Looking for Terrorists? Why Not Check the Extreme Right Website Linked to 100 Hate Crime Killings
Lap Dancers, the CIA, Payoffs and BP’s Deepwater Horizon
C. Wright Mills Understood Why We're So Lame
Russell Brand Sits Down With a Philosopher to Find the 'Truth Behind the Headlines'
Clandestine FBI Inquiry Rattles 9/11 Tribunals
Looking for Terrorists? Why Not Check the Extreme Right Website Linked to 100 Hate Crime Killings
Everest Avalanche Death Toll Reaches 13
Obama Approval Rating
Dig led by Mike Rose
Dig led by Truthdig Staff
By Gina B. Nahai $25.00
By Gore Vidal $18.00
By Mr. Fish
More Below the Ad
Email to a friend
Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By John Poole, May 19, 2012 at 8:15 am Link to this comment
jr. sepAration please. I doubt it was a typo. You may not be as intelligent as you
want to believe you are. Spelling does count. It is a reflection of one’s intent to be
clear in syntax and grammar.
By Non-Compassionate Liberal, May 18, 2012 at 11:43 pm Link to this comment
@jr.: You must have made an impression (see previous comment).
Well, maybe somewhat.
By the jack, May 17, 2012 at 8:32 am Link to this comment
mr fish, whomever you are, i sincerely hope you come to
find Christ as your Lord and Savior.
By jr., May 16, 2012 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment
jack, jack, jack: be nice.
By Non-Compassionate Liberal, May 16, 2012 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
@the jack: Mr. Fish couldn’t post a cartoon of The Prophet Muhammad posing with his 9-year-old wife because it’s illegal to publish kiddie porn.
But I’m sure if the prophet were alive, he’d appreciate your support.
By the jack, May 16, 2012 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
let’s see how much of a badass you are. print a
cartoon like this with the islamic prophet (pbuh).
let’s see how long you last then… coward
By John Poole, May 14, 2012 at 6:04 pm Link to this comment
Marian: I think women (groupies) can be very clueless about a man’s true sexual
orientation when the celebrities are very charismatic. We know how this works in
music and in cinema and the list is very long. I played many wedding receptions
where I might have been the only person there who sensed the groom was gay. It
comes from me working in the arts for decades and with choreographers. I have
gay friends who can’t admit to their orientation. They keep saying they are waiting
for the right female. It’s all pretty sad.
By jr., May 14, 2012 at 11:41 am Link to this comment
Griffith: Most of what you stated may be true enough, none the less you didn’t mention because you don’t see, widespread, homosexuality in Nature. Furthermore, my comment was not relating to any person, per se, just the action.
Zing: Personally, i find Death more natural than the action it takes to bring about a birth.
Mr. Fish: Like most others, you seem to be making a connection where there is no necessary connection: that is civil rights to religion. If One is wanting civilian rights protected by the state, One may need to make Absolute the seperation between church and state; doing away with the fake seperation that the church has setup for u.s. When One “Trusts” in Democracy over god, then perhaps america will be one Nation under that Democracy and, potentially, Indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice for All; and not before.
By Maani, May 14, 2012 at 7:20 am Link to this comment
It is far more likely that Paul was a closeted gay than that Jesus was. There is far more evidence, both direct and indirect.
As for Jesus, I wish the anti-theists here would make up their mind: either He had an affair with Mary Magdalene or He was gay. you can’t have it both ways. LOL.
By Marian Griffith, May 14, 2012 at 12:20 am Link to this comment
Actually, it is more likely that Paul was gay. Jesus after all had his dedicated female groupies while Paul had nothing but disdain for women in general and the women surrounding Jesus in particular.
By Maani, May 13, 2012 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment
Not sure what you mean. Among Biblical (and particularly NT) scholars - of all stripes - the existence of Jesus is not questioned, and even less questioned is the existence of many (if not most of) the apostles and disciples. As well, most of the other persons (including Paul, Timothy, and all the political personages) and events (historic, not religious) are very well documented.
So yes, as I noted, the “basics” of the NT are accepted by most scholars as “sound history.”
By culheath, May 13, 2012 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment
Congrats Mr Fish,
Another brilliant work of art doing exactly what art is supposed to do.
