Comic Book Galaxy Reviewer Leaves
Johanna Draper Carlson
beliefs, I am forced to end my association with Comic Book Galaxy
immediately. My reviews will continue to appear here and at Comics Worth
Reading, http://www.comicsworthreading.com.
I regret that things came to this, but I cannot continue to support
intolerance and prejudice.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Theater of the Meek, League of Super-Groovy Crimefighters #1,
October Previews, Breakfast After Noon, Castle Waiting, Orion, more!
Nenad Vidovic
KurtBusiek wrote:
> Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people who
> write anti-Christian material.
...
> a statement of his own beliefs, which are that Christianity is a negative
> institution that merits a highly-critical stance. He's expressed support for
Hey, what is wrong with that. Christianity IS negative.
Take care,
nenad
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people
> who write anti-Christian material.
Alan Doane said a bit more than that; he made bigoted remarks about
Christians as a group. (He agreed that he was a bigot -- his stance is not
in question by anyone involved.) It was not about particular material; it
was about prejudicial attitudes and inaccurate stereotypes about entire
groups of people.
> She refused to read it
I refused to discuss bigotry with the bigot, yes. I also refuse to read KKK
propaganda for similar reasons.
> and expressed a lack of tolerance for any expression of sentiments she
> considers bigotry.
Not true. I asked that Alan apologize to me for the insults and keep this
prejudice off a comic message board. I at no point asked him to change his
mind or attempted to tell him what to think; I only asked him to show those
who believe otherwise common courtesy. He refused and continued insulting an
entire group of people based on what they choose to believe.
> There was a little more back-and-forth,
Not true. There was a request for an apology, there was a refusal, and there
was a resignation. That was it. In fact, the primary discussion took place
on a closed mailing list, so you didn't see it.
> and she quit, carrying the ball over
> here to get maximum coverage for her intolerance of Alan's views
Not true. I posted here because I had been vocal about my support of the
site, so I wanted it to be clear that I was no longer associated with it for
moral reasons. The site is frequently hyped here, so it seemed appropriate.
> It should perhaps be noted that Alan has not, apparently, restricted anyone's
> right to air their beliefs at the site, or tried to silence anyone.
It should be noted that Alan's comments, if they had been about blacks or
gays, wouldn't be tolerated by anyone with an ounce of sense.
> Johanna, in the name of tolerance, won't tolerate such views being aired
Not true. I said it was inappropriate and I wouldn't be associated with it.
I'm sure Alan appreciates your defense of his free speech, Mr. Busiek -- but
doesn't that right apply to me as well?
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I figured the entire thing for some sort of publicity gimmick to get people
> to check out the site.
Sadly, no.
> Couldn't find any of Joannas reviews there either ( pulled at her request I
> imagine)
Yes. My reviews are available at my web site.
To clear things up: this had nothing to do with any reviews, but with the
loudly expressed bigoted comments of the site editor about Christians.
> but her cryptic comments ended up doing exactly that with her announcement.
That's fine. I wish the other reviewers the best, and I don't expect them to
take the same action I did. Everyone has to decide for themselves how to
tolerate intolerance.
GrapeApe
religious in nature about such a gig.
So I trot over to CBG, which I have never visited, to try to figure out what
the fuss is about. I don't visit comic web sites much if at all.
As far as I can tell," the fuss" is mostly about One Book by One Creator and
one person claiming insult about same (or its review)..
I don't expect you would want to clarify, else the entire witch hunt possibly
be brought up again (sorry for the choice of words here, applicable or not)
But wtf was this about? Someone getting dissed at a review of Ellis or Transmet
or what? That is the best that I can glean from that site.
I've never read that book. Does it have its own religious following?
KurtBusiek
Transmet
or what? That is the best that I can glean from that site.>>
As best I can figure:
Someone called PREACHER anti-Christian.
Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people who
write anti-Christian material.
Johanna called him a bigot.
Alan said if the label covers anti-Christian feeling, then it applies to him,
and referred Johanna to a fairly thoughtful essay he's written on the subject.
She refused to read it, and expressed a lack of tolerance for any expression of
sentiments she considers bigotry.
There was a little more back-and-forth, and she quit, carrying the ball over
here to get maximum coverage for her intolerance of Alan's views, whether
they're intolerant or not.
It should perhaps be noted that Alan has not, apparently, restricted anyone's
right to air their beliefs at the site, or tried to silence anyone. He's made
a statement of his own beliefs, which are that Christianity is a negative
institution that merits a highly-critical stance. He's expressed support for
those who take such a stance, but hasn't attempted to keep anyone from
expressing other beliefs or taking other stances, as far as I can tell.
Johanna, in the name of tolerance, won't tolerate such views being aired, and
has severed her connection with the site rather than be associated with
unpopular speech of this sort.
kurt
The SUPERSTAR Ashcan, by Busiek & Immonen, is now available online, at the
ApeNation Trading Post! Plus: Check out SHOCKROCKETS and other Gorilla comics
FREE at the site!
http://www.apenation.com/
Michael Alan Chary
KurtBusiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>Someone called PREACHER anti-Christian.
I suppose, btw, that this is correct as far as it goes, but then it's not
so much anti-Christian as anti-everything. Nobody comes off looking good
in Preacher. Including the writer, artist, editor, comics company, etc.
But then, I'm the only movie reviewer in America to pan American Beauty in
print, so what do I know?
(Well, except that whatever passes for religion in reacher only bears
occasional resemblances to Christianity here on planet Earth.)
>Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people who
>write anti-Christian material.
Someone criticized Christianity? I'm shocked. Next thing you know, he'll
be nailing criticisms up on a church door. All Hallows is only a few weeks
away, after all.
>Johanna called him a bigot.
Quelle surprise.
>It should perhaps be noted that Alan has not, apparently, restricted anyone's
>right to air their beliefs at the site, or tried to silence anyone. He's made
>a statement of his own beliefs, which are that Christianity is a negative
>institution that merits a highly-critical stance. He's expressed support for
>those who take such a stance, but hasn't attempted to keep anyone from
>expressing other beliefs or taking other stances, as far as I can tell.
>
>Johanna, in the name of tolerance, won't tolerate such views being aired, and
>has severed her connection with the site rather than be associated with
>unpopular speech of this sort.
So, does this mean they no longer have the most qualified reviewers on the
Internet? After all, she was the only one to present her qualifications,
and now she's quit.
--
The CFV for the removal of rec.arts.comics.other-media has been posted to
news.announce.newgroups. As this vote has the potential to impact traffic
throughout the rac.* hierarchy, I urge rac.ers to vote. Vote to keep it, vote
to remove it, vote to abstain, but please express interest in this vote.
JsnPritchett
Galaxy had nothing to do with the Transmet arguments, which were largely with
me. Her decision was spurred by remarks made on the message board by Alan
David Doane, the founder of the website. Doane posted several demeaning,
bigoted (he himself admits he's bigoted when it comes to Christianity), and
insulting remarks under a thread titled "Comics from Science Fiction Book
Club", believe it or not. Check it out for yourself and see if you agree.
GrapeApe
threads apparently, grabbing a peek at the most active message thread...
...I figured the entire thing for some sort of publicity gimmick to get people
to check out the site. Professional (in the armchair "I'm a writer on the web"
sense at least) arguers, writers of opinion, admitting to straws breaking their
camels back because of differing opinions, something they should expect, seems
a bit disingenuine.
A faked street fight to draw a crowd.
But I have yet another conspiracy theory hatching from my confusion.
The Transmet argument seemed to be related to a review by another reviewer-
which I couldn't find at the site ( genuine)
Couldn't find any of Joannas reviews there either ( pulled at her request I
imagine) or any reviews of Transmet, the Ellis red herring I was chasing, at
her own site.
Also thought it might be her apparently controversial take on Jinxworld,
raising the ruckus, the creator of which has a page hosted by the CBG folks as
well.
Of course both these books have their accolades, being lauded by squiddies,
fwiw to those who know what those awards are. I have read neither author
however.
So what is the conspiracy theory the question marks above my head were
hatching?
I thought that some bozo troll reading and stirring up those message boards
had cracked and brought some sort of frivelous lawsuit against the site.,
because all of the controversial reviews were not available.. Its like Gary
Groth taking the Comics Journal directly from the printing plant to the paper
shredders, or Name Witheld writing letters in invisible ink. The CBLDF hasn't
had to defend web content yet have they?
Now Donna may not have wished to bring any more attention to the site she left,
but her cryptic comments ended up doing exactly that with her announcement.
Best not to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, I hear.
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
> a statement of his own beliefs, which are that Christianity is a negative
> institution that merits a highly-critical stance.
Not into Christianity myself, but it's not an institution, it's a belief
system tainted by some very only institutions.
---
- Dug.
---
Not for human consumption.
To be read by Pets only.
