European cartoonist on a rampage! Gods derided!


I had no idea cartoonists wielded such vast power. First it was the Danish cartoons that outraged the Muslim community, and now an Austrian named Manfred Deix has drawn the ire of the Catholics: the Viennese archdiocese has ‘tattled’ on him to the public prosecutor for violating the National Socialist Prohibition Act and for degrading religion (it’s in German; there is a horrible Google translation).

He has mocked the EU’s ban on crucifixes in the classroom with a cartoon that argues that the “ban shall be deftly circumvented,” and which includes a “multicultural compromise” — Jesus on a cross with a crescent and a Buddha on it, wearing robes with both the hammer and sickle and the swastika on them.

i-d7163f5dccdfe6def4535ae851aa73a1-Deix1.jpeg

The top right example is familiar — that’s a typical American classroom, I think.

Another one that has spurred Catholic outrage is a cartoon that speculated about just what this god we’re supposed to worship looks like, and asks, “we know the church, but just who is god?” (nudity and some scatological content in portraits of the deity…click at your own peril).

How odd that people would react with such anger at depictions of what the earnest apologists for religion are always telling us is just a metaphor. If their god really is the grand creator and maintainer of the entire universe, reducing him to a sketch in a magazine is really no more degrading than reducing him to, say, a set of stained glass windows, a liturgy, and a holy book. If he really is a cosmic being who loves everyone, I should think he’d love a cynical cartoonist as much as he does a pope. Or are they going to declare certain renditions of the deity privileged, while others are proscribed? How will they determine which vision of god are true and accurate, and therefore protected by secular law?

For more thought on these kinds of issues, read Greta Christina’s article on the great metaphor myth of religion. If religion really were an abstraction, a metaphor, a personal sentiment about a universal divinity, we’d expect a certain kind of response to satire, art, and opinion about this god-creature…and it’s not the reaction we see. The Austrian Catholic church seems to have a fairly specific idea about what kind of portrait of god you are allowed to paint — I wonder where they get their specific details?

Comments

  1. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    If god is omnipotent, omniscient, and various other omnis, then it should be able to take care of itself. It didn’t seem to have any problem with smiting thousands of years ago. When Elisa got snarked at for being bald, god whistled up a couple of bears to do some general mauling. Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt just for looking in the wrong direction.

    It seems to me that god should be able to take care of itself. The Catholic Church should worry about child raping priests and let god deal with blasphemy.

  2. Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM says

    ‘Tis. that is why the Marine punches the professor. God’s away on business.

  3. says

    If religion really were an abstraction, a metaphor, a personal sentiment about a universal divinity, we’d expect a certain kind of response to satire, art, and opinion about this god-creature…and it’s not the reaction we see.

    Those are exactly my thoughts. The apologists want to have their cake and eat it too (excuse the use of my least favorite idiomatic proverb). They know gØd’s wishes when it suits them, but when their own words come back and bite them in the ass (or arse for you P-Zed fans), then gØd is “unknowable”. BULLSHIT I say!!!

  4. F says

    …reducing him to, say, a set of stained glass windows, a liturgy, and a holy book.

    What about reducing god to bird shit on a car, or burn marks in toast, or rust on a fuel tank, or dirty towels, or the surface of a potato…

  5. https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnb-E55g7vrnvH-3L1M6d7QuDYWoM_IDEM says

    Of course, this is how the toxic meme evolved in order to protect itself from extinction.
    Its main defense has been to shield itself from both analysis & criticism, which it cannot so do on logical grounds, and therefore must so do by applications of tribal force, both physical and emotional.
    Once this taboo is breached, the meme cannot survive, and must rapidly mutate in order to so do.
    In other words, the defensive mechanism of “denying scrutiny via force” is so embedded in beliefs that it takes a lot of courage on behalf of the host to gain immunity.
    In the case of the islam mind-virus, even more so, as this pathogen’s investment in the ‘no questioning’ strategy is 99% of the success of this meme.

  6. notedscholar says

    Interesting. If you ask me, religionists should be happy when cartoonists publicize their worldviews like this.

    In any case, this incident is proof that the Christianists are more peaceful than the Muhammedians.

    Cheers,
    NS

  7. Nerd of Redhead, OM says

    In any case, this incident is proof that the Christianists are more peaceful than the Muhammedians.

    About as right as you always are. Which is normally wrong. Which is why you are neither noted nor a scholar.

  8. SEF says

    The cartoonist is merely displaying some of those oddities whom Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) doesn’t want to have associated with his religion.

    Ideally, schools should be keeping an eye out for any signs that any children are being indoctrinated into any form of religious nuttery or similar magical thinking, so they can educate them out of it. But these religionists always think it’s just someone/everyone else’s religion which is the dangerous or stupid one.

  9. felixthecat says

    “About as right as you always are. Which is normally wrong. Which is why you are neither noted nor a scholar.”

    Actually, he is right. I know, I know, it is politically incorrect to suggest that one religion might be more prone to violence than another, but of the 15,000 terroristic events since 9/11, something like 99.999% have been carried out in the name of Islam. Of course, Christianity has committed centuries of horrors, but they pale in comparison to the endless onslaught that Islam has imposed upon the world.

    As for the Danish cartoons, the Western press is responsible for a lot of the subsequent violence. Through cowardice, or perhaps just more lockstep PC, they refused to run the cartoons. The Danish imams were able therefore to freely disseminate in the Muslim world cartoons that were not a part of the “contest”, and had been created to maximize outrage and the predictable violence that would follow.

  10. sqlrob says

    I know, I know, it is politically incorrect to suggest that one religion might be more prone to violence than another, but of the 15,000 terroristic events since 9/11, something like 99.999% have been carried out in the name of Islam.

    I’m sure that gives Dr. Tillman great solace.

  11. ckitching says

    In any case, this incident is proof that the Christianists are more peaceful than the Muhammedians.

    One would hope that your standards would be higher than that.

  12. David Marjanović says

    Ha, Deix. Predictable. B-)

    In any case, this incident is proof that the Christianists are more peaceful than the Muhammedians.

    I’d rather say it shows that Roman Catholicism is used to working in and under a state, as opposed to on top of it or with the state as part of it. Cardinal Schönborn further comes from a noble family…

    Most importantly, the church feels offended but not threatened. Most Austrians are Roman Catholics.

  13. Pyrrhonic says

    Apparently typepad doesn’t like Pharyngula today.

    Anyway, here’s a pretty faithful translation of the article. I don’t want to do my own work.

    ***

    Do the Deix caricatures violate the ban on National-Socialism? At least a few deacons of the Archdiocese of Vienna think so, and have, therefore, sent a formal complaint [sachverhaltdarstellung] to the district attorney of Vienna. Furthermore, they believe that the cartoons, which appeared in NEWS, belittle religious doctrine. The dry reaction of the artist: “I don’t have to comment on such nonsense”.

    The Deix-caricatures on the theme “God” (November 12th) and “Crucifix” (November 19th), according to the letter from the Archdiocese, on one hand, violate the ban on National Socialism and on the other, belittle religious doctrine.

    To the first accusation, Manfred Deix responds: “I don’t have to comment on such nonsense. Anyone who knows my work and my history knows on which side I stand.” To the second accusation of religious-belittling, the artist demands, “the ladies and gentlemen have to prove to me that God doesn’t or hasn’t looked like that. I’ve only speculated.”

