‹‹ First ‹ Prev Comments(15) Random Next › Last ››


Here’s the wikipedia page. They coyly don’t mention the wives.

Discussion (15)¬

  1. God damn, another winning strip!

  2. paradoctor says:

    The closer a religion’s founder is to us in time, the worse he looks. Religion is like law and sausage; it’s best to not look too close at how it’s made.

  3. M27Holts says:

    I am just sick and tired of being “respectful” of anybody with ludicrous “faith” or any loony metaphysical ideas. I would pass a law forcing them to wear clown outfits, and get children to point at them and laugh out loud at their delusions? Too draconian? Or good forward thinking?

  4. paradoctor says:

    Please do not put the word religion in scare-quotes. Both Mormonism and Islam are acknowledged as religions by millions of followers. You are free to deride the absurdity of their teachings, and the arrogance of their founders, but it is impolitic and inaccurate to deny that they are, in fact, religions. Your critique is not of these specific blind faiths, but of blind faith itself.

  5. Rrr says:

    M27, I’m good with that simply not being banned or outlawed behaviour. No imposing legislation needed.
    Freedom to point&laugh at absurdity ftw.

  6. paradoctor says:

    Please do not put the word faith in scare-quotes. I agree that it would be more accurate to call them ‘prides’ instead, as deadly sin, or pack of feline apex predators, but words are defined by usage, not authority.

  7. dr john the wipper says:

    m27 et al.:

    No need for a law for that.
    It would be sufficient (and in fact fantastic) if ANY law (including tax regulations!) referencing religion would be scratched.

  8. jb says:

    Interestingly, despite the fact that we use the words “faith” and “religion” as synonyms, in most non-Abrahamic religions what matters is not what you believe, but what you do. If you perform the rituals correctly then the gods or the ancestors or whatever are satisfied and everything is cool.

  9. hotrats says:

    There is also the bizarre coincidence that what the angel told them turned out to be a load of self-serving claptrap that simply rehashed existing scriptures to assign themselves heroic roles.

  10. Donn says:

    It may matter to someone what you believe, but it isn’t externally verifiable. Back in the pagan days, when Roman authorities wanted to weed out Christians, they’d have them spit on him or worship Zeus or something, but that just catches the ones that want to be caught. Conversely with lots who don’t really believe but are willing to pretend, such as I presume a significant fraction of American political figures.

  11. David Featherston says:

    Lovely use of the term ‘charlatan’!

    According to Merriam-Webster (dotcom), the word is an anglicisation of a mixture of two Italian words: cerretano (meaning “inhabitant of Cerreto”, from whence came many quacks with fake remedies) and ciarlare (meaning to chatter, so as to better convince people to buy). Mixed, the word that became charlatan was “ciarlatano”.

    In a beautiful example of irony, M-W exemplifies the use of charlatan in the following quote: “In the document, church leaders expressed concern about charlatans attempting to make money or gain power by manipulating people’s beliefs. —Eric Lagatta, USA TODAY, 17 May 2024”

  12. David Featherston says:

    “I would pass a law forcing them to wear clown outfits, and get children to point at them and laugh out loud at their delusions”

    Love this, of course, but one consequence *could be* that clown outfits become the norm, and children will point and laugh at us.

  13. paradoctor says:

    You mean those dresses and pointy hats _aren’t_ clown suits?

  14. David Featherston says:

    Paradoctor – It’s always good to have the incredibly obvious pointed out, especially when I hadn’t actually noticed it myself.

    And now I wonder how many priests (imams/ministers/abbots/ayatollahs) one can fit into a VW Beetle. And would the number increase if you installed an alterboy first?

  15. postdoggerel says:

    if an altar boy were to be present
    the gropessence would be dispropentious
    for who would be
    the groper or gropee
    but that would be contentious


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.