Santa and Jesus

[Major Nikon]

[Shemp Howard]

1. A question.

Will you be posting a follow-up cartoon replacing "Jesus" with, say, "Mohammed"?
I'm not complaining. Just curious.

[Mariana]

3. Why don't you post one? nt.

[MineralMan]

5. Why would he do that?

Do you need an explanation for the post and cartoon? Because, I'd be happy to supply one if necessary. We're very helpful here in the Religion Group. We want everyone to understand what is posted here.

[Shemp Howard]

11. I actually do need an explanation.

I've been lurking here at DU for a long time. But as you can tell from my post count, I don't post a whole lot. So maybe there're a few things I don't understand.

Let's pick a forum, say the "Hillary Clinton" forum. That forum is, of course, set up to discuss all things Hillary. And I suppose that would include some measured criticism of her. And I would also think that anyone who mocked Hillary would be instantly banned from that forum.

I am confident in my last supposition. Because in 2016 I posted a mild criticism of Hillary in that forum. And I got temporarily banned. I have no problem with that.

So evidently it's wrong to say anything negative about Hillary in her forum. OK, I get that. But why then is it perfectly acceptable to not just criticize, but to crudely mock a religious figure in the "Religion" forum?

But maybe I'm just missing something. Maybe the "Religion" forum here is really the "Mock Certain Religions" forum. And if I'm wrong about the word "Certain", please provide for me a link where this forum has mocked, say, Islam. A funny picture of Mohammed talking to Santa would be enough.

[MineralMan]

13. Here you go.

The Religion Group is an area on DU for discussions ABOUT religion. Anyone may post here. The topics should relate somehow to religion. Anyone can post here, whatever their religion, or if they have no religion at all. It is not a protected group. Anyone can post their opinions ABOUT religion and its relationship to other things.

There are other groups that are "safe havens" for particular religions, where no criticism or questioning of that religion is allowed. This group does not have any such restrictions. I hope that helps. You see, not everyone believes the same things. This group welcomes everyone.

[Shemp Howard]

16. Thanks for the reply.

I was not aware of the "safe havens" thing, and the fact that it does not apply to the Religion forum. OK, I'm up to speed on that now.

Please permit me to press my other point. I surf to DU quite often, and I check many forums, including the Religion one. Now and again, I see Jesus being mocked. I have no complaint about that now, due to your explanation.

But I never see a mocking picture of Mohammed. And I noticed that you did not provide a link to one. Why is that? Both men (or their chroniclers) made extraordinary claims. Yet Mohammed gets a pass. Jesus doesn't.

One could argue that Jesus's claims were more extraordinary. True enough. But Mohammed's claims were also far beyond normal.

Also, one could argue that a mocking depiction of Mohammed is deeply offensive to Muslims. But so is one of Jesus. And that's the only kind that seems to pop up here.

[MineralMan]

18. There is a comic featuring both Jesus and Muhammad

in this thread. The thing is that I don't know of a single Muslim who posts in this group. Islam is rarely discussed, because of that. If you would like to discuss that religion, I'm sure People will be happy to do so, although irreverence is common here.

The single thing that generates the most dispute is any insistence that everyone should believe in supernatural entities and phenomena. The other thing that does that is the belief that someone's beliefs are the only acceptable ones.

There are a number of very bright atheists and agnostics who post here. They are not generally tolerant of fixed beliefs and poor logic. The Religion Group is no a comfortable place for everyone.

[Shemp Howard]

19. Thanks again.

As you probably noticed, I posted here today with a bit of a chip on my shoulder (no regrets about that). Yet you responded in a polite, measured way. That rarely happens on DU when people strongly disagree! But when it does happen, I appreciate it.

If you don't mind a parting shot...you mentioned that many atheists here "are not generally tolerant of fixed beliefs and poor logic". To each his own. But as a Christian, I work hard at being tolerant of those with other beliefs, or with no beliefs at all. And that includes those who use what I perceive as poor logic.

I once read about a particular survey. People were asked what the most beautiful word in the English language was. "Peace" came in first. But I suppose "tolerance" would be a good choice too.

[edhopper]

21. One can be tolerant of people with beliefs

and not tolerant of those beliefs. Often people consider simply questioning beliefs or pointing out how illogic or historically wrong they are is considered intolerant.

[Shemp Howard]

23. You make a very good point!

"One can be tolerant of people with beliefs and not tolerant of those beliefs."

Yes. Well said.

Too often we hear: "That person is terrible!"
When it should be: "What that person believes is terrible!"

All of this will change when I am elected Pope/Dalai Lama/UN Secretary General. (With a little luck I might get all three.)

[edhopper]

24. Except Republicans

they really are terrible.

[Shemp Howard]

27. I must disagree.

I live in a very Democrat area. But I do know a few conservatives/Republicans. And I work with some of them. Here's how I break it down.

20% really are terrible people. If Hitler should magically reappear, they would don a brown shirt and join him.

40% are Republicans only because Father was a Republican. They are not bad people. They can be reached. Just show them the facts, slowly and methodically.

40% are Republicans only because they believe what Rush Limbaugh tells them. They are not bad people. They can be reached. Just get them to change the channel.

