Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ the Jews

This week’s Jesus and Mo strip, called ‘slip,” came with this email note: “A new one this week, continuing the long J&M tradition of mocking sacred figureheads.” The website itself says this:

A tip of the hat to this week’s guest scriptwriter, Jeremy Corbyn (who, for the record, I don’t think is antisemitic – just not very bright).



  1. GBJames
    Posted July 6, 2016 at 7:58 am | Permalink


  2. somer
    Posted July 6, 2016 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    I think Jeremy Corbyn is a one track ideologue with nothing to offer the country and effectively antisemitic. He cares more about ideological overseas (and anti West) positions than what happens in Britain. He did after all, compared Israel to ISIS, has consistently supported antisemitic elements in his party, and has suggested Hezbollah and Hamas should be invited to speak in parliament as “friends” who can assist peace. He has also blocked any parliamentary moves to militarily weaken Assad since 2011 despite Assad having an even worse record than ISIS in terms of killing and torture. James Bloodworth, James Palmer (Jacobin) are good sources re this as indeed is Left foot forward.

    His stance on Remain in EU was lacklustre to say the least and followed multiple emails from his Director Strategy and Communications, Seumas Milne, curtailing efforts from other party members to launch a coherent remain campaign. He also suggested (but was overruled) there should be segregated carriages for women and has been supportive of some left factions in the labour party that have been accused of ongoing serious sexual harassment of female members.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted July 6, 2016 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      I also have a strong negative opinion of Corbyn and have done since day one. As far as I’m concerned, the man’s an idiot, and by elevating him to the party leadership he’s been able to wreak havoc on the political landscape of Britain.

      • somer
        Posted July 6, 2016 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

        Yes, he seems to have really divided Labour – I suspect a lot of members had left out of disillusionment with Blair but weren’t keen on the hard left, more pro Corbyn people came into the membership and now the politicians are trying to shift him out

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted July 7, 2016 at 10:51 am | Permalink

          Yeah. I don’t think he’s ever been that popular with his MPs. He was elected by a popular vote of the members in a new process the party hadn’t used before iirc. More than half his shadow cabinet have resigned in protest at his leadership since Brexit because of the bad job he did persuading typical Labour voters to Bremain. It should be a signal to him to resign from the leadership, but he won’t.

  3. somer
    Posted July 6, 2016 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    This is presumably about Jeremy Corbyn’s recent equivalence of some behaviour of Israel to that of Isis. Jeremy objection is Zionism but the two can become blurred. The blood libel thing against the Jews of course originated – I think in 13thC England and spread throughout Europe. It was also taken up in the late 19thC in Jordan
    BBC Documentary – Blaming the Jews (Muslim Antisemitism 2005)
    https://www.%5Bbroken so it doesnt embed]

    • Posted July 6, 2016 at 8:57 am | Permalink

      I thought the same, about the origin of antisemitism, until I came across “Constantine’s Sword”, by James Carroll. As a Jew, myself, I was surprised to learn that the Catholic Church initiated antisemitism in Constantine’s time, around 600 C.E., if I recall correctly, starting with blood libel “Jews killed Jesus.”

      • somer
        Posted July 6, 2016 at 9:23 am | Permalink

        Thanks for the “Constantine’s Sword” reference docatheist,I will try to get it.

        • somer
          Posted July 6, 2016 at 9:24 am | Permalink

          the blood libel of 13thC and in the video is the baby-killing-for-rituals myth

          • Posted July 7, 2016 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

            I saw that! It did seem to me that the Arab Muslims stole copied and amplified Christian antisemitism, but I’d never seen it documented. Good video!

      • Dominic
        Posted July 6, 2016 at 9:32 am | Permalink

        If you mean Constantine the Great, he was earlier – died 337 AD. Unless you mean the Byzantine Emperors, Constantine III or IV? Both 7th century…

        I am an atheist but I fail to understand why people tip-toe around the fact that the dating system is christian & based on a (mis)calculation of the birth of Jesus. So I will always say BC or AD… !

        • Torbjörn Larsson
          Posted July 6, 2016 at 10:47 am | Permalink

          … and i will always use astronomical time. 1.7 or 1.3 kyrs ago, either of which was early catholicism.

          Nowadays they blame demons instead. :-/

        • Posted July 7, 2016 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

          BC = Before Christ
          AD = Anno Domini, meaning Year of Our Lord

          BCE = Before the Common Era
          CE = Common Era

      • Posted July 6, 2016 at 10:44 am | Permalink

        You’re not going to find more virulently anti-Semitic literature than the very Gospels themselves.

        Everybody’s puzzled by the cursing of the fig tree…until you recognize that, then and today, the fig tree is the symbol of Torah study. Pharisees were the ancient Jewish equivalent of today’s Jesuits, the intellectual religious scholars. The trail before the Sanhedrin deliberately depicts the court as flagrantly violating everything they hold most sacred in the most offensively vulgar way possible. There’s the scene outside the Temple where Jesus thrashes the place. Even smartass young kid Jesus astounds the stupid old rabbis with his far superior wisdom. And on and on and on and on….



        • Posted July 6, 2016 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

          Not to mention the explicit bit in Matthew (27:25):

          ‘All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”‘

        • Posted July 7, 2016 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

          Wow, again.

          All this makes me feel so hopeless. Is there no end to it all? I see no end to it.

          • Posted July 7, 2016 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

            Well, it is the case that, even in the States, the “Nones” outnumber Catholics (and Catholics are the most numerous denomination), and we’re also the fastest-growing “religious” demographic. So, yeah, we’re (slowly) growing out of it.




            • Posted July 8, 2016 at 10:25 am | Permalink

              I hope you’re right, Ben. History repeats, swings like a pendulum, and I fear we’re heading toward a technologically enhanced Dark Age…

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted July 21, 2016 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        ‘starting with blood libel “Jews killed Jesus.”’

        Well of course Jews killed Jesus. So what?
        ‘Jesus’ was Jewish, they were entitled to.
        (That is, assuming for the sake of argument that the mythical character ‘Jesus’ actually existed’.)
        And while the Romans actually did the dirty deed, it was at the urging of the Jewish puppet authorities.

        That’s as I understand the myth, anyway.

        Also, of course, since it was all on G*d’s orders, neither the Jews nor the Romans had any choice in the matter. (This is a quite different issue from the old ‘free will’ debate).

        I’m far more exercised by the far better attested fact that the bloody Romans killed Boadicea. Unfortunately most Italians are delightful people so it hardly seems appropriate to take revenge by nuking Italy. 😉


        • Posted July 23, 2016 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

          You wrote, “… it was at the urging of the Jewish puppet authorities. That’s as I understand the myth, anyway.”

          Well, that’s antisemitic Christian-based blood libel that you drank in, and that’s exactly the problem.

    • Posted July 6, 2016 at 9:03 am | Permalink

      Thank you for sharing that BBC video. I wasn’t aware of it. The first minute or so tells me I need to watch it in full later tonight, when I can take it all in. Much appreciated, Somer.

    • D
      Posted July 6, 2016 at 9:34 am | Permalink

      Earlier. The ‘Saint’ William of Norwich was an early excuse to attack Jews, who had come to England with the Normans.

      • somer
        Posted July 6, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink

        That’s interesting – so a couple of hundred years before the mention in the video (I mean ritual murder blood libel as opposed to the Jews killed Jesus (who was a Jew) nonsense that came with the early Church.

      • Posted July 7, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

        Wow. All that history (except the general concept of the blood libel accusing Jews of ritual murder of Christian children) was news to me.

        Other, recent news to me was the story of Sugihara, a Japanese descendant of Samurai warriors who became a diplomat and, against orders, acted to save thousands of Jews in WWII.

  4. harrync
    Posted July 6, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I went to the link and read the transcript there. I am not quite sure what part of the speech was considered offensive. Was it “To assume that a Jewish friend or fellow member is wealthy, part of some kind of financial or media conspiracy, or takes a particular position on politics in general, or on Israel and Palestine in particular, is just wrong.
    Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu Government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.” I suppose you could say that the first sentence there is the equivalence of saying “[not] all Jews are blood-sucking baby killers,” though making such an equivalence does seem a little unfair to me. And I don’t see that saying Jews are not responsible for what Israel does anymore than Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism does is equating Israel and ISIS. I don’t think “If A is to B as C is to D,” that it logically follows that A = C.

%d bloggers like this: