Comments on: zurich

By: fenchurch

fenchurch — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:19:38 +0000

Jesus Christ, it’s about time a Poe/xian wandered into the comments– they were getting stale from all the preaching-to-the-atheist-choir circle jerking that was going on.

Bless AC with His Noodliness’s noodly appendage, and let’s give ‘em a big hand for coming out to play!

By: Anton Sherwood

Anton Sherwood — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:25:48 +0000

A Christian started by saying the strip mocks what its author does not understand – and then came back to mock non-theistic morality, showing a shallow understanding of it. Perhaps AC grew up believing that the only reason to behave morally is divine punishment; but then why does every society, including those that never got tablets at Sinai, have rules against murder and theft (at least between men of equal rank within the tribe)? Because societies with such rules thrive, and those without them die out. As for the divine sacrifice: to whom was it offered? (Forgive me if this was answered somewhere above – all those long paragraphs in tiny type ...)

By: MaikUniversum

MaikUniversum — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:48:53 +0000

Dear christian, get the fuck out of here.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:18:30 +0000

It’s funny (and sad!) because it’s true.
I love your comics! This is super!

You, sir, have a great mind.

By: pikeamus

pikeamus — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:59:32 +0000

@Robyn

Apologies for the delayed reply. I’ve had a death in the family and haven’t much been (and still, truthfully, am not) in the mood for contemplating this topic. It doesn’t sound as though we are at odds quite as much as it initially seemed. Perhaps we can resume the discussion if (or perhaps when) it becomes relevent again in a future comic.

Take care.

By: superstud666

superstud666 — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:14:59 +0000

the thought of being on my knees for jesus gives me a boner

By: Robyn

Robyn — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:39:54 +0000

Haha, it seems we’re in agreement that the whole thing is a pointless show of religious devotion but, barring that, I think you’re comparison of the hijab to stockholm syndrome is quite more than a mild exaggeration. Now I love the fact that you brought up 1984, because it is actually one of my all time favorite books, and if you’ll remember correctly, the proles were actually allowed many more freedoms than the party members. So it was really only the party that viewed them as lower class. Personally I think I’d have preferred to be a prole and retain my right to divorce, free thought, etc.
Now your Sam Harris argument is something I can only agree with. However, I can only say that I think religion is lunacy, and people who follow it are crazy brainwashed people who were clearly lied to as children. However now I not only sound uneducated, hostile as well, and the more hostile we are, the more we’ll push them away from the truth, and the more they’ll hold on to their precious rituals and beliefs. Now as far as the hijab is concerned, if it has been stated previously that I do not support any religious action, then the only thing left about the hijab is inherently cultural, because I’ve already condemned it as a religious act. Now when it comes to a secular criticism of culture, I’m generally hesitant, because I am sympathetic to the differences in our culture. And so the only thing I can say is that of every muslim woman I’ve ever talked to, they’ve never had an issue with the hijab. When walking through the streets of Qatar, I observed a group of veiled girls giggling together. As I walked by with a friend of the family, they looked at him, giggled at each other and then proceeded to lift their veils for a few seconds, and then let them fall again before taking off. This is them playing, like for example if I got drunk with a few friends and we decided to flash some guys walking by. Same principle. Now I understand that this might never happen in our neighboring country of Saudi Arabia, but what is happening there is an example of the fundamentalist resistance that I told you would have to happen before the progressives won out. You showed some uncertainty earlier that this would ever happen given the state of christianity in America. However you must concede that liberalism has come a long way since its puritan beginnings. Also in Europe where scientists were once condemned, we have an LHC that could theoretically prove the big bang theory, and while there are still those who protest this saying it goes against god or what have you, the fact that the experiment is allowed to go ahead with no disruption from these people is a testament to how the progressives in that area now outnumber the fundamentalists, and so I have every reason to believe that this will hold true for the middle eastern part of the world as well.
I will however say again that hostility towards their customs is not the way to encourage this, instead patience is needed. We cannot force them to think like us, we have to wait for it to happen on its own.

By: pikeamus

pikeamus — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:48:26 +0000

@Robyn
You are right, many Muslim women don’t mind wearing a hijab but to me this sounds rather like Stockholm syndrome (and I feel that’s only a mild exaggeration). The proles in 1984 didn’t seem to mind being at the bottom of the social ladder, nor did the epsilon’s in Brave New World (not perfect comparisons but hopefully you get the idea). You are also right that there is this idea that it protects the women but that idea is simply wrong. It does not protect the women. The requirement to wear the hijab appears to either do nothing and not be a problem or to be a tool to allow greater control over women.

This entire discussion seems to me to be a microcosm of the point made by quite well be Sam Harris that religious moderation protects harmful religious fundamentalism from criticism. Some disagree with him on this but I think he’s spot on.

“Now if they are the ones who wear it, and they don;t mind it, then why should I bother criticizing it?” Well I’m not going to criticize someone who makes a choice that is truly their own, free from coercion and in doing so doesn’t make life harder for others. If Muslim women want to wear a hijab (ignoring the fact, I guess, that they’ve almost certainly been subject to some brainwashing, indoctrination or deception simply to end up as a Muslim) but will defend the right of others to not be forced wear it then I’ll happily support them. I’m still going to challenge unfounded and irrational belief when it raises its head.

I’d repeat the same disclaimer from last time but I think we are both happy to forgive one another for some sloppy spelling and suchlike by now

By: Robyn

Robyn — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:11:58 +0000

@pikeamus
The historical beginnings of any custom is always relevant. In fact you could say that without knowing the histpry behind it, any custom bcaome irrelevant. Now I could criticize the wearing of the hijab based on the level of control it does allow over women. However i will not because after speaking to many a muslim woman I’ve found that they do not mind the hijab at all. Like I said earlier, the idea is that it protects the woman. Now if they are the ones who wear it, and they don;t mind it, then why should I bother criticizing it? I’ll note that I absolutely do not agree with their idea that it will keep them out hell, but only because I don’t believe in hell, you understand? As for the argument you suggested to me, it is absolutely relevant, but I also feel that is a cop out for what we were discussing originally.
Now as for the question about the ownership of his wife, I can assure you that it absolutely does offend, but in a current context. Back in the day when the veil was a status symbol, it was common for women to be viewed as the property of her husband. While I don’t condone it, there is little that can be done about it now. And as a woman who has stood by and listened to a man inquire about her price to her father, (it’s a loong story, but it involves camels…) I can promise you that the idea of a woman being treated as property disgusts me.
And I had a feeeling you were from there, you didn’t seem american, and I doubt there are that many of us canadians on here
Also I’m using a demo browser, so there is no spell check, so I ask you for equal consideration when wading through what i’m sure is a fountain of grammatical errors.

By: dslam

dslam — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:42:54 +0000

Just so we’re clear, A Christian actually said that slavery itself is not wrong. wowzers. Debate over. Credibility shot.

Also, A Christian, since you no longer live by the old testament, why can’t gays marry? By my recollection of the new testament, Jesus said nothing of that.

Christians like to cherry pick from the bible but they don’t like it when outsiders do it in reverse. Within a couple of pages of Moses revealing the ten commandments, the bible sets out guidelines for selling a slave, and very specific instructions about under which circumstances and how an owner could beat his slave. The bible also sets a price for the sale of a daughter. And this book is supposedly the source of morality???