Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ creationism

May 19, 2021 • 9:15 am

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, “lambasted”, came with an email full of information:

It was Ian Paisley from Northern Ireland’s DUP who inspired this strip with his angry outburst against the BBC  [JAC: This is the son of Ian Paisley père, the bad man who died seven years ago.]

Here’s a bit of the BBC article:

THE BBC has been accused of “taking the mickey” out of the newly elected leader of the DUP [Democratic Unionist Party] over his religious beliefs.

Ian Paisley, the party’s MP for North Antrim, said the broadcaster had “lambasted” Edwin Poots because he is “a man of faith”.

He made the claims during the BBC’s Newsnight programme on Friday.

However, a spokesperson for the BBC denied this was the case.

During the introduction to the programme, Mr Poots was described as “a creationist from the party’s Free Presbyterian roots, who once banned donations of blood from gay men”.

“I would say absolute cobblers to your programme so far,” Mr Paisley told presenter Faisal Islam.“I’m reminded of the Frank Skinner line, you can be anything in Britain today except a Christian.”

“The BBC want to lambast the man because he happens to be a man of faith and they want to take the mickey out of his religion, you wouldn’t do that if he was a Muslim…

“You should be ashamed of yourselves and the BBC should be ashamed of yourselves for starting from that position.

Well, I’ve always said that the term “a person of faith” should be taken as insult rather than praise, but if you want to talk specifics, banning donations of blood from gay men (blood can be screened) is bigoted, and accepting creationism is simply ignorance. So yes, Poots can be lambasted not because he’s a Christian, but because he has bizarre Christian beliefs.

The email from the Jesus and Mo author continues:

In other news, Richard Dawkins’ latest collection of writings “Books do Furnish a Life” contains the foreword which he wrote in 2013 for the 6th vol of Jesus & Mo strips “Folie à Dieu”.

We’ve started posting the strips on Patreon now, as this mailing list is becoming a bit unreliable. If you enjoy the comic and would like to help it keep going, and get early notifications when it is updated, all it takes is a dollar a month:’

Do subscribe; Jesus & Mo at a dollar a month is a great bargain (you can, if you wish, pay more). Here’s the strip:


19 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ creationism

  1. accepting creationism is simply ignorance.

    Hmm, minor linguistic quibble : growing up exposed to nothing but creationism might be classed as “ignorance”, but persisting in accepting it is rank stupidity.
    Slightly less minor – dinosaurs are still with us. One left what Nobel laureates have described as “white dielectric material” on the car overnight, and I’d better get the hose pipe out. I know Hili and Szaron are trying to control their numbers, but they need to extend their field of operations.

    1. Yes, these dinosaurs shite on my car every day. I do not mind, but others do, a ‘Dr’ cannot drive a car full of shit! I’m going to cut that tree and fashion some nice furniture. Don’t worry, it is an alien tree (American marsh oak) and the wood is fabulous, reputed to be pinkish. There are several other (indigenous) trees that are some decades old, old enough to take over for the dinos.

    2. “white dielectric material…”

      I first read that as dialectic material. On sober thought, I realize that if there’s creationism involved, there might be sound grounds for confusion.

      1. It’s a Penzias & Wilson reference. When they were trying to deal with noise sources in their (well, Bell Corp’s) horn antenna, one of the things they had to do was sweep out the “white dielectric material” and the pigeons that replenished it. A couple of years later, Nobel prize.

  2. “Poots can be lambasted not because he’s a Christian, but because he has bizarre Christian beliefs.”

    But who has who? The individual their Deeply Held Beliefs – or the religion its victim, via the Deeply Held Beliefs?

    1. Most of the time, religions claim victims through sacrifice by their parents. Moloch, brazen bulls, that sort of idea. Totally biblical, versions 1 and 2 (and I’m sure someone can point to derivatives in Bible 3 – the Koran)

      1. “Most of the time, religions claim victims through sacrifice by their parents. ”

        I am taking Dawkins’ genuine scientific view, that religion claims victims in the way cancer claims victims. I think the quote is “Religion … together, we can find the cure”…. the caffeine committee is slow today though…

  3. While I don’t have a great deal of time for Ian Paisley he was correct to point out that Muslim beliefs don’t attract the same level of scrutiny from the BBC.

    Criticism of all religions with wacky creationist stories… fine by me. You can criticise atheists, agnostics and humanists too. But being partial about who you criticise by an (allegedly) impartial broadcaster is not a good look.

    1. The Beeb had no problem reporting on Adnan Oktar or mentioning his creationism when Oktar was arrested.

      If you know of a UK Muslim high government or political leader who is a creationist though, let us know. If one exists and the BBC has never reported on it, that would be a solid comparison to your point.

    2. Poots’ wacky beliefs were discussed because his new leadership role was the story being reported on. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Beeb was being criticised for allowing Emma Barnett to challenge the new female Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, Zara Mohammed.

    3. Your “allegedly” on the impartiality of the Beeb is fair. But you seem to imply that there is something improper about this.
      The Beeb has a “Rethian ethos” “to educate and inform. But I’m not aware of any particular obligation for them to be “impartial” in any respect. They were set up as an instrument of the state in the 1920s and remain utterly wedded to supporting “the Establishment”.
      There are tediously repetitive complaints about the (relative) impartiality of the Beeb during times of dissent and internal warfare within Britain. Getting lambasted from both sides is probably an indication that they’re not wildly biased pro- or -anti- Britain. Which itself is a reason for hanging, drawing and quartering in some parts of the press – and packing the BBC board with government appointees in the effectual parts of “the Establishment”.

      1. Vide D o Edinburgh death, showing that the BBC ignores popular opinion unless it pertains to Strictly Come Dancing

  4. Blood donation organizations want potential donors (of any gender) who have had sex with a man who has had sex with other men to wait 3 months before donating (similar to traveling to many places).
    While the outright banning of gay men from donating was clearly excessive and based on disgusting bigotry, now I am wondering if the current practice could also be considered bigotry since a monogamous male-male couple would effectively be banned from donating. This despite posing no excess risk of having an early infection when false negative screening is likely to occur. Does anyone know if there is a follow up question to alleviate this?

    1. A relevant factor is that someone who believes they are in a mutually monogamous relationship might be mistaken.

    2. Your logic does not add up.

      a monogamous male-male couple would effectively be banned from donating.


      donors (of any gender) who have had sex with a man who has had sex with other men to wait 3 months before donating

      … simply does not add up. If a male couple is monogamous, then after the first 3 months of their mutual monogamy, both of the couple would be acceptable to donate.

      Of course, if a couple of any permutation has secrets one from the other, then there is a hole in the “monogamy” criterion. But that is regardless of the anatomical arrangement of erogenous zones between the couple’s … uh, “members”.

      Same goes for prials and other groupings of course.

Leave a Reply