The Case Against Hitting Snooze
Reformer or Hypocrite? Understanding Pope Francis
Iceland Sends Four Bank Bosses to the Slammer
The Great American Class War
Payment Due: The Obamacare Deadline No One Is Talking About
The Case Against Hitting Snooze
Dig led by Mike Rose
Dig led by Truthdig Staff
By Amy Goodman, David Goodman $5.18
By Joe Conason $9.35
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 ChristopherTK, January 6, 2011 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment
Good for a laugh, and worth passing on.
By Inherit The Wind, December 30, 2010 at 9:33 am Link to this comment
I appreciate it more than you realize since we rarely agree on much.
By truedigger3, December 30, 2010 at 4:33 am Link to this comment
Re: By Inherit The Wind, December 29 at 10:26 pm
That is an excellent post and I agree with you 100% although I am not Jewish, but an atheist and former Christian.
By Inherit The Wind, December 30, 2010 at 12:24 am Link to this comment
Now YOU are being too hard on your fellow Christians!
Sure, the materialization of the holidays is sad and unfortunate, but I think MOST people I know ENJOY giving gifts and LOVE seeing the young ones ecstatic glee over getting the latest Hess truck! I also think most Christians I know love Christmas as the REAL time of loving and forgiving and moving on—a re-birth of gentleness to celebrate the Birth.
Too bad it’s gone in the first week of January—but that’s another issue. I think they “get it”—but cannot keep “it”.
Now there will always be the schmucks who compete to see who can out-decorate his neighbor, but they will be schmucks 6 months later at the 4th of July as well. What can you do?
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 29, 2010 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment
Well, looking at how Christmas is more a merchant’s ability to make a profit that season is the aim propagated today… Christ aside.
I agree, the government use of the Christian identity tool to further the consumption and pacifying of the masses.
The further I followed Christ bible-wise, the further I stepped out of convention, can see how ‘holidays’ have been used to enrich the already rich, and is mingled with pagan rituals and such… I see through the charade it really is…
The masses don’t see nor understand their position… or do they and the further numb themselves with the weapons of mass distraction sold them?
By Inherit The Wind, December 29, 2010 at 4:26 pm Link to this comment
What you describe is totally different than what I describe. I ALWAYS wish my Christian friends a joyous Christmas, because they SHOULD enjoy it. Your Jewish friends seek to help you enjoy your holiday. I think that’s just lovely.
What I describe is the ASSUMPTION that we all MUST celebrate the Christian holiday and that we must all have our tax dollars go to pay for it…and that there’s something wrong with us if we don’t, even when we don’t come from a Christian background.
One ex-GF (emphasis on the “EX-”)even called me “Scrooge” because Christmas was meaningless to me. Somehow, she couldn’t wrap her head around either idea: That as an Agnostic, Christmas has little meaning, and as a cultural Jew, it has even less.
I keep trying to get this idea across and failing: What Christians do to celebrate Christmas in their homes, churches, private clubs, and even in private businesses (such as decorating a store) doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I enjoy it, from crackpot tasteless plastic waving Santas to an elegant brass candlestick in a window on a simple green and red plaid.
But when the government decides IT must celebrate Christmas too, using public funds and public property, that’s where I draw the line. The Establishment Clause is vital and must be inviolable, rigidly inviolable. Because from creches on town halls, it goes to teaching “Creationism” in public schools, to prosecuting teachers for teaching science that contradicts theology. And from there “heresy” and “blasphemy” become crimes, not just sins.
it is the history of the world.
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 29, 2010 at 11:24 am Link to this comment
I spent Christmas evening with folks from different walks of life, the majority being non-believers.
The hosts were Jewish, they celebrate Christmas because it is a great way to bring people together to enjoy their company.
You suppose they are worried about what you’ve stated you are worried about or dislike?
Not at all… they understand the world, and have made choices… and believe me, I share my thoughts and convictions regarding Christ, the world and such things… and we converse and learn from one another.
Why can’t people do the same on these online posting boards?
I love my Jewish friends!
They are, after all, the chosen race / people to showcase to the world God’ wonderment and divine qualities… and Christ was that ambassador.
Most everyone else at that party either does NOT believe in Santa Claus let alone God… but that is where they are at.
They know of Him, but they must see in order to believe… as well as hear.
Yet, me… I’m a poor representation of that Christ.
Christ brought the notion of peace that goes beyond race, ethnicity and religion… even if folks don’t mind Him any business… yet.
By glider, December 29, 2010 at 10:46 am Link to this comment
As evidenced by the posts of religious fanatics on this forum “logic while absolute in itself, does not seem to be a rising practice ”. I personally view scientific method (which is man made as well) as the best handle on ascertaining what “reality” is. However, in my own personal experience I think Buddhism offers an effective method of controlling and developing our human psychology in a systematic manner. As you contend it is does have faulty elements mixed in with gems and one needs to filter it properly. But it does offer many angles not readily accessible in peer reviewed scientific literature. I would recommend reading Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life’s Most Important Skill by Matthieu Ricard, who brings a scientist’s sensibilities to the topic.
By Inherit The Wind, December 29, 2010 at 10:29 am Link to this comment
Napolean DoneHisPart, December 29 at 6:49 am Link to this comment
Don’t get so sensitive ITW.
Huh? WTF does this refer to? I live in a world where Christians control and run everything, run roughshod over other people’s beliefs and then think they are entitled to it! Worse, they THEN complain as “Christians” in America, they are persecuted! What does that mean? It means they can’t force public schools to teach “Creationism”. It means they can’t force me to pay for their religious schools.
In the next town to me, in suburban NJ, there is a creche on the town hall lawn. There isn’t even an attempt at parity—no menorah, no “Happy Kwanzaa” signs, nothing. The message is clear: “We are a Christian town. Jews, Moslems, and other non-believers: Don’t plan on moving here.”
You gotta be kidding me!
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 29, 2010 at 12:49 am Link to this comment
Don’t get so sensitive ITW.
By Inherit The Wind, December 28, 2010 at 11:16 pm Link to this comment
You think I haven’t heard it all before, 100x or more?
I’ve got news for you, time to disabuse you of the notion that Atheists or Agnostics live in terror of you or anyone else praying. We don’t.
What terrifies us is what you religious fanatics regularly do, and are trying to do now: Force ALL of us to pray to YOUR god, make our children pray to YOUR god, force our children to study YOUR personal myth as if it’s fact, forcing US to worship YOUR religion.
In fact, it’s what ALL religious fanatics like you strive for—whether you are Christian, Moslem, Jewish, or Hindu—because EVERYONE ELSE is a heathen, a heretic or a blasphemer. Just read your last post…with honesty.
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 28, 2010 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment
Nick B., it does make for fun reading doesn’t it?
You’ve got this or some novella on tv.
Beer is always optional.
By Nick B., December 28, 2010 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment
You are a master of rambling incoherence. Congratulations.
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 28, 2010 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment
With all due respect, truly-
Take some time to read those words in Acts and how the First Century Church defined in Acts 2:42-47, prior to physical usurpation by the hired hands later that century when that first generation passed away ( the wolves and snakes and such the gospels warn about ) still remains in effect since it is a spiritual bond, not physical nor affiliated to persons in close proximity… and the Word continues to spread and be made available to be heard outloud and read in private.
And praying is still not a crime, at least no one can stop you from thinking about something, at least not outside a military base.
This is what scares so many atheists and scientists / government power trippers and believed-to-be enlightened people….. scares folks witless out of their sweaty skin when the Spirit speaks and their hearts are convicted.
Aside from the delivery found from the pulpit, the words themselves cannot be rendered centric to any single group, called or named whatever… you can fool some people, but not everyone… similar to another fear, the hidden ‘cell.’
Well, God has ‘cells’ of his peace minded and considerate folks living out their grateful lives, ready to react to tyranny, or the madness being propagated on mainstream Babylon TV, in a loving and disciplined manner… just like Christ did.
They don’t fear death, but would hate to leave for they would still have much GOOD TO DO!
According to my experience aside from faith and belief, really being like the Christ has no affiliation to any single church publicly known today.
That is something that cannot be manufactured, nor even believed sometimes because it is SO NOT like the world’s selfishness and cold fearful heart.
Much how the Masons have their hand gestures and certain things to publicly identify each other, so can the Disciple of Christ distinguish, by that very same Spirit, a brother / sister coming from like Spirit, or not.
For the affiliation is a spiritual one, not one physically present and counted by role sheets, nor by knowledge faculty nor amount of letters after a last name, nor by good deeds done.
Christ wasn’t for the Jew, though he hadn’t digressed a single law in the “law.”
History shows various groups and cults creating their own version, not sure how far under God’s grace they’ll be when it is all said and done, they very well may fall under his compassion, but not his mercy.
Anything you would and wouldn’t want your young son or daughter to be in this life, is a decent perspective Christ had on every person on the planet… you can’t deny that, unless you are reading something other than what was written about him.
You say it’s hogwash and doctored by centuries of greedy men besieging it… and if that has been done so, they have and will pay the penalties…. yet the main message of Repent and be Baptized in his Name stays the same… who can claim that other than Him?
His perspective has vastly enveloped the world, whether by noble or ignoble means of men at their worst, citing incidence and scandal… yet here we still are, and there still exists hope in the world.
Please tell me what this script may be proposing:
John 3:20 “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”
By Inherit The Wind, December 28, 2010 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment
I’d say: find out the difference between being under mercy and under compassion.
“mercy” is what you give to people who you’ve caught in a transgression. IE, innocent people ask for justice, not mercy. Guilty people ask for mercy.
“compassion” is what you give to people caught in a fix, whether or not it’s their own fault.
A person hit by a car running a red light needs our compassion—the person running the red light needs our mercy.
Your scriptures were assembled long after Jesus lived and by then there was a Catholic church, vying with the Orthodox church, the Arian church, the Coptic Church and one more (whose name I’ve forgotten, but I THINK it was based in Antioch.)
Naturally, YOUR scripture says it’s the “truth” and all others are false…DUHHHHHH!!!! So does the Koran, and so does Tanakh (what you call the OT).
One of the things I’ll never understand about Christianity is how people can argue that the OT is merely temporary, a kludge, until the NT, that God’s “eternal laws” became un-eternal when Jesus said so…actually, no….when the FOLLOWERS of Jesus said “this is what Jesus meant”. Truly baffling. One would think that every law God gave Moses was perfect, eternal, and never to be put aside. Yet Christians decided, long after Jesus was dead, otherwise!
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 28, 2010 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment
Inherit The Wind!?!?!!?
Come on buddy, I don’t want to get into this again with you here on the Fish Network.
You’re missing the reality that the gospels, written before the taint of Catholicism ( the usurpation of the state and other entities into a family of believers bonded not by their own blood but by the ‘blood of Christ,’ had on the Way.
This Way is misconstrued by people seeing from the outside, for they call it Christianity, cults, and other things.. usually named after who was moved by the Spirit to bring reformation to the spirit of what is described in the book of Acts.
We are ALL sons of God, as it says… you are correct… yet ONE was designated as a better adviser than Moses, Elijah and others read about concerning things unseen by most, but clearly seen by few.
He even said the one who comes after him is a liar and a thief and should not be listened to… that was written BEFORE Muhammed arrived on the landscape of history… but hindsight isn’t always 20/20 for everyone watching the same information….
I’d say: find out the difference between being under mercy and under compassion.
By Inherit The Wind, December 28, 2010 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
As an agnostic, I treat ALL religions’ stories of magic and “miracles” as nothing but pure bunk.
Still, your comparison of Jesus to Siddhartha is typical disparaging by a person of one faith of another faith. Therefore, it merely demonstrates your lack of ecumenical understanding, and is not convincing to anyone but someone who already agrees with you.
It also shows you actually know even less than me about Buddhism and its parent religion, Hinduism.
Mr. Fish’s cold skepticism is a requisite of all political cartoonists. I suggest a review of Herbloc’s cartoons.
As for Fish’s irreverent topic, it’s been similarly explored in National Lampoon, “Dogma”, and even Anne Rice’s “Christ: Out of Egypt”, as well as in some of her vampire books.
Christianity, as an outgrowth of Catholicism, cast out the Arian so-called “Heresy” which held that God, being omnipotent, could produce any number of “Saviors” he chose. Naturally, this concept had to be crushed, hence the inclusion in the Catholic scriptures of the verse about God giving the world his “only” son.
This, of course, absolutely contradicts Genesis 6:1 to 6:4, that discusses the “Sons of God”, clearly existing long before the “Son of God”.
By Maani, December 28, 2010 at 2:07 am Link to this comment
“See the following link and scroll down the page a bit for the list of persecuted scientists.”
You may want to provide something more up-to-date and supportable. The article (which is suspiciously unascribed…) openly admits to using Andrew Dickson White’s “History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom” as its primary source. However, A.D. White’s “conflict thesis” has been largely discredited by later historians of science. Keep in mind that he was writing in the late 1800s - and with a blatant and unapologetic bias. But as with almost any other subject, much new info has come to light in the past 100 years, much of it making White look foolish, and revealing his bias.
As well, the work of Guenter Lewy (whose 1964 “The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany” is cited by the author re claims about Hitler, Christianity, Jews and the Holocaust) has also been superseded, and his bias revealed. Michael Burleigh is among those whose works debunk much of Lewy’s hypotheses.
I have been ove this before, as it has been a subject of intensive study for me over a period of more than 20 years. Despite Mein Kampf (and the use of the cross by the SS), Hitler was NOT a Christian; he was a pagan. People seem to forget that Hitler’s goal was a “master race” of “Aryans”; but Aryan is not a religion, it is essentially a “bloodline,” and thus has nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism. In this regard, Hitler simply “used” Christianity to get rid of one particular group who was clearly not Aryan. But he had no intention of stopping there. In a peech to the party faithful in late 1933 (only months after becoming Chancellor), Hitler stated, “It is through the peasantry that we will destroy Christianity.” Thus, once Hitler had gotten rid of the Jews - who he saw as enemies of the Aryans - his next target was non-Aryan Christians.
And he began that even before the Final Solution was completed. For example, he murdered almost 90% of all the parish priests in Prussia in a two-year period, and all but attempted to take over the Protestant Chruch. As for the Catholic Church, Hitler hated the Pope (who, although he did not openly help the Jews, was aware that individual priests were doing so, and did not attempt to stop them), and would almost certainly have gone after him once the Final Solution was complete and the Protestant churches were all but destroyed.
As well, don’t forget that Hitler was an equal opportunity murderer: 6 million Jews, 2 million Christians, and 3 million blacks, communists, gays, trade unionists, elderly, and physically and mentally disabled were killed.
One other point. A “Christian” is known by their works. Jesus’ ministry was based on 11 precepts: love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth. Hitler displayed NONE of these characteristics. In fact, he openly displayed the polar opposites of ALL of them: hateful, warlike, unforgiving, lacking compassion, unhumble, impatient, uncharitable, egomaniacal, dictatorial, unjust and a liar.
So by what rubric could he call himself (and anyone consider him) a “Christian?”
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 28, 2010 at 12:49 am Link to this comment
encapsulated “from” the poor
He “grew” up not ‘group up’ whoops.
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 28, 2010 at 12:35 am Link to this comment
The Buddhist was a guy who grew up encapsulated to the plight of the poor outside his luxurious estate / compound. He group up in the lap of luxury and was afforded the best of everything, including education the ‘higher’ arts of the ‘noble’ classes.
Christ was born into poverty, was of the lower, working chattel class…. a totally different perspective altogether… a soil where empathy grows.
Although Buddha seems to have transcended that immunity and lack of apathy for the many poor in his time as in today’s empire, his teachings feed the person making the changes, giving a reassurance of their choices to benefit themselves first, then others; making the ‘sacrifices’ aside from feeding the elitist appetite… yet the Christ’s message was to benefit all outside oneself… in contrast to the Buddhist message.
Christ’s aim is to benefit others first, to serve others first… not to the betterment of self, but actually.. to the diminishing of self and the assistance of others to that spiritual place of wonderment… what the Buddha could only see from afar.
By Dave24, December 28, 2010 at 12:06 am Link to this comment
glider: Thanks. You saved a lot of typing on my end in response to Maani.
Also, I do realize that Buddhism remains largely distinguishable from today’s
monotheistic religions. However, like all structured systems of belief, there are
guidelines that allege to lead to enlightenment, spirituality, etc. And my feeling
is that the best way to experience nature and reality and the notion of
consciousness is to free ourselves from all manmade systems. Science, as a
method, seems the most objective manner by which to experience raw
That said, there are certainly gems of morality and insight within all religions,
especially in Buddhism. But I think we need to divorce those gems from the
obvious superstitions and blanket rituals that are often arbitrarily bound to said
Make sense? Let me know what you think, glider.