By John Poole, May 13, 2012 at 9:08 am Link to this comment
Jimmmmmmy: Many many people has assumed the figure of Jesus was gay- me
being one circa 1960s. We kept our views discrete for we knew how such a
speculation would rattle friends and family. If the “real” Jesus sensed he was gay I
wonder if that would have tormented him as it did many notable gays of our
times and earlier? Could such a torment account for his odd life?
By thethirdman, May 13, 2012 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
I know you’re trollin. Nice try.
The NT is “sound history.” I think we’ve heard all we need from you. Good day.
Fuck off then. How unfortunate a website did not conform 100% to your narrow
little views. Oh faith, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee.
By faith, May 12, 2012 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment
TruthDig, I am appalled and greviously offended by this Mr. Fish cartoon. I am
usually a pretty mellow person and fairly tolerant. But to allow a cartoonist to
present Jesus Christ as a homosexual is really just plain wrong. It does not matter
if Christ approved or did not approve of individual lifestyles. This presents a
human being in “false light”. It is only allowed due to time and being a public
figure. I recognize that Mr. Fish has civil rights and free speech. But, I depend on
TruthDig to present interesting and intelligent ideas for discussion. I can get Mr.
Scheer’s columns and intelligent critiques elsewhere. I left LAT because they had
treated Mr. Scheer unfairly. But, no matter my beliefs, I do not intend to read sites
that so dramatically insult and offend.
By katsteevns, May 12, 2012 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment
Maani, wonderful clarifying comment to Meyhem. If only more people understood (cared
about) the essence of Jesus.
Politicians use homosexuality as a tool to divide the people, distract them from the more
important issues. Some religionists do the same and with alot of success.
By Marian Griffith, May 12, 2012 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment
At denouncing homosexuality as ‘not nature made’ you show a staggering lack of knowledge of basic biology.
Technically nature does not ‘make’ anything. I doubt you will accept it but all life exists in a form that, for them, makes it the most efficient at surviving as a species. That is why we have animals that are forming harems, are promiscuous or serially monogamous, species where the male care only enough to get the female pregnant and then disappear again. And in many cases where the female of the species gets (group) raped. Species where the male (or female) kills the children of their rivals, animals where the female kills and eats the male after getting inpregnated. Animals where the young eat their parent and just about any atrocity in between you could think of. There is nothing wise, kind or benevolent about ‘nature’.
Second, there are a great many well documented cases of homosexuality occuring in animal species. And not statistical anomalies either. I guess they are, in your opinion, not natural either despite being unable to any choice in this matter?
Thirdly, I think calling homosexuals ‘unnatural’ is even more offensive than simply denying them the right to form a relationship with a partner and have that relationship defined by the same terminology, laws, rights and obligations as that of a relationship between man and woman. The sad thing is that you likely do not even realise (I hesitate to say understand) how offensive you are being.
By Maani, May 12, 2012 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment
Thank you for your kind words. I would note, however, that the NT is not “Christian mythology,” Catholic or otherwise. Indeed, very few Scriptural scholars - faith-based or secular - would agree with that generalization. Certainly one can question whether EVERYTHING ascribed to Jesus - words, actions, etc. - is accurate or not. But the “basics” of the NT are accepted as “sound history” by most scholars. Indeed, I think your appellation applies more readily to some (much?) of the OT, not the NT.
That said, I also want to thank you for your excellent comment that, “But I do think Christianity, in the right hands, in the rights minds, serves benevolent purposes. Atheists who rail for the destruction of the church often do not have ideas for replacing the critical social importance that benevolent Christians bring to society.”
It is encouraging that a non-believer would offer such a truth. Thank you.
By D.R. Zing, May 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment
Dear Non-Compassionate Liberal,
I must say I do not believe in immaculate conception.
Chances are it was gritty and sweaty and in a stable
smelling of horse dung.
Early Christians borrowed much from the Egyptians,
Greeks and Romans in constructing their mythology.
It was common among Greeks, for example, to claim a
god had impregnated their daughter. It most
certainly wasn’t the stable boy.
