<?xml version="1.0" encoding=""?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: zurich</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/</link>
	<description>Comic featuring Jesus and Mohammed</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:37:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anton Sherwood</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-135884</link>
		<dc:creator>Anton Sherwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-135884</guid>
		<description>A Christian started by saying the strip mocks what its author does not understand &#8211; and then came back to mock non-theistic morality, showing a shallow understanding of it.  Perhaps AC grew up believing that the &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; reason to behave morally is divine punishment; but then why does &lt;em&gt;every&lt;/em&gt; 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: &lt;em&gt;to whom&lt;/em&gt; was it offered?  (Forgive me if this was answered somewhere above &#8211; all those long paragraphs in tiny type ...)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Christian started by saying the strip mocks what its author does not understand &ndash; and then came back to mock non-theistic morality, showing a shallow understanding of it.  Perhaps AC grew up believing that the <em>only</em> reason to behave morally is divine punishment; but then why does <em>every</em> 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.</p>
<p>As for the divine sacrifice: <em>to whom</em> was it offered?  (Forgive me if this was answered somewhere above &ndash; all those long paragraphs in tiny type &#8230;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MaikUniversum</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-129728</link>
		<dc:creator>MaikUniversum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:48:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-129728</guid>
		<description>Dear christian, get the fuck out of here. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear christian, get the fuck out of here. <img src='http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-128862</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:18:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-128862</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s funny (and sad!) because it&#039;s true.
I love your comics! This is super!

You, sir, have a great mind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s funny (and sad!) because it&#8217;s true.<br />
I love your comics! This is super!</p>
<p>You, sir, have a great mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pikeamus</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-126507</link>
		<dc:creator>pikeamus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:59:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-126507</guid>
		<description>@Robyn

Apologies for the delayed reply. I&#039;ve had a death in the family and haven&#039;t much been (and still, truthfully, am not) in the mood for contemplating this topic. It doesn&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Robyn</p>
<p>Apologies for the delayed reply. I&#8217;ve had a death in the family and haven&#8217;t much been (and still, truthfully, am not) in the mood for contemplating this topic. It doesn&#8217;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.</p>
<p>Take care.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: superstud666</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125808</link>
		<dc:creator>superstud666</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:14:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125808</guid>
		<description>the thought of being on my knees for jesus gives me a boner</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the thought of being on my knees for jesus gives me a boner</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robyn</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125721</link>
		<dc:creator>Robyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:39:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125721</guid>
		<description>Haha, it seems we&#039;re in agreement that the whole thing is a pointless show of religious devotion but, barring that, I think you&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;ll push them away from the truth, and the more they&#039;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&#039;ve already condemned it as a religious act. Now when it comes to a secular criticism of culture, I&#039;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&#039;ve ever talked to, they&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Haha, it seems we&#8217;re in agreement that the whole thing is a pointless show of religious devotion but, barring that, I think you&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;d have preferred to be a prole and retain my right to divorce, free thought, etc.<br />
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&#8217;ll push them away from the truth, and the more they&#8217;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&#8217;ve already condemned it as a religious act. Now when it comes to a secular criticism of culture, I&#8217;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&#8217;ve ever talked to, they&#8217;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.<br />
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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pikeamus</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125682</link>
		<dc:creator>pikeamus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125682</guid>
		<description>@Robyn
You are right, many Muslim women don&#039;t mind wearing a hijab but to me this sounds rather like Stockholm syndrome (and I feel that&#039;s only a mild exaggeration). The proles in 1984 didn&#039;t seem to mind being at the bottom of the social ladder, nor did the epsilon&#039;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&#039;s spot on.

&quot;Now if they are the ones who wear it, and they don;t mind it, then why should I bother criticizing it?&quot; Well I&#039;m not going to criticize someone who makes a choice that is truly their own, free from coercion and in doing so doesn&#039;t make life harder for others. If Muslim women want to wear a hijab (ignoring the fact, I guess, that they&#039;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&#039;ll happily support them. I&#039;m still going to challenge unfounded and irrational belief when it raises its head.