    At the end of his reaction to the formal complaint, Deix goes on the counteroffensive: “apparently a few of the members of the official Catholic church are going down the same path that radical Muslims have gone down before them and are now hounding caricaturists…”

  14. Dust says

    They sure are sensitive about those cartoons, I mean not one, not even one depicted their god as a GOAT ON FIRE.

    So whats the problem?

  15. Pyrrhonic says

    It’s an interesting legal problem for Austria, I’m sure. Now, I do not know the law, but I do know that a few years ago there was a case in Germany where anti-nazi protesters were arrested under similar laws against national-socialism. Their offense: images of swastikas under the no-smoking symbol. Clearly, the symbols were not in support of national-socialism, but the laws, as I have been told, ban any and all use of the swastika. Hence, in my two years in Germany, I was unable to purchase Wonder Woman comics on occasion because the American artists had used Nazi imagery (Wonder Woman fought and fights Nazis, like many of the characters created at that time).

    The caption of the cartoon with the swastike reads: “proposed design for a multi-cultural crucifix compromise”. The multi-cultural cross is one way, according to the cartoon, that christians will try to impose their religious beliefs. If they accomodate everyone, then it can’t possibly offend everyone. It’s a nice critique because, at one level, it shows how watering down Christianity is still tacit support for Christianity. The archdiocese is welcome to be offended, but Deix is right. It’s like the suggestion that we teach the bible because it provides a moral foundation and is not just a religion. Absurd!

    But the real question for the Austrian courts, depending on how the law is written, is one of freedom of expression. Does a swastika always mean that someone supports national-socialism? Obviously not. Can one legitimately ban any and all swastika use?

    The Germans and the Austrians tip-toe around this issue, and it continues to cause problems for them. I doubt that this letter will make any real difference, but if they find against Deix, it will once again show just how unwilling they are to support freedom of expression regardless of the potential problems.

  16. Alverant says

    felixthecat “I know, it is politically incorrect to suggest that one religion might be more prone to violence than another, but of the 15,000 terroristic events since 9/11, something like 99.999% have been carried out in the name of Islam.”

    Where did you get these numbers and what qualifies as a terroristic event? If media descriptions are any indication, the bar for what’s called an islamic terrorist attack is set so low you could trip over it and the bar for a christian terrorist attack is so high satellites can fly under it. If shouting “Death to those who say islam is violent” is considered terroristic then so is every death threat PZ has received, every time the good old boys beat up a homosexual, and every protester outside a women’s clinic, etc. Actually the death threats against PZ are enough to counter the 99.999% claim.

  17. tt says

    I enjoyed the pictures. I have a painting in my house which depicts jesus on the cross with a naked woman and a child (clothed, and presumably his child) at the foot. Some family find it offensive so I take it down when they come over.

    I wish there were more of these heretical cartoons for other religious icons, such as Mohammed (perhaps Mohammed fucking Jesus in the ass, giving him a blow job or vice versa), Allah and Buddha mediating under a tree while getting oral from a young slave, Joseph Smith and Mary Eddy Baker. or just a group sex scene with all the major religious figures involved. How about depicting the 911 terroists in heaven with their 72 virgins, who are sheep. Boy what a surprise for them.

    Anyway, of course, this is a weak list but someone with a good imagination could come up with some funny and offensive stuff.

  18. tt says

    I just thought of something that would have made Hovind scream with rage. Instead of PZ riding the Triceratops at the Creation Museum, he should have pretended to be fucking her from behind. That would have been hilarious and enraging all at the same time. Put that on the fron of the NYT. PZ this is what i expect from you in future. You really need to learn how to be more offensive. cheers

  19. Butch Pansy says

    It just occurred to me that I haven’t seen anyone being accused of being “shrill” lately. Perhaps goats on fire are shrill in their agony.

  20. ckitching says

    tt, You’re thinking of the wrong creationist ‘museum’. The one with the triceratops that PZ hopped on was Ken Ham’s.

  21. Owlmirror says

    Hence, in my two years in Germany, I was unable to purchase Wonder Woman comics on occasion because the American artists had used Nazi imagery (Wonder Woman fought and fights Nazis, like many of the characters created at that time).

    Huh. No classic Wonder Woman, no classic Captain America, no recent Captain America with the Red Skull disallowed, no classic Batman or … lots of other stuff, no der Fuehrer’s Face (interesting that the first youtube hit for this is in German)…

    Are history books allowed?

  22. Caine says

    Pyrrhonic @ 14:

    To the second accusation of religious-belittling, the artist demands, “the ladies and gentlemen have to prove to me that God doesn’t or hasn’t looked like that. I’ve only speculated.”

    Exactly. “God” hasn’t sat for any official portraits, there are all manner of different images. If god was going to get all pissy over images, I imagine he might have something to say about all those graven images and golden idols Jesuses onna stick everywhere.

  23. tt says

    Oh you are right it is Ham,

    As you can see I really like to use graphically and blatently sexual images, especially of a homosexual or bestial nature. I think most people of any religious brand are deeply offended by even thinking these things, let alone associating them with their favorite religious icon. I also think we should take no prisoners and attack any type of superstitious belief, from judaism, and the big three, to buddhism, hinduism, all the wat down to shamans, voo doo, wiccans, great spirit believers etc whether they are from europe asia africa or nthe americas. Also any kind of non religious cultism, belief in the market, greenspan, ayn rand etc. This could be a lot of fun.

  24. tt says

    Btw, I do realize that greenspan is a fallen idol. Perhaps if we had created images of screwing his dog, like he did the country, much misery could have been averted. Or yes, goats on fire.

  25. tt says

    Btw, I do realize that greenspan is a fallen idol. Perhaps if we had created images of screwing his dog, like he did the country, much misery could have been averted. Or yes, goats on fire.

  26. ursulamajor says

    Apropos to little in this article, my son has renamed our cat Bowie for xmas. The cat’s name is now Baby Jesus, just for the opportunity for my son to yell out the door, “Get your ass in the house, Baby Jesus!”

  27. tt says

    It is interesting that there really is nothing that atheists hold sacred that they would be offended by. So there is no way for them to retaliate in kind. I mean taking an image of darwin and immersing it in urine would not bother me whatsoever. Or showing images of jefferson being anally molested by one of his slaves, I might find it odd, but again doesn’t strike an emtional chord. Can anyone think of anything you might find offensive?

  28. Naked Bunny with a Whip says

    Can anyone think of anything you might find offensive?

    I’ve noticed some people here hold strong feelings toward specific food items.

  29. Pyrrhonic says

    @ #23 Eulenspiegel:

    I have now wasted an hour watching old propaganda cartoons. Thanks for that diversion.

    Captain America and many other things did make it through the German censors. I think that as long as the swastika isn’t on the cover, then it’s fine. This particular issue of Wonder Woman featured an army of Nazis attacking our heroine.

    @ #29 There are no images that would bother me, I suppose, but I get pretty angry when people ban or burn books.

  30. tim Rowledge says

    felixthecat “I know, it is politically incorrect to suggest that one religion might be more prone to violence than another, but of the 15,000 terroristic events since 9/11, something like 99.999% have been carried out in the name of Islam.”
    Hmm, so you’re claiming 1/6th (roughly) of a ‘terroristic event’ was not the result of islamic activity? I’d like to see how that was worked out.

