out that says, 'Big girls don't say no,' and then you see the artwork, and you realize that it's a woman in the context of being almost undead, and it's like an S&M thing throughout the . . . do you understand what I mean?"

Yeah.

"So we know when to draw the line, but I know there are millions of ardent Christians who would look at that and say, ‘That's disgusting.'"

What are your views on the Catholic church?

"I tend to not get too wrapped up in any kind of religious debate, really. It's not that I'm ignorant, I just choose not to get involved. It's not really my thing. I actually live next to a church, and lot of people imagine that we would be like Deicide, or a band like that, who would blatantly attack the church, but Jesus has become, in relation to that, it's dumb, because the term 'Jesus' just applies to the provision of millions of people. Yeah, I can actually imagine a person like that, the guy totally existed. So, we're not really interested in that. One thing I thought about Catholics, is they believe you go to Hell or you go to Heaven. There doesn't seem to be that much in between . . . and the concept of Hellfire, but where do you draw the line there, know what I mean? Think about it like this: ‘Okay, you've done an equal amount of sinning in your life, and an equal amount of acts that are termed by the heavenly host -- the seraphim, or whatever -- as being morally good and worthy of entrance into Heaven. But it so happens that you stole a cookie and tipped the balance, and then what? You're into eternal damnation, burning in Hell, even though it was like a stalemate other than the cookie.' Do you see the point of that?"

That's an interesting point. What do you think about the facts and the scientific look at things like the resurrection? There were 500 witnesses that saw a resurrected Christ, and if that was just a big lie or a hoax, there would be tons of people that would . . . like, if that happened today, and I said I was Christ, and I made a big stink about it, David Jennings, and all these people on the news would get on there and say, "Doug Van Pelt pulled off a hoax today, acting like he was Christ," there would definitely be conflicting reports. And there's not really a great deal of conflicting reports about Christ's resurrection. In fact, there's evidence that, like, 500 people saw it, and stuff like that. And the fact that the stone that was rolled away, it takes several men to roll it away, and they had, like, a bunch of Roman soldiers guarding the stone in the first place . . .