October 20th, 2009
It’s true! Well, slightly.
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by the amazing NearlyFreeSpeech.NET
Protected by the mighty CloudFlare
Maybe we need a planet sized irony meter to explode in the skies and smite all this nonsense sky fairy style.
I wonder if any of the Britishist readers have seen the billboard posters for the Alpha goddist organisation. “Does dog exist?” with a Yes/No/Probably tick box to the right of the question.
It would obviously be a serious criminal offence if anyone of the afeeist anti-goddist persuasion spray painted a tick in the NO box, wouldn’t it.
Campaign anyone ?
@John: check out
@John The Geologist i saw it on pzmeyers blog, and if im not mistaken (i might be) thats exactly what happened
I’ve unplugged my irony meter from the Internet after the third repair job; just keep it on for dinner conversation.
John The Geologist: Just suppose we tried ticking the yes section and see if they arrest us for that too? That’s just as much defacement after all!
My Irony Meter is an old Sinclair model; they had to be tough to get out of the factory and it was beefed up for British Leyland’s public relations department so it can even survive political speeches. Funny that the needle never moves though.
I think expecting religious leaders to have the sense of humour and awareness of reality that’s required for irony might be a bit much. Their minds are far too devoted to controlling other people.
Holiday seems to have done you good – that’s the best one this year!
Unfortunately, I was drinking tea when I read it.
John i suspect thats happening all over the country it was certainly done where i am (cupar,, fife)
What if we tick the “no” box using pencils? Is that criminal damage?
I wish Author would stop tormenting me with the clothes of Mo. One day normal caravaning male with geospacific clothing, then crossdressing prophet and God knows what else…..that frikking diaper thing.
Mo’s video game is making all the right ‘noises’!
at least Mo does change his clothes now and then – Jesus is always in the same dress.
T-rex: Alright, keep going. But you do know what happens when you mix religion and irony meters, right?
Popesaurus: Of course I do!
Satan helped the (human)pope plant the asteroid evidence in order to disproof this otherwise much more plausible theory…
alt text: The popesaurus’ hat could be seen from space.
The (other) irony I’m detecting is the ability to see some kind of equivalence between terrorist threats and wealth accumulation.
“The (other) irony I’m detecting is the ability to see some kind of equivalence between terrorist threats and wealth accumulation”
Firstly, that is in now possible stretch of the word ‘irony’ so please mask such ignorance by only using words you understand.
Secondly, you’re at least right that storing obscene amounts of wealth while millions upon millions starve to death is in no way morally repugnant.
Instead, we should probably use the Church’s stance on condom use in aids ridden Africa, causing the spread of aids, birth of children afflicted that could otherwise be spared a short and agonizing life, and general lying and death-mongering in order to propagate their absurd dogmas.
I’ll pray for you, Rabid.
Good luck asking C Rabit to mask his/her ignorance. If s/he actually achieved it, s/he’d vanish entirely!
Still waiting for your answer on gay marriage, Rabit. Keep running…
gay: joyous and lively; merry; happy; lighthearted
marry: to join (a man) to a woman as her husband, or (a woman) to a man as his wife
I clicked on the ‘is it funny today’ to vote because I thought it was funny, only to see that 9 people thought it wasn’t funny, versus 35 that thought it was. Who the heck reads JnM and takes the time and trouble to vote it unfunny? Is there a campaign going on?
That’s your ‘answer’ is it Rabit?
In case you really are so intellectually limited that you have genuinely become confused whilst running away from the original strip, I’ll remind you that that’s ‘gay’ in the sense of ‘homosexual’.
Homosexual marriage (so you don’t become confused again) exists in Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, 6 American states and numerous other countries are moving towards it with forms of civil partnerships.
I’ll ask you again: what reason do you have for believing it should be restricted exclusively to male-female couples?
Crusader Rabid is an obvious troll… don’t give him/her the satisfaction.
Like every zoo has its signs, every internet board should have a “don’t feed the trolls” too …
Anyway, i find it amusing that Mo says there’s “enought” explosions going on. When someone gives his life to create just one more explosion, it obviously means that he (remind me, any female kamikaze lately ?) finds explosions somewhat lacking, right ?