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 27, 2010 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
This is for you, Fish… and all the God haters / God deniers… and huckleberrys alike.
By glider, December 27, 2010 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment
Reality, as revealed by scientific method, is obviously completely independent of Christianity. Of course, religion has impacted the rate of its progress by indirect impacting its practitioners. Most would argue it has slowed such progress by cultivating a culture of superstition in direct opposition to scientific methods. Surely, it is absurd to propose that man without Christianity would lack the motivating force of curiosity about the universe!
By glider, December 27, 2010 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment
See the following link and scroll down the page a bit for the list of persecuted scientists.
By glider, December 27, 2010 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment
Very well put. Science has progressed in spite of Christianity IMO. Unfortunately, logic while absolute in itself, does not seem to be a practice that is on the rise, in no small part due to the influence of religion. As for Buddhism I am reluctant to lump it in with Abrahamic religions since it technically does not have absolutes. But your main points are right on.
By Maani, December 27, 2010 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment
“At the end of the day, when you look at all the amazing work of scientists through the ages (a good number of whom were threatened or killed by religious institutions for contradicting scripture), even those who may believe in some version of a deity, belief makes no difference: because they performed science that was uninformed by the bible.”
First, please give me examples of scientists who were “threatened or killed by religious institutions.” After all, the only two I know of to whom this occurred (Copernicus, Galileo) both maintained their allegiance to the Catholic Church even after having been condemned.
Second, re “they performed science that was uninformed by the Bible,” that is not entirely true. In fact, for most of them (particularly the earliest figures), the science they did was done as a DIRECT outgrowth of their faith: to reveal the “glory of God” in the “mysteries” of the universe and universal laws. So while it may not have been done to prove the validity or lack thereof of Scripture per se, many of them would not even have gone into science had it not been for their faith.
By Nick B., December 27, 2010 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment
Anyone who says something unfavorable about Christianity must have some emotional disturbance. It is unthinkable that a successful, happy, healthy person could think that Christianity is anything but just wonderful!
You should be ashamed of yourself for making that comment. You know nothing about that person.
And if you care to actually try to defend your dogma instead of just cast aspersions, I’m your huckleberry.
By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 27, 2010 at 11:43 am Link to this comment
Fish is bitter from something that happened to him in childhood… learn to forgive Fish, so you can be forgiven too.
By Dave24, December 27, 2010 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
Maani: So if all those people had brown eyes, that would somehow enhance
their ability to do science?
Pointing to good works or charity isn’t impressive, sorry. Such actions do not
validate the superstitious, mythological beliefs which may have motivated them.
At the end of the day, when you look at all the amazing work of scientists
through the ages (a good number of whom were threatened or killed by
religious institutions for contradicting scripture), even those who may believe
in some version of a deity, belief makes no difference: because they performed
science that was uninformed by the bible.
Trial and error and refinement of theory has led to breakthrough. Scanning
ancient scriptures that were (and are) clearly ignorant of the natural world (let
alone the alleged supernatural) has contributed zero to the scientific
understanding of our world and ourselves.
Do you trust geological data that may have been articulated by a Buddhist or
Muslim? Or instead do you trust the bible which dates the Earth to less than
6,000 years old?
Science transcends the chains of religion, and what the practitioner believes is
of no consequence. There isn’t a Christian science and a Muslim science and a
Buddhist science. There is only science, and a bunch of religions pretending to
Discoveries made by the Greeks, for instance, have laid the foundation for
modern thought, particularly in science. So do their contributions to humanity
somehow validate the myths believed in at that time?
Science is a tool, a method that eliminates personal bias by relying only on
evidence. So the biography of the person performing science (be it Christian,
Islamic, etc.) is of no importance.
Try another line of argumentation, sweetheart.
By truedigger3, December 27, 2010 at 8:53 am Link to this comment
Re: By gerard, December 27 at 5:49 am
Nothing in my posts is showing the slightest inclination toward rigid dogmas, political and/or religious.
All I asked for is some common sense and courtsy toward a celebration of hope, peace and good well among peoples. If there is an objection about the ideas and stories behind that celebration, then the rest of the year is more than enough to voice that objection. Little flexiblity is required here and you are accusing me of rigidity!!! Give me a break.!
Please reread my posts, again, slowly!.
By dsmith, December 27, 2010 at 8:13 am Link to this comment
I love this cartoon. It reminds me of the history of virgin births I have read about through the years. Certainly, the story of Jesus is based on many historical figures. Google…Jesus and Mithra. Mithra was a cult figure in 600 BC. Born on Dec. 25 had twelve followers, born of a virgin. Very interesting to compare the text about Jesus with Mithra.
By bogglesthemind, December 27, 2010 at 1:12 am Link to this comment
I’m calling bullshit on all the bullshit in these comments.
By gerard, December 26, 2010 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment
“—a world where is everything is relative and open for evaluation. That will be a scary chaotic world indeed.!
“Here we are having Christmas which is a celebration of peace and hope and good well among people, why dump shit on it since you have all year to discuss its theology.”
With all due respect, etc.—that’s precisely what I’m trying to point up: We are actually living in a world where everything is relative” but dogma and doctrines try to close off parts of it and exclude others, to prevent understanding, evaluation, and the saving grace of humor. That is precisely the problem!
Sure that relative world is scarey and chaotic, but that also means that it is open to change for either better or worse, and that we are placed in the position of having a certain amount of “free will” to decide how to make the world easier to live in for more people—hopefully “with freedom and justice for all”.
Sure, we are far from attaining that end—but for the first time in human history we have attained the ability to communicate broadly with each other, to learn to understand each other’s needs, hopes and fears, and to work together for the common benefit of all. It’s a great challenge—and the Christian message, if I may remind you.
Will human beings be able to meet the challenge? Time will tell, and at the present moment it doesn’t look too good, but ... if we can just get rid of some of the rigidities and open more people to the opportunity within the freedom and the relativity, we just might make it through the crumch.
Doctrinaire insistence upon rigid dogmas, political and/or religious, are not helping.
By Inherit The Wind, December 26, 2010 at 11:19 pm Link to this comment
You re-enforce my point: You perceive a binary world, and therefore, to you, anyone who doesn’t fit it must be some kind of 5th Columnist. You cannot perceive multiple viewpoints.
Yeah, after 3 years you OCCASIONALLY post something I find sensible, but usually, it’s the same old, same old shite.
“If you’re not with me, you’re against me” The binary POV has not changed. You have one of closed minds posting here, though you still communicate in rational speech (unlike a slew of others who spew new-age gibberish).
By Charles de Gaule, December 26, 2010 at 10:39 pm Link to this comment
I am not a “Christian fundamentalist” or “into” doctrine, or dogma. I am not even sure that anyone needs to believe in God to get a very important message from the gospels. Still, I don’t think anyone’s interpretation of Jesus would laugh at this caption - unless maybe he laughed until he cried.
Let’s see, what does it really say? Women take no joy in family, there’s no desire for any such outdated pursuits. Who would want to bring a person into the world who would devote his life to teaching ordinary people self-examination and mercy? How awful. I mean, there isn’t really any such thing as right and wrong anyway, is there? There must not be, otherwise those who know the difference between the two would not be characterized as “holier-than-thou complainers”.
I wish the “cartoonist” had stayed in Europe with his granola or some shit, man.
By Maani, December 26, 2010 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment
“Religion in all its forms is the collective anchor to humanity’s progress.”
Uh…you might want to tell that to the Christians who were in the forefront of the abolition movement, the child labor movement, the suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement, to name just the most obvious. You might want to tell that to the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army, both of whom have been providing disaster services globally in both wartime and peacetime without respect to race, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else. And you might want to tell that to the many scientists who were also men and women of faith, including Copernicus, Brahe, Bacon, Galilei, Kepler, Pascal, Newton, Linnaeus, Faraday, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck, Maxwell, Carver, Curie, and Darwin - for whom their faith did not interfere with their ability to add to “humanity’s progress.”
By truedigger3, December 26, 2010 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment
Re: By Inherit The Wind, December 27 at 12:02 am
Again you speed read my post and reach your PREDETERMINED conclusion.
I am baffled about where in my post that justifies your summarily hasty judgement.
We have been “at it”, here in truthdig, for almost 3 years, that you should know me better to reach such conclusion.
Rico is posting here in truthdig for quite sometime that his lilberitarian right wing views are common knowledge by now coupled with evasive hard to pin down position when he slips drastically and is called on it.
You showed some flexiblities on several issues but regarding your beloved pets: 1) Israel. 2) The Democratic Party, you showed not a binary thinking, but a SINGLE MINDED thinking.
You throw us, once a while, a crumb to confuse and mislead us, but you are not fooling me. For example you say you hate Natanyahoo, and that is not a big
f%$king deal, since Natanyahoo is no different than those who preceded him and those who will come after him!.
Who is kidding who???!!
By truedigger3, December 26, 2010 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment
Re: By gerard, December 26 at 7:14 pm
gerard wrote addressing me:
“truthdigger3 suggests a sticky proposition here: “... not the proper time and place.” Who is so wise as to be able to propose such an idea of “proper times”, let alone pass judgment on whose, and when and where and why?”———————————————————————————
Of course nobody is ALL wise ALL the time, but there is something called common sense and expected decency.
For example it is common sense and expected decency not to settle any problems or disputes between us by me stabbing you with a knife right into your heart, otherwise you are asking for world where is everything is relative and open for evaluation.
That will be a scary chaotic world indeed.!
Here we are having Christmas which is a celebration of peace and hope and good well among people, why dump shit on it since you have all year to discuss its theology.
Nobody is required to believe the story behind it and I don’t believe it a bit myself.
Many cartoons could have been drawn about the commercialization of the event and the wars that are going full blast ignoring the teachings behind the celebration.
You know, someone wrote that some people are so open minded that their brains fell off!! Do you get my drift??!!
By Inherit The Wind, December 26, 2010 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment
The world isn’t made up solely of “Progressives” and “Reactionaries”, though we have too many of both, particularly “Reactionaries”.
There are 7 billion people in the world, which means 7 billion opinions on any topic, not two.
Sadly, you are not unique in your binary view.
Q:How many kinds of people are there in the world?
A: 10. Those that understand binary and those that don’t.
By gerard, December 26, 2010 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment
truthdigger3 suggests a sticky proposition here: “... not the proper time and place.” Who is so wise as to be able to propose such an idea of “proper times”, let alone pass judgment on whose, and when and where and why?
The very idea of “their day”! Appallingly provincial, if you stop to think about it! Every day is everybody’s day, and every day can be treated as a Christmas filled to overflowing with gifts, curses and everything in between. No day is particularly my day (not even my birth or death day), or yours. To claim it so is simply a mark of human need to particularize, to claim something special in the junk shop, to pull a fish out of the stream into which (some old Greek fool said, “- we step and do not step”). To claim is to possess, to dominate and to shut out others.
