I’d like to comment on Astorian’s analogy, which I feel is false. The LDS Church does not see Joseph Smith as Christ’s successor–that would imply that he was some sort of Savior or divine being. Joseph Smith is believed to have been a prophet–one in a series that includes Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist, and Peter. Astorian’s hypothetical football cartoon would bother LDS folks as well. And there is an LDS cartoonist–he draws ‘Pickles.’
As for BC, I don’t like it much, particularly ‘the fat broad.’ I think the Easter cartoon is clumsy and tactless, and I think the same thing about all of Hart’s evangelical cartoons. I don’t think he meant it to be offensive, but he didn’t succeed at what he wanted to do, and the cartoon is a failure all 'round.
While I wouldn’t call the B.C. strip in question anti-Semetic (in the strictest sense of the term), I can definitely see how it could easily annoy Jews, by the interpretation that Judiasm is a “has-been” religion that’s been supplanted by Christianity. I find the strip to be about as annoying as any of Hart’s other Christianity-preaching cartoons (mild annoyance, eye-roll, then move on to the next strip) and as funny as most of Hart’s other B.C. strips (not at all).
And to briefly address Shodan: At least Doonesbury takes shots at both sides of the aisle – or did you miss the various Clinton- and Al-bashing strips from the last eight years? In contrast, I’d be very surprised if Johnny Hart were to draw a B.C. strip that advocated another religion over Christianity…
No, it’s not a fake. Creators Syndicate distributes B.C. and here is their B.C. page. The strip in question does not yet appear there because the strips are ALWAYS posted online one week after appearing in the newspapers. So look for it on April 22. (Or you can see in this Sunday’s paper.)
You weren’t too far off when you compared him to Jack Chick. if you click on the “Buy Stuff” link, you go to www.wghsuccess.com, where you can buy B.C. tracts, shirts and coffee mugs, most of them with Christian messages. I kid you not.
Someone wanted to know where Hart lives; Endicott, NY, where he was born, just west of Binghamton.
I was raised as a Jew (not currently practicing). I distinctly remember seeing the seven candled “menorah” displayed in one or more Christian settings and asking my father and grandfather why Christians would have a menorah. I was told that only the nine candled menorah (eight lights of chanukah and one shamas candle) is a Jewish symbol and the seven candled one is an archaic relic with no religious significance. If Johnny Hart is as religious as his comic strip makes him out to be, I think he would know that. If he were really anti-semitic, I believe he would’ve drawn a 9 candle menorah. And if he is anti-semitic, big flippin’ deal. The stupidity of trying to use symbolism to express intolerance and getting the symbol wrong is consistent with the stupidity of anti-semitism.
Well jab1’s link shows that Hart just doesn’t know much about Judaism:
"The menorah, with its seven candles, to Jesus and the Jews, was symbolic and emblematic of the many facets of Jewish life and worship".
I went to a conservative temple as a kid and I don’t remember doing anthing with, or hearing about, a seven candled menorah. Any orthodox Jews out there know otherwise?
Why couldn’t someone proselytize in favor of both a liberal agenda AND Christianity, especially since Christ’s teachings are obviously more compatible with a liberal agenda than with the agenda of the Christian Coalition or Family Research Council (and other fundamentalist churches and organizations)? Jesus’ enemies were not Jews per se, since “Jews” included Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots/Sicarii…people with all sorts of ideological orientations and social backgrounds. Likewise, today’s Jews consist of Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. And I would suppose that like the ancient Jews, different groups of modern Jews have some very different notions amongst themselves as to the workings of God’s providence and the role of ancient symbols and practices in that process. Anyway, it seems to me that it was not Jews per se but rather the fundamentalists of the first century A.D. (or C.E. if you wish) who really hated Jesus, because those who cling to religion as a self-validating security blanket are always the first in line to kill a prophet who speaks the truth.
As for deeming a particular comic “pro-Christian”, you need to distinguish between intent and effect. For instance, I’m sure that Jack Chick sincerely believes that his version of Christianity is the only valid one, and that he intends to promote his belief system with his comic books. But I doubt that Jack Chick’s work has actually led people to a better relationship with God, except in the sense that his tracts may have caused some people to recoil in horror and thus to better understand the grave dangers of grounding one’s faith in God in his vile concoction of paranoid theories. I think that Chick intends to be pro-Christian, but someone who takes his work at face value as a belief system to be embraced…does not understand Christ very well at all, IMHO.
I’m reasonably confident that you didn’t do this deliberately, but when quoting people, it’s a good idea to establish the context. The sentence you lifted from my post was not the topic sentence of the paragraph. Just because you came across a period didn’t mean that you could stop and lift a fair quote.
I was not giving Christians any license whatsoever. It is fairly common knowledge among veterans here that I cut Christians no slack in their dealings with others, and that I vehemently oppose majoritarianism. In fact, the topic sentence of the paragraph clearly disallows Christians any ethical beef whatsoever should they find themselves the object of a cartoon that they might find offensive.
Here’s what you left out:
I think a Christian who claimed that such a cartoon was offensive to them, reducing Jesus to a precursor prophet, is just as anal as the Jews who are offended by Hart’s cartoon. It’s like Chaim said, if the Hart cartoon is offensive, then so is Christianity on the whole.
It amazes me that anyone as witty and subtle as Hart should have embraced a literal and proselytic (is that a word?) form of Christianity. Hart was funny before he got religion about a decade ago (I’d love to know the story behind that), and is still funny- but he sure is laying it on thicker than usual this Easter season.
I was wondering, BTW, whether Hart is living in a Commonwealth country at this time, since he ran a Mother’s Day strip in March, just before they celebrated Mother’s Day in the U.K. March 23 2001 B.C.
I thought that was a take off of the old “Bet Your Life” gameshow. Every show, there’d be a different secret word, and if the contestant said the word, they’d win a bonus prize. So, combine that with the expression, “Mum’s the word”, and you get that cartoon.
How do the two concepts (the BC comic and your theoretical portraying of Christ as a "rabble-rousing, heretical demagogue) relate?
One is an expression of the artist’s belief, the other an expression of an artist’s contempt. Do you not know the difference between a kiss and a punch?
Hart attempted (maybe poorly) to use the symbolism of ‘passing of the torch’. It relates the Christian heritage directly back to the Jews of Israel. If anything, it should remind the idiots who want to kill Jews that they are hating their Lord’s kin folks.
BTW, ALL of you missed the eucharist symbolism which came out of the Passover, also via the cross. I personally liked that one.
Sigh. First of all, in my reply to Ben I admitted that my example was a bit exaggerated, and perhaps in bad taste.
Second of all, I’m not sure you understand what I’m trying to say. I - and several other posters - saw the strip as portaying the “truth” of Judaism as dying out and being replaced with something better - Christianity. Needless to say, we found this offensive. We were countered by other posters claiming that this was merely standard Christian doctrine, and that we should not be offended by it. I responded by stating that Jewish doctrine portrays Jesus Christ not as the Messiah or the Son of God, but rather as a simple man who had heretical ideas and whose followers founded a false religion in his name. Now, Jews might believe this, but if a Jewish cartoonist drew a strip conveying this idea, wouldn’t many Christians feel offended?
Yes, it would be “provocatory” and offensive because it is a juxtaposition of the symbols of two unrelated things, made with the intent to offend. Hart believes that Judaism was Phase 1 of God’s plan, and Christianity is Phase 2. He made a comic strip which expresses that belief.
On the other hand, the Darwin fish is meant to be a parody of the Christian fish. Christianity and evolution are categorically different, and the juxtaposition only serves to poke fun at Christianity, or at least certain forms of it. Like I said before, if Hart had shown Hinduism being extinguished and replaced by Christianity, that would be anti-Hindu, since there would be no reason to drag Hinduism into the equation except in order to criticise it.
Let’s not forget that Johnny Hart didn’t spray-paint his comic on the walls of a synagogue. He published it in a newspaper! How can that be equated with driving a giant Darwin fish past a church? Are you implying that when Judaism is concerned, the “offense threshold” is so much lower than it is for Christianity that Hart must keep his beliefs to himself?
Thus far, the analogies drawn by the folks who see the comic as anti-semitic seem a little extreme. Alessan compared the comic to saying that Jesus was a “rabble-rouser” who “got what he deserved,” a comparison which even he now admits is over the top. And as I’ve just explained, your own analogy drags in extra offensive elements which weren’t present in the original. One has to wonder whether you folks have decided that you don’t like the comic, and are looking for ex post facto reasons to criticise it.
By your rules we would have to dump Mary Worth, Kathy, Brenda Starr and lots of other comic strips which tell stories and are not, at their basics, attempting to be funny. Entertaining maybe, funny, no. Well, except for Kathy. I can’t figure out what the author is going for there. <shrug> Pathos I think.
Everything is OK as long as you like it? Isn’t that the same sensibilities as the Christian fundamentalists which everyone here seems to dislike?
Let’s look at the whole thing like this. I don’t drink beer. There are hundreds of commercials on T.V. telling me I won’t have any fun and apparently won’t get layed if I don’t drink their beer. Assume I’m offended rather then amused by this message. What should I do?
Now. Assuming I go on a crusade over it. My questions is: Would my posturing on that issue look as stupid as your posturing on this issue?
Mr. Hart has a strongly held belief. So apparently do you. He has the public ear. You don’t. Are you complaining because you don’t have as good a publicist as him?
Alessan, your argument seems to have changed slightly. Originally you said,
“Still, I don’t see the strip to be as inoffensive as you do; in my eyes, he’s showing Judaism slowly dying out and being replaced by the new, improve Judaism 2.0: Christianity. I can accept that as being Christian belief - if they didn’t believe in the One, Absolute Truth then it wouldn’t be organized religeon - but there’s such a thing as tact.”
I ask again: what would constitute “tact” in this situation? It’s beginning to seem to me that “tact” might mean “keep your mouth shut.”
You’ve made some statements in the past which also indicate that you feel that certain ideas should not be publically discussed. I remember a thread in which people were criticising the genocide carried out by the Israelites in the OT, and seeing you ask that they not criticise the OT because it is the national epic of Israel, and Jews would be offended. (Unfortunately, I am unable to find the original quote.)
And yet you yourself have made some statements on the SDMB which many would find offensive:
I don’t want to turn this into a debate over whether your view is reasonable. I’m just saying that I find it hard to believe that you could make such statements without knowing that people would find them to be offensively racist. In light of your comment, your rather hotheaded response to Hart’s comic seems a little Pecksniffian.
It seems to me that you want Gentiles to accept, as a general rule of common courtesy, that certain issues which you find “offensive” should not be publically discussed. But on the other hand, you freely make statements which many would find grossly offensive. Could it be that you have a double standard?
Ben - that quote was taken so far out of context that the light from context won’t be reaching it for another 3 centuries.
Tell me, Ben, have you been following me? Because if you have, then you should know better than to quote a post I made one week before joining the SDMB, a post I made two weeks before I left my country (and believe me, there was - and is - quite a lot of guilt involved that I was trying to suppress), a post in a thread involving Oldscratch and Danialinthewolvesden? Do you know that prior to joining the SDMB, I had never in my life had a serious converstion with someone who wasn’t Jewish? Do you know how much I’ve tried to adjust over the past 9 months?
Bad form, Ben. Bad form.
I’d be the first to admit that I’m not perfect - I have a tendancy to make drive-by postings; I often don’t think my posts all the way through; and if I actually get involved in an argument, I tend to lose my temper and make a fool of myself. And yes, I tend to react to specific posts instead of presenting a unified world view. I’ll grant you all these.
But to dredge up a post for last July in order to prove some “double standard?” That’s uncalled for.
Good. I now know the proper light in which to view your seemlingly offensive comments, and I also know that you do not have a double standard.
I don’t think so. Your comments, as stated, were racist and grotesque, and I had no way of knowing the emotional circumstances which led to them. As I said before, if a Gentile had made equivalent comments about Jews, no one would have cut him any slack, and, for that matter, no one would expect him to change to a radically more tolerant viewpoint in less than a year.
Now, on with the show:
Do you feel that “tact,” in this instance, can only consist of Hart keeping his opinions to himself?
I think a reasonable person, Jewish or otherwise, could interpret the symbolism in many different ways. A few come to mind:
[ul]
[li] What you mentioned, the snuffing out of Judaism, replacing it with something better[/li][li] The augmentation of something with something more[/li][li] The metamorphosis of something into something else[/li][li] The relation of something with its compliment[/li][/ul]
I’m sure there are others, but my guess is that Hart’s own interpretation, assuming he’s like most Christians I’ve known, is along the lines of the last one. I don’t blame Jews for interpreting it however they please, or even for taking offense after they do. Neither do I blame Christians for making interpretations and taking offense when they hear about the Piss Christ. My advice to all of them is the same as the excellent advice David the Moderator gave me when I first came here and took offense at so much of what I found: get thicker skin.