Religion and science are compatible. . . .

. . . and so are religion and pedophilia. Another tour de force by the au courant Jesus and Mo artist:


  1. Somite
    Posted January 22, 2010 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    So brilliant! Did you see the PS?

    “Special thanks to this week’s guest scriptwriter, Chris Mooney.”

  2. Posted January 22, 2010 at 9:42 am | Permalink


  3. NewEnglandBob
    Posted January 22, 2010 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    I had marked this in RSS reader as a must see this morning. It is brilliant.

  4. Luke
    Posted January 22, 2010 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Wait, doesn’t Christopher Hitchens in fact make the argument based on this thinking. His argument is that there is a compatibility, that the environment for priesthood in more than conducive for pedophilia, it encourages it to the point of an inevitable outcome? They are not only compatible, but complementary with this argument.

  5. Luke
    Posted January 22, 2010 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    I see my post was actually posted. Hope you see the problem with the general argument as extended out.

    • whyevolutionistrue
      Posted January 22, 2010 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      Nope, I don’t see a problem, except for that of a troll returning.

      • Reginald Selkirk
        Posted January 22, 2010 at 10:56 am | Permalink

        BTW, do you recognize the dilemma I proposed?

        I recognize that you are relying on the shallowness of an inappropriate analogy. When inspected in detail, you will see strong relevant differences between the two cases. Hitchens, for example, could point to the prevalence of pedophiles among clergy vs. that of the general populace. Whereas in the case of scientists who are religious, the prevalence is significantly lower than in the general populace.

  6. Posted January 22, 2010 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Yeah, but those are no true Sco — er — priests!

  7. Occam
    Posted January 22, 2010 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    Not to spoil the party or anything, but isn’t this dumb little syllogism (‘X,Y are scientists; X,Y are religious; => there are religious scientists, PTL, Hallelujah!’) a dead mutton already?

    I’d rather have the Electric Monk argument: humans are the ultimate Electric Monks, being able to hold any number of logically and philosophically irreconcilable beliefs before breakfast.
    Logical consistency and rationality not seeming required in the media space, except for a few islets of sanity, like here.

    Re paedophile priests, what does it matter that your children be fucked, if their souls be saved, so the basic argument seems to go, except for a few crowd-pleasing cosmetic accommodations. No, this is a more serious thing altogether, power corrupts, absolute power over people’s minds and bodies, as arrogated by the Church, corrupts absolutely.

    This reminds me of a Soviet era anecdote, based on edifying tales we were taught at school, to illustrate Lenin’s essential goodness and humanity. A group of children passes by Lenin’s bathroom window. Lenin is shaving. The children greet him: “Good morning, Vladimir Ilyich!” To which Lenin utters an obscene curse. Which shows the great man’s essential goodness and humanity: he could easily have slit the children’s throats with his razor.

  8. KP
    Posted January 22, 2010 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    I’m still bummed that the artist didn’t do something with Pat Robertson. I realize the cartoon is more worldly and philosophical whereas Pat is a specific American absurdity. But it still would have been fun to see ol’ Pat skewered in a J n’ M cartoon.

  9. articulett
    Posted January 22, 2010 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    *applause for Jesus and Mo artist!*

    (jeers for troll)

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] No, they aren’t compatible. Sure, some really good scientists are religious but then again some very religious people are pedophiles. So does that make religion and pedophilia […]

%d bloggers like this: