Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ their petard

The new Jesus and Mo strip, called “uh-oh”, acknowledges its sources:

Many thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury for co-scripting this week’s strip.

If you’re too lazy to click the link, here’s the Torygraph’s report:

The BBC should be legally required to treat religion on a par with politics, sport or drama, the Archbishop of Canterbury is to say.

In a speech in London on Wednesday the Most Rev Justin Welby will call for the corporation’s new charter to include a specific protection for religious programming.

A recent Government White Paper includes calls for the BBC to be required to reflect the “diversity” of the British Isles.

But in a speech at the annual Sandford St Martin awards for religious broadcasting at Lambeth Palace, he will call for it to be required to treat faith issues with “the same seriousness as other genres like sport, politics, economics or drama”.

Good luck with that! When faith tells what actually happened, as in sport or politics, or admits implicitly that it’s it’s fiction, like drama (and becomes as compelling as, say, Shakespeare), then perhaps we can give it more airplay.

It seems that the last two Archbishops have had the propensity to gnaw on their metatarsals.



  1. GBJames
    Posted June 15, 2016 at 8:11 am | Permalink


    • jimroberts
      Posted June 15, 2016 at 1:27 pm | Permalink


  2. Posted June 15, 2016 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    The Bishop of Leeds…said: “Religion is a prime motivator of individuals and communities, inspiring and informing their political, economic, ethical and social behaviour

    …except when we disapprove of the political, economic, ethical or social behaviour, in which case it’s definitely *not* a prime motivator for *that*.

  3. rickflick
    Posted June 15, 2016 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    Gotta love it.

  4. Mike
    Posted June 15, 2016 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    The Archbishop is a genuine wanker.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 15, 2016 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

      How does that saying go? 90% of all men are wankers, the other 10% are liars.

      Agree the A of C is a git though. 🙂

  5. Randall Schenck
    Posted June 15, 2016 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    A slight flaw in their request to the BBC. They forgot what always must follow the demand and that would be fear. No wonder – Jesus Christ.

  6. Posted June 15, 2016 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Why is the archbishop the “most reverend”?
    Isn’t being revered for nothing sufficient?

    • David Evans
      Posted June 15, 2016 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      It’s a hierarchy. Bishops are merely reverend.

      • Graham Head
        Posted June 15, 2016 at 10:34 am | Permalink

        Actually it’s even worse. Arch Bishops are most reverend, Bishops are right reverend, deans are very reverend and the clerical hoi poloi are just reverends.

        The full pecking order is here

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted June 15, 2016 at 11:24 am | Permalink

          Personally, I usually try to chisel the destination address into their foreheads with a #3 chisel blunted on granite. Then I brand the return address into … well, they’re normally unconscious by this point. Until the brand strikes.

          • Paul S
            Posted June 15, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

            That’s cruel. I simply return to sender.

  7. Posted June 15, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Welby also did a column in a well-known TV listings magazine. He tried to make it sound like religion should be given focus so that we can understand what drives people to behave in certain ways. But of course what he really wants is to be given the chance to proselytize on the public purse (the BBC is funded by a license fee rather than advertisements).

  8. Linn
    Posted June 15, 2016 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    I love Jesus and Mo. I haven’t found an unfunny strip yet. Most state stuff I’ve already been thinking, but they state it far better than I ever could.

    I think it funny that the archbishop wants religion to be treated like sports. I could support that:

    -“Aaand, we’re back again people. Now for today’s game between Islam and Christianity. Islam’s game has been quite aggressive recently, they’ve been accused of unfair play by Christianity’s supporters out there.”
    – “Well John, ever since the pope scored own goal there have even been some unrest among players on Christianity as well. There are some that feel there should be no pope on the team.”
    – “Islam has it’s own issues on the team Jesse. Lately some of the players have been so focused on the ankles of the burqua clad women on the grandstand, that they have missed easy passes from their teammates. ”
    – “We also can’t forget the protests from the other major league teams that feel as if Christianity and Islam are both getting too much credit, when in fact their skill in the game has always been poor.”
    – “We’ve also gotten a few complaints by the a-sport association. Seems they’re pissed at all the major league teams for forcing them join the game.”
    – “Not eveyone can be saved John. The great and almighty Ball will all punish them justly for their sinful offsides in the end.”
    – “Amen. Tonight’s going to be a great game people. Stick around with us the rest of the evening, or you’ll burn. “

    • Posted June 15, 2016 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      Heh. Reminds me of the Philosophers Football sketch from Monty Python.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 15, 2016 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      Well done Linn.

      • Linn
        Posted June 16, 2016 at 4:45 am | Permalink

        Thanks. I aim to please. 🙂
        Well, except when I inadvertently piss people off, which happens sometimes on this site, but that’s to be expected.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted June 16, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

          That happens to all of us. At least I assume I’m not the only one. I often wish I was less frequently tempted to comment or could just delete something I wrote.

  9. Ken Kukec
    Posted June 15, 2016 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    … their petard

    Now that you mention it, Author’s Jesus & Mo really are the feckless Rosencrantz and Guildenstern of world religion.

    Foiled time and again by a melancholy Danish barmaid.

  10. Posted June 15, 2016 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Be careful what you wish for …

    Also it does put him in agreement with Chomsky, who points out that people are great at understanding and analyzing and keeping track of sports, so why can’t the media provide the same sort of analysis and such for more “pressing” topics?

    • Posted June 15, 2016 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      Well, except that most people, including the people who cover, broadcast, and comment upon the games for a living, are actually not great at understanding and analyzing sports. Most mainstream sports analysis suffers from the same kinds of poor thinking that plague so much popular analysis of social, cultural, economic, scientific, and political issues. Cognitive and emotional biases and logical fallacies are rampant in both spheres, as are (of course) ignorant, misleading, and unjustified interpretations of statistics.

      In other words, the media generally does provide the same quality of analysis of “pressing” issues as what you find in sports coverage. And that’s exactly the problem.

      • Posted June 15, 2016 at 1:51 pm | Permalink


        What people are good at is devoting attention to sports. Sports “analysis” is mostly superficial description, ie, stating the obvious.

        • Posted June 15, 2016 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

          Yup. And worse, the “obvious” that gets stated is frequently wrong, often because it’s based on anecdotal evidence, or on conventional wisdom, or on naive interpretations of statistics that either haven’t been sufficiently contextualized or that aren’t based on a large enough sample of data or that simply aren’t comprehensive enough to justify the broad conclusions drawn from them.

          So what most sports commentary amounts to is a stew of cliches, anecdotes, assertions without evidence, and cherry-picked statistics irresponsibly interpreted. And, well, that’s what most news commentary consists of, too.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 15, 2016 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

          Sports “analysis” is mostly superficial description …

          That’s certainly true of most sports announcers and commentators. Beginning with the advent of Bill James and “sabermetrics” circa 1980, however, there are now legions of analysts engaged in the thoroughgoing empirical study of various sports.

          Nate Silver has brought some of the tools and skills from this field to bear on the analysis of politics.

  11. p. puk
    Posted June 15, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Gotta love it!

    The Church pleading for attention… They’d better get a lot better at it because they’re gonna have to do it a lot more… Too bad nothing they can ever do will stop the haemorrhaging..

    • Stonyground
      Posted June 16, 2016 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      Absolutely. The ABofC might succeed in getting more God Bothering broadcast by the Beeb but hardly anyone will watch any of it.

  12. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted June 15, 2016 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    In 2009 both the BBC and Channel 4 ran 6-part documentaries on the History of Christianity. The BBC’s doc was fairly conventional and not especially critical, but the Channel 4 documentary took the gloves off and including some fairly scathing commentary.

    History of religion is of course good material for TV.


    I think there’s a problem with the phrase
    “implicitly that it’s it’s fiction”.
    The brand of ice cream known as “It’s It” is primarily sold in the San Francisco area, and I don’t know if it’s circulated much in Chicago, so I don’t know of JAC can blame this lapse on too much ice cream or not.

  13. Nick
    Posted June 15, 2016 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    I like the way you left open the question of whether economics describes what actually happens, or is fiction.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted June 15, 2016 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

      Actually it’s a species of religion. The faith that if its adherents follow certain rituals, and invoke certain mantras, they can actually predict the future and possibly even control it. A belief for which there is no empirical evidence whatever. So it is undoubtedly a faith, ‘cos it certainly ain’t a science.



  14. Posted June 15, 2016 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    One of my favorite sports commentaries was when one commentator on a tennis match said “Wow, how can somebody serve four aces in a row like that?” and John McEnroe replied “It helps if you practice six hours a day for most of your life.”

  15. Posted June 20, 2016 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    “…required to treat faith issues with “the same seriousness as other genres like sport, politics, economics or drama”.”

    I’d say, news agencies must be required to treat faith with the same seriousness as other phenomena such as armed conflicts, natural disasters and large-scale accidents.

%d bloggers like this: