January 15th, 2007
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
More objective insight and excellent double irony.
A Christian (supposedly on Sunday professing not to prejudge others) rejects someone in need, possibly because of suspected homosexuality or possibly because of the fact that they just don’t look like normal people.
And, Jesus assumes that someone displaying their belief in Christianity must necessarily be honest (George W. Bush disproves this almost on a daily bases).
A third irony may be gleaned if one thinks about Mo’s victim mentality, then applies the same mentality to the far Christian right in their total misunderstanding of the Separation Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Maybe she just doesn’t like men with beards. It’s a common enough phobia. (A friend of mine says, “Never trust a men with beards, they’ve got something to hide.” He has a point.)
Hobbes, I’ve never thought of the Christian Right having a specificaly “victim” complex about the First Amendment. But they certainly do misunderstand it, frequently misinterpreting it to justify priveleges they see as constitutional rights. Even using it in zoning and planning disputes with local government. “Not allowing us to build a church here is a breach of our first amendment rights to freedom of religion wwaaaaahhh…” They even have a saying, “The First Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.”
It seems that this strip has a more UK slant than USA. The readers in the US may be unaware that a ‘Christian’ coalition in the House of Lords (our second chamber) recently tried to amend anti-discrimination legislation so as to allow Christians (and others of belief) to be allowed to actively deny services to homosexuals , e.g. hotel rooms or the hiring of church halls, simply on the basis of the sexuality of the person concerned. The proposed amendment would have allowed them a defence on the grounds that providing services to homosexuals would be contrary to their religious beliefs. Fortunately this amendment was roundly defeated in the House of Lords. The Christians were in fact arguing for a clause to allow them to be bigoted, this strip demonstrates the irony that this would, on the face of it at least, appear to be an unchristian thing to do. However Christian charity does not seem to extend to those of whom they disapprove.
Tao, you’re correct about suspicious beard, and no doubt there could be other phobias as well, but it isn’t supposed to be in the Christian’s belief system to prejudge (“judge not that ye be judged”).
Anyhoo, it is the very sort of thing you mention that demonstrates the Christian Right’s victim mentality. As you said, they believe it is their right to build (and display their symbols on government property) when and where ever they want, and if anyone objects, they usually claim that their religious rights are being attacked (the victim mentality).
I often listen to their TV preachers’ broadcasts whenever I can’t get Jon Stewart. What can I say? I like humor. The “War on Christmas” was the latest aspect of the “Left’s” attack, according to right-wing talking heads and TV preachers.
“We’re victims!” they imply. “Send me money to fight the Godless Liberals.” It’s an almost constant theme (scheme) to enable them to pick the pockets of the pious pigeons. And, whattayaknow? Works every time.
Jiffy, thanks for enlightening me about the House of Lords fundamentalist problem.
Concerning denying services to homosexuals, I had an interesting experience with the office of an apartment complex from whom I once rented. While chatting one day with an office person, I asked, out of curiosity, if they allow unmarried couples to rent the same apartment. She answered emphatically, “No, certainly not!” I then asked if they allow two people of the same gender to rent an apartment, and she said they did. I asked her then, “aren’t you promoting homosexuality?”
She appeared shocked at the question, and said, “I hadn’t thought of that.”
I left, thinking I should never have asked that question. Color me pissed–at myself!
Hobbes, I have no id3ea what you’ve saying.
Jiffy, thats extremely enteresting. I intendd to read it when I’m sober.
All of you… CAERRRY ON!!!~
I recognise the allusion to the anti-discrimination battle in the UK, but I don’t get the final punchline. Can anyone elucidate?
Jiffy, many thanks for the explanation. I’m British and wasn’t aware of that angle. (I have excuses, honest.)
Hobbes, I see what you mean there. Isn’t it the lowest form of beligerent skulduggery when the villain, sensing defeat, pleads for mercy while surreptitiosly reaching for the nearest weapon.
Drunk, don’t worry. Many of our musings seem to drift from the meaning of the sketch. The alcohol will help.
The final punch line alludes to the fact that Jesus was a Jew. Although at first glance the implication seems to be that Jesus and Mo are turned away on suspicion of homosexuality, Mo’s comment that she was an anti-Semite shifts the reason for denial. What’s more, it was morally allowed for some time in Christianity to treat Jews less well than Christians because they killed Jesus. Thus, even though she would not lie normally because she wears a cross around her neck, she is morally allowed to lie to a Jew because of his ancestors part in the crucifixion.
Drunk, I fail to see how you missed my point, but obviously it wasn’t clear enough. The point was that the apartment complex had a policy of rejecting rental applications from couples of opposite sex who were not married. I felt I erred in asking about same-sex couples, as it may very well have led to the rejection of those as well.
My point applies to the cartoon in that a rental office rejected Jesus and Mo, possibly because of suspected homosexuality, and I found, long ago, that my own rental office did the same as policy.
I think the beauty of this cartoon is that it has several interpretations. Mo could have been wrong in his “victim” mentality and Jesus was certainly naive in believing a Christian wouldn’t tell a lie. And, as Joe points out, the rejection could have been simply a Christian’s distain for Islam.
Drunk, have a drink on me. It’s all rock and roll!
Semites are descendants of Shem, including most arabs and indeed the prophet Mohammed (pbuhn) as well as Jesus.
Pedant is correct.
This is a fact that isn’t widely known in the general public. How often have we heard that criticism of the Jews is anti-Semitic, but the same term isn’t used for criticism of the Arabs.
Sorry guys, etymology is not meaning. Although semite refers to speakers of a language group, in reality anti-semitism is exclusively hostility to Jews and the expression has never been used any other way since its first appearance in the mid nineteenth century.
Hobbes, given Mr Bush’s indifference to reality, is the honesty~dishonesty axis really applicable to him?
I would be aware of them too: two beared men, with old fashioned poor clothes, one of them with a crazy head piercing and long bad treated hair, the other with a suspicious headwear…
Police must be looking for them, for sure!!!
for those of you using the judge not that ye be not judged, youre taking it out of context. its actually judge not that ye be not judged likewise (or in a likewise manner depending on your translation), thus freeing you to be as judgmental as you want as long as you’re fine with that type of judgement being applied to you. also im an athiest so meh whatev, its just one of my pet peeves when people use half of that saying
Alex, the quote, like many parts of the many books of Abram’s cults, is poorly understood because the punctuation is missing.
“Judge, not that ye be judged.“.
It is recommending that the faithful judge the aliens while reassuring the True Believers that they are not subject to the judgement of others.
“Be a bigot, but know that I have your back against the bigotry of foreigners.”
It’s permission, not prevention.