Zapiro does it again | Nathan Bond's TART Remarks
Religion: Respect? Ridicule! Zapiro does it again
I think cartoonists (Al Jaffee; David Austin) and comedians (Lear’s Fool; Jerry Seinfeld) are the best social commentators on earth. Zapiro ranks right up there. And this cartoon (published in South Africa’s Sunday Times, September 7, 2008) is probably one of the very best I have ever had the privilege of viewing:
Even people who object to the image of a subjugated woman probably admire the cartoon for its in your face message. But why, o why are we generally not prepared – Zapiro certainly is – to similarly criticise religion for its atrocious influence?
Written by Nathan Bond September 9, 2008 at 19:45
Tagged with Zapiro, Zuma	« TEOTWAWKI
The world has ended »
Con-Tester, seek and you shall find and not wait, as you will not find.
September 11, 2009 at 21:25	Not true. My comfort zone is evidence. I am committed to it. You still haven’t shown any, only made much noise and fuss about how you’ve got it. Meanwhile, we’re still waiting while you continue to make meaningless noise.
September 5, 2009 at 00:37	Con-Tester, you will also say anything, as not having yourself committed to anything, other than your present comfort zone.
September 3, 2009 at 21:35	Bullshit, Hans. The only thing that is clear to me is that you will say anything to protect your bullshit.
August 28, 2009 at 13:28	Con-Tester, as God is spirit and His kingdom is not of this world, it should be clear to you, that Science has nothing to do with the existence of God. Scientific proof is irrelevant and is of this world.
August 26, 2009 at 21:58	Hans Matthysen, I provided you a link to an article that describes fairly comprehensively what is meant by “evidence.” I did so in a number cases. Clearly you haven’t bother to read it. Furthermore, it is also glaringly obvious that you know next to nothing about what it means to have a scientific disposition or to follow its epistemological tenets. Calling yourself as a witness to substantiate what you already believe anyway and no matter what, is about as convincing as having a junkie testify on the value of crack.
August 22, 2009 at 20:22	Con-Tester, my comment to Nathan is also applicable to you.
August 21, 2009 at 21:54	Nathan, many have evidence similar to what I have and we share it amongst ourselves. What we have experienced is not an experiment, as it has nothing to do with science and that appears to be where you are confused.
We don’t have to claim, what we know and should you seek to know, with the correct attitude, you may succeed.
August 21, 2009 at 21:53	Clearly, yes, that second sentence is true Hans Matthysen.
But read Nathan’s reply carefully and then please show us your evidence.
August 15, 2009 at 11:19	Evidence that can’t be shared ain’t no evidence, Hans!
If the experiment can’t be replicated, the claim is rejected.
You have nothing but an idiotic wail – “The Baaibil says so!”
August 15, 2009 at 07:40	Johannes, ek kan nogal met jou saam stem.
August 14, 2009 at 21:34	Con-Tester, you are wrong. I have plenty of evidence for myself and nothing for you.
August 14, 2009 at 21:33	Hans ek ken Con-T nie so goed nie en ek wil ook nie te kenne gee dat hy dalk soos ‘n tollenaar is nie…
(Luk 18:11) En die Fariseër het gaan staan en by homself so gebid: o God, ek dank U dat ek nie soos die ander mense is nie—rowers, onregverdiges, egbrekers, of ook soos hierdie tollenaar nie.
August 14, 2009 at 10:18	Yes, I’m sure that’s probably true. Then again, so are you. Chief among the things you are blind to is your own blindness concerning the fact that you have no evidence.
August 13, 2009 at 12:34	Con-Tester, what would you know? You are blind to many things yet.
August 12, 2009 at 21:58	So what? Are you trying to say that unbelievers, or at least your version of them, outnumber believers? Because my version of dodos outnumber bacteria.
July 4, 2009 at 23:01	Unbelievers are actually everybody who do not belief in the God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as the one and only God.
July 4, 2009 at 16:50	My pleasure. Anytime. To be precise, it’s a one-man sect.
July 4, 2009 at 11:15	Con-Tester, as you choose to refer to my religion as a sect, you confirm that I follow the true way and I can only say; thank you.
July 3, 2009 at 22:40	Rick, woord bestaan, liefde bestaan, lig (vertaanbaarheid) bestaan ens. dus God bestaan, want dit is wat God is.
Jesus Christus se liggaam, wat uit baie lede bestaan, bestaan omdat ek ‘n lid aan Sy liggaam is.
Lees maar weer mooi wat ek geskryf het, jou liggaam is die doeke waarin jy toegedraai is.
Is jy werklik bereid om te leer of is jou “sense” moontlik te “common”?
July 3, 2009 at 22:32	Nathan, ek is gereeld met my medemens in die “breking van brood” (m.a.w. ons steek kers op).
Niemand dwing God in alles nie, want God is in alles. God is die woord, waarheid, liefde ens. In die nuwe vertaalde Afrikaanse Bybel staan, dat God, het mens geword (Joh.1 v 14).
As iemand jou naam misbruik, is jy skuldig? Jy kan soms baie dom redeneer.
Wat jy daar sê is juis wat God ons deur Jesus leer.
July 3, 2009 at 22:20	Hans Matthysen wrote (24 Dec 08 at 6:12 pm):
“[M]ost religions, atheists, agnostics and many Christian religions are against what I believe, so I and my fellow spiritual believers, find ourselves in the minority and that is the relevance.”
I see. So it’s about your particular canon of religious beliefs being in the minority. While that’s very probably true of every sect taken on its own, it hardly makes unbelievers any kind of majority. It’s a mistake to lump those whose religious beliefs differ from yours into the same lot as those who disbelieve altogether.
December 26, 2008 at 22:17	Johannes, ag ek bedoel Hans!
Ek gaan jou nie persoonlik aanvat nie, want dis nie my styl nie. Ek gaan egter presies skryf wat ek dink.
Jou skrywe hierbo is n perfekte voorbeeld van wensdenkery. Jy aanvaar moontlikhede (God se bestaan is natuurlik n moontlikheid) as feite. Bv.
“Jesus opgestaan, nuwe liggaam, vele dele, brood ens ens.”
Hoe kan jy n voorspelling maak dat my vlees in doeke gaan agter bly? Watse kak is dit?! Hans, daar is geen bewyse vir die bogenoemde snert wat jy kwytraak nie. Ek se dit nie omdat ek ‘n intellektuele reus is nie, want ek is hoegenaamd nie! Ek beskik egter oor twee kwaliteite wat ek vir min dinge sal ruil, nl. ‘n bereidwilligheid om te leer (die waardheid, nie Mickey Mouse stories nie), en soos die Ingelsman se, “common sense”. rick
December 26, 2008 at 16:05	Hans
Gaan steek gerus kers op by jou medemens; ek maak ook so. Maar hóékom, wáárom “God” in alles in dwing!? Kom ons wees net menslik met mekaar – “God” is júís ‘n ónmenslike idee; die onmenslikhede wat in dié bliksem se naam gepleeg is loop soos ‘n bloedrivier deur die geskiedenis.
Moenie iemand anders skade berokken nie. Doen wat jy kan om iemand anders te bevoordeel. “God” is mos nou nie nodig om só te leef nie!
December 25, 2008 at 20:23	Nathan, jy is so reg, dat ons mense net mekaar het, want God het deur Jesus, aan ons bekend gemaak, dat Hy (God) in ons woon. As ek God se raad, hulp ens nodig het, gaan ek na my medemens en dit is waar ek God ontmoet.
Rick, Jesus Christus het weer opgestaan, in ‘n nuwe liggaam, wat uit baie lede bestaan. Wat dink jy, het die een brood gesimboliseer, wat Jesus in vele dele gebreek het. Ek is vandag ‘n deel van daardie liggaam en het die verskyning van Christus, in my lewe, lief.
Jy het duidelik baie van my skrywes gemis as jy dink ek is een van Johannes se 2011 mense.
Ek dien God in gees en in waarheid en lees dus die Bybel in gees en in waarheid.
Toe jy gebore is, is jy ook in doeke (naamlik jou vlees) toegedraai. Wanneer jy sterwe, sal jou vlees (die doeke) agter bly in die graf. Jy sal beslis nie daar wees nie en daarom is dit so, dat baie die geeste van hul voorvaders sien, ongeag hul geloof of nasie. So is Jesus Christus nie by die dooies, maar wel by die lewendiges.
Christelike denominasies of gelowe kom op dieselfde neer en ek is seker, jy weet wat ek bedoel.
December 25, 2008 at 17:41	Hans
Ek wil óók graag jou antwoord aan Rick verneem!
Alhoewel ek seker is Rick se tong is stewig in sy kies met sy laaste sin, wil ek darem net – vir die rekord – sê dat geen god jou enige gunse gaan doen op Kersdag nie… ook nie in 2009 nie. Raai wat? Ons mense het net mekaar. Ons moet leer om die lewe vierkant in die oë te kyk en mekaar te ondersteun.
December 25, 2008 at 08:17	Hans
Jy verwys na ‘Christian religions”. Wat bedoel jy hiermee?
Ek is bekend met die term “Christen denominasies”, maar Christian religions laat my in die duister.
Dr. Bernard Ficker het by geleentheid ‘n brief aan Die Burger gestuur oor die kwessie van verdeeldheid in die Christen geloof. Volgens hom moet alle ingewikkelde en teologiese argumente opsy geskuif word, aangesien dit die onskuldige kind se geloof in Jesus is wat die basis van Christenskap vorm. Maw. ongeag jou denominasie, as jy in die kruisiging en opstanding van Jesus glo kwalifiseer jy as ‘n Christen.
Jy beweer egter dat jy gekant is teen wat meeste Christene glo. Daarteenoor is daar natuurlik geen bewyse dat Jesus ooit gekruisig is en uit die dood opgewek is nie. En nou praat ek van hardcore bewyse, nie slegs n lee graf nie. Bogenoemde teenstrydighede laat jou in n moeilike situasue, nie waar?
Dus, wat presies is jou geloofsoortuiging? Moet alles in die Bybel letterlik geinterpreteer word, of eerder on die konteks van die tyd? Of dalk is jy een van Johannes se 2011 soldate?
‘n Geseende Kersfees! Mag Horus, Mithra (en Jesus!) jou genadig wees!
December 24, 2008 at 21:16	Con-tester, most religions, atheists, agnostics and many Christian religions are against what I believe, so I and my fellow spiritual believers, find ourselves in the minority and that is the relevance.
December 24, 2008 at 18:12	Hans Matthysen, I’m sorry to say that I get the feeling that either you’re not following my question properly or otherwise your answers are some kind of theological prestidigitation that is meant to sidestep the issue.
When you write, “[O]ne who differs from the another will criticize the other and that is not only where religion is concerned” it seems irrelevant to the point.
When you write, “When I do wrong, it doesn’t mean mean my religion is wrong, unless it is directly responsible and is the cause of my improper behavior” it seems irrelevant to the point.
The original claim that was put forward is that unbelievers (who presumably reject all religion) supposedly outnumber believers. I pointed out that atheists and agnostics make up a small fraction of humanity. Your response was that religions criticise one another. Now please explain to me how your observation, while eminently true, is in any way relevant in the sense of mitigating or diminishing my observation. Because that is the sense in which you offered it and I cannot for the life of me see what you’re actually driving at.
December 23, 2008 at 22:04	Con-tester, one who differs from the another will criticize the other and that is not only where religion is concerned. When I do wrong, it doesn’t mean mean my religion is wrong, unless it is directly responsible and is the cause of my improper behavior.
December 23, 2008 at 15:51	Hans Matthysen wrote (4 Dec 08 at 10:01 pm):
“Con-tester, I do agree with your last sentence.”
Okay, but you haven’t answered the question of relevance. So what if religions criticise one another? The accusation was that those who criticise religion generically – that is, religion as a social institution regardless of any particular flavour, clearly meaning those of us who reject all religions – surely outnumber those who laud it.
December 5, 2008 at 12:51	Con-tester, I do agree with your last sentence.
December 4, 2008 at 22:01	Hans Matthysen wrote (11 Oct 08 at 2:29 pm):
“Con-Tester, I think you must also take in account, religeons critise one another.”
I don’t see how that’s relevant or helpful. The statement was those who disparage religion surely outnumber those who compliment it, which seems to me an avowal in which “religion” or “faith” is to be read as a generic term, rather than meaning one specific sect or denomination. Moreover, if we include the defamatory things each religion says about many others, then everyone’s a critic at some time or other.
October 13, 2008 at 14:56	Con-Tester, I think you must also take in account, religeons critise one another.
DW, probeer iets sinvol kwyt raak asb. Ek behoort nie aan ‘n sogenaamde “prys die Here” groep nie.
October 11, 2008 at 14:29	Ons prys en eer liewe Jesus en die ander twee gotte.
Ons gaan mos almal hemel toe –ja man ja .
September 12, 2008 at 15:30	Johan wrote (September 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am):
“Julle [wat geloof kritiseer en sleg sê] is verseker meer as die wat geloof goedpraat!”
How can that possibly be true when atheists account for less than 2.5% of the world’s population and not all of them are critics of religion? Even if you lump in the “non-religious” segment and assume that all of them badmouth religion, the total is still less than 15% of the world’s population which figure is a clear minority in any conventional system of arithmetic.
September 12, 2008 at 14:37	Ek verstaan nie hoekom jy sê :”are we generally not prepared to criticise religion”
Wat doen jy en ander dan op hierdie site. En ander miljoene sites, boeke, teorieë en mense wat geloof kritiseer en sleg sê! Julle is verseker meer as die wat geloof goedpraat!
September 12, 2008 at 11:49	sienfield is brilliant
life of brian – brilliant too if you haven’t seen it you’ll kill yr self laughing!
its a classic will never age as it deals with all our human bigotry!
zapiro keeps me informed on what’s really going on around me
there’s a book i think you will enjoy by the nobel peace prise winner who isn’t scared of taking on the scary extreemists out there like zapiro
bleep they brave!
exactly as you say – how come religion is off bounds
it’s private so you can’t question it – rubbish – if it hurts people sure you can and must!
personally i agree with karl marx – religion is the opium of the people – did he say this!
its a way of keeping people in line
a power control construct!
i heard dawkins being interviewed on the BBC
there might be a pod cast or two you can download
hard talk a while back was one and the other was on bbc world radio
i looooooooove the bbc!
although they get it wrong tooo some times!
September 11, 2008 at 23:47	Blogger “01” has prepared a very decent analysis of the furore surrounding Zapiro’s cartoon.
September 11, 2008 at 16:48	Nathan, die waarheid maak maar seer en ek kan somtyds met Zapiro saam stem.
September 10, 2008 at 22:03	Leave a Reply Cancel reply	Enter your comment here...