course

Groan.


Discussion (55)¬

  1. HaggisForBrains says:

    😀

  2. DonF says:

    <<>>

  3. Dr John de Wipper says:

    I did not get why the limitation to only Bangladeshi…..

  4. pink squirrel says:

    This shows why Islam will never be ‘peaceful’
    because even if the entire population of the world converted to islam, there would still be some who label the rest:
    ‘The wrong kind of muslim’

  5. pink squirrel says:

    It is not just Bangladesh that needs to be worried by the switch to machete attacks
    bombs require purchase of the chemicals – which can be monitored
    AK 47’s /guns have to be smuggled or purchased and their transportation is monitored
    but machetes only require sheet steel and an angle grinder

  6. Grumpy says:

    Ha ha Author, nearly broke my groan-o-meter 🙂

  7. E.A. Blair says:

    There’s been plenty of violence in the past over “the wrong kind of Christian”, too (e.g., Catholics vs. Protestants) – and I’ve read of a couple incidents in the US of Christians shooting people with “wrong” beliefs. It may be only a matter of time before that sort of thing escalates.

  8. Alexander the GoodEnough says:

    “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
    —Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.

    Luther had other, even more creatively nasty, things to say about reason, but this should suffice.

  9. WCorvi says:

    I’m waiting for the day that the fundie christians get religion taught in schools, and then start fighting over WHICH fundie christian beliefs should be taught.

  10. Dr John de Wipper says:

    PS:
    It is not just Bangladesh that needs to be worried by the switch to machete attacks
    bombs require purchase of the chemicals – which can be monitored
    AK 47’s /guns have to be smuggled or purchased and their transportation is monitored

    Only partly so. eg, the stuff used to blow up Bruxelles Airport recently was Mother of Satan. Easily made by mixing 2 components readily available (although one probably attracts attention if purchased by a male).
    If you are brave enough to run considerable risk: mix & let dry. The stuff has the added “advantage” to be non-nitrogen, and therefor non-detectable by standard “explosive-sniffers”.
    (disclosure: in my distant past I did aquire an “ir”univerity degree in Chemical Engeneering, nowadays internationalised and equated to MSc)

  11. Dr John de Wipper says:

    AtGE:
    You should have made more clear that ML in those talks condemmedreason, because it interfered with the Divine Word….

  12. Dr John de Wipper says:

    Nakul Gote:
    You just (for one part) answered my question… Maybe try Iraq, Philipines, (parts of) Indonesia. Even occasionally UK, France, Turkey. Only yesterday, Germany.
    And expect more to come.

  13. Shaughn says:

    HackneyMartian,

    I answered in the previous comment section, in case you missed it.

  14. pink squirrel says:

    You should have made more clear that ML in those talks condemmedreason, because it interfered with the Divine Word

    Did ML mean then that his ‘god’ is insane, irrational and deranged?

  15. Author, I think this is the first time you made me groan.

    I think I much prefer machete attacks to suicide vests and AK47’s. Not that I would enjoy being given the choice.

  16. pink squirrel says:

    for Shaugn
    RE
    But there were european galleons at the chinese coast, no chinese junks at the european coast.
    is simply
    What did China have that Europe wanted
    VS
    What did Europe have that China wanted

  17. Dr John de Wipper says:

    PS:
    Did ML mean then that his ‘god’ is insane, irrational and deranged?
    Grosso modo: YES

  18. pink squirrel says:

    Shaugn’s comment in the previous page highlights why it is the west/Europe and not the middle east, Africa or the far east that became ascendant.
    The answer is islam and the blocking of east west trade routes
    the central lands between the Med sea and China are far more productive of biological products. than is the case with NW Europe.
    Thus those lands having those items, have no social pressure to obtain them.
    By blocking the trade routes between the east and Europe islam created the conditions which forced Europe to find alternative routes – thereby pushing the nations of NW Europe to advance ship and navigational technology
    Thus in a very real sense Islam was responsible for creating the West, the European empires and the offshoots of those empires such as America
    therefore if islam does not like the west – they have only themselves to blame

  19. What does Mo know about the basics of civilized discourse?!!

  20. two cents' worth says:

    HackneyMartian, if you’re still looking for your coat, see my comment under the previous cartoon.

  21. Grumpy says:

    Re the reference to Bangladeshi attacks, not a case of singling out a particular country but rather a reflection of what is reported in the mainstream media.
    If the Author included every country where religious attacks are committed then the cartoon strip would probably run to several pages 🙂

  22. two cents' worth says:

    WCorvi, if I remember correctly, one of the reasons why the public (secular) school system was established in the USA was, in fact, due to the disputes that arose over which religion was taught in the existing (sectarian) schools. The existing schools also charged tuition; public schools are tuition-free because they are intended to cultivate an educated citizenry, which is vital to the success of any government in which the citizens (voters) have a say.

  23. two cents' worth says:

    Ophelia, Mo might not know much about discourse, but he knows a lot about monologue–how to deliver one, and how to take dictation while listening to one.

  24. two cents' worth says:

    WalterWalcarpit, if you’re still wondering about the apostrophe in my name, see my comment under the previous cartoon. A later comment there is addressed to you, too.

  25. pink squirrel says:

    public schools are tuition-free

    I thought it was just creationist schools that were free of tuition

  26. machigai says:

    badum tssssh

  27. WalterWalcarpit says:

    Sublime once again Author.
    And I for one particularly enjoyed the double-punchline.
    Too often I join these conversations too far down the page to pay my compliments so I wanted to get that in now.
    Indeed i had tried earlier from my phone but it told me i had too many comments already in moderation. Weird, huh?

  28. jb says:

    A wise man say: Violence never determine who is right. Violence only determine who is left.

  29. Shaughn says:

    PinkSquirrel, What did China have that Europe wanted
    VS
    What did Europe have that China wanted

    Obviously: China wanted what Europeans traded at the Chinese coast for what Europeans wanted from China. Simple indeed! It’s go get what you want vs wait untill it’s brought, if it is.

    … highlights why it is the west/Europe and not the middle east, Africa or the far east that became ascendant. which is more surprisingly so if you consider that about 1400 CE the odds were in favour of the much more developed middle east, african or far east societies. (William H McNeill, The pursuit of power)
    I agree on the role of islam in the middle east, but that role came into being only after islam turned into a conservative, tradition ridden religion, a process that started with the codification of koran and hadith.

  30. Someone says:

    Machete kills in Bangladesh.
    Makes more sense than in space.

  31. HackneyMartian says:

    two cents’ worth – thanks, got my coat, just as well since it pissed down on my way home.

    Shaughn, “I answered in the previous comment section, in case you missed it.” – thanks, I read that & posted some more thoughts, mostly about Jared Diamond’s ideas, just before chucking-out time as it turned out.

    “after islam turned into a conservative, tradition ridden religion, a process that started with the codification of koran and hadith.”
    – yes, how much do we know about that? Tom Holland in Shadow says that the codification was started by religious scholars in the new islamic empire. They were schooled in Christian or Jewish (or Zoroastrian?) thought, so they looked at the oral disorder of of their new masters’ beliefs & said, Call that a religion? We’ll make you a proper religion. What else is good to read on this?

    Noted your point last session about the xn church providing social mobility.

  32. pink squirrel says:

    after islam turned into a conservative, tradition ridden religion
    indeed – and the backlash against da’esh that is reported as occurring across the middle east [ according to some sources anyway] may result in islam either dying out or being something very different – no religion can survive without adapting to the society in which it is embedded

  33. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    two cents’ worth, you were trying to re-write Bye, Baby Bunting on the last strip. Was the following what you had in mind?
    Bye, Baby Bunting
    Your Daddy’s gone a-hunting,
    To find something to hide your skin,
    To keep your uncles free of sin.

  34. Dr John de Wipper says:

    AoS:
    “sin” is a religous concept. Since I do not have a religion, I can not sin. I do have a fairly decent sense of good and evil, and try to live by that as much as possible. Essentially, anything that can hurt an other human (or animal) unnecessary counts as evil in my book.
    And “hide your skin” is a very good concept if meteorologically desired, but it is utter bollocks to selectively hide some small parts of one’s skin. Regrettably “convention” and/or law nonetheless dictates such. Luckily it is possible to find (atmittedly, too few) locations where the latter does not apply. My living and the terrass just outside of it is such a “clothes optional” place.

  35. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Dr. John, you say you live by your sense of good and evil where possible, but you forgot to specify which you prefer. It is perfectly possible to declare an act evil and to actively enjoy that act.
    Personally, I’m a ‘do unto others before they get a chance to do unto me’ type of chap.

  36. pink squirrel says:

    re Since I do not have a religion, I can not sin.

    Not strictly true as by your own definition of what counts as evil – you can ‘sin’ according to your own moral code.

    Belief in religion/god or lack of it is completely separate from the question of whether ‘god exists or not’
    god existing is completely separate from what that ‘god’ might consider as ‘sinful’
    what ‘god’ might consider ‘sinful’ has no necessary connection with what human constructed ‘holy’ texts consider to be sinful.
    therefore – Religion or lack of it is irrelevant to the existence of ‘some form of powerful judgemental entity’
    therefore it is potentially possible that you could ‘sin’ according to the code of that entity
    the problem is of course that because the definitions of ‘sin’ in holy books have no certainty of matching what such an entity might consider ‘sinful’
    we have no way of knowing what behaviours/actions/thoughts would count as ‘sinful’ to that entity
    for all we know it might be that such an entity would consider belief in ‘god’ sinful and atheism ‘blessed’
    we would not and could not know – at the end of the day we only have our internal moral compass to guide us – regardless of belief in ‘god/religion or not
    religious fundamental extremists have a very different set of moral codes to a moderate LGBT friendly church – yet both follow the same text based guidelines
    so the concept of ‘sin’ applies to your own internal moral code – and therefore it is possible to ‘sin’ by your own terms of moral reference.

  37. wrinkel42 says:

    Acolyte of Sagan
    Fair play

    “Get Your Retaliation in First ”

    BTW I really love cenc——–

  38. Arun says:

    The author of this blog would be a prime target for Bangladeshi Islamist hackery; so I’m glad we can laugh at it.

  39. two cents' worth says:

    Nice job, AoS! I refreshed my memory on terms for Muslim female dress*, and came up with this variation on your theme:

    Bye, Baby Bunting
    Your Daddy’s gone a-hunting
    for a niqab to hide your skin,
    so you don’t tempt a male to sin.

    This is guesswork on my part, but I think a baby girl would wear a niqab at first to keep herself covered while she nurses; later, when she’s old enough to hold the bottle, she could hold it inside her burka. If she’s is being breastfed, I suppose that either she’ll be fed in an environment where neither she nor her mother (or wet nurse) needs to be covered, or she’ll be be held inside the woman’s burka when she’s fed.

    * see http://mlsinc.ca/blog/english/burka-niqab-hijab-whats-the-difference/

  40. dwdw says:

    fuck you don’t make fun of muslims I saw a picture on the internet making fun of allah which was from your website I swear allah will give you the biggest azaba ever prepare your fucking soul just wait mother fuckers ill hac you to the moon

  41. pink squirrel says:

    it is perhaps notable that the niqab and burka are more prevalent in regions with a higher frequency of sandstorms, while the hijab – which does not cover the face- in other regions
    are we seeing environmental influence on these garment traditions

  42. jb says:

    A hypothetical question for you guys: How differently would you see a culture/religion that demanded that burkas be worn in public by both women and men? Same burkas, same (serious) penalties for not wearing one. Would you find this more or less objectionable than the current custom in the more extreme parts of the Muslim world? How much more or less? And why?

    I’m going somewhere with this, but it’s an interesting thought experiment on its own.

  43. pink squirrel says:

    Jb – I suspect that would upset muslim men – as the current male dress code in islam is for men to as look as close to the [imagined/alleged] appearance of Muhammed as they can, in a sort of idolatrous ancestor worship of him.

