Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ blasphemy

January 28, 2015 • 8:38 am

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip touches on the continuous battle in the United Nations about passing anti-blasphemy guidelines. This drive is, of course, promulgated almost entirely by Muslim states, while the U.S. and other democracies have always opposed such strictures, peace be unto them. While at one time I was really worried that these “laws” would be approved, it now seems as if they won’t, and the Charlie Hebdo matter will make it even harder.

2015-01-28

 

 

41 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ blasphemy”

  3. Hey! No fair reading what’s in other people’s sacred texts! Or analyzing “religion talk.” That doesn’t count.

  5. Let’s offer a deal.
    Islam can get anti-blasphemy laws as soon as they resolve that Sunni-Shia thing. Start the clock.

    1. LOL. The only way the Sunni-Shia thing is getting resolved is if one side totally eliminates the other… which isn’t beyond the realms of possibility.

    2. The Wed 1/28/15 hard-copy NYT has an article on Obama’s several-hour stopover in Saudi Arabia. Don’t have it in front of me, but if correctly recall among the several problems S.A. has had with the U.S. includes the U.S. not sufficiently intervening in Syria against Assad, on account of Assad repressing S.A.’s favorite brand of Islam. (I gather that, did the opposite obtain, S.A. could not care less.)

      Of course, not one mention of Wahabism (sp.?).

      Last para. reflects Obama’s answer to a question whether he will mention Saudi human rights violations, the 1000-lash sentence meted out to that awful blogger. He responded to the effect not on this visit, though he has and will otherwise continue to press the Saudis on these issues. Article also quotes James Baker bloviation to the effect about the need to get the quality of Saudi-U.S. relations back up to the high level they were at when HE was U.S. Secretary of State.

  6. Jerry… I think the first link is pointed in the wrong direction. (You expect to get the J&M cartoon. Instead you end up elsewhere._

  7. While at one time I was really worried that these “laws” would be approved, it now seems as if they won’t

    It was a non-binding resolution. There may be a lot of impactful international policy decisions that the UN makes, but there is also a lot of political theater that goes on, and this was more political theater than it was/is policy decision.

    Yeah, symbolic resolutions can sometimes influence behavior and we should speak back that we oppose bad symbolic speech like this. But at the same time, had it passed, it would’ve done exactly nothing (directly) to the legal rights of citizens in UN member states.

  8. Outlawing things is just passing the violence baton over to the police.

    Enforcing your ideas by violence is an admission that your ideas are worthless.

    1. Enforcing your ideas by violence is an admission that your ideas are worthless.

      All good ideas, in the end, must be enforced with violence, or the threat of violence.

      That’s because people with bad ideas enforce them with violence, or the threat of violence.

      1. Yes this is our past experience. However, one can hope for a better future in which more disputes will be processed through a peaceful process. If Pinker is right (he seems to have a handle on a lot of things) history is flowing in the right direction.

  9. I was so heartened to hear that Michelle Obama did not cover her head when meeting the Saudi head of state. Then I read the mealy-mouthed coverage in the WP and that took some of the wind out of my sails.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/27/michelle-obama-forgoes-a-headscarf-and-sparks-a-backlash-in-saudi-arabia/

    The writer says Saudi Arabia is one of the “few countries” that make women wear cover. Sure, those “few countries” contain about 1/6 of the world’s women, but whatever.

    And apparently the Saudis are flogging a blogger for “insulting Islam.” I might say they are “beating the life” out of a man for modest, true statements the dictatorship doesn’t like, but maybe that’s splitting hairs.

    Western female dignitaries should stop wearing cover. Full stop. Well, they should wear it on the street if they feel there is a risk of violence, can’t blame them for that. But there is no reason to respect primitive local customs when doing so suggests sanctioning their oppression of women, or any other group for that matter.

    1. I feel the same way about repressive Western standards that outlaw public nudity, so I guess I can’t really comment…

      1. Like nudity is so totally comparable to wearing a niqab. Every person covers some part of their body, that’s a fact. Not everyone forces half of their population to cover their bodies and hair because men can’t help themselves? Please. And it’s supposed to be liberating?

        1. Oh, for sure. Maggie Thatcher nude. My mind boggles.

          But coming back to Michelle Obama (a much pleasanter subject to contemplate) – she looked stylish and elegant. I much like that blue dress. Michelle Obama is hot. And the Saudis would prefer her to dress in a sack. What idiots.

          1. Well, y’know, The Hitch kinda developed a thang for Mrs. Thatcher after she swatted his bum with a rolled up parliamentary order paper.

      1. Mrs. Obama’s U.S. critics will be hard-pressed to criticize her for not wearing a head covering. But they won’t be hard-pressed to refrain from complementing her.

      2. Would’ve been great if she’d driven them both away from the meeting (she’ll have diplomatic immunity), but baby steps, I guess.

  10. Whenever these states get too noisy about blasphemy laws, I always think the best response would be to get a lawyer to draft one up – one that guarantees the universal right to blaspheme, of course – and submit that.

  13. If Muslim states wan’t anti-blasphemy than what about all those anti-Semitic cartoons that get published in the Middle Eastern press? Will they disappear as well?

        1. Was I unclear, friendly? I was just agreeing with A K that if Muslims are so upset over blasphemy they might want to clean up their own yard first before accusing others.

  15. The translation I looked at actually says “May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?”

    Which is more like islam as I know it. None of this namby-pamby name calling, just get right down to business and destroy everyone who disagrees with islam.

    It’s a simple system but apparently quite effective.

    Lucky for us most moslems think all the other moslems are in the destroy category. Might be our saving in the long run.

  16. People only consider blasphemy should be a thing because they’ve been brought up in a society in which religious beliefs have a special place ahead of other ideas. The idea always originates with the dominant majority who are trying to protect their religion from scrutiny. If any belief system was valid, it wouldn’t require legal protection.

    1. If any religion were true, it would have runaway advantages over the others – more, or all, prayers answered, miracles happen, blessings bestowed in the name of, than any other, and rapidly become the dominant or even the only one. (Jihad doesn’t count.) The fact that this has not happened is prima facie evidence that none is true.

  17. ERB (Epic Rap Battles) channel on Youtube has a funny blasphemous video with 55 million views:
    Moses vs Santa Claus. Epic Rap Battles of History Season 2

    Another funny one with 42 million views:
    Adam vs Eve. Epic Rap Battles of History Season 2

    In October 2014 ERB was the 14th most subscribed Youtube channel.
    Maybe they could do an ERB Fact Vs Faith ?

Comments are closed.