Joel Pett by Joel Pett
- May 20, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Pat Oliphant by Pat Oliphant
Dwane Powell by Dwane PowellAbout Joel Pett
Joel Pett is a three-time finalist for Pulitzer Prize for cartooning. He won the award in 2000. He joined Lexington Herald-Leader in 1984 and USAToday as contributing cartoonist in 2002.
© 2009 Cartoonists and Writers Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (41) Jump to Comments Form
cdward said, 6 months ago
And it’s laziness when one doesn’t.
dwyant said, 6 months ago
I think the struggle is within the two others - right is right & wrong is wrong!
Dale Hopson
said,
6 months ago
More like a double standard!
Herbabee said, 6 months ago
Nice pontificatin’ ya got goin’ on thar, AN. Jus’ like that avatar & the “Thou shalt not bear false witness” thang.
cdward said, 6 months ago
ANandy, it is faithlessness NOT to question human authority because human authority is flawed. As a priest, I do not question God’s authority either. However, you had better question the translations because they are approximations at best. I remember in my Hebrew and Greek classes the professors continually saying that we cannot ever get a perfect translation.
Also, you realize, of course, that the scriptures do not claim the exalted position you grant them. Human beings gave them that authority. Accept it or not, the scriptures do not claim it. And they certainly do not claim perfection or infallibility.
BTW, you are wrong that “The defination of marriage has survived eons.” For example, in the even not-so-distant past, polygamy was considered quite normal.
Kylop said, 6 months ago
The authority of the Allmighty- I do not question.
The authority of those telling me that the Allmighty has
1) Told them that they are doing His bidding and His bidding is that I no longer think for myself
2) Told them to build a theme park
3) Told them that if the worshipers don’t provide enough money the Allmighty will “call them home”
4) Told them that the Allmighty who endorses peace and love demands war and hate
5) Told them that anyone else claiming to represent the Allmighty must be cast down
and too many more to list here
…I do not question…I make fun of them for being pompous arrogant asses.
Corosive Frog said, 6 months ago
Never question the authority just because it is authority; Idiocy.
Always question the authority just because it is the authority: idiocy.
Think by yourself on every issue, on by one, that’s why the One Upstairs gave us a brain. If he wanted us to be dumb sheep, he would have made us dumb sheep.
Anthony 2816
said,
6 months ago
ANandy, you should read your bible instead of just assuming what it says.
If one were to construct an amendment to the Constitution based on a literal reading of the Bible it might well contain the following stipulations:
Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
http://www.godweb.org/biblemarriage.htm
StradMan37
said,
6 months ago
Palin’s a Pain - as usual……
Copperdomebodhi said, 6 months ago
IrishCook said, about 4 hours
“Remember, it’s “cool” to question authority, unless that authority is the high and mighty Obamessiah or any leftist propaganda, then you are to keep your mouth shut!”
You were one of the people saying liberals were traitors if they questioned Bush and Rumsfeld, weren’t you?
motivemagus said, 6 months ago
Concerned_Human - agree up until you wrote “believe what you want to believe that is the liberal way,” and “To question a liberal is obviously anti-choice , anti-freedom , and anti-American.” By any reasonable standard the Founding Fathers (and Mothers - Abigail Adams really belongs in the list) were liberal in their approach to religion by banning it from the government. Modern liberals do the same. Or have you forgotten about how the Right kept talking about the godless lefties? Remember George McGovern? He was called the group of Abortion, Acid, and Atheism.
I assume your final comment was a criticism of liberals, but liberals have done far more to encourage debate and criticism than conservatives, who by definition protect the status quo.
motivemagus said, 6 months ago
IrishCook - what did you think of Dukakis? He even took the subway to work! But he got pretty well hammered by the Bush operatives.
And by the way, do you prefer your filthy rich, elitist out of touch politicians Republican, then? Bush I and II, Reagan, Rockefeller, Cheney were all filthy rich, and far more so than Kerry (who married money) and Edwards (who actually made a lot of money, unlike the recent Bushes, who merely inherited it).
Michigander said, 6 months ago
We can do anything we want to, as long as we get permission first : )
Kylop said, 6 months ago
Anandy, you say that you believe the concept of a man and his wife in Gen. 2:24 and that you appreciate that errors and myth exist in the canon of scripture.
So wouldn’t someone, like Anthony, be able to create an equally valid statement using other passages?
“…Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) …”
motivemagus said, 6 months ago
Irish, I live in Massachusetts, and your view of the politics here is a bit off. Dukakis didn’t get reelected as governor once as a backlash to taxes (gee, fiscal responsibility, what a concept, right?), but four years later was elected again, won 70% of the vote in 1986, and stayed in office until he decided not to run after his failed Presidential run.
His father was a Greek immigrant, not a rich elitist. Getting through Harvard Med School is a tribute to his ability, not his money (unlike Dubya). Brookline is a suburb of Boston and has its share of well-off people, but it’s not exactly Kennebunkport, or even Hyannis (to hit both sides of the political spectrum), believe me. I had starving student friends who lived there, too.
Contrary to the “rich Harvard elitist myth,” 70% of Harvard undergraduates were on financial aid, and a large percentage could never have gone without it – I know, I was one of them. Now the percentage may be higher after introducing their innovative approach to encouraging the poor – kids from families with income below $100K go free. So quit demonizing people who work hard and get rewarded by scholarships – that’s the American way, remember?
And you never address my real issue, which is that you apparently have no problem with the rich elitists on the Right.
Anthony 2816
said,
6 months ago
So, ANandy, which other parts of your bible do you dismiss as irrelevant or untrue, because they don’t support your preconceived notions?
Kylop said, 6 months ago
Anthony, I’m not sure that approach will go as far as you’d like.
Try this
“…An account of someone doing something does not necessarily represent the purposes of Jaweh …”
And you know the purposes more than Anthony does because……?
Corosive Frog said, 6 months ago
conservative dictionnary;
Rich conservative; hard-working man that shouldn’t be taxed.
Rich liberal; rich elitist born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Corosive Frog said, 6 months ago
Is it just me or I’m becoming more and more sassy since I have this avatar?
fennec said, 6 months ago
BTW, Dukakis graduated from Swarthmore College, served in the army in Korea and then went to Harvard Law. Swarthmore is another of those need-blind schools. If you can qualify to get in academically, they will find you the money to attend. Not exactly elitist, I think.
tpenna
said,
6 months ago
Sorry I came to this debate so late, but I need to chip this in here. The definition of marriage has NEVER been static! Marriage as we know it today is largely informed by developments since the industrial revolution took hold. I see nothing in the Bible which resembles my own egalitarian monogamous marriage. As a matter of fact, Jesus and Paul both downplayed the importance of marriage. (Jesus said the institution doesn’t even exist in heaven.)
The very idea that people can simply read the Bible and translate those mores into today’s context is ridiculous. Not even fundamentalists believe we should (or they would be eating a lot less shellfish and owning a lot more slaves).
It is deeply important for Christians to look to the Bible for guidance, but it is silly to believe that we should follow it literally.
tpenna
said,
6 months ago
Oh no you didn’t! ;)
Look, I don’t mean to pull the expert card here, but I am currently pursuing a masters degree in theological studies at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University, and I will then go on for a PhD in Christian ethics. So yeah, I’m a little familiar with the topic, ANandy.
So now, how about dealing with what I said instead of attacking me personally?
Kylop said, 6 months ago
“…It is obvious from your post you know little of Christianity.
…”
Look at that softball just lazily coming in over the plate.
The way it just hangs there actually makes the paranoid part of me say “If it looks like a trap, sounds, like a trap, and smells like a trap…..”
cdward said, 6 months ago
ANanday, I accept your Christian belief. It may be that someday in heaven we will meet and embrace as brothers in Christ. However, while we are on this earth, we have been given a mission. It is not to set others straight. It is not to make others follow the commands of Christ. It is NEVER to belittle or condemn others. You will agree we have one judge, Christ Jesus, and we can thank God mightily that it is he who judges and not another.
Now, while we are here, our mission is to love God with all our heart, mind and soul and to love our neighbors as ourselves. That is the work we must be about. While I know you exhibit intelligence in many of your posts (even though I disagree vehemently with most of them), I cannot see any way to acknowledge the abusive tone as following the Way. As a pastor, this grieves me. I do not doubt you will find a room in Christ’s heavenly mansion, but I do not think you do the good we’re called to by repeatedly calling our president “the inept Bozo” or our elected representatives “the idiot Congress.” This is not the way of Jesus.
There are ways to tell hard truths – or the truth as best we see it – but I do not believe belittling is a valid way.
I would find it fascinating to discuss scripture with you – perhaps in some other forum – as I would with Tpenna. We all have much to learn from each other, and only when we approach the subject with humility and an open heart and mind can we truly benefit from the opportunity to know Christ in each other.
tpenna
said,
6 months ago
ANandy said: How do you apply dietary laws of Judaism and ancient social custom to Christianity?
tpenna replies: That’s precisely my point, ANandy. We do not apply these, and other early Christian mores, to our daily lives as Christians. Ridiculous and silly are just the right words to describe it. We now understand that women and men are equal and should be treated as such. We now understand that the institution of slavery is repugnant. We also understand that homosexuality is not a state of moral or spiritual depravity.
tpenna
said,
6 months ago
None of this affects the truth of the gospel.
believecommonsense
said,
6 months ago
cdward, liked your post
as for the toon, I can’t get past the stupidity of Bristol Palin seeking to become the voice of abstinence when when her very presence, and the celebrityhood she is now seeking, work against the argument.
motivemagus said, 6 months ago
But ANandy, and I will defer to tpenna on this, modern Biblical historians have determined that a significant percentage of Paul’s letters were not, in fact, Paul’s, including the more obnoxious one about women. Furthermore, there have been edits made for specific political/theological intent.
Most Christian sects other than fundamentalists do not accept the literal truth of the Bible in any case. Most theologians and most Christian denominations also seem to believe that God spoke to people in the way that made the most sense for them at the time. That’s why the wrathful God of the Old Testament sounds very different from the merciful God of the New. We can find new insight in the Bible for each generation without necessarily interpreting it the same way.
I think most of us would agree that the essence of Christianity is to love one’s neighbor as oneself - people try to redefine those they dislike as exempt from this rule. Where Christianity has evolved is its ability to enlarge the definition of “neighborhood” to “humanity.”
doppyeast
said,
6 months ago
I am an 81 year old atheist,and very happy not to be carrying around such burdensome stone age superstitions, as demonstrated here!
motivemagus said, 6 months ago
Anandy: sure. Check out Bart Ehrman’s books, which are good and well-written popularizations of the history. I’m not an expert, but he is. I just read his latest book, Jesus, Interrupted, and I was startled not only to read what he wrote, but that his view is by no means radical – he’s citing the mainstream approach to rigorous Biblical study at all mainstream Protestant and Catholic theology schools.
http://tinyurl.com/pty2jc
http://tinyurl.com/ojro5l
Corosive Frog said, 6 months ago
Up here, the catholic church already celebrates the weddings of convicted criminals and members of the mob. Need I say more?
cdward said, 6 months ago
ANanday, there are a couple of sticking points which indicate that we, like countless Christians (in our particular case – there are many from other religions who also part ways within their religious traditions) before, will never agree.
The first sticking point is how we understand scripture. Some Christians see it as literal and inerrant, others do not. In our faith, Jesus is the Word, and the bible is a faithful witness of the people of God sorting out their relationship with God. Since our church’s inception we have believed that scripture “containeth all things necessary to salvation” but NOT that everything in it IS necessary to salvation. A huge distinction. We believe in order to understand the will of God in our time, we must use the witness of scripture (which was and is bound in time and culture), AND the tradition (which changes slowly), AND reason (the heart and mind). They need to work together, and our understanding of the teachings can and will change.
For example, reason, tradition and a better grasp of the culture in which scriptures were written taught us that despite Paul, slaves should in fact be free. Over time we agreed that women should not be kept silent. Over time we came to believe it is NOT the will of Christ to kill heretics or those whose sexual norms are not our own.
There are NO pure literalists. As the great Baptist preacher Will Campbell says, if there were, we would all sell our property, give the proceeds to the poor, and live together in a commune. (Acts 2) The problem is, there were so many people in scripture trying to get competing ideas across (for example, Luke wrote his gospel and Acts to compete with others, including Matthew). The Gospel of John was nearly NOT selected to be part of the canon because it has nearly nothing in common with the other gospels.
The other area where we will not agree, I am sure, is in translation itself. For example, in the passage you site above, I Cor 6:9, 10, the word it translates and “effeminate” (malakoi) can just as easily and correctly be translated as “dandy” – a lady’s man.
Translation is always dicey, and Paul is so fast and loose with his Greek that much of what he says is regularly up to interpretation. The Old Testament is even less certain. In my Hebrew classes in seminary, I remember translating Psalms and having to leave gaping holes because, as our professor said, much of what we think is certain is merely a later writer’s guess-work.
