Oh…why didn’t you TELL me he has a PhD. God knows they’re always correct and NEVER have a bias.
He’s more likely to be right than some shitwitted yahoo on the other side of the internet. :rolleyes:
There you go with the arrogant again.
For what it’s worth, this yahoo on the other side of the internet has a PhD too, and can testify that it doesn’t give you any particular extra insights or psychic powers. What it does is give you the ability and discipline to perform research. Did this semiologist look at the corpus of Hart’s work and see if there were recurring themes that might explain the artwork in this comic? As far as I can tell, he did not. That discredits him in my opinion.
Yeah, you’re right. Sorry. It was a knee jerk response to a snarky comment.
Does Hart usually depict the night sky with a crescent moon? How about outhouses? If he doesn’t, I’d have to say it’s a slam. If he does, the question is still open. (I refuse to do this very painful research.)
I wouldn’t put it past him to slam Islam, but I tend to think it’s just a bad comic.
Umm… no it’s not. Saying a particular Moslem stinks would be bigoted and hateful (but perhaps not ignorant), saying Islam stinks is neither. It is an evaluation. One which you personally might or might not share – I certainly do not, but no worse than saying Republicans stink or communists stink or Zionism stinks or what have you not –ism stink. Of course it’s a very simplified evaluation. Personally I think the cartoon stinks, but what stinks even more is CAIR’s effort to silence people.
And yes worse things are being said of Christianity on these boards all the time – which I don’t agree with either.
And, by the way, even were it bigoted and hateful and ignorant the worst thing you could do was to keep them inside your head.
- Rune
Shodan, two points:
- I never said the burden of proof lies on Johnny Hart to prove his innocence. And if I’m on his jury when he’s accused of anti-Islam, I’ll vote him not guilty based on the evidence before us. BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT’S GOING ON. We’re, ALL OF US, speculating here. Only Johnny Hart (and maybe not him, depending just how senile/loopy he is these days) knows what he truly intended there.
- It’s ridiculous to compare this to “niggardly.” In that case, there’s a clear answer to the etymological question; we can establish beyond doubt that the similarity to “nigger” is coincidental. In this case, psychic powers aside, we cannot know the answer for sure. The closest we can get to a definitive answer is Johnny Hart’s word; given his dissembling before on religious matters, I don’t think his word is worth anything.
Sure, when he lied about the Judaism/Easter comic, he admitted it had to do with Judaism. So fucking what? He still lied about the intent of the comic (unless he’s clinically insane, that is – that comic, at least, had a clear intent behind it). When you lie about your work, you don’t only lose credibility in exactly analogous cases; you lose credibility in general. I bring up the Easter comic not as an analogy to this case, but rather to say why I dismiss his explanation of his own work as untrustworthy.
Daniel
Again with the contradictions.
In the first paragraph, you say you can’t read his mind. In the second, apparently, you can, since you claim to know for a fact that he intended to offend against Judaism.
Hart did not lie about the intent of the menorah comic. He clearly meant it to say that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. His intent was clear, and the comic clearly expressed it. And he is entirely upfront about it, then and subsequently.
The intent of the outhouse comic is, to say the least, unclear. He is being entirely upfront that it was not meant as an attack on Islam. And yet you and others are determined to take offense.
And so we get these strained and nearly ludicrous interpretations of what can be far more simply explained as a not-very-funny potty joke. Have you never heard the expression “He thinks his shit don’t stink”?
The weight of the evidence so far seems to be that Johnny Hart never lies about the intent of his comics, even if that intent will cause some to take offense. He has given interviews in which he expresses opinions about gays that are clearly going to be offensive. But he does not back away from expressing them, or from acknowledging that he expressed them.
Yet in this case, you believe that is what he is doing. Why? Do you honestly believe that Hart thinks comics making fun of Islam are so much worse than the expressed belief that gays are going to hell? Then why is he honest about holding the one opinion, and not the other?
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, I DON’T BELIEVE HIM when he says his Easter comic was meant to honor Judaism.
Can I know for sure that he was lying? Of course not: nobody can ever know that for sure about anyone else. But I DON’T BELIEVE HIM.
Given that, his credibility is shot with me. I don’t take his own statements into account when trying to decipher his intentions, since I DON’T BELIEVE HIM when it comes to his describing his intentions.
Daniel
That, in itself, is an offensive statement.
Actually, the fact that you find that offensive falls under the “tough shit” category. Fact is, he still didn’t lie about it, not that the meaning wasn’t absolutely clear to anyone with the slightest knowledge about Judaism/Christianity. The meaning was clear, and it was right out there in your face. Religious education is sorely lacking these days, apparently, as 50 years ago I doubt anyone with a second grade education would not have known exactly what it meant.
Didn’t think cynics were that thin-skinned. There’s not a statement in this world that isn’t offensive to some people. Don’t mean they shouldn’t be made. Especially jokes need to have this pointed edge to be anything but lame mumble-jumble.
Anyway isn’t it pretty much standard Christian doctrine?
I didn’t say he lied about it. I just said it was offensive.
I realize you didn’t claim he lied about it, LHoD did. However finding it offensive is your issue. Don’t read it then (as I’m sure you don’t.) I would also suggest not reading the new testament or consorting with Jews for Jesus, as you would find both of those highly offensive for the same reason. It reminds me of the fellow on a previous page who was quoted as saying the strip about Paul and email was offensive to him “becuase it is religious.” Well, you gotta admit he was honest heh.
Yes, very standard Winston.
I skimmed my meager collection of old BC books; while I didn’t notice any outhouses, I found that he does usually depict night scenes with a crescent moon. The only time I recall him using a full moon was when it was needed for a gag.
I’m sure someone mentioned this already, but in case I’m thinking of another thread, from what I’ve seen the moon is almost always drawn as a crescent in cartoons to distinguish it from the sun. It’s not as easy to convey night and day with the shading in a black and white strip.
Wiley: “If you pick mushrooms under the full moon, terrible harm will come to you.”
Clumsy: “Nonsense.”
So Wiley clubs him…
Um…no it isn’t.
Judaism is the fulfillment of Judaism. That is, Judaism is fulfilled by keeping Jewish law. Christian doctrine is that it is inherently impossible for humans to be righteous by their own actions so a new covenant was made through the sacrifice of Jesus. Christianity is not a “fulfillment” of Judaism in the sense that Judaism was just some sort of structured prelude to Christianity. Christianity is a replacement for Judaism. As such, Judaism is not and cannot be fulfilled by Christian practice (that is, the keeping of Mosaic law cannot be fulfilled by worshipping Jesus).
Hart’s statement was offensive because it implied that Judaism is somehow incomplete in itself or subordinate to Christianity. There are some Christians who believe those things but it is not “standard” doctrine and it is still insulting.
Whoosh. Whoosh. Whoosh.
Three times in this thread it’s mentioned that ArchiveGuy and Satisfying Andy Licious posted the same thing. What’s that supposed to mean? Are they brothers or comrades-in-arms?
What’s the straight dope, yo.