mudcat.org: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?

GUEST,Gern 10 Oct 12 - 07:05 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 10 Oct 12 - 07:11 PM
gnu 10 Oct 12 - 07:22 PM
gnu 10 Oct 12 - 07:28 PM
michaelr 10 Oct 12 - 07:35 PM
Bobert 10 Oct 12 - 07:36 PM
Joe Offer 10 Oct 12 - 07:43 PM
Bobert 10 Oct 12 - 07:48 PM
gnu 10 Oct 12 - 07:49 PM
artbrooks 10 Oct 12 - 07:51 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Oct 12 - 08:23 PM
Little Hawk 10 Oct 12 - 08:39 PM
Bobert 10 Oct 12 - 08:44 PM
Bill D 10 Oct 12 - 08:48 PM
Little Hawk 10 Oct 12 - 08:50 PM
Joe Offer 10 Oct 12 - 08:59 PM
Bobert 10 Oct 12 - 09:03 PM
Joe Offer 10 Oct 12 - 09:31 PM
pdq 10 Oct 12 - 09:37 PM
Bobert 10 Oct 12 - 09:45 PM
Janie 10 Oct 12 - 09:46 PM
michaelr 10 Oct 12 - 09:47 PM
Bobert 10 Oct 12 - 09:54 PM
Janie 10 Oct 12 - 10:20 PM
Rapparee 10 Oct 12 - 10:33 PM
Little Hawk 10 Oct 12 - 11:03 PM
Rapparee 10 Oct 12 - 11:05 PM
michaelr 11 Oct 12 - 12:29 AM
Joe Offer 11 Oct 12 - 03:02 AM
GUEST 11 Oct 12 - 03:13 AM
Howard Jones 11 Oct 12 - 03:25 AM
Sandra in Sydney 11 Oct 12 - 03:46 AM
Joe Offer 11 Oct 12 - 03:49 AM
Penny S. 11 Oct 12 - 03:51 AM
Joe Offer 11 Oct 12 - 05:10 AM
Charmion 11 Oct 12 - 06:44 AM
Penny S. 11 Oct 12 - 06:55 AM
Bill D 11 Oct 12 - 09:44 AM
Mrrzy 11 Oct 12 - 12:05 PM
Charmion 11 Oct 12 - 12:16 PM
Little Hawk 11 Oct 12 - 01:13 PM
Howard Jones 11 Oct 12 - 02:03 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 11 Oct 12 - 02:05 PM
Joe Offer 11 Oct 12 - 02:18 PM
Will Fly 11 Oct 12 - 03:01 PM
Bill D 11 Oct 12 - 03:03 PM
Little Hawk 11 Oct 12 - 03:32 PM
Joe Offer 11 Oct 12 - 03:38 PM
Little Hawk 11 Oct 12 - 03:43 PM
Wesley S 11 Oct 12 - 04:17 PM
katlaughing 11 Oct 12 - 05:10 PM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Oct 12 - 05:20 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Oct 12 - 05:26 PM
gnu 11 Oct 12 - 05:42 PM
Bill D 11 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM
Howard Jones 11 Oct 12 - 06:15 PM
Joe Offer 11 Oct 12 - 06:36 PM
gnu 11 Oct 12 - 06:58 PM
Steve Shaw 11 Oct 12 - 08:18 PM
Little Hawk 11 Oct 12 - 09:37 PM
Little Hawk 11 Oct 12 - 10:11 PM
Jack the Sailor 11 Oct 12 - 10:47 PM
katlaughing 11 Oct 12 - 11:02 PM
Jack the Sailor 12 Oct 12 - 12:36 AM
LadyJean 12 Oct 12 - 01:07 AM
Jack the Sailor 12 Oct 12 - 01:09 AM
Joe Offer 12 Oct 12 - 03:47 AM
Howard Jones 12 Oct 12 - 03:53 AM
GUEST,Gern 12 Oct 12 - 10:13 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: GUEST,Gern
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:05 PM

Greetings from a long-time reader and occasional contributor. I'm a lifelong fan of Trudeau: I trudged thru the Mekong mud with BD, toured Reagan's brain with Hedley and even followed along with Governor Perry's pregnancy counseling Inquisition. But currently Doonesbury is following the adventures of Young Mitt as he performs is proselytizing duties. It's hilarious, of course, and spot-on politically, as one would expect. But is it mocking the Mormon Church? I can't speak for them, but would they be right to be offended? Mass media mocking religion is not only shameful but dangerous, as recent events should teach us. Is the edgy Trudeau over the edge? I'm a reluctant Obama supporter and have no use for Romney whatsoever. But am I the only one uncomfortable with this depiction of a religious duty? If anyone takes up this discussion, please break with Mudcat tradition and discuss without bashing this or other beliefs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:11 PM

"If anyone takes up this discussion, please break with Mudcat tradition and discuss without bashing this or other beliefs."

The sun will stop in God's heaven before that occurs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: gnu
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:22 PM

No. Romney can't hide from who he is and what he says. Trudeau is mocking Romney. If some view that as you propose, it is unfortunate that have such meager intelligence and poor upbrining.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: gnu
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:28 PM

I don't include those who do not proofread before posting, of course.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: michaelr
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:35 PM

Mormomism needs bashing. Those guys are seriously demented, and to even contemplate the idea that one of those wackos could be president gives me a case of the hives.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:36 PM

Religion bashing is in...