---
Michael Alan Chary
Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>KurtBusiek at kurtb...@aol.comics wrote:
>
>> It should perhaps be noted that Alan has not, apparently, restricted anyone's
>> right to air their beliefs at the site, or tried to silence anyone.
>
>gays, wouldn't be tolerated by anyone with an ounce of sense.
Perhaps.
Speaking as someone with more than an ounce of sense, I'd tolerate it.
James Madison would tolerate it and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would
tolerate it, and Jesus Christ would tolerate it, for that matter. Agree
with it, no, but tolerate it? Get real.
I can get you directions to Voltaire's grave if you want to violate it or
drive a stake through his heart or repeal the 1st Amendment to the United
States Constitution or something.
Dementia
<joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>KurtBusiek at kurtb...@aol.comics wrote:
>
>> Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people
>> who write anti-Christian material.
>
>Alan Doane said a bit more than that; he made bigoted remarks about
>Christians as a group. (He agreed that he was a bigot -- his stance is not
>in question by anyone involved.) It was not about particular material; it
>was about prejudicial attitudes and inaccurate stereotypes about entire
>groups of people.
Inaccurate stereotypes is in itself a obscure statement since
stereotypes by definition are inaccurate. That said religion is
easier to stereotype because it's a belief system. As an aside, I hate
people using the word bigot when applied to religion. IMO religion
doesn't deserve the same respect as race since one is merely a belief
system and the other is a factor of birth.
>> She refused to read it
>
>I refused to discuss bigotry with the bigot, yes. I also refuse to read KKK
>propaganda for similar reasons.
Before you throw the KKK flag in the ring, was it HATE literature.
>> and expressed a lack of tolerance for any expression of sentiments she
>> considers bigotry.
>
>Not true. I asked that Alan apologize to me for the insults and keep this
>prejudice off a comic message board. I at no point asked him to change his
>mind or attempted to tell him what to think; I only asked him to show those
>who believe otherwise common courtesy. He refused and continued insulting an
>entire group of people based on what they choose to believe.
I read some of his remarks and all I can say is that he won't have
many Christians visiting his board. Simple as that. On the other
hand I feel it's within your rights to express your views and decide
to disassociate yourself because of them. Now saying all that lets
not forget that Christians are the largest group of bigots towards
homosexuality. How can you be angry that Alan doesn't like
Christians, and call him a bigot, when Christians tend to think
homosexuality is a sin and AIDS is a form of punishment.
>
>> There was a little more back-and-forth,
>
>Not true. There was a request for an apology, there was a refusal, and there
>was a resignation. That was it. In fact, the primary discussion took place
>on a closed mailing list, so you didn't see it.
You only have to read Alan's one post on the message board to get the
gist of it.
>
>> and she quit, carrying the ball over
>> here to get maximum coverage for her intolerance of Alan's views
>
>Not true. I posted here because I had been vocal about my support of the
>site, so I wanted it to be clear that I was no longer associated with it for
>moral reasons. The site is frequently hyped here, so it seemed appropriate.
Actually up until now I'd never even been to the site. Not a bad
site.
>
>> It should perhaps be noted that Alan has not, apparently, restricted anyone's
>> right to air their beliefs at the site, or tried to silence anyone.
>
>It should be noted that Alan's comments, if they had been about blacks or
>gays, wouldn't be tolerated by anyone with an ounce of sense.
That is because choosing religion is like choosing what newspaper you
want to read. You can change your religion any time you want, you can
choose not to be religious or you can choose to be "sort of"
religious. None of those apply to homosexuality or race.
PS I don't think Preacher is anti-Christian. Anti implies against
whereas Preacher expresses a variation of the mythology. Frankly the
only similarity between Preacher and Christianity is the use of the
being God and the Angels. Everything else is artistic license on
Ennis's part.
KurtBusiek
gays, wouldn't be tolerated by anyone with an ounce of sense.>>
Had they been about the Moonies or the John Birch Society, I imagine they'd
have gone down just fine.
You're comparing apples and oranges -- a belief system with an accident of
birth.
> I'm sure Alan appreciates your defense of his free speech, Mr. Busiek -- but
doesn't that right apply to me as well?>
In what way have I infringed your freedom of speech? I support your right to
say what you like, just as I do Alan's -- and, for that matter, your right to
be intolerant of his beliefs to the point where you won't subject yourself to
them or associate with him. I support my own right to find your statements
intolerant and close-minded, too.
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
<kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
> >>It should be noted that Alan's comments, if they had been about blacks or
> gays, wouldn't be tolerated by anyone with an ounce of sense.>>
>
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges -- a belief system with an accident of
> birth.
>
uhm, accident of birth?
good thing you're not running for president Kurt.
---SCAVENGER
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
<Pine.OSF.4.05.100100...@barra.jcu.edu.au>, Paul
\"Duggy\" Duggan <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2000, KurtBusiek wrote:
> > a statement of his own beliefs, which are that Christianity is a negative
> > institution that merits a highly-critical stance.
>
> Not into Christianity myself, but it's not an institution, it's a belief
> system tainted by some very only institutions.
>
very only?
---SCAVENGER
Joel Luber
"Dementia" <comic.g...@home.com> wrote in message
news:23untsciu68dmqg0t...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:07:54 -0400, Johanna Draper Carlson
> <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
> >KurtBusiek at kurtb...@aol.comics wrote:
> >> and expressed a lack of tolerance for any expression of sentiments she
> >> considers bigotry.
> >
> >Not true. I asked that Alan apologize to me for the insults and keep this
> >prejudice off a comic message board. I at no point asked him to change
his
> >mind or attempted to tell him what to think; I only asked him to show
those
> >who believe otherwise common courtesy. He refused and continued insulting
an
> >entire group of people based on what they choose to believe.
>
> I read some of his remarks and all I can say is that he won't have
> many Christians visiting his board. Simple as that. On the other
> hand I feel it's within your rights to express your views and decide
> to disassociate yourself because of them. Now saying all that lets
> not forget that Christians are the largest group of bigots towards
> homosexuality. How can you be angry that Alan doesn't like
> Christians, and call him a bigot, when Christians tend to think
> homosexuality is a sin and AIDS is a form of punishment.
>
I am not a usual vocal participant in this forum; I simply read through it
now and again, but when I am insulted to this extent I cannot refrain from
posting.
It is true that most people vocally opposed to gay rights are Christians.
It is not true, however, to say that most Christians are opposed to gay
rights. There is a big difference between those two statements. Most
Christians in the United States are what could probably be considered on the
liberal side of moderate[1]. Pat Robertson and his ilk are a small
minority, albeit a very vocal minority, but still small.
Thank you.
Joel Luber
[1] Assuming that a member of a national Christian organization believes the
official doctrine. Also discounting non-observant Roman Catholics, the
largest single religious group in the country.
Dale Hicks
> > not forget that Christians are the largest group of bigots towards
> > homosexuality.
So, what comics are worth reading?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
KurtBusiek
A very good thing for us all.
But what's wrong with the phrase "accident of birth"? It doesn't signify
anything wrong, merely that something came out the way it did because of
factors outside the person's control -- he was born that way.
Yarn Spinner
>But what's wrong with the phrase "accident of birth"?
The only thing wrong with it is it gives someone who wants to nit-pick
something to attach to.
Jesse Leon McCann, comic/children's book writer-guy
*What I'm working on RIGHT NOW:
"Scooby-Doo & The Jungle Jeopardy"
*Visit my cheezo-web page
http://hometown.aol.com/jleon2001/myhomepage/index.html
GrapeApe
>
>But what's wrong with the phrase "accident of birth"? It doesn't signify
>anything wrong, merely that something came out the way it did because of
>factors outside the person's control -- he was born that way.
Someone takes the phrase 'accident of birth" to be referring to the birth of
Jesus Christ.
A minority member interprets the phrase "accident of birth" to mean that their
very existance is an accident. Or that every member of their minority is a
bastard of some sort.
The group in question is a birth defect of some sort.
Accident has a connotation which will be applied regardless of intent. It isn't
what you signify, it is what the electorate hears.
Alan David Doane
>It should perhaps be noted that Alan has not, apparently, restricted anyone's
>right to air their beliefs at the site, or tried to silence anyone.
Nope. I have full control over the message board, and have to date
deleted one post: one of my own with an incorrect link in it.
> He's made
>a statement of his own beliefs, which are that Christianity is a negative
>institution that merits a highly-critical stance. He's expressed support for
>those who take such a stance, but hasn't attempted to keep anyone from
>expressing other beliefs or taking other stances, as far as I can tell.
>
>Johanna, in the name of tolerance, won't tolerate such views being aired, and
>has severed her connection with the site rather than be associated with
>unpopular speech of this sort.
Your summation pretty much matches my experience over the last few
hours. Thanks, Kurt, for providing a primer for those who might have
missed it on the Galaxy message board.
Alan David Doane
http://www.comicbookgalaxy.com
Alan David Doane
wrote:
>Actually, not to speak for Johanna or anything, but her decision to leave CB
>Galaxy had nothing to do with the Transmet arguments, which were largely with
>me. Her decision was spurred by remarks made on the message board by Alan
>David Doane, the founder of the website.
"ONe of" the founders, thanks.
>Doane posted several demeaning,
>bigoted (he himself admits he's bigoted when it comes to Christianity), and
>insulting remarks under a thread titled "Comics from Science Fiction Book
>Club", believe it or not. Check it out for yourself and see if you agree.
Yes, and see if you have the presence of mind to pick up the tongue in
cheek nature of the post, which Jason clearly does not.
Alan David Doane
wrote:
>
>
>KurtBusiek wrote:
>> Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people who
>> write anti-Christian material.
>...
>> a statement of his own beliefs, which are that Christianity is a negative
>> institution that merits a highly-critical stance. He's expressed support for
>
>Hey, what is wrong with that. Christianity IS negative.
>
>Take care,
>nenad
Would you like some free comics?
Alan David Doane
<joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>KurtBusiek at kurtb...@aol.comics wrote:
>
>> Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people
>> who write anti-Christian material.
>
>Alan Doane said a bit more than that; he made bigoted remarks about
>Christians as a group. (He agreed that he was a bigot -- his stance is not
>in question by anyone involved.) It was not about particular material; it
>was about prejudicial attitudes and inaccurate stereotypes about entire
>groups of people.
If you think, for example, that the Spanish Inquisition is an
inaccurate representation of xtian history, I'd love to hear more.
You, on the other hand, have refused to read about the history I have
offered up, proving Jesus Christ never even existed, and was in fact
an amalgamation of earlier, pagan sun gods.
KurtBusiek
isn't what you signify, it is what the electorate hears.>>
Darn good thing I'm not running for President.
I tend to use phrases according to their generally-accepted meaning, rather
than pulling them to bits and taking the bits out of context. I realize that's
a bad thing in politics, but I don't expect I'd get far in politics even
considering my pesky verbal habits.
Alan David Doane
wrote:
>[1] Assuming that a member of a national Christian organization believes the
>official doctrine. Also discounting non-observant Roman Catholics, the
>largest single religious group in the country.
Yes, but Southern Baptists believe Catholics are idol-worshipping
pseudo-pagans who will burn in hell.
GrapeApe
>>Hey, what is wrong with that. Christianity IS negative.
>>
>>Take care,
>>nenad
>
>Would you like some free comics?
Are they Chick pamphlets?
Rich Johnston
Ellis Delphi forum".
I can appreciate the work of people whose beliefs I personally abhor. The first
time Alan expressed his, um, beliefs to me I was a little taken aback (basically
it was asking me how I dare refer to Jesus Christ as a real person in a Swamp
Thing-related story - and the use of the word x-tian which took me a day or so
to work out) but y'know, hey, a lot of people have wackier beliefs (Dave Sim,
Steve Ditko, Peter Bagge, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison) and their work is not only
fine, but outstanding.
If anything I'm surprised that Johanna didn't read the Ministry columns stuff
when dealing with Alan. I know I did - good writing too.
Rich Johnston twis...@hotmail.com
All The Rage and Rich's Rumblings at http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com
Ramblings 2000 at http://come.to/ramblings & http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Selling lots of comics at http://www.geocities.com/evenwood/sale.html
KRothst402
Kurt said this...
"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people
who
write anti-Christian material."
Now change that for a moment to...
"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-jew stuff, and more power to people who
write anti-jew material."
Had this been the actual case, would this thread even have a single post
implying Johanna has a double standard on tolerance?
Dementia
If you really want to nitpick we're all accidents at birth given the
actual probability of that those two human beings and that sperm and
that egg blah blah blah ;)
Dementia
wrote:
>
Well, yes, I'll give you that. I don't think all Christians are
homophobic. I was merely trying to make a point. My apologies.
Dementia
alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown (Alan David Doane) wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:07:54 -0400, Johanna Draper Carlson
><joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
>>KurtBusiek at kurtb...@aol.comics wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people
>>> who write anti-Christian material.
>>
>>Alan Doane said a bit more than that; he made bigoted remarks about
>>Christians as a group. (He agreed that he was a bigot -- his stance is not
>>in question by anyone involved.) It was not about particular material; it
>>was about prejudicial attitudes and inaccurate stereotypes about entire
>>groups of people.
>
>If you think, for example, that the Spanish Inquisition is an
>inaccurate representation of xtian history, I'd love to hear more.
>
>You, on the other hand, have refused to read about the history I have
>offered up, proving Jesus Christ never even existed, and was in fact
>an amalgamation of earlier, pagan sun gods.
This is actually proven by a number of people. Hell (oops), you can
take any backgrounds in English literature course, read about Homer,
Virgil etc and come to that conclusion yourself by reading of Hell
hundreds of years prior to the birth of Christ. This is not to say
Christianity hasn't done good in it's time but that those pesky
Inquisitions, witch burnings and crusades tend to annoy people like
Alan.
Dementia
>
>
>Kurt said this...
>
>"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people
>who
>write anti-Christian material."
>
>Now change that for a moment to...
>
>"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-jew stuff, and more power to people who
>write anti-jew material."
>
>
>Had this been the actual case, would this thread even have a single post
>implying Johanna has a double standard on tolerance?
If the holocaust didn't happen, no. I really think you also do a
disservice to the events of the holocaust to compare that horrible
genocide to somether where someone is questioning another persons
belief system. The reason is that the holocaust happened wasn't out
of an anger at the Jewish belief system but a specific manipulation in
using at the envy and resentment of the financial success of the
Jewish people to bring the financially distressed German people
together behind Hitler ("it's the Jews fault") - the holocaust had
very little to do with the Jewish peoples religious beliefs. Besides
don't forget that the Jewish people don't believe in Christ either and
were actually the people who had Christ crucified (as per the New
Testament).
Rich Johnston
says...
>Had this been the actual case, would this thread even have a single post
>implying Johanna has a double standard on tolerance?
Probably. People like to argue the toss here.
Maybe Johanna isn't as pro-free-speech as some people. But then neither am I.
Johanna's withdrawn her labour in protest at the site being someone she can't
reconcile working for. More than I did when I was working with Nestle as a
client for example.
Robert Carnegie
kurtb...@aol.comics (KurtBusiek) wrote:
> >>good thing you're not running for president Kurt.>>
>
> A very good thing for us all.
You pretty much have to pass a medical, don't you?
If the President were writing _Avengers_, maybe they wouldn't
have all that trouble with federal and FAA approval and clearances.
Or maybe they'd have nothing in the comics _but_ squabbles with federal
authorities, the House of Representatives, etc., and no time for any
adventures...
> But what's wrong with the phrase "accident of birth"? It doesn't
signify
> anything wrong, merely that something came out the way it did because
of
> factors outside the person's control -- he was born that way.
I hear that it isn't universally accepted that folks are born gay,
although I'd take their word for it. Whether doubters are numerous
enough to get you not elected for saying it is another matter.
Heck, if it comes down to Robert Kelly, Lex Luthor, or Kurt Busiek,
you'd get _my_ vote - if I had one ;-)
Robert Carnegie
Glasgow, Scotland
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> IMO religion doesn't deserve the same respect as race since one is merely
> a belief system and the other is a factor of birth.
I would love to discuss this statement in depth with you, but this is a
comics newsgroup.
> Before you throw the KKK flag in the ring, was it HATE literature.
The key message of Alan's was "all Christians are idiots," so I'd say if
it's not about hate, it's darned close. This is the same guy who's said that
Christians are a "waste of oxygen."
> I feel it's within your rights to express your views and decide
> to disassociate yourself because of them.
Thank you -- that's the key point here. I cannot continue to associate with
a self-proclaimed bigot who won't tolerate diversity of religious views.
Every statement I've seen Alan make about Christians (or Christian groups)
has been wrong in some way (a common problem with over-broad
generalization). Since he's not part of the group, that's not necessarily
surprising, but it does make me chuckle when he calls me close-minded, since
he ignores any evidence from a member of that group that contradicts his
views.
Does Christianity have a checkered history? Sure, I'm not denying that. Does
that means it's valid to make derogatory statements about all Christians? No
more so than it's valid to make statements about all blacks being criminals
because a high percentage of the US prison population is black.
> How can you be angry that Alan doesn't like
> Christians, and call him a bigot, when Christians tend to think
> homosexuality is a sin and AIDS is a form of punishment.
None of the Christians I've ever known have ever considered AIDS punishment
for gays. I think you may be falling into the same trap here. Besides, since
when has "they do it too" (right or wrong as the statement might be) been an
excuse for bigotry?
> PS I don't think Preacher is anti-Christian.