    Don’t you think 2001 is a bit of an arbitrary date anyway? It’s been a while, but I seem to recall quite a lot of very much christian terrorism in the 70’s & 80’s over in Ireland, just for an example. And how about some of the christian church lead violence in Africa of recent times – isn’t that terrorism? There was quite a bit of jewish terrorism during the British Palatinate as I recall. Some quite nasty Hindu terrorism in the recent past, too. And on and on; so I think you might need to revise your assessment of the preponderance of islamic terror. Basically they’re all at it in one form or another.

  31. tt says

    I guess I wasn’t thinking about food, :) we should ban images of peanut butter.

    What if you had a particular grandma who you loved dearly. Perhaps she had been a fighter in the resistance against the nazis. After she died one of he enemies started spreading obscene images of her, including depicting her as a nazi whore. Would you find that offensive? I would, but would I try to ban it, no. Perhaps it is a bad analogy.

  32. tim Rowledge says

    Sigh. Previewing that previous comment made it look ok. Submitting it seems to have buggered some tags. At least the bit I intended to quote is actually a tad smaller than my text.

  33. DRD1812 says

    Can anyone think of anything you might find offensive?

    Defacing an atheist,or any other, really, tombstone at Arlington?

    (Atheist spouse of an atheist soldier.)

  34. Yubal says

    The German supreme court ruled May 16th 1995 that the a clause of the Bavarian school law of 1983 was unconstitutional which stated that in all classrooms there has to be a crucifix or at least a cross displayed.

    The outrage of Christians was enormous, because they did not understand what the court actually ruled. It is not illegal to display crucifixes in public schools, it is illegal not to remove them upon request. Either from pupils who feel offended or parents concerned about negative impacts on the environment their children are educated in.

    In contrast, a lawsuit of an atheistic teacher was settled on August 14th 2008 in Augsburg, Bavaria denying his request to remove crucifixes in all classrooms he was teaching, reasoning that their presence does not burden a major moralistic pressure on him that would prevent him from teaching.

    NB: Bavaria is a predominantly catholic state that has not signed the German Grundgesetz (=constitution), yet.

  35. Aquaria says

    If their god really is the grand creator and maintainer of the entire universe, reducing him to a sketch in a magazine is really no more degrading than reducing him to, say, a set of stained glass windows, a liturgy, and a holy book.

    Or a frackin’ cracker…

  36. aratina cage says

    there really is nothing that atheists hold sacred that they would be offended by… Can anyone think of anything you might find offensive? –tt

    It would seem almost impossible to hold something sacred in the religious sense as an atheist, but I always do find it offensive to thinking itself when a theist spreads its wings and takes off on a flight of fancy about a deity, and it really sets my goat on fire when the theist does this to explain how things should be—evidence be damned—or how people should behave to appease the deity.

    And NPR. NPR really offends me; I see it as a barometer of how far the US has swung to the right politically and how entrenched US Americans are in woo.

  37. tt says

    I find Dinesh d’Silly and Rabbi Shmuzley offensive. I want to see an image of PZ, Dawkins, and Hitchens, gang banging them both, while above them Jesus and yahweh do it doggie style.

    Incidentally here is a little game: Of each of these pairs decide who is the Top and who is the Bottom:

    Kirk-Spock (I think, Spock on top puttin’ it in)
    Shmuley-D’souza
    Darwin-Russell
    Huxley-Wilberforce
    La Haye-Billy Graham
    Cruise-Pitt
    PZ-laden
    Hitchens-Hitchens
    Klingons-Romulans
    Mr Deity-Kirk Cameron
    Hovind-Horse
    Hawkeye-the other guy
    Ham-Miss Piggy
    Starsky-Hutch
    Picard-No 1

    and so on…think of your own couples.

  38. Rorschach says

    Of each of these pairs decide who is the Top and who is the Bottom:

    Oh that sounds like fun !

    Tiger– Mrs Woods
    Sarah Palin–Todd
    ERV–Mooney
    Batman–Catwoman
    Jon Stewart–Ann Coulter
    Bill Maher–gorgeous young scientist chick he hangs out with,forgot her name
    Kevin Rudd–Julia Gillard(for the Aussies)
    and of course :
    SC,OM–Rorschach !!

    ;)

  39. Rorschach says

    Of each of these pairs decide who is the Top and who is the Bottom:

    Oh that sounds like fun !

    Tiger– Mrs Woods
    Sarah Palin–Todd
    ERV–Mooney
    Batman–Catwoman
    Jon Stewart–Ann Coulter
    Bill Maher–gorgeous young scientist chick he hangs out with,forgot her name
    Kevin Rudd–Julia Gillard(for the Aussies)
    and of course :
    SC,OM–Rorschach !!

    ;)

  40. cindyg says

    Is the reference to the “top right” cartoon a secret in-joke for people who understand maths? Because otherwise, what would an American Xian be doing writing an equation on a blackboard? Pretty sure none of them understand any maths.

  41. JeffreyD says

    xtians and other theists (god botherers) do things to themselves that are far more parody than we simple non-theists or a cartoonist can create.

    See Dailykos.com today for the diary Tis the Season by Devilstower for picture and comments on the following.

    Quote: Boss Creations, a new holiday decor company, has introduced the new “CHRIST-mas” Tree, featuring the unique trait of a trunk in the shape of a wooden cross. Company owner Marsha Boggs says the tree was specifically designed to counter the “war on Christmas.”

    “When I became a Christian a few years ago,” says Boggs, “I was appalled by the secularization of the Christmas holiday. When retail stores started substituting ‘Happy Holidays’ for ‘Merry Christmas,’ and schools began calling their Christmas programs ‘Winter Plays,’ it all seemed ridiculous to me. That’s why we have created products that remind people what the Christmas season is really all about – the birth of Christ.”

    The “CHRIST-mas” Tree is size adjustable up to 7.5 foot tall to accommodate various ceiling sizes. Additionally, the company offers ornaments, wreaths and gift items all with Christian-based themes. End Quote

    Ciao, I think I need to shower now.

  42. tigrrr73 says

    Have already been wondering when this would show up here. There’s been flame wars raging in the derstandard.at forum . A surprising amount of it has been fatwa envy. But lots of atheists have also commented, which gives me hope for my country.

  43. bunnycatcher says

    I don’t understand the animosity toward us who perceive “God” as metaphor. Karen Armstrong even says that theology is akin to poetry. And also, the artwork above does not antagonize me simply because I’ve never “pictured” god.

  44. Tim_Danaher says

    While I greatly admire his penmanship and I uphold Herr Deix’s right to deride religion, I also uphold my own right not to be bored shitless by his desperately unfunny work.

  45. hyperdeath says

    The comment section of the Greta Christina article seems to be a Dunning-Kruger wildlife sanctuary. It is populated with pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, thesaurus-abusing poseurs, afflicted with a staggeringly misplaced sense of their own ability.

    All the tedious anti-atheist clichés are mindlessly parroted, in that self-satisfied manner which theists inevitably adopt when they think they have the intellectual upper hand. Naturally, none of them engage with Greta Christina’s points in the slightest. They just whine.

  46. hyperdeath says

    bunnycatcher @48:

    We don’t particularly mind “god as metaphor” position. If you want to say, for example, that god is a metaphor for love, then I doubt that many here would greatly object.

    What we do object to, however, is the profoundly dishonest position in which someone claims to believe in god as poetry or metaphor, whilst attributing to this “metaphor” extremely specific properties, opinions and demands. Many theists use this technique as a bait-and-switch for arguing against people they don’t like. One moment they’re berating atheists for ignoring the subtleties and sophistications of theology, whilst the next moment they’re claiming this subtle and sophisticated god demands an end to gay marriage.

  47. Paul W. says

    felixthecat,
    but of the 15,000 terroristic events since 9/11, something like 99.999% have been carried out in the name of Islam.”

    Horseshit.

    Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers, and their suicide bombings?

    They’re not Muslims. As I understand it, they’re mostly Hindu but the suicide bombing thing isn’t particularly Hindu. It’s just a strategy that has been demonstrated to work, as far as they’re concerned.

    I actually agree that Islam is especially scary because of the nature of its scriptures and particularly that they have a single utterly authoritative prophet.

    But let’s not get carried away.

    Terrorism is a strategy employed by a lot of groups, and state terror is pretty much the same thing. (A terrorist is a bomber without a bomber.) If you think about a heroic soldier going on a suicide mission, and missions that target civilian population centers—e..g., the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—it’s really not so different.

    Secular and atheistic regimes, sadly, have not always been above that sort of thing.

  48. destlund says

    Janine @#3,
    Great. Now I’ll always hear Tom Waits when you post. Since your name is Janine, that’s a little weird.

    JeffreyD @#46
    “Because there just wasn’t enough crucifixion at the nativity!” Even I get pissed off when I see crosses at Christmas. Baby Jesus only gets one day and they’re ruining it out of spite!

  49. SC OM says

    SC,OM–Rorschach !!

    You should be thanking your lucky stars you’re on another continent right now, dude.

    :)

  50. Q.E.D says

    Paul W @ 52

    “It’s just a strategy that has been demonstrated to work, as far as they’re concerned.”

    I agree with your point, but I think that if one is a suicide bomber blowing oneself up to murder men, women and children expecting to be rewarded with virgins in heaven as one’s just reward, that tactic might be “succesful” on the political/religious front but a spectacular failure of expectations being met!

    Do Muslim virgins in heaven grow new hymens after servicing their suicide bomber?

  51. Anri says

    felixthecat sez:

    Actually, he is right. I know, I know, it is politically incorrect to suggest that one religion might be more prone to violence than another, but of the 15,000 terroristic events since 9/11, something like 99.999% have been carried out in the name of Islam. Of course, Christianity has committed centuries of horrors, but they pale in comparison to the endless onslaught that Islam has imposed upon the world.

    (Citation needed).

    Now… what odds will someone give me that felix won’t actually bother with researching this? I ask because this is sounding like a very safe bet to me.

  52. Sven DiMilo says

    of the 15,000 terroristic events since 9/11, something like 99.999% have been carried out in the name of Islam

    Damn SIWOTI syndrome.
    The correct* numbers are 14,987 and 99.971%. Sloppy.

    *correctly yanked straight from teh ass, that is.

  53. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Sven gets his numbers by using an old and honorable statisticians’ technique.*

    *32.713% of all statistics are made up.

  54. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    No offense, PZ, but the Danish Cartoons were more about raging xenophobia and racism then they were about Islam. They also conflated all muslims with terrorists and evil people. The response was too far, but it’s a lot more analogous to Civil Rights Era open racism then it is Atheists having to deal with stupid shit in Merika.

  55. felixthecat says

    No, the Danish cartoons were more about imams trying to stir up trouble and to topple a rightist government. That is why other cartoons were created and disseminated in the Muslim world by Muslims themselves. The Danish cartoons lacked the incendiary kick needed to start mass riots and killings.

    “Now… what odds will someone give me that felix won’t actually bother with researching this? I ask because this is sounding like a very safe bet to me.”

    Anri, if you wish to pay me to provide you with a research paper, I will be happy to do so. I’ll even give you a break on the cost of my time. How does $375 and hour sound? Generally, casual forums are not so demanding. I realize though, that when it comes to Islam, a certain politically correct knee jerk reaction takes hold on some people, and they will do their best to defend the indefensible. If my statements are not true, or even approximately true, refute them, otherwise just shut the fuck up.

  56. Cimourdain says

    This post might have some relevance if it weren’t for the fact that when the Mohammed cartoons were published, P.Z. folded like a makeshift bedouin tent.

    It’s unsurprising to see apologetics like this:

    No offense, PZ, but the Danish Cartoons were more about raging xenophobia and racism then they were about Islam

    The level of intellectual self-deceit that’s involved in this post is really staggering. Point one: the cartoons were specifically made to test whether one could mock Islam, or whether free speech had ended. Point two: The cartoons all depicted either Mohammed or various Islamic themes – e.g. Islam’s vision of paradise. Point three: Islam is not a race. And Point four, which is the most important: this self-described Harpy manages to completely ignore the murder, mayhem and bloodshed that the Muslim world answered these cartoons with.

    Let me make it simple: we could have “Mock Mohammed Fridays”, with a nationwide caricature competition, and we all roasted pork sausages with barbecues lit with pages from the Koran, and the Muslim world still wouldn’t get to complain, after the shit they’ve pulled.

    So let’s cut the crap, shall we? The squeamishness about printing the Mohammed cartoons has nothing to do with any high minded sentiment. It’s all about the following:

    The Pope’s a total Nazi
    What’s the deal with those Hindus?
    Judaism’s not so bad
    Except for all the Jews

    Hey, Buddha! Would it kill you
    To wear a frickin’ shirt?
    (I can say most anything
    And I’m never getting hurt)

    But let’s not mention Islam
    We’ll play it safe instead
    It’s hard to make religious jokes
    When you don’t have a head

    Nick Cohen has a brilliant article in The Observer out asking “Where are the militant atheists when you need them?” Very good question.

  57. Naked Bunny with a Whip says

    Generally, casual forums are not so demanding.

    Then perhaps you should stay in those casual forums that let you pull bullshit numbers out of your ass instead of whining about how hard it is to support your claims with evidence.

  58. Acronym Jim says

    tt@20:

    PZ this is what i expect from you in future. You really need to learn how to be more offensive. cheers

    The irony. It tickles. Thanks for the chuckle tt.

  59. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    This thread is now complete. Cimourdain has arrived to warn us about the ebil mooslums and whine about how we’re not taking the threat as seriously as he’d like us to.

  60. Acronym Jim says

    Anri, if you wish to pay me to provide you with a research paper, I will be happy to do so. I’ll even give you a break on the cost of my time. How does $375 and hour sound?

    That sounds a bit steep for used toilet paper. C’mon Felix, give us a citation and prove that number didn’t come from your ass. It’s de rigueur around here.

  61. Nerd of Redhead, OM says

    Cimourdain has arrived to warn us about the ebil mooslums and whine about how we’re not taking the threat as seriously as he’d like us to.

    As if we would take anything an amoral paranoid liberturd thinks without a grain of salt the size of Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas. And we only need a small grain to expose the lies and paranoia.

  62. blf says

    So let’s cut the crap, shall we?

    Does this me Mr Talks-Out-His-Arse will either STFU or not say something mind-bogglingly dumb? I’d thought ignorant racist rants went out of style several decades ago, except from RepublicansThugs.

  63. llewelly says

    Cimourdain Author Profile Page | December 13, 2009 10:55 AM:

    This post might have some relevance if it weren’t for the fact that when the Mohammed cartoons were published, P.Z. folded like a makeshift bedouin tent.

    What PZ actually said:

    So on the one hand I see a social problem being mocked, but on the other—and here comes the smug godless finger-wagging—I see a foolish superstition used as a prod to mock people, and a people so muddled by the phony blandishments of religion that they scream “Blasphemy!” and falsely pin the problem on a ridiculous insult to a non-existent god, rather than on the affront to their dignity as human beings and citizens. Religion in this case has accomplished two things, neither one productive: it’s distracted people away from the real problems, which have nothing at all to do with the camera-shy nature of their imaginary deity, and it’s also amplified the hatred.

    It also doesn’t help that their riots are confirming the caricatures rather than opposing them. Once again, religiosity turns people into mindless frenzied zombies, and once again it interferes with progress.

    Calling Islam a “foolish superstition” does not equal “folding like makeshift bedouin tent”. As usual, Cimourdain, you are lying about what your target said.

    Cimourdain Author Profile Page | December 13, 2009 10:55 AM:

    Nick Cohen has a brilliant article in The Observer out asking “Where are the militant atheists when you need them?”

    If Nick Cohen really wrote such a thing, he’s at best grossly ignorant; Richard Dawkins, and Dan Dennet have many times described Islam as the monstrous religion that it is, and I should not need to mention the rabidly anti-Islam Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Jesus and Mo mocks Islam every day.

  64. tt says

    I think you guys are mistaken about PZ and militant atheists, in general. I don’t think we are afraid to mock any religious belief, even if it does offend a militant group of medieval head choppers.

    I am going to send a cartoon to PZ depicting him receiving oral satisfaction from Mohammed, while at the same time Jesus, gives a little anal action to Mohammed. I think you will see that PZ will be proud to display it on his website. Perhaps even use it in his masthead.

    Hopefully this will end this argument.

    Cheers

  65. ckitching says

    Can anyone think of anything you might find offensive?

    I find genocide and child rape deeply offensive (not merely the depiction of it). This is a value I would hope all religious people would share, but seems to be a little too much evidence showing otherwise. The Uganda “kill all the gays” bill is offensive. The Muslim, “kill all the jews” rhetoric is offensive. The Bill Donohue, “this is only about some kids who weren’t hugged enough” when talking about the catholic church involvement in child rape was offensive. And these are just the few I can think of off the top of my head.

  66. SC OM says

    If my statements are not true, or even approximately true, refute them, otherwise just shut the fuck up.

    That’s not how it works, you idiot. The person making the claim has the onus to support it.

    Anyway,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1970s.E2.80.932000s

    Free of charge. [It’s actually quite fascinating to see how the places and groups involved have shifted over the years – Colombia (which seems to have dominated overall in the past few decades), Italy, Spain, Israel, India, Russia, Iraq, the UK, ETA, FARC, IRA, Al-Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, fascists,…]

    Now piss off.

  67. David Marjanović says

    Bavaria is a predominantly catholic state that has not signed the German Grundgesetz (=constitution), yet.

    <headdesk>
    <headdesk>
    <headdesk>
    <headdesk>

    <headdesk>

    While I greatly admire his penmanship and I uphold Herr Deix’s right to deride religion, I also uphold my own right not to be bored shitless by his desperately unfunny work.

    It’s not really supposed to be funny. Deix always paints the ugly and the horrible.

    This post might have some relevance if it weren’t for the fact that when the Mohammed cartoons were published, P.Z. folded like a makeshift bedouin tent.

    Oh, so you don’t remember what was in the Great Desecration other than the fracking cracker.

    Yeah, sure, it was a translation, which Muslims traditionally don’t count as the real thing. But PZ didn’t know that.

    felixthecat, you’re funny. You have fallen among the scientists, you see. You make a claim, you provide the evidence. Asking us to prove there’s no Pink Invisible Unicorn is a logical fallacy and will only get you laughed out of the room. :-|

    Put up or shut up.

  68. David Marjanović says

    I am going to send a cartoon to PZ depicting him receiving oral satisfaction from Mohammed, while at the same time Jesus, [sic] gives a little anal action to Mohammed. I think you will see that PZ will be proud to display it on his website. Perhaps even use it in his masthead.

    I doubt that. After all, PZ wants his blog to be safe for work. Didn’t you read the post? “(nudity and some scatological content in portraits of the deity…click at your own peril)”, it says.

    Also… what you suggest would be disgusting – even more so than the extremes of Deix’s work (of which the above is not one). I don’t want to have to scroll by it 10 times per day.

  69. tt says

    @74

    You are probably right that it may not be appropriate for the masthead. Though I do think he would place it in a similar “click at own peril” area. The point is, PZ is not afraid to mock the Muslim prophet, as some suggest. Fuck the head chopping minority.

    I am not sure why you find it disgusting?

  70. Sili says

    tt,

    There’s a thread for you on /y/ at the moment. And I suspect you’d get a kick out of Ghastly’s Ghastly Webcomic.

    Now please bugger off.

  71. tt says

    @sili

    I am not sure what your problem is with my comments? What do you find offensive about them? Sex, Mohammed bashing or Christ mocking?

    Do you not find an imaginary deity shitting on the world offensive? and if you don’t, why do you find two imaginary prophets doing it with PZ abhorrent? I think it is funny and offensive to religion at the same time.

    Please explain

  72. Feynmaniac says

    I am going to send a cartoon to PZ depicting him receiving oral satisfaction from Mohammed, while at the same time Jesus, gives a little anal action to Mohammed. I think you will see that PZ will be proud to display it on his website.

    Well, PZ already posted crude artwork a creationist sent to him of PZ bent over and Darwin’s beard(?) doing….um…something. My person favourite of the ‘I get email’ series.

  73. Acronym Jim says

    I am going to send a cartoon to PZ depicting him receiving oral satisfaction from Mohammed, while at the same time Jesus, gives a little anal action to Mohammed. I think you will see that PZ will be proud to display it on his website. Perhaps even use it in his masthead.

    How does your proposed comic even make sense in the context of this blog? PZ is avowed atheist.

    The primary purpose of this blog is not to offend followers of superstition. It’s to shine a bright light on the ridiculousness of some of their beliefs. If this causes some to be offended, that’s just an amusing side effect.

  74. tt says

    I am not trying to offend PZ. I think he would find it funny. The point is, some suggest that he has somehow folded when it comes to mocking muslims and that he only derides christians. By linking him directly to a highly offensive act of Muslim bashing, there would no longer be any accusations of him only being a cracker basher.

  75. Mr T says

    tt, perhaps you should send PZ pictures of yourself involved in violent sexual acts with Jesus & Mo. That would provide maximal creepiness and at the same time accomplish absolutely nothing.

  76. Cimourdain says

    blockquote>Calling Islam a “foolish superstition” does not equal “folding like makeshift bedouin tent”. As usual, Cimourdain, you are lying about what your target said.

    Sorry, wrong, that would be you, lying through your teeth. It doesn’t matter how hedged it is, anything short of actually posting the cartoons is folding. Because the point of the riots was to get them silenced. To not have them shown.