The Christian Right has been bashing Islam for years...

As for the Mormon Church??? I mean, lets put it out on the table... Here's a guy who proclaims that, in essence, he is the 2nd coming of Jesus and organizes a church around it... I mean, that's a stretch... But here we have so many so-called Christians who have never read the New Testament signing on to vote for a guy who believes that this guy was the 2nd coming just to get rid of a black man in the Whites (ONLY) House...

I mean, for Doonesbury this is USDA 100% Choice stuff and ripe fir picking...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:43 PM

I suppose I was in a position similar to Romney's. I was exempt from the draft until September, 1970, because I was a "divinity student" in a Catholic seminary. Romney got deferments for college and then for his missionary service. I saw one source that said his deferments ended in December, 1969. Huffington Post and several other sources say that Romney was born on a date that had a very high lottery number, so he was not subject to the draft.

That's the difference between Romney and me. When I got out of the seminary, my draft number had already been called. I knew what was in the cards, so I enlisted in the Army so I could serve for four years as a German linguist instead of being drafted and serving two years as an infantryman in Vietnam. My draft notice arrived while I was in Basic Training. I wrote back and said that my drill sergeant wouldn't let me go.

So, it seems to me that Romney played by the rules, and it would be unfair to imply that he was a draft evader. He just was luckier in the lottery than I was.

Was I a draft dodger for enlisting instead of submitting to the draft and the possibility of assignment to Vietnam?

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:48 PM

Well, if he used his missionary work to get a deferment until the lottery exempted him that to me is "evasion"...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: gnu
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:49 PM

2 posts, if ya don't count my proofreading problem and JotSC's post. I don't count his post because it isn't germain to the OP's topic but merely states that someone will, indeed, NOT do what was asked by the OP.

I am not a stats keeper but that has to be at least tied for second place in my books.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 07:51 PM

I have no particular use for Mormon theology, or any other Christian theology for that matter. Nor do I have much use for the Christian Right, which is where the LDS Church and most of its members can be found. However, I have a great deal of respect for the Mormon ideal of helping others - I was involved (as a VA employee) with the Rexburg (Idaho) Dam disaster in the late 1970s, and I remember that bus loads of Mormons came in and shoveled mud out of streets and yards, up one side and down the other, with no thought of the religious convictions (if any) of the residents.

I don't see any reason at all to ridicule anyone's religion, either for humor or to make a political point.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:23 PM

Gosh, why not ridicule religion. It's baleful, repressive, dishonest and controlling. And just not true.

I'm an inveterate follower of Doonesbury. It's sublime and always utterly on the mark. Vietnam was a shameful episode in the shameful recent history of the US and I applaud anyone who avoided going there. Good for them.

And advice for the poor, unfortunate yanks who are so swept up in their infantile politics. Vote for the bloke who you think could best run the country. Ignore such attributes as his religion, whether he opposes abortion or not (and why should he tell you?) or whether he's a hanger and flogger.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:39 PM

Why not, Steve? Well, if you have to ask why, there's no use telling you.

It would be like telling someone who habitually calls black people "niggers" why he shouldn't do so.

I like Doonesbury too, BTW. But I liked Bloom County even better. Pity it's not around any longer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:44 PM

When people are clearly using religion and both a shield and sword to push your own political agenda that has nothing to do with religion then...

...high time to call them on it in any way we can... These people must be called on this shit... Go Doonesbury...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:48 PM

The 'official' tenets of any religion will seem odd to anyone from outside religion. Add to this the desire for a religion to emphasize its good deeds and helpful aspects while being prickly about its flaws and contradictory practices, and you get.... what we have these days.

Romney IS in what most outsiders see as an 'unusual' religion. (I live 5 min. drive from the huge east coast Mormon temple, and strangeness abounds in the immediate area.)

Gary Trudeau always finds a 'soft' spot in anyone's eccentricities, and Romney himself has spent months trying not to "wear his church on his sleeve", while everyone is wondering what a church which influences what underwear one wears will do in influencing a president.

I, personally, object to Romney for many reasons NOT directly related to his religion, but it IS an issue... just as JFK's was until he showed everyone HE could separate religion and politics. If Romney were less.... Romney, I wouldn't be terribly concerned about his religion, but it does seem to be part of WHY he is so right-wing, so it's not irrelevant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:50 PM

Uh-huh. Agreed. Insofar as Romney's version of politics goes.

People will use anything they can to push a rotten political agenda...if religion seems to work, they'll use it, like anything else. They can easily use anti-religious sentiment in the same fashion, and they often have done so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 08:59 PM

Bobert, don't you remember how the draft lottery worked? Are you that much younger than I am?

I understand Romney's number was 300 out of 365. I don't think they ever called over 200. There was only one number assigned to his date of birth, March 12, 1947 (Gee, he was born in Detroit, and so was I). Therefore, his exemptions made no difference.

I suppose he could have been drafted if he hadn't gone to college, since the lottery didn't begin until 1969. Still, it seems to me that to call him a draft evader would be stretching the truth. Let's leave that sort of deception to the opposition, and keep the high ground. In the long run, I think we're better off telling the truth without the "spin." The truth is on our side.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 09:03 PM

Yes, Joe... I was there, too...

Problem I have with Romney is he ***used*** missionary work to get a deferment, then get a high number and no longer ***needs*** the missionary deferment...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 09:31 PM

No, Bobert - there was only one number assigned to his date of birth, and it was far too high for him to get drafted. The deferments were moot once the lottery came into effect (unless he had a low draft number). Thinking that he manipulated his date of birth to skip the draft, would be as absurd as some of the stuff the "birthers" have tried.

When I left the seminary, I knew my number had already been called. If I had stayed in, I would not have been subject to the draft.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 09:37 PM

He did his missionary service in Bordeaux, France, telling people not to drink. No alcohol at all!

The man has some cojones.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 09:45 PM

The point is, Joe, that ***up until*** Romney knew he was safe he milked the system for deferments...

You disagree???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Janie
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 09:46 PM

Sounds like there is no reason to think Romney attempted to evade the draft or had a need to. Even were that not the case, I would be a real hypocrite to diss him for doing so when I fully supported decisions made by young male peers I knew and cared about to do what they could to evade the draft during the Vietnam War.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: michaelr
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 09:47 PM

It would be like telling someone who habitually calls black people "niggers" why he shouldn't do so.

Geez, LH, I usually think your posts make a lot of sense, but this one's way out there. How in the world do you make that analogy??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 09:54 PM

The problem here, janie, is that the lottery was introduced well into the war... It was not the system until the war was 6 years old... Lots of folks used every conceivable deferment to stay out... ***Then*** came the lottery well toward the end of the war and some folks got good numbers and gave up their other strategies...

I know all this very well... I was draft avoidance counselor...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Janie
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 10:20 PM

Still don't see a problem, Bobert.

But getting off onto the draft is a bit of thread drift, for which I apologize for my contribution, Gern. I haven't seen the Doonsbury series to which you are referring so really can't comment and probably should not have posted at all, that being the case.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 10:33 PM

Harry Reid is LDS. So is Glen Beck. So is Jon Huntsman, who SHOULD be the GOP Candidate. So what?

I enlisted in the National Guard in 1963 -- BEFORE anything big was going on in NV. In 1968 we were activated and the unit (including my brother and eight cousins) sent to VN; I went to Korea to play on DMZ (it wasn't any fun because the North Koreans kept shooting at us). When I got back I wrote a letter which helped a guy get a CO.

Am I a draft dodger?

My brother (a good enough Catholic) became a Protestant minister while he was in Nam, courtesy of a perfectly valid (and still valid) church that intended to help guys in Vietnam (chaplains are officers).

Does this make him a potential draft dodger? He's still a minister, by the way...and Catholic (such as THAT means today).

Does what you were and did nearly a half century ago mean anything today? Remember Martin Gibson? -- he protested the VN War and was gassed at the '68 Chicago Democratic Convention, but he never would be called a "liberal" today!

I disagree with Romney on a lot of things, but the same is true of Obama.

I don't vote for skin color or religion or what they did long ago, I vote for whom I think is the best person for the job.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 11:03 PM

michael, Steve Shaw said, "Gosh, why not ridicule religion? It's baleful, repressive, dishonest and controlling. And just not true."

In so doing, he automatically stereotyped all religions and all religious people in as unjust and prejudiced a way as someone would who called all black people "worthless niggers". That's why I said what I did.

In the lengthy experience of my life, I have encountered many very good people among both the religious and the nonreligious, at least as many in the one camp as in the other. Most of the religious people I've encountered were entirely rational, DID believe in modern science and evolution, were not repressive, were not baleful, and were not controlling. Quite the contrary. They were looking into improving themselves as compassionate and loving human beings, not controlling someone else.

I've studied the North American Indian Medicine Way (traditional religion), Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism...and to a lesser extent Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and various other religious traditions.

I encountered many of the best, kindest, most honest and rational and politically progressive people I've ever met amongst those various traditions as well as among atheists and agnostics. The VERY best and most responsible of all the people I've ever met have mostly been those with religious views of some kind, because their social ideals and their sense of personal responsibility and kindness to others was absolutely exemplary...as was their behaviour.

In lumping all religions and religious people together as supposedly "baleful, repressive, dishonest and controlling. And just not true", Steve is condemning a great many very good people about whom he obviously knows little or nothing. He's exhibiting extreme prejudice and erecting a straw man to fling hostile rhetoric at. That's why I said what I said.

It's as if he had heard various bad stuff during his life about...let's say...Jews, and on the basis of that hearsay he said, "Why not ridicule Jews? They're dirty, theiving, and dishonest. They lie and cheat. Everything they do is an abomination."

People wouldn't let somone get away with a statement like that nowadays, would they? And for good reason!

Well, people shouldn't make sweeping statements like that condemning religions and religious people either. It's the height of ignorance and prejudice to do so. Yet you see it constantly on this forum from certain individuals. It's deemed to be okay, apparently, to be deeply prejudiced against the religious...and that is just as dumb and just as wrong as being deeply prejudiced against blacks, women, gays or Jews.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Oct 12 - 11:05 PM

"Dad," said my youngest nephew to his father, "my friends and I want to do some historical re-enacting. Can I borrow some of that Vietnam stuff you brought back?"

"What? Vietnam? Historical? It's...it's...came on, let's see what we can find."

             --Word for word conversation from a couple years ago.

