call
April 2nd, 2010
Thanks to today’s guest scriptwriters the Most Rev Lord Cary of Clifton et al.
Jesus & Mo are taking a short break.
Happy Cruciversary to all our readers!
Latest book…
Random oldie…
December 2, 2020-
- NICE T-SHIRT (Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Currently unavailable.
Happy Cruciversary! Can’t wait till you come back … from holiday 😉
Don’t worry, he’ll be back in three days!
Three days? From late Friday to Sunday—isn’t that a day and a half?
@Dick M:
In the Bible, a “day” is a very flexible unit of time. At the beginning it’s worth about a billion years, and by the time of the resurrection it’s down to about 12 hours. 😉
“Yeah Mo, been there, done that”
Yea, he’ll be back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXz1Qx01mQQ (sorry, no high quality)
Wouldn’t that be fun! The second coming of Christ and he would be nailed to the cross straight away. OK, maybe nothing that harsh. But I’ve always wondered how we would know if Jesus came back to earth? No one would believe a bearded man in a toga walking around claiming to be Jesus! I’m pretty sure he would be arrested for disorderly conduct and sent to a mental institution together with the other Jesus wannabes. And nobody would ever find out Jesus was on earth.
Hmm, Jesus! Your argument is missing the point surely. Discrimination against anyone no longer appears to be acceptable, therefore to discriminate against Christians must be wrong. Those of us who are ex-Christians may prefer that all religious folk should be discriminated against.
They may not crucify him Mo, they may just wish to discuss it with him at great length. Probably on TV.
I am now wondering if folks with a religious belief should be allowed the vote. It would be expensive to put them all in hospital but they are wandering around believing, unswervingly, in magic as the foundation of everything. Of course we have the example of huge communist states outlawing religion to show that proscribing religion doesn’t work. So I suppose disenfranchising them wouldn’t work either. How depressing.
Not entirely sure I follow here – reading the article in question the correspondent points out that exemptions for religious reasons are specifically allowed for by the uniform policy, so why is this woman unable to benefit from it? Maybe the allowance itself is wrong (I tend to think it is) but if the proviso is there, then surely all theists should be able to benefit regardless of creed . . .
@Dick M @Ahmed – Gospel said “On the third day” @Author – very funny cartoon
Happy Zombie Day everyone!
Mmmmmm, Brains…
So, the believers are wanting to be a special interest group with special rights?
Gee, when gays and lesbians were a special interest group, we only wanted equal rights.
As for the article:
1. the uniform policy allowing variations for religious clothing is referring to items required by the religion – while wearing crosses is a common practice, it is not a requirement of the religion to do so in order to be a member in good standing.
2. “Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld.” Xtian beliefs do not get to dictate these things into law or onto other people. My marriage to my lesbian partner in no way prevents xtians from marrying or impedes any actual legal right they have.
And anyone who assumes that they have rights that are exclusive to them and don’t actually exist in law, deserve to have those thwarted
The third day? Friday=0, Saturday=1 Sunday=2. Second day.
Love it.
To be fair, I can relate with the Rev Cary of Clifton. It’s ridiculous to ask of a British Christian nurse to hide her Christian jewelry while British muslim nurses can flaunt their headrags, and British Sikh male nurses are permitted to wear a turban and ceremonial daggers if they so please.
Dutch politician Geert Wilders was all but crucified when he suggested that headscarves should not be worn by people in public functions (such as police officers and judges), but when a muslim lawyer refused to rise in court for the (female) judge (even though one doesn’t rise for the judge but for the State and Law s/he represents) because ‘his religion forbade him to defer to women’, the High Court ruled that he was allowed to keep seated because of his ‘religious freedom’.
WTF?!!
I *wish* that British hospitals had the same rules for everybody, but this letter of the Rev. smacks of some serious kneejerk arselicking towards Mecca. Who would feel insulted or threatened if a nurse in a hospital wore a cross pendant? Not the atheist patient (unless the cross was the size of a brick and used for hitting the patient over the head with) but since a Scottish hospital a couple of years ago forbade it’s non-muslim staff to eat lunch visibly during ramadan ‘as not to insult the muslim staff and patients’ I guess this is just more of the same of Toby Blairs ‘oh were so multiculti please don’t put a sharia on us we’ll be good’ fuckery.
[…] + Mo are hitting the mark at the moment. #2 on anti-Christian Discrimination: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/04/02/call/ […]
@ Blondie
I tend to agree that no religious conventions should be permitted to override what is required in a secular setting.
Is that lawyer going to appeal on the grounds that in his and possibly his client’s belief that a woman can’t be a judge over them? Sorry dudes, the law doesn’t allow for that.
in most religions, women are second class – that doesn’t mean that a religious man can be disrespectful to a woman judge, police officer, government official, teacher or any woman in a position of authority
As a Canadian, I also agree that multiculturalism is a failure. Bending over for one or two groups is not treating everyone equally – and to be very honest, not all cultures should be considered equal.
bronze age ones are not on par with modern cultures
we should do a Federation of the planets thing and leave them to their own devices until they sort out their own internal matters
not that western cultures are perfect either, but the civil laws are a far better option than theocratic ones
When in Damascus, do as the Syrians.
@Nina,
Great job of tip-toeing around the Quebecois and their persistent self appointed victim role. The real mistake Canada made was not letting Quebec go separatist when they had the chance. Two or three years later they could have bought the province back for ten cents on the Loon.
@Jerry w: Que dites-vous? The Quebecois had 2 (count em) referenda on leaving Canada. They’re still here.
This weekend I thought, “How would Christian symbols be different if Jesus had been executed in a different manner?”
Stoning was a popular form of execution in that time period. If Jesus had been stoned to death, would Christians wear a small pile of pebbles around their necks instead of crosses?
What if he’d been burned a the stake? Would they wear a charred stick on their necklaces?
I don’t know why I think these things, but I do.
@ Jerry W
I think the real problem was when the British won Canada from the French was that they allowed them to keep their language, laws and religion but were a British Colony – basically because they were mired down on two other fronts and didn’t have the resources to maintain a big enough presence in Canada
a lesson our American cousins should pay attention to
But, if Canada is divisible, then Quebec is also divisible, because the First Nations in Quebec do not wish to leave Canada.
Secularism is great, and this is a great cartoon.
However, if the policy of the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust really allows headrags and forbids crosses, then it is a discriminatory policy.
Perhaps this http://www.zazzle.com/vintage_red_cross_nurse_poster-228558195472542522 is ok? 🙂
I call Straw Man. The authors of the letter to the DT write: ‘The uniform policy of the NHS trust permits exemptions for religious clothing. This has been exercised with regard to other faiths, but not with regard to the wearing of a cross around the neck.’
Author twists this 180 degs. in panel 3. Christians seem to be the only group who are treated differently (by the NHS), and want the SAME deal as everyone else, but Muslims & Atheists insist on Sharia.
I’ve just read the other comments. Yeah, what djeek and Blondie said. This cartoon doesn’t work, author. Not funny.
I’m a little late since Easter was yesterday but I just wanted to wish everyone a belated “Happy Zombie Jesus Day”!
just because you don’t have an irony metre, Crusader Rabid
doesn’t mean it’s not funny
@fledglingskeptic: 1 Cor 15:35-38 – zombie Jesus? That passage is surely open to interpretation.
From my extensive research into zombie splatter films, I know that when a zombie rises from the dead it is hungry for brains. It’s quite possible that a small number of the zombie folk have a “sweet tooth” and crave just the soul part. This might explain a lot I think…
@Crusader Rabid: Did you also read Nina’s point?
I quote: “the uniform policy allowing variations for religious clothing is referring to items required by the religion – while wearing crosses is a common practice, it is not a requirement of the religion to do so in order to be a member in good standing.”
@jivekitty: and is there a requirement in Islam for a woman to wear a headrag? And who decides that? The Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust? Or the Exeter Employment Tribunal? Or an Ayatollah? Just asking… because the Trust’s policy seems odd.
Has no-one commented on how the linked letter to the editor from the various Right Reverends and (Oh my!) the Most Reverend Lord manages to disingenuously alter what was asked for by the court? The tribunal asked for evidence that the cross was a “mandatory requirement” of her faith, which even we atheists know it is not, and yet in the reverends’ letter it has been altered to: “the Court requires evidence of the fact that Christians wear crosses visibly around the neck. It cannot be right that judges are unaware of such a basic practice.” Completely different and unlikely to be an honest error.
Incidentally, does it strike anyone else as odd that they add the word “Reverend” (meaning worthy of reverence/adoration/etc) to their names? Surely if they were truly worthy of such respect it would be evident and we would decide for ourselves how to address them appropriately. I, for one, would never call someone Reverend unless I knew personally that it was literally true.
it’s like when you call a politican the Honourable – it’s to remind them how they are supposed to be.
whereas, Reverend is reminding us what we’re supposed to think.
in other news, I saw an article that the Ikea catalog has now surpassed the buybull as most published text.
Figures that he’d use a Mac. What a douchebag.
I suggest we all add a prefix to our names. There are online churches which give you titles like “Pope”, “Saint”, “Reverend”, and in the case of the one I was looking at today, “Minister of Rock ‘n’ Roll”.
Too bad Islam doesn’t extent the tolerance to others as it demands of them. Pitiable that England, of all places, lacks the courage to enforce a secular state with freedom of and from religion to all. Especially those who trace their ancestry back to the crusades and earlier. Political correctness is a curse worse than any war, plague or pestilence Europe ever suffered.
It’s funny to demand proof that the person’s religion requires wearing a cross. How about this; *my* religion requires that I never under any circumstances wear a tie, that I absolutely must wear the headgear of my choice whenever I feel so inclined, and also requires that none of its rules be written down or provable, except they may be written in comments on internet webcomics.
