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.

university of virginia cavalier daily cartoon jesus dont drive

university of virginia cavalier daily cartoon jesus castesian cross

university of virginia cavalier daily cartoon nativity obscene

65 Responses to “University Of Virginia — Cavalier Daily Cartoons”

  1. [...] All 3 cartoons can be found in their new permanent home. [...]

  2. sidfaiwu says:

    Unlike some other religion-themed comics of recent times, these are actually funny!

  3. Humanistic Jones says:

    “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.

  4. Jesus on a Cartesian Coordinate Plane! HA! Hilarious.

  5. sidfaiwu says:

    How would he look in polar coordinates? ;)

  6. Alcari says:

    I really hope they do more of these :P

  7. Sir Chuck says:

    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

  8. steve says:

    well now i don’t see any reason to get the mob together and riot or burn a flag or something…ha ha…

  9. Jim says:

    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

  10. Marty Robinson says:

    Forgive them Father, for they know not what they are doing or saying.

    God bless you all, in spite of your ignorance.

  11. Simon Bond says:

    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

  12. irishthunder says:

    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.

  13. Sean says:

    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.

  14. Eric says:

    Everyone is an atheist concerning most of the gods that ever existed. It’s not such a leap to go one god further.

  15. Michael G says:

    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.

  16. sidfaiwu says:

    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?

  17. irishthunder says:

    “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.

  18. Kurt says:

    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.

  19. Hugo Ortiz says:

    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

  20. irishthunder says:

    “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.

  21. Kurt says:

    Wear it as a badge of honor Irish! :)

  22. sidfaiwu says:

    In response to Hugo Ortiz, I’ll simply revise a comment I made previously.

    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.

    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.

  23. Tim says:

    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.

  24. sidfaiwu says:

    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?

  25. Jon says:

    If it was about Mohammad, people would be protesting…

  26. Alcari says:

    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.

  27. Neando says:

    “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.

  28. alcari says:

    A darwinist cannot account for this even if some moral behaviours may be advantagious for survival.

    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.

  29. Kurt says:

    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.

  30. Neando says:

    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.

  31. Paige George says:

    “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.”

    I’ve never understood why atheists put such stereotypes on what the Christian God looks like…if all of you really buy into it that Christians believe that God is an elderly man with a beard beacuse that is the way artists have painted him, then, according to art, ALL men have extraordinarily small penises, according to Michaelangelo and Da Vinci. Do all you men have small penises? Does God really have a beard?

    Also, why do people with an absence of faith create a name for themselves? “Atheist…” seriously? If you really have no faith in any religion, then why do you still center your lives around it and give yourslef a name regarding it? Honestly. I have known for quite awhile that Santa Claus sadly does not exist, but I have not given myself a name to let others know that I don’t believe, because it’s not that big of a deal to me…I’m not scared that he actually does exist… but he does supposedly have a beard. Maybe he is God.
    I am a Christian and I have never shoved my faith down someone’s throat. For those Christians that do, they represent humanity’s inability to be perfect. Imagine that. I also have never drawn ridiculous cartoons putting Santa Claus down…or atheists…or Muslims..or..anyone. That just again represents a person’s inability to be mature. Imagine that.

  32. Irishthunder says:

    “Also, why do people with an absence of faith create a name for themselves? “Atheist…” ”

    Because so many people can’t imagine a person without a label.

    “I’ve never understood why atheists put such stereotypes on what the Christian God looks like”

    It’s quite easy to do when no one has ever seen the christian god, so no one really knows, do they?

    “I am a Christian and I have never shoved my faith down someone’s throat.”

    Then you fall into a small group, many people do it without even realizing so maybe your not in that group.

    “I also have never drawn ridiculous cartoons putting Santa Claus down…or atheists…or Muslims..or..anyone. That just again represents a person’s inability to be mature. Imagine that.”

    Wouldn’t it show more maturity to see an offensive cartoon and *not* have a knee-jerk reaction to it?
    Think of it like this: “You do not have the right to not be offended”

  33. Paige George says:

    “Because so many people can’t imagine a person without a label.”

    Sooo… you’re saying that people who deny belief in any god give themselves a label in order to please stereotypical America? So much for being “free thinkers.”

    Again… what is the definition of “shoving” faith down someone’s throat? What do you call those cartoons? I’m feeling a huge lump of crap being shoved down my throat… :)

    Also… Your calling me immature because I got offended by the little mean cartoons, but if your definition of being offended is lashing out, then wouldn’t the whole atheism thing be a big retaliation against faith? Why do you guys let religion get you all hot and bothered so easliy anyway?

    Believe me, I understand why it would be difficult to believe in a god of any sort. There is no physical evidence and we watch so many horror, sci-fi, action, etc films that is hard to believe in anything anymore. My faith stems from life experiences. Not miracles, per say, but just in the way life works. The way the world has evolved and changed. I don’t think that stuff like that just happens. I’m not brainwashed. I would even go as far as to say that I am quite intelligent. I don’t surround myself with Christians and church. Honestly I think alot of (most) churches are corrupt, but I do have faith in Jesus Christ. Who he was and is. It’s sad that there is such a negative stereotype put on Christians. I guess if I had a “message” to spread it would be that Christians should not act like the stereotyope they have been casted, but that the majority of Christians are really very real, very sin driven people like everybody else, and thats okay. We are forgiven.

    Anyway.. I really like this message board! And I still think its weird that “free thinkers” are “brainwashed” by the world. :)

  34. Korgan says:

    Paige George,

    You claim yourself to be “quite intelligent”, but belief in many of the statements of Christianity as presented in the bible is plainly and obviously in conflict with reason and a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, such belief indicates a lack of intelligence, if you in fact take the bible as presenting the tenets of your faith. It is abundantly clear that “stuff” has in fact evolved and happened, but not in any way close to the manner that Christianity claims.

    For example, it is very clear from DNA and other evidence that the earth was not populated in the way described in the bible stories, that it was not created in a few days, and that the human race was not spontaneously created without precursor species. Furthermore, the bible has a host of internal contradictions.

    So, in your faith, do you disregard parts of what the bible presents, and if so, which parts, and why? In addition, can you present a specific life experience out of the ones that you claim to have had, or more than one, that conclusively demonstrates that there is any truth to Christianity in so far as to the divinity of Christ is concerned, or for that matter, regarding any of the other far-fetched claims of the bible?

  35. Paige George says:

    Korgan,

    Could you please explain how belief in the Bible conflicts with intelligent reasoning without just regurgitating a generic blanket response? You claim so heavily without facts that “evidence” disproves the Bible,but you give no concrete examples other than saying “DNA” says so. Are you an expert on mitochondrial DNA? Can you say conclusively that all Christians take the entire Bible in a literal sense? It is obvious that the world could not have been created in seven days… it is a representation (a symbol, if you will) of the order in which the universe was created, which can scientifically be backed up by some evolutionary theories. Adam and Eve were not the first people, again, very obviously because the first humanoids discovered by scientists did not walk upright, and were covered in a huge amount of hair. If you were covered in so much hair then I guess it would be hard to really see your own nudity. Just kidding… Adam and Eve were the first people to recognize God as the creator, as the divine, the sacred, or whatever else you would like to call Him to suit your needs. These two people were the first to have the ability to understand, represented by their tasting of the fruit of knowledge, which is again a representation of how the material world, if one gets absorbed and tempted by it, will be separated from God.
    I could really keep going forever, and if you would like me too, I will gladly keep answering your questions, and correcting your passionate, yet incorrect, assumptions.
    Regarding reason, you say that it is in plain conflict with the Bible. Of what reason are you talking about? What preponderance of evidence are you referencing? Please give some examples… Also, this is what I am REALLY interested in. Please tell me how the Bible contradicts itself. I would LOVE to know, because if I am putting so much faith in something that contradicts itself, then I would like to know so I can remove my faith.
    What about morality? Where does human internal morality come from? Why do humans, and only humans, have the ability to think past their instincts? Did it really “just happen?” How can we explain art? and music? and human prodigy? Is it just chance that a 5 year old child could compose a symphony? These abilities arise deep within the human mind, and don’t just occur. Can you at least concede to the fact that something guides humankind other than mere chance? If not, then chance is something you have faith in, yet it cannot be proven.

  36. Korgan says:

    Paige George,

    You haven’t done your homework. The facts and references that you are looking for are already posted throughout this site, by me and others. Here’s a research tip: Google using “site:religiousfreaks.com” as an insertion, plus some obvious keywords and phrases.

    However, I’ll oblige you with an initial reference for a layperson that you can start with: buy or rent the video “The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey” by Spencer Wells, or read the book by the same title and author. If you understand the contents, you’ll be well on the road to losing your faith in that ridiculous hodgepodge of beliefs known as Christianity.

    So far you have conceded that the bible is not true. That’s a good start. There’s more to come.

    Finally, yes, by conventional standards, I am a DNA expert.

  37. Paige George says:

    I will gladly check out all of your theories, even though you did not answer any of my questions. I thought that the point was to answer questions you had and vice versa, not just giving eachother websites and references.

    Anyway, I do really enjoy reading all of your viewpoints and catty responses, but I still really would like you to please answer just ONE of my many questions without giving me a generic response: Why do atheists get so hot and bothered over religion?? Why are you guys so keen on trying to disprove faith in religion if there is nothing else after death? Its not like you guys are trying to save religious people from anything, right? What is your point?

    Finally, yes, by conventional standards, I have done my homework, and I will GLADLY actually answer your questions. I wish you would show me the same courtesy.

  38. Korgan says:

    Paige George

    Citations of references are used to support and substantiate points of view. That’s part of how rational discourse works.

    One of several reason that rational people spend time pointing out the flaws in religious belief is that believers base their life guidance on their religion, and inflict that guidance vehemently on others, to the overall detriment and distress of humanity. More and more, people such as Sam Harris (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), and Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great) are speaking out in defense against religious idiocy and unsupported belief-driven decision making. Religion, and especially Christianity (see the many inquisitions) and Islam (see modern terrorism, just to get started), are instrinsically violent and a poor basis for morality. They also pretend to relieve humans of responsibility for their own actions. Like I’ve said here before, the Golden Rule is a vastly better basis for morality than Christianity is, and has reasonable underpinnings that Christianity does not have.

    Religion is unnecessary, and Christianity is not supported by evidence. It should have been discarded long ago.

    Religion is a disease of the mind. Inoculate against it with reason.

  39. Paige George says:

    If there is no higher power, or life after death, then why apply the Golden Rule at all? Why is morality applied in life? If life is meaningless, just a blip in the vast arena of time, then why care about anything other than your own pleasures and desires? Why is there a line that cannot be crossed?

  40. Neando says:

    Korgan, which version of the Golden Rule are you referencing? The negative variation or the positive? What possible “reasonable underpinnings” do you propose?

    Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins are hard to take seriously. Note their lack of footnotes and reference. Their antitheistic diatribe and rant is little better than that of this list. They have really let their side down and are an embarrassment to the atheists of the past.

  41. Korgan says:

    Neando, your diatribe of post 41 is itself nonsense and quite typical of your postings here to date. Your statements are plainly wrong. Just to cite one counterexample to your latest statements, The End of Faith by Sam Harris thoroughly presents references and a bibliography spanning more than 100 pages.

    Next time, check your facts.

  42. will be says:

    This will not be so funny when you are spending eternity in Hell…

  43. Korgan says:

    Re post 43, google on “Pascal’s Wager” for some easy reading on why that argument is easily contested. “Betting on god” also represents insincerity in belief.

    And your purportedly omnibenevolent, all-merciful god provides hell and other human suffering for what reason?

    Yet another demonstration that…

    Religion is ridiculous.

  44. Paige George says:

    Korgan,
    Is there a reason you simply refuse to answer any of the questions I have asked you??? Especially those in post #40. I have always been very interested in that.

  45. Korgan says:

    Paige George,

    This isn’t Ask Jeeves. Your questions (plural) in post 40 partly stem from a human- and earth- centric weltanschaaung, which is clearly one that I don’t buy into to begin with.

    It’s great that you are asking questions. That’s a terrific start on a path that I think will eventually take you away from religion and Christianity. That would be a positive outcome.

    I still recommend that you at least read The End of Faith by Sam Harris. It speaks to many of your questions very well, including a whole chapter related to your post 40 questions. Available in inexpensive paperback form, e.g. here.

    Good luck in your quest. You may find the experiences of the person referenced here to be of interest, as well as those of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, regarding freedom from a different religion.

  46. Paige George says:

    So basically you have no personal opinions save for the ones you read in select books. Okay. You have a wonderful way of saying absolutely nothing in few words. People like you are not the type that would cause someone to change their beliefs because you seem to not have any of your own that you are willing to share. Is there any one else willing to stand up for your atheistic beliefs without telling to read a book???? I would really love some actual discussion!

  47. Korgan says:

    No, think harder, Paige. Again the simple concept of a reference seems to have escaped you. You have blinkers on, like so many other Christians.

    I happen to agree with the references I’ve given, and reading the reference will allow you to learn a lot more without me having to take the trouble of typing a lot more.

    Maybe come back once you’ve read at least one of the references that I’ve provided. Usually there is discussion to be found here, for the informed.

  48. Irishthunder says:

    Sorry, I’ve been busy with school and having cancer to take part in this argument.

    “stand up for your atheistic beliefs without telling to read a book????”

    First off it’s not really standing up for any beliefs, it’s standing up for the voice of logic and reason in the fucked up world we live in, I myself am agnostic. Tell me, does it really make sense to believe every word of a book because it tells you to? Understanding that this book makes outlandish claims like a man coming back from the dead and another living inside a whale. More importantly, does it make sense to view people as different, alienate them, hurt them, or murder them simply because they don’t believe in that book? In regards to telling you to read a book, I have been told hundreds upon hundreds of times to read the bible, which I did front to back a long time ago. Reading a book isn’t a bad thing, and I think it’s one of many ways to expand your understanding of the universe we live in.

  49. Paige George says:

    Irishthunder,
    I’m sorry about your situation and I hope all is well. Thank you for actually saying something with meaning!!! You are right. It does not make sense to believe every word a book tells you. Maybe we should explain that to Korgan. You make a good point in stating that it is hard to believe that a man lived inside of a whale or that a man was brought back from the dead, but alot of what the Bible says is based on symbolism. I have no problem reading books, and I will and I have. I just appreciate the fact that you gave me your oplinion without just saying “read this book and you will understand!!” lol. I would love to continue this discussion with you Irishthunder! Please read some of my previous posts and give me your feelings! Korgan, you are a waste of time.

Leave a Reply