July 8th, 2015
The source text for today’s strip.
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
Cuz the all-knowing couldn’t perceive of ‘video’ 😛
@author, I don’t know how you do it and how I/we don’t. That’s brilliant, once, again!
This stuff absolutely should appear in a major newspaper. It is shameful that it cannot because we are so frightened that some crazy, fundamentalist thug will take it into what passes for his head to kill and maim the employees of such a newspaper.
In “The Privilege of the Grave,” published in Who is Mark Twain? (by Mark Twain)
He noted, “In America–as elsewhere–free speech is confined to the dead.”
Author, is this brilliant ‘strip’ coming–by clairvoyance–from the grave of Twain?
Islam, through the media gives an inoculation
Against its violent ignorant reputation
Not the religion of peace
but that of a beast
The truth causes muslims indignation.
Brilliant! Love it!
of course Mo would not have videoed it – that would involve making images of humans and animals
how Daesh justify making images of living things contrary to Islamic scripture is for them to puzzle
Good point, white+squirrel. Perhaps the people in charge have infidels making the videos (the way Jews use Shabbos goyim to do work on the Sabbath that the Jews are not allowed to do on that day).
For ISIS bitter is the day that a man does not die fighting for their God’s right to subjugate the non-believers and so rule the world.
white+squirrel, at least one interpretation says that taking pictures is not “making” the representation the same way e.g. sculpting or painting would be. Never shy to come up with an answer, I guess…
As usual, J&M gets a mention on whyevolutionistrue and it’s got someone in a right old lather, here …
Well I had some unexpected down time on my trip, so I had a chance to post a further comment on the previous comic. If you’re still interested, go nuts.
Thanks, jb. I hope your trip is going well. I replied to your further comment on the previous comic. It’s kind of you to have spent your down time satisfying my curiosity and that of the others here at the Cock & Bull, rather than getting some rest or doing something more fun. Barmaid, please put jb’s next one on my tab!
I also replied to jb on the previous thread, perhaps not as gently as my friend two cent’s worth. Now I’m done with him. He’s revealed himself enough to satisfy my curiosity. He’s welcome to his opinions. I’m just glad that the majority no longer agree with him.
Author, as always your strip is intelligent and your punch lines are a delight. I also want to thank you for staffing the Cock and Bull, and giving us such a great local for good conversation.
at least one interpretation says that taking pictures is not “making” the representation the same way e.g. sculpting or painting would be. Never shy to come up with an answer, I guess…
its always interesting to notice how easily they interpret their ‘sacred’ text when it suits them, yet when its comes to stuff like gay or women’s rights they claim the book is unequivical and unchangeable
The very civil replies I received on my last comment inspired me to post another. I particularly hope Darwin Harmless relents and takes a look, because I have a simple challenge for him (or anyone else of course).
(Don’t worry, I’m not going to keep popping in here with an update every time I post to the previous comic. I’ll keep monitoring that thread for a while, but it’s about time for it to die a natural death).
to respond to your ‘challenge’:
So my challenge to you is this: see if you can make a rights based argument for gay marriage using my terms — “UnionManWoman” and “UnionTwoPeople” — rather than “marriage”.
ManWoman = TwoPeople. Your distinction that in a union the two people have to be of different sexes is as meaningless as it is contentious. There are no particular rights that belong only to people of different sexes, except in your head. As you admit in your overlong and tedious post, you are simply a bigot, confused and frightened by something you do not have the generosity of spirit to understand.
I do think it’s bizarre that jb would apparently see nothing wrong with two people of opposite sex marrying where one or both of them have a genetic defect rendering them sterile, but does have a problem with two people of the same sex marrying (on the grounds that jb thinks homosexuality is “biologically wrong”, despite its consistent, sustained presence in hundreds of species). If interfertility is a deciding factor, how come sterility or being post reproductive age doesn’t rule you out?
I’m so glad that subject is dead. Now we can kick some dirt over it and forget it.