I&#039;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 :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Robyn<br />
You are right, many Muslim women don&#8217;t mind wearing a hijab but to me this sounds rather like Stockholm syndrome (and I feel that&#8217;s only a mild exaggeration). The proles in 1984 didn&#8217;t seem to mind being at the bottom of the social ladder, nor did the epsilon&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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&#8217;s spot on.</p>
<p>&#8220;Now if they are the ones who wear it, and they don;t mind it, then why should I bother criticizing it?&#8221; Well I&#8217;m not going to criticize someone who makes a choice that is truly their own, free from coercion and in doing so doesn&#8217;t make life harder for others. If Muslim women want to wear a hijab (ignoring the fact, I guess, that they&#8217;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&#8217;ll happily support them. I&#8217;m still going to challenge unfounded and irrational belief when it raises its head.</p>
<p>I&#8217;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 <img src='http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robyn</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125613</link>
		<dc:creator>Robyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125613</guid>
		<description>@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&#039;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&#039;ll note that I absolutely do not agree with their idea that it will keep them out hell, but only because I don&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;t seem american, and I doubt there are that many of us canadians on here :)
Also I&#039;m using a demo browser, so there is no spell check, so I ask you for equal consideration when wading through what i&#039;m sure is a fountain of grammatical errors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@pikeamus<br />
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&#8217;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&#8217;ll note that I absolutely do not agree with their idea that it will keep them out hell, but only because I don&#8217;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.<br />
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&#8217;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&#8217;s a loong story, but it involves camels&#8230;) I can promise you that the idea of a woman being treated as property disgusts me.<br />
And I had a feeeling you were from there, you didn&#8217;t seem american, and I doubt there are that many of us canadians on here <img src='http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
Also I&#8217;m using a demo browser, so there is no spell check, so I ask you for equal consideration when wading through what i&#8217;m sure is a fountain of grammatical errors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dslam</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125281</link>
		<dc:creator>dslam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:42:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125281</guid>
		<description>Just so we&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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???</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just so we&#8217;re clear, A Christian actually said that slavery itself is not wrong.  wowzers.  Debate over.  Credibility shot.</p>
<p>Also, A Christian, since you no longer live by the old testament, why can&#8217;t gays marry?  By my recollection of the new testament, Jesus said nothing of that.</p>
<p>Christians like to cherry pick from the bible but they don&#8217;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???</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pikeamus</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125220</link>
		<dc:creator>pikeamus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:55:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125220</guid>
		<description>@Robyn

You said &quot;...so it was a sign that their husband was wealthy enough to keep them idle.&quot; I&#039;d like to emphasise the KEEP part. Does the suggestion that women are kept by their husbands not offend you immediately?

I am familiar with the historical root of this custom. I especially like to that note that darker colours became most prominent because darker dyes were more expensive so as a status symbol were more effective. In any case it doesn&#039;t really matter why a custom originated, it&#039;s the affect it has now that is important. It also seems to me irrelevant as to weather of not wearing a hijab or burka is mandated by the quran the problem is that it is mandated throught the islamic world. In many area you are harshly punished for not following this rule while in others you may just find people are just a little colder toward you. I&#039;m sure there are even regions in islamic countries where no one would bat an eye if you went out uncovered.

Neglecting to criticize something because it is &quot;an integral part of their culture&quot; is, if you ask me, cowardly. The best line of arguement to get me to chill about this issue would be something along the lines of: &quot;There are more important battles for equality to be waged, by taking a stance on this subject you are just making it harder because muslims feel that you are just attacking their culture because it&#039;s different.&quot; I don&#039;t really buy this either but its worth some consideration.

I&#039;m not doing a great job of articulating my thoughts today (because, of course, I&#039;m usually great at it  ) my apologies for that. I hope you are right that progressives within the islamic world will win out over the fundamentalists, I struggle to find much optimism on that line. Progressives don&#039;t seem to have won the battle with fundamentalists within christianity yet and it seems much easier to interpret the bible in a more moderate way than it is the quran.

