BEHOLD! John Keane's roughs for the first two pages of the first (and in all likelihood last) adventure of JESUS CHRIST, P.I.
A
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
What Twitter hath wrought
BEHOLD! John Keane's roughs for the first two pages of the first (and in all likelihood last) adventure of JESUS CHRIST, P.I.
A
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Much Adoodle-doo.
Hey everyone! Let's get angry about stuff that's really kind of silly! Stuff like:
HOLLYWOOD'S FORCING CANADIAN ACTORS TO SETTLE FOR PLAYING CRAPPY SUPERHEROES (quick, someone tell Glenn Beck canuck and ozzie actors are stealing all the great superhero roles from hard-working Americans, those lousy immiguhnts)!
MOVIES AFFECTING PEOPLES' VIEWS OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (because people are that stupid)!
COMIC STRIPS NOTING THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT GOD WAS KIND OF A DINK AND SNARKING ON BANKERS ARE ANTI-SEMITIC!
Look, bankers are @$$holes.* They just are. That's a comment on a profession, not a religion. It's got everything to do with bankers' actions and absolutely nothing to do with which Old Dude in the sky they happen to worship.
And you know who else was a bit of a @$$hole? The character of god, as presented in the old testament. Frankly, he's no great shakes in the new one, either, but at least there he's not throwing temper tantrums, condemning those he claims to love to suffering and death because because they raided the fridge and ate the special apples he was saving, or killing hundreds of thousands of people because they never come round to visit anymore...
As someone who generally strives towards some level of, if not political correctness, at least politeness, I should probably just shut my mouth when it comes to this stuff. But I believe in anger as a potentially positive force for social change, and it bothers me when people get mad about (what Mr. White Male Privilege here sees as) relatively insignificant, if not entirely imaginary, slights. There's so much stuff in the world that deserves our anger. To me, this sort of thing is akin to expending energy focusing on your stubbed toe when it would be better spent dealing with your slit throat.
Also, OK, history's not really my thing, but am I reading the ADL's statement correctly: Christians forced Jews to commit usury? They put guns (or slings, I guess) to Jews' heads and said, "Lend us money but charge us interest, or we fire?" That seems off to me, but again, I'm no history expert. If anyone reading this could clarify, either in comments or e-mail, I'd appreciate it.
(*In my opinion, based on what I've read and my own personal experience. Much as I want to malign the entire profession, I have to acknowledge that, somewhere out there, there's a chance one or more bankers who aren't @$$holes exist. On a quantum level, anything's possible.)
A
HOLLYWOOD'S FORCING CANADIAN ACTORS TO SETTLE FOR PLAYING CRAPPY SUPERHEROES (quick, someone tell Glenn Beck canuck and ozzie actors are stealing all the great superhero roles from hard-working Americans, those lousy immiguhnts)!
MOVIES AFFECTING PEOPLES' VIEWS OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES (because people are that stupid)!
COMIC STRIPS NOTING THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT GOD WAS KIND OF A DINK AND SNARKING ON BANKERS ARE ANTI-SEMITIC!
Look, bankers are @$$holes.* They just are. That's a comment on a profession, not a religion. It's got everything to do with bankers' actions and absolutely nothing to do with which Old Dude in the sky they happen to worship.
And you know who else was a bit of a @$$hole? The character of god, as presented in the old testament. Frankly, he's no great shakes in the new one, either, but at least there he's not throwing temper tantrums, condemning those he claims to love to suffering and death because because they raided the fridge and ate the special apples he was saving, or killing hundreds of thousands of people because they never come round to visit anymore...
As someone who generally strives towards some level of, if not political correctness, at least politeness, I should probably just shut my mouth when it comes to this stuff. But I believe in anger as a potentially positive force for social change, and it bothers me when people get mad about (what Mr. White Male Privilege here sees as) relatively insignificant, if not entirely imaginary, slights. There's so much stuff in the world that deserves our anger. To me, this sort of thing is akin to expending energy focusing on your stubbed toe when it would be better spent dealing with your slit throat.
Also, OK, history's not really my thing, but am I reading the ADL's statement correctly: Christians forced Jews to commit usury? They put guns (or slings, I guess) to Jews' heads and said, "Lend us money but charge us interest, or we fire?" That seems off to me, but again, I'm no history expert. If anyone reading this could clarify, either in comments or e-mail, I'd appreciate it.
(*In my opinion, based on what I've read and my own personal experience. Much as I want to malign the entire profession, I have to acknowledge that, somewhere out there, there's a chance one or more bankers who aren't @$$holes exist. On a quantum level, anything's possible.)
A
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Sexwar!
A couple pieces of good news, at least for godless pinkos like myself:
-Some church ministers are refusing to sign marriage certificates and/or perform wedding ceremonies until gay marriage is legalized. Says United Church of Christ minister Art Cribbs: "I cannot with good conscience perform weddings for heterosexuals knowing people who are gay and lesbian are being denied that opportunity."
-Also, I can't seem to find a solid link for it, but this showed up on a friend's blog (I'd link to it, but it's friend-locked so not much point...) and, assuming it's true, which for the moment I am assuming, it's another mark in the win column:
This morning [actually yesterday, July 10], the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (Labor HHS) eliminated traditional sources of funding for abstinence-only programs by passing the appropriations bill for FY 2010.
The Labor HHS subcommittee and the Obama Administration has recognized what we already knew: abstinence-only sex education programs do not work. The evidence is irrefutable that spending for abstinence-only education is not only wasteful, but also the programs put young women’s health at risk. A 2004 study by the House Committee on Government Reform, conducted at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) found that over 80% of the curricula used in the largest federally funded abstinence-only programs contained “false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.”
In addition to pulling the plug on funding for failed abstinence-only sex education programs, the bill eliminates a ban on syringe exchange programs, which have been proven to be a highly effective strategy for preventing HIV.
That's obviously specific to the US. I should really check into what the situation is here in Canada. Over the next few years, my nieces and nephews are going to enter the age bracket where they stop being entertainingly androgynous moppets and start dealing with these sorts of issues. It'd be nice to know they weren't being fed ill-conceived (if you'll pardon the pun) propaganda from the religious wrong when it happens.
***
An anecdote to give this post a personal touch:
Students could talk about almost anything in Mr. Esau's grade 12 Social Studies class, or at least that's how I remember it. One of the reasons I remember it that way is because at some point, condoms were mentioned. I can't remember the context, but it seems to me they were a part of some discussion that lasted a few minutes at least.
At some point, one girl's hand goes up. Everyone looks at her and she hesitantly asks, "What's a condom?"
Titters and guffaws from the students. Mr. Esau coolly shuts them down, "It's not funny, it's a serious question." But he doesn't elaborate on what a condom actually is, probably because if he did he'd end up having some nitwit parent complaining that their precious flower's being exposed to perversion in his classroom. Instead, he offers the girl a dictionary. She gets up, goes to the front of the class, flips through the dictionary to the C Section.
I never saw a group of high school kids as quiet as Mr. Esau's class watching this girl reading the dictionary. Dead silence for a minute or two as she gets the Official Definition of condom.
After an agonizingly long time, she says, "Huh." Slams the dictionary shut, returns to her seat, and spends the rest of the year being an object of ridicule.
When I was in high school, I wasn't a popular kid, for a variety of reasons (in retrospect, at least some of them were entirely my own damn fault). My size saved me from a lot of the hassles
smaller kids had to put up with, but I think I also had at least some minimal instinct for social self-preservation.
Without it, I would've been the one standing in front of Mr. Esau's class reading the dictionary.
A
-Some church ministers are refusing to sign marriage certificates and/or perform wedding ceremonies until gay marriage is legalized. Says United Church of Christ minister Art Cribbs: "I cannot with good conscience perform weddings for heterosexuals knowing people who are gay and lesbian are being denied that opportunity."
-Also, I can't seem to find a solid link for it, but this showed up on a friend's blog (I'd link to it, but it's friend-locked so not much point...) and, assuming it's true, which for the moment I am assuming, it's another mark in the win column:
This morning [actually yesterday, July 10], the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (Labor HHS) eliminated traditional sources of funding for abstinence-only programs by passing the appropriations bill for FY 2010.
The Labor HHS subcommittee and the Obama Administration has recognized what we already knew: abstinence-only sex education programs do not work. The evidence is irrefutable that spending for abstinence-only education is not only wasteful, but also the programs put young women’s health at risk. A 2004 study by the House Committee on Government Reform, conducted at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) found that over 80% of the curricula used in the largest federally funded abstinence-only programs contained “false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.”
In addition to pulling the plug on funding for failed abstinence-only sex education programs, the bill eliminates a ban on syringe exchange programs, which have been proven to be a highly effective strategy for preventing HIV.
That's obviously specific to the US. I should really check into what the situation is here in Canada. Over the next few years, my nieces and nephews are going to enter the age bracket where they stop being entertainingly androgynous moppets and start dealing with these sorts of issues. It'd be nice to know they weren't being fed ill-conceived (if you'll pardon the pun) propaganda from the religious wrong when it happens.
***
An anecdote to give this post a personal touch:
Students could talk about almost anything in Mr. Esau's grade 12 Social Studies class, or at least that's how I remember it. One of the reasons I remember it that way is because at some point, condoms were mentioned. I can't remember the context, but it seems to me they were a part of some discussion that lasted a few minutes at least.
At some point, one girl's hand goes up. Everyone looks at her and she hesitantly asks, "What's a condom?"
Titters and guffaws from the students. Mr. Esau coolly shuts them down, "It's not funny, it's a serious question." But he doesn't elaborate on what a condom actually is, probably because if he did he'd end up having some nitwit parent complaining that their precious flower's being exposed to perversion in his classroom. Instead, he offers the girl a dictionary. She gets up, goes to the front of the class, flips through the dictionary to the C Section.
I never saw a group of high school kids as quiet as Mr. Esau's class watching this girl reading the dictionary. Dead silence for a minute or two as she gets the Official Definition of condom.
After an agonizingly long time, she says, "Huh." Slams the dictionary shut, returns to her seat, and spends the rest of the year being an object of ridicule.
When I was in high school, I wasn't a popular kid, for a variety of reasons (in retrospect, at least some of them were entirely my own damn fault). My size saved me from a lot of the hassles
smaller kids had to put up with, but I think I also had at least some minimal instinct for social self-preservation.
Without it, I would've been the one standing in front of Mr. Esau's class reading the dictionary.
A
Monday, March 9, 2009
Great Moments in Christianity: March 9, 2009
"Sure, a guy raped his stepdaughter for years and impregnated her with twins at the age of nine, but let's keep our eyes on the real evil here."
Not a quote of the day--the #*%&wit bishop who excommunicated a bunch of folks who put a nine-year old girl's wellbeing ahead of church doctrine didn't use those exact words. Nevertheless, it's exactly what the aforementioned #*%&wit was saying.
Via rae-is, who at the beginning of her post effectively sums up my feelings on the matter in five words--well, three words, actually, with a couple used twice.
A
Not a quote of the day--the #*%&wit bishop who excommunicated a bunch of folks who put a nine-year old girl's wellbeing ahead of church doctrine didn't use those exact words. Nevertheless, it's exactly what the aforementioned #*%&wit was saying.
Via rae-is, who at the beginning of her post effectively sums up my feelings on the matter in five words--well, three words, actually, with a couple used twice.
A
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Ya Think?, or Great Moments in Understatement: February 18, 2009
"He must have felt that he needed comfort. And he chose the church for that comfort. Unfortunately, it didn't end well." Crystal Cathedral Spokesman Michael Nason
, talking about an unfortunate but proactive individual who apparently didn't think being in church got him sufficiently close to God.
, talking about an unfortunate but proactive individual who apparently didn't think being in church got him sufficiently close to God.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Diamond Spider in The Lair of The Heathens, Part One
In the same way I'll listen to a telemarketer spiel provided the telemarketer isn't on commission (in which case I'll advise them to try the next person, because it doesn't matter what they're selling, I ain't buying), when religious folks come to my door and try to convince me their god's better than my god, I'll usually invite them in and engage them in polite but pointed discussion until they decide they just don't want to risk being infected by this heathen's questioning attitude anymore.
It's tempting to say "I don't know why I do these things," but I do know why I do them, or at least some of the reasons I do them. In the case of the telemarketers, it's pure empathy; nobody ever set out to be a telemarketer, a job which I'm reasonably sure consists largely of earning minimum wage in exchange for passive ill-wishes if not outright insults and threats from as many people as one can phone in an eight hour period. I have nothing but sympathy for the telemarketer; there but for the grace of...well, let's not get started on that. But a couple different turns in life and it could be me on the other end of the line. Hell, I'm not more than a turn or two away from ending up there even at this stage, which is a terrifying thought.
When it comes to the religious, my reasons are less noble. I like a good argument, but as I've said before a good argument can't really be had if one side can't be won over by the other. At this stage, I find it highly unlikely I'm going to accept a worldview that involves actively proselytism by its followers; by the same token, it seems unlikely anyone who's signed off on a belief system enough to go cold-call on its behalf is going to be swayed by my unassailable logic. However, it's really easy to dismiss the opinion of people who are overt jerks (hello FoxNews), so I try not to act like one and give those who disagree with me an easy out.
Ultimately, though, this all comes down to the fact that I'm a writer. Either I'm always looking to hear new voices, particularly voices with perspectives I don't share, or I'm a flake who's always looking for a feasible excuse not to do anything BUT write. Maybe a little of column A and a little from column B.
In any event, last Friday, Tiina had a conversation of sorts with a nice couple of older jehovah's witnesses ladies about how grand god was. They didn't stay long, but they did leave some literature and a promise to return yesterday morning, which they made good on. This time, however, I was awake. Furthermore, I'd read the literature and spent almost as much time during my insomniac periods this week mentally compiling the fallacies the booklet was based on as I did putting together exactly what happened to Batman in FINAL CRISIS #6 and how it tied into and justified Batman RIP.
The first thing I noticed about the two women who appeared on the doorstep was that they were both very well-dressed (albeit in a fashion considerably less comfortable than my own nightshirt and pyjama bottoms), and one of them had an odd broach that appeared to be a diamond-encrusted spider pinned to her lapel. It struck me as an odd piece of jewelry for a JW to be wearing, and I spent much of the conversation staring at it trying to figure out a way to work it into the conversation. Alas, it was not to be (this time.) Instead, I found myself in a conversation that ran along these lines:
Jehovah-Girl #1: Isn't it amazing how complex the trees in your yard are?
Me: It really is. And that's nothing compared to the amazing complexity of say, a human being.
JG1: Yes, exactly. I mean, a car is nothing compared to a tree, is it?
Me: It really isn't, no.
JG1: But I couldn't build a car.
Me: No, me neither.
JG1: A car needs a builder. It doesn't just spring into existence, does it?
Me: While I've never personally witnessed a car's construction, this does seem to be a logical assumption.
JG1: And if a car needs a builder, then it stands to reason something even more complex than a car would need a creator, too, right?
Me: Something like a tree or a human?
JG1: Exactly! And that creator is God! You see how it all makes sense?
Me: Let me see if I follow you: complex things need to be built...
JG1: Right.
Me: The more complex something is, the more unlikely it is to exist without a builder...
JG1: Yes, yes!
Me: You know, it seems to me that the One who theoretically created all this stuff must be infinitely complex...
JG1: Oh, he is, he truly is.
Me: Who do you think built him?
JG1: Nobody built him. God's always existed. And that's difficult for some to grasp...
Me: I imagine it's very difficult for people who accept the premise that complex mechanisms require a conscious act of creation to exist.
JG1: But we know it to be True.
Me: How? I mean, you just undermined your entire premise, didn't you?
JG1: Because the bible says so.
Me: Ah. I'm glad you brought that up...
***
I'm not so sure they were glad they brought it up because they got really anxious to head back out into the -25 degree weather soon after. However, they did promise that the Lady with The Diamond Spider would call us back to set up an appointment to explain to me Why She Believes The Bible Is Not A Work Of Fiction, with a sub-topic I suggested of Even If I Were To Believe The Bible Is Not A Work Of Fiction, Why Should I Believe Her Denomination's Interpretation Of It?
As I told them as they were leaving, "I got into a discussion with a couple of Mormons about that last one and they made some really interesting points I'd like to get your opinion on."
All of which is, oddly enough, true.
Though on the whole, I'd rather wing it all and be able to sleep.
***
ON THE OTHER HAND...
...there's the Church of Scientology, which left a handbill in our mailbox telling us to come to a lecture that would bring peace and prosperity to our lives, but which left the time and location of the lecture conspicuously blank.
Thanks for nothing, Scientology.
A
It's tempting to say "I don't know why I do these things," but I do know why I do them, or at least some of the reasons I do them. In the case of the telemarketers, it's pure empathy; nobody ever set out to be a telemarketer, a job which I'm reasonably sure consists largely of earning minimum wage in exchange for passive ill-wishes if not outright insults and threats from as many people as one can phone in an eight hour period. I have nothing but sympathy for the telemarketer; there but for the grace of...well, let's not get started on that. But a couple different turns in life and it could be me on the other end of the line. Hell, I'm not more than a turn or two away from ending up there even at this stage, which is a terrifying thought.
When it comes to the religious, my reasons are less noble. I like a good argument, but as I've said before a good argument can't really be had if one side can't be won over by the other. At this stage, I find it highly unlikely I'm going to accept a worldview that involves actively proselytism by its followers; by the same token, it seems unlikely anyone who's signed off on a belief system enough to go cold-call on its behalf is going to be swayed by my unassailable logic. However, it's really easy to dismiss the opinion of people who are overt jerks (hello FoxNews), so I try not to act like one and give those who disagree with me an easy out.
Ultimately, though, this all comes down to the fact that I'm a writer. Either I'm always looking to hear new voices, particularly voices with perspectives I don't share, or I'm a flake who's always looking for a feasible excuse not to do anything BUT write. Maybe a little of column A and a little from column B.
In any event, last Friday, Tiina had a conversation of sorts with a nice couple of older jehovah's witnesses ladies about how grand god was. They didn't stay long, but they did leave some literature and a promise to return yesterday morning, which they made good on. This time, however, I was awake. Furthermore, I'd read the literature and spent almost as much time during my insomniac periods this week mentally compiling the fallacies the booklet was based on as I did putting together exactly what happened to Batman in FINAL CRISIS #6 and how it tied into and justified Batman RIP.
The first thing I noticed about the two women who appeared on the doorstep was that they were both very well-dressed (albeit in a fashion considerably less comfortable than my own nightshirt and pyjama bottoms), and one of them had an odd broach that appeared to be a diamond-encrusted spider pinned to her lapel. It struck me as an odd piece of jewelry for a JW to be wearing, and I spent much of the conversation staring at it trying to figure out a way to work it into the conversation. Alas, it was not to be (this time.) Instead, I found myself in a conversation that ran along these lines:
Jehovah-Girl #1: Isn't it amazing how complex the trees in your yard are?
Me: It really is. And that's nothing compared to the amazing complexity of say, a human being.
JG1: Yes, exactly. I mean, a car is nothing compared to a tree, is it?
Me: It really isn't, no.
JG1: But I couldn't build a car.
Me: No, me neither.
JG1: A car needs a builder. It doesn't just spring into existence, does it?
Me: While I've never personally witnessed a car's construction, this does seem to be a logical assumption.
JG1: And if a car needs a builder, then it stands to reason something even more complex than a car would need a creator, too, right?
Me: Something like a tree or a human?
JG1: Exactly! And that creator is God! You see how it all makes sense?
Me: Let me see if I follow you: complex things need to be built...
JG1: Right.
Me: The more complex something is, the more unlikely it is to exist without a builder...
JG1: Yes, yes!
Me: You know, it seems to me that the One who theoretically created all this stuff must be infinitely complex...
JG1: Oh, he is, he truly is.
Me: Who do you think built him?
JG1: Nobody built him. God's always existed. And that's difficult for some to grasp...
Me: I imagine it's very difficult for people who accept the premise that complex mechanisms require a conscious act of creation to exist.
JG1: But we know it to be True.
Me: How? I mean, you just undermined your entire premise, didn't you?
JG1: Because the bible says so.
Me: Ah. I'm glad you brought that up...
***
I'm not so sure they were glad they brought it up because they got really anxious to head back out into the -25 degree weather soon after. However, they did promise that the Lady with The Diamond Spider would call us back to set up an appointment to explain to me Why She Believes The Bible Is Not A Work Of Fiction, with a sub-topic I suggested of Even If I Were To Believe The Bible Is Not A Work Of Fiction, Why Should I Believe Her Denomination's Interpretation Of It?
As I told them as they were leaving, "I got into a discussion with a couple of Mormons about that last one and they made some really interesting points I'd like to get your opinion on."
All of which is, oddly enough, true.
Though on the whole, I'd rather wing it all and be able to sleep.
***
ON THE OTHER HAND...
...there's the Church of Scientology, which left a handbill in our mailbox telling us to come to a lecture that would bring peace and prosperity to our lives, but which left the time and location of the lecture conspicuously blank.
Thanks for nothing, Scientology.
A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
