April 6th, 2016
Congrats to Dries from Norway on winning this month’s raffle prize – a signed J&M book of your choice.
If you want to join the raffley fun, and keep the blasphemy flowing, please consider becoming a Patron.
Congrats to Dries from Norway on winning this month’s raffle prize – a signed J&M book of your choice.
If you want to join the raffley fun, and keep the blasphemy flowing, please consider becoming a Patron.
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
That one isn’t even exaggerating. Most people I know think exactly that. They may say, well, terrorists of course go too far, and it’s never right to kill a person, but… even though this isn’t the right way… if the victims were actual blasphemers (not innocent bystanders) they kinda had it coming. The whole concept that anyone has a right to blaspheme (or say whatever else they want), and that you may be offended or angry and express that dislike in any legal way you want to, you may NOT PUNISH someone for it, is just, well… inconceivable to most here.
The comic isn’t appearing on the main page in Chrome. I had to go to http://www.jesusandmo.net/2016/04/06/most/#respond to read it.
Oh for god’s sake. Thanks for the note, Alverant. Just Chrome by the looks of it. I haven’t a clue why that should be.
If anyone has an idea, please let me know!
Doesn’t the Quran incite violence? Just asking. Don’t shoot me or anything!
Ha! Author…fancy you of all people invoking blasphemy! Once again, I never seem to find your cartoon funny at all – just sadly on the money and compelling.
Author, I couldn’t see it either, and I’m using Firefox. Worth hunting down, though!
works for me on firefox. Works for me as a cartoon as well……….
Thanks Author for making me laugh every Wednesday! As a french citizen living in the UK I always strive to assert my right to offend in a culture where satirical humour, especially when it targets religion, is often frowned upon and seen as blasphemous. After the Charlie hebdo attack I had a hard time explaining to my english/american friends that it’s ok to be offensive (and offended) and that satirical humour should be welcomed by everyone, including the offended, as a safegard against fanaticism and fascism.
I get the same blankness and I’m using Firefox, until I clicked on “comments” then the cartoon and these comments was visible. I’ve never seen that problem before.
CURRENTLY WORKING here in Firefox v45.01, CHROME v49.0.262, and Safari v9.1 (10601.5.17.4)
Not sure if this helps, but it works just fine for me, in Chrome version 49.0.2623.110 on Linux (Centos 7)…
Same problem with Internet Explorer, just got a blank area so hit the previous link and then the next. Bloody computers, they will never catch on.
I am going to agree wholeheartedly with all the comments so far except the ones saying they can’t see the cartoon. (I can on Safari on an iPad fwiw)
Has it been mentioned in these pages that in Pakistan at least the blasphemy laws were actually enacted by the British Raj albeit exacerbated by General Zia for his own political purposes)?
So we can blame imperialism for that particular contribution to contemporary catastrophe.
Think I may have fixed it?
Yup, fine here now.
Isn’t every religion a blaspheme of every other religion?
No problem here Author.
And loved the cartoon too, you nearly always make me smile, when you don’t it’s because it’s just too painful, not because you haven’t hit the mark.
“It is written” like the qur’an said
for any offence kill the offender dead
islam, as all can plainly tell
makes life a living hell
For every transgression, lop off some one’s head.
Blasphemy is a lack of respect for gods or anything holy. So when someone speaks badly of a religion, it is only natural that the followers of that religion take offence. Unbelievers do not consider the existence of gods, so their opinions are not blasphemy. Am I right in saying that believers can ONLY feel shocked by the sayings of other believers?
There’s no need to make something illegal if you kill everyone that partakes in it, after just a few incidences the word will get around and poof, that problem can officially considered to be solved.
If I take the instructions literally, if I merely *consider* “becoming a Patron,” that qualifies me to “join the raffley fun.”
Okay, I am hereby considering becoming a Patron.
Here I am, considering away.
Are we having fun yet*?
*Credit to Bill Griffith, creator of Zippy the Pinhead comix, who almost never gets the recognition he’s due for writing that line.
Whenever I hear cries of “blasphemy”, I’m reminded of The Emperor’s New Clothes, except that Andersen’s story doesn’t with the boy being ostracised/imprisoned/scourged/lynched by a deluded mob. Oh, hum.
If the various gods are offended by blasphemy then they can take action to punish the blasphemer. If they don’t then they’re either not offended, they’re incapable of taking action or they don’t exist. It’s funny how each religion claims to have an extremely powerful or all-powerful god yet blasphemers never get punished.
All religious violence is incitement to blashphemy
I would go further Michael and argue that gods would actuality enjoy hearing ‘blasphemy’ on the principle that ‘all publicity is good publicity’
smartalek, ‘Are we having fun yet’ always makes me think of Nickelback. On a train, I once sat opposite a woman who was the absolute doppelganger of the woman in that video, except that she was Asian.
Funny, the places that Jesus and Mo take you…
Love the logic…reminds me of the old one: Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity.
All the more apt now that another “blasphemer” has been slaughtered in Bangladesh.
“logic” and islam (or religions for that matter), on the same line:
Isn’t that blasphemy to logic?
It amuses me when all the right-wing politicians label Islam a death cult but then clasp their hands for Christianity or Judaism.
All three of the Abrahamic religions – and most if not all of the pagan faiths – are ultimately death cults; just look past the purple morality and you will find those gates at the end of the path lead to an abattoir.
Perhaps we should give Islam credit for being the most forthright in that regard?
A number of States here in the US have taken the violence out of killing people by stipulating a lethal injection for the death penalty. Just saying
Of course, Mo and his murderous minions always fall back on the ‘Reservoir Dogs’ defence. As Mr. Blonde told* Mr. White, when Mr. White was giving him grief for shooting a load of people in the jewellers they were robbing, “…..if they hadn’t done what I told ’em not to do, they’d still be alive”.
The strange thing is, so many people accept that as justification. I couldn’t begin to guess how many times I’ve heard ‘Yes, it’s terrible, nobody deserves to die for blasphemy, but what did they think would happen? When you play with fire……..’ yadda, yadda. More than person has tried telling me that the Hebdo cartoonists were more responsible for the deaths of all the others killed that day than the killers themselves, because their work put the others in the firing line. Subsequently, more than one person has been told to fuck off and have a serious word with themself.
* haven’t watched the film for a while but the quote’s as near as dammit.
Hey, Acolyte of Sagan, recently Darwin Harmless mentioned cultural relativism (in his defence of multiculturalism), and I had to think of that when I read your comment. The thing is, there are fundamentally different approaches to some things, and then there are just gradients on the same idea. I think once you have accepted the basic idea that society ought to use violence to sanction people for “offences” you have more or less opened that gate. Because once you do that, once you accept the idea that there is *necessary* evil in punishment, it becomes only a matter of a bunch of morons deciding what they don’t like and how far they want to go to call vengeance still justice. As someone who’s been in prison and in war, I am confident telling you: The ONLY good to come out of either is that it makes some people richer. It does fuck all for the rest. You are no safer for it, the world doesn’t become any better, nobody but a few rich assholes profit in any way from it. So, you don’t like people wanting to kill others for blasphemy? Great, on your side. How about we just do away with the entire idea of justice through punishment and instead solely focus on understanding, prevention, and help. THAT would make the world better and leave everyone off safer and happier. Except a few rich assholes, possibly. ^_^
Thanks, author. Like the best of your work, this one is both funny and sad at the same time.
Here in Scotland, Asad Shah – a well-liked Glasgow shopkeeper of the minority Ahmadiyya Muslim faith – was killed by Tanveer Ahmed, an “orthodox” Muslim for “disrespecting” Islam. Ahmed is quoted as saying “If I had not done this others would and there would have been more killing and violence in the world.”
Presumably Ahmed would agree with Mo’s logic that certain faiths should be made illegal as “incitements to violence”.
It’s working for me too now. Thanks for looking into it. (There’s a different site I visit where they don’t even bother in fixing the missing graphics which is worse because they are also links and you can’t click on the links without the graphic.)
Can I just point out that many say that “blasphemers” of “progressive” (ie. liberal) orthodoxies should be heavily fined, thrown in jail, driven out of business, thrown out of society, exiled, gang-raped, tortured, killed, etc. as a “just punishment” for their “sins” like:
-Trying to save the lives of unborn children by peacefully offering to help women through pregnancy and with their new child
-Reaching different conclusions about “Climate Change” by looking at the unaltered temperature data and historical temperature proxy data
-Suggesting that schools SHOULDN’T discriminate based on race
-For wanting a woman OTHER than Hillary Rodham Clinton (part of the Clinton© brand) to be president
-Saying things which liberals know MUST be “dog whistles”, “code words”, and /or “micro-aggressions” against one of liberal’s favored minorities
-being a cis-gender white man (even worse if he’s rich) UNLESS he’s also liberal (then all is forgiven)
-Wanting a president who’s more experienced than Obama and less corrupt than Hillary Clinton
-Spending their own money how they want (instead of the government taxing it and spending it on liberals pet projects)
-Making the CHOICE to have kids (esp. if it’s more kids than liberals consider proper/decent/moral/etc.)
-Not accepting (meaning “promoting) anything and everything that liberals like if they find it morally wrong.
-teaching other people (ESPECIALLY their own kids) about their beliefs and their moral values instead of teachers/community organizers teaching them “progressive”(ie. liberal) values
-Having religious beliefs that don’t promote “progressive”(ie. liberal) values (unless followers of your religion are one of liberals protected minorities (then you get a free pass)
-Merely existing (which uses up resources that liberals are SURE they could use better)
The Lord of Up, that is a very long list something or other that appears to swerve towards paranoia.
I have to say that your understanding of the word ‘liberal’ differs very much from mine both in that it appears quite specific and that you use it as a negative and largely derogative term. Yet, to my mind some of the desires implied within your list are the epitome of liberal thought, ‘choice’ being very much an example.
Incidentally I learned from the radio today that liberal in its modern sense came out of the peninsula war. That intrigued me.
FreeFox says: “How about we just do away with the entire idea of justice through punishment and instead solely focus on understanding, prevention, and help. THAT would make the world better and leave everyone off safer and happier.”
Wal says: “YES!”
Author, it’s always a delight. Thank you yet again.
Freefox, I will certainly endorse your proposal to do away with the entire idea of justice through punishment. I much prefer justice through consequences. Ooops. That’s how those murders of blasphemers are justified, consequences just being a nicer word for the aversion therapy that is punishment.
The thing is, punishment doesn’t work. It only breeds resentment and rebellion. Rewards work much better, i.e. understanding, prevention and help. Especially help.
The Lord of Up, your Lordship, as one who considers himself a liberal, I find your generalizations about me rather amusing. Nice to know that my liberal friends and associates have forgiven me for being a tall elderly cis white male, due to my liberalism.
The fact is, I can not think of a single liberal I know who resembles any item on your list.
No liberal I have ever met or heard of calls for ANYBODY to be “exiled, gang-raped, tortured, killed, etc. as a “just punishment” for their “sins”. So this is not just a straw man liberal, it’s the exact opposite of any liberal ever. I don’t want to pull the “no true Scotsman” defence but really, anybody who calls for such things is not a liberal. Rather reminds me of the slurs against atheists spread by the religious.
I also find your weasel word descriptions of those we despise rather interesting. I am delighted to support and applaud anybody who is “offering to help women through pregnancy and with their new child” that’s a very liberal activity. But this is not what the anti-choice crowd generally do. They offer NO support for a child once it has been born, and no support for the mother. In fact, most are very much in favour of burning the social safety net (that liberals created), cutting back on welfare and food stamps. Most support the death penalty if an actual sentient fully alive human being, as opposed to an undifferentiated collection of cells, seems to deserve it.
I used the word “despise” on purpose. When somebody is advocating the murder of doctors who heroically help women in desperate need of an abortion, when someone pickets outside of clinics trying to shame and humiliate terrified women, when someone tries to skirt the law by bringing in legislation that makes it impossible for a clinic to function, they deserve to be despised. Please don’t confuse handing women a coat hanger or sending them back to the untrained abortionists “Trying to save the lives of unborn children”.
Those are more weasel words. They are not, except in very rare cases, “unborn children”. They are a collection of cells that have not differentiated and only have the potential to become a child. Calling them unborn children is an emotional tactic that defies reason. They are no more an unborn child than one of your sperm cells is half of an unborn child.
I could go on unpacking your list. (“Wanting a president who’s more experienced than Obama and less corrupt than Hillary Clinton” Say what? Most liberals I know are hoping Bernie Sanders wins the nomination.) But wading in bullshit is only amusing for so long. I have work to do and i suspect you were just trolling. Good day to you, sir.
Lord of Up (up where? If it’s where I’m thinking I admire your flexibility), just to take one example from your list, you do realise that teaching children the beliefs and morals of their parents, and denying them access to alternative ideas, is what creates extremists of all stripes?
Do your thoughts on education only extend as far as those who share your ideology or do you think that atheist or liberal parents should be allowed to deny their children access to knowledge and ideas about religion as you would deny yours access to progressive ideas?
What about those parents who would teach their kids violent or racist ideologies, or those whose moral values promote incest and child abuse? Wouldn’t you want their children to know that there are alternative ways of seeing the world?
The only reason people like you are terrified of your children being exposed to progressive ideas is that you know full well that your own regressive views will not survive comparison. If you were confident that your beliefs and morals had any real merit you would have no problem with letting the next generation see the alternatives and allowing them to make their own minds up.
This liberal believes that our children should have a full and rounded education; anything less is failing them. I was never afraid that the values I taught my children would vanish like a fart in the wind when exposed to alternatives. Can you say the same?
Perhaps it would be a great idea to demote religious education to the level of pornography (ie, allowed only for 18+ in most countries nowadays) and sustitute sexual education for minors? (and to me, that would indeed also include allowing sexually coloured or intended material, nowadays called porno).
You liberals are so polite, I would have told the redneck to fuck off. I love you all.
Lord of Up (Himself):
It may surprise you to learn that outside of the deluded echo-chamber you linked to, ‘liberal’ has a meaning other than ‘a stupid ignorant person who dares to disagree with any of my right-wing views’. One of its many definitions is ‘tolerant of other viewpoints’, so of course, for you it is a term of abuse.
Dr. John, it couldn’t work in the age of the web. Imagine going into your child’s room and finding him indulging in internet religion!
Thank you Darwin Harmless for writing the reply to the lord who is totally up himself which I had no patience with him to write myself
Thank you Darwin Harmless for writing the reply to the lord who is totally up himself, I had no patience with him to write the words myself
the internet does it again – I submit the comment – and it doesn’t take – and then when I rewrite it 5 mins later – both versions appear
Mickey. “You liberals are so polite, I would have told the redneck to fuck off. I love you all.”
Funny you should say that. I was getting into the habit of doing exactly that when our beloved Author reminded me that he is the only one with that privilege and authority. I completely agree with him. One of the things I love about the J&Mo threads is that we are constrained to be polite.
And yes, folks, those plus signs seem to have vanished at last. Thank random forces for that, eh. It’s a relief not to have to remember to take them out before I hit submit.
Dr. John, it couldn’t work in the age of the web. Imagine going into your child’s room and finding him indulging in internet religion!
I guess WE(my wife and I) would react like we did when finding our son and daughter (17 & 13 then) watching a porn video tape (remember those days?). It was a very interesting discussion, we learned they already knew some more than we thought, and (both!) their views on the various activities were rather mature. We never saw any need to forbid it, only insisted that any FORCING was, and for us would always be, off-limit.
ANd yes, they grew up to become some fine, free-thinking, tolerant people.
Darwin, I am chastised, though you will have noticed that I didn’t actually tell the redneck to fuck off, I just wanted to, does this make me a liberal too?
mickey: You could always ask him if he likes sex and travel, however that would be probably too obscure and not get past the tumbleweed blowing through his dusty desert of a brain.
Could we narrow the redneck options and just tell North Carolina and Mississippi to fuck off
Dr. John, remember tape? The first porn films I saw were on 8mm celluloid reels watched via a projector.
Them were the days the kids had to really work to do some illicit viewing 🙂
Funny, The Lord of Up sounds like he would fit right in with the Australian Liberals perfectly.
To those unfamiliar, they aren’t liberal in the slightest – why they don’t just drop the facade and officially call themselves Conservatives I don’t understand.
It still irks me whenever I see the description “conservative Liberal government”.
8mm celluloid reels yeah, 4 3-minute reels of very low black-and-white image quality in a set.
Once we even have had some luck in getting our hands on COLOUR! Those were the days…
Pink Squirrel “Could we narrow the redneck options and just tell North Carolina and Mississippi to fuck off”
No. There are some true and worthy liberal atheists suffering in those states. We need to reach out to them and support them. It must be horrible living in a bible belt of ignorant judgemental creationists. Imagine being gay or transgender in North Carolina or Mississippi, and for whatever reason being unable to migrate to San Francisco. I’m sure they exist, and I like hearing from them. The last thing I want to do is tell them to fuck off.
Keep in mind that Pastafarianism was born in Kansas in reaction to their school board.
My first experience of porn as a teenager was watching “Deep Throat” at the Seaview Theatre in Blaine, Washington, across the border from my home city. That’s how hard it was to get an education back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. I’m so happy to have high quality porn as close as my smart phone.
Unfortunately it has rather lost its charm for me.
To the MANY people who responded to my post:
1) When I called things “‘progressive’ (ie. liberal)”, I was referring to a frustration of mine with people who say “I’m not liberal, I’m ‘Progressive'”, as if there is a big difference between the political beliefs of people who call themselves “liberal” and those that call themselves “progressive”. Also, doing so assumes that anybody who holds different beliefs must therefore be “regressive”.
2) Mr. Darwin Harmless, you say that you “delighted to support and applaud anybody who is ‘offering to help women through pregnancy and with their new child'”. I am also which is why I strongly support Pregnancy centers which many liberal politicians claim are just trying to “confuse” and “mislead” women. I have NEVER heard Pro-Life activists “advocating the murder of doctors” (even abortionists). We picket outside clinics not to “shame and humiliate terrified women”, but to offer them HELP so that they know that they don’t HAVE to do it. Pro-life activists and politicians aren’t trying to “skirt the law by bringing in legislation that makes it impossible for a clinic to function”, we’re trying to pass laws that protect women who DO choose to go to them as much as if they went to a hospital.
Lord of Up, with the greatest of respect you are full of shit. What possible business is it of yours or anybody else’s if a woman terminates an unwanted pregnancy? I’ve seen plenty of pickets outside abortion clinics and the one thing I’ve never seen is a sign offering to help the women. Plenty saying ‘Abortion is murder’ and ‘God will judge’ and all manner of hateful, shaming slogans and pictures; lots of guilt tripping and naked hatred being screamed at the women already going through their own personal Hell, but offers of genuine help are pretty thin on the ground.
As for your bullshit about legislation, in what possible way is passing laws requiring standards surpassing by far those of hospitals, rstandards that are beyond the finances of the clinics to achieve and forcing them to close in any way protecting women? And what do you think you’re protecting them from? Divine retribution?
In a fair and just country, every hospital would provide termination services, thus protecting women from you and your hate mobs by no longer forcing them to go to specialist clinics where the purpose of their visit is clear to all. Who are you going to scream at if you don’t know whether a woman is going in for a termination or arthritis treatment?
Honestly, if I believed in a god, I’d thank it every day that I was born in a country with such a fair and just healthcare system, and that I wasn’t born a woman-hating bigot.
Now, how about responding to my critique of your education ideas?
Re :We picket outside clinics not to “shame and humiliate terrified women”, but to offer them HELP so that they know that they don’t HAVE to do it.
I invoke Godwin’s law ala -picketing of jewish shops
[ even if being a hunt saboteur I am not totally innocent of such behaviour ]
I’d like to thank the regulars for responding so politely to The Lord of Up, something I’d have struggled to do. Cockwombles like that need a good shoeing IMHO reasoned debate is wasted.
Why would it be, that a country that has just about the most allowing abortion laws (NL) … AND .. the most all-encompassing sexual education system, ALSO rates LOWEST in abortion rates AND in teenage pregnancies?
Matbe there IS a relation between those???
Forgive them, IanB, for they know not what they do. They’ve spent their lives being taught not to think for themselves so it’s hardly surprising that they aren’t able to understand how muddle-headed their ideology is.
Take the abortion issue, for example. If they really wanted to protect women, as His Lordship claimed, the solution is simple. Allow women access to contraception more effective than the rhythm method and prevent the pregnancy in the first place. Maybe teach children proper sex education beyond ‘When a man loves a woman they get married and the man puts his dingaling in the lady’s special place and a baby is made. If they try to stop the baby being made in any way it makes Jesus cry and they’ll go to Hell’.
But of course, teach kids about contraception and they might want to use it. Allow grown women access to contraceptives and they turn into sluts who have sex for pleasure rather than breeding, and that’s no way to create future tithes. And anyway, women shouldn’t have pleasure, they’re still being punished for Eve’s slutty behaviour.
If I can get just one of these people to realise that the reason their religion is against abortion and contraception is because they believe that women still need to be punished for the mythical sin of a mythical woman, and further, get them to question the justice behind the idea that anybody should be punished for the acts of one who, even had she lived, would have been dead for thousands of years, then it was worth suppressing my anger.
Lord of Up, whatever you think and whatever your priest or pastor or church school teachers hammer into you, it isn’t about the babies and it isn’t about the welfare of the women. Never was, never will be. It’s about punishing a metaphor; you are helping to make innocent women suffer on behalf of an analogy.Think about it, is that really the sort of person you want to be?
Damn, my curiosity is piqued now, so without too much expectation of an honest reply, but ever the optimist, I would really appreciate it if you’d answer some questions, Lord of Up.
You claim that you picket to offer help. What tangible help do you offer that will be of real, practical and substantive benefit to women seeking a termination?
In what way do you think women need protecting from clinics, and how will the legislations you seek provide that protection?
How can you picket clinics in an attempt to prevent women from having terminations whilst also lobbying for what you call ‘safer’ clinics for women who choose to terminate? To me, that’s like picketing pubs to steer people away from alcohol whilst trying to legislate for better, safer pubs. Admittedly, you could create pubs that only sold alcohol-free drinks, but that wouldn’t work for clinics; there’s no such thing as a termination-free termination. So how do you manage to be both pro-life and pro-choice?
Finally, are there any reasons a woman might have for wanting a termination that you currently accept as valid and justified, and for which you would not try to dissuade the woman from proceeding?
This is a test post. My email address has been hacked, so I’ve changed it to a new one. This is my first comment under the new address.
Sock it to them, AoS!
AoS: spot on, however his Lordship appears to be a member of the 5 billion deluded that believe in the existence of some “superior” being so do not expect any rational, intelligent or logical replies.
Finally, are there any reasons a woman might have for wanting a termination that you currently accept as valid and justified, and for which you would not try to dissuade the woman from proceeding?
I very much doubt Lor dupe even cares enough about women to even allow them to want anything- all that matters to those sort of minds is calling human cells ‘people’ – so they had best ban vacuum cleaners too – given that most household dust is made of human cells of a similar complexity and mass to recently blastomized zygotes
Your Lordship, you must be living in a bubble to claim “I have NEVER heard Pro-Life activists “advocating the murder of doctors” (even abortionists). ”
Here’s a short quote for you: “In the early 1990s, anti-abortion extremists concluded that murdering providers was the only way to stop abortion. The first provider was murdered in 1993. Including the recent attack in Colorado, there have been 11 murders and 26 attempted murders due to anti-abortion violence. Several of the doctors were attacked in their own homes. In 2009, NAF member Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed in his church in Wichita, Kansas. In 2015, a police officer and two people at a clinic were killed when a gunman entered a clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado.” http://prochoice.org/education-and-advocacy/violence/violence-statistics-and-history/
Do a Google search on anti-abortion violence and then come back and tell me you have never heard of anti-abortionists advocating murder. That kind of shit may sell like a pancake breakfast to your local church group, but out here in the real world we know better.
Here’s just one link from that search. Try calling THIS shit pro-life: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0195salvirally
Oh, and please stop with the pro-life designation. Your crowd is not pro-life. You know by now that more women die from illegal abortions if abortions are banned than are ever at risk in a clinic. You don’t save babies, you kill women. And you don’t give a flying frog about children once they are born. So you are anti-abortion, not pro-life. If anything you are pro-death.
If you detect a tone of contempt in my language here, you are entirely accurate and, in this rare case, quite perceptive.
Oh dear. Now I’ve gone and violated the rules of courtesy we talked about earlier on this thread. This suffering fools gladly thing is not that easy first thing in the morning before the coffee hits my brain. Not when faced with a disingenuous
fuckhead commenter like His Lordship.
Author, I would consider it a kindness if you would delete the last sentence in my little rant above. No need for scatological invective that insults all brown eyed people.
Damn. Of course I meant to strike through only one word, the first in that series of strike throughs. Oh well. Still learning. Failing upward. (Lord of Up ward in this case.)
Ah. Got it. This is just a test
stop with the shit storm, your LordshipSuspect this will do it.
Walter.W – no. We can’t blame BRITISH colonialism for Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Firstly,McSorley mild laws were introduced in India, before Pakistan existed. Why would the British do that? What do you think made that necessary? Luke t be a group of people stirring up shit because they can’t tolerate other religions?
If we Brits had been a proper colonial power like, to pick one entirely at random, Islam, we would have stamped out all local religions in favour of our own. We didn’t. The world would now be much better if we had.
Pakistan was free to set its own laws. It chose to adopt the civil code the British gave India. Then when it considers blasphemy again in the 1980’s it was to make it unrecognisably draconian and tyrannical. Pakistan’s choice. When an elected politician tried to look at it again, he was murdered for it and his assassin had 100,000 supporters at his own funeral. That’s down to Pakistan.
Not on us. Not at all.
Not sure why autocorrect added McSorley there. It was supposed to read ‘fairly’ before anyone hits Wikipedia in a state of confusion.
JoJo, thanks for that bit of history. I’ve stricken Pakistan and Bangladesh off my travel plans. I know there are reasonable atheists in those countries, mostly because I keep hearing about them being slaughtered by fanatics.
Apparently the police response to the latest machete murder in Bangladesh was to investigate the victim to see if he might have said anything to
provokejustify the attack.
Dear DH, that strike out feature is funny, but do you really think it’s a viable way around the politeness rule? When I was a kid we used to cross our fingers behind our back when lying, as if that made lying okay. It worked on other children: if you shouted “had my fingers crossed” when found out, they’d grumble but let it go. Adults… not so much. ^_^
in light of events:
has to be repeated
Darwin, I’ve found that the easiest way to keep relatively calm when dealing with Lordy and his ilk is to imagine I’m talking to a child with no understanding of the toxicity of its views because they’re all it’s ever been taught.
Realistically, age aside that is what we’re dealing with a lot of the time.
FreeFox, I cannot tell a lie. My wife can, though; usually before I’ve even finished telling it.
Given that events instigated by various nations in the 1930’s and 40’s are no longer blamed on the current generations of those nations – why should Brits still be blamed for ‘Empire’ stuff that occurred up to a century earlier
If we are really going to blame current generations for misbehaviour of ancestors – when is Sauded Allahrabidia going to pay Africans full compensation for the transatlantic black slave trade- which WAS down to islam / the quran
How predictable the 13-point wish-list proposed by the self-anointed Lord of something-or-other as reasons for liberal opprobrium toward conservatives.
Any bets this pig-ignorant tosser supports the death penalty for trans-genders, gets his jollies by shooting defenceless, furry animals and thinks minimum wage shouldn’t apply to latinos and afro-americans?
JoJo, I’m not sure things would be much better had Christianity been imposed by the British. Murderous bastards are murderous bastards, and there’s nothing in the Koran that can’t be found in the O.T. The only real difference would be the name of the deity they pray to and kill for.
It wasn’t all that long ago that Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in vast numbers across Europe, or that ‘Thou shalt not permit a witch to live’ was the motivation for thousands of murders of innocents (and still is in parts of Africa). The most rabid of the American Christian right make no secret of their desire for a theocracy: should they get their wish, the U.S.A. would make Saudi Arabia look like a liberal Paradise in comparison, and even scarier is the idea that they’d also have control of enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth many times over.
No, it doesn’t matter which religion holds sway, once the zealots have the opportunity to enforce their religion they don’t hold back.
WTF moment of the day: according to the advert I saw earlier, McDonalds now sell organic milk and water!
As opposed to that nasty water grown using artificial fertilisers, I suppose? What’s next? Free range fries maybe?
organic milk and water!
Let any “purple trouser” try and explain that to a chemist!
An organic compound originally was any compound from any (living or deceased) living organism, but since the first synthesis of urea any compound containing carbon (with the exclusion of the oxides and the metal carbonates). Even when the water stems from decaying organic stuff, or is a breakdown product of organic compounds, it is mineralised, ie, de-organicised.
But perhaps they mean “from an organic source” Well I personally can make that myself, all the more so after some pints of good beer.
Maybe that description should be added to the menu discription!
AoS: maybe the ad should have read “water and organic milk”, ho hum another nail in the coffin of standards. The laundry liquid that I buy proudly exclaims “With stain removers !”
In the last frame Mo says “and you can’t kill someone nonviolently”. This ignores the idea that if you are able to just leave someone alone ,they will eventually die of something (i.e., old age) which could be considered to be a nonviolent death.
grumpy, McD’s have always sold water. It wasn’t a case of poor grammar, just bullshit advertising to make them sound as though they are a health food outlet concerned with our well-being.
It’s an idea they stole from the tobacco industry. I still remember the classic “Smoke Craven A. They’re Good For Your Throat”.
Jerry, letting nature take its toll isn’t really the same as killing them, though, and not nearly so satisfying as the personal touch that Allah’s assassins take so much pleasure in.
McD’s and Islam: partners in population control. I knew those golden arches were fucking sinister. 🙂
“McD’s and Islam: partners in population control. I knew those golden arches were fucking sinister. ”
Well, it appears that Lord of Up can’t handle a rational debate.
The optimist in me says that he’s spending some time examining his prejudices in light of what he’s been told here.
The realist thinks his head exploded when our liberal ideas collided head-on with his right-wing bile.
As Jack Nicholson said, ‘You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth’!
Jo Jo, Whatever the motive of the British Raj, before independence and partition, (and you may well be correct that it was enacted to tackle internecine sectarian tendencies) that is the origin of the progenitor of the blasphemy laws that are unique to current Pakistan and haunting the entire population one way or another.
However, my main point was to have a wee dig at regressive apologists, who do blame colonialism for fundamentalist woes, but there dont seem to be many in the Cock ‘n’ Bull.
AoS, While the delivery we all remember was indubitably Jack Nicholson i think it is only fair to attribute that immortal line to Aaron Sorkin.
@Darwin Harmless, I’m very sorry. I didn’t mean to anger you so. I certainly did not want or mean to incite you. I was simply trying to calmly address points you made.
My statement that I have never heard pro-life activists advocating for the murder of doctors means just that. I *know* that some anti-abortion extremists have said that murdering abortionists is the only way to stop them, but they are an *extremely* small minority and I have never seen one *personally*. As for “living in a bubble”, one of the links you gave me says that “The first provider was murdered in 1993. Including the recent attack in Colorado, there have been 11 murders and 26 attempted murders due to anti-abortion violence.” That’s 37 incidents in the US in the 43 years since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton legalized abortion. Many of these incidents were committed by a single individual, so an estimate of these “anti-abortion extremists” would be less than 100 people. In comparison, the annual March For Life in Washington DC (Which I’ve attended many years) drew an estimated 800,000 people in 2015. And that’s just one year’s attendance. So even if all 100 abortion extremists in the 43 years since Roe v Wade were there, they’d only be 0.0125% of the people there. So definitely not a majority or even a decently sized minority.
Many abortion activists talk about anti-abortion extremist violence, imply or say that *all* pro-life activists are anti-abortion extremists, and say that anti-abortion extremist violence is more common and/or worse than Islamic terrorism. And while there have been 11 people murdered the last 43 years by anti-abortion extremists in the US, approximately 3,307 Americans have been killed by the Muslim Brotherhood on US soil over those same 43 years (3,808 since 1972). That’s 346.18 times as many, while only having an estimated 500,000 members in 2015 . If each Muslim Brotherhood only involved one person, that’s still 0.7616%, a ratio 609% higher than Pro-life activists. So *definitely* not worse.
You say that ” Your crowd is not pro-life”, as though ALL pro-life activists are really anti-abortion extremist calling for the cold-blooded slaughter of anyone performing abortion, an unfounded assertion and accusation. I could just as easily say that abortion activists, including you, are extreme racists because of Margaret Sanger’s views in favor of eugenics. Her writings say that “[African Americans] are a part of a spawning class who should have never been born; and are human weeds to be exterminated.” But note that I’m *NOT* saying that. Instead I’m trying to debate with you using facts.
For example, you assert without proof that I “know by now that more women die from illegal abortions if abortions are banned than are ever at risk in a clinic.” If that’s true, then why do studies show that the maternal mortality rates are *BETTER* in places with more Pro-Life laws in place? The Pro-Life pregnancy centers I mentioned help pregnant women AND new mothers. The overwhelming majority of protests are nonviolent protests through civil disobedience like what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (also a Pro-Lifer) taught. An example of this is how many of the examples listed in your second link are not examples of “murdering [abortion] providers”, but nonviolent civil disobedience. For example, “1986: ’Operation Rescue’ Formed in New York”. Yes, it says that “hundreds of activists [were] arrested”, but no mention of violence. And when there has been violence, it has often been committed by clinic employees and escorts.
What the Hell does the Muslim Brotherhood have to do with pro-life murderers? You’re comparing apples and bricks. I expected better than the distraction tactics of a six year old.
“Billy, have you been eating chocolate before dinner?”
“Luke said a rude word, Mummy”.
I notice you’re continuing to evade my questions.
The Lord of up is engaging in a well known distraction technique.
As for taking your facts from politicalvelcraft.org
Acolyte of Sagan, with the greatest of respect I don’t care *WHAT* you think about me. Abortion activists tell me all the time that “abortion is just a safe, legal medical procedure”. If that’s so, why do abortion clinics not have to follow safety standrds that any other outpatient surgery facility has to? And the CDC collects data on medical injuries and deaths caused by all doctors EXCEPT abortionists, who instead are allowed to self-report any medical injuries or deaths that they can’t cover up. If there are complications during or after the abortion, most abortionists simply direct their patients to the ER of a nearby hospital. The abortionist is *RARELY* if ever, officially acknowledged as the cause of the complications that led to their patient’s condition. This creates the (false) impression that legal abortions have a spotless record. Pro-life legislation simply asks abortion to meet the requirements of every other kind of health care.
No medical procedure is 100% safe; people die during tonsillectomies but you’re not campaigning to force people to keep their tonsils.
OK. I find your comment about about women experiencing complications being sent to ER a bit strange. Where else would they be sent? I actually agree with you that there should be qualified trauma personell on the premises in case of emergency, but we both know that most clinics simply cannot afford to do so. However, it makes far more sense to me to have the clinics actually in hospitals, and I would support you fully if you were campaigning for something along those lines; that would be offering better protection for women than the status quo.
But that isn’t what you want, is it? A nice, easy fix that would allow women to obtain the services they need in comfort, safety and anonymity? Which is why the legislation you seek is unrealistic. Keep the clinics separate from hospitals; keep them underfunded; impose standards in excess of those required for hospitals, which you know they can’t afford.
And the real kicker? Your legislation would require each clinic to employ at least one doctor with admitting privileges to its nearest ER hospital, which realistically means a doctor, surgeon or consultant working at or affiliated with that hospital. Excellent idea in a country where that hospital is as likely as not to be a Catholic (or other anti-abortion sect) hospital.
You plead concern for the women, but all you want is to put up obstacle after obstacle to prevent them getting access to procedures that they want, need, and are none of your damn business anyway.
And you still haven’t answered my questions.
–First, I’m sorry I got off on a long-winded sequitur about terrorism. I was rebutting an a comparison you never made. I apologize.
–Second, why are the costs of meeting basic safety standards for outpatient surgery facilities being considered prohibitive *only* in the case of abortion clinics? Yes, no medical procedure is 100% safe (including abortions). For instance, “Taking these conservative estimates at face value and using the latest abortion statistics from Guttmacher Institute (for 2011), that would mean, across the U.S., 26,500 women experienced complications and approximately 3180 women required post-abortion hospitalization in 2011”. This is why we have laws inquiring informed consent for all medical operations (except abortion) and safety standards for all medical facilities to protect patients. If abortions are “just basic, legal healthcare” then facilities that perform abortions should have to meet the same standards of any other outpatient surgery facility. Many abortion clinics, including the one suing the State of Texas to overturn its laws, have a history of not meeting the standards in place before the law was passed. “Thanks to a ‘zone of privacy’ established by the courts, clinics can hide any information damaging to their trade. Hence, the only information available on abortion complications is that which is voluntarily reported by the clinics. Nonetheless, abortion is not safe–not because just we question its safety, but because abortion advocates question its safety.”
–Third, It’s not just Pro-life activists who think this: 32 American medical societies in all signed a statement agreeing that “Physicians performing office-based surgery must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, a transfer agreement with another physician who has admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, or maintain an emergency transfer agreement with a nearby hospital.”
–Fourth, you keep talking about how society should “allow women to obtain the services they need in comfort, safety and anonymity”. But most abortions are elective. Pro-lifers, including the The National Right to Life Committee “consistently [have] maintained that while abortion should be banned, there should be exceptions if an abortion is needed to save a woman’s life”. But the vast majority of abortions are elective. Using the Guttmacher Institute’s own data on the reasons why women choose abortion in 2001 only 1% were performed to save the life of the woman. That rises to 3% if you include all women who had an abortion because they had medical problems (not just life-threatening ones). If we include the 1% of women who chose abortion because of rape or incest that totals 4%. So 96% of abortions were elective.
–Fifth, you mentioned the scenario where the nearest ER hospital is run by a pro-life group like the Roman Catholic Church. But just because the hospital doesn’t perform abortions does *NOT* mean that it will turn away patients suffering complications from an abortion. Instead, Catholic hospitals try to care for the mother *and* her child. If the woman’s unborn child has been killed by the abortionist, then they will try to care for the women as much as they can. –Sixth, “a national study of women [showed that] 64% of those who aborted felt pressured to do so by others. This pressure can become violent. 65% suffered symptoms of trauma. In the year following an abortion, suicide rates are 6-7 times higher.” Abortion activists commonly tell pro-life supporters “If you don’t like abortions, then just don’t get one”. just recently, though, “pro-choice” abortion activists in the ACLU filed a lawsuit to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Fortunately, it lost. Other people are trying to force the government to subsidize all abortions (including elective ones).
–In summary, you assume you can read my mind when you say “You plead concern for the women, but all you want is to put up obstacle after obstacle to prevent them getting access to procedures that they want, need, and are none of your damn business anyway”. A lot of abortion activists do likewise: say that anti-abortion activists aren’t REALLY out to save lives, that we secretly know abortions are safe, and are just trying to wage a “war on women”. But this is an Appeal to Motive a subtle version of an Ad Hominem attack. In contrast, though I disagree with you over the morality of abortion and the legality of laws regulating the safety of clinics, I’m trying hard not to make assumptions about you and your intentions/motivations. I’m not saying that you support abortion because you hate girls and minorities, even though abortion disproportionately kills unborn baby girls and minorities. As long as people are still trying to “terminate” *innocent, living human beings* before they are born, I will try to stop that.
 Mimi Hall, “Even When a Life Saved, Abortion a Divisive Issue,” USA Today, 26 July 1991, 2A
 Guttmacher Institute, “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States”, August 2011, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html Last accessed November 12, 2012
Oh, and Acolyte of Sagan?
When you mention hospitals being run by “Catholic[s] (or [an]other anti-abortion sect)”, what about Secular Pro-Life activists?
Example 1: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/12/check-your-born-privilege.html
Or the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians?
Or are you trying to insinuate that we Pro-Lifers only don’t like abortion because many of us are religious believers? Then what about Cristopher Hitchens? He said that “As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body.”
Finally, here’s a link to a reasoned, scientific, and secular argument against abortion:
Firstly, I tend to do my own thinking; what Hitchens or some humble libertarian have to say are their opinions, not mine or those of liberals as a whole.
Secondly, I don’t deny that not all pro-lifers are religious -though the majority of those picketing clinics certainly appear to be – but pro-life doesn’t automacally mean anti-choice, and the few non-religious pro-lifers I know personally accept that the choice isn’t theirs to make; they only want control of their own bodies, not anybody else’s. I don’t know any pro-life, nonreligious right wingers but I’d hazard a guess that their opinions would tally more with yours than mine.
And besides, the secular hospitals are a different beast because they cannot claim religious exemptions from providing services, so whilst the termination process is legal they have no grounds to refuse to supply it. That’s the beauty of secularism, one’s own ethics count for shit, and not liking something is not sufficient grounds for not doing it. That’s why, were I an ER doctor I would treat all who came through my doors equally, regardless of their politics, religion, race, colour, sex, etc. etc. I would be compelled to treat the wife beater as well as the wife: the jihadists as well as his victims. How I felt about it matters not one iota, I would have to swallow my anger or revulsion and do my job.
That’s secularism for you, treat all the same regardless.
And you haven’t picked up on the fact that you have no idea whether I am pro-life or not, simply that I am pro freedom of choice.
Finally, I can only argue with the person in front of me, and I’m sure that religion influences your thinking on these matters.
So, now we know where we stand, how about those questions of mine?
I’m sorry, but I’m not sure which questions you would like me to answer. Most of the questions in your posts so far seemed rhetorical to me. As for questions from your first post:
“Lord of Up (up where? If it’s where I’m thinking I admire your flexibility), just to take one example from your list, you do realise [sic] that teaching children the beliefs and morals of their parents, and denying them access to alternative ideas, is what creates extremists of all stripes?”
I NEVER advocated “denying them access to alternative ideas”. I was pointing out how many liberals *PRESUME* that government union teachers, community organizers, and themselves know children should be raised and what they should be taught better than the children’s parents do. And you DO realize that what many liberal parents do is teach children their *liberal* beliefs and morals, while trying to deny them access to alternative (e.g. *Conservative*) ideas? he ones who are preaching tolerance while refusing to tolerate different ideas, especially Conservative ones?
“Do your thoughts on education only extend as far as those who share your ideology or do you think that atheist or liberal parents should be allowed to deny their children access to knowledge and ideas about religion as you would deny yours access to progressive ideas?”
No I *DON’T “think that atheist or liberal parents should be allowed to deny their children access to knowledge and ideas about religion” because I’m NOT trying to deny my kids “access to [liberal] ideas”. I believe there should be a free marketplace of ideas.
“What about those parents who would teach their kids violent or racist ideologies, or those whose moral values promote incest and child abuse? Wouldn’t you want their children to know that there are alternative ways of seeing the world?”
Yes, the children being taught violent or racist ideologies by their parent(s) should be taught that there are alternative ways of seeing the world. For example, kids with parents in the Black Lives Matters movement should be shown most people in society think that hating the police, violently antagonizing them, and breaking the law are all very poor choices and why. Again, I believe there should be a free marketplace of ideas. That goes for all. Schools shouldn’t *assume* that all conservatives ideas/beliefs are hateful and all liberal ideas/beliefs are “progress”.
“The only reason people like you are terrified of your children being exposed to progressive ideas is that you know full well that your own regressive views will not survive comparison. If you were confident that your beliefs and morals had any real merit you would have no problem with letting the next generation see the alternatives and allowing them to make their own minds up.”
Untrue. I entered my undergraduate college as a liberal (a socialist, even). I changed because I looked at what liberals and saw a lot of greed, saw a lot of ideas which didn’t work (or made things worse), and a great deal of ignorance. I found among Conservatives people who wanted what I did, but had alternatives that I judged as better.
“This liberal believes that our children should have a full and rounded education; anything less is failing them.”
I do too. And I think that schools which host many liberal activists as coundelors/speakers and have a College Democrats club while rejecting conservative speakers/counselors and disallowing a Young Americans for Liberty club is indoctrination,*NOT* a “full and rounded education”.
“I was never afraid that the values I taught my children would vanish like a fart in the wind when exposed to alternatives. Can you say the same?”
HAHAHAAHA….. Best comic that i had ever read. Please share the more collection if you have……