  44. Grumpy says:

    jb: I have a problem with a culture / religion demanding anything.

  45. pink squirrel says:

    Islam will always demand conformity to their twisted view of reality – because according to islam being born means you entered into a contract with ‘allah’ to be a muslim

  46. WalterWalcarpit says:

    Interesting hypothetical, JB.
    Grumpy’s comment will take some beating as the very demand offends my libertarian beliefs.
    Having said that the next hierarchical imperative for me is egalitarian; if all are treated equally in a culture then I care little how it dresses. It could be argued that in the arabian and gulf states traditional dress for both male and female is all-covering and certainly out in the deserts one sees little but the eyes of anyone. The most alarming difference is actually in the material and especially its colour; lightweight white for some and heavy black for the other which in the hot sun that can only add pernicious injury to insult.

    What chance would fraternity have?

  47. Someone says:

    I understand religious dress for formal or even ritualistic occasions (appropriate to the faith in question) as well as the dress worn by those who devote their lives to their faiths above else, like priests, rabbis, imams, etc. I disagree however with the edict of mandatory daily dress apropos religion for the mass population.

    A region that is especially hot and arid justifies clothing that is designed to protect you from head to toe for the sun and sand but in agreement with Walter, should have universal fabric and dye so that everyone receives comfort without roasting in their own juices. The same can be said of environs that are deeply cold and just as harsh.

    Ultimately it boils down to be able to choose to wear said clothing. If you want to wear something protective from either heat or cold, or clothing that identifies you with your chosen creed, you should have the right to do so. If you want to wear something more casual and revealing (as in, your face and hair, forearms or even legs can be seen), do that as well. Uniform is contextual but (unless you’re a devotee) should also be temporary.

  48. Esratrams says:

    Author- look at the comments above, and decide if you are effective in promoting rationality, or if your readers are taking your work as support for islamophobia.

  49. Dr John de Wipper says:

    Esratrams:
    … as support for islamophobia
    If any phobia at all, then religiophobia.

  50. pink squirrel says:

    Esratrams- given the particular topic of this J & M concerns Islam it is not too surprising that the comments tend to be about that religion too
    we should be islamophobic – what we shouldn’t be is muslimophobic

  51. two cents' worth says:

    jb asked, How differently would you see a culture/religion that demanded that burkas be worn in public by both women and men? Same burkas, same (serious) penalties for not wearing one. Assuming that males and females wore burkas in the same colors, styles, and fabrics (so everyone is equally un/comfortable), I would feel differently in that I wouldn’t see such a burka as a sign of sexism. In fact, it would seem to me to be a sign that the burka-wearers’ culture valued gender-neutrality and/or gender equality. Because everyone’s burka would look the same, the custom would also seem to indicate that the culture values anonymity and privacy, because people would reveal their faces and their individual styles of dress only in the intimate settings where the burkas are removed. Such a people might be seen as xenophobic, unless they were known for their willingness to interact with non-burka wearers. I would also feel that burka wearers in the West should take into account that, in Western culture, a person who hides his or her face is assumed to be someone who is up to no good. If the wearers would re-interpret the burka as covering the wearer’s face instead of hiding it, the burka (at least in the West) could have a transparent panel covering the face, so that Westerners wouldn’t feel that the burka wearers were planning to rob them or something.

  52. two cents' worth says:

    Oh, another thing about the wearers of such burkas–I’d be curious to know about the settings where wearing the burka was not required, and about what the people wore in those settings. This would help me cross-check my sense of their valuing gender equality, and would also give me clues as to whether the burka was also meant to promote conformity and stifle individuality.

  53. pink squirrel says:

    The problem of the burka lies in the perception of women as a commodity or possession
    because of
    a] the idea that the more wealth/status a male obtains the more wives he can ‘own’
    b] the tradition of dowry which increases the idea of purchase.
    c] arranged marriage – which promotes the above traditions
    removing/banning the burka will not succeed unless the other issues are addressed simultaneously

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.