(btw, you are correct, I am in western europe. I&#039;m also too hungover to proofread this so apologies for any hideous mistyping or gramatical errors.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Robyn</p>
<p>You said &#8220;&#8230;so it was a sign that their husband was wealthy enough to keep them idle.&#8221; I&#8217;d like to emphasise the KEEP part. Does the suggestion that women are kept by their husbands not offend you immediately?</p>
<p>I am familiar with the historical root of this custom. I especially like to that note that darker colours became most prominent because darker dyes were more expensive so as a status symbol were more effective. In any case it doesn&#8217;t really matter why a custom originated, it&#8217;s the affect it has now that is important. It also seems to me irrelevant as to weather of not wearing a hijab or burka is mandated by the quran the problem is that it is mandated throught the islamic world. In many area you are harshly punished for not following this rule while in others you may just find people are just a little colder toward you. I&#8217;m sure there are even regions in islamic countries where no one would bat an eye if you went out uncovered.</p>
<p>Neglecting to criticize something because it is &#8220;an integral part of their culture&#8221; is, if you ask me, cowardly. The best line of arguement to get me to chill about this issue would be something along the lines of: &#8220;There are more important battles for equality to be waged, by taking a stance on this subject you are just making it harder because muslims feel that you are just attacking their culture because it&#8217;s different.&#8221; I don&#8217;t really buy this either but its worth some consideration.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not doing a great job of articulating my thoughts today (because, of course, I&#8217;m usually great at it  ) my apologies for that. I hope you are right that progressives within the islamic world will win out over the fundamentalists, I struggle to find much optimism on that line. Progressives don&#8217;t seem to have won the battle with fundamentalists within christianity yet and it seems much easier to interpret the bible in a more moderate way than it is the quran.</p>
<p>(btw, you are correct, I am in western europe. I&#8217;m also too hungover to proofread this so apologies for any hideous mistyping or gramatical errors.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy (TRiG)</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125117</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy (TRiG)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:08:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125117</guid>
		<description>Someone up there asked whether there&#039;s a feed of the comic. There is: http://www.jesusandmo.net/feed/.

