November 23, 2004
GOD IN FALLUJAH
Lots of innocents seemingly slaughtered by French troops on the Ivory Coast, although reporting of these events is so patchy we have no real idea of context, etc. Hit the link for video. Meanwhile, check this comment -- apparently Fallujah-related -- from The Age cartoonist Michael Leunig:
Leunig, of course, is the guy who called for all of us to pray for Osama bin Laden during Christmas 2001, on account of him being "our relative".
(Via reader Richard Gillies)
Posted by Tim Blair at November 23, 2004 12:42 AMI wonder why Leunig didn't say "he finished Allah off"?
The artsies have quickly learned the Theo Van Gogh lesson haven't they? Leunig is yellow.
Posted by: Arty at November 23, 2004 at 12:56 AM"Michael Leunig, Professional Cryer: ready-to-hire for all your wet-towel needs. Visa and Mastercard accepted."
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 23, 2004 at 01:02 AMWhat kind of whack-job religion believes in a diety that's "all-vulnerable"?
(And what does it say that we've gone from 'God is Dead' to 'You Killed God' in less than fifty years?)
Mr. Bingley, are you telling us that Kenny is God?
If so, I'd better take South Park seriously.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 23, 2004 at 01:38 AMIt's pretty obvious that Leunig is clueless. And a western apologist. But he does have nuance -- I'll grant him that. It isn't much to grant, because identifying nuance is like diagnosing a boil on your ass.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 23, 2004 at 01:41 AMHe left out the part where previous Gods have faked being wounded and then blown themselves and the Marines up.
Posted by: Mike G at November 23, 2004 at 01:55 AMI love the little crescent moon in the last pane. It says "I'm on your side, guys, really! Don't hurt me! (though maybe I am reading too much into it, a la the Johnny Hart controversy).
This little teaspoon of appeasement ain't going to be enough to save him, though, when they grab him by the chin and find he's got less than the required fistful of beard.
What was it Churchill said . . "The first taste of a bitter cup . . . "?
Posted by: DWC at November 23, 2004 at 01:55 AMI wonder how Leunig's "God" feels about ripping off a woman's arms and legs, gutting her, smashing her face beyond recognition, and leaving her carcass to rot in the street.
Posted by: Aaron at November 23, 2004 at 01:56 AM"He's fucking faking he's God! He's faking he's fucking God!" Blam! "Well, he's dead now".
I like a good laugh as much as anybody but I don't get the joke
Posted by: rexie at November 23, 2004 at 02:02 AMrexie, I don't get it either. I expect that anyone who really gets it is also Really Sorry, complete with bitten lip and Compassionate Head Tilt™.
So now they've killed god 'ey. It true, Americans are the new Jews.
Posted by: Troy at November 23, 2004 at 02:30 AMI am just really, really happy that these folks were not around during the 1940s. (Or maybe they were, but Hitler's attack on the USSR made them take our side).
Could you imagine Robert Fisk reporting on the D-Day rehearsal disaster? Or Omaha Beach?
Margo reporting on the attack on Buna or the sinking of the Montevideo?
Alternatively, Michael Moore’s new movie "Deceit 12/7" released in spring of 1944?
I love how these guys are trying to one-up each other in showing sympathy to murderous thugs and pissing on the people fighting them. These guys are driving each other beyond parody. The only thing missing from this revolting bit of propaganda is a red, white and blue Uncle Sam hat on the deity-whacker, a red, spade-tipped red tail poking out from under that smock, maybe have the guy eating a baby and drinking from a bottle labeled "oil".
Posted by: Alex at November 23, 2004 at 03:04 AMEither when a bad guy gets wounded he suddenly becomes God, or there's a holy equivalence between God and evil-doers at all times. Since men who terrorize, mutilate and murder are the face of God, we have no choice but to tend to their wounds if they don't manage to kill us first and set them up in cozy condos on the Florida coast with generous stipends because, after all, devout believers shouldn't send God to the humiliation of trial and to the debasement of prison where His divine arse would be forcibly shared by all.
Why has it not occurred to us God-loving people (when it certainly did to the Secular Left) that the bearded Saddams, Osamas and Mansons in life are really all God or at least the prophet Jesus and that we should fall in worshipful respect at their feet, instead of persecuting them like the pagan Roman and Jewish co-conspirators we Americans are?
It may not be clear whether all of these holymen's and deities' tortured victims are also God or mere hapless mortals, but that's a theological detail about which Leunig can enlighten us later. The enlightenment probably will entail western worshipful types converting to the one true religion to understand how Ba'athist criminals and Islamist assassins are actually God.
Posted by: god=dog at November 23, 2004 at 03:25 AMThis is despicable - but not least of all because (by the Christian account) this actually did happen to God, Who placed Himself at the mercy of His own creation and was crucified.
To equate terrorists (who fake death and surrender in order to kill) with Christ (who actually surrendered, unto death, to save us) is just mind-boggling. This guy just doesn't get out much. We are ordered to pray for our enemies, but I don't remember being told to pray ONLY for them - or because they deserve the consideration at all.
Posted by: Nightfly at November 23, 2004 at 03:25 AMIt makes me wonder how they would have reported this
Iwo Jima was fought to provide a close enough strip for bomber escorts to make the round trip to Tokyo, and deny it's use by kamikaze.
