The Jesus and Mo artist explores the wine-y middle ground between superstition and sanity:
Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Uncle Karl
November 16, 2010 • 4:59 pm
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.
Is the author suggesting that moderate religionists are a threat to society (as drunk drivers are)?
I don’t think so. Don’t take the analogy too far. I think it’s trying to express how moderation is not always the best position.
One can’t always be moderate — that would be immoderate.
I took it to mean that moderates aren’t actually as moderate as they say they are–in the same way it’s hard for someone who’s been at the Kool-aid all evening to know just where on the scale of drunkenness he falls. A person who’s completely sloshed will often insist he can still drive just fine (implying he’s not a threat to anybody, when he really is). I think Author is implying that a moderately “drunk”(religious) person is as dangerous, in some ways maybe more so, than someone who is falling-down drunk (religious). A moderately drunk person is actually more likely to get in a car and drive and hurt someone than a falling-down drunk who can’t find his car, let alone his keys. Author is just using the analogy of drunkenness to throw into sharp relief the point that the moderate position is equally dangerous–a point Sam Harris also makes in Letter To A Christian Nation.
Thank-you for that explanation, I didn’t really get it either.
I’m quite willing to take the analogy and run with it.
Perhaps the author implies that religious belief is as morally reprehensible as driving a vehicle while fundamentally shit faced.
Jesus ‘n’ Mo are drinking to celebrate today’s Eid al-Adha, the Muslim “festival of sacrifice” to celebrate Abraham’s obedience to Allah to sacrifice Abraham’s son Ishmael (by Hagar, not Isaac by Sarah) like an animal.
Accommodationists can no doubt find the middle ground between the apparent contradiction of Abraham puting Ishmael or Isaac to the knife.
Seems to me moderately sozzled is akin to “moderately pregnant” in some respects. At least both can make you sick.
You forgot to note that he credited Uncle Karl.
I wonder if the humor in this joke is somewhat regional. In certain parts of the world (such as Sweden) drinking is an accepted part of the culture but never when driving. The limits are extremely strict and it is generally understood that having a couple of drinks makes you an unsafe driver that is a danger to others. In contrast there seems to be a much greater acceptance for drinking and driving in other parts of the world (France, parts of the US etc). In these places being moderately drunk while driving is often not viewed as particularly dangerous – or at least not viewed this way by a huge majority of the population.
The Jesus and Mo joke was funny to me (the author has a fantastically consistent high level of humor) but I suspect not everyone will get the current joke.
By the way, I don’t think the author is suggesting that being moderately drunk is as dangerous as being completely drunk, merely that it is dangerous.
To amplify your point: I think the author is saying that just because being moderately drunk is better in some ways than being completely drunk (moderately drunk people tend to be less annoying, less likely to throw up on you, etc.), it doesn’t mean that they get a free pass on everything. If a moderately drunk person announces he’s about to drive home, you don’t shrug and say “hey, at least you’re only moderately drunk.”
Similarly, while we may appreciate that “moderately religious” people tend to be less annoying and hateful and anti-rationality and just plain bat-guano crazy than “extremely religious” people, it doesn’t mean that we have to shut up when they make anti-rational statements.
What’s interesting is that many of the accomodationists seem to get this principle when it’s applied to others. They’re often willing to praise Dawkins and Coyne and others for their scientific writing, while criticizing them for their writing on religious topics. Which is as it should be, of course. Yet somehow, even though they have no problem saying things like “Scientist X is great when he’s talking about science, but his thoughts on religion are incoherent nonsense,” they are utterly mystified and indignant that someone would say something like “Scientist Y is great when he’s testifying against creationists, but his thoughts on religion are incoherent nonsense.”
I originally had “Jerry Coyne” and “Ken Miller” as Scientists X and Y in the above comment; I took the names out to make it more generic but in the process utterly obfuscated my point!
Another fun little religious comic: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/17/god-man-vs-human-man.html