Only two signed copies of Kenan Malik’s “The Quest for a Moral Compass” left now. If you want one, hurry along to the J&M Patreon page.

└ Tags:

Discussion (31)¬

  1. Kess says:

    Nice, although I suspect in the 1st panel Mo should be saying “Freedom of Speech”, not just “Freedom Speech”.

  2. machigai says:

    No blink?

  3. FrankDiscussions says:

    Second panel. Change “which” to “that”. Grammar police…

  4. Jerry+www says:

    In the same way that I favor freedom “from” religion, I’m also in favor of freedom “from” speech, the coming debate from the top 10 republican candidates for the U.S. presidential election is a prime example. If ignorance is indeed bliss, these must be some of the happiest people on earth.

  5. Author says:

    @FrankDiscussions – Why?

  6. European says:

    “that” in necessary complement is US use; “which” is fine in the UK (used to live and work there…)

  7. tfkreference says:

    Yes, in America we use “that” to say which and “which” to say that. I think it’s in the Declaration of Independence.

  8. Stephen Mynett says:

    This is why I find linguistics fun. I think it was Churchill who said the UK and USA were two nations separated by a common language.

  9. Robert+Andrews says:

    Yeah…I love that third panel. Let them think it over a bit. Say what!

    “Science flies you to the moon; religion flies you into buildings”–V. Stenger

  10. Nassar+Ben+Houdja says:

    Freedom of speech? Tee hee.
    Means you talk, listen only, for me
    Freedom lovers spout their belief
    Allowed to promote violence and grief
    Protected by freedom from blasphemy.

  11. Dancing Bare says:

    Robert Andrews, Mr. Stenger was wrong. Twelve thousand years and more of millions of religions had never given anyone the ability to fly, nor to move on the ground faster than a running horse. (Indeed, even horses are the product of generations of slow Science. )
    Less than three centuries of Science did.
    Religion may give one the desire to fly into buildings but it gives one no extra abilities whatsoever.

  12. This seems to be Jesus and Mo both realizing that their religions are full of bad ideas which would die if we have complete freedom of speech. Doesn’t seem likely to me. Am I missing something?

  13. Holms says:

    DH, consider it an idealised version of how that would play out.

  14. two cents' worth says:

    machigai, the Author has heard you 🙂 . Watch panel 3 closely for a bit, and you’ll see both J & M blink.

  15. two cents' worth says:

    This cartoon reminds me of something Doctor Toon wrote (in the comments section under

    I respect the right of every person the believe whatever it is that they believe

    I respect the right of every person to express their beliefs

    The thing is, after some people express their beliefs I can no longer respect them

  16. two cents' worth says:

    Oops–that should have been
    I respect the right of every person to believe whatever it is that they believe

  17. wrinkel42 says:

    Thanks for the blinks.

  18. John67 says:

    @ 2 cents worth – I prefer to try to respect the person, but not necessarily their beliefs. Eg there are – I think – some “nice” Young Earth Creationists. Their religious beliefs may be absolute hokum, but they can be otherwise amongst the nicest people you ever may meet(friendly, helpful, etc.).

  19. machigai says:


  20. Vanity Unfair says:

    To Stephen Mynett:
    Churchill might well have said it; after all he did say many memorable things. However, Oscar Wilde (as usual) might have priority.
    The Canterville Ghost, 1887 (Churchill was 12 or 13 at the time.).
    Indeed, in many respects, she was quite English, and was an excellent example of the fact that we have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language.
    Please correct if wrong.

  21. Stephen Mynett says:

    I have had a quick look and so far GB Shaw is favourite, although would not say that to be fact. Certainly Churchill took the idea from somewhere else and reworked it slightly.

  22. wnanig says:

    Because this really isn’t fair, is it:

  23. plainsuch says:

    Of course there are ‘a few restrictions’. I love sharing my favorite theories, they are dearly convenient to me. Allowing discussion of their obvious flaws is, quite simply, – Blasphemy!

  24. jb says:

    I think John67 makes a really good point. In fact I think it makes an excellent diagnostic for distinguishing between zealots (whether religious or ideological — they’re all the same underneath) and reasonable people, to wit:

    Reasonable people think that if you disagree with them it means you have bad judgement. Zealots think that if you disagree with them it means you are a bad person.

  25. white+squirrel says:

    what Mo omits =
    ‘maybe there should be a few restrictions – to start with’

  26. Jim+Baerg says:

    jb – I think I need to steal that aphorism

  27. two cents' worth says:

    Well put, jb!

  28. John67 says:

    Thanks for the support, jb! The aphorism does make a good screening test – but at the expense of its terseness, I’m inclined to modify the first part: “Reasonable people think that if you disagree with them it means you have bad judgement, or are misinformed, or uninformed. Further, reasonable people are willing to change their own judgement when faced with compelling evidence.” The zealots part sounds about right to me. But your wording is pithy, mine isn’t. FWIW.

  29. white+squirrel says:

    good point JB – but what happens if you are a zealot about reasonableness

  30. john gordon says:

    then would you not be reasonable about zealousness?


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.