I have no doubt Jesus existed. I am equally certain
we have no idea what the man was actually like. The
terms “Christian mythology” have been largely
banished from our discussions, but anyone who takes a
cursory look at the history of the New Testament
realizes it is nothing more and nothing less than a
fantastic book of mythology.
If you can find good in it, for yourself, for your
children, for your society, I commend you. Go forth
and confront the blind mouths in your midst who have
taken Christian mythology and turned it into a blunt
instrument for hatred, bigotry and perpetual war.
I respect the way you make your case. I don’t agree
with the details or with your overlooking of the
historical fact that the New Testament is a book of
myths created by The Catholic Church. But that’s
okay. You state your case eloquently and politely,
without malice or vindictiveness. We should all be so
blessed. Have a good day.
If you think seeing a woman give birth is offensive,
well, hmm, I don’t know what to say. I helped my
wife give birth and while I did avoid looking up the
birth canal, the experience itself was the most
beautiful, most wonderful experience of my life. To
see a being come into the world and almost
immediately being nursing was nothing short of a
religious experience, a timeless moment of love and
beauty. Sometimes you have to allow yourself to be
transported beyond the bloody details and consider
the miracle of the moment.
As for your religious beliefs, I don’t share them.
But I do think Christianity, in the right hands, in
the rights minds, serves benevolent purposes.
Atheists who rail for the destruction of the church
often do not have ideas for replacing the critical
social importance that benevolent Christians bring to
As for a woman who likes sex other than for having
children being a whore, I sincerely and
wholeheartedly disagree and I feel sorry for you.
Someone has abused you intellectually. I hope you can
one day recover and become a benevolent Christian.
Right now you’ve been brainwashed into supporting a
malevolent cult of Christianity that is playing a
vital role in the demise of humanity.
My suggestion: Quit thinking so much about bloody
vaginas, penises near rectums, and women keening in
orgasmic abandon for the sheer joy of it.
Let that go.
Let go of your superstitions and intellectual abuse.
Have an epiphany.
Realize you’ve been manipulated by cynical men for
Go forth and bring the goodwill of Christianity into
By jr., May 12, 2012 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment
I once saw a woman giving birth, and it was the most offensive thing i had ever witnessed until seeing the picture posted here. In my humble opiinion, sex is for having children. And marriage is about the law, property, and the division of property. About those fuck-happy idiots that are turning their spouses into whores, i have no comment. But having children and inclining them a certain way, i do take issue with. But then again, i suppose, all of society is guilty of that. I don’t view being gay as a sin, just simply not Nature made.
By Leftist Liberal, May 12, 2012 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
Try that with a picture of Mohammed and see how that flies.
By Maani, May 12, 2012 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
Yes. But it is critically important to realize that most Christians do not understand how they should be “reacting” to that sin. Let me give you a perfect comparison.
You are probably familiar with the NT passage in which some townspeople are about to stone to death an adulteress, and Jesus says to them, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” A very famous quote, known (and often mis-applied) even by many atheists. But even most Christians take that quote out of context. Here is the entire passage:
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her…And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
Note that: “Go, and sin no more.” This while Jesus did not condemn her, neither did He condone her lifestyle, and He actually told her in so many words to stop.
Given that adultery and homosexuality were “equal” sins - i.e., the punishment for both was stoning - we can replace the adulteress with a homosexual and we would get the same result: Jesus would not condemn the homosexual - and, indeed, he would show love and acceptance of them - but neither would He condone the sin or the lifestyle.
In this regard, what many (perhaps even most) Christians don’t “get” is that, while the sin and lifestyle may be “wrong,” Jesus would NEVER support discrimination, shunning, or any “negative” attitude toward gay people, much less harming them, whether physically, economically, politically, etc.
By Project Mayhem, May 12, 2012 at 3:55 am Link to this comment
In your view, then, homosexuality is a sin?
By John Poole, May 11, 2012 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment
Well a single guy with a Messiah complex would probably end up in bed with
another guy. What chick would want to be with a clown who says he was the son
of God? No wife, no children. Not much advice he can offer married with
By Maani, May 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment
Uh…no it would NOT be Jesus’ message. While it is true that Jesus did not condemn anyone, neither did He condone certain lifestyles. Jesus was about “loving the sinner, not the sin,” and would NOT have “approved this message.” LOL.
