January 30th, 2009
If you know Danish, and you would like to read how “15 academics, two poets, and a cartoonist tear into God and his various religions” (Berlingske Tidende), you might enjoy GudlÃ¸s! Religionskritik i dag – an irreligious anthology containing 20 Jesus & Mo strips in translation.
Poor Richard says, “Wut?”
Link to Google Translated page:
Oh dear… Will the barmaid bar them from the bar?
Not funny because you’ve just taken what some people actually believe and put it in a cartoon strip.
We’ve been rumbled!
Eurgh. Is that what Danish has become these days? I guess I need to get out more. It just sounds wrong to me. It’s “GudslÃ¸s” – or “GudelÃ¸s” if we’re being inclusive.
Scotty B, from your link: The press wrote:
“15 academics, two poets and an account goes into bacon in God and his numerous worship. The result is intelligent and sometimes funny.” – Berlingske Tidende – Berlingske Tidende
I don’t think this could realistically be said about J & Mo, but perhaps I am missing the point.
@Dan and Necessary Evil
You do indeed miss several points. 1) What people believe in should not be immune to critique -or ridicule for that matter. 2) Both sources (doxis), practice and.. uuhm philospophy in christianity and islam seems fairly well understood by the creator(sic) of J & M. The points made are usually relevant indeed.
(Apologists should never be allowed to sell rubber band by the meter).
I think a demon has gotten into the system here and garbled all the replies. I have gone from “Wut?” to “Huh?”
Author, let’s start by getting “Dan” an irony meter, overnight mail, please.
I might want one, too, but it would be so annoying when it off several times a day in response to my own nonsense.
The current strip is just too true. I don’t know how you do it, Author, except I’ve long known that all you have to do to find the funny part is read the newspaper.
GudlÃ¸s is the korrekt spelling, here’s the entry from Ordbog Over det Danske Sprog:
“Not funny because youâ€™ve just taken what some people actually believe and put it in a cartoon strip.”
The stoopid, it burns!
A recommendation from Berlingske Tidende should be taken with a largeish grain of salt. It’s one of those places that will sing the praises of secularism out of one side of the mouth when it’s talking about Muslims being silly, and bemoan the loss of Traditional Values(TM) out of the other side of the mouth when it’s talking about Christians being silly.
In other words, one of the venues that gives criticism of religion a bad name by using it as a poorly concealed racist dog whistle.
I’d nail that….
Sorry mate, that’s exactly why it is funny.
Author reads Danish?
In the words of Poor Richard: “Wut?” “Huh?”
I think the term is “It’s funny because it’s true”
My absolute favorite brand of satire.
“Gays are disgusting and deserve to die”=unacceptable homophobia and probably illegal in the UK
“Many Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin and some Muslims believe it should be punishable by death”= Religious Studies taught compulsorily in every school in the UK
I was kidding!
It is funny.
Good one Author. hehehe
How come you are so scared to criticize Islam and Mohammed, based on historical facts?
How about drawing Mohammed with an 8 year old girl? Or Mohammad assassinating a poetess for dissent? I guess, you don’t want to express “hate” with historical facts and cause “grief” in millions of believers ey?
“Islam is not too bad cause Xtianity is equally bad.” or is it
“Don’t criticize Islam before you criticize Xtianity”? or is it
“before you hate Islamic rubbish, hate western civilization first?”
Too easy for you to bash reformed Xtianity alongside absolutist Islam, ey? Paint them all with the same brush. Dump on the weakest and the most tolerant.
I think this is moral equivalency and cowardice.
Hamidreza, I think you should take a good long wander through the previous cartoons going back a few years now. Islam has never got off lightly in this strip – in fact J&M is banned in Pakistan in case it sets Rage Boy off. Author has balls the size of church bells, IMHO.
Morally equivalent? Both religions are both equivalent in terms of reason and sense eg both have very little, so it’s fine to mock both equally. As for one being more reformed and tolerant than the other, who can say if some future cultural crisis won’t send westerners turning away from the Enlightenment and scurrying back to religious ignorance, as happened to Islam after its early promising centuries?
Hamidreza: Wut? You seem a little scrambled, but then it is morning here, so maybe I’m still sleeping. To cut it short, all the the major religions have painted THEMSELVES with the same brush. They are all rooted in hallucinations and falsehoods — that is, they are all superstitions, and all — yes, all — have long histories of murder and torture for those who refuse to knuckle under to the unyielding forces of unexaminable beliefs supported by political power.
I am sure that Hamidreza doesn’t know that Mo is actually a body double. The Author’s clever way to avoid any personal harm from those peaceful loving Islamofacists…….To bad those Dane’s didn’t have Authors’ forsight….And yes both sides get their fair share of grief from the almighty Author…
I did rather feel sorry for the firemen who got into trouble for refusing to wear their uniforms while handing out leaflets at Gay Pride. They signed-up to fight fires, not to be somebody’s homo-erotic fantasy. We’ve thankfully got to the stage in our development where women have the right NOT to be treated as merely sex objects if they don’t want to be, well I think this should apply to firemen, too. Why do we still have a Gay Pride march, anyway? With Obama in charge over the Pond and anti-discrimination laws, we should be moving to an entirely merit-based society: why should somebody’s sexuality be worth marching about? You don’t get Straight Pride marches, do you?
You don’t get Straight Pride marches, cos they’d all bump in to a wall at the first bend in the road..
So the fact that most people can make a turn at a corner indicates that we all have a homosexual component? That makes sense.
There are more accidents when drivers are turning at intersections and roundabouts than on the straight-aways. We need to get these straight people more in touch with their gay skills. Suggestions?
McGronk – Poor Richards – You provide rationalistic arguments. “what if Xtianity turns around in the future and starts attacking the Enlightenment” – “Xtianity has a long history of assassination and murder of dissidents, so it is equivalent to Islam that practices that today”.
As you know, the argument between rationalism and empiricism has long been settled in favor of empiricism. I say:
“go to the city square in London and in Tehran, and shout “F*** god (allah)”. See what happens. Report back, if at all possible.
That will be a quick lesson for our rationalistic equators. 😉
Gee, Johnnie, I almost ran over a gay icon (a motorcycle cop) at a roundabout once. What can this mean?
Yes Hamidreza, I admit I resort to “what-if” speculations, but only because I find they clarify an argument. I hope you’re not suggesting that the Author shouldn’t stick the boot in so hard to Xtianity because that religion is, on the whole, going through a reasonable phase.
Maybe one day I’ll try yelling “F*** god” in a town square in South Carolina, BTW.
And I’ll reiterate that Author has pulled no punches in the past with Mo’s more sordid behaviour.
(I would stick a smiley thing to show I’m not being rancorous, but modern technology befuddles me)
If on the block you see the bully coming your way and then you cross the street to avoid, but when you get to that little weasel with a running nose you smack it between his eyes, then that is a sign of cowardice.
So you are saying, lets take revenge on Xtianity for its past – even when it has disavowed it in many ways? And you say lets take some preventive measures against Xtianity, for further insurance, by beating what is essentially a dying horse. And to equate South Carolina to Tehran is an act of moral equivalence and dissonance. In South Carolina, the state will protect you, even though it may be riskier than New York City in this regard. But in Tehran, the state will disappear you.
A true atheist knows that the issue with religion is not the personal god – but its sociopolitical impact. But the neo-progressive has no concern on Islam’s sociopolitical impact, but seems to have a problem with Xtians maintaining an irrational personal belief system in Jesus – hence wanting to rub their nose in it.
So the neo-progressive can’t stand Xtianity because it has reformed into a personal god. But Islam which is a communal religion gets a passing grade because it does not have a personal god that warrants attack. This is religious atheism, as opposed to enlightened secularism – where the person is attacked for his belief, while the community mired in religious oppression, superstition, and obscurantism goes scott free cause “we should not be insulting group feelings”.
“A true atheist knows that the issue with religion is not the personal god – but its sociopolitical impact.”
no, a true athiest is a person who doesn’t believe in a god or gods.
why some feel the need to overcomplicate that be beyond me.
All three primitvive abrahamic faiths, like the face-painted dancings of witch doctors, are deserving of derision. The author of this strip, to the great pleasure of many of us, does a great job of pointing out the stupidity of at least two of these on a regular basis. Communal delusions are composed of personal delusions and thus when all the “personal insults” inevitably end up integrated into the group’s collective hyper-sensitivity, nobody ends up “getting off scott free.” If you feel the author is giving muslims a pass because in your opinion, they’re more lemming like than christians, your perception is warped.
Neil Hoskins, the homophobic firemen did not ‘get into trouble’ – they won their case. Wrongly so. They refused to give out fire safety leaflets at a gay pride march because of their openly-admitted religiously-inspired homophobia, and because of their religiously-inspired homophobia, Strathclyde Fire and Rescue backed down and let them off the punishment they legally and morally deserved. A secular society cannot allow people whose job is to provide a public service to discriminate against or in favour of one group or another.
Your reference to ‘somebodyâ€™s homo-erotic fantasy’ is peurile and juvenile. If it’s based on fact, provide a link to show that was the intention of their being there.
ms mordo says: >â€œA true atheist knows that the issue with religion is not the personal god – but its sociopolitical impact.â€
no, a true athiest is a person who doesnâ€™t believe in a god or gods.
why some feel the need to overcomplicate that be beyond me.”
You misread. Read again. I said a “true atheist KNOWS the issue with religion …”
Never said atheists believe in god(s). But the neo-progressive atheist thinks its OK for a believing group to believe in a crap like god(s).
That is the difference between a real atheist, and a neo-progressive atheist.
“You misread. Read again. I said a â€œtrue atheist KNOWS the issue with religion â€¦â€
Never said atheists believe in god(s). But the neo-progressive atheist thinks its OK for a believing group to believe in a crap like god(s).
That is the difference between a real atheist, and a neo-progressive atheist.”
no i read it fine thank you, i’m aware you never said anything about ahtiests beliveing on god(s).
but i just find this idea that there are “neo-progressive atheists” and “true atheists” to be a bit pointless and silly.
an atheist is a person who does not believe in any kind of god or gods. that is what an atheist is, that is what atheisim means.
any wider opinions on the role of faith in the world etc etc, added onto that are just your personal politics, there is no point in classifying them as different types of athiesm other than to be pointlessly devisive.
‘an atheist is a person who does not believe in any kind of god or gods‘
Absolutely. It’s as simple as that.
@Toast: my understanding is that they refused to give out leaflets *whilst wearing their uniforms*. So you think that (presumably) big, strapping firemen could have attended a Gay Pride march, in uniform, without any kind of unwelcome sexual attention or innuendo? What planet are you on?
Obviously they would have been wearing their uniforms – they were there in an official capacity, that’s the point. On what grounds do you feel sorry for them, deciding that gay people don’t deserve the same fire-safety information straight people do? As I said before, they were let off the punishment they would otherwise have received specifically because homophobia is accepted by their employer as part of their religious outlook. Are you really saying that’s justified? What other belief system would be granted that kind of privilege to discriminate? If you really feel that’s justified, then I’m glad to be on a somewhat more advanced planet than you.
ms morbo – yes you may call it politics, but it is not about power, it is about “public belief” and secularism –
The point is not whether an individual believes or unbelieves. The point is if the person imposes his belief on someone else through power and force, such as a minor. I really don’t care if the person believes or not, as long as its kept to the person.
What I see are many unbelieving atheists who will never criticize religion, god, the prophet or superstition, as long as it is held by disadvantaged groups (hint hint), and never care that such superstition is forced upon others in their group. These so-called atheists actually do not care if the believer imposes his belief on others such as minors and try to indoctrinate them to their faith through power.
But if the believer happens to keep his belief private, but does not belong to a victim-group, then the atheist gets himself into a knot as to why the individual is an irrational believer.
Its a bit more complex than you think. This type of atheists are the “neo-progressive” kind and are betraying atheism or maybe rather secularism, and the enlightenment of society.
A true atheist or shall we say secularist is one that looks at the empirical fact of indoctrination, and not at the rational state of belief. There is no way you can prove a person a believer or unbeliver. So get off the back of the individual and look at the group dynamics.
In this sense, secularism is a lot more interesting and meaningful than atheism.
So the “neo-progressive” is a non-secular atheist.
“divisiveness” — the most devisive is the “neo-progressive” atheist that actually accepts Islam for others and enables it.
Hamidreza, point taken that an individual’s beliefs (“personal spirituality”) can be accepted by atheists, and that certain institutionalized religions are less virulent than others. Other commentators here definitely understand that.
However, it’s still true to say that all irrational belief systems deserve equal amounts of scorn and derision, and just as much fun is derived poking fun at Xtian nonsense as at Muslim. I think your point might be that there are many more Xtians who would see the humour in J & M than there are Muslims who would.
Perhaps author could take the p*** out of Mormons & Witlesses a bit more … not to mention Tom Cruise & John Travolta (another duo??) that would balance things out for me
Why is your claim the only truth? You want homosexuality to be acceptable. Then why not pedophilia? At least pedophilia fits in with evolution and propagation of the species whereas pure homosexuality does not. So, why is one criminalized and one supposedly acceptable?
The truth is that homosexuality is a deviation from some peopleâ€™s desired social norms, you want to be the one practicing those social norms, so you create an entire argument that it is acceptable. Just as pot smokers make claims that pot is not harmful, drug users wish to legalize their favorites, and drunks donâ€™t think DUI is harmful.
JJ – Are you serious?
Assuming you are, I think it’s fair to assume that paedophilia is illegal because it involves an adult forcing themselves sexually on a child, who is incapable of giving informed consent. It is a violation of the child’s wishes, and in most cases against the child’s physical and mental well-being.
Homosexuality on the other hand is two (3, 4 etc) adults engaging in consensual sex, that harms no one and has no effect on anyone but the consenting adults involved.
Do you see the difference?
You say paedophilia fits with evolution and therefore should be legal. By definition, paedophilia is sex with a child. Children cannot become pregnant so this is nonsense. But by the same reasoning, presumably you must think any rape should be legal?
@ Dan, if you are still wondering why this is so funny, just read JJ’s comment.
@ JJ… “The truth is that homosexuality is a deviation from some peopleâ€™s desired social norms”? “Why shoudl you have the right to discriminate against them?” “Because we’re special.” “Obviously.”
I mean… SPOING?!
I wonder if JJ is in favour of outlawing black folk in predominantly white communities, as their skin colour (which they choose to flaunt, and refuse to get help to change it with lightening procedures) is a deviation from some people’s social norms. One could even argue they are HELPING such folk to acquire a better way of life free of disadvantages and all those things attendant with racism.
Flarn you and the homophobic horse you rode in on, JJ. Tolerance is the cure for the social ills you describe.