Final Analysis of the Battle
* The Naval bombardment of only 3 days leading up to the invasion was far short than what was required. The Marines had requested 13 days of prelanding bombardment but were denied this request because of commitments to MaCarthur's campaign in Luzon.
* The U.S. had underestimated the Japanese strenght on the island by as much as 70 percent.
* The change in Japanese tactics was not ever contemplated because of earlier invasions on Saipan, Tarawa and Peleliu. These all had early Banzai attacks that were easily defeated and turned the tide of each invasion. This would not be the case with Iwo Jima.
* The nature and the difficulty of the soil on the island was never examined before the invasion.
* The estimates made on the U.S. casualties was underestimated by 80 percent. 23,000 Casualties out of 70,000 Marines. Over third of the total Marines who participated in the invasion were either Killed, Wounded or suffered from Battle Fatigue.
* This would be a strong warning of what was to come with the invasion of Okinawa.
When you weigh the pros and cons of Iraq and Iwo Jima, Iraq sarts to look like an incredible success.
Posted by: SPY at November 23, 2004 at 03:44 AMSubstitute "MSM" for "God" and the cartoon makes sense.
Posted by: perfectsense at November 23, 2004 at 04:44 AMI've never understood what Leunig is popular. I suspect it's because he's famous in Australia, therefore pretentious chardonnay-set types like to pretend they know what the fuck its going on about.
Kinda like a magic eye picture.
Posted by: Quentin George at November 23, 2004 at 05:26 AMThat definitely is NOT a crescent moon in the last frame.
Looks more like Jimmy Carter's Third World munificent smile, or Michael Moor's crack, or Van Gogh's slit throat, or Fisk's moral compass, or Arafat's Aids-shrivelled liver, or Chirac's profile in courage or a secular socialists' spine or Leunig's fingernail dent from a grand-mal event.
Doesn't it?
Posted by: A at November 23, 2004 at 05:48 AMYes, Kenny is God. He rises from the dead for every episode.
Posted by: Dave S. at November 23, 2004 at 05:49 AMMaybe we've got Leunig all wrong and this is a snuff strip about Islamists finishing off a wounded Christian West begging for mercy. Isn't that what he really wants to happen?
Posted by: Theo at November 23, 2004 at 07:07 AMHard to look into yourselves and face the truth, isn't it?
What hath YOUR god wrought?
Bottom line, it's radical Muslim loons and radical Christian loons that are mucking up this world at the present time.
Stateside, we've got "Christian" people claiming that Darwin was wrong, and that the proliferation of femalke teachers in Oklahoma is a lesbian threat (uttered by an Oklahoma Senator)
Ignorance breeds ignorance, not refection - that's pretty much whayt I see on this and other 'righty' lists (and the far left one's, too)
Posted by: poivoise at November 23, 2004 at 07:30 AMWhy not get fundamentalist on his arse,put him on the rack,then burn him at the stake,after all it is for the good of his immoral soul.
We really should keep up our traditions.
What are "femalke" teachers, poivoise? Some sort of new alien species?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 23, 2004 at 07:45 AMPorvoise - are you terminally thick or what? Do you really see a moral equivalence between somebody denying Darwin's theory and a maniac who wants to murder as many people as possible in order to get 72 virgins? Here's how it works - in Oklahoma tha Senator can be voted out. And if he loses, he will go. Go on, tell me what would happen in the Islamist world if the equivalent happened there (even assuming ther would be an election - as we know democracy is coming to Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to the US, UK and many other countries - but no thanks to twats like Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Robert Fisk et al).
Posted by: Craig at November 23, 2004 at 07:47 AMBottom line, it's radical Muslim loons and radical Christian loons that are mucking up this world at the present time.Who says it's conservatives who see things in black and white? *pinches poivoise's cheek* Aren't you just the cutest thing? Posted by: Aaron at November 23, 2004 at 07:51 AM
Poivoise links some silly Creationists to the War on Terror. Well, then, I blame Jimmy Carter's Christ complex for the mad mullahs of Iran and the Taliban.
Wait, that might actually be right.
As long as we're getting it right, I believe "femalke treachers" are gendered confused milk drinkers who blog.
Posted by: Theo at November 23, 2004 at 07:52 AMandrea:"What are "femalke" teachers, poivoise? Some sort of new alien species?"
+++++++++++++++
Ahh, another righty who requires a visit from the "Context Fairy".
Do you take the Bible as literally as your dictionary, MS. Harris?
Posted by: poivoise at November 23, 2004 at 08:17 AMHey, poivoise - name me some fundamentalist Christians in the last 100 years or so who have cut people's heads off or strapped bombs to themselves to blow jewish babies up ? (and before you start, yes I agree that the vast majority of Muslims have not done so either).
Just because lefties hate all religion, don't make the mistake of branding all religions the same.
After all, is that not just ignorant racial stereotyping ?
Craig:"Porvoise - are you terminally thick or what? Do you really see a moral equivalence between somebody denying Darwin's theory and a maniac who wants to murder as many people as possible in order to get 72 virgins?
+++++++++++++++
Potentially, yes. Why? Because members of either group can be whipped up to act on fiction. Go to a findamentalist Bible sassion and you can see this first hand.