    And guess what? They weren’t. Not here.

    I seriously wonder when the Jihadis – fast and slow – start using the same tactics to combat the teaching of evolution, whether PZ’ll step up to the plate.

    If Nick Cohen really wrote such a thing, he’s at best grossly ignorant

    How about you actually read the article before spouting off you ignoramus? Because Nick Cohen isn’t talking about such first-rate human beings as Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennet. He’s talking about why so many of the rank-and-file – yes, that’s you perched behind your computer – do precisely fuck-all in the fight to resist Islamic imperialism.

    I’d thought ignorant racist rants went out of style several decades ago

    Not around here, they haven’t blf. I constantly run into people like you who think that the primitive, medieval mindset of Islam is genetically fixed into people – that’s racism defined. There was also someone a while back who thought that Muslims were, by defintion, strange, brown foreign folk.

  77. Owlmirror says

    It doesn’t matter how hedged it is, anything short of actually posting the cartoons is folding.

    So by your own definition, you folded too?

    You folder to Muslims, you.

  78. Cimourdain says

    Heh. Owlmirror, I’ve publish pubically, under my own name, with my face next to the byline, in dalies in cities with radical mosques, what I think about Islam. Nice try.

  79. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Sorry, wrong, that would be you, lying through your teeth. It doesn’t matter how hedged it is, anything short of actually posting the cartoons is folding. Because the point of the riots was to get them silenced. To not have them shown.
    And guess what? They weren’t. Not here.

    Those cartoons were, and still are, all over the internet. I would bet large amounts of money that everyone here has seen those cartoons more than once.

    I fail to see how PZ not posting some poor artwork is “caving into the mooslums.” That doesn’t make sense…unless you’re a rabidly wacko looneytarian with a wild anti-mooslum hair up your ass.

  80. Owlmirror says

    I’ve publish pubically, under my own name, with my face next to the byline, in dalies in cities with radical mosques, what I think about Islam.

    So you did fold. Got it.

  81. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Okay, Cimourdain, we know that you’re islamophobic. We also understand you’re really upset over the fact that other people don’t share your fear and hatred. Thank you for reminding us again that you’re a bigoted asshole. You’ve done your duty for mindless prejudice for this month. Now please fuck off.

  82. Mr T says

    Cimourdain, #85:

    I’ve publish pubically, under my own name, with my face next to the byline, in dalies in cities with radical mosques, what I think about Islam. Nice try.

    Link please.

    I was thinking the same thing as ‘Tis Himself @ #86 — why is it necessary for PZ to also publish others’ work when it can be found thousands of other places on the web and in print? I didn’t think the Danish cartoons were so important that everyone, everywhere must publish them lest they be thought of as doing “precisely fuck-all in the fight to resist Islamic imperialism”.

  83. Mr T says

    Quoted again, for comic effect:

    I’ve publish [sic] pubically [sic], under my own name, with my face next to the byline, in dalies [sic] in cities with radical mosques, what I think about Islam. [citation needed] Nice try.

  84. blf says

    I constantly run into people like you who think that the primitive, medieval mindset of Islam is genetically fixed into people – that’s racism defined.

    This is called projection—you are claiming I hold views I do not but which you very probably do; in other words, you are assigning to me your beliefs. Projecting your fantasies onto others is neither a sensible argument or even an argument.

    Try again, and this time stick to what was said: Your comments are a rant, they are ignorant, and they are racist.

  85. SC OM says

    I’ve publish pubically, under my own name, with my face next to the byline, in dalies in cities with radical mosques, what I think about Islam.

    And yet he posts here under a pseudonym. We’re scarier than Muslim radicals!

  86. blf says

    I’ve publish pubically, under my own name, with my face next to the byline, in dalies in cities with radical mosques, what I think about Islam.

    Who is your editor? With spelling like that you’ve got to have one. Be specific; name a name, please. At least the pub[l]ication; hyperlink preferred.

  87. https://me.yahoo.com/a_ray_in_dilbert_space#6e51c says

    Cimourdain,
    See the problem is that folks here aren’t on your side. PZ’s main emphasis is education–that is educating people as to the value of science and rational thinking over superstition and wishful thinking. If some people are offended in the process, well, that’s collateral damage. You, on the other hand, your goal is to offend–and if those you offend are different from you (browner, speaking a different language, having different customs), so much the better. I would also note that PZ’s name and work address are out there front and center. He stands behind what he says–whereas you… well we know nothing about you beyond the fact that you are an opera queen.

    Nobody folded over the Danish Cartoon fiasco, but then nobody could apply any pressure to you, could they?

  88. tt says

    @78

    I see that. Very Nice. Unfortunately, from my perspective, it isn’t offensive in a religious way, or in any way, for that matter. In fact, just the opposite. PZ is clearly in favor of biological ejaculations. Had I been around when Darwin was alive, I would have considered it a privilege to be ass fucked by him.

  89. Rorschach says

    tt,

    your projecting your sexual fantasies onto PZ and others here is getting a bit annoying.
    As has been pointed out to you, this blog is not about offending, the standard of what qualifies as “offensive” varies a lot between believers and atheists anyway, and most of the time believers feel offended by something that isnt offensive to anyone else.
    But to offend for the sake of offending, as you suggest with your silly buttfucking fantasies, is just plain stupid.

  90. tt says

    @96

    I might buy this argument if it wasn’t for the fact that the drawings of the Christian deity are designed to offend for the sake of offending. They are pics of imaginary deities and they offend neither you or me, but that isn’t the point. They offend some people. Obviously I have touched a chord with ideas of homosexual or bestial sexual arrangements, with you. What is the issue, is that I am now offending you and some others and you don’t like it. But how is describing natural sexual relationships with imaginary deities and a real person more offensive that the other? Maybe I am too dense to understand.

  91. Mr T says

    Maybe I am too dense to understand.

    This much is true.

    The difference is that there is no purpose for your stupid fantasies, other than attempting to be offensive. The cartoonist in this post was trying to convey a message. When PZ nailed the frackin’ cracker with the Koran and The God Delusion, he was trying to convey a message. He had a point. There was a purpose. If you don’t understand the difference, then I don’t know what else to say.

  92. Copyleft says

    And speaking of irrelevant tangents…

    The artist’s style really reminds me of old 1970s-era MAD magazine.

  93. tt says

    I am making a point too. I am trying to show that one can associate images of Mohammed and Jesus in sexually explicit positions. That’s still seems to be too taboo for even the most militant atheists. Even here the idea is offensive. Surely if Mo-Je did exist, they had human sexual urges, with a good probability that these urges and acts were homosexual, or at least bi-sexual. Why not put out there too? I thought that adding PZ to the mix, would show that 1) PZ is an equal opportunity blasphemer 2) He is not ashamed or embarrassed to participate in real random biological ejaculations.

    Mr T. You are really sounding like a prude, if I may say so.

    Here is a quote from PZ’s profile. Do you find it offensive?

    Myers is prone to lengthy scientific tangents on such matters, and occasional unscientific ones: “Just imagine it—great pelagic orgies, the males thrusting wantonly with their massive penile arms, promiscuously inseminating any nearby slickly molluscan body. Perhaps they end up sated and exhausted from their frenzied exertions and, oblivious and insensate, drift ashore to die content.

  94. Becca says

    The point is, tt, that there is no purpose other than offense in your meanderings. Offense for it’s own sake is merely rude.

  95. llewelly says

    Cimourdain | December 13, 2009 3:04 PM:

    I seriously wonder when the Jihadis – fast and slow – start using the same tactics to combat the teaching of evolution, whether PZ’ll step up to the plate.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/creationist_amorality.php
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/makin_em_sweat.php
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/the_jig_is_up.php
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_feeling_left_out.php

    PZ has been combating creationist Muslims the same way he has been combating any other creationists.

  96. tt says

    Who exactly am I offending here? Aren’t you all sexually liberated atheists?

    Anyway, it doesn’t matter. I will stop making sexually suggestive comments. Don’t want to ruffle any delicate feathers.

    I will send the cartoon to PZ and he can do what he likes with it.

  97. tt says

    BTW, exactly what is the point of “desecrating” a cracker, if not to offend for its own sake?. To us a cracker is a cracker and and sex is just sex. It is “THEY” that are offended, not us. Neither is sacred.

  98. Sven DiMilo says

    exactly what is the point of “desecrating” a cracker, if not to offend for its own sake?

    *sigh*
    There was context.
    Offense was inevitable, but offense alone was not the point.
    All of this as documented ad nauseum at the time.

  99. Mr T says

    I am trying to show that one can associate images of Mohammed and Jesus in sexually explicit positions. That’s still seems to be too taboo for even the most militant atheists. Even here the idea is offensive.

    Knock yourself out, dude. That’s not taboo or offensive to me, and it’s also not original.

    (By the way, “militant atheists” is not the correct nomenclature, unless I missed the part where atheists got a bunch of tanks and bombers.)

    Mr T. You are really sounding like a prude, if I may say so.

    I’m not a prude. I’m just not particularly impressed. Go ahead and tell us all about how privileged you would feel to have been fucked in the ass by Darwin.

    What I am saying is that there is a difference between accidentally offending people, offending people for a good or bad reason, and doing it just for the sake of offending. If your point is just that sexually explicit pictures of imaginary deities are okay, then that’s not a very interesting point.

    As an atheist, there are things I find offensive, and obviously not for religious reasons. Violence, rape, racism and sexism are a few examples. I watch films and TV shows with violence and so on, but generally it’s in the context of a story, and I’m offended when things like that are portrayed positively.

  100. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    tt,

    For some reason you think it would be a neato, peachy-keen idea to draw a cartoon showing PZ indulging in sexual intercourse with Jesus and Mohammad. The rest of us fail to see how that’s anything but (a) rude and (b) you indulging in your own sexual fantasies.

    It has nothing to do with us being prudes or not. We don’t see what point it would have. Perhaps you’re not explaining how the sexual juxtaposition of Myers with Jesus and Mo would be hilariously funny and/or a great blow to goddists everywhere. Perhaps we’re failing to see the artistic genius that you’re offering to display. Or perhaps you’re a wanker who gets off on sexually explicit drawings.

  101. PZ Myers says

    How can tt possibly regard his obscene sketch as anything but a personal insult to me…and an act of flattery to Mohammed and Jesus?

    There’s no way I’d accept any offer of congress with two such skeevy slimebags.

  102. PZ Myers says

    That would be a gross insult to Darwin.

    But no, sorry, there’s no one I’d want to bugger or be buggered by. It’s just not my thing.

  103. PZ Myers says

    Oh, and tt: you are being creepy and sick. Knock it off, or find a different site that would appreciate your misbegotten fantasies.

  104. Lynna, OM says

    @102

    I seriously wonder when the Jihadis – fast and slow – start using the same tactics to combat the teaching of evolution, whether PZ’ll step up to the plate.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/creationist_amorality.php
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/makin_em_sweat.php
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/the_jig_is_up.php
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_feeling_left_out.php
    PZ has been combating creationist Muslims the same way he has been combating any other creationists.

    llewelly, thank you for responding to that tiresome accusation. We can’t expect trolls to do their own research. Tip o’ the hat to you for doing it for them.

  105. tt says

    Wikipedia: Buggery

    “The British English term buggery is very close in meaning to the term sodomy, and is often used interchangeably in law and popular speech. It was also a specific criminal offence under the English common law.”

    Sodomy and Buggery are offensive terms to Gay people, at least here in America. Unless you want to piss off a potential ally ie. the LBGT community, I suggest you find other terms. Personally, it doesn’t offend me, since I can take what I dish out, unlike the homo phobic hypocrites writing on this site, who delight in the images of three-headed, multi-donged god, a god defecating on our planet, but are outraged, outraged I say, at the mere verbal description of certain sex acts with long dead prophets.

    I am surprized at you too PZ. This is just an image PZ. You weren’t going to actually have to undergo the process. I thought images didn’t offend you.

    The point of juxtaposing you with these figures would send a clear message that you aren’t afraid of any of these ridiculous gods, prophets and their followers. Surely they will think that god would punish you for such an outrageous image, and you can laugh at them when their gods prove helpless. You are the champion in this area, nobody is better at mocking the religious rubes than you. Than is why I suggested it.

    Anyway, I think you are covering your ass. I can’t say that I would want to be a public figure associated with such an image. It would be sure to cause controversy, and perhaps even increase your chances of receiving a very short haircut, not by any god, but by a few head choppers.

    Ok, so your wish is my command. Unless I am asked to reply to another post, I will go away quietly.

  106. Sven DiMilo says

    Sodomy and Buggery are offensive terms to Gay people, at least here in America.

    oops. Safer just to go with “assfucking” then? It’s ever so much more genteel.

  107. tt says

    Yeah,tt take your toys and get out of my sandbox. I am the sheriff around here, and there isn’t enough room for the two of us. PZ

    HA! You are such a phoney!

  108. Lynna, OM says

    I am going to send a cartoon to PZ depicting him receiving oral satisfaction from Mohammed, while at the same time Jesus, gives a little anal action to Mohammed. I think you will see that PZ will be proud to display it on his website. Perhaps even use it in his masthead.

    This does not strike me as mocking religion. It strikes me as singularly stupid.

  109. tt says

    Sven, It’s not about being genteel. It is about using your own terms to refer to things, not someone else’s derogatory terms for them. Nigger is not in itself offensive. It is a corruption of the word Negro, which simply means black. So when you say Negro/nigger you are saying black. They mean the same thing, but clearly one is offensive and the other isn’t. Get it? Buggery is offensive, ass-fucking is not.

  110. tt says

    I should rephrase my promise of leaving. If my comments are no longer commented on, I will add nothing to the discussion and leave. Otherwise no promises. Unless PZ decides to ban someone who is too radical for this conservative little blog.

  111. WowbaggerOM says

    Unless PZ decides to ban someone a pissant who is too radical soul-destroyingly inane for this conservative interesting and entertaining little blog.

    Fixed it for you.

  112. aratina cage says

    tt, South Park already did what you were considering doing but with Richard Dawkins, and the only way they could make it work was to build up this viciously fake image of Dawkins as a totalitarian nutball. It has crossed my mind that you are attempting to do the same with PZ in the last few posts of yours. Are you trolling or what?

  113. Rorschach says

    tt the troll @ 121 :

    Unless PZ decides to ban someone who is too radical for this conservative little blog.

