Excuse me, is this a thread about Johnny Hart or isn’t it? The point was made that Hart once did another cartoon that was insulting to Judaism. This lends credibility to the argument that the outhouse strip may have been a veiled slap at Islam. I was pointing out that Hart’s own explanation of the Mennorah strip was still insulting. These are all valid points of discussion in this thread and I was not simply posting offense to something i didn’t like.
Jews for Jesus are Christians, btw, not Jews. Southern Baptists to be exact.
I think Hart is merely following the ancient axiom:
“If the ladies don’t find you funny, you should at least be offensive.”
That being said, I think it’s about time Johnny got the wake-up call. When your comic is so bad that people become offended by it, I would say it’s time to call it quits.
No, it does not. Since he has been open about his religious comics before, why would he feel the need to make a disguised religious one now? You say the menorah-to-crucifix thing was insulting, so that means he must be insulting now. However, you’re forgetting that he didn’t think that comic was insulting, and in fact was very open about his meaning. He may have been horribly wrong, but he wasn’t lying. So why would he lie about something like that now?
Um…yes it is, according to many Christians’ beliefs. Practicing Christianity will fulfill Mosaic law, according to this belief system. Christ is viewed (by Christians) as the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament convenant with the Jews:
**Certainly Jews don’t believe this, and decent people respect that belief. That doesn’t make the very thought offensive, any more than is the Jewish belief that Christ is not divine. This statement–“He clearly meant it to say that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism”–in itself and without further qualification, is offensive only to those working strenuously to find offense or to those who find Christianity fundamentally offensive.
I didn’t say he lied. I didn’t even say the outhouse cartoon was a slap at Islam. I said it might be. He has made insensitive statements about other religions before so I was saying that it wasn’t beyond the realm of possibility that the outhouse thing was deliberate. It would not be out of character for him. that’s all I meant.
as for the “He-was-telling-the-truth-then-so-why-would-he-lie-now?” defense. I have to say that I find that a little bit specious. Do people have to be either consistently honest or dishonest? Maybe he just didn’t want the shitstorm that would come his way if he copped to dissing Islam. I actually think that in his mind he wasn’t deliberately insulting Judaism with the menorah strip, just being insensitive and smug. This time he may have been deliberately insulting Islam and doesn’t want to answer for it. I’m not saying that’s the case, but it’s not impossible is it?
Okay, forgive me of skipping page 2 of this thread, and sorry if I am repeating someone else’s thought.
The motifs used in that strip looked quite familiar to me, because I read B.C. for years until I got tired of it.
Hart uses the “outhouse” scene a lot–a couple of times a year, I think. Sort of like Charlie Brown and the kite gag.
So, indignant people out there, if you want to prove your case I recommend this. Pick up one of his books and go through it looking for Hart’s “outhouse jokes.” There’s gotta be dozens of 'em. Take a look at them and tell us if you see anything else interesting.
Until then, I think you guys are a bunch of loons. That strip is perfectly in keeping with the lower-than-a-maggot’s-dick sort of humor to which Hart regularly retreats.
Aquinas was not the arbiter of Christian doctrine. He was just spouting his own opinion. Aquinas’ ravings are not “standard” doctrine. it may interset you to know that much of mainstream Christianity, including the RCC, do not believe that Judaism is unfulfilled without Christ but that it a separate covenant.
Deliberately drawing a menorah morphing into a crucifix is pissing all over Judaism. It implies that the menorah, that Judaism is not good enough all by itself
Just to make it very clear. I think there’s about a 99% chance that it was just an unfunny gag with a 1% chance that it was a dig at Islam. The fact that some of his peers think the latter is what gives me that slight pause.
Mrs. Beagle views the strip, internalized it, projected our concerns on it, and concluded: “dogs farting?”
Or, as I learned in college: “Art is experience.” Hope that helps.
Maybe the strip is a test of how much you are affected by symbolism. It’s clearly symbolic (oxymoron?) of Islam. The more I look at it and examine it the more I seem convinced that the Islamic meaning was intended. Paralysis by overanalysis? I’m beginning to think so.
As someone noted earlier, the cresent moon is not only througout BC comics, but all comics. It’s one symbol for night. Sadly, Hart needs the Islamic insult for most people to get – any – joke within the strip itself, also noted by others. He’s truly screwed either way.
12-08 Wham! (And, I note, Grog needs a shave. Is this a slur against ambiguously gay bubblegum bands? An incitement to violence against the phallic serpent of evil homosexuality? Fuck, no. It’s a stupid comic!)
12-08 Wham! (And, I note, Grog needs a shave. Is this a slur against ambiguously gay bubblegum bands? An incitement to violence against the phallic serpent of evil homosexuality? Fuck, no. It’s a stupid comic!)
Jeff, I swear he did a bunch of outhouse jokes, but I’m afraid I’m not going to devote any more time to finding them.
I swear it because when I was about five years old in the 1970s and my father was reading the funnies with me, my father had to explain to me what that funny house with the moon on the door was.
Perhaps, but that’s not what you said, and that’s not what I reacted to. Shodan said this:
**…to which you replied…
**Regardless of your opinion of Aquinas, I think you’re straining. Certainly the RCC teaches of Christ’s new covenant. Read this cite, for example:
**Yes, it’s a new covenant. And yes, Christ fulfills and perfects the Old Law. The two are not contradictory. I repeat, that statement you reacted to, in itself, is offensive only if you work very hard to find offense or if you find much of basic Christian doctrine fundamentally offensive.
Your right it was overly nasty, just couldn’t resist a zinger. Apologies. Also the authors of the bible could write cryptic circles aroung Hart.
Can’t agree with stupid; attributing secret deep meanings to the bible takes far too much credulance for me to accept. It does have “meaning” as a set of morality codes/stories.
re the comic: pretty much what DtC said last post. I seem to remember in another B.C. bashing thread I counted up the specific bible refs in a month, something like 1/week. I’ll try a search if hammy’s up to it.
Hey, I just read your sig and figured out you were Bob Cos. Do you play guitar?
Maybe this is semantic hair splitting but what I object to is the implication that Judaism is incomplete without Christianity. I think that the image of the menorah disappearing into the image of a crucifix implies that the menorah has become obsolete. It implies that Judaism has now become invalid. That is not standard doctrine and that is what bothered me. I don’t think it’s hate speech but I think it shows an insensitivity on Hart’s part and he clearly doesn’t get it if he thinks it was a compliment to Judaism.
I am not trying to find offense with Christianity. I just think that it was gratuitous for Hart to show Judaism being subordinated to Christianity. Again, it wasn’t hate speech, just sort of obnoxious.