What a remarkable subject has come up here! Thanks to all of you, and Everybody’s Happy New Year in spite of hell and high water!
By Dave24, December 26, 2010 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
Mr. Fish cuts through the bullshit, even if it takes additional words. Anyone
debating whether he’s a “true” cartoonist fails to understand that each piece
produced is meant to convey a message, or reveal some truth, or comically
undermine some absurdity.
The artist often succeeds at this; though, apparently, when persons disagree
with the content of what Mr. Fish creates, that suddenly discredits his ability
Religion in all its forms is the collective anchor to humanity’s progress. Each
system has dogmatic rules and ideas in place that merely reverse-engineer new
discoveries, in order to preserve longevity.
It reminds me of Ricky Gervais’ recent stand-up routine on HBO regarding
Noah’s Ark. And that took 10 minutes. Meanwhile, Mr. Fish does something
similar in far less time, and is therefore worthy of praise: not attacks on his
value as an artist.
By truedigger3, December 26, 2010 at 3:05 am Link to this comment
Re: By Inherit The Wind, December 26 at 5:35 am
ITW wrote about Rico:
“Does he bend facts and torture definitions to make his point? Not within my memory.”——————————————————————————-
Each time I see Rico’s picture with his silly smile, I know that I will read a very reactionary comment that stands against anything calling for economic and social justice.
Ric might not be, although I am not sure, a tea-bagger or crazed Christian fundmentalist, but sure enough, he is a callous individual, who favours the current policies of accumulating wealth at the top tier of society and letting everyone else be damned.
Ric is a master of claiming innocence, using lawyery Clintonistic tactics and arguments. For example, he might declare:“I hate and detest people” and if somenoe asked him why he doesn’t like people, he will protest: that is not true, show me where I said “I don’t like people” !!??
By truedigger3, December 26, 2010 at 2:38 am Link to this comment
Although I am full blown 1000% an atheist, I find this cartoon, as someone mentioned here before, smacks of “bottom fishing”.
It is in poor taste and ungratuitous to insult a group in their day of celebrating peace and good well among people.
There is a time for every point view, and Christmas time, is not the correct time for this point of view.
By gerard, December 25, 2010 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment
“—cynical, bankrupt and debasubg.” The extreme opposite responses to this cartoon I find very interesting. Why the difference?
My guess is that those who object are “into” formal Christian doctrine and take the Bible stiores as literal truth. Those who see humor in the cartoon may believe just as deeply in Christian principles but do not take the Bible stories as literal truth, but nevertheless regard those principles as worthy exemplars of moral, ethical behavior.
For me, representing this second category of Christians, the ideal Jesus I admire and try to follow (though I usually fall short) would himself have laughed at the cartoon if he saw it. For me, one absolutely essential characteristic of all Christians (and indeed of all people) is a sense of humor and an ability to laugh at oneself. Those who smile at themselves and others without demeaning or scorning, just bear with each other with gentle good humor, are the salt of the eaarth. They will not kill anybody unless driven to it by false nationalistic hysteria.
When they laugh at sarcasm like this cartoon, they are laughing WITH a gentle tolerance for the “human condition"including themselves. They are not lauging at other people, or making fun of them. They deal with generalities, not with particulars; therefore they see the general human shortcomings portrayed in this cartoon; see the cartoon as a spoof of humans, not a denial or criticism of Mary and Jesus.
However, explanations seldom change people’s minds because the belief sticks tighter than the ability to distance oneself from his/her beliefs and see more than one point of view.
But why try to explain it? Only because it is interesting to speculate on a subject not often thought about. What is belief? Why do people believe? What beliefs are destructive and what beliefs are instructive? What is tolerance? etc. etc.
By Inherit The Wind, December 25, 2010 at 11:35 pm Link to this comment
Actually, Glider, if you’ve been following the trajectory that the Republicans have been taking for, at a minimum, the last ten years, you will have noticed that it has deviated to the far, far right. It is no longer anything even vaguely related to classic Conservatism that emerged in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. It is now a raging radical reactionaryism, irrational, illogical, “Christian” fundamentalist, myth-based and hate-filled.
Rico is none of these. He, like a true Conservative, doesn’t change much or easily, which is, of course, what “Conservative” means. I don’t agree with many of Rico’s POVs, but you have definitely tarred him with the wrong brush.
Every once in a blue moon, when I’m feeling a little masochistic, I’ll look at the posts on forums at Fox Noise. You’ll see the slavering, raging, insulting and threatening nature of the current Republicans and teabaggers. Again, this is not Rico. If you picked some of the other self-described “Conservatives” who post here, I’d agree with you.
Does Rico defend some of the GOP positions? Certainly. Does he defend all of them? Certainly not! Does he defend them as if he’s reading from the Fox talking points, the way McConnell, Boehner, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly all seem to be talking from the same script? Not within my memory, albeit as faulty as it is.
Does he bend facts and torture definitions to make his point? Not within my memory.
Is he frequently wrong? Sure, and I try to point that out as often as I can! (and why)
By omygodnotagain, December 25, 2010 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment
Cynical, bankrupt and debasing… Merry Christmas Mr Fish.. and sign up for therapy in New Year..
By purplewolf, December 25, 2010 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
For two of our most busy writers on this cartoon:
This is like the argument of when the king told Mozart that his latest piece of music had too many notes in it. Mozart replied it had as many as it needed and if the king thought that it still had too many notes in it, tell him which ones were too many and he would remove them.
This cartoon has as many words as is needed.
Amon Drool: go ahead and sent it to your sister, sounds like she needs to lighten up. I sent this on to those I knew would appreciate it for the irony.
And now to tick off the thoroughly religious. Wouldn’t the story of Mary’s impregnation actually be considered rape, as she had no say in the matter of being impregnated and being a future mother, whether she had sex as we know it today or was she artificially inseminated, zapped by an alien ray, lied about having sex or whatever other story we have been told.
For all the Tea Party crowd out there. Why don’t you ask for the birth certificate for Jesus? You certainly keep asking for Obama’s even after it has been listed online.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Seasons Greetings, Happy Yule or whatever other name you celebrate this originally Pagan holiday, aka: Yule or the winter solstice, kidnapped and converted into the wrong date of the birth of Jesus-if he exists.
By gerard, December 24, 2010 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment
Odd how pedants will take the fun out of everything!
By rico, suave, December 24, 2010 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment
To which I reply- no, I’m not. Are you the final word on what’s hilarious?
By DSMITH, December 24, 2010 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
I loved the message, which basically points out the obsurdity of religious dogma when told without the flowery english used in the King James bible.
To the gentleman who wrote… “One more time… If fish needs 200 words to explain his cartoon, he’s not a very good cartoonist”
To which I reply, and you are the final word on cartoonist?
By gerard, December 24, 2010 at 2:13 am Link to this comment
200 more words to explain the picture to people who don’t get the joke: Well, you see there’s this lady named Mary Saint sittin’ at the kitchen table,trying to snag a moment’s peace, smokin’ a cigarette and enjoying a nice hot cup of jo, and this kid asks her some friggin’ question every other second, like “Mom, is the moon really made of green cheese?” and “Where did you get me, Mom?” and such like nonsense. The old man’s probably down at the caravansary with the boys shootin’ craps and she’s got nothin’ else to do, waitin’ for him to get back and drive her to Walmart. She reaches up with her right hand to feel if the curlers are dry enough to take them out, and accidentally burns some hair over her right ear. She doesn’t even notice till the kid sees smoke and screams “Mommm! Your hair’s on fire!” because she’s watchin’ Ellen over the kid’s head.
By rico, suave, December 24, 2010 at 12:01 am Link to this comment
Actually- mentioning no names- I thought the caption was hilarious and spot on. How did the picture improve the caption?
radson, I’m no cartoonist, and Merry Christmas to you too.
One more time… If fish needs 200 words to explain his cartoon, he’s not a very good cartoonist.
By radson, December 23, 2010 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment
The world awaits the r fidler cartoon in less than
300 words ,just to be sure .
merry x-mas rico
By gerard, December 23, 2010 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment
Well, I just can’t stay out of this brou-ha-ha.
I consider myself a practicing Christian, by choice, not by tradition. I think this cartoon is absolutely superb. It catches all the twaddle that is siphoned into stupid people by “the clergy”, plus all the flip
sarcasmic under-truth in today’s “culture”
As to the length—it takes about that long to turn people’s heads around—if they are turnable. Some people—mentioning no names—are just too stiff-necked. For them, it ain’t funny. Sorry about that. You can lead a horse to water, but ......
By glider, December 23, 2010 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment
You assume that I am making conclusions about Rico’s politics based on his lone comments in this thread. That is incorrect. I have been a member of Truthdigs forum here for years and have read hundreds of Rico posts. Except for the atheism he seems to be pretty standard Republican fare. He is also generally evasive, in the manor he is exhibiting here, when you try to point out problems with his world view or otherwise engage in debate.
By Maani, December 23, 2010 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment
It is clear to me that some of the presumptions you have made based on Rico’s comments are fairly wild extrapolations. As well, you seem som “het up” about knocking down your straw man that you are allowing your passions to cloud your judgment, and are talking “past” Rico, rather than with him.
Rico noted that there is nothing wrong with optimizing wealth. That is true, as long as (i) it is not one’s sole raison d’etre, and (ii) it is not done at the expense of others. (Even in Christianity, it is not “money” that is the root of all evil, but “love of money.”)
I think Rico agrees with you on the above. But because you have worked yourself into a frenzy over extreme right-wing ideology (which Rico has not exhibited here) - and understadnably so - you are unfairly painting Rico with a brush that he never handed you.
Feel free to espouse centrist or left views - and excoriate right-wing views - but don’t ascribe entire worldviews or ideologies to others based on one or two clearly ambiguous comments.
By skulz fontaine, December 23, 2010 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment
Mr. Fish! This one’s a killer and a keeper 4 sure! Damn fine work sir, keep it up.
By rico, suave, December 23, 2010 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment
I didn’t say that the government role I described was the one we have. Far from it. The world you describe is closer to reality. You asked me what I thought the government “should” do apart from optimizing wealth and I told you. If you had asked me to describe the government we have, I would have. Which is it?
“They are all about taking what they can from society and giving as little back as possible.” Really?
“Worship that God of yours if you will but stop the lying about that fact.” Show me the “lie” that I told. Give me a quote.
Why do you keep trying to define my politics? Why not just ask me how I think. And if you don’t like the answer, don’t just dismiss it as meaningless semantic bullshit, persuade me that I’m wrong.
By glider, December 23, 2010 at 11:02 am Link to this comment
I have not met a Republican who can name one single issue their Party supports that is not related to preserving and enhancing the wealth of the rich (other than religious control of individual freedoms). That remains intact. They are all about taking what they can from society and giving as little back as possible. Worship that God of yours if you will but stop the lying about that fact.