    Yeah, maybe the intersection is more suited to such a distinguished radical as yourself.

    *sigh*

  114. WowbaggerOM says

    Yeah, maybe the intersection is more suited to such a distinguished radical as yourself.

    Yeah, I think that tt and that perennial asswipe Anthony McCarthy would get on just fine together – with Kw*k chiming in every now and then about whichever minor celebrity he’s affixed himself to this time.

  115. Anri says

    It would appear that tt is having trouble discerning between ‘being offended by’ and ‘not enjoying’ things.
    It sounds as though the ‘thanks, but no thanks’ reaction you’re getting tt, has much more to do with the fact that having been around the internet once or twice, most folks here have seen as much poor-to-fair unimaginative slash art as they care to see.

    It’s not that they’re concerned that it will be offensive, tt.
    It’s that they’re trying to tell you it’s just not good.

    I don’t eat McDonald’s food, not because I am offended by it (although there’s plenty to be offended by there..), but because it’s bad food. I’m not interested in your… ok, ‘art’, not because I am pearl-clutching over it, but because the subject matter doesn’t turn me on.

    For example, I don’t care for the cartoons that PZ linked to here, especialy the second set. I don’t find them offensive, I find them ugly, heavy-handed and unpleasant to look at. It seems that the cartoonist is good at what he does – the colors seem fine, the linework looks good (far, far better than any amatuerish scrawlings I could produce, certainly), but I just don’t like looking at it.

    As Roger Ebert said about Caligula, it is not good film, it is not good art, it is not good porn.

  116. iHunger says

    I looked at the chalkboard before the back of the shirt and was wondering if all those ++++ in math class were really crucifixes.

  117. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    Boy howdy, look away for a day. FAir enough though.

    “. And Point four, which is the most important: this self-described Harpy manages to completely ignore the murder, mayhem and bloodshed that the Muslim world answered these cartoons with.”
    Um, no?

    In more plain language (I did say their response was disproportionate before), violence over a cartoon is never okay. Period. I don’t consider that to have *EVER* been okay.

    But those cartoons were /not/ made ‘just to test whether free speech was there’. The Jyllands-Posten was, and remains, a rag that celebrates ridiculously right wing Denmark politics, including when they refer to Arabic immigrants as somehow sub-human. That the predominantly Islamic Arabic Immigrants are going to interpret a fairly racist rag’s (Which, if you translate one of those Mohammed cartoons, is exactly what is being said of it) attack on their majority religion as, guess what, another racist slur, should be obvious. Context matters a LOT, to me at least.

    Bear in mind, I actually thought exactly as you did on the matter; “God damn religious people”, period. An in-depth, and none-too-flattering, explanation of Denmark’s racial situation very, very quickly disabused me of that notion. I simply wish I was less of a bubblehead, and could repeat it all in detail.

    Just because some muslims went WAAAAAAY too far doesn’t suddenly excuse the magazine of its own crimes.

    And don’t you DARE conflate me with some moron who thinks you can’t print Mohammed. It may be fundamentally wrong to do so simply as a thinly veiled assault on Arabic Immgirants, but I don’t see any problems with the depiction of Mohammed itself.

  118. Cimourdain says

    llewelly, thanks, but I knew those posts. None of them fulfill the criteria that I’d mentioned – when Islamic creationists start using the same tactics that they use to put down cartoons at the moment.

    T’is himself,

    mindless prejudice

    Sorry, that would be you lot. I don’t think that any single one of the howling throng has ever read even a single serious book on Islam, let alone absorbed half a dozen necessary authors on the subject. Come on, try to prove me wrong. Has anyone here seriously read the Qur’an? And the Hadith and Sira and Tafsir, without which it’s not possible to properly understand it? Or studied the tenets of the Shariah? Or read Bat Ye’or on dhimmitude? Or read Oriana Fallaci, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Joseph Schacht, Hugh FitzGerald, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, V.S. Naipul, Efraim Karsh, Andrew Bostom, K.S. Lal, Andre Servier? Well, have you? Have you ever done so much as a weekend’s work on this subject?

    But no – you impute motives of racism, in order to hide your own cowardice, your own cravenness, which extends to blanking out genocide, if that’s what it takes.

    . You, on the other hand, your goal is to offend–and if those you offend are different from you (browner, speaking a different language, having different customs), so much the better

    Filthy lies on your part, except possibly the “different customs” bit. Yes, if someone’s custom is to react to the publishing of cartoons is murder, I want to stop their custom into the ground. If someone’s custom is to deny all reason and progress in favor of inshallah fatalism, I want that custom destroyed. If someone’s custom mandates murder, rape, slavery, genocide – yes, I want those customs destroyed. Annihilated. Wiped out. Reduced to lines in history books. Understand?

    The rest of this – blf, the Harpy – is mere babble. You can’t change the mind of someone determined to be dishonest, especially if the dishonesty is to hide from themselves their own craven cowardice.

    Jesus, what a collection of hysterical little girls. If you lot are reduced to frothing by my presence, what the hell good will you be against the Jihad? Well, we know the answer, don’t we? You’ll crawl and bow down and put the collar round your necks.

    Incidentally, I keep getting ask why I come to this site. The reason’s simple: to remind me of who the real enemy is. The problem throughout history has never been the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Maos. No, the problem has been the endless masses of undifferentiated clumps who are willing to excuse anything, back away from any fight, seek compromise with any evil.

  119. Owlmirror says

    If someone’s custom is to deny all reason and progress in favor of inshallah fatalism

    Such as in the Lord’s prayer?

    Has anyone here seriously read the Qur’an? And the Hadith and Sira and Tafsir, without which it’s not possible to properly understand it? Or studied the tenets of the Shariah?

    Catholics would argue that without the Church’s interpretation, it’s not possible to “properly” understand the Bible. And yet, there are Protestants, and more specifially as a counterargument, Unitarian Universalists.

    Orthodox Jews would argue that without the Mishna and Targum and Talmud, it’s not possible to “properly” understand the Bible either (and of course they utterly disagree with the Catholic Church on what the proper understanding is). And yet, there is Conservative and Reform Judaism.

    Islam is not a monolith either.

    But no – you impute motives of racism, in order to hide your own cowardice, your own cravenness, which extends to blanking out genocide, if that’s what it takes.

    Wait, what?

    You can’t change the mind of someone determined to be dishonest, especially if the dishonesty is to hide from themselves their own craven cowardice.

    You might want to check out a mirror.

    If you lot are reduced to frothing by my presence, what the hell good will you be against the Jihad?

    You mean you’re comparing yourself to a Muslim fanatic?

    Well, we know the answer, don’t we? You’ll crawl and bow down and put the collar round your necks.

    Fascinating. So now you’re a Muslim fanatic and a mind-reader?

    No, the problem has been the endless masses of undifferentiated clumps who are willing to excuse anything, back away from any fight, seek compromise with any evil.

    Maybe you want to check out a mirror, again.

  120. Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom says

    Oh. The guy’s an islamophobic idiot? I’m sorry, I wouldn’t have fed the troll if I’d known.

    Also, if a war motivated by jihadist fervor comes, I’ll have the good sense not to glorify their propaganda efforts by sharing their nomenclature. It’s not a Holy War, it’s a war against loons who bought into the most poisonous aspects of their religion.