TRiG.:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone up there asked whether there&#8217;s a feed of the comic. There is: <a href="http://www.jesusandmo.net/feed/" rel="nofollow">http://www.jesusandmo.net/feed/</a>.</p>
<p>TRiG.:)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: daoloth</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125105</link>
		<dc:creator>daoloth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125105</guid>
		<description>Having said this, I submit that beliefs in a magic sky fairy compromise ones claim to be taken seriously in any case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having said this, I submit that beliefs in a magic sky fairy compromise ones claim to be taken seriously in any case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: daoloth</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125104</link>
		<dc:creator>daoloth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125104</guid>
		<description>God is simply irrelevant to morality. Plato showed this in the Euthyphro over 2000 years ago. Is what makes an action good that God willed it so or did she will it so because it is good? If the first then goodness is arbitrary, if the second then God is unnecessary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>God is simply irrelevant to morality. Plato showed this in the Euthyphro over 2000 years ago. Is what makes an action good that God willed it so or did she will it so because it is good? If the first then goodness is arbitrary, if the second then God is unnecessary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robyn</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125097</link>
		<dc:creator>Robyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125097</guid>
		<description>@pikeamus
Unfortunately it is impossible to understand from the Quran alone why they feel that the hijab protects them, and I&#039;m atheist remember, so I don&#039;t really get in either. But after having lived in a muslim theocracy for a year I&#039;m starting to get the jist of it. 
The point I was trying to make was that here in the west, (I&#039;m assuming you&#039;re from western europe or north america, if not then I do apologize) we find that kind of behavior strange and pointless, where as it&#039;s an integral part of their culture. I&#039;m not sure how familiar you are with the history, but the veil was original a status symbol. Women could not of course wear this while laboring on farms, or what have you, so it was a sign that their husband was wealthy enough to keep them idle. 
Now I would also like to point out that according to the Quran, i wish i was familiar enough to direct you to the exact chapter, but I&#039;m unfortunately not, the wearing of the veil is totally optional. Now this does get skewed of course, but that&#039;s true of every religious guideline to every religion so there&#039;s nothing we can do about that ;)
Now whether it is &quot;holy&quot; or not has no bearing on my original point, but your argument, &quot;...if all it does in practice is to give rise to huge inequality, suffering and subjugation then it is an evil practice.&quot; illustrates that while those of us not familiar with their customs are abhorred by them, it is a perfectly normal practice for them.
I would also like to point out that the evolution of morals that I was talking about earlier with A Christian has been stunted in that particular region due to the isolation it endured before the discovery of fossil fuels made them all, forgive me, richer than god. So now if we wait for it to adept to a new globalized environment the fundamentalists will cling to their ideals while the progressives attempt to move forward. As the progressives begin to outnumber the fundamentalists I&#039;m sure we will see an entirely altered set of moral guidelines that they follow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@pikeamus<br />
Unfortunately it is impossible to understand from the Quran alone why they feel that the hijab protects them, and I&#8217;m atheist remember, so I don&#8217;t really get in either. But after having lived in a muslim theocracy for a year I&#8217;m starting to get the jist of it.<br />
The point I was trying to make was that here in the west, (I&#8217;m assuming you&#8217;re from western europe or north america, if not then I do apologize) we find that kind of behavior strange and pointless, where as it&#8217;s an integral part of their culture. I&#8217;m not sure how familiar you are with the history, but the veil was original a status symbol. Women could not of course wear this while laboring on farms, or what have you, so it was a sign that their husband was wealthy enough to keep them idle.<br />
Now I would also like to point out that according to the Quran, i wish i was familiar enough to direct you to the exact chapter, but I&#8217;m unfortunately not, the wearing of the veil is totally optional. Now this does get skewed of course, but that&#8217;s true of every religious guideline to every religion so there&#8217;s nothing we can do about that <img src='http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
Now whether it is &#8220;holy&#8221; or not has no bearing on my original point, but your argument, &#8220;&#8230;if all it does in practice is to give rise to huge inequality, suffering and subjugation then it is an evil practice.&#8221; illustrates that while those of us not familiar with their customs are abhorred by them, it is a perfectly normal practice for them.<br />
I would also like to point out that the evolution of morals that I was talking about earlier with A Christian has been stunted in that particular region due to the isolation it endured before the discovery of fossil fuels made them all, forgive me, richer than god. So now if we wait for it to adept to a new globalized environment the fundamentalists will cling to their ideals while the progressives attempt to move forward. As the progressives begin to outnumber the fundamentalists I&#8217;m sure we will see an entirely altered set of moral guidelines that they follow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pikeamus</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125045</link>
		<dc:creator>pikeamus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125045</guid>
		<description>Robyn said: &quot;An often debated example of this is the requirement of some Arab theocracies that women cover their faces and hair. To the uneducated this is viewed as a form of female submission. However to the person who has bothered to learn anything about Islam, the veils that women wear are a form of protection. In Islam women are viewed as closer to God or Allah than men and therefore men view it as their duty to protect them and keep them pure.&quot;

Ok, what the hell? You are suggesting that somehow this is not an extra level of control? &quot;No no, you women are far too pure, you should just stay at home. And do what I tell you because, believe me, I&#039;m just trying to keep you pure.&quot; I actually haven&#039;t come across this apologetic line before (that islam views women as closer to god), but then I&#039;m only up to chapter 5 of the quran (reading a couple of different analyses of it, don&#039;t have the patience for the text itself) so maybe it comes up later. 
This does however beg the question, what the bloody hell does a hijab protect you from? The only thing that springs to mind is that its supposed to somehow make you an unappealing rape target and for that its clearly not working. The laws on rape in islam (presumably from the hadith) are disgusting, even in the more moderate versions of Sharia.

