The first problem I had with this particular strip was the “lightning striking a swamp” line.
Where did he come up with that? It doesn’t resemble any currently proposed mechanism for abiogenesis that I can recall. (Aren’t swamps defined by their flora? Wouldn’t that mean he feels that plants were around before life, as if plants aren’t part of life?)
Yeah, it actually looks like a creationist doesn’t even begin to understand what he’s mocking! What a shock…
(That was indeed MEANT to be a shot against creationism, Dougie. Just so you know the difference.)
I think you’re a litttle late, rjung. We’ve been discussing this already. Opinions have varied on The Simpsons, since its portrayal of religion varies greatly (ranging from very positive to below-the-belt).
I think the clearest example raised so far was Politically Incorrect. IMO, South Park qualifies as well, despite the argument that “Well, we don’t really know that their Jesus is the real Jesus.”
Oh, I have a double standard, eh?
I thought I made it clear in the OP that Hart is facing an opposition overwhelming in numbers. I applaud his right to defend his position even if he is one in a thousand and the vote against what is termed disparagingly as “creation science” is 999 to 1. Quality is better than quantity. In any case, I think he is justified in using a lever in his stories that is not equal to–but rather is stronger than–the various levers his opponents use. He has a more daunting duty than his opponents.
Incidentally, I think I know what I am talking about, Kyomara’s posting notwithstanding. A thread I started about a year ago in the BBQ Pit under “Unabashed rant…” covers my position of avoiding movies, although I am obviously outnumbered. If I sense that the first bite may contain strychnine (“one man’s meat…”) I will not consume the morsel, let alone the entire serving. Metaphorically, the movies I criticized in that thread, and those criticized by Buckley in the column I quoted, are laced with strychnine.
Nah, The Simpsons wouldn’t work – there are too many episodes where religion actually works for it to count as a “religion-bashing” show.
Well, heck, with a title like that, what’d you expect? 
Considering how infrequently Jesus even appears on the show, I don’t think it qualifies as well. Like The Simpsons, it attacks everything, albeit with more four-letter words in the process.
C’mon, fundies! Is this the best you’ve got??? 
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. You believe that when one is in the minority view, that gives them right to mock other’s beliefs, and their own beliefs become so sacrosanct they they may not be even doubted?
Either mocking others based on their beliefs is wrong, or it is not. “Overwhelming numbers” of people who believe otherwise does not give you the right put down other’s beliefs while taking offense when the same is done for your beliefs.
So, anyone read “The Family Circus” lately?
I dont know that anyone here is denying Hart’s right to defend his position. I’m certainly not. I’m only suggesting that, in arguing one’s position, one should be reasonable and temperate and avoid double standards. I would think that goes double for minority viewpoints, since the majority may be predisposed towards dismissing such viewpoints as extremist. Fred Phelps holds a minority viewpoint, and he expresses his viewpoint much more strongly than his opponents do theirs. How many people do you know who have been won over by Phelps’ approach?
Originally posted by Queequeg
Your point is well taken. In other words, it is incumbent on Hart not to express is position in a manner that is vicious, slandering, or coarse, lest his audience interpret such as a smokescreen for lack of solid evidence.
The other side of the coin is that I have been frequently suspicious–if not angered–at gratuitous barbs directed against Hart or anyone supporting a creationist position. The Scopes “monkey trial” is a case in point.
Having a legal background myself I was appalled to read about this trial, especially since Clarence Darrow (though he was beneficient enough to offer to handle the case pro bono) has a serious black blot on his reputation: As defense counsel for the McNamara brothers, defendants in the 1910 dynamiting of the Los Angeles Times building, Darrow wound up hauled into court himself for tampering with the jury. Though the jury was hung Darrow was finished as a labor-law attorney. But I digress.
A few things I found out about the Scopes trial (primarily from More Misinformation by Tom Burnam, whom even Cecil himself has quoted :)):
Exactly. Aside from the inherent importance of politeness, it’s in his own best interests to choose his words carefully. Personally, I thought the strip in question was slanderous in the sense that it impugned the intelligence of people who don’t see it Jonny’s way. YMMV.
I absolutely agree that there is no place for gratuitous barbs on either side of the debate. For example, even though I’m a paleontology student, I’d never put a Darwin fish on my car, since I feel that they are clearly designed to provoke creationists (otherwise, why do a takeoff on the icthus? Why not just a picture of Darwin’s face?). Many denominations think Christianity is compatible with evolutionary theory, and I’d rather encourage such thinking rather than reinforce the idea that science and religion are necessarily in conflict.
Sadly, the creation-evolution debate is a particularly acrimonious one. There are people on both sides who feel that the other side threatens their way of life, and as such, there’s a lot of hostility to go around.
Part of Jonny Hart’s problem may be that he just doesn’t have room to make a nuanced argument in a three- to seven-panel comic; therefore any strong opinion he expresses is going to come across as dogmatic. I think he’d be better off sticking with positive reinforcement of Christianity rather than attacking controversial subjects, but obviously he feels differently.
Your notes on the Scopes trial and Darrow’s career are interesting. I know there are transcripts of the trial available; my school library has one. I’m pretty sure it includes all of Darrow’s remarks, presumably including anything which was stricken from the record. It would make for interesting reading. I will say this, though: I don’t think Darrow can be faulted for using Piltdown, and frankly I think Piltdown is ultimately a credit to science. Unless I’m mistaken, the Piltdown hoax wasn’t uncovered by a creationist; it was ultimately sniffed out by a scientist. It’s too bad it took so long to come to light, but in the long run Piltdown strikes me as proof that science will eventually reject false evidence.
I’ll just add a “me too” that I think that if he tried to be a bit more subtle he may avoid running off the readers that he supposedly is trying to reach. I used to read B.C. despite its religious undertones, but when he started hitting me over the head with his version of Christianity I just quit reading it. Maybe he just wants to preach to the choir.
I will say that I support his right to say most anything he wants even if it’s not popular. However, the menorah strip was disgusting because it was disrespectful. And to whoever suggested that it wasn’t really a menorah, Hart has said it is a menorah himself.
JThunder, I said,
and thenyou quoted only the first sentence of that in your response:
Again, is your object only to the fact that it makes fun of fundamentalist Christians? I mean, seriously. Have you ever noticed the ribbing that gas station owners come in for on the Simpsons? What about factory workers (who are all either phenomenally lazy and stupid, or else they’re phenomenally hot and gay)? What about the mockery of housewives? What about the mockery of Scottish people? What about the mockery of bartenders? What about the mockery of Mensa?
If the Simpsons didn’t make fun of the fundamentalist Christian in its cast, then the show could be considered strongly pro-Christian: alone out of all groups shown on the show, Christians would be above teasing. As it is, it’s still pretty pro-Christian: though Ned comes in for teasing, the family is religious, and several episodes have had as their theme the importance of looking to the true meaning of spirituality.
South Park is a better example, but still suffers from the same problem: South Park works to break every cultural taboo. It stereotypes black people, Jews, and Canadians (well, it reflects Canadians pretty accurately). It cusses until the naughty words are meaningless. It makes jokes out of pedophilia, animal abuse, prostitution, suicide – and Jesus.
But out of all those things, you assume that the show must be antireligious? No! It’s irreverent, which is entirely different. In order to conclude that South Park is AntiChristian, you should also conclude that it’s antisemitic, white supremacist, antiCanadian (again, that part’s understandable), pro-pedophilia, pro-animal-abuse, pro-prostitution, and pro-suicide.
Occam and his razor must be taking the day off.
Daniel
dougie_montie Not trying to single you out, but quoting the entire column of Buckley’s is against the rules. You can quote parts and give a link. But not the whole column. It can get the SD in trouble.
To Samclem:
Your point too is well taken. However, I have been burned too many times by some of the Teeming Millions not to want to tell the whole story. I sensed that if I quoted only parts of the column I would come off as a hypocrite; I would be violating Moe’s edict not to stack the deck–i.e., quoting only part of the column and leaving myself open to be criticized for presenting only the parts of Buckley’s argument that I found convenient.
I don’t know what links are available; if you know some, so much the better.
And I agree that Hart, like any other cartoonist (and a headline writer, for that matter), always faces a space (and time) constraint. The problem is making a point in such a way that the reader, or viewer, doesn’t get bored; Hart apparently prefers Shakespeare’s maxim that brevity is the soul of wit (an ironic phrase itself considering the long-winded nature of Polonius, who spoke the line in Hamlet.)