[Voltaire2]

43. That last 40% is currently beyond redemption

The stunningly successful experiment in mind control does not appear to be reversible.

[Mariana]

44. Really. "Just get them to change the channel." Right.

It's a freaking cult and those people are brainwashed. They aren't about to give it up voluntarily. When my father comes to visit I swear he goes right into withdrawal because at home he has that shit on all the time. If I don't provide him with a radio and a place to listen to it (I don't have cable, so Fox News is out), he's utterly miserable and makes everyone else around him that way, too. "Just get them to change the channel" indeed. Good luck with that.

[Shemp Howard]

46. Please don't take that so literally, Mariana!

By "Just get them to change the channel" I mean gently expose them to other sources of information.

To be sure, that won't work in all cases. Your "target" must have at least a partially open mind.

But it will work in some cases. And I'm including me in that. Looking back, I can see that I once held some views that were simply wrong. Not reasonable at all. But friends gently pointed me to sources of information that were quite enlightening. Sort of a "check out this video on YouTube" kind of thing.

[Mariana]

47. How many addicts of Fox/Limbaugh et al.

have you caused to see reason because you "gently exposed them to other sources of information"? They generally dismiss those other sources of information as false. That's why we hear Trump's constant refrain that every media story that presents him in a bad light is "fake news". That's what those people believe, and they believed it long before Trump ever said it.

If someone is listening to Fox News or Limbaugh and his clones for enough time to be influenced by them, the chance that that person has even a partially open mind is very slim indeed. People with open minds rolled their eyes and turned that stuff off a long time ago.

[Mariana]

35. Yes, you made that false equivalence yourself, in post 19.

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2018, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

You said, "If you don't mind a parting shot...you mentioned that many atheists here "are not generally tolerant of fixed beliefs and poor logic". To each his own. But as a Christian, I work hard at being tolerant of those with other beliefs, or with no beliefs at all. And that includes those who use what I perceive as poor logic."

[Major Nikon]

37. There's a good answer to your question

There's nuttiness in pretty much all religions and if you look hard enough in this forum, you'll find examples of people pointing out the nuttiness of quite a few of them. Islam isn't exempt, Scientology certainly doesn't get a pass, and Judaism doesn't get a free ride. You won't see as much of it and the reason is because DU is a political forum and one that mostly concerns itself with politics in the US. There's really only one religion that has any significant influence on public policy in the US. I'm pretty sure if you ask most, if not all of the believers who have frequented this group from time to time, even they will concede that much of that influence has a very negative effect on quite a few people and progressive public policies. So if you're expecting equal opportunity satire, you'll probably be disappointed.

[Voltaire2]

6. No we only ridicule jesus here.

I thought that was obvious.

[MineralMan]

7. Besides, there's no record of Muhammad claiming to be God's son,

or God himself, along with his Dad and some Ghost.

Muhammad says he's a prophet. While that's a little wacky, it can't compare with claiming the Holy Ghost somehow made your mother pregnant and you were the demi-deific result.

Muhammad didn't rise from the dead, nor did he think he was sacrificing his life to save the world. That's some heavy stuff.

[Voltaire2]

10. It is a fair point.

[Shemp Howard]

14. It's not a fair point.

True, Muhammad never claimed to be God's son. But he did claim some rather extraordinary things. For example, he (or his chroniclers) claimed that the Angel Gabriel spoke directly to him. That's pretty extraordinary.

And Moses received the Ten Commandments via a burning bush on Mt. Sinai. Again, that's pretty extraordinary.

I say these things NOT as criticisms, but to point out that Jesus was not alone in claiming extraordinary things. Yet Jesus gets the lion's share of the mockery. I find that odd, and a bit disturbing.

[Pope George Ringo II]

15. There's a simple explanation, though

Most of the wacky religionist stuff in this forum is said by xians, most of the wacky religionist stuff perpetrated in the U.S. is perpetrated by xians. The group saying most of the silly things and doing most of the silly stuff is inevitably going to get the most ridicule.

Heck, the group's laughingstock can't even define his deity to any meaningful degree, so active and evident silliness correlates pretty well with ridicule.

[Shemp Howard]

22. Maybe. But maybe not.

"most of the wacky religionist stuff perpetrated in the U.S. is perpetrated by xians"

I won't argue against that. But is it because Christians really are wackiest? Or is it simply because - in the United States - Christians are the most numerous?

Completely off-topic side point: I always thought that Ringo was the most interesting Beatle.

Let me make one thing clear: Got to pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues. And you know it don't come easy.

[Pope George Ringo II]

25. I'd hate to try to sort out which religious group is the wackiest.

It's a crowded field, and qualitative measures get subjective in a hurry. But there's no denying that the size of a religion is almost certainly going to be a contributing factor in the sheer quantity of wackiness it produces.

Of course, there's also the Roy Moore and Mike Pence argument, that a larger religion has scope for damage through sheer numbers that a smaller sect committing suicide to hitch a ride on a comet will never manage. "Wacky" and "Wacky and dangerous to society as a whole" aren't the same thing. After all, voting for Roy Moore and Mike Pence was pretty wacky, but compared to the Hale-Bopp mass suicide? I'd hope we agree on which one is wackier, but it's not the one which I'd suggest poses the greatest threat to society as whole.