It doesn&#039;t matter if the stated reason for a certain practice is in some way holy (a claim, by the way, which is completely without evidence or reason), if all it does in practice is to give rise to huge inequality, suffering and subjugation then it is an evil practice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robyn said: &#8220;An often debated example of this is the requirement of some Arab theocracies that women cover their faces and hair. To the uneducated this is viewed as a form of female submission. However to the person who has bothered to learn anything about Islam, the veils that women wear are a form of protection. In Islam women are viewed as closer to God or Allah than men and therefore men view it as their duty to protect them and keep them pure.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ok, what the hell? You are suggesting that somehow this is not an extra level of control? &#8220;No no, you women are far too pure, you should just stay at home. And do what I tell you because, believe me, I&#8217;m just trying to keep you pure.&#8221; I actually haven&#8217;t come across this apologetic line before (that islam views women as closer to god), but then I&#8217;m only up to chapter 5 of the quran (reading a couple of different analyses of it, don&#8217;t have the patience for the text itself) so maybe it comes up later.<br />
This does however beg the question, what the bloody hell does a hijab protect you from? The only thing that springs to mind is that its supposed to somehow make you an unappealing rape target and for that its clearly not working. The laws on rape in islam (presumably from the hadith) are disgusting, even in the more moderate versions of Sharia.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t matter if the stated reason for a certain practice is in some way holy (a claim, by the way, which is completely without evidence or reason), if all it does in practice is to give rise to huge inequality, suffering and subjugation then it is an evil practice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125037</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:58:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125037</guid>
		<description>A Christian: Successful troll is successful. +1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Christian: Successful troll is successful. +1</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colonel Leisure</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-125026</link>
		<dc:creator>Colonel Leisure</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:11:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-125026</guid>
		<description>&quot;I thought the cartoon was stupid, it is badly drawn&quot;

