University Of Virginia — Cavalier Daily Cartoons
Here’s yet another chapter in the neverending book of cartoons and caricatures. This dose of medicine is brought to you by the University of Virginia’s Cavalier Daily student newspaper.
The cartoons appeared in the Aug 23 and 24 edition in the cartoon section. They mock Jesus, Mary, and Joesph.
September 14th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
[…] All 3 cartoons can be found in their new permanent home. […]
September 14th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Unlike some other religion-themed comics of recent times, these are actually funny!
September 14th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
“Mary, how’d you end up pregnent?! We ain’t never done anything!”
“Oh, it was immaculate Joe.”
“It had betta be Mary!”
“Oh dear, I seem to have turned Joseph into Ralph Kramden.”
-Eddie Izzard
I love the first one the most out of these. If Jesus can’t handle a car, I feel sorry for all the “Jesus is my Co-pilot” people.
September 14th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Jesus on a Cartesian Coordinate Plane! HA! Hilarious.
September 14th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
How would he look in polar coordinates? ;)
September 15th, 2006 at 2:34 am
I really hope they do more of these :P
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Humanistic Jones Says:
September 14th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
“Mary, how’d you end up pregnent?! We ain’t never done anything!”
“Oh, it was immaculate Joe.”
“It had betta be Mary!”
“Oh dear, I seem to have turned Joseph into Ralph Kramden.”
-Eddie Izzard
Not to be too uptight…. but that was Robin Williams
October 20th, 2007 at 2:14 am
well now i don’t see any reason to get the mob together and riot or burn a flag or something…ha ha…
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Just a bit of trivia here; “immaculate conception” is Catholic doctrine and refers to the so called Virgin Mary’s conception, not Jesus’ conception. Of course, either one is ridiculous in it’s entirety.
BTW I’m Atheist and I always say…know thine enemy. It’s amazing how many so called Christians don’t know this!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
March 17th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Forgive them Father, for they know not what they are doing or saying.
God bless you all, in spite of your ignorance.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
For give her oh mighty Thor. She knows not the evil that the Being she has called God has perpetrated against your children.
May Thor still protect you even though you have turned your back on him.
Cheers
Simon Bond
March 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Forgive them both Wolverine, for they know not the awesomeness that you have bestowed upon the earth. Though they ignore you now, they will witness your adamantium fury when it is their time.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Forgive your father, children of Marty, for he has chosen to give up his ability to think for himself and has decided believe in magical, supernatural beings. He has been brainwashed and has instructed to brainwash you.
Good luck in becoming a rational, free thinker, in spite of your father’s ignorance.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Everyone is an atheist concerning most of the gods that ever existed. It’s not such a leap to go one god further.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Stunning — the level of depravity on display here. And those who celebrate it are just as guilty.
Free thinking is about thinking for yourself. It’s about NOT swallowing whole what your teachers or textbooks say. Odd how most people who call themselves “free thinkers” are neither free nor thinkers.
Bashing someone’s religion or religious beliefs is childish at best. How defensive do YOU get when someone does this to you? ‘Think’ about it during your ‘free’ time.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Hello Michael G,
Bashing someone’s religion or religious beliefs is childish at best.
While I agree that some of these cartoons are childish, do you consider any criticism of one’s religion to be childish? Would you make the same claim about someone who criticized another’s political beliefs?
March 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
mt
March 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“Free thinking is about thinking for yourself. It’s about NOT swallowing whole what your teachers or textbooks say. Odd how most people who call themselves “free thinkers” are neither free nor thinkers.”
I agree, it also isn’t listening to npr and watching fox news while tricking yourself into thinking thats somehow better. But it is being able to look at the facts in front of you and reach logical conclusions, and believing some big guy did it all is never a logical conclusion. By the way, “non-believers” always have to defensive, because idiots like you feel you have the right to cram your religion down our throats.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I agree with Sid: “childish” is the *way* in which something is presented (method is independent of factuality); but any system of thought can (and should) be challenged (Descartes: “Question everything”). This also agrees with Irish: you can hardly question something when force is involved (something akin to the “shotgun wedding”). And, as it seems, with Michael G’s point about thinking for one’s self . . . which makes me question his use of the word “depravity.” Poor taste, maybe, but “depraved?” Besides, I find the “Christ on a Cartesian Coordinate Plane” one clever; it made me laugh.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Funny!? com’ on, what kind of education are you people getting. Do you enjoy mocking around to others beliefs? Just don’t act surprised if you find someone else making fun of you, and not necessarily ‘with’ you. You get what you give. Peace
March 18th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“Do you enjoy mocking around to others beliefs?”
If there’s something funny about what they believe, like thinking an old dude with a beard will punish you if your not a good boy, Yes.
“Just don’t act surprised if you find someone else making fun of you, and not necessarily ‘with’ you.
I realized a long time ago that the great majority of people are complete idiots and me being “laughed at” really wasn’t a bad thing.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Wear it as a badge of honor Irish! :)
March 19th, 2008 at 9:07 am
In response to Hugo Ortiz, I’ll simply revise a comment I made previously.
Hugo Ortiz has used the technique of equating beliefs and believers that the religious try to use to insulate their faith from criticism. He is trying to perpetuate the fallacy that the belief and the believer are equivalent. This is a dangerous mistake.
The implication is that a believer is morally justified should he/she choose to insult someone simple because that person insulted a belief. In other words, it’s okay to harm a thinking, feeling being if that being ‘harms’ a non-thinking, non-feeling belief. One might as well equate the chopping down of a tree to chopping off of a human head. Such reasoning is morally reprehensible, and should be criticized.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I think these cartoons are deplorable. Notice how it isn’t all over the news, though. If it was a cartoon about Muhammad or Jews, there would be a huge uproar. But Christians are fair game, apparently. These cartoons only show how low our society has fallen.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Hello Tim,
Exactly how has our society ‘fallen’? Historically speaking, we have the longest life expectancies and lowest levels of violence. What criteria are using to measure society? The cartoons produced by student newspapers?
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
If it was about Mohammad, people would be protesting…
March 24th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Yeah, but luckily, most christians have a sense of humor, and don’t fly into homicidal rage when someone makes fun of a religion.
And of course, the deists, agnostics and atheists are just laughing at all of them.
May 26th, 2008 at 4:00 am
“Exactly how has our society ‘fallen’? Historically speaking, we have the longest life expectancies and lowest levels of violence. What criteria are [you] using to measure society?”
Hi Sid, Good questions. In order to measure progress or regress there does need to be some standard or criterion. If such is arbitrary or invented, how would this enable one to to rise above the level of, say, a game or something trivial? The measure of anything must lie outside of what is being measured and is the case.
On a neo-darwinist scenario, it is hard to see how a change in life expectancy and level of violence can rise above advantage or disadvantage for one species or another. It just happens and there can be no other “value” in it.
If a longer life expectancy and a reduction in violence is desirable to most of us, then, on this account, is not that all it is?
On the epistemic level, one can know that, say, violence against innocent children is objectively wrong, or that kindness is an objectively good virtue, without reference to any reasons or criteria for this knowledge (although I believe such exists). A darwinist cannot account for this even if some moral behaviours may be advantagious for survival.
Tim’s comment, however brief, may be well founded. He may have strong moral intuitions that correspond with an objective moral order, whether or not he has thought of it. Or perhaps he may have a deep sense of moral oughtness together with good reasons that have good foundations.
“One might as well equate the chopping down of a tree to chopping off of a human head. Such reasoning is morally reprehensible, and should be criticized.”
I very well agree! But I would also say that this judgement is far more at home in a rich theistic world view than in the thin world of naturalism.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:20 am
First, “Darwinism” is a word creationists, mistakenly, use for the actual field of evolution. There are zero Darwinists left, as the theory has been refined a lot, nobody fully accepts Darwin’s original work compeltely.
Now, for the real argument.
You say that there is no way morals like “It’s wrong to beat children” could stem from evolution. It’s actually a great example of a moral (can you say that in singular?) that can very easily be formed through evolution.
Take two societies. Society A doesn’t care about it’s children, beats them for the slightesy mistake and generally likes punching todlers. Society B takes care of it’s children, educating and loving them, protecting them from harm.
Now, 30 years later, the children are adults. Can you seriously say that Society A and B will be equally succesfull? Do you really thing that both societies will be at the same level of develpment after 10 generations? At the very least, society B will be quite a bit larger then A, simply because they take care of their children.
Now, that may be an extreme example, but it works exactly the same on a smaller scale.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Alcari –
Great post! Don’t apologize for using extremes. It is in the extreme cases where we see if general propositions break down or not.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 am
Hi Alcari, Thanks for your thoughts.
First, you are right in that Darwinism as Darwin formed his theory has been superceded. But since it has essentially the same philosophical structure and same paradigm, today’s version is what has often been called Neo-darwinism, a term that I also used above.
Second, I said that “some moral behaviours may be advantageous for survival.” You give a good example of this, but you don’t seem to have answered my point. How does the survival advantage of this or that particular behaviour make it good or moral? There is no inherent value in the fact of survival unless their is some overarching purpose that survival fulfils. Pragmatism and its relatives will posit that a particular behaviour works for those who may gain an advantage and will thus declare it “good” but usually there is a hidden premise that children possess inherent dignity as persons, and this neo-darwinism cannot account for.
Philospher George Mavrodes summarized Bertrand Russell’s WV thus:
(1) Such phenomena as minds, mental activities, consciousness, and so forth are the products of entities and causes that give no indication of being mental themselves. . . .
(2) Human life is bounded by physical death and each individual comes to a permanent end at his physical death.
(3) Not only each individual but also the human race as a species is doomed to extinction “beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.”
So in the atheistic big picture, survival is but a short temporary thing and there is no value in it other than what humans invent for themselves. Morality, human dignity and virtue is pretty odd in a world like this.