Neither do I.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Maybe Johanna isn't as pro-free-speech as some people.
I support people's right to say whatever they want. However, that includes
ME being able to say why I think they're wrong and why I don't want to
associate with them.
> Johanna's withdrawn her labour in protest at the site being someone she can't
> reconcile working for.
Exactly. How could I continue working for someone who thinks I'm a
"brainless sheep" because I don't believe as he does?
Rich Johnston
>Besides
>don't forget that the Jewish people don't believe in Christ either and
>were actually the people who had Christ crucified (as per the New
>Testament).
I just love the idea of crucifying someone you don't believe exists. Anyway.
From those I know, most think he existed. And of course, Jesus was Jewish, as
were his parents, brothers and sisters, friends, disciples, followers and most
everyone else in the New Testament.
If they all existed, that is, Alan.
John Northey
>Had they been about the Moonies or the John Birch Society, I imagine they'd
>have gone down just fine.
>
>You're comparing apples and oranges -- a belief system with an accident of
>birth.
My first thought here is 'what about Jews'? Same principle (belief
system you can abandon at any time) but different standards.
I think the key here is the fact Christians are a very large group in
our society thus are viewed as unable to be threatened by words
whereas other religions (such as the Jewish religion) are not or have
had a history of being oppressed. That is why negative comments about
Christians will be ignored by most and those who react to those
negative comments are told to respect free speech whereas negative
comments about Jews will get negative feedback with few arguing for
free speech.
To me this is fairly simple. Johanna didn't agree with views
expressed at a site she was providing content to. She decides to
leave due to those views. She lets others know why she left. Both
sides continue to exercise their freedom of speech. End of story.
John Northey.
Crazy Canadian and creator of the Fans of Teri Sue Wood site.
http://www.sentex.net/~jnorthey/TSW
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I support my own right to find your statements intolerant and close-minded,
> too.
Strange, then, that Alan's original statements of intolerance don't raise
your ire the same way. I'm darned confused about why you're criticizing the
person who spoke out AGAINST intolerance if you're so concerned about it.
Elayne Riggs
> Johanna, in the name of tolerance, won't tolerate such views being aired
Geez, Kurt, this whole synopsis sounds a bit biased. From what I gather
it can just as easily be phrased something like: Johanna, feeling Alan's
views are intolerant, does not wish to be associated with his site any
more. The *initial* intolerance would seem to be expressed by Alan
encouraging anti-Christian messages-- not critical scrutiny as you seem to
interpret it, but messages deliberately biased against Christianity--
which would make Johanna's decision a reaction *to* intolerance, not
intolerance itself.
I'm not a particularly religious person, but I can't see how a lack of
respect for someone's beliefs (as long as those beliefs aren't pushed upon
others) can be seen as anything *but* intolerance. Johanna's discomfort
would therefore seem to be a logical reaction.
Moreover, although I haven't read through this thread yet I can't imagine
Johanna doing anything like encouraging people to boycott Alan's site.
*That* I could see as evidence of intolerance. Choosing not to be
associated with something that makes her uncomfortable, however-- well,
that's just choice.
- Elayne
The Brandon Who Rowed Christopher Columbus Ashore
<comic.g...@home.com> wrote:
>
> If you really want to nitpick we're all accidents at birth given the
> actual probability of that those two human beings and that sperm and
> that egg blah blah blah ;)
mmm, thermodynamic miracles
--
-Brandon Blatcher (spamblocked, remove fingers to reply)
yeah.
Oren Ronen
news:20001005061116...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
>
>
> Kurt said this...
>
> "Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to
people
> who
> write anti-Christian material."
>
> Now change that for a moment to...
>
> "Alan Doane said he's all for anti-jew stuff, and more power to people who
> write anti-jew material."
>
> implying Johanna has a double standard on tolerance?
Depends. Is he talking about the jewish religion or about the jewish "race"?
The first is practiced by choice, the second by birth.
Hell, I am jewish by birth, but have almost no tolerance towards the jewish
religion. In fact, I'm an atheist.
Oren Ronen
or...@isdn.net.il
Elayne Riggs
> IMO religion
> doesn't deserve the same respect as race since one is merely a belief
> system and the other is a factor of birth.
Interesting. I'd almost have the opposite view, that since religious
belief is a conscious choice, a matter of free will rather than an
accident of birth, the person who makes that choice should be accorded
more respect for having exercised said free will. Certainly that's part
and parcel of a lot of political propaganda in the US, that we merit the
respect of the rest of the world because our political system supposedly
encourages freedom and diversity rather than intolerance and sameness.
> Before you throw the KKK flag in the ring, was it HATE literature.
From Alan's posting in this thread, it does seem as though he has no use
whatsoever for Christians. That would probably fall under the category of
hatred. If he'd expressed an opinion along the lines of "I think the
Christian Church has caused irreparable harm but I don't put that
institutional onus on the individuals who practice Christianity" (similar
to saying "I think the US is a superpower bully-boy but that's not really
the fault of all American citizens") that might be different, but he
doesn't seem to have made such a distinction.
> lets not forget that Christians are the largest group of bigots towards
> homosexuality.
Not true at all. First off, in general most institutionalized religions
tend to frown on homosexuality. However, Christianity, like other
religions, does have branches of tolerance and acceptance of gays. A
simple website search with keywords "gay Christian" reveals tons of
mailing lists, chat groups, web boards and ministries that affirm and
welcome gays. So you see, not *all* "Christians tend to think
homosexuality is a sin and AIDS is a form of punishment."
>>It should be noted that Alan's comments, if they had been about blacks or
>>gays, wouldn't be tolerated by anyone with an ounce of sense.
> That is because choosing religion is like choosing what newspaper you
> want to read.
I think that assumption is incorrect, and belittles what to many (if not
most) religious people is a very serious and life-affecting decision.
They don't call 'em "epiphanies" for nothing.
> PS I don't think Preacher is anti-Christian. Anti implies against
> whereas Preacher expresses a variation of the mythology.
Garth Ennis doesn't strike me as anti-Christian, but he does strike me as
skeptical of institutionalized *anything*, which is understandable.
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
> gays, wouldn't be tolerated by anyone with an ounce of sense.>>
> Had they been about the Moonies or the John Birch Society, I imagine they'd
> have gone down just fine.
> You're comparing apples and oranges -- a belief system with an accident of
> birth.
So anti-Semitism is okay too? Or is it bad to hate Jews because we're
born Jewish, but acceptable to slam Christians because they're not? Or
are both religions conscious decisions that one makes within one's
lifetime, tradition be damned (Jewish tradition states that if your
mother's Jewish, you are and always will be even if outwardly you embrace
another faith), and therefore fair game for hatred directed against them?
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
> If you think, for example, that the Spanish Inquisition is an
> inaccurate representation of xtian history, I'd love to hear more.
Not of history, but of current belief? Sure, I'd argue that. I have a
number of religious Christian friends, and while I certainly don't agree
with them about all that Jesus stuff I've yet to see any resemblance
between them and Torquemada.
I respect those Christians who believe that God is Love, and have little
use for those Christians who judge others despite God's admonition not to.
I tend not to view the latter as true adherents to Christ's teachings
anyway. (I'm sure you've heard the oft-repeated observation that if Jesus
were to walk the Earth today he'd probably denounce his primary
spokespeople first for daring to express their bigotry using his name...
and that he'd either wind up behind bars for stirring up class revolt, or
trivialized and jeered at for being a bleeding-heart loony...)
- Elayne
Aaron Michael Newton
: religious. None of those apply to homosexuality or race.
Last I checked, the homosexuality issue is still up for debate. Many still
consider it a pattern of behaviour.
-Aaron
--
****
Aaron Newton - fign...@louisville.edu - IRC: FigNewton
Richard Pace
Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> Dementia at comic.g...@home.com wrote:
>
> > IMO religion doesn't deserve the same respect as race since one is merely
> > a belief system and the other is a factor of birth.
>
> I would love to discuss this statement in depth with you, but this is a
> comics newsgroup.
Point -- however . . . .
>
>
> > Before you throw the KKK flag in the ring, was it HATE literature.
>
> The key message of Alan's was "all Christians are idiots," so I'd say if
> it's not about hate, it's darned close. This is the same guy who's said that
> Christians are a "waste of oxygen."
I'd say the same thing about Scientologists, Moonies and that other weirdo cult
-- wassit, Eckanar -- or was it Amway?
I'd say the same thing about Reagan Republicans and members of the new Alliance
Party in Canada.
Thinking a belief group is stupid isn't the same as hating a group largely
defined by genetics.
> > I feel it's within your rights to express your views and decide
> > to disassociate yourself because of them.
>
> Thank you -- that's the key point here. I cannot continue to associate with
> a self-proclaimed bigot who won't tolerate diversity of religious views.
It seems he's tolerating them quite well -- it's his feeling free to oppose and
criticize them publicly that's created an issue.
> Does Christianity have a checkered history? Sure, I'm not denying that. Does
> that means it's valid to make derogatory statements about all Christians?
It's valid when making statements about Christianity and its negative impact on
Western and other cultures.
> No
> more so than it's valid to make statements about all blacks being criminals
> because a high percentage of the US prison population is black.
Yet, that information is valid when exposing the unbalanced dispensation of
justice in the US -- more non-blacks commit crimes in total, yet more blacks
(and other non-whites) serve time for lesser offences and also receive maximum
sentences far more often than whites.
I can fairly say that Christianity has resulted in more genocide and social
suffering than any other group in history, yet I can't say that any individual
Christian is responsible for the same. the problem with institutionalized
religion is that the individuals matter very little to the overall scope of what
they do.
> > How can you be angry that Alan doesn't like
> > Christians, and call him a bigot, when Christians tend to think
> > homosexuality is a sin and AIDS is a form of punishment.
>
> None of the Christians I've ever known have ever considered AIDS punishment
> for gays. I think you may be falling into the same trap here. Besides, since
> when has "they do it too" (right or wrong as the statement might be) been an
> excuse for bigotry?
Yet all the people I've met who've espoused that particular bit of nonsense were
self described Christians.
I think the main reasons many Christians get tarred with the same brush is that
they're part of a larger group with segments quite vocal about these issues.
It's akin to "soft policy" members of the KKK claiming that they don't want to
see Blacks and Jews killed just exported as a defence against the more extreme
generalizations of the KKK as an institution.
By and large, I think Christianity is a neat idea -- especially when followed to
the more Left ideology -- but, in past execution -- has failed pretty miserably
overall. What Christianity needs are more Romeros and fewer Pat Robertsons.
Richard
of course, what the world needs is more food. . .
http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite
--
The Gallery
http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/
After October 1st it will be found at
http://www3.sympatico.ca/richardpace/
Richard Pace
Oren Ronen wrote:
>
> Depends. Is he talking about the jewish religion or about the jewish "race"?
> The first is practiced by choice, the second by birth.
> Hell, I am jewish by birth, but have almost no tolerance towards the jewish
> religion. In fact, I'm an atheist.
>
> Oren Ronen
> or...@isdn.net.il
. . .with a real cool name!
Richard
KurtBusiek
"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people
who write anti-Christian material."
Now change that for a moment to...
"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-jew stuff, and more power to people who
write anti-jew material."
Had this been the actual case, would this thread even have a single post
implying Johanna has a double standard on tolerance? >>
Two responses:
First, you're arguing that it's the form of the condemnation that's
objectionable, not the content. That you can fill the same form with other
content, and then directly compare it. But since we can fill that form with
content such as "Nazi" or "Fascist," and wind up with something few people
would object to, it would seem that's a faulty argument.
Second, slipping the word "Jew" in there -- since "Jew" describes a culture and
an ethnic group as well as a religion -- is far more comparable to slipping the
word "black" or "gay" in there, rather than other systems of philosphical
beliefs.
The specters you're conjuring up are of people being discriminated against
because of their birth, not someone's ability to strongly disagree with a set
of beliefs.
KurtBusiek
I tried to strip it of buzzwords, and apply the same terminology to both sides.
>> From what I gather it can just as easily be phrased something like:
Johanna, feeling Alan's views are intolerant, does not wish to be associated
with his site any more. >>
It could be. However, I think it's notable that nobody seems to understand
what "intolerant" means. They're throwing the word around as if it means
"insulting" or "unpleasant."
intolerant
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious
matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional
rights : BIGOTED
Alan has expressed his views. He hasn't tried to silence anyone, or interfered
with anyone else's expression of their views -- he supplies and support equal
freedom of expression. He's shown no sign of being unwilling to grant or share
social, political or professional rights. He's shown no sign of being
unwilling or unable to endure Christians.
He doesn't like their belief system. He doesn't have a great deal of respect
for those who choose to believe it. But dislike and disrespect don't
constitute intolerance.
Only one person, in all this, has tried to get someone else to silence
themselves, has found their views so unpleasant to her that she will not endure
them -- and directly asked for a promise that they would not be aired in public
again.
That's intolerance. That's why I find it odd that "He's intolerant" is being
used as a justification for intolerance.
Johanna has every right to disassociate herself from the site if she truly is
unable or unwilling to endure Alan's expressions of opinion. There's nothing
illegal about intolerance -- heck, we've gone to war, at times, because we
could no longer tolerate certain views and actions.
But call it what it is. Don't dress up the other guy in the robes you're
wearing yourself.
KurtBusiek
> too.
>>Strange, then, that Alan's original statements of intolerance don't raise
your ire the same way. I'm darned confused about why you're criticizing the
person who spoke out AGAINST intolerance if you're so concerned about it.>>
The person who spoke out against intolerance is the one who won't tolerate
another's beliefs and tried to get that other person to silence himself.
The person being called intolerant has expressed an unpopular opinion but made
no effort to silence anyone, has shown no indication of refusing to tolerate
the expression of beliefs he doesn't like.
KurtBusiek
born Jewish, but acceptable to slam Christians because they're not? Or
are both religions conscious decisions that one makes within one's
lifetime, tradition be damned (Jewish tradition states that if your
mother's Jewish, you are and always will be even if outwardly you embrace
another faith), and therefore fair game for hatred directed against them?>>
It's certainly fair game to disagree vehemently with the belief system that
informs Judaism, and to think that people who believe it are deluded -- that's
an intellectual argument.
I find it hard to believe that you're arguing for the idea that there are
philosophical or religious beliefs that can't be disagreed with, can't be
disliked -- and that the holders of such tenets can't be thought foolish for
doing so.
Making lampshades out of people for their beliefs -- that's another matter.
Denying them rights, that's another matter.
Of course, Alan's not doing that, so it kind of ruins the emotional analogy
you're trying to draw.
Bear
Rich Johnston <twis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <6enotsojrsutf4ofe...@4ax.com>, Dementia
> says...
> > ... don't forget that the Jewish people don't believe in Christ
> > either and were actually the people who had Christ crucified (as
> > per the New Testament).
>
> I just love the idea of crucifying someone you don't believe exists.
Jewish people don't believe that Jesus is the Christ, The Messiah and
Universal Saviour. Doesn't mean they don't believe Jesus existed.
Jesus is also the Lamb of God and The Good Shepherd.
> From those I know, most think he existed. And of course, Jesus was
> Jewish, as were his parents, brothers and sisters, friends, disciples,
> followers and most everyone else in the New Testament.
> Rich Johnston
Reminds me of a joke, ask me and I'll post it (involves Jews and
Christians; I told it to some friends and only afterwards found out one
of them was Jewish. They weren't offended though).
--
Bear, Keeper of the Household
Panic in Year Zero
http://pulpkitchen.50megs.com/
Aaron Michael Newton
: all comes down, my tax dollars are still paying for your church.
... not paying for /my/ church. Those are the kinds of inaccurate blanket
statements that start these kinds of messes.
Oren Ronen
news:39DCB0F6...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> Oren Ronen wrote:
>
> >
> > Depends. Is he talking about the jewish religion or about the jewish
"race"?
> > The first is practiced by choice, the second by birth.
> > Hell, I am jewish by birth, but have almost no tolerance towards the
jewish
> > religion. In fact, I'm an atheist.
> >
> > Oren Ronen
> > or...@isdn.net.il
>
> . . .with a real cool name!
Is it? Quite common over here. Oren is hebrew for a pine tree. Ronen is past
tense of the verb sing, and, in fact, is also very common as a first name
(and requires me to state explicitly which is my first name and which is my
last name when I introduce myself to people).
Oren Ronen
or...@isdn.net.il
Dementia
wrote:
>In article <6enotsojrsutf4ofe...@4ax.com>, Dementia says...
>
>>Besides
>>don't forget that the Jewish people don't believe in Christ either and
>>were actually the people who had Christ crucified (as per the New
>>Testament).
>
>I just love the idea of crucifying someone you don't believe exists. Anyway.
Don't mistake what I mean. They acknowledged that Christ was a person
but they didn't believe he was the son of God. They were upset that
he implied such and stated he should be crucified for saying so.
>From those I know, most think he existed. And of course, Jesus was Jewish, as
>were his parents, brothers and sisters, friends, disciples, followers and most
>everyone else in the New Testament.
It's possible that Jesus existed but it's the question of his
resurrection that is what most people really question (which is the
crux of the Christian religion). Jewish religion does not believe in
the New Testament and Christ was crucified by the Jewish people on the
basis of him believing he was the son of God. It is more complicated
now because most Christians are Gentile as per the New Testament and
are not God's chosen people.
Aaron Michael Newton
: If it has a tax-exempt status, then yes, my tax dollars are paying
: for /your/ church.
First of all, I don't think tax-exempt status has anything to do with your
tax dollars paying for my church.
That said, to the best of my knowlege, my church pays any and all taxes
that are applicable. Sales tax on purchases, property tax on the church
grounds, etc etc.
Dementia
Pine Tree? Any reason they would pick a hewbrew word that would mean
pine tree? (I would assume a nod to another relative).
PS I'm atheist as well. More power to you brother!!! ;)
Rich Johnston
>
>Rich Johnston at twis...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Maybe Johanna isn't as pro-free-speech as some people.
>
>I support people's right to say whatever they want. However, that includes
>ME being able to say why I think they're wrong and why I don't want to
>associate with them.
The quote oft associated with free speech is something like "I hate what you
say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".
I believe you told Alan that unless he stopped saying bigoted anti-Christain
stuff, you wouldn't contribute to the site.
It wouldn't mean he'd stop thinking them, just stop publically saying them. And
I don't think this is a very pro-free speech thing to do or so. I think you're
right though.
I blame the American Constitution. It gives the illusion that free speech ia
always right and a high moral principle. I don't think that's always the case.
>> Johanna's withdrawn her labour in protest at the site being someone she can't
>> reconcile working for.
>
>Exactly. How could I continue working for someone who thinks I'm a
>"brainless sheep" because I don't believe as he does?
What if he continued to think it, but just didn't publically say it?
Richard Pace
Oren Ronen wrote:
> Is it? Quite common over here. Oren is hebrew for a pine tree. Ronen is past
> tense of the verb sing, and, in fact, is also very common as a first name
> (and requires me to state explicitly which is my first name and which is my
> last name when I introduce myself to people).
Well, I think it's be pretty uncommon on this side of the world -- sounds like a
fantasy author trying to get the idea on an iron masterless samurai into a
character name . . . though Pine Sung is neat too . . .
Richard Pace
Dementia wrote:
>
> It's possible that Jesus existed but it's the question of his
> resurrection that is what most people really question (which is the
> crux of the Christian religion).
Heh!
Elayne Riggs
> I find it hard to believe that you're arguing for the idea that there are
> philosophical or religious beliefs that can't be disagreed with
Good, because that's not what I'm arguing for at all. Disagreement is all
well and good, but intolerance is a far different matter.
- Elayne
owene...@my-deja.com
alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown (Alan David Doane) wrote:
> > If you think, for example, that the Spanish Inquisition is an
> inaccurate representation of xtian history, I'd love to hear more.
>
history Alan, most reputable historians make an effort not to use
cutesy little labels.
I'm not a Christian, I dont have much time for Christianity myself but
the Spanish Inquisition was a political response to Spanish political
problems rubber stamped by a Catholic Church that was itself a
political machine it has no connections to either Christianity as
presented in the bible or the conduct of Christians today. Non-
Christian countries have historically come up with similar programmes
to deal with potentially dangerous conquered peoples. It was a
political act and like most political acts it was wrapped up in double
talk and self justification. Does the Spanish Inquisition show that
medieval Catholicism had no problems with taking a rather brutal line
in repression well sure but it doesn't say anything about actual
beliefs. Repression of other catholics who were similarly politically
dangerous was just as brutal.
Yes it was carried out by people who claimed it was God's will but
people claim all sorts of crap every day, it was still those peoples
actions not the belief system that was at fault. It is also largely
irrelevant to the current day, if anything it is more relevant when
talking about current castillan attitudes to other ethnic groups be
they Basque or Catalan than to the attitudes and beliefs of American
Christians many of whom belong to churches who left catholicism because
of such actions.
Have Christians throughout History done many terrible things, just
about any group with a history stretching back more than a few decades
has done the same be they religious or ethnic or anything else. Holding
the deeds of people centuries ago against people today isn't part of an
intellectual attack on beliefs it is simply bigotry. I've studied the
15th and 16th centuries and I and many of my college tutors had similar
reactions to your own but I can't think of any who were small minded
enough to hold it against people today. The studying of history teaches
you to do just the opposite.
Dementia
Columbus Ashore <nom...@worldnet.fingers.att.net> wrote:
>In article <osmots8qcmisvuitm...@4ax.com>, Dementia
><comic.g...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you really want to nitpick we're all accidents at birth given the
>> actual probability of that those two human beings and that sperm and
>> that egg blah blah blah ;)
>
>mmm, thermodynamic miracles
I expect you've just created another PC term.
Oren Ronen
news:oc5ptssqv3je35fog...@4ax.com...
> >Is it? Quite common over here. Oren is hebrew for a pine tree. Ronen is
past
> >tense of the verb sing, and, in fact, is also very common as a first name
> >(and requires me to state explicitly which is my first name and which is
my
> >last name when I introduce myself to people).
>
> pine tree? (I would assume a nod to another relative).
Like I said, it's very common. A lot of modern hebrew names are taken from
trees. Except from me, there are 2 more Orens in the company I work for,
which has about 100 people.
My own personal story behind the name is a pine tree right outside the
window of the hospital room my mother was in after my birth.
Oren Ronen
or...@isdn.net.il
Talon The Merciless
>
>Due to the editor's bigotry against those who do not share his religious
>beliefs, I am forced to end my association with Comic Book Galaxy
>immediately. My reviews will continue to appear here and at Comics Worth
>Reading, http://www.comicsworthreading.com.
>
>I regret that things came to this, but I cannot continue to support
>intolerance and prejudice.
It was just a matter of time.
Congrats on sticking to your principles, at the very least.
Talon T M
Absolute Ruler of RACM
IMUS Blasting Gore over Debate Lies
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39dc70e26f5b.htm
Gore concedes debate story false
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39dc66cd6af8.htm
CONTRITE GORE BLAMES DEBATE CAMERAS
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39dc2c0c5c75.htm
Aaron Michael Newton
:>First of all, I don't think tax-exempt status has anything to do with your
:>tax dollars paying for my church.
: Fucking nit-picking... If religious organizations were taxed like
: every other big business, the amount of money I pay in taxes could
: potentially be lowered; I'm paying the taxes that the business which calls
: itself your church could (should) be paying.
HAH! Big business indeed... this is just more uninformed anti-christian
blanket inaccuracies. There is nothing about my church that could be
considered a business (much less "big business"). Weekly donations don't
add up to much, and that is the only money it takes in. Those donations
go to run the church (pay utilities, buy cleaning supplies, repairs to
structural degredation, etc) and there is no national organization that it
belongs to.
IMO, *you* are the one who is nitpicking if you think any additional taxes
on my church would save you money.
: Oh, I'm sure it does.
Yes, it does. If you choose not to believe me then I guess you aren't
interested in discussion or debate at all, you just want to moan and spread
closed-minded propaganda. How ironic.
Talon The Merciless
says...
>
>Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people who
>write anti-Christian material.
And more power to people who write anti-homosexual material as well...right?
>Johanna called him a bigot.
We already knew that.
>Johanna, in the name of tolerance, won't tolerate such views being aired, and
>has severed her connection with the site rather than be associated with
>unpopular speech of this sort.
This explanation was rather biased, Kurt. If one tolerates all people and all
beliefs, does that mean that this same person *must* tolerate intolerance? :)
It's as simple as Johanna not wanting to be associated with open bigotry.
That's really all you had to say.
Steven Horton
> people claim all sorts of crap every day, it was still those peoples
> actions not the belief system that was at fault. It is also largely
> irrelevant to the current day, if anything it is more relevant when
> talking about current castillan attitudes to other ethnic groups be
> they Basque or Catalan than to the attitudes and beliefs of American
> Christians many of whom belong to churches who left catholicism because
> of such actions.
>
> Have Christians throughout History done many terrible things, just
> about any group with a history stretching back more than a few decades
> has done the same be they religious or ethnic or anything else.
The problem I have with this defense is that you're defending
Christianity by lumping it in with every other group. Since other groups
practiced violence and oppression in the name of some supposed greater
good, this somehow explains or justifies why Christianity did this.
But Christianity has God behind it, right? Shouldn't it be held to a
higher standard? Held accountable?
If an unusual amount of oppression has been done throughout history in the
name of the Christian God, then we can't simply try and claim that it was
just the people involved, or it was just because Christianity was like any
other group. We've gotta admit that there's a problem here.
Sure, you state that "people claim all sorts of crap every day" but when
the same kinds of people that authorized brutality and violence in the
name of God are the same kinds of people that canonized the Bible as we
know it today, we gotta admit there's something wrong.
-Steve
Steven Horton
> >write anti-Christian material.
>
> And more power to people who write anti-homosexual material as well...right?
We've been over this thirty times now. You can't make the comparison.
It's not the same thing. It's apples and oranges. Criticizing someone
for their philosophy or belief system is different than criticism for the
way someone is born.
And it's not intolerance. As Kurt pointed out. Look it up in the
dictionary.
-Steve (who gets irked when people in a religion for all intents and
purposes claim themselves to be equivalent to a minority group)
Dementia
<amne...@louisville.edu> wrote:
>W. Allen Montgomery <W...@spam.gov> wrote:
>: Aaron Michael Newton <amne...@louisville.edu> wrote:
>:>First of all, I don't think tax-exempt status has anything to do with your
>:>tax dollars paying for my church.
>
>: Fucking nit-picking... If religious organizations were taxed like
>: every other big business, the amount of money I pay in taxes could
>: potentially be lowered; I'm paying the taxes that the business which calls
>: itself your church could (should) be paying.
>
>HAH! Big business indeed... this is just more uninformed anti-christian
>blanket inaccuracies. There is nothing about my church that could be
>considered a business (much less "big business"). Weekly donations don't
>add up to much, and that is the only money it takes in. Those donations
>go to run the church (pay utilities, buy cleaning supplies, repairs to
>structural degredation, etc) and there is no national organization that it
>belongs to.
>
>IMO, *you* are the one who is nitpicking if you think any additional taxes
>on my church would save you money.
Actually, if Allen falls under the belief system "capitalist" then the
idea that a church should fully pay it's way isn't unrealistic. ;)
Talon The Merciless
says...
>
>Actually, not to speak for Johanna or anything, but her decision to leave CB
>Galaxy had nothing to do with the Transmet arguments, which were largely with
>me. Her decision was spurred by remarks made on the message board by Alan
>David Doane, the founder of the website. Doane posted several demeaning,
>bigoted (he himself admits he's bigoted when it comes to Christianity)
I've never visited that sight, mainly because of ADD's PR marketing genius here,
heh, and now I have yet another reason to skip the trip. When he finally admits
to being anti-Jewish, he'll lose all the site's traffic and will probably end up
involved in multi-marketing endeavors.
As it stands now, I'm sure damon has made the site his home page. Heh.
k...@removethesetsoft.net
>>>good thing you're not running for president Kurt.>>
> A very good thing for us all.
Aww, now, c'mon, you can't really say that the election results are going
to be a "very good thing for us all" anyway... Sure, if you were
President, you might have to postpone working on the Mideast peace talks
until your sinus problems get better (preferring to work on duties that
take less concentration like writing Avengers :) But you'd get my vote.
Here's a frivolous question for everyone: What comic book pro would
make the best/worst President, and what would their administrations be
like? Non-Americans (and Canadians) are eligible.
Could we go wrong with a Stan Lee Presidency?
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian
"Now the authorities have cracked down on pitbulls and the rest, apes
look like becoming the new weapon of choice," said [Officer] Lecourbe.
- the Paris Guardian
Talon The Merciless
says...
>>Johanna, in the name of tolerance, won't tolerate such views being aired, and
>>has severed her connection with the site rather than be associated with
>>unpopular speech of this sort.
>
>So, does this mean they no longer have the most qualified reviewers on the
>Internet? After all, she was the only one to present her qualifications,
>and now she's quit.
Ok, this made me laugh. I can't believe I did, nor can I believe that I'm
publicly admitting it.
Talon The Merciless
says...
>
>and Jesus Christ would tolerate it, for that matter.
No, He would not. He would either overturn it (heh), or allow Himself to be
murdered by it.
Or He would utterly destroy it.
Dementia
>Dementia <comic.g...@home.com> happened to mention:
>> IMO religion
>> doesn't deserve the same respect as race since one is merely a belief
>> system and the other is a factor of birth.
>
>Interesting. I'd almost have the opposite view, that since religious
>belief is a conscious choice, a matter of free will rather than an
>accident of birth, the person who makes that choice should be accorded
>more respect for having exercised said free will. Certainly that's part
>and parcel of a lot of political propaganda in the US, that we merit the
>respect of the rest of the world because our political system supposedly
>encourages freedom and diversity rather than intolerance and sameness.
That makes no sense whatsoever. ;) Just because someone decides
something under the blanket statement of "freewill" does not mean they
should be accorded respect. Look at Scientology. Do you believe that
they deserve more respect than homosexuals in the sense of rights? It
does no good to nitpick Scientology as a religion either because it's
plausible to them just as much as Christ is to Christians.
>
>> Before you throw the KKK flag in the ring, was it HATE literature.
>
>From Alan's posting in this thread, it does seem as though he has no use
>whatsoever for Christians. That would probably fall under the category of
>hatred.
"Having no use" for Christians is a long way from KKK hate literature.
> If he'd expressed an opinion along the lines of "I think the
>Christian Church has caused irreparable harm but I don't put that
>institutional onus on the individuals who practice Christianity" (similar
>to saying "I think the US is a superpower bully-boy but that's not really
>the fault of all American citizens") that might be different, but he
>doesn't seem to have made such a distinction.
True. He's basically saying that those who believe in the bible are
fools. Yet how is that hate literature? More like that is an
expression of his point of view.
>> lets not forget that Christians are the largest group of bigots towards
>> homosexuality.
>
>Not true at all. First off, in general most institutionalized religions
>tend to frown on homosexuality. However, Christianity, like other
>religions, does have branches of tolerance and acceptance of gays. A
>simple website search with keywords "gay Christian" reveals tons of
>mailing lists, chat groups, web boards and ministries that affirm and
>welcome gays. So you see, not *all* "Christians tend to think
>homosexuality is a sin and AIDS is a form of punishment."
I didn't say all. I said they are the largest group of bigots towards
homosexuality *meaning* that there are more Christians who feel that
way than any other organised group of people.
>
>>>It should be noted that Alan's comments, if they had been about blacks or
>>>gays, wouldn't be tolerated by anyone with an ounce of sense.
>
>> That is because choosing religion is like choosing what newspaper you
>> want to read.
>
>I think that assumption is incorrect, and belittles what to many (if not
>most) religious people is a very serious and life-affecting decision.
>They don't call 'em "epiphanies" for nothing.
That's nitpicking to a degree. Sure, there are people who take their
bible seriously but there are others who pick and choose what to
believe from the Bible based on how they feel and what they want.
>
>> PS I don't think Preacher is anti-Christian. Anti implies against
>> whereas Preacher expresses a variation of the mythology.
>
>Garth Ennis doesn't strike me as anti-Christian, but he does strike me as
>skeptical of institutionalized *anything*, which is understandable.
Agreed.
Talon The Merciless
>
>How can you be angry that Alan doesn't like
>Christians, and call him a bigot, when Christians tend to think
>homosexuality is a sin and AIDS is a form of punishment.
Then is it OK to hate Muslims, since some think all Christians should be killed?
Is it OK to be anti-Jewish, since they also teach homosexuality to be a sin?
BTW, Christians know that homosexuality is a sin, and most know that AIDS is not
a punishment, but rather a result, of sin....whether it's a result of *that*
sin, or of all sin in general.
>That is because choosing religion is like choosing what newspaper you
>want to read. You can change your religion any time you want, you can
>choose not to be religious or you can choose to be "sort of"
>religious. None of those apply to homosexuality or race.
You are mis-educated. Homosexuality is a choice. Any DNA-connected link has
never been scientifically proven, as race can be and has been.
BTW, I absolutely *loathe* the art in PREACHER. ;)
Dementia
<amne...@louisville.edu> wrote:
>Dementia <comic.g...@home.com> wrote:
>: religious. None of those apply to homosexuality or race.
>
>
>Last I checked, the homosexuality issue is still up for debate. Many still
>consider it a pattern of behaviour.
Tell homosexuals that.
Talon The Merciless
alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown says...
>You, on the other hand, have refused to read about the history I have
>offered up, proving Jesus Christ never even existed, and was in fact
>an amalgamation of earlier, pagan sun gods.
LOL!
Yeah, and George Washington never existed either, he was in fact General
Cornwallis who defected to the Colonies. And we never really landed on the moon
either.
And Gore did create the internet, but only after it created him first.
Talon The Merciless
alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown says...
>
>Yes, but Southern Baptists believe Catholics are idol-worshipping
>pseudo-pagans who will burn in hell.
No, that's just Al Gore.
KurtBusiek
well...right?>>
Nope. See other messages.
>If one tolerates all people and all beliefs, does that mean that this same
person *must* tolerate intolerance? :)>
I didn't say anyone must tolerate all people and beliefs -- and in fact have
listed a number of beliefs that most people in this society do not tolerate.
I don't have a problem with Johanna being intolerant -- I just don't think she
should pretend otherwise, or label someone intolerant because she doesn't like
his views and tried to get him to stop expressing them.
I don't agree with his views either, but I have yet to see him refuse to
tolerate those who disagree with him. I've seen Johanna refuse to tolerate
those who disagree with her.
kurt
The SUPERSTAR Ashcan, by Busiek & Immonen, is now available online, at the
ApeNation Trading Post! Plus: Check out SHOCKROCKETS and other Gorilla comics
FREE at the site!
http://www.apenation.com/
Talon The Merciless
>
>Hell, I am jewish by birth, but have almost no tolerance towards the jewish
>religion. In fact, I'm an atheist.
For now, anyway. ;)
Talon The Merciless
says...
>Kurt said this...
>
>"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people
>who write anti-Christian material."
>
>Now change that for a moment to...
>
>"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-jew stuff, and more power to people who
>write anti-jew material."
>
>
>Had this been the actual case, would this thread even have a single post
>implying Johanna has a double standard on tolerance?
But it's really, really OK to hate Christians! Where have you been hiding!
Talon The Merciless
says...
>The specters you're conjuring up are of people being discriminated against
>because of their birth, not someone's ability to strongly disagree with a set
>of beliefs.
I hate him because he's black = not OK.
I hate him because he's a Christian = OK.
Does it really matter what the reasons are for hating certain people?
Aaron Michael Newton
: Actually, if Allen falls under the belief system "capitalist" then the
: idea that a church should fully pay it's way isn't unrealistic. ;)
?_? No one said it shouldn't.
Aaron Michael Newton
: Tell homosexuals that.
I don't need to. They know the argument is there and (as far as I am aware)
there isn't any scientific evidence to back up the claim that it is a
genetic trait.
-Aaron
Justin Bacon
(GrapeApe) writes:
>Accident has a connotation which will be applied regardless of intent. It
>isn't what you signify, it is what the electorate hears.
If the electorate is so terminally stupid that they can't handle a common
phrase like "accident of birth" then I weep for the world.
Note that this is quite a different thing than the guy's opponent purposely
mishandling a common phrase like "accident of birth". I just find that, on
average, the electorate is smarter than that.
Cue a discussion of THE NEW ADVENTURES OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN and swing us all back
on-topic.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
\"Duggy\" Duggan" <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> writes:
>Not into Christianity myself, but it's not an institution, it's a belief
>system tainted by some very only institutions.
It's not even *a* belief system. It's several dozen/hundred belief systems.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
owene...@my-deja.com
> The problem I have with this defense is that you're defending
> Christianity by lumping it in with every other group. Since other
groups
> practiced violence and oppression in the name of some supposed greater
> good, this somehow explains or justifies why Christianity did this.
> But Christianity has God behind it, right? Shouldn't it be held to a
> higher standard? Held accountable?
Sure, if you want to take the medieval Catholic Church to task then I'm
right with you. Do I think it has any real bearing in how Christians
today live their lives. No not really.
> If an unusual amount of oppression has been done throughout history
in the
> name of the Christian God, then we can't simply try and claim that it
was
> just the people involved, or it was just because Christianity was
like any
> other group. We've gotta admit that there's a problem here.
> Sure, you state that "people claim all sorts of crap every day" but
when
> the same kinds of people that authorized brutality and violence in the
> name of God are the same kinds of people that canonized the Bible as
we
> know it today, we gotta admit there's something wrong.
>
I'm not a Christian, I think there are enough bad things being done in
Christ's name today for there to be no point in bringing up stuff like
the Spanish Inquisition. If Alan has a problem with Christian's today I
think he should be able to find better illustrative examples than the
SI.
Judging the past by the standard of today is bad history, judging the
past by the standard of today and then using that as evidence against
totally different people centuries later is plain idiotic. (I could
accept it being used as evidence against the Bible's teachings if there
were any specific biblical verses or whatever being mentioned but I
dont think that the SI is really motivated by very much that is
actually written in the Bible, it was a political act that grew out of
the reclamation of Spain)
There are plenty of reasons why I would never want to associate myself
with Christianity happening today, no need to undermine your own
arguments by bringing up the Inquisition.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Talon The Merciless
says...
>
> This has to be the weakest off-topic thread I've ever seen.
>Talon-bait, pretty much.
It appears to have 'caught' quite a few people, including yourself, before it
caught me. :)
>Talking bad about Christians doesn't
>equate to anything other than talking bad about Christians.
Exactly. And that's perfectly acceptable. We know. We were told.
>And when it
>all comes down, my tax dollars are still paying for your church.
I sure appreciate it! Thanks! Keep up the good work!
> Now turn the other goddamned cheek and shut the fuck up.
You cannot *ever* make that happen. ;)
Aaron Michael Newton
Would someone mind posting a link to the comments in question? My
understanding is that they were malicious in tone, and that is why Johanna
objected. Some of the people who appear to be implying hypocrisy on her
part appear be under the impression that she merely objected to differing
views.
I for one would like to read the comments to see for myself, but I've been
unable to find them. Thanks. :)
Elayne Riggs
>>Accident has a connotation which will be applied regardless of intent. It
>>isn't what you signify, it is what the electorate hears.
> If the electorate is so terminally stupid that they can't handle a common
> phrase like "accident of birth" then I weep for the world.
Justin, "the electorate" can't even handle words like "niggardly" without
thinking that some sort of racial epithet has been uttered. :)
- Elayne
GrapeApe
Hey, True Believers! A Chicken in Every Pot! Check out this months Chicken-man,
created by yours truly and dazzlingly delineated by Jazzy Jack Congress
Alan David Doane
>>A very good thing for us all.
>>
>>But what's wrong with the phrase "accident of birth"? It doesn't signify
>>anything wrong, merely that something came out the way it did because of
>>factors outside the person's control -- he was born that way.
>
>
>Someone takes the phrase 'accident of birth" to be referring to the birth of
>Jesus Christ.
That implies "Jesus Christ" was a real person, which is patently and
provably not true.
Alan David Doane
http://www.comicbookgalaxy.com
GrapeApe
>homophobic. I was merely trying to make a point. My apologies.
Not all Christians totally disagree with Alan, either. Some may not be
expecting the Spanish Inquisition, but they realize the social forces behind
same.. A belief worth having is worth questioning, and a lot would have taken
Alans comments in stride- it is not as if those views havent been professed
before. Religion CAN be a force for social ill. And atheism is a religion as
much as anything..
There is also a social dynamic I see at work often, that perpetuates itself.
Someone takes a controversial perhaps repulsive stand, perhaps exaggerated
merely to make a point, perhaps not. Someone else reacts viscerally and
seemingly closes off their intellect, although perhaps with good private
reasoning behind their decision not to enter the fray. The first party sees
this as a weakness and keeps prodding. They may be considering their sword a
high abstraction, and their prodding a game or exercise. The other may be
seeing a crude bludgeon. weilded by a closed mind. The second party sees their
silence as a strength, yet still takes their ball and goes home. The entire
issue could have been quickly dismissed into a non-issue, or it could be a
playground fight the other kids whisper about. Everyone wins. Everyone loses.
Its not as if those message boards were strangers to flame-bait anyway.
Sometimes its better not to get drawn into a dance macabre. Life is short.
Alan David Doane
wrote:
>The only thing that struck me was: "They're going to love this in the Warren
>Ellis Delphi forum".
>
>I can appreciate the work of people whose beliefs I personally abhor. The first
>time Alan expressed his, um, beliefs to me I was a little taken aback (basically
>it was asking me how I dare refer to Jesus Christ as a real person in a Swamp
>Thing-related story - and the use of the word x-tian which took me a day or so
>to work out) but y'know, hey, a lot of people have wackier beliefs (Dave Sim,
>Steve Ditko, Peter Bagge, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison) and their work is not only
>fine, but outstanding.
>
>If anything I'm surprised that Johanna didn't read the Ministry columns stuff
>when dealing with Alan. I know I did - good writing too.
Thanks, Rich. I love you too.
Alan David Doane
>>>
>>>Hey, what is wrong with that. Christianity IS negative.
>>>
>>>Take care,
>>>nenad
>>
>>Would you like some free comics?
>
>Are they Chick pamphlets?
I'd never give up something as hilarious as Jack Chick tracts. They're
almost as good as Rob Liefeld comics for pure entertainment value.
Josh Brandt
Alan David Doane <alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> wrote:
>That implies "Jesus Christ" was a real person, which is patently and
>provably not true.
Hmm.
As provable, I think, as that he was.
Josh
ah geez, I wasn't going to get into this.
--
I don't wanna ride the piggy.
J. Brandt / m...@solipsism.net / mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
Alan David Doane
>
>
>Kurt said this...
>
>"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-Christian stuff, and more power to people
>who
>write anti-Christian material."
>
>Now change that for a moment to...
>
>"Alan Doane said he's all for anti-jew stuff, and more power to people who
>write anti-jew material."
No. People are born Jews. Xtians choose to delude themselves. And when
I say "born Jews", I mean biologically, I am not talking about
religion, so don't bother talking about people converting. There's a
big difference between hating someone for something they were born as
(anti-semitism) and my refuting the world's tragedy, xtianity.