Saturday Morning Ar-LOL-Ewww
Cidu Bill on Mar 13th 2010
Nicole: It’s another trifecta… I suspect that you may want to add the religiously offensive warning to this one as well
Nicole: The first two panels were an LOL for me, Mecha-Satan and the missile coming out of the pope’s mitre were just too funny. The extra panel makes it clear what the pope is doing while he is kneeling and is certainly Arlo worthy. And for some reason unknown to me I find the depiction of the pope doing that to be EWWWWWWWWWWW
Filed in Arlo Page, Bill Bickel, Ewww, Saurday Morning Breakfast Cereal, Zach Weiner, comic strips, comics, comics that made us laugh out loud, humor, lol, religion, religiously offensive | 60 responses so far
Powers Mar 13th 2010 at 09:56 am 1
But *why* is the Pope doing that?
mitch4 Mar 13th 2010 at 10:13 am 2
Um, what is “Mecha-”, please?
Sabrina Mar 13th 2010 at 10:19 am 3
The Pope is indeed “lost in thought”– he’s having a fantasy, which the first four panels depict. In it, he’s Action Pope who rescues Jesus from Mecha-Satan and then is the recipient of Jesus’, um, gratitude.
It’s a joke about what the inner fantasies of a man who’s dedicated himself entirely to the (chaste) service of Christ might look like.
mkilby Mar 13th 2010 at 10:33 am 4
It’s “manga” or anime-speak for something “mechanical” or robotic.
George P Mar 13th 2010 at 10:35 am 5
@Mitch4, Mecha-Satan is a large robot version of Satan, clearly based on the 1974 film Gojira tai Mekagojira (Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla).
Tim O'Shenko Mar 13th 2010 at 10:39 am 6
I always knew the pope had a rocket launcher for a hat, but was unaware he had such purple skin.
mitch4 Mar 13th 2010 at 10:56 am 7
Thanks for the help with “Mecha-”!
Maybe I’m being just too naïve, but in the “kneeling” panel is there something reversed about who’s getting a reward?
BTW, Zach’s “news” item for this said
paperboy Mar 13th 2010 at 11:54 am 8
Sweet Jesus! That would get a death-sentence if it involved Muhammed.
Elyrest Mar 13th 2010 at 11:57 am 9
I don’t find this comic a LOL or an Ewww, but at least I understand it now. Although I read SMBC everyday I think I only “get” them about 50% of the time.
Kevin A Mar 13th 2010 at 12:16 pm 10
mitch4 - you’re not naïve exactly, you’re just the other of two apparently distinct types that aren’t really fully distinguished by the terms, giver and receiver. I, for example, ache far more to get my hands et al. on a woman than to lie there with my hands in my pocket (metaphorically), … and I call those women more generous than the traditional “givers”.
There are therapists who try to cure the “giver”. Plant a night vision camera outside their house and you’re likely to see women toting cans of gasoline.
ty Mar 13th 2010 at 01:05 pm 11
Paperboy’s right, but not only “would” it be a death sentence, it “is” a death sentence. Remember the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, and the aftermath? And that’s not even taking the eww element of this cartoon into account.
Mark M Mar 13th 2010 at 01:50 pm 12
Ha! He’s making fun of the Pope and Jesus in the same comic. Hilarious!
Pirk Mar 13th 2010 at 02:04 pm 13
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what “arlo” means, but I don’t really get how it applies to webcomics. there aren’t any editors for the sexual content to get sneaked past, and isn’t like 99% of webcomic humor sex-based?
CIDU Bill Mar 13th 2010 at 03:15 pm 14
Pirk, the Arlo Page is for comics that show up here on their own merits (CIDU, lol, etc) but I hide away from the main page because their content might offend people (and/or they’re NSFW). Back in the day, I literally had a separate page set aside for them. With the WordPress template, I simply hide them behind the “continue reading” link.