Witness the fundamentalist nutcases who have killed doctors performing abortion, etc. Or the nutcases who say that women who require any abortion are murderers (look at the hate in their "godly" eyes as they scream this into the face of the poor souls who wrestle with having abortions)
Fundamentalism is a faint breath from fascism.
Fundamentalist Christians who view the Bible as literal truth are dangerous when they begin to insist that THEIR truths trump science.
Religious fundamntalists of any kind are toxic to any free society, and should have any attempt to have their ideas inserted into law crushed so vigorously that they never appear again.
Right now, the only difference is that Muslim radicls are killing wantonly. GIve Christian radicals the reasons, and means, and watch out. In fact, some of what we see perpetrated in Iraq comes from Bush's ideas about god, evil, and our world.
Fundamentally, his ideas are dangerous - this will be seen soon enough, unfortunately
Posted by: poivoise at November 23, 2004 at 08:28 AMPoivoise,
It is the hate in lefties eyes as they yell at anybody who does not share their way of thinking that scares me.
Perhaps if you actually went in to a church and listened for a while (strangely enough, normally it is preaching "love thy neighbour" and "take the mote out of thine own eye" that you'll hear, not Jews are apes and the brothers of apes) you might learn something.
But, of course, to you I guess all religions are equally "bad".
Posted by: Andrew at November 23, 2004 at 08:35 AMWHOOP!! WHOOP!! WHOOP!!
TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT! TROLL DETECTED ON THIS THREAD!! QUICK REACTION FORCE ON STAND BY FOR IMMEDIATE DEPLOYMENT!!
WHOOP!! WHOOP!! WHOOP!!
THE POSTER SIGNED ON AS poivoise HAS EVADED A DIRECT QUESTION BY ASKING AN NON-RELEVANT QUESTION USING A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, TO WIT:
"Do you take the Bible as literally as your dictionary, MS. Harris?"
poivoise IS ALSO EQUATING MURDEROUS ISLAMOFASCISTS WITH CHRISTIAN FUNDALMENTALISTS BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH RELIGIOUS.
All personnel are advised to proceed cautiously in any contact with poivoise to avoid uncontrollable laughter and spewing coffee on their screens, but the contamination factor is low.
That is all.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 23, 2004 at 08:42 AMMust. Hate. God. and. Believers. and. Crush. Them. Out. of. Liberal. Tolerant. Society.
Posted by: PoorVoice at November 23, 2004 at 08:45 AMPervoice. that's jersey-speak for perverse? Fitting.
"Religious fundamntalists of any kind are toxic to any free society, and should have any attempt to have their ideas inserted into law crushed so vigorously that they never appear again."
That's quite a 'free' society you're advocating there you hypocritical jerk. Tell me, is the following the sort of thing you might, in your sweaty fantasies, imagine hearing from the dreaded and most highly-feared Church pulpits?: (your words but with a slight twist) "Secular heathens of any kind are toxic to any free society, and should have any attempt to have their ideas inserted into law crushed so vigorously that they never appear again."
Odd how it's the tossers who pay lip-service to 'inclusion' and being non-judgemental who are the first to use word slike "crush" and "smash".
More shite from you: "Right now, the only difference is that Muslim radicls are killing wantonly."
Pretty big f*cking difference you twit.
Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at November 23, 2004 at 08:47 AMWell, the message is crap, but in Leunig's favour, his drawing skills appear to be lightyears ahead of Ted Rall's, so that's something. I guess.
Posted by: PW at November 23, 2004 at 09:00 AMPeople who don't know what fascism actually is really annoy me.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at November 23, 2004 at 09:02 AMIs it just me that finds it "creepy" how close the word Leunig is to Looney?
Funny as a burning orphanage this bloke.
Hmm, I haven't yet read through most of poivoise's postings, but one sentence from the latest one jumped out at me:
Fundamentally, [Bush's] ideas are dangerous - this will be seen soon enough, unfortunately
Err, if his ideas are truly dangerous, why, pray tell, would it be "unfortunate" that they will be exposed soon? You should be ecstatic about that possibility! /sarcasm off
Really though, you're the saddest type of lefty - the one who can't even get through his MoveOn-provided script (or is yours from CBS?) without screwing up the lines. As I said on the other thread, you may want to engage your brain (provided that you have one) before you start typing. Otherwise, prepare to be laughed at a lot on this site. And I know how badly guys like you take it when people make fun of you, so please, just don't give us the opportunity, 'mkay?
Posted by: PW at November 23, 2004 at 09:07 AM"Religious fundamntalists of any kind are toxic to any free society"
What in the hell are you talking about? If you don't like what they are preaching then don't go there. They aren't killing non-believers so get over it.
The "only" difference is that Christian "radicals" aren't killing. I'm sure when they start cutting off the heads of non-radical Christians and jews we'll deal with it. I'd love to know the definition of a radical Christian....maybe I don't know these types.
Stop for just a second and read what you wrote. You sound like a radical anti-Christian and it concerns me you are preparing to kill someone yourself. You may want to consider a few sessions on the couch.
Posted by: tej at November 23, 2004 at 09:07 AM
Checklist:
Christian Fundies allow their women to show their faces and ankles and get a little Vitamin D. They're even allowed to worship alongside men in church. People who disagree with their beliefs may get talked and proselytized "to death", but not their throats slit. They fight for children's lives and don't suggest that they blow themselves up on school buses. Their preachers pass moral judgement but not death fatwas on offending authors, politicians, and infidels. They pray with bowed heads but not their hindsides toward the heavens. Their idea of the after-life is about transcendence and being with God, and not about psycho-sexual depravations of scoring with scores of virgins after a martyr's death.
Posted by: Theo at November 23, 2004 at 09:16 AMPotentially, yes. Why? Because members of either group can be whipped up to act on fiction. Go to a findamentalist Bible sassion and you can see this first hand.Every single day most people act on fiction. That doesn't mean they're murdering terrorists. I did go to a "fundamentalist Bible session" or two in my day, out of curiosity, being open-minded. It taught me two things: 1) That there is no such thing as a "fundamentalist Bible session". 2) That typing classes can do wonders.
Witness the fundamentalist nutcases who have killed doctors performing abortion, etc.See, that's an actual terrorist. Believing that abortion is murder is simply not equivalent to murdering people over it.
Or the nutcases who say that women who require any abortion are murderers (look at the hate in their "godly" eyes as they scream this into the face of the poor souls who wrestle with having abortions)Is this something that they do at their findamentalist Bible sassions?
Fundamentalism is a faint breath from fascism.Communism, too. I'm guessing that none of those three words means what you think they mean, though.
Fundamentalist Christians who view the Bible as literal truth are dangerous when they begin to insist that THEIR truths trump science.You are aware that evolution is termed a "theory" because it is *not* proven "truth", aren't you? Why do people who view liberalism as literal truth insist that their truths trump the principles of scientific research?
Religious fundamntalists of any kind are toxic to any free society, and should have any attempt to have their ideas inserted into law crushed so vigorously that they never appear again.I agree, and that goes for Atheist fundamentalists, too. The problem is, how praytell do you know the difference between fundamentalist ideas and ideas that just happen to agree with some fundamentalist somewhere?
Right now, the only difference is that Muslim radicls are killing wantonly. GIve Christian radicals the reasons, and means, and watch out. In fact, some of what we see perpetrated in Iraq comes from Bush's ideas about god, evil, and our world.What do we see Bush perpetrating, exactly?
fundamentally, his ideas are dangerous - this will be seen soon enough, unfortunatelyWhatever you say, evil-doer! Posted by: Aaron at November 23, 2004 at 09:16 AM
Stop for just a second and read what you wrote. You sound like a radical anti-Christian and it concerns me you are preparing to kill someone yourself.Now, now. He's a liberal, and that means he's immune from accusations of hate speech, bigotry, and intolerance. (Doesn't make it untrue, though.) Posted by: Aaron at November 23, 2004 at 09:20 AM
When viewed rationally, the comments made by Porvoise:
"Bottom line, it's radical Muslim loons and radical Christian loons that are mucking up this world at the present time."
are funny. What's a tad worrisome is that he/she is not alone in lumping together all people who take their faith seriously.
Toss in the rhetoric of 'Jews control the world' and we see some of the tenants of faith many on the far Left subscribe to. These are many of the same people who equate Pres. Bush with Hitler and the Israelis with Nazis.
They seem unable, or unwilling, to understand the differences. I don't know if it stems from hatred or from adhering very strongly to the doctrine which claims all cultures, societies, and beliefs are equal and no distinction should ever be made between them.
Of course, the exception is the 'victim' and the 'oppressor'. Any group that has been granted 'victim' status is automatically elevated above the 'oppressor'. 'Victims' can do no wrong. 'Oppressors' can do no good.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at November 23, 2004 at 10:34 AMI have noticed some improvement at The Age in recent weeks - most notably their endorsement of the Man of Steel before the (Ozzie) election. Maybe the new editor is shaking some sense into them. But cutting Leunig loose would be the one great step towards shaking the paper out of its lefty timewarp. Apart from his moral idiocy the man is singularly devoid of talent. He has no insight, no sense of humour, and my three-year-old has better draughting skills. Begone, vile spot.
Posted by: dungbeetle at November 23, 2004 at 10:40 AMWoo! Sorry I'm late to my own party, guys -- I was a bit busy. Those hacked up Minion-of-Satan abortion-dealing doctors and their Whore of Babylon receptionists don't bury themselves with their own severed limbs, ya know!
Now let's see... to business:
andrea:"What are "femalke" teachers, poivoise? Some sort of new alien species?"Er... do you see "fairies" and other, hem, beings like that often, Mr./Ms. P?
+++++++++++++++
Ahh, another righty who requires a visit from the "Context Fairy".
Do you take the Bible as literally as your dictionary, MS. Harris?
Is... there some reason I shouldn't take the dictionary literally? I don't get this question. Where does a Bible come into it? Oh -- I forgot (it's that dang post religious-fundamentalist-motivated murder spree euphoria) -- anyone who disagrees with Miss Pee can only be a religious fundamentalist whacko who takes the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Which of course it is and I am afraid all you atheists and Anglicans and Baptists and so on who don't believe exactly as I do are destined to burn for all eternity in the Lake of Fire (with time off one Wednesday each month so maintenance can clean the pools) but that's neither here nor there at the moment--
Anyway -- to continue:
Craig:"Porvoise - are you terminally thick or what?
(P's reply -- ed) Potentially, yes.
Oh, you are definitely living up to your potential.
Well, that's that. I'm off to the incinerator to burn these clothes. The rest of you folks carry on! Excelsior, and all that. Oh, and Peepee, Porpoise, whatever your name is? Do try to get out more.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 23, 2004 at 10:54 AMSome things y'all should know about Leunig.
1) He is mad. Mad mad mad mad mad. Not in an angry sense, since he's so exquisitely sensitive that anger of any sort would cause his skull to collapse, but in the off-with-fairies sense.
2) He used to be good. Some of his drawings and comics from twenty or thirty years ago are masterpieces of understated metaphor. It's the goodwill from then that keeps him employed now.
3) He can't draw pants. Notice that the Marine in this latest piece appears to be wearing a dress.
For further understanding about Leunig, please visit the inner suburbs of Melbourne and talk to the locals. All will become clear.
Andrew D.
Posted by: Andrew D. at November 23, 2004 at 10:56 AM
PS: Chris Josephson -- I am sure it would never occur to a peaceful woodland creature like, uh, Purple*, if a religious person approached him or her, to take a large knife and stab and stab and stab and stab and stab them, and then go get in the car and back it over the stabbed religious person several times, just to make sure that that religious person won't be able to "muck up" the world anymore with their dangerous religious ideas. Well, I'm fairly sure. You can never tell about people who contact you on the internet.
*Peapod? Pubevise? Whatever.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 23, 2004 at 11:01 AMWhat hath YOUR god wrought?
Bottom line, it's radical Muslim loons and radical Christian loons that are mucking up this world at the present time.
Stateside, we've got "Christian" people
Poivoise, you idiot: you wouldn't even HAVE a 'Stateside', without 'radical Christian loons.' Who do you think founded the United States of America?
Byron_the_Aussie,
Please go educate yourself about the men involved in the creation of the United States (I presume you are not contending that the 'United States of America' was the creation of the religious separatists commonly referred to as the Pilgrims and who arrived on North American shores more than 150 years earlier). While the so-called Founding Fathers (Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson et al) certainly held a Christian world-view, they were very far indeed from 'radical Christian loons'. In fact, those men were sigificantly less religious than the average American appears to be today. Is the First Amendment the work of Christian fundamentalists? I don't think so.
Posted by: ab at November 23, 2004 at 11:35 AMab. Shut up. You're just making yourself look like an idiot here.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 23, 2004 at 11:53 AMI think "poivoise" may be the French word for "Puce". Except Puce is funnier and a better speller.
Posted by: dorkafork at November 23, 2004 at 12:00 PM"ab. Shut up. You're just making yourself look like an idiot here."
Sorry to spoil the fun! Dissent crushed!
Posted by: ab at November 23, 2004 at 12:01 PMOh, please. The First Amendment, and the whole seperation of church and state thing, were because they didn't want their own little religious views persecuted like they were in England. By forbidding a state religion and protecting freedom of speech, they expected that persecution of religion would be stopped. Some of the founding fathers were perhaps agnostic, but a secular country was unthinkable. Their commitment to religious harmony in America caused them to be painted as liberal, ironically.
Posted by: Mike A. at November 23, 2004 at 12:04 PMPerhaps The Age will rall Leunig the way The WaPo ralled Rall. And, just maybe The Guardian will rall their Bell, too, the way we fisk their Fisk. We can hope, can't we?
Posted by: A at November 23, 2004 at 12:04 PMActually, ab, Byron's more correct than you think.
'Founding Fathers' such as Thomas Jefferson were arguably less religious than many of their peers but the amalgam of Anglicans and various Dissenter religions and the deeply held convictions of their adherents necessitated a First Amendment to avoid sectarian strife.
Many of the Colonies had Established religions. It was the Federal Constitution that said there would be no State (read: Federal) religion of the United States. It was a clever stroke to prevent a civil war.
Freedom OF Religion; not Freedom FROM Religion.
Cowards like poivoise and leunig attack Christians because Christians won't cut their throats.
The late Lenny Bruce said that comedians made fun of gays because if they made fun of lesbians, the lesbians would beat the shit out of them.
ab: Dissent crushed!
What, are you 7 years old? Nobody crushed your "dissent". They just said you were an idiot. And it looks they've proven correct beyond all measure of doubt.
Idiot!
Posted by: Crusher at November 23, 2004 at 12:09 PMJOB:"Freedom OF Religion; not Freedom FROM Religion.
Cowards like poivoise and leunig attack Christians because Christians won't cut their throats."
+++++++++++
YOU really don't know very much, do you? In fact, the founding fathers were mostly very religious men. They were VERY worried about the intrusion of religion into secular life - as evidenced by what made up the motivations of many of the first settlers in America - i.e. religious persecution.
So, the goal was "freedom of" AND freedom from"
Got it, mate? Don't you feel better now?
Posted by: poivoise at November 23, 2004 at 12:14 PMOsama is 'our relative'?
Well, I suppose Leunig knows his own family tree best.