By U.S.S. Minnow, May 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
It doesn’t offend me in the least, but it brings to mind an album cover of John Lennon hiding in the refuge of Yoko Ono. I think the Bible screws up straight people who would find an affinity with the words and teachings of Jesus but wouldn’t voluntarily pose for a portrait similar to the one above. And actually, seeing as how in large segments of our society, a homosexual community is actually not a victim class but rather wields considerable influence, the cartoon serves to reinforce the misunderstood victim status required for any group consciousness to achieve power behind the scenes. I suggest redoing the cartoon but this time slap golden stars on both of them and bake at 425 degrees. Jesus spoke of a paradoxical justice where the first will be last and the last will be first, I don’t see Jesus’ message as all being about love and tolerance and acceptance. There were certain groups he singled out for criticism.
By Eric, May 10, 2012 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment
I can see why Fish used Patterson, or a white Jesus,
because he’s given up. A handful of people, since His
death, had tried teaching the truths of His life on
Earth as a poor African man. But the churches have
never taken down their stained glass windows of a
white Jesus, and His actions and words coming from
love and concern for the welfare of others, goes in
one ear and out the other during sermons: people
can’t imagine how they can challenge the tainted
dogma with His teachings. So for the few who open
themselves to His true wisdom and love, feel apathy
to any notion of societal progression.
By jimmmmmy, May 10, 2012 at 10:10 am Link to this comment
katsteevns. Liked your post. It would be fair if Hedges used the T-Shirt , he was appologizing for a muslim fanatic last week.
By jimmmmmy, May 10, 2012 at 10:05 am Link to this comment
I liked this cartoon. My contention that Jesus, If he existed, was probably gay has gotten me in several fights over the years. Now that I’m old I don’t think I’d have the nerve to where the T-shirt
By sallysense, May 10, 2012 at 7:37 am Link to this comment
“say dad… how comes the cartoon guy drew a christ message like that ?”...
“may be par for his course son… his non-golfer grandpa got a golf fountain”...
By tony_opmoc, May 10, 2012 at 3:39 am Link to this comment
Mr. Fish produces yet another brilliant cartoon.
Having been brought up a very strict Roman Catholic,
I was very naive and didn’t “get it” at first. The
extent of my naivety is that although I immediately
recognised Jesus, I didn’t immediately recognise
Not only that, despite being an avid music fan and
completely loving Brighton Rock in 1974, I didn’t
even realise that Freddie was Gay until after he died
nearly 20 years later.
It took another 10 years to realise what exactly
killed him, which I am convinced was not his illness,
but the AZT used to treat it. That view however is
extremely controversial unless you happen to be Peter
Nah, they wouldn’t do that. Oh yes, they would. Just
ask Jesus. That’s why he ain’t coming back.
By UreKismet, May 10, 2012 at 3:38 am Link to this comment
I don’t believe Freddie Mercury would touch Robert Powell with yours Mr Fish.
By katsteevns, May 10, 2012 at 3:06 am Link to this comment
Suggested WARNING LABEL for the t-shirt:
Among the few public places which one can safely ‘hang out’ and don this t-shirt are Castro Street, Christopher Street and the French Quarter. In most other locals, you would be taking your life into your own hands. Try to avoid airports, churches and the House floor. We tell you this because WE CARE!!
By katsteevns, May 10, 2012 at 2:30 am Link to this comment
Mr. Fish, I think you have just succeeded in offending a very large portion of the population. I think we can safely assume you will never be elected to public office. If you can persuade Chris Hedges to use this cartoon in one of his columns, I’ll give you TEN BUCKS!!!
Now, if I order the t-shirt, does it come with a detachable bullet proof vest?!?
By Non-Compassionate Liberal, May 10, 2012 at 12:15 am Link to this comment
Of course this would be Jesus’ message. If his mother was a virgin at the time of his conception, yet she was married to the carpenter, and now-Saint, Joseph, does this not mean that Joseph was at some gay bar during the miraculous moment? Jesus’ values are just a reflection of his non-traditional-family environment.
By THX 1133 is not in the movie..., May 10, 2012 at 12:09 am Link to this comment
Wow! Love the sentiment; ain’t it the truth…
sign up to get updates
Get Our Feed