The Arlo Award is something entirely separate, given to newspaper comics that slipped past the censors.
John Small Berries Mar 13th 2010 at 03:18 pm 15
Maybe I’m being just too naïve, but in the “kneeling” panel is there something reversed about who’s getting a reward?
I just assumed the Pope was fantasizing while kneeling in “prayer”, not that he was physically acting out his fantasy.
Kamino Neko Mar 13th 2010 at 04:30 pm 16
More on ‘Mecha‘- it’s the Japanese shortening of the English word ‘Mechanical’ or ‘Machine’, and, in Japan, refers, typically, to vehicles, but also other types of machines, like giant robots. There’s a genre of art called Mecha Shojo (or Mecha Musume - both mean ‘Mecha Girl), which features girls wearing elements of military hardware, typically tanks or planes. (Be careful googling that…not all of it is SFW, though the link I provided is - it’s the Wikipedia article.)
Due to how it came into English, it came to mean only the junction between those two subtypes of mecha - giant piloted robots, like you’d find in Gundam or Macross (the latter being its vector into English).
Ironically, by the English usage, Mecha-Godzilla wouldn’t be mecha, as he’s not piloted.
Chakolate Mar 13th 2010 at 05:15 pm 17
So I’m assuming here that ‘mecha’ is pronounced ‘MEH-kah’ and not ‘MEH-chah’, yes? No?
Mark M Mar 13th 2010 at 05:25 pm 18
Do we have a “gay offensive” category? A “black offensive” category? Probably not since it’s not okay to offend those groups.
Kamino Neko Mar 13th 2010 at 06:57 pm 19
Yes, it’s a k sound. It’s a rare example of transliteration being reversed instead of continued.
Chakolate Mar 13th 2010 at 08:05 pm 20
People being who they are don’t deserve ridicule.
People who believe, on the other hand, in bronze-age superstition about a zombie who promised to return quickly 2000 years ago, and who are still waiting for him, and who are offended when anyone so much as hints at questioning the return of said zombie - those folk are going to be ridiculed. And since they’re so easily offended, a tag for them is really useful.
Cidu Bill Mar 13th 2010 at 09:52 pm 21
Mark M, is there actually a point to your comment? Have you noticed overtly racist comics either in the newspapers or on this site? You seem to be employing sarcasm, but I’m not clear to what end.
Keera Mar 14th 2010 at 05:35 am 22
Taking the whole idea of only gays and pedophiles in the priesthood to its ultimate conclusion, and I did LOL. And go ewww.
I have no idea if I would find this funny if I were a Christian. I hope I would. But, I find that Chak’s comment (#20) calling religion/faith a superstition doesn’t sit too well with me. There’s such a fine line between religion and faith. I’ve met people whose lives were literally saved by faith, and I see no reason to disrespect them for that even if I don’t care for their religion. It’s simply very difficult to keep jokes about religion from being about faith, as well, and so some will always take offense. I have no idea what the solution is.
Karen Mar 14th 2010 at 06:54 am 23
I’m a Christian, and I don’t find it amusing at all. And as for Chakolate, well, Keera said it best.
George P Mar 14th 2010 at 07:19 am 24
The Mekagojira in the 2002 film was designed to be piloted. It was built on the bones of the 1954 Gojira and had an organic computer based on Gojira DNA that controlled the low-level subsystems, but there was a pilot, at least at first. I think you can guess what happened.
Mark M Mar 14th 2010 at 09:02 am 25
Cidu Bill, yes, I was being sarcastic, probably not the best way to make a point. But I’m amazed that a lot of cartoonists, and people in general, find mocking a particular group “LOL” material. You’re right in that we will not see an overtly racist cartoon here because most people would be offended. And that’s a good thing. Apparently there’s a double standard. Chakolate said what many people think. But if questioning the humor in a cartoon like this makes me “so easily offended”, I guess he/she has not been following the news of the Swedish cartoonist who made fun of Muhammed.
Keera Mar 14th 2010 at 11:20 am 26
Danish, the artist was Danish, Mark M., and he recently experienced a home invasion and a threat on his life because of the cartoons.
One Norwegian newspaper recently republished the cartoons, creating new furor here at home and a new debate. This time, the broohaha that Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” caused when it was released in 1979 was added to the discussion. That movie ended up being banned in Norway according to our blasphemy laws. 1979 doesn’t feel like the dark ages, yet the Christians here at home had a conniption about a movie they felt was making fun of Jesus (the Monty Pythoners themselves said the movie mocked mindless worship, but the boundary between that and the mocking of liturgy is hard to spot).
The debate here in Norway ended up with a different mood than the first ones did (during the first-time publishing of the cartoons): People felt that it wasn’t right for a newspaper to deliberately offend a group of people.
Lola Mar 14th 2010 at 11:58 am 27
Things that can generally be safely mocked are usually things that are under somebody’s control. Nobody is born Christian, Muhamaddist or Budhist (though I think they are born atheist), just like they aren’t born speaking Chinese, Italian or English. These are things they are taught and have some control over. Now, I’ll concede that it can be difficult to go against your earliest learning, but many people have and do. If parents or culture teaches someone to murder those of a different culture or religion or to lynch and abuse people of different races or to stand on corners and condemn everyone passing to hellfire and brimstone, well, they’re just asking to be brought down a peg or two.
Things that usually can’t be safely mocked are those things over which a person has no control. Tall, short, black, white, asian, male, female, conditions of birth or accident (disabilities, burns, scars …).
There’s are lots of gray areas too. Obesity, baldness, flatulence, singing ability, inherent comics creating ability, cross dressing (it’s one thing to be transgender but if you dress like Carmen Miranda or the illustrated man, it looks like you’re seeking attention and folks will oblige and talk).
Keera Mar 14th 2010 at 12:48 pm 28
Lola, according to both biologists and psychologists, people are very likely born either theists or atheists. Whether or not to have a religious bent is hard-wired into us, so although there’s a choice in which god to believe in, for some of us there is no choice about whether or not to believe in a god.
I did go against my earliest learning, but am still a theist, which I can say I’ve been all my life. I did try to ignore a god altogether and prayer for a year, and was absolutely miserable by the end of that year. I just don’t see how you atheists do it. BTW, my god has never suggested anything to any human except “Have fun!”, and it bugs me that all you atheists seem to know about is the god who says, “How dare you have fun! Or let anybody else have fun! I AM ANGRY.” What is the matter with you???
John Small Berries Mar 14th 2010 at 12:59 pm 29
Keera, I believe your second sentence says it better than the first: we are born with a propensity for either belief or nonbelief, but I don’t believe that there’s evidence that anyone is born believing in any sort of god or gods. That sort of belief is instilled into us (usually by our parents).
Regarding the character of gods, I suspect that it is precisely the “How dare you have fun! Or let anybody else have fun! I AM ANGRY” type god which drives many people to atheism in the first place. (Well, that and the attempt to reconcile the claims and promises made in the Bible against observable reality.) Most of the atheists I know grew up in versions of Christianity where the ministers spent more time preaching Paul’s intolerance than Jesus’s forgiveness, and portrayed God as an unforgiving, punitive, flinty-hearted tyrant who condemned people to eternal torment for the least transgression. Not hard to see why people would reject that kind of worldview.
Keera Mar 14th 2010 at 01:28 pm 30
John, I grew up in a family that wasn’t particularly religious, and consisted of both deists, atheists and agnostics. My early exposure to Christianity frustrated me, and I spent the rest of my childhood and adolescence looking for alternatives. It never occurred to me not to look for a god I would like. I had family members who knew of alternatives and so I explored and was encouraged to explore.
Many who have been exposed to the angry, unforgiving god not only react with atheism but with a fanatical atheism, disparaging anyone religious. I would instead call such people anti-theists, not atheists. It frustrates me that the discussion such atheists have about the validity of faith is based on their experience with a sadly negative form of Christianity - and, apparently, nothing else. I am aware of such Christianity, and have no stomach for it, but I am still a theist and a deist because I looked for alternatives. Atheists sometimes present themselves as the rational ones in the debate (versus us superstitious dolts), but I find nothing rational about believing all religions must suck because the one they know of sucks.
Keera Mar 14th 2010 at 02:34 pm 31
I have come across an article that points out the advantage for the religious to having atheists to debate with. I wish debate were on this level: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samir-selmanovic/religion-needs-atheism_b_498051.html
John Small Berries Mar 14th 2010 at 02:43 pm 32
Keera, I agree to a point… but really, with something so subjective as faith, most people will be arguing (pro or con) based on their own experiences. It’s hard to discuss, say, the Baha’i faith if your knowledge of it is limited to where to put the apostrophe.
I also use the term “anti-theist” to refer to the strident, intolerant atheists (Christopher Hitchens, for example). If such people are genuinely attempting to persuade others to their worldview, they have chosen possibly the least effective rhetorical strategy available. You don’t change people’s minds by insulting them, especially when you’re talking about something so deeply personal as religion (or politics). For people who boast of their own rationality, they certainly don’t seem to apply it to their interactions with other human beings.
Keera Mar 14th 2010 at 02:47 pm 33
John, I guess I want people to be mature enough not to discuss matters they don’t know anything about, but then I’d have to shut up, too.
From what you say, I think you’ll appreciate the Huffington Post article I linked to, too.
John Small Berries Mar 14th 2010 at 02:58 pm 34
Keera: Yep, just got finished reading it. I fear it’s a bit over-optimistic, though - in my experience, atheism and religion rarely have a mutually constructive relationship. Atheists either keep to themselves, or attack in terms which engender no good will from the religious (as Chakolate did above); the religious tend to ignore, condemn or proselytize to the nonreligious; what debate there is tends to be highly acrimonious and unpersuasive to either side.
The linked article frequently uses the phrase “at its best”. While it may be that some discussions have met that high ideal, I’ve not seen one yet.
Keera Mar 14th 2010 at 03:11 pm 35
Well, I for one shall try to encourage “at its best”, to the best of my ability. I don’t like the alternative.
Lola Mar 14th 2010 at 10:04 pm 36
For real, people are hardwired to believe or not believe? I’m having a hard time figuring out what kind of a god would intentionally do that to his own creation. If it’s hardwired, it follows that there’s not a thing a person can do about it and I can’t see what kind of scenario where that works out for them. Do they get a free pass like a doctor’s note getting them out of gym because they have a broken leg? Or are they mutants that should be eliminated before they multiply?
I have nothing against people with faith or organized religions … up to a point. On the plus side they’ve had some wonderful impacts on society, helping right wrongs (MLK, Jr., et al) and there are groups too numerous to mention looking out for some of the most vulnerable among of us. Faith can be an incredible comfort and guiding force. However, just like any other person, group or credo, sometimes it goes horribly in the other direction.
I never thought I’d cite Rodney Williams, but it all works fine as long as we all just get along.
Dave in Boston Mar 14th 2010 at 11:34 pm 37
er, technically you aren’t supposed to be a deist and theist at the same time.
John Small Berries Mar 14th 2010 at 11:42 pm 38
For real, people are hardwired to believe or not believe? I’m having a hard time figuring out what kind of a god would intentionally do that to his own creation.
That’s certainly a sticking point if you believe that there’s no such thing as evolution. From an evolutionary standpoint, such a genetic predisposition serves a purpose: it aids individuals in bonding together into a society with a cohesive set of beliefs; a larger, stronger group has a better chance for survival (both against outside agents, and through genetic diversity).
But if you take the stance that everything in the Bible is literal, and that any contradictory hypothesis is inherently false, then no, it doesn’t make sense - it implies that God is an irrational, capricious being who does things for no discernable purpose.
Now, there are plenty of Christians who do believe in evolution, and would have absolutely no difficulty synthesizing the scientific explanation with their faith; the pastor of the church in which I was raised was one. He was quite honest about his belief that the creation story in the Bible was mankind’s attempt to explain the world without the benefit of scientific understanding - but that in no way lessened his belief or faith. To him, evolution was perfectly valid; it was just directed by God. (Obviously, I was not raised in a Fundamentalist sect.)
Of course, that position in itself leads to Occam’s razor territory… but it is an eminently more reasonable view than discarding the mountains of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. I suppose to some people, faith is like a chain: if one link breaks, the whole chain parts, so anything which contradicts the Bible must be rejected lest it destroy their faith. To others, faith is like a rope: a few fibers might break, but the rope remains strong.
Nicole Mar 15th 2010 at 08:21 am 39
Elyrest — I thought you you trusted me on discerning the Arlo-ness of comics
Nicole Mar 15th 2010 at 08:40 am 40
I understand the discomfort over the word superstition when referring to religion. But when does a religion become a superstition. Certainly many people feel perfectly comfortable referring to tribal religions as superstition. Would anybody’s hackles get raised if I referred to the religious belief systems of the Masai in Africa or the Yanomamo in South America as superstitions ?
At what point does a religion become exempt from this term and who determines it.
mkilby Mar 15th 2010 at 10:21 am 41
Back in grade school they spent an inordinate amount of time teaching us many of the Greek “legends”, but we also learned that these “myths” were the basis of the ancient Greek system of religion (not to mention the foundation of a lot of its architecture, and thus an impetus for a significant portion of the economy). Even back then I had trouble reconciling the disdainful epithet “myth” with the smug assuredness that was used to teach that “our” (”modern”) religion was based on the ineffable “Word of God”. I wondered: “how can we say with certainty that we are right and they were wrong?” Of course, this argument applies equally well across cultural divides as it does to historical ones.
ShireNomad Mar 15th 2010 at 11:39 am 42
I am Christian, and I snickered at the comic (although if it were obviously any particular pope instead of Pope Generic II, I might feel differently).
Chakolate’s comment I found insulting for both its rudeness and the implication that I have no sense of humor when God is involved. MKilby’s language was far more respectful.
Keera Mar 15th 2010 at 12:19 pm 43
All I can say is that the biggest question in my life (and that leads me down wonderful paths and into interesting books) is: What is God? Not who, but what. As in, what is this force that we religious seem to be aware of and count on? Is it real? As in, does it exist for the atheists, too, but under a different name? Fun stuff like that.
Does that make me superstitious? Perhaps. But I find the word inappropriate, at best. It suggests - to me - someone who will not listen to reason or who will not explore alternative ways of seeing the world. One of the things that my religious (and psychological) exploration has taught me, is that we all have a skewed view of reality (and of ourselves). If you want to rid yourself of illusions, you can choose cognitive therapy or Buddhism. I prefer the latter, but both have the same goal.
Nicole Mar 15th 2010 at 02:21 pm 44
Keera — even if you are not superstitious, many many many people who believe in a god are. Witness the denial of evolution and the demand that intelligent design (read creationism) be taught as a scientific alternative. Many people believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god regardless of how many inconstancies and contradictions that are pointed out to them. Point out to them that the bible is a series of stories, mistranslated, and cobbled together and that the divinity of Christ wasn’t settled on till the fourth century and they will look at you like you are crazy. People base their lives on a book that condones slavery, punishes rape victims with stoning, where the loving god commits genocide or orders his followers to commit genocide, supports misogyny and homophobia They deny facts for belief … and most have never even read the book they claim is the word of god … what else do you call that other than superstition.
Nicole Mar 15th 2010 at 02:25 pm 45
“I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. Once you understand why you’ve dismissed all other gods, you’ll understand why I’ve dismissed yours” - Stephen Roberts
Keera Mar 15th 2010 at 02:33 pm 46
Nicole #44, I guess the only term for that is superstition, but if I’m to go by your description of superstitious people, then I’d like to use it to describe global warming alarmists, too. I.e. Al Gore is superstitious, and people who believe his book/movie “An Inconvenient Truth” are also superstitious.
Please don’t blame religion for good ol’ human irrationality. Religion is just one of many ways it gets expressed. For example, another irrationality (but very rational to those who believe this way) is when parents prefer to have sons rather than daughters to the point of aborting female fetuses. That’s due to culture, not religion.
Nicole Mar 15th 2010 at 03:15 pm 47
Keera #46 —
Most scientists/people believe in climate change based on evidence. Facts and figures, computer models, studies, observable effects. Now we can argue if that evidence is valid, or misinterpeted - and have. But there is evidence to base that idea that climate change is real.
Religion is based on faith, and that is fine — but the definition of faith is believing in something there is no evidence for and is by definition … irrational.
What about the parents who pray for god to heal there children rather than take them to the hospital or doctor. Chilren with treatable diseases have died, because the parents decided to use prayer instead of medicine to treat their child. Fred Phelps protesting outside military funerals, shouting that the dead soldier is burning in hell. There is no doubt that religion does indeed cause irratiional behavior.
All the major religions teach that males are more valuable than females.
Why would you think this has no influence on the desire to have sons instead of daughters ?
But you are correct … irrationality abounds. I don’t blame religion FOR human irrationality, I blame religion ON human irrationality. However, I think that the irrationality of religion feeds human irrationality and visa versa. Recently a Senator or a Congressman said that the reason there were so many deformed babies was God was punishing us for abortions, and lets not forget Pat Robertson and Haiti. A southern minister said that one of the reasons that the US was in trouble was because men were peeing sitting down — I kid you not — I’ll find the link if you like. The reason people get away with this kind of crazy is that they speak with ‘biblical authority’ which is irrational to start with, and then the irrational humans nod thier heads and cry ‘amen’.
Nicole Mar 15th 2010 at 03:19 pm 48
Sorry — I didn’t finish my thougt
The point was that religion comes from human irrrationality, but then requires human irrationality to survive.
Keera Mar 15th 2010 at 03:49 pm 49
Nicole, re climate change, and whether or not it is man-made, depends on which scientists you listen to. I tend not to listen to those who support Al Gore. As for where religion comes from, I am eagerly waiting for the biologists to sort that one out. We live in exciting times!
John Small Berries Mar 15th 2010 at 04:37 pm 50
A southern minister said that one of the reasons that the US was in trouble was because men were peeing sitting down — I kid you not — I’ll find the link if you like.
I remember that preacher! He insisted that manly men had to pee standing up, because the Bible refers to “them that pisseth against the wall”. I truly feel sorry for anyone who has to clean that guy’s bathroom…
Mark in Boston Mar 15th 2010 at 07:46 pm 51
JSB: Perhaps that preacher was referring to Muslims. The Prophet peed sitting down, and as a result many observant Muslim men do.
Elyrest Mar 15th 2010 at 09:59 pm 52
“Elyrest — I thought you you trusted me on discerning the Arlo-ness of comics”
Nicole, I just noticed this comment — I don’t know what I was thinking! I won’t let it happen again.
Dave in Boston Mar 16th 2010 at 01:54 am 53
Keera: choosing to listen to some scientists/”scientists” and not others based on whether you like what they say… that seems like missing the point.
I also have a hard time crediting any kind of genetic predisposition towards religion. Both genetics and the brain are much more subtle and complex than that.
Keera Mar 16th 2010 at 11:46 am 54
Dave #53, I didn’t say what you said I said.
I can’t stand the adult version of monsters under the bed any more than I liked the childhood one, so very early on in the global warming debate, I went looking for other reports and research to find out if Gore was right (i.e. I got out of bed and turned on the light). My conclusion: Gore is a fearmonger. I therefore do not listen to those who follow him.
David A. Rooney Mar 16th 2010 at 08:14 pm 55
Keera - I read all these posts on religion (I’m what is known as a recovering Catholic, btw) and I think of Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Looking at the historical record it seems that Joe Smith was a snake-oil salesman who capitalized on a wave of religiosity (and may even have come to believed his own hype). But this close examination is only possible because of the close proximity to us in time, the amount of documentation (some in his own writing) and the lack of a language barrier (american english words haven’t changed much in the intervening years). And don’t get me started on the absurdites of the Scientologists.
But all this begs the question for Christianity and other older religions - what would their origins look like if we had the same wealth of historical documentation and language clarity? Would they seem as absurd - not far from the ‘zombie’ idea?
Dave in Boston Mar 17th 2010 at 01:04 am 56
Al Gore is a scientist the same way he invented the Internet, so that’s fine. But you did say “I tend not to listen to those [scientists] who support Al Gore.”
I have no idea what monsters under the bed he may be pushing. And I’m no climatologist. However, based on the reports and papers I’ve read it seems to me that there are at least three plausible doomsday scenarios and several others that would be unprecedented humanitarian catastrophes… and nobody really has any idea what the risk of any of them happening really is.
It is also my opinion (on the basis of experience with complex nonlinear dynamic systems) that it is, probably, already too late to do anything about it.
Keera Mar 17th 2010 at 12:03 pm 57
David #55, I have asked myself how in the world an illiterate carpenter ended up heading a world religion. It is a fascinating question, and the man himself would probably be shocked at what is done in his name. There were skeptics back then and there are skeptics now. I’m not against people being more skeptical about who they should follow; people should always do their own thinking. I am against treating the religious with disrespect simply because they are religious.
Dave #56, I belong to a group that forecasts the weather weeks and months (and even years) ahead of the meteorologists using astrology (yeah, I’m a woo-woo). I do this in part to see if astrology works (people are too erratic to use in a scientific study), and in part because weather is fascinating (and I live where we have a lot of it). As a group, we have a particular interest in climate and weather and therefore we want to know if there really is anything to this global warming stuff, so I get both sides of the story (via the mass media and via my astrology group). I will say this: Man does influences local climate (the tilling practices that led to the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s is a perfect example) and that does need to be taken seriously, IMO. But globally? The jury’s still out and well it should be.
Nicole Mar 17th 2010 at 12:39 pm 58
Keera #57 —
” I am against treating the religious with disrespect simply because they are religious. ”
I totally agree, but I also believe in the converse — I am against trreating the religious with respect simply because they are religious. Crazy is crazy and should called out as such regardless of the basis of the insanity. Flying planes into buildings, throwing acid in the face of girls because they are ‘immodest’, letting children die without medical care, hating your child because they are gay , suicide bombers … and the list goes on. This are all crazy acts and they are all based in religious beliefs.
To be sure, not all religous people are this crazy, but they form the base for this kind of crazy, even the most liberal. If you accept a belief as true with no evidentuary basis, then you can accept any belief with no evidentuary basis. If I believe that bread and wine turns into the body and blood of my god, then I can believe that praying alone will heal my child.
Let me make one thing very clear, I sincerly do not care what people believe as long as they do not in anyway infringe on the lives of others. Unfortunately, the basic tenets of most religions do excatly that.
Nicole Mar 17th 2010 at 09:41 pm 59
Just for the record .. Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Nor, to the best of my knowledge has he ever claimed to be a scientist
Araxie Jul 6th 2010 at 10:43 pm 60
*Choke* I shouldn’t have read that while I was eating… XD