That war is over. The veterans who fought there are dying; I know several who've gone belly up in the last couple years. Give those who are still alive the help they need, that they SHOULD have gotten back then. And learn from the past (but I doubt that anyone will).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: michaelr
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 12:29 AM

Sorry about the thread drift, but, LH --

Why not, let's say... Nazis, and on the basis of that hearsay he said, "Why not ridicule Nazis? They're racist, thuggish, and brutal. They bully and kill. Everything they do is an abomination."

People wouldn't let someone get away with a statement like that nowadays, would they? Of course -- they do all the time! It's perfectly OK to revile Nazis, isn't it? Communists, too, right? Scientologists? Where is the line?

You see, saying that "there's nice people in that movement/organization" is stating the truth, to be sure - whichever movement or organization you may refer to - but it's both misleading and beside the point. It's about the organization and what it stands for, and what methods it uses to gain and keep adherents. And it's about what happens to those people as a consequence of joining up. And it's about what happens to the world at large, in the case of major religions, as a result of their policies and dogmas.

Personally, I would look at Buddhism, Taoism and others not as religions, but as philosophies. They're more about the development of the self than about worship of a deity, and cannot be said to have caused a fraction of the wars, death and assorted miseries that the organized Western religions have.

As regards the individual adherent of a religious faith, his is by definition an irrational existence, which is bound to cause problems within the person as well as in his interactions with a rational world.

Christians believe a virgin gave birth, and the world was made in six days. Mormons believe Jesus walked on American soil. Some other wackos believe he was riding a dinosaur. Are we supposed to perceive degrees of irrationality? Again, where is the line?

I think they're all irrational, but the Mormons are crazier than the mainstream. Just like the Tea Party, but with more members. As for mocking them, nobody does it better than South Park.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:02 AM

Most organization have what are called "founding myths." The Founding Fathers of the United States are certainly shrouded in myth, and almost all nations have their national myths. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have founding myths, and almost all religions have myths at their roots. Hell, even the Disney Corporation and Microsoft and Apple Computers and Google have founding myths. Those myths embody the ideals of the organization - the so-called "facts" of the myth are generally immaterial, except to those (both those who believe and those who do not believe the founding myth) who see things with a literalist, fundamentalist point of view.

To live with myth requires intelligence, imagination, and the ability to perceive abstractions.

Yes, the Mormons have founding myths. They treasure those myths, but most Mormons I know do not seem to have their lives dominated by a literal view of those myths. They "get" what they're supposed to get from that mythology, a strong community spirit that holds family life in high esteem.

One can work with Mormons for years without being preached to, although you'll certainly know they're Mormon. The "temple garb" (underwear) that Mormons wear isn't some sort of obsession - for them, it's normal, something they do to keep them mindful of the ideals they hold sacred. It may sound strange to other people, but is there really something seriously wrong with wearing a particular style of underwear?

Yes, I'm very much aware that anti-religious sentiment is in vogue nowadays, but does that make it right? There are lots of good reasons to criticize Romney, but don't pick on his religion.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:13 AM

I like Romney

I also like Doonesberry and BloomsCounty and Calvin and Hobbs and Peanuts.

If you would like to see a rip rolling, side splitting musical ... catch "The Book of Mormon " before the election. It is fun....even better than "The Producers."

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

My number is/was 64 my card collection enjoys most classifications as they followed me nationwide.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:25 AM

Most religions seem to be disrespectful of those who don't adhere to their beliefs, so why should they be expect to be treated only with respect themselves?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:46 AM

I'm a great fan of Doonsbury & have been reading it daily for the last few years. I get very twitchy when I go away & don't have internet access so miss my fix. I started reading it in a local paper in the 70/80s when my library took the paper & stopped when I left that library in 1989. But I bought the books when I saw them & when someone on Mudcat referred to it I found the website.

I love his humour & his view of US life & politics.

Janie - here's a link to the daily strip back at the first Romney strip Oct 08, 2012 To get readers opinions, check out the comments (Blowback) below the strip of the most recent date.

& here's the one to the archives - 8 strips per day showing Doonsbury life at 5 year intervals Unfortunately I've not found a way to read these strips that I miss when I'm away at festivals

sandra


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:49 AM

Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, Howard. If you fail to respect others because you assume they don't respect you, aren't you creating an endless cycle of disrespect and disdain?

On top of that, I think your statement is untrue. Certainly, every religion has members who disrespect others, but your estimation is far broader than that - and I think it's inaccurate.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Penny S.
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:51 AM

It's easy to poke fun at the underwear.

I find the doctrines about women more objectionable. That women can only progress to the proper afterlife by being married to a man in good standing within the faith, and then only get to populate the planet their husband runs with children, not to have any existence of their own.

How does a president govern for all if he holds that women are a secondary and subsidiary creation? (And that goes for other groups as well with similar beliefs.)

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 05:10 AM

Then again, Penny, the rules as written are one thing. How Mormon women live out their lives can be quite another. Most Mormon women I've known were intelligent, happy, and certainly not submissive to their husbands.

I think it's important to consider the reality, not so much the rules and the doctrines and mythologies.

Do you live primarily by rules and doctrines, or does common sense play a greater role? I think that for most people, Mormons included, common sense rules.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Charmion
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 06:44 AM

But Joe, the rules and doctrines are always there, providing the fall-back position believers resort to whenever they are challenged. To rely on pragmatic acceptance of variance from doctrine is to court cognitive dissonance within the flock and disdain from outside it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Penny S.
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 06:55 AM

OK Joe, fair point. Though the only family I did come across expected me to observe their doctrine in my teaching.

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 09:44 AM

Amen! umm.. right on! to Charmion's point. It's very much like the 'official' Republican platform. Why promulgate all those 'official' extreme views if they mean nothing to the faithful?

At some point, someone will do something **actual** and when challenged, will say.."It's right there in the rules!"

I remember an old line which said: "The exception proves the rule: consequently, the more exceptions, the better the rule." Think about it.

To ATTEMPT to return to the OP, Doonesbury has always had a way of poking at the superficial coverings to goings-on and deflating them to reveal the hypocrisy abounding in how things really work... and how people behave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 12:05 PM

Even if he were mocking the chirch that wouldn't be "too far" - some of their beliefs are, after all, just plain silly. But it wouldn't be too far anyway, this is Doonesbury. He had Duke's head explode, agter all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Charmion
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 12:16 PM

Doonesbury has gone way out on various limbs before, and found itself moved from the comics to the editorial page or just expunged in reprisal. I'm not privy to Gary Trudeau's balance sheet, so I don't know the effects on readership, but I never have trouble finding Doonesbury either in print or on line.

So no, I don't think Doonesbury is going too far. If others do, they will complain, as they have done in the past, and papers will either cut the strip or move it to a page with more rational readership. But I'm not expecting any decline in popularity; quite the opposite, in fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 01:13 PM

michael - I haven't known very many Nazis. Maybe none at all. I have known thousands and thousands of people who had some kind of religious beliefs in various traditions, and very few of them fitted your dark view of religion. Therefore, I am not inclined to ridicule religious people. They have mostly proven themselves to be pretty good people, in my experience.

While I agree that there are some fundamentalists who believe bizarre things and act in bizarre ways, it is unrealistic to tar religion in general with that brush. It would, again, be like insulting all black people on the basis of the robberies and drug dealing done by a few young black men. That wouldn't be right. Neither is it right to insult all religious people because of some religious fundamentalists.

Also...it's not necessary for me to agree with another person about absolutely everything in life in order to respect them as good people! Suppose someone believes in the concept of the virgin birth? So what? How does that hurt me? How does it really hurt anyone? What matters to me about those people is...do they behave well toward others and are they good neighbours and are they kind? That's what matters, not whether they believe in the virgin birth.

I don't agree with EVERYTHING in any given religion. I don't believe in EVERYTHING my own country does. I don't believe in EVERYTHING my best friend believes in. This doesn't stop me from having good relations with religions, with my country, and with my best friend, does it?

There's no one in the world you'll ever agree with about everything, michael, but that doesn't mean you need to ridicule them. Ridicule is an attempt to destroy another person. Have you ever been ridiculed? Did you enjoy it?

You mentioned that "Personally, I would look at Buddhism, Taoism and others not as religions, but as philosophies. They're more about the development of the self than about worship of a deity, and cannot be said to have caused a fraction of the wars, death and assorted miseries that the organized Western religions have."

Uh-huh. Actually, the primary concern of all religions, when they are practiced intelligently, IS development of the self. All religions ARE primarily philosophies of life. But you are correct that the 3 main religions of the West (Judaism, Islam, & Christianity) have caused an enormous amount of war, death, and assorted miseries. No question. That always tended to make me shy away from them...and more toward the Eastern religions. In recent years I've started to see the good in them, however, and some of the good things they've done. You find whatever you look for. If you only look for the bad in something, that's all you'll find. If you look for the good, that is there too, and it's there powerfully.

It's like I could condemn the governments of this world totally, simply because they've created a great deal of war, havoc, and destruction. And they have! But I could also look at all the good things that our governments have done...all the wonderful things that have been accomplished peacefully and creatively by our nations under those governments...and there's plenty of that too. It's all around us.

It's totally up to you whether you want to see only the bad...only the good...or a mixture of the two in anything, whether it be one other human being, one human institution or one religion. You WILL find only what you decided to look for...unless you are fair enough to keep an open mind and look without prior prejudice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 02:03 PM

Joe, the official view of most religions seems to be that people who are do not subscribe to their particular theology are destined for their particular version of hell. They may be capable of redemption, but only if they turn to the correct religion.

If religions are so certain they are right then a bit of criticism or even ridicule should be water off a duck's back. Instead they are often incredibly oversensitive about it, sometimes with tragic results.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 02:05 PM

""All generalisations are wrong, including this one""

Read and inwardly digest, with particular reference to the underlying meaning. One may make a justifiable general assumption about a group of identical plastic gnomes, but hardly ever about any grouping of human beings.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 02:18 PM

Howard, every group has hard-liners that will damn all who are different from them, but it seems to me that most religious groups have official policies of reaching out and interacting with others. You'll see the Pope meeting on a very friendly basis with Jews and Muslims and Orthodox and all sorts of Protestants and the Dalai Lama - which is proof that all of those groups reach out to others, too.

Mormons get far more than "a bit of criticism or even ridicule."

Oh, and the "tragic results" you speak of are most often the work of lunatics, not the mainstream. You really can't expect a group to control its extremists.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Will Fly
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:01 PM

Trudeau can do no wrong. Satire knows no boundaries.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:03 PM

The question is, Joe... why aren't the extremists right? IF one can believe in an omnicent God who cares about the daily affairs and conduct of his creations... (and we suppose, expects to BE worshipped), why then can't "he-she-it" BE a jealous, angry god who sends punishments and approves of stoning adulterers and naughty children ... and can literally 'raise the dead'...etc.?