I think you&#039;re missing the point (there is only one drawing of each character);  the way the cartoon is drawn is fairly irrelevant and in fact makes it all the more appealing as it is the deeper meaning that makes it so attractive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I thought the cartoon was stupid, it is badly drawn&#8221;</p>
<p>I think you&#8217;re missing the point (there is only one drawing of each character);  the way the cartoon is drawn is fairly irrelevant and in fact makes it all the more appealing as it is the deeper meaning that makes it so attractive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robyn</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-124990</link>
		<dc:creator>Robyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:39:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-124990</guid>
		<description>@A Christian
First of all I&#039;m quite glad you took the time to read what an atheist wrote on biological morals. I have never read it, and think it would be unwise for you to assume that just because an atheist wrote it we all take it as fact. To answer your questions, children will inately take things from each other becase of a bioligical inclination to survival, unless of course you&#039;ve read augustine, then it&#039;s because you assume babies are evil...because apparently that&#039;s what saints teach...
anyways, the idea of evolving morals is quite contrary to the idea that we are born with them. It seems like I&#039;ve said this more than enough times now, but I will repeat it once more. As a race humans develop morals that compliment our current needs. To keep the same morals as people followed 300 years ago would be absurd. This would have us doing such archaic things as marrying our cousins in order to preserve some imagined state of purity in our bloodlines. Nowadays we know that marrying our cousins is not such a hot idea, and so we&#039;ve moved paced and now most of society would frown on such a practice. 
Now about the rape law that seems to have confused you, the punishment of marrying her without eer being allowed to divorce her os not about repaying a debt to her, but rather the one that he owes her father. The bible states that the single woman who has been rpaed against her will, the rapist has dishonored her father. This is why he is forced to marry her, in order to repay he who he has wronged, in this case most sane people would assume it would be the woman he assaulted, however in the bible we lear that it is apparently her father that has been wronged.
And what mess has our allowance of morals to evolve gotten us into? The world is dying, but it is not because of changing morals. If anything it is due to an unwilingness to allow change. The irrational attempts to apply obsolete morals and restrictions on a growing society is absurd and only breeds division and hate. This is also due to the assumption that all societies follow the same set of moral guidelines. An often debated example of this is the requirement of some Arab theocracies that women cover their faces and hair. To the uneducated this is viewed as a form of female submission. However to the person who has bothered to learn anything about Islam, the veils that women wear are a form of protection. In Islam women are viewed as closer to God or Allah than men and therefore men view it as their duty to protect them and keep them pure. Now there will always be stories of people taking things too far, and who end up going against the moral guidelines their society has been conditioned to follow, but that is true of every culture. In fact originally the veil was a status symbol, that a man could afford to keep his wife idle, and protect her. 
Now as for the role of a woman. I have one question for you. As a single woman, is my life meaningless because I don&#039;t have a husband to serve? I don&#039;t think so. I think a person&#039;s purpose is for them to define for themselves. 
@John
If you&#039;re tired of refuting his claims, then don&#039;t. And also, it is just too fun to see what kind of justifications he has for his views on morals and the bible. So while we&#039;re waiting for the next comic, you might as well sit back and enjoy ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@A Christian<br />
First of all I&#8217;m quite glad you took the time to read what an atheist wrote on biological morals. I have never read it, and think it would be unwise for you to assume that just because an atheist wrote it we all take it as fact. To answer your questions, children will inately take things from each other becase of a bioligical inclination to survival, unless of course you&#8217;ve read augustine, then it&#8217;s because you assume babies are evil&#8230;because apparently that&#8217;s what saints teach&#8230;<br />
anyways, the idea of evolving morals is quite contrary to the idea that we are born with them. It seems like I&#8217;ve said this more than enough times now, but I will repeat it once more. As a race humans develop morals that compliment our current needs. To keep the same morals as people followed 300 years ago would be absurd. This would have us doing such archaic things as marrying our cousins in order to preserve some imagined state of purity in our bloodlines. Nowadays we know that marrying our cousins is not such a hot idea, and so we&#8217;ve moved paced and now most of society would frown on such a practice.<br />
Now about the rape law that seems to have confused you, the punishment of marrying her without eer being allowed to divorce her os not about repaying a debt to her, but rather the one that he owes her father. The bible states that the single woman who has been rpaed against her will, the rapist has dishonored her father. This is why he is forced to marry her, in order to repay he who he has wronged, in this case most sane people would assume it would be the woman he assaulted, however in the bible we lear that it is apparently her father that has been wronged.<br />
And what mess has our allowance of morals to evolve gotten us into? The world is dying, but it is not because of changing morals. If anything it is due to an unwilingness to allow change. The irrational attempts to apply obsolete morals and restrictions on a growing society is absurd and only breeds division and hate. This is also due to the assumption that all societies follow the same set of moral guidelines. An often debated example of this is the requirement of some Arab theocracies that women cover their faces and hair. To the uneducated this is viewed as a form of female submission. However to the person who has bothered to learn anything about Islam, the veils that women wear are a form of protection. In Islam women are viewed as closer to God or Allah than men and therefore men view it as their duty to protect them and keep them pure. Now there will always be stories of people taking things too far, and who end up going against the moral guidelines their society has been conditioned to follow, but that is true of every culture. In fact originally the veil was a status symbol, that a man could afford to keep his wife idle, and protect her.<br />
Now as for the role of a woman. I have one question for you. As a single woman, is my life meaningless because I don&#8217;t have a husband to serve? I don&#8217;t think so. I think a person&#8217;s purpose is for them to define for themselves.<br />
@John<br />
If you&#8217;re tired of refuting his claims, then don&#8217;t. And also, it is just too fun to see what kind of justifications he has for his views on morals and the bible. So while we&#8217;re waiting for the next comic, you might as well sit back and enjoy <img src='http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Christian</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-124979</link>
		<dc:creator>A Christian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-124979</guid>
		<description>My purpose was not to convert...I thought the cartoon was stupid, it is badly drawn, I took offense, I thought I&#039;d say something, and here we are.  By all means, enjoy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My purpose was not to convert&#8230;I thought the cartoon was stupid, it is badly drawn, I took offense, I thought I&#8217;d say something, and here we are.  By all means, enjoy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JMo</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/11/26/zurich/comment-page-1/#comment-124958</link>
		<dc:creator>JMo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=432#comment-124958</guid>
		<description>Would it be possible for A Christian to get over the fact that he will NOT convert anyone who REALLY likes Jesus and Mo&#039;!  I am sure that there are people from every sect of every religion who could take up space here trying to tell us all how their religion is THE religion, etc.  It&#039;s a cartoon for Christs&#039; sake (hehehe)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would it be possible for A Christian to get over the fact that he will NOT convert anyone who REALLY likes Jesus and Mo&#8217;!  I am sure that there are people from every sect of every religion who could take up space here trying to tell us all how their religion is THE religion, etc.  It&#8217;s a cartoon for Christs&#8217; sake (hehehe)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
