sign


Discussion (40)¬

  1. MarquisDeMoo says:

    Love it!

  2. […] Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, “sign,”, was inspired by Donald Trump’s calls for a database of all Syrian refugees coming to the U.S.—and perhaps for all Muslims as well. Somehow the artist manages to make fun of Trump’s ridiculous plan and Islam at the same time: […]

  3. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Moses makes a good point here that all of those Americans saying they’ll convert to Islam if the plans for a register go ahead (although Trump has blinked since his proposal so may have forgotten) seem not to have thought about. Sooner or later, with a change of administration, the register will be scrapped, but if they then decide that they’ve done their bit and leave the religion then the thanks they’ll get for their initial show of solidarity will be a price on their heads.
    Islam, like a dog, isn’t just for Christmas. It’s for life.

  4. Robert Andrews says:

    Speaking of ex and non-Muslims, the link below is to a petition. It’s to protest the way atheists & aposttates are portraied in the movie “Islam’s Non Believers”.

    Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

    http://ex-muslim.org.uk/2016/11/defend-islams-non-believers/

  5. 1happyheathen says:

    religion based fascism… hmmm where have we heard this before..???

  6. JJ says:

    To the Author – you may be aware of the UK government current consultation paper on education, seeking to “promote inclusivity” by allowing faith schools to discriminate 100% in religious selection. The consultation period runs for just two more weeks. Perhaps you could encourage your readers via a faith-school strip to sign the National Secular Society petition? https://civi.secularism.org.uk/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=10&reset=1

  7. smee says:

    Yet again I’m left wondering how big is the extremist minority that hold the extremist view that apostates should be punished? Its difficult to ascertain the precise figure!

    The media and UK Gov say the minority is very small 1-2% yet other equally valid sources say that the extremist minority isn’t a minority but a majority? with as many as 60% 80% holding extremist views?

    Who to believe?

  8. Chiefy says:

    Islam motel: you can check in, but you can’t check out.

  9. Executing apostates is so outrageous that I find it hard to believe the idea gets any support anywhere. So I went looking for some evidence and found this: https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates-2/
    As you might expect, there is wide diversity in the Muslim world. But this set of graphs and article (from The Economist, a fairly credible source it seems to me) appears to be a balanced look at the issue, especially the last paragraph. That ANYBODY could support the execution of apostates is incredible. That a majority of any country could claim to hold that view should be enough to justify severe sanctions, rather than military aid and support.

    For the record, I’m a Canadian. It’s unlikely that I will need to register as a Muslim to show solidarity against a Muslim registry. If it were necessary to show solidarity, I would try to find another way to do it. As Kurt Vonnegut so eloquently put it: “You are what you pretend to be, so don’t pretend to be anything you’re not.”

    Another memorable strip, Author. Don’t know how you keep doin’ it.

  10. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    It isn’t just Islam that demands the execution of those who leave, Darwin, I believe it’s also the punishment for leaving the Mafia.
    Strange bedfellows…..or not!

  11. smartalek says:

    Islam motel: you can check in, but you can’t check out.”

    Well…
    You CAN…
    It just tends to be a rather permanent exit from the premises.
    Departure with extreme prejudice.
    Heavy penalty for early withdrawal, as it were.

  12. Someone says:

    It’s easy being an ex-Catholic and taking for granted the worst I got for my apostasy was a few dirty looks and my mother’s resigned disappointment (even she lapsed).

    Would it be appropriate to thank God that Christianity is arguably the least likely of the Abrahamic religions to have consequences for renouncing it?

  13. smee says:

    I’d like to cut through all the bullshit espoused by those who’ll convert to islam.

    My lines in the sand are the values of Liberte, egalitare, fraternite, espoused by the exponents of the values of the enlightenment!

    There is no room in my heart for the fascist values of islam and the sick deluded progressives in both the US and Europe who support it and its encroachment (via the portal of PC) and undermining of western enlightenment values in the interests of inclusivity and cultural relativism.

    Although I will continue to fight these fascist progressives whilst I have breath in my body; I unfortunately lack the ability that my grandfather enjoyed between 1939 and 1945 to run a bayonet through them!

  14. smee says:

    Acolyte of Sagan: Damn those Mafia terrorists, flying their Learjets into office blocks in New York, planting bombs on the London Underground and butchering innocent concert goers in Paris! Not to mention their unspeakable activities in the Middle East!

    At ease soldier your progressive work here is done!

  15. smee says:

    The problem that the exponents of the Abrahamic religions have with the exponents of science, is not a claim that scientific evidence proves absolutely that the universe was not created by some unknown entity;Which they certainly do not claim!

    Its the scientific evidence that proves absolutely that the existence of the Abrahamic and other man made gods is utter bullshit!

  16. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Smee, you know full well I wasn’t seriously equating the Mafia with Islam, merely the penalty for trying to leave.
    I’ve left a further post for you on the last comment thread regarding this supposed ‘demonising’ that you claim is a feature here.

    By the way, this is no reflection on you, but if your grandfather was really bayonetting progressives in the last World War, may I ask which side he was bayonetting for? I only ask because inclusivity wasn’t exactly high on the agenda of one of the protagonists.

  17. Graham ASH-PORTER says:

    It’s in the Quran to kill Apostates, so take it seriously!

  18. Wow Smee. Fighting “fascist progressives”? I would have taken that to be an oxymoron. You seem a bit confused. Or maybe it’s me.

    I’m a supporter of what I take to be progressive values. Simple stuff like freedom of speech, rule of law, equality of all people before the law, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and public protest, separation of church and state, the right to breath clean air and drink clean water, the right to an opinion. I always thought I was against fascism,the subjugation of the individual to the state,and now you tell me that I may be a fascist myself. Oh, the pain. I’m having another identity crisis.

    Fuck me. Every time I find a label that I think fits me, somebody turns it into a pejorative. For example, I always thought that social justice was something I should support, which lead me to become a social justice warrior, an SJW. And now I find that this is a bad thing. Apparently I’m not supposed to fight for social justice. Who knew, eh.

    Those mates of mine in this pub who talk of registering as Muslims, in the event of a Muslim registry, have no intention of CONVERTING to Islam. And as I said in a previous post, I have no intention of registering as a Muslim, because that is not what I am and I would never take on a label, even as a protest, that is so counter to my true beliefs. If a register happens, I shall find another way to protest it.

    But you sound angry. What are you on about? Is it the cactus up your ass, or are you just feeling grumpy these days?

  19. plainsuch says:

    DH
    It’s just part of the new politically correct PC. Opposed to fascism? You’re a fascist progressive. Not a SOB? The PC PC for you is SJW.

  20. HelenaHandbasket says:

    I’d like, if I may, to follow up on the last thread a little. I promise that it is relevant.
    The piece I linked to in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia
    Which claimed that Sam Harris started the (anonymous writer) on the path to alt-right Nazism.
    Turns out that the piece was a Sokal-style hoax on the part of Godfrey Elfwick, self-styled “Genderqueer Muslim atheist. Born white in the #WrongSkin. Itinerant jongleur. Xir, Xirs Xirself. Filters life through the lens of minority issues.”…
    Who has been amusing young and old with his Twitter trolling of the PC crowd (what Maajid Nawaz calls the “ctrl-left”, in balance to the “alt-right”) for some time.
    So now the circle is complete. Left-wing dingbattery is indistinguishable from parodies of same, in the same way that fundamentalist right-wing-nuttery is.
    We have “Poe’s Law” to indicate the latter. Can I propose “Elfwicks Law” to recognise the former?
    And maybe…just maybe this is the sort of thing that will lead to an attempt from liberal champions to reclaim the centre ground of public politics from the noisy loonies with their identity-based claptrap?

  21. wnanig says:

    The definition of political correctness is the first thing to agree on here, isn’t it?

    In the last thread smee said: “The opponents of political correctness object to its core values of intellectual and cultural relativism”

    …thus equating political correctness with what the cultural relativistic “identity left”, “regressive left”, or whatever you care to call it, promotes.

    DH said: “Those who decry political correctness generally seem to want to behave as inconsiderate assholes without fear of social censure”

    …and seems to interpret politically correct as basically politeness or possibly social competence.

    I remember reading an interview with a Danish writer saying “Well, politically correct is just a vessel that you can fill with whatever you want, isn’t it?”

    Shaughn called it “Howling with the dominant wolves” or something to that effect in a discussion quite a while back on this site.

    Meanwhile expressing yourself in the terminology of the currently dominant ideology has always been a way to get what you want and to avoid being ostracized. Case in point – religion…

    I just read a newspaper article by a researcher in sociology who writes that “the multi-cultural left” has separated itself from traditional left values, and though it rejects the nationalism of the right, it breeds an ethno mysticism that is at least as conservative. “Despite the fact that multi-culturalists point to the right-wing populism as its primary enemy, the movements are essentially the same. Both see the ethnic group as the main principle. Both deny the freedom of the individual. Both think that cultures should be kept separate. Both celebrate “roots” and work against cultural change. Both stem from 19th century romance and counter-enlightenment”.

    Les extremes se touchent? It seems to be a feature of our time that people manage to have endless arguments based on differing definitions of words. Possibly an effect of the newspeak that constantly keeps moving the goal posts to gain some advantage.

    In the post-truth world we live in, definitions are essential. A writer and comedian I think once wrote something like this: “You and I can agree to call a return ticket to a “black coat with red bobbles”, but I promise you we will have a nightmare at the central station”.

  22. HelenaHandbasket and Plainsuch, obviously the culture war has become too complex for my simple mind. Reality is too hard to grasp, at least as presented on social media and these threads. I’m going to breath deep and chant oooommmmm for a while now.

  23. Okay, I’m back. Helenabasket, I have seldom read a description of multi-culturalists that I disagree with more than the one you posted:
    “Despite the fact that multi-culturalists point to the right-wing populism as its primary enemy, the movements are essentially the same. Both see the ethnic group as the main principle. Both deny the freedom of the individual. Both think that cultures should be kept separate. Both celebrate “roots” and work against cultural change. Both stem from 19th century romance and counter-enlightenment”.

    I support multiculturalism. But I see it as allowing each culture to add to the whole, within the limits of civilized law, giving spice and variety to the central identity. In other words, welcome to Canada. Join us and become Canadian, but don’t forget where you came from, the reasons you came here, and the values of tolerance and acceptance we all share. Do you mind if we join you in celebrating Ramadan? You are welcome to put up a Christmas tree.
    This is hardly keeping cultures separate or “working against cultural change”. I see it as an antidote to the melting pot, assimilation philosophy of America, in which second generation immigrants can only speak one language, English, and have no cooking skills passed down from their grandmother.

    For me, multiculturalism has nothing to do with cultural relativism, which is stupid and a huge mistake. My theory is that cultural relativism was invented by anthropologists trying to counter the prudish and repressive missionaries they encountered. And then it got carried away into things like saying we have no right to criticize FGM. Total bullshit.

    Far from “denying the freedom of the individual” I see multiculturalism as a celebration of individuality, a denial that we all must conform to the Eurocentric norm of cultural beliefs and values. A far cry from being the same as the right wing populism currently blooming/blighting in the Untied States, where people get offended if they hear a language they don’t understand and complain to the flight attendant about the terrifying possible terrorist.

  24. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    wnanig, re. your last paragraph; I hate to break it you but in these post-truth days, definitions don’t mean a thing beyond whatever the definer needs them to mean, and are of course subject to change as required (see smee’s use of ‘progressive’ and ‘facist’ for a case in point).

    Darwin, hear, hear!

  25. helenahandbasket says:

    DH. I can’t speak for Smee, but allow me to speak loudly for myself when I say that some of us liberals got sick and tired to the depths of our souls of the PC virtue signalling some time ago, and we have mixed feelings watching what we predicted (the right playing the same relativist game) come true.
    Boy did we ever not want Trump and Brexit. Boy, did we ever tell you that stigmatizing and relativising truth as power relations was going to come and bite you all (us all) soundly in the ass. I was pounced on by many PC worthies on J&M some years back for exactly saying these things.
    But, rather than do the “I told you so” dance might I draw your attention to this?
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/how-stigma-sows-seeds-of-its-own-defeat/509273/

  26. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Helena, who are these ‘PC worthies’ you say pounced on you here? Off the top of my head I can’t think of any regular here who stigmatises truth. Also, your line about virtue signalling (a new buzz phrase that sounds like it should mean something more than it really does) obviously refers to those who take the liberal cause-du-jour to the extreme – the secular ‘holier than thou’, sanctimonious bunch. If so, you’re seeking them in the wrong place.
    Of course, I may be wrong, but if so it would only take a link to the thread where you were pounced on for me to apologise.

  27. helenahandbasket, I have no control over what others do with terms and labels. “Virtue signalling” is a very interesting comment. When I state my beliefs and feelings, I suppose I am ALWAYS virtue signalling, because obviously I believe in the virtue behind my beliefs and feelings. But the term “virtue signalling” makes it sound like I am only stating these feelings and beliefs to gain acceptance, recognition, Brownie points for being such a good guy. The implication is that I am insincere. That I want to appear more virtuous than I actually am. What an amazingly subtle put down this phrase is. To me it sounds like a variation on STFU.

    I thought Brexit was just a stupid move for Britain, but not a major concern of mine since I hadn’t really followed the implications for the EU. The election of Donald Trump was shattering. My feelings remind me of how my father felt when Watergate revealed Nixon to be the slimeball we all knew him to be. My father’s entire world view was blown apart, because up until that point he believed that the man at the absolute top had no need to be dishonest, that he would naturally be a man of integrity. Such naivete, eh.

    Up until Trump won the election, I felt sure he didn’t have a hope in hell. EVERYBODY in my bubble was saying he’s an incompetent idiot. Every comedian was making him into a punch line. Every post on Facebook, and every meme shared, mocked him and derided him. Rachel Maddow was astonished by his antics. John Oliver sold a lot of “Make Donald Drumpf Again” hats. The debate in the British parliament, forced by the names on a petition to keep Trump out of England, was hilarious. And then he won. So obviously my bubble was insulating me from the reality in some alternate universe.

    I did read a few interesting/scary articles written by reporters who had ventured into Trump territory, or attended Trump rallies. They made it quite clear why people who are not blatant racists, homophobes, xenophobes and misogynists support him, and how his tactics were making liberals look like the bad guys. We played right into his hands by attacking him, attacks that could be easily dismissed, instead of attacking his policies and their results. We played into his hands by name calling his followers, instead of arguing the issues that made them follow. Michael Moore called it. A friend of mine voted for him because he’s a fundamentalist Christian one issue voter and Trump made it clear that he would reverse Rowe vs Wade and cancel marriage equality. I placed a bet on him winning, which brought me enough to buy a bottle scotch (sadly long gone now) when he did, small consolation.

    Now I see the voices in my bubble doing the same stuff. Trump talks to Taiwan and everybody freaks out because the president is not supposed to do that. Oh no, he’ll upset China. Well, maybe that’s exactly what the people who voted for him want him to do. They do not want diplomacy as usual. We liberals lose even more credibility.

    Okay, so liberals have some responsibility for the disaster that has befallen America. But to place the blame on “PC virtue signalling” seems both simplistic and facile. It’s far more complex than that. And it still seems to me that people who object to PC really just want permission to be the same old assholes I grew up with.

    I am sorry you have felt jumped on in this pub. I do value your perspective. And I certainly agree that stigmatizing our opponents has no value when we need to gain their support. I try to keep the conversation civil. (Until I don’t, which I can often blame on the scotch.) Let’s keep talking.

  28. dr John de Wipper says:

    DH:
    Do you mind if we join you in celebrating Ramadan? You are welcome to put up a Christmas tree.
    If that really works in Canada : WOW and Congratulations!
    In the Netherlands, Christmas trees are banned from schools with a non-trivial minority of Moslems, because “they insult islam”. And many PC school directors just give in, “to keep the peace”.

  29. dr John de Wipper, as far as I know, that still works in Canada. Occasionally I’ve had persecuted Christians claiming that saying Merry Christmas is now banned in some place or other, but on investigation it always turns out to be nonsense. I sure hope my country stays this way.
    My partner and I have been involved in welcoming new Syrian refugees to Canada. Maybe our Muslims are a more tolerant batch than usual, but it seems to be hard to offend them. He did look at me in confusion when he learned I don’t believe in any god. But when I asked if we were still friends he gave me a very enthusiastic “Yes. 100%”. I’m starting to suspect that the easily offended Muslim is another myth drummed up by those who wish to polarize our culture.

  30. dr John de Wipper says:

    DH:
    Syrians appear to be a special brand.
    Few weeks ago in Germany a Syrian jihadist tried an attack, failed, and was on the run.
    It was the Syrian community that informed the police about his identity, and lured him into a trap. Then they restrained him, and asked the flabbergasted local police (who had not even the faintest idea that he was in their jurisdiction) to PLEASE come and collect him. The entire Syrian community celebrated the wipeout of this blemish on their blazoon.

