37 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo on coffee versus beer

    1. They do now, but they didn’t always, which is the whole point behind the cartoon. This debate did actually take place – in the 1980s IIRC. Some people were indeed upset at pubs serving coffee, how odd it may now seem. This J&M is a masterpiece.

  1. Or maybe it refers to the fact that when Author (J and M Author) and I had a drink in the hotel bar on Sunday I ordered diluted orange juice instead of an actual drink, while he had a pint as a respectable fella should. (I’m not teetotal, it’s just that I was thirsty.)

    He’s a great guy, by the way.

      1. Well look here – it’s both a bar and a restaurant, and we sat in the restaurant part. I figure that lets me off the hook. If not I expect the Mancunian mutawa’een will be sending the extradition request any minute now…

      2. I’ve found that one of best uses for vodka is to dilute ones orange juice. It’s not blasphemy, it’s breakfast! (maybe brunch)

  2. Uh – wait – when I say “hotel bar” I mean “bar of the hotel where the QED conference was.”

    Earlier we had lunch with Paula Kirby and Rhys and Paul Morgan. In between we talked to Maryam Namazie.

    Amazing day.

  3. Beer and coffee, clearly the world’s two greatest drinks. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool and a communist.

    We had an argument about this a few weeks ago and everyone was shocked when I said that if I had to choose I would keep coffee and give up beer.

    1. This does not surprise me at all; I think caffine is far more addictive (for most people’s metabolisms) than alcohol. Less destructive? Absolutely. Fewer side effects? Yep. But still more addictive.

      Over the years, many of my christian friends have suggested I give up alcohol for Lent. Because, y’know, its an addictive drug. I happily agree…as long as they give up caffine. The subject almost always magically drops. When it doesn’t, my ‘opponent’ rarely lasts more than a day or two. There was one year I caught the other person having a coffee the next morning. “But just because I have headache” he said. Well, duh, you idiot, how do you think addiction works????

    2. Me too. Plenty of other good alcoholic drinks to choose from anyway ;), although I would miss the strong Belgian stuff :(.

      Coffee on the other hand cannot even remotely be replaced by anything, not even tea or hot chocolate.

  4. Here in the UK the Government plans to introduce same-sex marriage. We already have civil partnerships that confer the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. All the change will do is make it easier for same-sex couple to have their marriage recognised abroad, as not everywhere recognises civil partnerships as being equivalent to marriage.

    Needless to say this has upset the Catholic Church who are mounting a vigour campaign to prevent the change. The main argument, if you can all it such, is that the Government does not have the moral right to change the definition of marriage. Needless to say outside of religion this argument is regarded as total bollocks.

  5. Mo: Do you eat oysters?
    Jesus: When I have them, Mo.

    Mo: Do you eat snails?
    Jesus: No, Mo…

    Mo: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?
    Jesus: No, Mo…

    Mo: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn’t it?
    Jesus: Yes, Mo.

    Mo: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.
    Jesus: It could be argued so, Mo.

    Mo: My taste includes both snails and oysters.
    Jesus: I find that the snail shells get stuck in my teeth Mo.

    Mo: You are supposed to remove the snails from their shells before eating them Jesus.
    Jesus: Naked snails? That’s just sick Mo!

    1. Oh yes! Awesome reference to Spartacus! Great post.

      Mo: “I love you Jesus, as if you were my father!”

      Jesus: “I love you Mo, as if you were my son!”

      or is it the other way around… since Jesus is the “son”?

  6. I heard Sentamu declare that it would not be straightforward since allowing gay marriage would contradict article 30 of the CoE which is enshrined in an act of parliament. Does anyone know what the relevant act is?

    1. The change would require an act of Parliament, so his objection is not relevant. All that would be needed is a clause in the act that gives it precedent over previous acts.