Posted by: dee at November 23, 2004 at 12:14 PMHmmmmmmmmm, looks like the "fundamentalist Christian" thing hit a nerve. YOu know what Shakepeare said (amd meant) about "protesting too much", don'you.
If the shoe fits...
Posted by: poivoise at November 23, 2004 at 12:19 PMPoivoise: does your mum know you're cutting school?
Posted by: Poipoise at November 23, 2004 at 12:21 PMCrusher,
Mike A and JDB's comments are a fair cop, but if you can't detect the facetiousness in 'dissent crushed' then you are a fucking moron.
Mike A and JDB: in light of your comments, would you generally describe the Founding Fathers as 'radical Christian loons', either by their standards or ours?
Posted by: ab at November 23, 2004 at 12:22 PM
ab: I'm surprised - given your advanced degree in deconstruction and linguistics - that you didn't detect the facetiousness in my own comment. Slipping aren't we?
Posted by: Crusher at November 23, 2004 at 12:27 PMAnd the idiot continues not to get his idiocy. Even after his own snit because his "facetiousness" wasn't recognized. So okay, let's make the joke not so funny: you are banned. Happy now? Idiot.
Oh yeah, and I've banned that fool Poihead or whatever and her toddler-level history lessons. Strange to say, repeating your stupid assertions over and over improves neither their content nor their intellectual worth. Jesus, this Michael Loony character's fans are stupider than he is.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 23, 2004 at 12:32 PMThanks, David! A MUCH improved version, although I'd make it a full moon in the last frame to remove any hint of Michael Moor's crescented crack.
Posted by: A at November 23, 2004 at 12:33 PMTalking about unfunny crappy cartoonists, don't forget Leak of The Australian.
Posted by: mr magoo at November 23, 2004 at 01:07 PMI know that you have banned him/her, but can I point out that "poivoise" is still an idiot ?
I am fairly sure that your "Founding Fathers" did not want an Anglican (or in some cases Catholic) state religion impeding on their Non-Denominational Christianity, and had nothing to do with "secularism".
My reading is that most of them would have been horrified at the militant atheism that people are now defending with the Constitution that they wrote.
The idea, I believe, is that their intention were most likely to be - go to whichever Church you wish on Sunday. I think that the operative word "go" would have been regarded as pretty important.
I am still more than happy with the English settlement, and our lack of a constitution, but it does not stop me from admiring (and studying) the USA's.
Every word Adams, Jefferson, et al wrote on the matter of religion in America is easily obtainable at the nearest large library but poipoi and people like her would rather posture and preen based on the "Ten Interesting Facts About The Fathers of Our Country" that were pasted up on the wall in her first grade classroom.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 23, 2004 at 01:54 PMMichael Leunig is a self confessed very depressed person who obviously survives by leaching the joy out of everyone else's life.Naturally he is a great favourite of Philip Adams and has been invited onto his show.Naturally his cartoons have been converted to animated sequences and shown in a series on S.B.S.
Posted by: crash at November 23, 2004 at 02:56 PMPeePee said "So, the goal was "freedom of" AND freedom from"
I've never heard of "Freedom from religion" in any history books that I've read. It's always been "Freedom of religion". Some people argue what the Founding Fathers might have intended. I look at what they wrote down.
A lousy try at history revisiion, PooPoo. Try finishing high school, would you?
Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 23, 2004 at 02:58 PMI know I'm late to the party, but I suspect the main goal of the Founding Fathers was to prevent a state church, ala Church of England, from intervening in politics.
Whatever their private beliefs...I expect they wanted them to stay just that.
Private.
...And let me finish with something from Christopher Hitchens
From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).
Amen. Equating Creationists with Islamist Terrorists just boggles belief.
Posted by: Quentin George at November 23, 2004 at 03:14 PMman, this thread went to hell real quick. is it a full moon at the moment? ps. i love youse all but not that poo-poo person so much.
Posted by: rosceo at November 23, 2004 at 03:19 PMAndrea:
"You can never tell about people who contact you on the internet."
Indeed. I'm very wary of people who try and contact me on the Internet. Pre-web I used to read and post to some Usenet groups. Learned the hard way to be very suspicious while online.
ab posts:
"While the so-called Founding Fathers (Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson et al) certainly held a Christian world-view, they were very far indeed from 'radical Christian loons'."
Hard to say if this is correct or not. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'radical Christian loons'. To some people, anyone who takes their faith seriously is considered radical.
By taking their faith seriously I do NOT mean people who blow others up, or in any way try to harm someone else. Folks who blow up abortion clinics, believing they are "doing God's will" *are* radical loons, but by their acts they deny the faith they supposedly have.
Question:
Why are Washington, etc. "so-called" Founding Fathers? Why the quotes?
poivoise:
"So, the goal was "freedom of" AND freedom from"
Precisely!! It was/is both.
Freedom to practice without the state telling you how. No money coming from your pocket to support religion.
Freedom for person X to believe nothing at all, while person Y could be a very devout practitioner of whatever.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at November 23, 2004 at 03:32 PM"YOU really don't know very much, do you? In fact, the founding fathers were mostly very religious men. They were VERY worried about the intrusion of religion into secular life "
Perhaps you're standing on your head; you've certainly got the issue backwards.
The First Amendment is a check on government ("secular life") stepping on religious practice, as well as political speech. The direct reverse of your assertion.
Posted by: SteveH at November 23, 2004 at 04:08 PMWhy are Washington, etc. "so-called" Founding Fathers? Why the quotes?
Um...where did I put quotes around Founding Fathers? If I did, it was unintentional.
Posted by: Quentin George at November 23, 2004 at 04:09 PMSo now they've killed god 'ey. It true, Americans are the new Jews.
My thoughts precisely. And to think Leunig is (ethnically-speaking) Jewish himself!
(I think he's done previous cartoons about killing God, BTW)
Posted by: Andjam at November 23, 2004 at 04:41 PMAs for Leunig, I follow the Harry Truman model, "I dont take people who 'doodle', too seriously."
And oh, Poivoise, hows that first year poly-sci working out for you?
Ahhh, to be twenty-something again.
Posted by: Thomas at November 23, 2004 at 05:23 PMThis reminds me of a thread over at TroppoArmadillo where Ken Parish seems to be saying that all those good values like a fair go for all, helping others and so on and so forth, somehow spring from "liberal democracy". Even at this late-ish stage of my life I can still be surprised when apparently intelligent people make such stupid, cart-before-the-horse assertions. Sometimes I think they've spent so much time accumulating specialist "knowledge" that they've neglected their general education and hence their foolish statements can be attributed to sheer ignorance rather than mere dimwittedness. Indeed, it takes a certain broad level of knowledge and experience before one can begin to appreciate the depths of one's own ignorance and these guys obviously haven't got there yet.
But what I really wanted to say is that the idea that church and state should be separate is profoundly Christian. Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world. When you establish a church of whatever denomination (as the C of E is established in the UK and as the RCC was established in ancient Rome when Sylvester accepted Constantine's offer to make Christianity the state religion) you are bound to attract hordes of main chancer careerists looking for a living whose profession of faith is nothing more than that.
Posted by: Janice at November 23, 2004 at 06:59 PMI've never heard of "Freedom from religion" in any history books that I've read.
I suspect it's in one of Howard Zinn's "works".
Posted by: PW at November 23, 2004 at 07:54 PMI still think that the early Leunigs were good.
To bad he has gone nuts and doesn't do good stuff anymore.
Posted by: Andy at November 23, 2004 at 09:38 PMThe very notion of "secular" originally comes from the way the church was run: anything "secular" was all that mundane, worldly stuff that had nothing to do with the profession and teaching of the faith -- such as running the church staff, maintaining the grounds, taking care of the chicken coop, counting the money, and so on. Here (so sorry to hurt pee's head if she is still lurking) is the Dictionary.com page with a bunch of references and definitions.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 24, 2004 at 12:09 AMFolks, why bother replying to P- or ab-? It falls under the category of "annoying the pig." You will NEVER convince them, no matter how many Founding Fathers you cite or Federalist Papers you quote. Their faith in secularism is as fundamental as the faith of the apostles, and no doubt, they hope for the same result - martyrdom.
Of course, since everything is ersatz on the Left, it's not a surprise that their martyrdom is also fake: "My dissent was disagreed with! My arguments were rebutted! Hate Crime!"
Meanwhile, Margaret Hassan is still dead. Guess that sort of highlights the difference, eh?
Posted by: Nightfly at November 24, 2004 at 02:31 AMJanice
Sometimes I think they've spent so much time accumulating specialist "knowledge" that they've neglected their general education and hence their foolish statements can be attributed to sheer ignorance rather than mere dimwittedness.
Yes, it's one of Murphy's laws, "an expert, is someone, who knows more and more, about less and less, until finally he knows everything about nothing at all."
Posted by: Thomas at November 24, 2004 at 04:04 PM"You are aware that evolution is termed a "theory" because it is *not* proven "truth", aren't you? Why do people who view liberalism as literal truth insist that their truths trump the principles of scientific research?"
This is incorrect. I believe you may be confusing a scientific "hypothesis" with scientific "theory."
A scientific hypothesis is sort of an educated guess. Properly, the scientist makes observations, looks for evidence and conducts experiments to "disprove" the hypothesis before he makes observations, looks for evidence and conducts experiments to support it. If the observations, evidence, and experiments appear to support the hypothesis, and nothing can be found to "disprove" it, the scientist then publishes his findings in peer-reviewed journals. If other scientists confirm and corroborate his findings, the hypothesis may then be elevated to a "theory," or, more likely, will become part of a larger theory.
A scientific theory is, for all intents and purposes, a fact. It is an accepted explanation, or set of explanations, for a class of phenomena. A scientific theory is self-consistent, in agreement with all available evidence and observation, and useful (meaning it makes predictions about what we can expect to find as we continue to collect evidence, perform experiments, and make observations).
Evolution is perhaps the most strongly supported theories in science, as well as one of the most useful. That evolution, when defined as "a change in allele frequencies over time," occurs is undeniable. Most creationists admit that "micro" evolution occurs--in fact, "young-earth" creationists must claim that microevolution occurs at mind-bogglingly fast rates, since they argue that every creature on the planet today evolved from basic "kinds" that were carried on the Ark just a few thousand years ago.
"Macro" evolution, which is basically a lot of micro-evolutionary changes adding up over time, has been observed, if one defines macro-evolution as speciation. As for big morphological changes--such as land mammals evolving into oceangoing creatures such as whales--there is plenty of fossil, skeletal, and DNA evidence for such transitions, and no one has found any mechanism that prevents them. No one, of course, has observed dogs changing into cats over just a few generations--such an event would strongly argue AGAINST evolution as scientists presently understand it.
Since living things are imperfect replicators--they do not make perfect carbon copies of themselves--evolution is inevitable. Nature will select for those different characteristics that offer a slight advantage in surviving, finding a mate, reproducing. The more successful an organism and its offspring are at reproducing, the more the specific traits that generate their success will spread through the population.
I'm new here. I'm much more of a progressive/centrist than a conservative, but when it comes to patriotism and the national interest, I am VERY conservative. I love the U.S., I love freedom, and I'm profoundly aware of the enormous sacrifices that were made so I can enjoy my freedom. I know that freedom must be fought for and vigilantly defended.
This is why I think conservatives should be on the forefront of making sure Americans learn about and understand evolution, and ensuring that pseudosciences such as "Intelligent Design" are not forced into science classrooms. Understanding how evolution works may prove to be vital to our national security and our economic well-being in the long run. Why do viruses and bacteria become resistant to the drugs we use against them? Evolution. Why do crop-eating insects become resistant toe pesticides? Evolution. Evolutionary principles apply to developing and counteracting biological weapons.
Also, a general understanding of how science works is essential to having a citizenry that can make informed choices on science-related issues. Since "intelligent design" does not qualify as science, presenting it in science classrooms as being on the same level as evolution in terms of evidence and acceptance in the scientific community (particularly in the relevant fields, such as biology) not only distorts and undermines the entire scientific enterprise, it opens the way for all kinds of crackpot notions to be given a scientific veneer and be taught as "science" --astrology, alchemy, witchcraft, etc.
A great country cannot remain great without first-rate science education.
Posted by: Gregg at November 24, 2004 at 09:02 PM"This reminds me of a thread over at TroppoArmadillo where Ken Parish seems to be saying that all those good values like a fair go for all, helping others and so on and so forth, somehow spring from "liberal democracy". Even at this late-ish stage of my life I can still be surprised when apparently intelligent people make such stupid, cart-before-the-horse assertions. Sometimes I think they've spent so much time accumulating specialist "knowledge" that they've neglected their general education and hence their foolish statements can be attributed to sheer ignorance rather than mere dimwittedness. Indeed, it takes a certain broad level of knowledge and experience before one can begin to appreciate the depths of one's own ignorance and these guys obviously haven't got there yet."
Well, moral principles like fairness and altruism certainly are much older than liberal democracy (older than organized religion, for that matter). That IS a silly claim. But political concepts like democracy and individual rights owe much more to the Greeks and Romans than to Christianity.
"But what I really wanted to say is that the idea that church and state should be separate is profoundly Christian. Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world."
However, this did not prevent Christianity from being the State for a thousand years. But Islam is even more dangerous in this regard, because I don't think there's anything in their scriptures which can be construed as suggesting that church and state should be separate.
"When you establish a church of whatever denomination (as the C of E is established in the UK and as the RCC was established in ancient Rome when Sylvester accepted Constantine's offer to make Christianity the state religion) you are bound to attract hordes of main chancer careerists looking for a living whose profession of faith is nothing more than that."
Absolutely, which is one reason why I see red flags when people claim America is a "Christian nation." Religion is trivialized when it ceases to be a personal matter and becomes a tool of the state. You just get even more "nominal" believers.
Posted by: Gregg at November 24, 2004 at 09:24 PMIn considering the comments on church/state separation and the Founding Fathers in this thread, I find it heartening that most posters do understand and recognize the importance of this concept. I think one should careful, however, to avoid underestimating the contempt some of the most influential founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, had for certain religious doctrines and for organized religion in general. For many the Enlightenment was about "casting off the mental shackles" of religion. They were determined that religion would never again inhibit rational thought and free inquiry. We should not downplay the intensity of their feelings on this issue.
Posted by: Gregg at November 24, 2004 at 10:12 PM"For many the Enlightenment was about 'casting off the mental shackles' of religion. They were determined that religion would never again inhibit rational thought and free inquiry. We should not downplay the intensity of their feelings on this issue."
No-one is, Gregg. Without speaking for anyone else, by "Christian nation" I mean the citizens, not the government; for once a government places itself at the head of the church, its doctrine and practice are all at its mercy. (I strongly suspect that this was the main reason why God did not want a king over Israel.)
I don't think there's any harm in honest and free inquiry, but I think you'll admit that too many people take great umbrage at the merest suggestion that there's more to life than that. We aren't meant to be little calculating machines. If people were as interested in free inquiry as you seem, they'd also be inquiring about God, not just fleeing with their knickers firmly twisted anytime they hear the subject raised. (And yes, I'm aware that many reactions fall short of this.) This wouldn't make them believers, but they'd be hopefully less hostile and more ... what's that word? Tolerant?
Posted by: Nightfly at November 25, 2004 at 12:40 AM