  31. dr John de Wipper good to hear that. We also had a case in Canada where a Muslim father turned his teenage son over to the police because the kid had been seduced by Jihadist propaganda and knocked off a 7-Eleven to get funding to go to the war zone.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/accused-quebec-teen-jihadist-charged-with-terrorism-offences-1.2860054

    If we have any hope of combating terrorism, it has to be by enlisting the Muslim community in the struggle. The worst thing we can do is isolate them and make them feel that the system is against them. In other words, the very worst thing we can do is exactly what Trump is proposing.

  32. Deimos says:

    Oops with all my preparation for the solstice feast and our yearly sol invictus boozeup I forgot to read J&M. Which means I missed a lovely double smackdown cartoon and the yummy heated debate it inspired.

    But it does bring out one of my favourite moral dilemmas, do I listen to inner voice A which demands I defend the rights of those who are being oppressed or voice B which reminds me that those being oppressed are huge oppressors themselves. Can you defend the indefensible?

  33. dr John de Wipper says:

    Deimos:
    Ahh, the mirror of what I have held for a long time:
    “I am very tolerant, except towards intolerance”.
    … but the balance seems to NEVER find its equilibrium….

  34. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    DH, Dr. John, do you think it possible that the Syrian refugees are a ‘special brand’ because they have fled Islamic extremes? Having seen first hand the horrors comitted in the name of Allah, in many cases all too closely and personally with family and friends slaughtered, they are less likely to defend Islam than those whose only exposure to the lunacy has been on television and other media?
    Maybe that’s why your Syrian friend was still 100% your friend after you revealed your atheism, DH; having seen what a belief in a god can cause, he would sooner trust somebody who isn’t going to go jihad on him.

  35. Acolyte, good point. I should add that I do find my Syrian friend’s culture totally odious. The patriarchy is so thick it’s like a wall. His wife, for example, declined to touch me, which included declining to shake hands. He just can’t get his head around the marriage equality we celebrate here in Canada, and it frankly disgusts him, as does the pork on display in the supermarket, or the dog we allow in our house (and bed). I don’t think he had ever spoken to an outright atheist before. He looked very puzzled when he asked us about god and my partner and I both said we don’t think there is one. “Where did you come from?” he asked. “My mother and father,” my partner replied.
    I think I had some vague expectation that these people would like to become Canadians in more than just citizenship. That they might want to get to hell out of the culture they’d been in and join ours. Not so at all. They are very happy being Syrians. They did not flee Syria because they were unhappy with their culture, but because some asshole fired a missile at his cement truck and put him in the hospital. They cling to the culture, and it clings to them.
    My hope is that their children will absorb attitudes and values at school, and two or three generations from now they may actually be Canadian. After all, peer pressure is far more important than parental pressure when it comes to shaping cultural values. That will depend on how well the kids are accepted by their school friends. One of the problems with the anti-immigrant stuff that is all to prevalent here is that the teenage boys end up feeling alienated from both cultures. Then they are ripe for recruitment by the Jihadists they can find on line.

  36. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    I think it’s only natural they cling to their culture, having had to flee their homes and country taking only what they can carry and landing in a country which is in all respects the polar opposite of what they know and value.
    It’s going to be a long and difficult process to acclimatise themselves to such an alien culture; the more steeped in their old lives, the harder it will be. But, as you rightly say, the hope lies with their children, and of course with the way they are treated by those they have come to live among.
    We can only hope that they find more like you and your partner, who have the patience and understanding to help them gradually ease their way into their new country, and less of the type who would expect them to instantly forget their past and get with the Canadian ( or Dutch, British, etc) way of life NOW or fuck off back from whence they came.
    Respect to you and yours, my friend.

  37. HaggisForBrains says:

    “I think it’s only natural they cling to their culture, having had to flee their homes and country taking only what they can carry and landing in a country which is in all respects the polar opposite of what they know and value.”

    As an interesting exercise, try to imagine how you would feel if forced to flee your birth country, be it UK or Canada, and were offered refuge in a predominantly Muslim country.

    Whilst I agree with the hope that the children and grandchildren of Syrian refugees would eventually integrate within our “Western” culture, I don’t think it will happen too readily.

  38. Don Smith says:

    I was raised Catholic and was told by my nuns that “once a catholic, always a catholic.” But you know….I’m not a Catholic any more. Actually I never felt that statement had any validity, even as a child.

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.