It’s slightly ridiculous to argue that “Christianity doesn’t require one to wear a cross”, because *which* Christianity? Catholics, Protestants, Seventh Day Adventists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Baptists, Methodists? How about the person’s own personal tiny offshoot sect that definitely does require it?
Basically, I am cross that religious people sometimes get the right to arbitrarily do the thing they want to do, but *my* religion, which rules that I get to arbitrarily do the thing I want to do, doesn’t get that power because it’s not a state-recognised religion. Discrimination against my religion, I say!
Agreed, Nassar Ben Houdja. Lucky for me I live in Canada, halfway between the European submission to Islam and the American Christian zealots.
@Nassar – England has an official religion, with the head of state also being the head of the church – so to separate actually is a constitutional change and an involved process.
Political correctness isn’t bad as a concept – to recognise diversity – but it’s been hamfisted applied all wrong – accepting that people are different doesn’t mean bend over – we have to remove the idea that there’s an equality – because bronze age cultures are simply not on par with modern ones.
@RevRaven – religions of 1 lack the force to be accomodated – when you demand a religious accomodation in the workplace, there has to be a person who’s an authority in the religion to back your claims.
For example, you can not join the union where I work if your religion doesn’t support that and you have to sign an affadavit and so does a person who’s an authority in your religion.
Wow, these orthodox atheists get a lot of holidays. Come back Author!
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2010-04-12/letter-atheist-day
Check out this piece of weak happy clapper happy slapping. Evidently the only influence being an atheist had on this buffoon was that he didn’t say thanks for breakfast (his mum would have been so cranky at him!) and he wanted to sue over licence plates. What an irrigation of a bodily cavity he is.
@Nina: I actually heard a Catholic theologian say that Christianity is better than islam and judaism, because it at least has the teaching on the Trinity, and so its God is internally relational, and therefore Christianity is more open to dialogue. God knows what to make of it 🙂
unions: are these labour unions? the right to organize and join labour unions is a basic human right. OK, soldiers and policemen can have that right limited, but that’s reasonable, as opposed to saying “Hey, if your religion does not have a teaching about labour unions, you cannot join them.”
@Rev Raven.
It used to be the case that if you thought you were the messiah you were sectionable under the mental health act, if another thought you were it was a “folie a duex”, two people “folie a trois” etc.
But, if you could get 5 idiots to believe in you you were defined as a “sub-cultural belief”
I think the rules have changed- but maybe worth a shot?
Ooh Ohh. Me first! Me first! I want to be the one to share the news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8614232.stm
Read and enjoy
@Dilige
Hardly surprising any a member of one would think theirs is the best, eh? Otherwise, they’d convert to whatever they thought was best.
The question then is, what is christianity? many US protestant based groups would not consider the CC to be xtian at all – and the CC is not against evolution – just progress.
@Daoloth – Note how the non-twitching Bill Oddie chose not to dispute whether the the Pope SHOULD be arrested, but only whether he COULD be arrested. This implies that he can’t argue with the case that could be against the all-too-fallible Pope.
@BB. Good point- Yes, taking refuge in procedure- just what we want from someone who is coming over to offer the rest of us moral instruction.
We in Los Angeles welcome a new chief pedo-nurser who has a direct association with Opus Dei and a track record of ignoring reports of priests who might have had a bit too close contact with the flock, if you get my drift.
Why do priests wear robes? Because an altar boy can hear a zipper at 50 feet.
@Jerry
kind of funny the effort put into getting Roman Polanski back to LA
when so many are just bending over to excuse the Pope, eh?
@nina
“just bending over”?
omfg (so to speak), best_descriptive_choice_of_words_ever!
The ancient and classical world frequently counted ‘inclusively,’ meaning that the starting day got included in the total. Hence, when going from Friday to Saturday, Friday is considered the first day, Saturday the second, and Sunday the third. This is an easy thing to verify, but I suppose it’s a lot more fun for those convinced of their intellectual brilliance to assume that the writers of the New Testament lacked the numeracy of a toddler.
Put the pope in a oubliette. Catholics have sent many atheists and heretics to
awful deaths. A little turnabout would be quite fine!
[…] the obligatory Jesus and Mo. Yes, living by the rules is just […]
@ Nina, I admire your knowledge. I kinda consider myself religious. But though our positions are completely opposite, I really respect and admire your thoughts. I remember John Lennon´s song, “Imagine”, Abba´s “I have a Dream” and also Obama´s “The Audacity of Hope” and his “the dream of my father”, combined together, I really dream a world with many different religious believers ( I tend to think that atheism is kinda religious thought also) living together with peace respecting each other´s belief and starting to use the religious thoughts as a foundation of friendship and togetherness, and not war against each other. Would it be happen, I ask you who consider yourselves Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hinduists, Atheists, etc.? Could we create this kind of world?