So, yes, the size of a religion does offer an explanation for how many genuinely wacky people it is associated with. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, though. And it's still a good explanation for why the dominant religion, which does most of the silliness, gets most of the ridicule.

[Major Nikon]

32. Hale-Bopp still hasn't matched Christianity's wackiness

Applewhite only managed to off about 38. Koresh's Lamb of God BBQ killed around 80. Jim Jones knocked out 909 people with one punch. The Pentecostals speak in tongues, and still manage to kill themselves regularly by snake bites and drinking poison.

[Pope George Ringo II]

34. Longevity does give them another edge in quantity of loons.

But I still say that warping public policy is only open to larger religions, and is worse at this point. So even if we do say, "Sure, the dominant religion is going to produce more truly insane nutters just based on size," this doesn't make the dominant religion any less dangerous because we're also stuck with the fact that only the dominant religion is, well, dominant. Even if a little cult is somehow the most bonkers one in the conversation, they'll never be able to open the Pandora's Box of tragedy required to ban abortion, discriminate against gays, and execute the unbelievers. Big religions have things in their toolbox that little cults would (and do) kill to possess.

Whatever other tragedies they may spawn, big religions are corrosive to a free society in a way that little cults really aren't, regardless of how many people are killed directly by extremists from either group.

[Major Nikon]

38. Oh I agree completely

In terms of damage to society, the privileged religion is certainly more deserving of ridicule. I'm just saying that in terms of the looniest of tunes of religions, you have to look pretty hard to beat Christianity. The examples are all over the place. You have nutty shit like exorcism, faith healing, snake handling, doomsday predictions, demonizing fictional characters, blaming natural disasters on gay people, historical revisionism, creationism, rejection of science, demonic influences, on and on it goes. You also have those influenced by Christianity who exhibit behavior commonly associated with pathological mental illness like hearing voices, hallucinations, and strong delusions.

In terms of pervasiveness it's easy enough to dismiss some of it as very few Christians are snake handlers, but then you have reliable polls that show about 1/3rd of the US population subscribes to young earth creationism. You also have nutbags that most certainly do subscribe to the nuttiest of these themes that rise to high levels in the government, and you have a presidunce who can very easily tap into the very large nutbag wing of Christianity and expect extremely high levels of support.

[Mariana]

36. There are so many different flavors of Christianity.

Obviously, when there are more than 1000 denominations, along with countless "nondenominational" and "independent" churches doing their own thing, some Christians are going to be much wackier than others.

There was a bona fide young earth creationist who used to post frequently in this group. The stuff he said about his particular beliefs - and the sites he quoted and linked to in support of them - were pretty wacky.

[Major Nikon]

39. According to Gallup, about 1/3rd of the US population subscribes to young earth creationism

That doesn't give one much "faith" in the sanity of Americans.

[edhopper]

20. Every Passover

I post about Moses not being a real person. And though Muhammed isn't discussed much, the brutality, illogic and isanity of Islamic Law is.

[Voltaire2]

41. Oh almost all of us here posting as "atheists"

are actually part of the Islamic jihad. Everyone knows that.

[Mariana]

45. Here's what Jesus had to say about it, according to the stories:

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5 : 11-12.

[Mariana]

12. And we all know why that is, don't we?

[Major Nikon]

8. ...

[Shemp Howard]

17. Point scored!

I tried to post "touché" as the title, but the DU computer wouldn't let me.

[Bretton Garcia]

40. Problems with pictures of Mohammed

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2018, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Problem is that some Muslims believe that Mohammet outlawed representational pictures (cf. Christian iconoclasts). And there are many Muslim terrorists. Which unfortunately, does have a chilling effect on free discussion.

A few years ago, such Muslims were baited by Christians in Texas. Who advertised a Mohammed Cartoon-Drawing contest. When a Muslim arrived with a gun, shooting, he was gunned down.

Such things though are inconvenient, exceedingly dangerous, and probably immoral.

[Shemp Howard]

42. I agree.

Last edited Mon Dec 24, 2018, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

It's one thing to draw a picture of Mohammed as an expression of free speech, or even for historical reasons. But in that Texas incident, the organizers were deliberately baiting Muslims. So yes, that was immoral.

[LunaSea]

2. More-

[MineralMan]

4. But...remember...Santa is a jumble word for SATAN!!!!!!

[Major Nikon]

9. Still not as badass as Gryla tho

[MineralMan]

26. Depends on whether you are naughty or not...

Good children are safe, so better be good...

[Croney]

28. I have what is probably a dumb question.

Why does the last frame say STORE? What does it mean?

Very good message though.

[Major Nikon]

29. I think it means they just stole a bunch of shit

[Croney]

30. Really? So, if there's no Santa and no Jesus,

It's OK to pillage and plunder. We atheists are all criminal psychopaths without the halter of magical thinking around our necks. 😛

[Major Nikon]

31. What's the point of being an atheist otherwise?