The latest Jesus and Mo:
Apropos
September 9, 2010 • 10:08 am
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
The latest Jesus and Mo:
As always, spot on.
As everyone knows, Koranic “morality” is based on the old testament.
The cartoon makes perfect sense.
“Cretin provokes morons.” The issue in a nutshell.
Quite right.
And the cretins lose the game: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning (see in a comment on Common Sense Atheism)
Copy editor alert, with apologies in advance. “Apropos” does not mean appropriate. Sorry.
No, it means “pertinent” or “with reference to”, which is indeed appropriate given the earlier discussion of Qur’an burning.
It’s more obvius in spanish: apropos = a propósito
On the subject of cartoons, I think this comic could be offered as a rather scathing critique of Fodor et al’s rejection of natural selection.
I’ve just been to a talk by a California journalist on his opinions of what Faux News and the GOP are calling the “ground zero mosque”. His version is that there’s nothing to see here, this is just the GOP trying to scare people and win the next election by claiming that Obama is soft on terrorists. They’ve already suceeded with the “Obama is a muslim furriner” line. As for Rupert Murdoch, he wants the GOP in so he’s happy to shit on Rauf.
Mr Rauf has the right to build his…mosque, center, whatever.
It doesn’t mean he is a nice person. He demanded the Obama administration to endorse iran’s clerical dictatorship.
Read what Hitchens wrote on him. Hitchens is not Murdoch’s employee.
spit coffee at screen, OMG LOL
Take a look at this authentic Arabic Quran on fire on YouTube. It was posted in 2007. It just looks like a Quran on fire to me.
Did you feel anything? Anger? Hatred? The desire to kill the person burning the book? Who or what has been harmed by the burning of this Quran?
Should the person who set this book on fire be found and killed? Should every person from the nation where he lives be targeted for execution as well? It seems absurd to atheists that the Quran demands Muslim’s kill anyone who burns the Quran and all their followers. It is the rapid oxidation of a material in the chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products to us.
Do we have to wait until all Muslim’s can learn enough science to realize a book, a cross or a flag burning is just an example of a material in the chemical process of combustion? No, we do not. We need to use our freedom of speech fully and clearly.
Now that the burning is “on hold”, can we hope that the world will realise that whatever this pastor yahoo does is of no importance whatsoever?
I doubt it will turn out that way, but one can hope.
The most ridiculous part of the news coverage was that they actually went to the trouble of asking the Taliban for a comment!
They claimed to be outraged and would now be killing christians as a reprisal.
I thought that killing people is what they do normally?
In related news, the pope has threatened to be a catholic and bears have vowed to defecate in the woods.
Haven’t seen the faitheists respond yet, I don’t know maybe they need to pretend to pray about it first in order to keep up appearances with their christian allies. Just to provide a brief statement on their behalf; ‘If the “new” atheists would just shut up!’
I have been thinking long and hard about this, trying to figure out why I think this particular bit of street theater is wrong, yet Draw Mohammed Day and Crackergate were both not wrong.
I think I’ve finally settled on what’s bothering me so much about it…it’s the fact that the preacher is demonstrating the exact opposite meaning of what the former two did.
Crackergate and DMD were about the powerlessness of symbols. It’s JUST a cracker (and a page from the Koran and the God Delusion). They’re JUST pictures…nobody even knows what THAT Mohammed looked like, so how do you know THAT representation of him is it? (Heck, some of them were Teddy Bears). The point was that the symbols were meaningless in and of themselves.
This preacher has turned that on its head. The symbol now becomes “powerful”.
It has certainly turned a formerly crackpot, failed (50 parishioners) nutjob preacher into a “famous person”. Darwin only knows what he’ll do with this new-found celebrity. But I suspect nothing moral or ethical will come of it.
Only in America do we pay attention to whackos like this.