In the end, God is everywhere and eternal – but the scriptures are NOT God, are not infallible, and are not our only source. To hold them as inerrant is itself heretical. (by the way, heresy simply means incorrect belief. Just as it was an incorrect belief that heretics should be persecuted).
Best for us all if we look to Christ for the way to live our lives. Paul was not divine and no more divinely inspired that good Christian teachers today. Christ, on the other hand, is God incarnate – and he says nothing about gays.
olfart said, 6 months ago
Concerned human
The state has no right to deny or affirm ANY marriage. Marriage is a religous institution. As such the state is forbidden by the constitution from meddling in it. That would include tax subsidies for marriage. It is time for you married slackers tostart carrying your share of the load. Marriage = welfare!
motivemagus said, 6 months ago
cdward - thanks for a thoughtful and well-informed post.
Corosive Frog said, 6 months ago
Marriage has a religious part, but it’s not religion itself. If society (or the State) has no power over marriages, how come it can pronounce divorces?
tpenna
said,
6 months ago
Hey guys, I’ve been on vacation and just popped by to see how the debate was going. Cdward, thanks for your really great response.
steve1945
said,
6 months ago
Huh??? Didn’t Harvey Milk want to marry his hand???
cdward said, 6 months ago
Geez, steve, grow up.
curiosity1 said, 6 months ago
My fundamental concern with this whole debate is the frequency with which the legitimacy of equal marriage comes back to biblical scripture. If that is not governmental establishment of religion, I don’t know what is…
The Qur’an permits polygamy. A ‘definition of marriage’ which has arguably existed for centuries as well.
The key question is this: What is the legal nature of the contract of marriage, and what benefits and responsibilities does it convey? There is NO ARGUABLE RATIONAL BASIS for allowing a man and a woman to be married while excluding two men or two women. ANY counter argument resorts to preexisting bias generally based on religious fundamentalism.
The ‘we’ve always done it this way’ argument - the same one was used with interfaith marriage and interracial marriage, and each was deemed not a RATIONAL exclusion.
The ‘it’s for the benefits of raising children’ argument - gays and lesbians can raise children on the one hand and heterosexual couples can go their entire life without children. How do you distinguish between them without resorting to a preconceived bias? Saying that the heterosexual couple ‘could’ have a natural baby implies that an infertile couple should not be allowed to marry. Saying that it’s ‘natural law’ is a circular argument. It’s unnatural because you say so.
I am so tired of this debate. The religious right will not ever prevent me from loving my husband. If there is a God, whether or not we are married will be determined by our relationship in his/her eyes, not by your legalizing/illegalizing my marriage.
What we gays and lesbians expect is for the law to recognize and treat us equally under the law. I have a bound relationship to a life partner to love, protect, honor and cherish which is recognized by a contract of marriage.
You do not have to like my marriage, or love my faith. But what gives you the right to determine who I can express my love to, and how that can be recognized? Should I not be allowed to love someone with blue eyes, because I have hazel ones? or someone who is lefthanded, because that is evil from a historical perspective.
Focus on how you can provide a healthy example of love and stability to our children, and not provide examples of
hatred.
All you accomplish by stigmatizing our love is reassuring yourself that your irrational hatred (and it is hatred) is acceptable.
Perhaps the way you can prevent my love from existing is to lock me up as insane for not having the RIGHT kind of love. Or maybe I should just be disposed of for the sake of ‘family values’ and ‘cultural purity’? What kind of society o you want to live in? Maybe you should do the same thing to all Muslims who have a different definition of Marriage as well. Or Buddhists, because they won’t fight for your principles? And let’s not even mention the Atheists…
Ask yourself… WHY DO YOU CARE? Really. WHY does it matter to you? And what happens when someone else points out where your faith is mistaken and why your should not be permitted to live your life according to your faith either?
Feh. Now I’m going to go meditate and calm down.
@cdward - Thank you for an insightful comment on the role of religion in our livelihood.
motivemagus said, 6 months ago
Funny how the conservatives who scream to get government out of our lives want to invade the bedroom. None of their business. Marriage has nothing to do with government, it has to do with religion. The only question is whether government-mandated partner benefits should be extended, and you can solve that simply by providing that you can designate anyone you want – spouse or no – to be the recipient of such benefits. That would also eliminate the (semi-erroneous) complaints by single people that married people get benefits they don’t.
Anthony 2816
said,
5 months ago
Excellent post, Curiosity1.