└ Tags: ,

Discussion (25)¬

  1. Duchessa says:

    He does look a little bit like Disney’s Grumpy.

  2. r00db00y says:

    Anyone else find it odd that Jesus is agreeing with the barmaid?
    And in the last cartoon he assumed the role of the barmaid.
    Are we now to assume that The Author has taken up Christianity?

  3. flyingchap says:

    No, not really – he hasn’t ‘assumed the role of the barmaid’ – he’s just offering some more examples alongside hers, of what a negative conception ‘unchanging’ can be in the light of Mo explaining that Islam was the unchanging law of his ‘god’.

    He loves to take the pi** out of Mo as Mo does out of him, they are always chiding each other.

    Author – love this series, congratulations on a fine contribution to open thought. I almost fear to tell people about this strip (though I often do) in case some militant nutter discovers it and gets it taken down..

  4. Jerry w says:

    Maybe Jesus just wants the barmaid on his tab?

    Sometimes the most hormonal answer is the correct one.

    Jerry w

  5. Observer says:

    Christians are amazingly, umm, flexible about what constitutes g-d’s law. Across denominations that is…

  6. Poor Richard says:

    None of the above. Jesus is just being Christian. Our two heroes here may be bedfellows, but out in Unreal Life, the debate is seldom so congenial.

  7. falterer says:

    “As the world moves, on, islam tries in vain to drag it back to the Ï€th century.”

    Hehe… I misread.

  8. Peter L says:

    To the author. Your comment several issues ago about the “violent over-reaction of Muslims to any perceived slight” is spot on. I would love to send your strip to my daughter living in Qatar, but that would put her life in danger.
    Peter (Australia)

  9. Poor Richard says:

    Falterer: pi to the H is, I think, the formula for calculating the coordinates for any part of the Flat Earth occupied by us Infidels. Islam makes no distinction between 7th and 21st centuries, of course.

    Of all forms of discourse, why is it that only religions want to kill our bodies and souls if we don’t believe their weird claims? Physics and Biology are weird, also, but I never was threatened with death or hell for not believing everything
    scientists come up with. I trust systems that invite skepticism. Politics, of course, is as bad as religion; so is what we call “common knowledge.”

    But it’s all so much fun. As the executioner said to the jester just before swinging the axe, “The king thought your satire was really funny.”

    And as Destitute Dick likes to say, “If ‘everybody’ believes it, it’s certain to be wrong.”

  10. ticticboom says:

    @ PR:

    Of all forms of discourse, why is it that only religions want to kill our bodies and souls if we don’t believe their weird claims?

    You’ve obviously never talked with someone who drank the AGW kool-aid.

  11. Hobbes says:

    I suppose everyone here has been keeping abreast of the latest U.N. flap ( fostered by the Organization of the Islamic Conference?

    Seems the organization is pushing for the U.N. to silence the rest of the world on issues that might be offensive to them.

    The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty ( has published an excellent analysis.

  12. Hobbes says:

    Hmmm, didn’t post very well. Probably shouldn’t have put URLs in parentheses.

  13. Hey barmaid, don’t forget to say about ‘unchanging’ meaning that all those sexist old laws don’t change. Don’t neglect the opportunity.

  14. Rob says:

    AGW people dont usually want to kill you for your non-belief but they can get a bit sanctimonious. Religions dont have a monopoly on killing those who differ though- communism springs to mind. And there were righs in Paris in th 12th century between metaphysical realists and nominalists. It is much easier just to dispose of dissent.
    “An angry dwarf shaking its fists at modernity”. I want to use that line in a stand up act. Priceless! Keep it up author.

  15. Truth is unchanging, by definition. It wouldn’t have been true today if it couldn’t be true tommorow. Such is the foundation of science, via empiricism. What changes is knowledge. Back in the 7th Century, what was known? Not much. They had the concept of zero. Isn’t that about it? Like the good barmaid says, the world moves on. The unfortunate thing is that good socialising principles are embodied in the teachings of Jesus and, presumably, those of Mo, in amongst all the dogma. I’ve always thought there’s not much wrong with Christianity, just Christians. And maybe the same could be said about Mo and his lot.

  16. carolita says:

    Well., the same could be said for fundamentalist X-tians, you know.
    (X-tian being the medievalist abbreviation for Christians, which I miss using).

    You know what’s funny about people who think other people will go to hell for not believing? They do often seem pretty pleased about it! If there is a God, those people will go to Hell for that!
    Not that I”d be pleased about it, the poor slobs.

  17. VanDerVal says:

    The more things change, the more they remain the same. Perhaps Mo is jsut trying to save us some time? Uh… I don’t like the sound of that.

  18. […] Jesus and Mo discuss apples and onions (dig their choice of bedtime reading) and things that don’t change… […]

  19. Hobbes says:

    Boiling intolerance down to its roots, do we not find fundamentalism—the inability and/or unwillingness to reassess old ideas, and change with the advent of new evidence and ideas? Many believers have done this, but the fundamentalists simply refuse. Thus, it is not religion in general that is the problem, but fundamentalism (which, I suppose, can be religious and/or political).

    I don’t think there will ever be a solution until the progressive believers/nations move against fundamentalism with aggressive economic benevolence, even in the face of violence.

    Ya ain’t gonna do it with bombs!

  20. Poor Richard says:

    Hobbes et al:

    As Ragged Rick always says, “The devil does exist literally, after all — who else could have thought up fundamentalism?”

  21. ticticboom says:


    There’s only one way to stop someone who wants to kill you so badly that he’ll die to do it.

    And it ain’t with ‘aggressive economic benevolence.’

    Chamberlain and Carter tried that. The results were…suboptimal.

  22. JohnnieCanuck says:

    So the best way to protect oneself from those who would kill is to kill them first? What does that make you? And now that others know you are a willing killer, what should they do about it to protect themselves?

    Amazing thing, the circle of violence. Once it starts, it is hard to make it end.

  23. Hobbes says:

    Aggressive economic benevolence has never been a sustained policy of any nation long enough to make significant changes within those nations fostering terrorism.

    But, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it would be a total cure, but I think if wealthier nations concentrated on eliminating deep poverty, and sustain it for decades, it would go a long way toward drying up the recruiting base for the radical right in any nation.

    The cost of a fighter jet would buy a lot of tractors, fishing equipment, education, etc.

    It’s so unfortunate that the US has now become just like nations we used to fight (domestic spying, torture, fear mongering, politization of all governmental departments, preemptive war, etc).

  24. ayashi says:

    I don’t know what it makes you, but at least you’re still alive to find out!

    I also disagree with the concept that killing to protect your own life makes you a “killer”. That’s just putting the blame on the victing.

  25. Ben 2 says:

    Concerning what Jesus is saying here, Christianity admits to having changed, up ro a point, from mosaic law. They don’t claim that they’ve got exactly the same thing as was given to Adam (Qur’an claim as I understand it).


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.