The very fact that we DO have so many variations in belief systems logically casts doubt on all of them. We know how such systems developed in humans who had a brain complex enough to wonder and invent answers, and some of the stories are beautiful & inspiring and can, as you demonstrate, serve to delineate guidance for dealing with pain & suffering in ourselves & others......but..... IF any of the basic tenets are not actually true, then it does become intrinsically subjective as to which derived tenets one follows.
... and it also follows that mocking a religion is merely a case of "you takes your chances about reprisals".

Yes, I am quite aware that civilized society needs SOME agreements about recognizing and tolerating each other's eccentricities.... but some of the 'more eccentric' do not WISH to tolerate those of others, and have an inner mandate to proselytize & convert... or destroy others. "Go, and become fishers of men"

Why SHOULDN'T 'true believers' follow the most direct, simple rules they know? From MY viewpoint they shouldn't, but.........

So... like it or not, concern over how Romney would use his religion in his politics is a relevant question. We have laws about NOT mixing religion with governing, but fat lot of good they do in general. We also have laws about making direct, false accusations about someone, but Gary Trudeau seems to me to be within the rules, even if he does cause some reactions.... whadda ya gonna do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:32 PM

The extremists aren't right because they go to extremes, Bill. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:38 PM

Why aren't the extremists right, Bill? Because they just don't get it. They're juveniles, and have not matured beyond literalism.

Religious traditions are built upon myths that are, for the most part, anthropomorphic. Our gods have human foibles, because we have those same foibles. As people mature and become more capable of dealing with abstractions, their perception of the Divine (or the Beyond) moves away from human forms into something more amorphous. In general, I think we could call the most mature members of a religious group "mystics." Mystics live in a cloud; beyond the myths and the rules and the doctrines, and in closer contact with That Which Is Beyond. If you read the writings of the mystics of various faith traditions, you will find that they have far more in common with each other, than they have with the fundamentalists of their religious groups. Some of these mystics aren't even theistic, but yet they have much in common with Christian and Muslim and Jewish and Buddhist mystics. Their lives aren't governed by rules and doctrines, although it is clear that those rules and doctrines are part of the foundation of their lives. They live by principle and according to their own essence, and they are beyond rules and doctrine.

Most spiritual people don't reach the level of "mystic," and that's probably a good thing. Most people do have a reasonable level of maturity, and they no longer need rules and doctrines once they have become aware of themselves and how they fit into the world.

Little children live by direct order. Their parents tell them what to do and what not to do, and parents give them all the answers they need.

As children grow older and more independent, they live by a set of rules and teachings their parents and other authorities have bestowed upon them. They use the rules as guides for their behavior, and derive the answers they need from the teachings they have been given.

Somewhere along the line, children become adults and begin to act on principle instead of by following rules, and they begin to think independently.

And then in middle age, they may reach a far more philosophical stage, a stage that is reflective more than reactive [and possibly less productive, which is why it's good we're not all mystics]

Now, we all have all of these elements throughout life, but the balance shifts when we move from one stage to another. The myths and the rules and doctrines don't disappear as we age, but we view them in far different ways.

But the fundamentalists barely get past Stage 2. For them, the myths and rules and doctrines ARE God, and they fail to see the amorphous Something that is beyond. In fact, they tend to see all that are beyond their stage, as evil and worthy of destruction.

-Joe-

cf. Stages of Moral Development.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 03:43 PM

Excellent post, Joe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 04:17 PM

Here's an hour long documentary by John Sweeney called:


The Mormon Candidate

It doesn't show Romney in a good light. Or Mormonism either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 05:10 PM

Most who know me, know I was raised with a prejudice against Mormons due to some old sheep and cattle "wars" which went on during my grandfather and great-grandfather's times in western Colorado. My second husband was a Mormon and I had a beloved aunt who was also a member of the LDS church.

I do not believe Doonesbury went too far. I've grown up mostly within thirty miles of the Utah border and surrounded by a large population of Mormons. I have worked in Utah for a media group which was blackballed until we added more local Mormons to the employees.

The LDS church is a huge corporation, basically, and yes, they do a lot of good work just like the Roman Catholic Church, but they have terrible views on how women are to be treated. I have a few horror stories, not extremists, and in one instance a cousin, but I would refer anyone who wants to gain some historical perspective, to Sonia Johnson's book, "From Housewife to Heretic." You'll learn more than you might want to know about the underwear and all other aspects of Mormon women's lives.

IMO, our country does NOT need a leader from a misogynistic org. like the LDS. Were I cynical enough, I'd predict the "elders" might have a revelation and elevate women to equality, but it won't happen, even though that's what they did when the civil rights movement made it too uncomfortable for them to continue to deny male people of colour the right to be leaders in the LDS. Convenient timing...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 05:20 PM

I have no particular use for Mormon theology, or any other Christian theology for that matter.

As I understand it, Mormonism isn't really a Christian religion except in the same sense that Islam is. Both see Jesus as a great human prophet to be revered, but with the Christian Gospel as essentially superseded by a subsequent revelation. (Quite a few other similarities too.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 05:26 PM

If this cartoon is indicative.

He is not going far enough with the Mormons and too far with the French.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: gnu
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 05:42 PM

I haven't added them up, but the OP's request, "If anyone takes up this discussion, please break with Mudcat tradition and discuss without bashing this or other beliefs.", was violated early (as I posted early on) and continues to be violated at a rate that is unacceptable. Why don't youse start your owns threads and... oh... what's the use? I am sure the OP's "long-time reader and occasional contributor." status has been trashed. So has my participation in any meaningful dialog in line with the OP.

Jaysus, people! The VERY LEAST you could do is preface your posts with, maybe, "Thread drift..." before you go off on things that the OP asked you NOT to go off on? EH?

Yes, I am guilty at times (seldom) of not prefacing my off topic posts with "thread drift" but I have an excuse which is not simply being rude to the OP and subsequent readers and posters.

Please show SOME restraint or preface your posts as thread drift or whatever you think is appropriate or START YER OWN THREAD. Really... is it too much too ask? Decorum? Good manners? The Golden Rule?

Oh... yeah... right... good manners : yeah, I am VERY guilty at times for reasons I don't need to explain but I don't trash the OP by taking over his thread when speciffically asked not to do so (on purpose).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 05:43 PM

That **is**, Joe, a very good reply and detailed outline of how humans advance their value systems.. or not.. thru life. I agree with that basic analysis and with YOUR approach to taking the (mystic) values of religion(s) to inspire and elevate thinking.

And the article is excellent also, as it recognizes the philosophical bases of the theory...especially deontology--- which I studied in courses on Kant. (Particularly "The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals")

The problem is that irrational behavior... defined as NOT moving past level 2 or 3 as they mature and learn... is rewarded in this society as long as they cite some 'belief' to justify not advancing. "Freedom of speech and/or religion" allows almost any fundamentalist doctrine to be recognized and tolerated... as long as they don't interfere with the right of others--- and the 'hate teachings' of The Westboro Baptist Church push the envelope to the limit and STILL are allowed to function.

I go back to that idea extremists have no incentive to do better as long as no line is drawn about how they ACT. Remember... belief systems are not black & white or just self-contained sets of ideas... they are a continuum with almost infinite gradations of beliefs from the simplest 'stage one or two' to complex, thoughtful, mystical enhancements! ...which is why I asked the question "why aren't the extremists right?" Where on the looooong series of beliefs do we say "THIS is too extreme"?
(reminds me of the line that 'excessive sex' is anyone who does it more than YOU do!)

I have more than once posted here the philosophic principle "From false premises, anything follows."... and the extremists DO have a point that others have beliefs based on teachings and ancient texts, so why dispute THEIR versions?

I don't know quite what to suggest... but I do see the basic impulse to restrict voting...etc... to those who can qualify under some set of arbitrary standards! **wry smile**


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 06:15 PM

Joe, I am sure you are much better informed on these matters than I am. However the good relations between the leaders of the main religions are fairly recent development, and seem to me to be based on a commonality of interest in a secular world rather than a theological meeting of minds. On a day-to-day level, most religions do not regard others as equal and, for example, place obstructions on someone marrying outside the faith.

The extremists have a habit of becoming the mainstream. One has only to consider the history of the Crusades, or the Reformation in Europe, to see that the slaughter of non-believers was by no means confined to a few fanatics.

My point is that religions are not shy of criticizing others and expressing views which others find offensive. However when they are criticised or ridiculed they demand special protection. If religions are confident in their own essential truth, they should be robust enough not to be worried by criticism, however harsh and perhaps even unfair it may seem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 06:36 PM

Howard, I partly agree with you when you say, The extremists have a habit of becoming the mainstream, and my response applies also to what Kat says. I've experienced Mormons in Utah and Idaho, and they can be overbearing. Since they're the overwhelming majority, they have no need to learn to tolerate others - this seems especially true in eastern Idaho, although perhaps not in Pocatello where Rap lives (it's a college town).




I vehemently disagree with this statement from Howard: My point is that religions are not shy of criticizing others and expressing views which others find offensive. However when they are criticised or ridiculed they demand special protection. If religions are confident in their own essential truth, they should be robust enough not to be worried by criticism, however harsh and perhaps even unfair it may seem.

This is the rationalization that is the basis of all bigotry - taking a true statement about the misconduct of a few, and expanding it to apply to the entire group; and then using that expanded notion as rationalization for condemnation of the entire group and for taking action against individual members of the group simply because of their membership.

Romney has lived most of his life outside Utah and Idaho, so he has not been part of a Mormon majority. There seems to be no evidence that he has been overbearing in his religious beliefs and practices, so I think he should be given a break on his religion. HOWEVER, he has been pandering to the fucking Tea Party idiots since the campaign began and has lost his reputation as a reasonable moderate - and for that reason, he should not be elected President.

Excuse the French, but it seemed appropriate in light of this week's Doonesbury comics.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: gnu
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 06:58 PM

GUEST, Gern. There ya go, eh? Tradition is tradition. Either nobody really reads the posts or gives a shit. As far as me "apologizing" for over-stepping the boudaries of good manners when I rant with foul language against what I percieve as transgressions (I am sure regular readers knew what I was alluding to), I feel these pale in comparision to the transgressions against you in this thread.

You could start another thread, Gern, and... oh, what's the use? I just went through a similar thing and ended up not wanting to post to my own thread about a painful life experience because some holier than thou motherfucker(s) felt they had to misinterpret me and shout me down. It's frustrating, innit?

Oh... yeah... sorry for the thread drift to those who have taken over this thread and changed it to suit their own agendas.

And, before ANY of you start dissing me AFTER I leave... fuck off. That ain't over-stepping in my books... that's stepping up.

gnightgnu


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 08:18 PM

Steve Shaw said, "Gosh, why not ridicule religion? It's baleful, repressive, dishonest and controlling. And just not true."

In so doing, he automatically stereotyped all religions and all religious people in as unjust and prejudiced a way as someone would who called all black people "worthless niggers". That's why I said what I did.


Oh really? I don't recall including "religious people" in that post, old chap. As for stereotyping, well I didn't do that either. Let me expand. Religion is based on belief in a deity whose existence is, to say the very least, a matter of considerable doubt. The evidence against is overwhelming. Therefore I think it absolutely hunkydory to call people who profess religion of any kind to account, even to ridicule them if they even begin to think that proselytising is the way to go.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 09:37 PM

You've gone too far, Steve....! ;-) (I'm joking.)

Hey, man, I think you're tremendously wrong in what you say. There is NO evidence either for OR against God, there can't be, and you don't even know what other people mean BY the word "God" when they say the word, because you're not a mind reader. You're merely assuming you know what they mean, you're assuming you know what they believe, and you'd be wrong much of the time. But we could waste a large piece of the rest of our lives arguing about it, so why bother? It won't change anything if we do.

BTW, I think that the Doonesbury comics showing Romney talking to the guy in France are absolutely hilarious! ;-D Nice work, Gary Trudeau!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 10:11 PM

Oh, but Steve...I do agree with you about the prosyletizing. I'm not in favor of people trying to convert others to their religion...or to their lack of same. Either way, I'm not in favor of any form of aggressive or invasive prosyletizing. It's not anyone's business to go around trying to convert others, in my opinion.

(And that's where I disagree with some very nice local people I know...my town's Jehovah's Witnesses. They're nice, allright. They're excellent friends and neighbours. But they do pester people unnecessarily with their zeal to convert. I don't ridicule them, though, I treat them politely and make it plain that they have no hope of turning me into a JW.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 10:47 PM

"Either nobody really reads the posts or gives a shit. "

I read gern's post and tried to honestly gave a shit and based on my limited knowledge of the subject looked up a recent cartoon and gave what I thought was a cogent yet funny comment. Certainly, in that that cartoon Trudeau treated the LDS with respect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Oct 12 - 11:02 PM

Joe, surely you don't believe a person has to live in Utah or Idaho to be completely immersed in the LDS church? That has NOT stopped Romney from taking his "elder" duties seriously. Take a look at his track record:Abortion Agenda.

I thikn it was on FB where I read a firsthand acct. of how he treated a young Mormon woman who had permission from her Stake President (ultra-elder) to have an abortion of a seven week old foetus when Romnet it upon himself to harass her about it and forbid it.

Make no mistake...women of the Mormon faith are second class chattels, by and large. As long as they fulfill their roles of wife and mother, even to the death (my cousin's wife...I still don't speak to the idiot who let her die just to give him another child as church doctrine dictates), then no problem. Let one get a bit uppity and watch out.

IF this is thread drift, I apologise. I do think the OP has to expect some discussion of religion by the very nature of the cartoon linked.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 12:36 AM

A former Mormon I met once told me that their religion says that a good Mormon man is promised his own planet to rule in the hereafter whereas a good woman gets to be one of the wives of her Earthly husband on this planet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: LadyJean
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 01:07 AM

I have a friend who assures me that Mr. Romney is concealing several wives, besides the one you see, calling them housekeepers. He is descended from polygamists. But I can't think the Republicans could be THAT stupid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 01:09 AM

Mitt is certainly that stupid. But I don't think Ann is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 03:47 AM

Oh, no, Kat - most Mormons I know are "completely immersed in the LDS church." There's no room in the Mormon church for anything less than total commitment. But in places where Mormons are not a majority, they do coexist with other people reasonably well - and I do believe a Mormon can function in government. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from Nevada, is a good example, and I think that Romney did a pretty good job in Massachusetts.

But don't let your son date a Mormon girl. You'll get hell-and-a-half from her father, and your kid will get worse. Mine did. I'm sure glad they broke up.

-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 03:53 AM

Joe, I am talking generalities here. My point is very simply that religions are very willing to express their views, and to try to influence civil law to reflect their views, but at the same time demand special treatment and protection against criticism, because it might be "offensive".

Whether it is right to have a go at an individual about their religious beliefs is a different matter. It depends on the circumstances, and how that individual wears his belief. If it's largely a private matter, then no, but if they're trying to impose their views on me then I'm entitled to respond. Politicians as a class seem to be very happy to trumpet their religious beliefs to promote themselves, so in my view they're fair game.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Is Doonesbury going too far?
From: GUEST,Gern
Date: 12 Oct 12 - 10:13 PM

Thanks to all for this stirring, generally courteous and thoughtful exchange. It makes for excellent thread-reading and vents us all as well. I wouldn't trade Trudeau for a trunkfull of Romneys myself, but I want him to go down for the right reasons. As for Doonesbury, party on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 22 October 11:11 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.