Monday, September 24, 2012

Curse Your Fake Religious Beliefs!


I feel like I should start a running archive of every comic strip that's like this, complete with overanalysis of what's going on.

Let's see.

* Stilted, sterile sounding analysis of an issue? Check.
* Extremely vague description of what's disapproved of? Check.
* Misunderstood Bible quote? Double check, since that's apparently the punchline. (Bonus round: "Thou shalt not judge", being used to judge others? Check.)

But the weirdest part is "those who use religion to mask and make right their intolerances"? Aside from the giveaway ("Let's see, how do I talk about gay issues, yet NOT talk about gay issues? Wait, I know, this is subtle..!"), the idea is just odd. Apparently the charge is that no one actually thinks anal fisting is immoral or something to be frowned upon from a religious point of view. Nope, that's just the cover story people are using. They dislike it for reasons that have nothing to do with religion!

I'd question the guy's sincerity, but at this point I think it's truly the case that many people have trouble fathoming how any sexual activity, short of rape and the like, can be immoral or wrong or a sin. The idea of sex having any sacredness to it, or end beyond pleasure first and foremost, is not rejected - it does not register at all.

I'm actually waiting for the day a woman accuses a man of anally raping her, and for people to get really worked up because she made it sound as if the anal part of the rape was particularly vile, as if she was judging that some sex acts are less pure than others. Eventually, even rape will have the alternate definition of 'being made love to against one's will'.

4 comments:

Cale B.T. said...

(Please delete the first instance of posting this comment)

By and large, political cartoonists of the modern media do seem to be the Afro-Ninjas of subtlety.

You've commented before on the concession to the reasonableness of deism made by many atheists. I recently read a particularly interesting concession:

"If we are talking about something that is not necessarily complex like the universe, that is basic and fundamental and that we derive in some way from something as essential as the laws of existence, then we are not addressing the existence of the god worshipped by almost any religion in existence. Yes, we could equate "god" with simplicity, but that's Einstein's or Spinoza's [or Aquinas'?] god, which are not a problem."

The author seems to concede the reasonableness of believing in God, provided that divine simplicity holds. I'll leave his identity as a surprise...

http://www.edge.org/discourse/dennett_orr.html

Crude said...

PZ Myers of all people? He must have changed tack since then, since he's now on the 'God doesn't exist at all, in any form, I'll never believe!' wagon so hard that even Jerry Coyne balked.

Curtis isn't even a political cartoon. It's a dorky little family cartoon that usually stays far away from subjects like this. I've seen worse - I wish I saved the Funky Winkerbean about gay students attending a prom as a couple, and the resident Bitch Who Hates Everything And Has No Redeeming Qualities protests. And by protests I mean, they spent a week on the principal giving a moving, vague defense of gay relationships, and when she stood up to say something, her character was told to shut up immediately and didn't say anything at all.

By the way, to get back to the Deism thing - I recall when Dennett was interviewed by a more 'spiritual' oriented atheist (Robert Wright?), and basically sandbagged into admitting that evolution looks purposeful and goal-directed.

Syllabus said...

Words. Definitions. AAAGH. The stupid, it burns.

Cale B.T. said...

David Berlinski on concessions:

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-09-26T16_19_50-07_00