Comments on: salah http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/ Two prophets, living together. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:52:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: fenchurch http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-175276 fenchurch Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:19:14 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-175276 What is so great about quantity over quality when it comes to prayin'? Pious scabs are nothing new-- I am reminded of self-imposed stigmata of some nuns trying to out-holier-than-thou. What is so great about quantity over quality when it comes to prayin’?

Pious scabs are nothing new– I am reminded of self-imposed stigmata of some nuns trying to out-holier-than-thou.

]]> By: Daz http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-168932 Daz Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:59:30 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-168932 Re the very first comment, by Daniel: Did no one else think 'Butt Ruggers In The 25th Century'? Maybe I need professional help... Re the very first comment, by Daniel: Did no one else think ‘Butt Ruggers In The 25th Century’?

Maybe I need professional help…

]]> By: DCoke http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-139604 DCoke Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:23:50 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-139604 This is not dogma. The theist should do as the theist pleases. But consider that the atheist has a point of view, a strength, that the theist does not. Thus, viewing the religious from an atheist perspective, it is completely just and logical that the atheist should consider the theist stupid, or insane. This is not dogma. The theist should do as the theist pleases. But consider that the atheist has a point of view, a strength, that the theist does not. Thus, viewing the religious from an atheist perspective, it is completely just and logical that the atheist should consider the theist stupid, or insane.

]]> By: Leslie http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-120726 Leslie Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:27:56 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-120726 Jesus christ! :) Jesus christ! :)

]]> By: gorgardard http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-88356 gorgardard Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:48:32 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-88356 I don't find this strip particularly offensive, I just honestly don't think it's that funny. Yes, "rug butter" is basically the same thing as calling someone a "Holy Roller" or "Bible Thumper" or even something like a "Heterosexist" or "Fem Nazi". They are terms referring not to a genetic or cultural slur(towel head, sand n*****r, etc...), but a religious/political/sociological choice. It's no difference than athiests being called "God-Haters" or whatever(though if that offends you and you're an atheist, perhaps you should consider that when you use the term "rug butter". My issue with terms like that are... I'm going to give an example: I call my friends on using the words "gay" and "faggot" derogitorally, because my girlfriend's brother, and some of my good friends are gay/bi sexual. It's not that they're particularly offended when a friend says it reflexively because it's been built into their vocabulary - but as one of my friends said "When I'm in a bar and I hear someone say 'gay' or 'faggot', i instantly find myself worrying that it's not just a [fake etymology(ie 'gay' meaning stupid or lame and 'faggot' meaning 'wierdo' or whatever)] but that that person might be truly homophobic to the point of violence, especially if they're big and male. So I find myself avoiding that person and trying to avoid appearing 'gay' in order to avoid violence." That's my issue with terms like that, not that you are necissarily offending, but you are alienating someone who might be able to share with you something, a good idea, or a friendship, despite their religion or sexuality. Short of that, you are making someone uncomfortable, and not in a way that particularly inspires them to think about their beliefs, just in a way that makes them perhaps act differently and take you as one of those boneheads smurfmensch is talking about. I don’t find this strip particularly offensive, I just honestly don’t think it’s that funny. Yes, “rug butter” is basically the same thing as calling someone a “Holy Roller” or “Bible Thumper” or even something like a “Heterosexist” or “Fem Nazi”. They are terms referring not to a genetic or cultural slur(towel head, sand n*****r, etc…), but a religious/political/sociological choice. It’s no difference than athiests being called “God-Haters” or whatever(though if that offends you and you’re an atheist, perhaps you should consider that when you use the term “rug butter”.

My issue with terms like that are… I’m going to give an example: I call my friends on using the words “gay” and “faggot” derogitorally, because my girlfriend’s brother, and some of my good friends are gay/bi sexual. It’s not that they’re particularly offended when a friend says it reflexively because it’s been built into their vocabulary – but as one of my friends said “When I’m in a bar and I hear someone say ‘gay’ or ‘faggot’, i instantly find myself worrying that it’s not just a [fake etymology(ie 'gay' meaning stupid or lame and 'faggot' meaning 'wierdo' or whatever)] but that that person might be truly homophobic to the point of violence, especially if they’re big and male. So I find myself avoiding that person and trying to avoid appearing ‘gay’ in order to avoid violence.” That’s my issue with terms like that, not that you are necissarily offending, but you are alienating someone who might be able to share with you something, a good idea, or a friendship, despite their religion or sexuality. Short of that, you are making someone uncomfortable, and not in a way that particularly inspires them to think about their beliefs, just in a way that makes them perhaps act differently and take you as one of those boneheads smurfmensch is talking about.

]]> By: Blindedbyscience http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-81448 Blindedbyscience Thu, 08 May 2008 22:27:43 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-81448 God forgive me but I howled at that one! Butting the rug! Brilliant!! Casual disrespect is intellectual slapstick God forgive me but I howled at that one! Butting the rug! Brilliant!! Casual disrespect is intellectual slapstick

]]> By: samir http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-80696 samir Sat, 03 May 2008 19:48:44 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-80696 the muslim in me should be offended...or perhaps the former catholic that i was in the past before reverting to Islam should be offended...but, somehow all i can do is smile. the muslim in me should be offended…or perhaps the former catholic that i was in the past before reverting to Islam should be offended…but, somehow all i can do is smile.

]]> By: Murfmensch http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-79312 Murfmensch Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:04:12 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-79312 We cannot say that it is wrong to "draw a line in the sand". It is wrong for the state to draw such a line based on the content of an idea. (Shame on B'ham City Council!) We all should ask ourselves how we ought to show respect. This includes challenging an idea, a practice, or a whole religion. I'm annoyed by those who slide from considering religion incorrect or inconsistent over to considering it stupid or insane. Don latest comment shows that he recognizes and thinks the comic doesn't slide that way. I was only uneasy about this one. All told, I'm glad this comic is on-line. We cannot say that it is wrong to “draw a line in the sand”. It is wrong for the state to draw such a line based on the content of an idea.

(Shame on B’ham City Council!)

We all should ask ourselves how we ought to show respect. This includes challenging an idea, a practice, or a whole religion.

I’m annoyed by those who slide from considering religion incorrect or inconsistent over to considering it stupid or insane. Don latest comment shows that he recognizes and thinks the comic doesn’t slide that way.

I was only uneasy about this one. All told, I’m glad this comic is on-line.

]]> By: + http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-79233 + Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:09:56 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-79233 You have defiled the image of God with your blasphemous scribbles! Mohammed (praise be to allah) does not, I repeat does NOT have a monobrow! You have defiled the image of God with your blasphemous scribbles!
Mohammed (praise be to allah) does not, I repeat does NOT have a monobrow!

]]> By: Don http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-79197 Don Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:04:47 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/04/21/salah/#comment-79197 This cartoon is not offensive - to those who grock the context and the author's position. The mark is mere religiose swagger. Murfmensch has a point that the catchy term could be twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools. However, if satirist start to self-censor to take knaves and fools into account, whence satire? Not every muslim is a rug-butter, just as not every christian is a holy-joe, a soapy-sam or a bible-punching sky-pilot. But those who are, are what they are and the term is apposite to them. This cartoon is not offensive – to those who grock the context and the author’s position.
The mark is mere religiose swagger.

Murfmensch has a point that the catchy term could be twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools. However, if satirist start to self-censor to take knaves and fools into account, whence satire?

Not every muslim is a rug-butter, just as not every christian is a holy-joe, a soapy-sam or a bible-punching sky-pilot. But those who are, are what they are and the term is apposite to them.

]]>