Your statement of “Government’s job is to create a secure and predictable environment in which every citizen can live his life as he sees fit, unhindered by artificial, arbitrary, or exclusionary barriers” is meaningless semantic BULLSHIT!! In McConnell’s Republican Utopia the rich kid is born into opportunity and the best education money can buy, and the poor kid is born into a sub-par education paid for by what little remains in a depleted tax base. Tell me how that is equal opportunity to live one’s life to one’s innate potential?
By blueworld, December 23, 2010 at 10:57 am Link to this comment
Wow - there’s nothing so cool today than to seriously mock religious beliefs. Especially if you need attention & web traffic.
Fine line between irreverent & funny (Amon Drool’s Xmas card was funny, IMO) and cheap mockery in poor taste.
Is Mr. Fish usually a bottom-feeder or only at Christmas?
By rico, suave, December 23, 2010 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
Government’s job is to create a secure and predictable environment in which every citizen can live his life as he sees fit, unhindered by artificial, arbitrary, or exclusionary barriers.
If some citizens want to pursue “wealth optimization” so what. If wealth optimization occurs at someone else’s expense, that’s NOT ok. Why do you give a shit whether or not somebody wants to be wealthy?
“...except that your politics want that end at the expense of everything else.”
Really? I don’t think you know my “political reason for being” very well.
Is asking you to clarify your question for me “obfuscation?” Funny definition.
By glider, December 23, 2010 at 10:33 am Link to this comment
Let me guess. You want “world peace” by having the MIC conquer all enemies of the state, and you want to “eliminate hunger” and to “disease and poverty” by the miracle of the free market system. Note that I specified what you would have the government do other than insure wealth accumulation amongst the rich. I hardly believe you saying you want the government to contribute to the above directly.
By glider, December 23, 2010 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
I recall you asked me what is wrong with “optimizing wealth” and I answered basically nothing except that your politics want that end at the expense of everything else. It is your political reason for being IMO. As I said give me a single example that is an exception. Apparently, you can not, so you obfuscate? One fucking example Rico!
By rico, suave, December 23, 2010 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Do you want a Miss America list? World peace, eliminate hunger and disease and poverty? Save the whales?
Why do you think I think all that government is good for is protecting wealthy people? What did I say?
And what does this have to do with the cartoon?
By glider, December 23, 2010 at 10:02 am Link to this comment
Think hard Rico. Do you have a single other goal for society that you would like to see attained through government other than the optimization of wealth for the rich and the control of other humans by the dictates of Christian demagogues? Anything at all? And if you have no other desire I find that scary and morally bankrupt, and very McConnell of you.
By rico, suave, December 23, 2010 at 8:52 am Link to this comment
Of course I’m 180 from fish. Duh.. I still think if a cartoon needs a 200 word caption, it’s a weak cartoon, even if it’s drawn by Sarah Palin. That’s all I was saying.
” I have challenge many Republicans to name a single position apart from their Christian dictated beliefs that is in anyway inconsistent with their singular obsession with wealth optimization.” Sorry, I don’t know what you mean.
By glider, December 23, 2010 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
Rico, you truly doth protest too much. Your political views are 180 degrees opposed to Mr Fish. Trust me, or hire and expensive psychologist if you will, but your opinion of this “cartoon” is highly colored by that fact.
Congratulations on having the sense to be an Atheist. Regarding what is wrong with a single minded focus on optimizing wealth. Perhaps there are other important endeavors in life besides accumulating as much cash as possible no matter what outcome it leads to. I have challenge many Republicans to name a single position apart from their Christian dictated beliefs that is in anyway inconsistent with their singular obsession with wealth optimization. Can you point to a single one?
By Amon Drool, December 22, 2010 at 11:24 pm Link to this comment
rico…about a good cartoonist not needing words: i’m sure any good cartoonist would tell you that he sometimes needs words and sometimes he doesn’t.
in this particular cartoon, i found the imagery amusing…the virgin mary in curlers with a cup of joe and a cigarette in hand. and i felt fish’s wordy rant was quite appropriate to the image.
jerry garcia said when you go diving [or cartooning], you don’t always come up with pearls. fish comes up with enough good stuff to keep us taking a look.
By rico, suave, December 22, 2010 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment
A good cartoonist needs none of the former.
Happy in my role.
By Amon Drool, December 22, 2010 at 10:41 pm Link to this comment
ok…i’ll feed the troll.
rico: Except this isn’t a cartoon, it’s a caption.
humpty dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what i chose it to mean—neither more nor less.
alice: The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.
humpty dumpty: The question is which is to be master—that is all.
By rico, suave, December 22, 2010 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment
BTW, what’s wrong with optimizing wealth, whatever that means? Would you rather optimize poverty? You’re not one of those “zero sum game” fools are you?
By rico, suave, December 22, 2010 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment
I’m an atheist and don’t give a shit about the message. I was complaining that because mr fish relies so much on captions, he’s not much of a cartoonist.
By glider, December 22, 2010 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment
Rico, I will take it you don’t like the message which somehow is not surprising to me. I am always fascinated how “christianity” and membership in a party whose central tenet is the optimization of elite wealth seem to go hand in hand in America.
By rico, suave, December 22, 2010 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment
Except this isn’t a cartoon, it’s a caption. If fish can’t express himself without 300 words of explanation, he’s not much of a cartoonist.
By Amon Drool, December 22, 2010 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment
i like it. a few years ago, i sent my sister a somewhat irreverent xmas card. jesus is walking out of a house on a cold blustery winter’s night and he leaves the door ajar by about 10 inches. a voice bubble comes from the inside of the house yelling “jesus…shut that door…you born in a barn or somethin’?”
my sister was a bit perplexed that i’d send her such a card. i guess i better not email her this toon.
sign up to get updates
Get Our Feed