A phenomenon not unknown, unfortunately – most recently in Peshawar (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6877745.ece)
But female suicide bombers have also cropped up over the last few years in Palestine/Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia and Sri Lanka (where the modern concept of suicide attacks was, in fact, invented – by Hindu Tamils, not Muslims).
The reasons for the exploitation of women by terrorist organisers are clear: they fall under less suspicion, and are more unlikely to face body searches (at least in Islamic societies) than their male counterparts.
Even more disturbing is the use of child suicide bombers, which has been a particular problem in Palestine.
I’ve depressed myself now…
Speaking of the Vatican…
Sarah Silverman has a great idea!
T.i.t.m: your lot hijacked ‘gay’ and changed its meaning, now your trying to do the same to ‘marriage’. Yet I can still find the above definitions @ an online dictionary, so the meaning of the words is a matter of opinion and I am merely stating mine.
Crusader Rabid, I call bullshit.
Show me one goddamn online dictionary which does not include “homosexual” as one of the meanings of “gay”.
And you’re still avoiding the question.
Author: not wanting to pander to the trolls, but is it worth amending the disclaimer to read, “…of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature…”? Personally, I don’t really want to come to this site to be exposed to such crass and ignorant prejudices, regardless of whether they are heartfelt or not.
I agree gay people have every right to be as misrable as us married folks. @MCIG _ I still don’t understand how old people can talk young people into blowing themselves up. Why didn’t the old person blow themselves up when they were young or for that matter right now? Also one would figure that if these suicides actually provided the outcome they were intended for I could understand selling someone on the idea, but it hasn’t changed a thing? Maybe I am trying to make sense out of an senseless act :(.
@MyCatIsGod – good idea. Disclaimer amended. My apologies for forgetting about the hell-bound perverts.
Mmm… not sure if there’s any point posting on this again in light of the updated disclaimer, as it gives our cowardly Rabit a perfect excuse not to answer, but I might as well:
Re the origins of ‘gay’=’homosexual’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
You’re flattering yourself when you call your position an ‘opinion’. Opinions are based on reason, and all you’ve done is re-state the same, ignorant, bigotted bullshit in slightly different words. Are you really that thick? What is your reason for being against marriage applying to two people of the same sex who want to make the same commitment to each other as two people of opposite sexes?
What is your point?
FWIW, your assumption that i must be gay in order to be against anti-gay discrimination shows how monumentally backwards your thinking is. I’m not.
Titm: settle, petal, no-one’s calling you a homosexual, least of all me; heck I’ve been one party in a gay marriage (depending which definitions one chooses) for years . BTW, do you think anyone posting wikipedia links really has an opinion of their own?
Not that I’d ever post anything of a homophobic nature myself, the needle on my irony meter flickered when I thought: what’s next, an amendment indicating ‘Islamophobia’ won’t be tolerated? But then, on a site where one of the aims is ‘to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions’, an amendment can be made at the behest of someone who claims their cat created the Universe…oh dear, my irony meter just exploded..
If you’ve got to use the word ‘mujahadeen’ where you’d otherwise put the word ‘terrorist’ and lots of readers don’t know what ‘mujadaheen’ means and would rather have the word translated into their own language, would you get blown up if you put ‘mujahadeen (terrorist)’?
So still no answer Rabit. You’d be funny if you weren’t real.
‘…your lot hijacked…‘ – sorry if the link went over your head, though I guess most things do. The point was, no one ‘hijacked’ anything.
Two things rabbits are good at; hopping randomly in different directions, and squeezing out an endless series of shitty nuggets. You’ve proved yourself proficient at both of those Rabit. As you don’t take your own prejudices sufficiently seriously to bother arguing for them, I’m going to take MyCatIsGod’s advice – you’re a troll and not worth wasting any more time on.
But Rabbit’s sincere convictions and irrefutable arguments have converted me! I have seen the errors of my ways, and from now on, I will, whenever I have a chance, firebomb any venue where homosexuals hang out.
It is, IMHO, Gods sublime plan.
I’ll still stay married to my sheep, though: God told me it was OK.
A senseless act, indeed. And it’s truly hard to rationalise. One of my unhappy tasks in Yemen was to try to come to some understanding of how and why young people are recruited to carry out these suicidal and irrational acts. One could write huge books about it (and some have, in fact), but I agree with you that it’s difficult for anyone with an ounce of rationality to comprehend. But here are a few general thoughts of mine:
1) A recruiter is not always necessary. Hamas, for example, have almost no need to go out and find people to act as ‘martyrs’. The resentment, politics, and culture of the region seems to provide a never-ending stream of volunteers. More than they could ever use in operations, in fact. These suicide bombers can probably be considered to be acting entirely of their own volition, and fulfilling what they see as their personal duty and fate.
2) In other places (such as Yemen and Somalia) there is a huge overlap between what one might term a ‘constituency’ of young people who wish to fight in general (eg in local tribal wars, not linked to religious issues), to fight for political causes (eg in guerrilla armies), and to fight for Allah against infidels. In other words, the same group of people, from the same background, appear easily recruited for three very different types of purpose, only one of which is religious.
3) So there is something about the disaffection and hopelessness of this constituency that is key here. Poverty, poor governance, lack of opportunity and unemployment all play a role (but note that this does not appear to produce suicide bombers in equally poor countries such as Malawi or Uganda). Lack of access to outside information is also important (i.e. a tribal village whose only source of information is from the local Imam or elders). Perception of political injustice (whether justified or not) seems to play a major role. Finally, local traditions of honour and reciprocity for injustice can add fuel to the fire.
4) Although the recruits are almost always brainwashed into a religious fervour (they rarely arrive ‘ready made’ in terms of religious motivation), the recruiters are frequently far more canny and political. In fact, they will often treat suicide bomber volunteers as their own personal ‘army’ by which they hope to achieve political influence. For example, the government of Yemen (through the proxy of influential local Sheikhs) used mujahideen returning from the war against the USSR in Afghanistan to help fight its own political battle against socialists in the South. Yemen was reunified on the back of this policy. Recruiters in Iraq have much the same attitude, and use suicide bombings far more to stir racial tensions and achieve political goals, than to carry out Allah’s instructions (even if that’s what the bombers themselves are led to believe).
5) Suicide bombers from rich countries (Saudi, the UK, etc.) are a greater mystery still. The questions about poverty don’t apply, and in the West neither do those about bad governance. This goes someway, I think, to explaining why it is that it is in these societies that we see the most lengths taken by recruiters to religiously indoctrinate their targets. This is accompanied by a large dollop of brainwashing about perceived injustice.
But like I said, the whole issue is almost infinitely complex. There are other fascinating areas for discussion (why do supposedly rational scientists and engineers feature prominently in the ranks of bombers; what is the role of mothers in indoctrination; etc). But the one-sentence answer to the question “how can the young be recruited by the old to carry out these atrocities” is probably something along the lines of “through a subtle blend of political and religious indoctrination, targeted at an existing disaffected and religiously compliant constituency”. This sadly means that women and children are no more immune to this exploitation than the men, and are protected only by local cultural norms that they should not take part in fighting. If those norms are absent, or can be hijacked and perverted, then they become fair game.
@MGIG – Very informative and I see your point. One thing you did not touch on is the fact that these acts seem to have no affect on the issue or purposes of said acts. I mean if a suicide bomber actually affected change I could understand the forwarding of such acts however it seems to have little or no affect at all. I mean the street side bombings seem inconsiquestial compared to 9/11 which I would argue worsened things for Islamic peoples outside of the areas of which you speak.
C Rabid wrote: heck I’ve been one party in a gay marriage (depending which definitions one chooses)
Well C Rabid, you’re only one party in a gay marriage if you married to a person of the same gender as yourself.
So it’s rather confusing for you to attempt to define marrage as man-woman in one post and then claim to be in a gay marriage in another one.
@ Jon and My Cat
I hesitate to say this, but here goes nuthin- bring on the flames!
I submit we all know perfectly well how old men, or at least the culture that they run, persuade young ones to die for them. We spend a minute in silence celebrating such qualities every November.
Read some of the 1st world war poets (either side will do).
Not Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon- the other ones.
Page after page of young idiots talking about how they are going to their glorious death for their country, their King, their nation and their women.
Pages of babble about blood fertilizing foreign fields. Oh, and let’s not forget the girls going round giving white feathers to anyone sensible enough to be a coward. I would have been able to stuff a matress.
Young men especially want to be heroes. It can work on girls and kids too, but not quite as well. I once taught a Japanese girl whose father learned the “hug” drill at school. He was seven, had a belt of bombs and his teacher taught him to run up to american servicemen, hug them and detonate it. Fortunately, for her, by then the Japanese could not afford the explosives.
What the Islamites are doing is nothing new. However, it looks as if you need to have some sort of woo-woo belief though (God, the Fatherland etc) to get the sacrifice meme going.
Lumping in patriotism with religious woo-woo? I had better get my asbestos underpants on.
I recently saw a movie called “Death Room” which was an eye opener as to how these types of people are chosen and trained. As usual I tend to look at these things through (USA) eyes and maybe not able to understand fully these motivations. Always amazes me the lengths we humans will go to for a given “cause”. Oh well still laugh my fool head off on this site and appreciate the varied points of view of all of us long time fans…..Where oh where did “A Christian” go……
So we have established that C Rabid is one party in a joyous and lively, merry, happy or light-hearted marriage. Can we move on now?
Can someone explain why Kristian’s post (Oct. 22 @ 3:14pm) is not in breach of the ‘homophobic ammendment’?
@Daoloth: interesting ideas. I suppose one factor is that everyone going off to war believes that “it won’t affect me, I’ll be OK”. Secondly, there would be the belief that is is “worthwhile” if it is in a good cause. And it’s often been said that nationalism, ideology and so on, when taken to extremes, are religions in all but name.
Don’t forget to order your PrayerMAX 5000 early in time for Xmas.
@Daoloth (and Stephen Turner)
Far from flaming, I think there’s a lot of truth in that. Although one could have a philosophical argument about the merits and/or necessity of leadership: could an army have been assembled for the quasi-suicidal operation that was the Normandy landings in WWII without large amounts of propaganda and misinformation by ‘old men’? And where would Europe be now, if it couldn’t? I’m playing devil’s advocate, of course – and from your comments you sound like a committed pacifist (a position I respect, but don’t personally endorse), so you would probably push back against this point. But it’s a fair debate, I think you’d agree.
Not being devil’s advocate here: I’m afraid I rather disagree. Sadly – very sadly – terrorism almost always works. That’s not rhetoric on my part. Look at the withdrawal of US forces from Beirut after the car bombing there; the gain of power by former Irish paramilitaries (of both persuasions) through bombing their way to negotiations; the withdrawal of US bases from Saudi Arabia; the hijacking of aeroplanes by the PLO to raise awareness of their cause; and many, many other examples.
On a deeper level, one can construct an argument which shows that any society that tries to resist violent attempts to de-democratise it (crudely what al-Qa’idah and its affiliates are trying to do now, at least in one sense) will inevitably have to focus more on security and less on preserving the civil rights of its citizenship. Hence a ‘victory’ of sorts for the suicide bomber. We’ve seen a lot of that in the West since September 2001.
And on a deeper level still, the very fact that this website exists, that in the West issues of terrorism and security are never far from the news and our collective consciousness, and that world policy is forced to adapt to whatever violence it is faced with, shows that terrorism always, always, always has an influence on us. And the hand of the rational is often forced in a direction that would not normally be of his choosing (such as giving up on democracy in Afghanistan – which looks likely – or self-censorship when discussing religion, or finding new sources of oil in dubious African dictatorships rather than the old dictatorships in the Middle East), simply through this forced response.
Just a few thoughts for bedtime 🙂
Pedants’ corner: the translation would be terrorist*s*, as mujahideen is the plural of mujahid 🙂
And, in any case, a proper translation of mujahid is simply someone who strives or makes an effort. I’ve heard Arab friends who are working two jobs to support themselves through university described as ‘mujahid’ – because of the huge effort they’re making, and with no connotation of terrorism. Of course, one who wages war on behalf of Allah is also called a mujahid – but the root is the same. They’re making a big effort and lots of personal sacrifices to do so.
Wish they wouldn’t bother, though.
Right – that’s more than enough boring words from me for one strip!
@ C Rabid
The (other) irony I’m detecting is the ability to see some kind of equivalence between terrorist threats and wealth accumulation.
Given that the Vatican accumulated its wealth by threatening people with supernatural terrors, yes, there’s a sort of equivalence.
Are you in turn suggesting a moral equivalence between wealth accumulation (by which I assume you mean wealth creation) and the parasitism of the Vatican?
“Can someone explain why Kristian’s post (Oct. 22 @ 3:14pm) is not in breach of the ‘homophobic ammendment’?”
Dear CRabid, perhaps you missed the sarcasm. It changes the entire nature of the post from homophobic to “religio-phobic” which fits in quite nicely round here.
@ Mr Gronk: that’s quite some ability you’ve got there, and no I’m not suggesting any moral equivalence such as you had in mind.
@grouchy-one (& author, for that matter): so if I’m a sarcastic homophobic sheep-fucker who makes a threat to “firebomb any venue where homosexuals hang out”, thats OK so long as I pretend to be a Christian? That’s called lying, where I come from.
@C Rabid – that’s quite a broad definition for lying you have. Do you read fiction? Is that called lying too?
@grouchy-one: no that’s not a definition, broad or otherwise, I just indicated a specific form of lying, which is fiction in the same way as if someone posted “all gays are terrorists”, for eg.
@ST and My cat is G. Thanks for your comments. Very thoughtful. Craving your indulgence I will try to explain my position.
I am not a pacifist- just conflicted about human nature! And hence inconsistent, I’m afraid.
I was brought up by a “war hero” (my father) who said that he and the others who joined up were idiots who were sold a bill of goods. It was me who always tried to argue that the war he fought in was a just one- his point was that this was utterly irreleavnt to why he and the others joined up. He maintained that young men were easily manipulable idiots. I have not resolved this conflict myself.
I see young islamists talking the same way as young men did way back then with the older ones egging them on. I think that human nature is the same everywhere.
I also used to think that most joined thinking that it would not happen to them-because that kind of makes sense to me- but then I read some of the accounts of the first world war and started wondering what kept people in the trenches and going over the top day after day in the teeth of certain death. There are a lot of reasons of course (red caps with guns being one) but at least part of the reason is a sacrificial attitude. Some examples:
“Since my earliest childhood I have always dreamed of dying for my country. Let me sleep where the accident of battle shall have placed me, by the side of those who, like myself, shall have died for France” (George Morillot- letter to parents, 1914.)
“The last sixteen months have been the most glorious in the history of Europe. Heroism has come back to the earth….The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed with the red wine of the battlefield” (P.H.Pearse, founder of Irish revolutionary movement, observing WWI carnage).
There is a surprisingly large amount of this stuff. I have never felt like this in my life, but then I have never felt part of something that has been threatened. Or that it is claimed is being threatened.
Young men, especially, can be made to feel like this remarkably easily- they do not have to be stupid, poor, ill-educated or mad- just witness our local home-grown sacrificial victims for, say, the 7/7 bombings.
Finally GOD has shown us the truth….http://news.yahoo.com/comics/unstrange-phenomena.com
WTF, Crusader Bunny? “a sarcastic homophobic sheep-fucker who makes a threat to ‘firebomb any venue where homosexuals hang out’, thats OK so long as I pretend to be a Christian”
Are you *completely* mad? You’re OK to accuse me of the rest of the things (I willingly plead guilty to the very first accusation, the rest we can settle in court) – but accusing me of being a Christian?
“…any female kamikaze lately ?”
Is this thing on?
2013 calling; sadly, the answer is now “yes,” and with increasing frequency.
Such is progress measured in the mid-East.
(Funny thing, tho’ — I haven’t read of any concomitant reduction in “honor” [sic/k] killings. No doubt that will follow in due course.)
My cult doesn’t seem to be so successful though…
Poking fun at the televangelist scandals of the 80s has brought in
only about $12 in donations, that’s less that $1/year! $_$