          1. Yes…I’m just trying to find their actual wording about marriage out of interest. I’m struggling to dig it up. Not that they get to define marriage how they want anyway, just want to know what the wording is. The prop 8 proponents made a big deal about the UNDHR definition but got it badly wrong. I’ll keep digging.

            1. Well the main act regarding marriages in England and Wales is the 1753 act.

              There have been some acts since that have amended the act, such as extending recognition of marriages conduct by clergy other than CofE, and allowing civil marriages to take place in licensed premises other than a Registry Office.

            2. Actually, given the number of amendments it would not surprise me if the opportunity was taken to introduce an act that brought the existing act and amendments, along with the same-sex provision into a single new act.

              1. Well, that would probably be the sensible thing to do alright. But if DC wants to get this pushed through the next session it might delay it getting on the statute book.

            3. OK….I think this is it.

              B 30 Of Holy Matrimony
              1. The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and
              affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

              2. The teaching of our Lord affirmed by the Church of England is expressed and maintained in the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony
              contained in The Book of Common Prayer.

              3. It shall be the duty of the minister, when application is made to him for matrimony to be solemnized in the church of which he is the minister, to explain to the two persons who desire to be married the Church’s doctrine of marriage as herein set forth, and the need of God’s grace in order that they may discharge aright their obligations as married persons.

  7. Our government just ordered the state church here in Denmark to marry homosexuals. From the 15. of June there will be a ritual for marrying homosexuals in church in Denmark. That’ll teach the state church what it means to be a STATE church. Muahahahaha… The individual priest may decline to go through with the ritual, and several priests have already said they’d NEVER do it. All the rest of us who are not members of the church (but still pay to it through our taxes) are smirking, because for ONCE the state actually just said ‘shut up and do as you’re told’ to the church … and they can’t do a thing about it … (moa Muahahahah)

      1. I see the law should come in on June 15. I would have expected more opposition. The church here will use this to show that they too will be compelled to allow gay marriage in CoE churches. The stats are surprising.

        “Six of the 10 bishops in the Church, questioned in 2010 by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper, said they were in favour of same-sex marriages.

        Some 80 per cent of Danes were members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as of January 1, or 4.5 million people.”

        1. There are quite a lot of priests who are for same-sex-marriages in church. It has for years been custom for many married samesex-couples to be married by the mayor and then have a blessing in church, but apparently the government just got impatient and bullied this one through without waiting for consensus.
          The membership in the state-church has gone down rapidly in the last few years, so my guess is we’ll be below 80 % quite soon. And yes, I do believe the Queen will have to sign the new law.

          1. Maybe, just maybe, we will now have a real debate about separating state and church, moving the official registration of births to local secular authorities, as it already is in the part of DK that was German for a while.
            Lets set the Danish Lutheran church free, stop supporting its administration, paying for the education of its ministers and become a real secular state.

            Oh and while we’re at it, lets set the Queen and her descendants free as well and become a real democracy where everyone in principle are born equal.

      2. Shouldn’t think so. Her great…grandfather* didn’t need a divorce and take over the local church to get it.

        *But H8 wasn’t, was he? Was he ANY kin?

        1. Yes, through his sister. His sister–>Stewarts–>Hanoverians–>Windsors. Rarely the eldest son, oddly enough, in fact almost never. H8 wasn’t the eldest son himself.

  8. “The newest edition of Jesus and Mo is subtle, but apparently refers to gay marriage.”

    The author added an explanation in response to a comment by Darwin Harmless: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/03/14/cafe/#comment-176492

    “It’s not the coffee; it’s the act of drinking coffee which is abominable.
    Many thanks to today’s guest scriptwriter, Cardinal Keith O’Brien.”
    The hyperlink attached to “Cardinal Keith O’Brien@ to opens this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9121424/We-cannot-afford-to-indulge-this-madness.html

    1. I don’t know about the subtle, near-hidden meaning in this one, what is exercising my pea-sized brain is whether or not this is a proper use of the term willy nilly!

Leave a Reply