Hmm, paradoxical. The Koran says Christians are deluded, Jesus says that sounds slanderous, and Mo objects, and then Jesus says it’s not slander if it’s true. But Christians are deluded about Jesus being the son of god, so that makes the Koran not slanderous, in which case maybe Mo is right (in this one case).
David Marjanovićsays
Also… can’t it still be slander in England if it’s true?
(…Almost wrote “the UK”, but – as I’ve learned here – Scotland has a completely different law about “denigration” that doesn’t distinguish libel from slander. I guess “England and Wales” is what I actually mean?)
Hmm, paradoxical. The Koran says Christians are deluded, Jesus says that sounds slanderous, and Mo objects, and then Jesus says it’s not slander if it’s true. But Christians are deluded about Jesus being the son of god, so that makes the Koran not slanderous, in which case maybe Mo is right (in this one case).
Actually, according to the comic, Jesus thinks it sounds contemptuous, but Mo thinks it’s slanderous that Jesus is saying that the Koran says that the Koran says that Christians are deluded. It’s not that the Koran is slanderous, but that Mo thinks Jesus is slandering the Koran by saying that it says Christians are deluded.
Owlmirrorsays
Maybe they’ve already banned each others’ religion.
Has Jesus been seen in a church, and/or Mo in a mosque?
robinjohnsonsays
@2: Not a lawyer, but I’ve heard that what makes it slander in England and Wales is “malicious intent”, regardless of whether it’s true.
I thought I loved Jesus and Mo, but then I was clicking ‘random comic’ and ended up at http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/07/27/girls/
…which, unless I’m misunderstanding it, seems to be nastily belittling of women’s experiences of misogyny from the atheist community.
Sastrasays
I was recently informed by a very religious accomodationist that “fundamentalism” means “saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Exploring this idea, it turns out that this view of fundamentalism doesn’t deal with what people believe, why they believe it, or how rigid they are. It all comes down to what you say to outsiders, those who aren’t in your religion. How do you treat those people? If they remain blissfully unaware that you personally consider them damned, deluded, sick, wicked, sinful, arrogant or lost — and you don’t try to convert them (the Ultimate Sin) — then it is not and cannot be ‘fundamentalism.’
Assuming that this line of reasoning isn’t idiosyncratic to this person and/or their Spirituality, it would explain why Richard Dawkins is a “fundamentalist” and the Amish get a pass. It would also explain why believers don’t seem to see any problem with what holy texts say about infidels or kafirs. Presentation is everything. Keep to your own group. It’s not offensive or insulting unless you bring it outside and say it out loud. “Contempt” only involves stating the Truth to the people you disparage — or at least doing it where they might reasonably overhear you.
Otherwise, it doesn’t count. It’s Faith. Faith isn’t a problem. It only motivates people to do good in the community.
It’s not like banning eachother is a new idea to religions.
peterhsays
@ #5:
I would suggest the point of that comic is if you might be a victim you must be a victim. (Many movements abound in self-appointed victims.)
sirbedeveresays
Someone once suggested to me that the phrase “Jesus is Lord” would be considered offensive (or “contemptuous”) to a Muslim. I suspect much or Mormon theology would be offensive to Christians. This chain of “offensiveness” or “contemptuousness” could be continued pretty much ad infinitum.
Doug Hudsonsays
Of course, the two religions spent centuries trying to “ban” each other, costing untold numbers of lives and tremendous destruction.
I think this is a “be careful what you wish for” situation. Much better that they both co-exist more or less peacefully in a secular state.
NitricAcidsays
Isn’t that what they’re trying to do in parts of Nigeria?
dicksays
The Xian bible is strangely silent on the subject of Islam, as it is on texting while driving.
busterggisays
They tried banning one another for the past 1400 years – it didn’t work so both took out their frustration on the Jews.
johnhodgessays
#5, looks to me like it is making fun of men who presume to instruct women on what “true feminism” is. (there are some such.)
Hmm, paradoxical. The Koran says Christians are deluded, Jesus says that sounds slanderous, and Mo objects, and then Jesus says it’s not slander if it’s true. But Christians are deluded about Jesus being the son of god, so that makes the Koran not slanderous, in which case maybe Mo is right (in this one case).
Also… can’t it still be slander in England if it’s true?
(…Almost wrote “the UK”, but – as I’ve learned here – Scotland has a completely different law about “denigration” that doesn’t distinguish libel from slander. I guess “England and Wales” is what I actually mean?)
Actually, according to the comic, Jesus thinks it sounds contemptuous, but Mo thinks it’s slanderous that Jesus is saying that the Koran says that the Koran says that Christians are deluded. It’s not that the Koran is slanderous, but that Mo thinks Jesus is slandering the Koran by saying that it says Christians are deluded.
Maybe they’ve already banned each others’ religion.
Has Jesus been seen in a church, and/or Mo in a mosque?
@2: Not a lawyer, but I’ve heard that what makes it slander in England and Wales is “malicious intent”, regardless of whether it’s true.
I thought I loved Jesus and Mo, but then I was clicking ‘random comic’ and ended up at http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/07/27/girls/
…which, unless I’m misunderstanding it, seems to be nastily belittling of women’s experiences of misogyny from the atheist community.
I was recently informed by a very religious accomodationist that “fundamentalism” means “saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Exploring this idea, it turns out that this view of fundamentalism doesn’t deal with what people believe, why they believe it, or how rigid they are. It all comes down to what you say to outsiders, those who aren’t in your religion. How do you treat those people? If they remain blissfully unaware that you personally consider them damned, deluded, sick, wicked, sinful, arrogant or lost — and you don’t try to convert them (the Ultimate Sin) — then it is not and cannot be ‘fundamentalism.’
Assuming that this line of reasoning isn’t idiosyncratic to this person and/or their Spirituality, it would explain why Richard Dawkins is a “fundamentalist” and the Amish get a pass. It would also explain why believers don’t seem to see any problem with what holy texts say about infidels or kafirs. Presentation is everything. Keep to your own group. It’s not offensive or insulting unless you bring it outside and say it out loud. “Contempt” only involves stating the Truth to the people you disparage — or at least doing it where they might reasonably overhear you.
Otherwise, it doesn’t count. It’s Faith. Faith isn’t a problem. It only motivates people to do good in the community.
I think that if the religionists start passing anti-disparagement laws, the satanist church will have a whole lotta lotta fun.
It’s not like banning eachother is a new idea to religions.
@ #5:
I would suggest the point of that comic is if you might be a victim you must be a victim. (Many movements abound in self-appointed victims.)
Someone once suggested to me that the phrase “Jesus is Lord” would be considered offensive (or “contemptuous”) to a Muslim. I suspect much or Mormon theology would be offensive to Christians. This chain of “offensiveness” or “contemptuousness” could be continued pretty much ad infinitum.
Of course, the two religions spent centuries trying to “ban” each other, costing untold numbers of lives and tremendous destruction.
I think this is a “be careful what you wish for” situation. Much better that they both co-exist more or less peacefully in a secular state.
Isn’t that what they’re trying to do in parts of Nigeria?
The Xian bible is strangely silent on the subject of Islam, as it is on texting while driving.
They tried banning one another for the past 1400 years – it didn’t work so both took out their frustration on the Jews.
#5, looks to me like it is making fun of men who presume to instruct women on what “true feminism” is. (there are some such.)