13 thoughts on “Jesus and Mo go apophatic

  1. Meh. The tone of this cartoon is pretty sophomoric and high school newspaper level. I have no interest in making fun of people, nor do I think making fun of people is an effective way to educate people about science and the scientific method. As an example, if I were a science teacher and a student asked a particularly naive question, even accusingly, I would not seize on their mistake and ridicule them. It just makes you look like a goat.

    1. The substance of that argument walls you into one of two zone: boring or hypocritical. Either satirical humor ( sophomoric even) is forbidden in your world, or you allow for it but not if it is satire against religion.

    2. Ridicule works wonders. After watching Mel Brooks’ production of “The Producers” how can you ever take Hitler seriously after “Hitler in Springtime?” Then there are all the Nazi jokes in “To Be or Not To Be”.

      The creationists do not deserve reasoned argument – in fact they do not want to have an intelligent conversation. They invite ridicule and they deserve what they get. People need to associate creationism with being part of the super-dumb part of society that no one wants anything to do with. Anyone who sides with the creationists also deserves ridicule.

    3. Rather a goat than a sheep.

      “The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
      True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.”

      – H L Mencken, “Aftermath” (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

    4. I’ve heard this argument before; it usually ends with two people talking past each other. The problem is that people like you are picturing an audience of ignorant but honest people who can be taught, and people who favor ridicule are picturing an audience who is ignorant but closed minded so education would be a waste of effort. The best we could achieve with such people is for everyone to associate their ideas with being mocked so it would be harder for them to indoctrinate others.

  2. Ridiculing people over whom you exercise power, such as your children or students or workplace subordinates, is dumb and cruel. Ridiculing people who exercise social power, such as popes, priests, etc., is often highly desirable.

    1. Absolutely, and ridiculing Jesus and Mo, who are presumed to have some sort of plenary authority, is even more important. The best line? “I don’t what to make you shut up. How am I supposed to make fun of you if you don’t saying anything?” Not sophmoric. True. Religion condemns itself out of its own mouth again and again.

Leave a Reply