Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Grayling

The Jesus and Mo artist (check out the refurbished website) has Anthony Grayling take a hit.

It’s curious, isn’t it, that Grayling, as strident as atheist as either Hitchens or Dawkins, seems immune to the criticisms of believers and accommodationists?  Do you suppose this is because he’s a philosopher? Or maybe it’s the hair: Pinker seems equally immune!

30 Comments

  1. Sigmund
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    I love the quotes at the right side of the page (particularly the final one!)

    “What they’re saying…

    Keep up the good work. Richard Dawkins

    Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson

    …a philosophical confrère. Jerry Coyne

    The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip … Greta Cristina

    …rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme

    …humor is humor and this cartoonist doesn’t have it. Karl Giberson “

    • Saikat Biswas
      Posted November 19, 2010 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      Humor is humor and Uncle Karl will never get it.

    • Stephen P
      Posted November 20, 2010 at 3:21 am | Permalink

      Not that I’m skeptical or anything, but if I Google that phrase I only get Jesus ´n Mo and references to it. Did Giberson actually write it?

  2. michieux
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Speaking of which…

    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/veil-claim-untrue-court-finds-20101119-180zd.html

  3. michieux
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    In regard to the above, the lady accused the police officer of removing her veil. What she hadn’t counted on was the police-car’s dashboard camera, which had recorded the entire incident. When replayed in court, the video revealed her to be a bald-faced liar. Well, perhaps not bald-faced. You get my meaning…

    • MadScientist
      Posted November 19, 2010 at 11:48 am | Permalink

      You mean she was a bearded lady and was using the veil to conceal her – uh – ‘beauty’?

      So she tried to play the race card and lost? Awww. I guess YHWH trumps Allah. (Yes, I know allahism is a religion, but many people insist it’s a race thing whenever the religion is criticized.)

  4. Juha Savolainen
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    You mean that there has got to be a rational and consistent policy behind the religiously-minded attacks on non-accommodating atheists? Ummm…sounds too much of “intelligent design” to mee!…:)

  5. KP
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Pinker seems equally immune!

    Not quite. Dembski took a shot at him during yesterday’s debate with Hitch. I can’t remember what he said, though. I think it involved misquoting him.

  6. Posted November 19, 2010 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    “Or maybe it’s the hair: Pinker seems equally immune!”

    You might be on to something. Unfortunately my “big, invulnerable hair” days are behind me.

  7. Andy Dufresne
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Steven Pinker’s hair has Samson-like qualities. He cannot be killed by conventional weapons.

  8. MoonShark
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    The steering wheel is on the wrong side of the car! It should be in front of the J-man.

    Yeah I know the artist is in the UK, and I can’t speak for Mo… but everyone knows Jebus is a true-blooded ‘merican! He don’t ride shotgun to nobody! Yeehaw!

    • Dominic
      Posted November 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps he drives a Rolls? Sorry, god the father was clearly an Englishman – killed by a German [Nietzsche I mean!]. Yeshua junior may well however have been from the U S of Ay – was he a Confederate or a Unionist though?

      • MoonShark
        Posted November 19, 2010 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        I don’t know about your Jebus, but mine drives a hummer made of solid gold. And he doesn’t want blacks & whites to marry. Guess that makes him a confederate. Allow me to reiterate: yeehaw!

        (never you mind that whole “Nazareth” and “Romans” and “2000 years ago” nonsense)

  9. KP
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    And isn’t Dennett a philosopher too? Just sayin’.

    • Kassul
      Posted November 19, 2010 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      Dennett has some pretty awesome (beard) hair too. Makes it trickier to determine if the hair protects, or the job description.
      He does catch some flak here and there, but not nearly the amount that the other three horsemen get it seems. At least he doesn’t on the places I read.

      Have some more Dennett on my Christmas Wish List, he’s a very enjoyable and enlightening read.

      • Posted November 19, 2010 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

        Professor Dennett is adorable–how does he manage to look like Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Santa Claus all at the same time? ;-))

  10. Anonym
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Mo seems to have an excellent view of the steering wheel.

  11. DiscoveredJoys
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    I’ve wondered for some time why Richard Dawkins gets such fierce criticism, considering he is polite and mild mannered, and rational.

    My conclusion (YMMV) is that he is also uncompromising. There’s no wiggle room for the godstruck to shade or interpret his meaning, there’s no area of grey to exploit or make accommodation possible. There’s no divvying up of the spoils through NOMA.

    People hate that, viscerally.

  12. Brian
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    I think Grayling has two trump cards. He’s delightfully English (and born in Africa, I say!) and he’s a philosopher. Poor old Dawk is not the second, but has the first in spades, even the Africa bit. Apologists wish in their little hearts they were philosophers, so attacking Grayling would be to tear down their own inner superman. Take Barney Zwartz from the Age in Melbourne, he tries and fails to tear PZ, Richard and any other Gnu atheist that have crossed his febrile mind a new one, except Grayling, who’m at worst he gently admonishes for not taking an Olympian detachment befitting a philosopher such as he. None of that strident stuff for Grayling.

    • Brian
      Posted November 19, 2010 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      What the f**k was that ‘who’m’. I have no right to speak English any more, which is embarassing given that is my surname.

    • Brian
      Posted November 20, 2010 at 7:38 am | Permalink

      Well, I thought my explanation had legs. I guess not. Fair enough.

  13. Martin
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    I’ve spoken to AC Grayling a couple of times.He’s the nicest, most pleasant and delightful killer shark I’ve ever met.

  14. Greg Esres
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    Dawkins and Hitchens are much more well-known than Grayling or Pinker, so it’s not surprising that they evoke more hostility. And does Pinker go around giving anti-religion speeches? I haven’t noticed it.

  15. Posted November 19, 2010 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    I always thought that Gralying was actually a much bigger threat to religion than Dawkins is.

    Not to belittle Dawkins – he’s certainly the rock-star of the Gnu atheists.

    But Grayling has a command over the dissemination of ideology that Dawkins, as a scientist, shouldn’t be expected to share.

    Dennett is possibly better at the generation of ideas that Grayling. But even Dennett doesn’t seem (to me) to have Grayling’s talent for chronicling and expressing contemporary Enlightenment ideals in a persuasive way.

    But the believers don’t notice. To swallow the bible without blinking requires a tin ear and a dead mind, methinks.

  16. Marella
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    It’s because Dawkins is a biologist whose speciality is evolutionary theory. They hate evolution, biology and biologists more than anything else. And Dawkins has been a famous evolutionary theorist for decades. Satan in person.

  17. Posted November 20, 2010 at 1:45 am | Permalink

    I have noticed, now that you mention it, that there is a general dearth of criticisms directed at Grayling and Pinker. I wonder what the reason is? They tend not to give a hoot about Daniel Dennett either. Though Dennett still gets a bit more flack than Grayling and Pinker. I think stridency is playing a role here. They just don’t sound offensive when speaking for some reason.

  18. Posted November 20, 2010 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    It’s probably because Grayling hasn’t written a bestseller like The God Delusion, and might have something to do with Dawkins or Hitchens not even remotely skirting the issue: they took aim and let the arrows fly. Grayling can be as eloquent, but he doesn’t really have name recognition outside of certain circles. He’s not so obvious a target.

  19. GroovyJ
    Posted November 20, 2010 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Because the media doesn’t like to admit that more than 2 atheists exist. To a huge swath of the general public, the entire atheist movement is two people, one of whom is dying and the other quite elderly.

    When the media criticises someone, it raises their profile just as much as if it praised them, and the people who run the media are fully aware of that. That’s why back in 2010 it was easy to find criticism of Obama, but impossible to find criticism of Kucinich. Unless an atheist manages to push themselves into the public consciousness, the prefered strategy of the media will almost always be to ignore them.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27,794 other followers

%d bloggers like this: