In my brother the Atheist’s book, “the why do I have toenails?” he’s got several pithy comments about Christianity. He’s got quite a few cartoons about old and new testament historical figures and stories. But in all of his discussions he doesn't bother to take on Islam – not even one cartoon making light of the extremists he’s concerned about. I find it interesting that while he’s railing on all things Christian, he skips Muslim’s completely. Heck, the Dane’s published a cartoon of Mohammad (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=12146&offer=&hidebodyad=true), and several newspapers got together to defend the artist. If all religions are dangerous, as stated in his book, then why not take on the Muslim’s that are touting fear and killing based on their religious beliefs? Mock Mohammad! Question the church leaders in Muslim countries for not stopping the madness! Ask hard questions about why they believe that Mohammad had a vision, the way he asks how anyone can believe that Joseph Smith had a vision. Why leave this large (and growing) religion off the table? I’m OK with asking questions, questioning beliefs, and disagreeing with my beliefs. But the more I dig into this book the more I think the subtitle should be “How to be the best non-Christian you can be”, vs “How to be the best Atheist you can be”.
And since we’re asking the question about Muslim’s, what about Scientologist's and L. Ron Hubbard? He was a wacky sci-fi writer who came up with a religion on his own. Something about space ships coming to earth and dropping people off near a volcano (sorry to paraphrase, but you can visit http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/what-cos.htm or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology for more details). Doesn't this sound like something you can really make fun of? South Park mocked them quite a bit (one of my brother the Atheists favorite shows). I’m sure other people have taken shots at them. But not this book. Why?
So after rereading the first couple of chapters I'm starting to conclude that my brother the Atheist might not believe in any supreme being, but he's really mad at Christianity. I'll need to look deeper into this as I read and talk to him, to gauge what this is all about. Although it's reminding me of the anger some people felt when George Bush was elected last time - there was this weird anger at all republicans and people who voted for him. Not disappointment in not having John Kerry win, or frustration with the process, but an out and out anger at people (including little George) over the results. Is there a link here, or is this a coincidence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have a theory about this, which Thom won't like -- sorry Thom. Scientology holds no power to wound Thom. Without realizing it, Thom's basic religious instincts are offended by Christianity because Christianity is the most in alignment with what he holds to be of ultimate importance -- love, peace, human dignity, etc. So it is woundingly disappointing when Christians transgress, but not so of Scientology. Scientology is so far out of scope of his religious point-of-view that it is not worth addressing in the book.
It is a key to understanding this book that Thom is not a nihilist, but has actually approached it with love. A kind of sibling-rivalry love that might end up in someone losing an eye, but love nonetheless. The humor mixed with pain reveal a frustration that can only be born of true longing.
Now, Thom would argue that it is becaused the book is addresed to Christian friends who are behaving in less than Christian ways. But the tone of the book strikes me more as someone longing for theistic possibilities more than a nihilistic atheist.
Although I'm sure if you ask, he'll make a nice cartoon of L. Ron.
On still the other hand, Scientology sues authors and certain radical members of Islam might force him underground if he were to draw cartoons.
I think you're pretty much on the mark, there, about me wishing for something I can't have. Some people might say I'm searching or that I "have a God-shaped hole in my heart that needs to be filled."
But it ain't Christianity I'm wishing for, unless Christianity actually believed in love and compassion. Note my unhappiness (in Chapter 5) for the Christian tenet that you can only get into heaven if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior. That is not the sign of a compassionate, forgiving, loving God.
A truly compassionate, loving God would admit that his model of free will coupled with man's ability to rationalize every decision makes it too hard to choose between faiths. He would just let everyone into heaven.
I learned from watching the Discovery channel that some believe that there was a "lost" gospel where Jesus admitted that everyone would be forgiven in the end, regardless of their lifestyles and beliefs, and get to go heaven. But the Bible compilers thought it a bad idea to include that in the book they would use to oppress people over the next two thousand years.
And, actually, there is a placeholder in the book for a cartoon of Mohammed (page 167), but it's reserved for the reader to complete. I say "draw a prophet taking his favorite camel for a walk", but that could easily be translated as "draw the prophet", since Islam teaches that there is only one prophet, Mohammed.
And speaking of cartoons of Mohammed, though there wasn't room for more than one (pseudo) in the book, I don't have any qualms about doodling him in dedications. Here he is, alongside the most famous Galilean, righteously cha-cha-ing in St. Peter's ballroom dancing class.
http://toenailsbook.com/images/mohamed_jesus_dedication.jpg
Post a Comment