Hateful Religious Bigots Attack Doonesbury

[amrchaos]

I found the strip

Doonesbury Comic Strip, March 12, 2012 on GoComics.com

Not as near controversial as Bill Maher, by the way.

 

[Immanuel]

I think Trudeau's Doonesbury is more of a satirist than a comedian.

His strips are more for promoting political discourse than to be humorous.

Even so, one has to wonder why one wish to censor him. I need to see this comic strip before I can make a complete verdict on whether it is one centered on promoting political dialogu, or is it a tastless and cynical representation of the pro-life position. Even so, considering how American politics is turning to the vulgar, I wonder if it is tasteless enough to warrant censorship.


Where is this comic strip, Dante?

I don't know that I would call it censorship.

A newspaper has the right to print what they want in their paper. If they choose not carry this particular cartoon while it deals with this subject, they have that right. They should not be forced to buy it nor print it, just as a pharmacy should not be forced to sell Plan B or another drug that causes an abortion.

From what I have seen none of them have called for the discontinuation of printing Trudeau's works in the future. They are only saying that they are uncomfortable with this particular issue as addressed by Doonesberry. Printing that comic strip could in fact cost them readership and lord knows they can't afford that.

Immie

 

[Ringel05]

All things have a beginning. The current Tea Party Lunacy started with one guy holding up a niggar sign

http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/small-republlican-racism-niggar-sign.jpg/IMG]



you are saying one cannot compare things because of[I] teh [/I]scale?[/quote]

Scale is only a part but I figured you'd know that as there are many other cultural, economic and individual factors involved. As for everything has a beginning, sure it does but not everything grows exponentially out of that beginning, some don't find fertile ground and others start to grow but eventually wither on the vine. If it starts getting to the point where the radical fundamentalists incite Americans to start rioting in the streets and the majority start advocating violent overthrow and eradication of all non-believers then I'll agree with your assessment. Until then......... :duuno:[/QUOTE]

It doesn't necessarily follow that radical fundamentalism in America would contain a purely religious overtone. Within our system people do advocate violently without the extreme physicality we see in other nations, but I am sure we are no different in our emotions and nature than are others. We have a system that allows a venting of public frustration...a system some are advocating dismantling, without thinking through the inevitable repercussions that would surely follow.

Newt Gingrich is a case in point who used to brag that 'we are the radicals' and would do most anything to win including tearing apart the fabric of institutions that though flawed, kept the US from imitating the disfunction(s) other nations.

I could go on in detail, but few here care for serious in depth discussion on that level.
:cool:[/QUOTE]

Just as some would claim radical secularists are bent on destroying religion in this country (yes there are a few) some claim radical religious fundamentalists would destroy all vestiges of secularism and some would. The problem with both is they tend to wallow in hyperbole and claim it's fact.
Yes, thankfully we do have a system, as flawed as any man made system is, that allows us to vent, rail and at times actually discuss the differences and attempt to reach a compromise. Granted even that doesn't always work as it should, current politics being a case in point, but it does have the effect of minimizing the shift to extremes more often then not and we as a people tend to be more pragmatic and defensive of our liberties to allow the radicals to gain the upper hand.
I'll go out on a limb and claim the vast majority of Christians and secularists in this county reject the fundamentalists on both sides and that the primary reason for their (the fundamentalists) press is the media itself which revels in controversy, no matter how small. It sells.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Scale is only a part but I figured you'd know that as there are many other cultural, economic and individual factors involved. As for everything has a beginning, sure it does but not everything grows exponentially out of that beginning, some don't find fertile ground and others start to grow but eventually wither on the vine. If it starts getting to the point where the radical fundamentalists incite Americans to start rioting in the streets and the majority start advocating violent overthrow and eradication of all non-believers then I'll agree with your assessment. Until then......... :duuno:

It doesn't necessarily follow that radical fundamentalism in America would contain a purely religious overtone. Within our system people do advocate violently without the extreme physicality we see in other nations, but I am sure we are no different in our emotions and nature than are others. We have a system that allows a venting of public frustration...a system some are advocating dismantling, without thinking through the inevitable repercussions that would surely follow.

Newt Gingrich is a case in point who used to brag that 'we are the radicals' and would do most anything to win including tearing apart the fabric of institutions that though flawed, kept the US from imitating the disfunction(s) other nations.

I could go on in detail, but few here care for serious in depth discussion on that level.

Just as some would claim radical secularists are bent on destroying religion in this country (yes there are a few) some claim radical religious fundamentalists would destroy all vestiges of secularism and some would. The problem with both is they tend to wallow in hyperbole and claim it's fact.
Yes, thankfully we do have a system, as flawed as any man made system is, that allows us to vent, rail and at times actually discuss the differences and attempt to reach a compromise. Granted even that doesn't always work as it should, current politics being a case in point, but it does have the effect of minimizing the shift to extremes more often then not and we as a people tend to be more pragmatic and defensive of our liberties to allow the radicals to gain the upper hand.

I'll go out on a limb and claim the vast majority of Christians and secularists in this county reject the fundamentalists on both sides and that the primary reason for their (the fundamentalists) press is the media itself which revels in controversy, no matter how small. It sells.

I dislike repeating, but...

Polarization also has affected the two parties differently. The Republican Party has drifted much farther to the right than the Democratic Party has drifted to the left. Jacob Hacker, a professor at Yale, whose 2006 book, “Off Center,” documented this trend, told me, citing Poole and Rosenthal’s data on congressional voting records, that, since 1975, “Senate Republicans moved roughly twice as far to the right as Senate Democrats moved to the left” and “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.” In other words, the story of the past few decades is asymmetric polarization.

Two well-known Washington political analysts, Thomas Mann, of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agree. In a forthcoming book about Washington dysfunction, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” they write, “One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

Read more The Obama Memos: How Washington Remade the President : The New Yorker

...there is opinion from both sides of the political spectrum out there that points to an interesting/observed phenomena. Both sides are not equal.


dD

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It doesn't necessarily follow that radical fundamentalism in America would contain a purely religious overtone. Within our system people do advocate violently without the extreme physicality we see in other nations, but I am sure we are no different in our emotions and nature than are others. We have a system that allows a venting of public frustration...a system some are advocating dismantling, without thinking through the inevitable repercussions that would surely follow.

Newt Gingrich is a case in point who used to brag that 'we are the radicals' and would do most anything to win including tearing apart the fabric of institutions that though flawed, kept the US from imitating the disfunction(s) other nations.

I could go on in detail, but few here care for serious in depth discussion on that level.

Just as some would claim radical secularists are bent on destroying religion in this country (yes there are a few) some claim radical religious fundamentalists would destroy all vestiges of secularism and some would. The problem with both is they tend to wallow in hyperbole and claim it's fact.
Yes, thankfully we do have a system, as flawed as any man made system is, that allows us to vent, rail and at times actually discuss the differences and attempt to reach a compromise. Granted even that doesn't always work as it should, current politics being a case in point, but it does have the effect of minimizing the shift to extremes more often then not and we as a people tend to be more pragmatic and defensive of our liberties to allow the radicals to gain the upper hand.

I'll go out on a limb and claim the vast majority of Christians and secularists in this county reject the fundamentalists on both sides and that the primary reason for their (the fundamentalists) press is the media itself which revels in controversy, no matter how small. It sells.

I dislike repeating, but...

Polarization also has affected the two parties differently. The Republican Party has drifted much farther to the right than the Democratic Party has drifted to the left. Jacob Hacker, a professor at Yale, whose 2006 book, “Off Center,” documented this trend, told me, citing Poole and Rosenthal’s data on congressional voting records, that, since 1975, “Senate Republicans moved roughly twice as far to the right as Senate Democrats moved to the left” and “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.” In other words, the story of the past few decades is asymmetric polarization.

Two well-known Washington political analysts, Thomas Mann, of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agree. In a forthcoming book about Washington dysfunction, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” they write, “One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

Read more The Obama Memos: How Washington Remade the President : The New Yorker

...there is opinion from both sides of the political spectrum out there that points to an interesting/observed phenomena. Both sides are not equal.


dD

Idiots are still idiots.

 

[Unkotare]

Hateful Religious Bigots Attack Doonesbury

Garry Trudeau defends "Doonesbury" abortion strip

It's a cartoon strip a-holes! More proof the religious sects in America are not much different than the crazies who went after Denmark cartoonists.

Garry Trudeau defends "Doonesbury" abortion strip - Yahoo! News

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "Doonesbury" author Garry Trudeau on Friday defended an upcoming strip that one newspaper has rejected and others have questioned because it deals with a Texas abortion law the cartoonist described as "lunacy."

I didn't see where any "religious sects" were mentioned in the article, nor did I see anything about the boring, predictable lefty has-been cartoonist being threatened in any way. Did you link to the wrong article?

 

[Unkotare]

Hateful Religious Bigots Attack Doonesbury

Garry Trudeau defends "Doonesbury" abortion strip

It's a cartoon strip a-holes! More proof the religious sects in America are not much different than the crazies who went after Denmark cartoonists.

Garry Trudeau defends "Doonesbury" abortion strip - Yahoo! News

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - "Doonesbury" author Garry Trudeau on Friday defended an upcoming strip that one newspaper has rejected and others have questioned because it deals with a Texas abortion law the cartoonist described as "lunacy."

Do you really think everyone who opposes abortion is a religious bigot? Doesn't that make you a bigot?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheists-Against-Abortion/337099606311124

still slow on the uptake?

they are bigots NOT because they oppose abortion. they are religious bigots because they want to censor those whom they feel disagree with their religious views

Where was religion mentioned in the article?

 

[Unkotare]

This was just a cartoon, too:

But you drooling idiot leftists wet your pants over it.

really bad taste with a nasty message about killing a President one disagrees with politically...but I would never call for it to be censored. It's a political cartoon.

I didn't see anything about censorship in the article you linked to.

 

[Unkotare]

It doesn't necessarily follow that radical fundamentalism in America would contain a purely religious overtone. Within our system people do advocate violently without the extreme physicality we see in other nations, but I am sure we are no different in our emotions and nature than are others. We have a system that allows a venting of public frustration...a system some are advocating dismantling, without thinking through the inevitable repercussions that would surely follow.

Newt Gingrich is a case in point who used to brag that 'we are the radicals' and would do most anything to win including tearing apart the fabric of institutions that though flawed, kept the US from imitating the disfunction(s) other nations.

I could go on in detail, but few here care for serious in depth discussion on that level.

Just as some would claim radical secularists are bent on destroying religion in this country (yes there are a few) some claim radical religious fundamentalists would destroy all vestiges of secularism and some would. The problem with both is they tend to wallow in hyperbole and claim it's fact.
Yes, thankfully we do have a system, as flawed as any man made system is, that allows us to vent, rail and at times actually discuss the differences and attempt to reach a compromise. Granted even that doesn't always work as it should, current politics being a case in point, but it does have the effect of minimizing the shift to extremes more often then not and we as a people tend to be more pragmatic and defensive of our liberties to allow the radicals to gain the upper hand.

I'll go out on a limb and claim the vast majority of Christians and secularists in this county reject the fundamentalists on both sides and that the primary reason for their (the fundamentalists) press is the media itself which revels in controversy, no matter how small. It sells.

I dislike repeating, but...

Polarization also has affected the two parties differently. The Republican Party has drifted much farther to the right than the Democratic Party has drifted to the left. Jacob Hacker, a professor at Yale, whose 2006 book, “Off Center,” documented this trend, told me, citing Poole and Rosenthal’s data on congressional voting records, that, since 1975, “Senate Republicans moved roughly twice as far to the right as Senate Democrats moved to the left” and “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.” In other words, the story of the past few decades is asymmetric polarization.

Two well-known Washington political analysts, Thomas Mann, of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agree. In a forthcoming book about Washington dysfunction, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” they write, “One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

Read more The Obama Memos: How Washington Remade the President : The New Yorker

...there is opinion from both sides of the political spectrum out there that points to an interesting/observed phenomena. Both sides are not equal.


dD

Declaring your own mindless partisanship does not amount to a 'proof' of anything, numbskull.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Just as some would claim radical secularists are bent on destroying religion in this country (yes there are a few) some claim radical religious fundamentalists would destroy all vestiges of secularism and some would. The problem with both is they tend to wallow in hyperbole and claim it's fact.
Yes, thankfully we do have a system, as flawed as any man made system is, that allows us to vent, rail and at times actually discuss the differences and attempt to reach a compromise. Granted even that doesn't always work as it should, current politics being a case in point, but it does have the effect of minimizing the shift to extremes more often then not and we as a people tend to be more pragmatic and defensive of our liberties to allow the radicals to gain the upper hand.

I'll go out on a limb and claim the vast majority of Christians and secularists in this county reject the fundamentalists on both sides and that the primary reason for their (the fundamentalists) press is the media itself which revels in controversy, no matter how small. It sells.

I dislike repeating, but...

Polarization also has affected the two parties differently. The Republican Party has drifted much farther to the right than the Democratic Party has drifted to the left. Jacob Hacker, a professor at Yale, whose 2006 book, “Off Center,” documented this trend, told me, citing Poole and Rosenthal’s data on congressional voting records, that, since 1975, “Senate Republicans moved roughly twice as far to the right as Senate Democrats moved to the left” and “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.” In other words, the story of the past few decades is asymmetric polarization.

Two well-known Washington political analysts, Thomas Mann, of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agree. In a forthcoming book about Washington dysfunction, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” they write, “One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

Read more The Obama Memos: How Washington Remade the President : The New Yorker

...there is opinion from both sides of the political spectrum out there that points to an interesting/observed phenomena. Both sides are not equal.


dD

Idiots are still idiots.

okay.

The USMB Challlenge: Douchebagh Windbagh or this guy...

Norman J. Ornstein is a political scientist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative-leaning Washington D.C. think tank. Ornstein was born in Grand Rapids, Minnesota[1] in 1948 and received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 1974. He is married to Judith L. Harris, a litigation attorney specializing in regulatory matters.

tough choice

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

numbskull.

I asked for your first name, not you last name.

sheesh

 

[Unkotare]

numbskull.

I asked for your first name, not you last name.

sheesh

That is the mildest adjective that applies to you.

 

[Barb]

a link to GT's own words on the subject:

‘Doonesbury’ creator Garry Trudeau discusses divisive strips about abortion - The Washington Post

Q: After four decades, you’re an expert at knowing the hot-button satiric words and phrases — such as, in the case [this] week, terms such as “10-inch shaming wand.” Can you speak to how you approached writing these strips?

A: Oddly, for such a sensitive topic, I found it easy to write. The story is very straightforward — it’s not high-concept like [the satiric] Little Timmy in “Silent Scream” — and the only creative problem I had to work through was the physician’s perspective. I settled on resigned outrage.

Texas’s HB-15 [bill] isn’t hard to explain: The bill says that in order for a woman to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure, she is first compelled by law to endure a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand. The World Health Organization defines rape as “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration — even if slight — of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.” You tell me the difference.

Pretty staightforward. HE's the bigot? What world do you people think you live in where everyone else has to livetheir lives by your religious sensitivities? This isn't a theocracy, yet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I dislike repeating, but...

...there is opinion from both sides of the political spectrum out there that points to an interesting/observed phenomena. Both sides are not equal.


dD

Idiots are still idiots.

okay.

The USMB Challlenge: Douchebagh Windbagh or this guy...

Norman J. Ornstein is a political scientist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative-leaning Washington D.C. think tank. Ornstein was born in Grand Rapids, Minnesota[1] in 1948 and received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 1974. He is married to Judith L. Harris, a litigation attorney specializing in regulatory matters.

tough choice

Am I supposed to backtrack because he is a conservative idiot and not a liberal one? Idiots will be idiots, even if they are conservatives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

a link to GT's own words on the subject:

‘Doonesbury’ creator Garry Trudeau discusses divisive strips about abortion - The Washington Post

Q: After four decades, you’re an expert at knowing the hot-button satiric words and phrases — such as, in the case [this] week, terms such as “10-inch shaming wand.” Can you speak to how you approached writing these strips?

A: Oddly, for such a sensitive topic, I found it easy to write. The story is very straightforward — it’s not high-concept like [the satiric] Little Timmy in “Silent Scream” — and the only creative problem I had to work through was the physician’s perspective. I settled on resigned outrage.

Texas’s HB-15 [bill] isn’t hard to explain: The bill says that in order for a woman to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure, she is first compelled by law to endure a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand. The World Health Organization defines rape as “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration — even if slight — of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.” You tell me the difference.

Pretty staightforward. HE's the bigot? What world do you people think you live in where everyone else has to livetheir lives by your religious sensitivities? This isn't a theocracy, yet.

I guess I can answer you since I never said anything about Trudeau being a bigot, and I will actually admit that I read Doonesbury every day, have for years. Now I suggest you go back, read my first post in this thread where I linked to a group of atheists that oppose abortion, and ask you who is the bigot here.

Me, the religious nut who thinks Doonesbury is a great strip, or you, who thinks that the opposition to this strip is solely coming from religions nuts? FYI, today's strip uses the word slut to describe the main character. Do you think it is remotely possible that, given the fact that children read the comics, that some papers pulled the strip in order to avoid parents having to explain why that word is in a comic?

 

[nitroz]

15 Ways the Bible Is Used by Christians and the GOP to Control and Malign Women | | AlterNet

 

[daveman]

Poor Trudeau. There he is, writing a comic strip with absolutely no controversial content, and suddenly he's attacked for absolutely no reason. I mean, Doonesbury's just as innocuous as Nancy and Sluggo, fer cryin' out loud!

 

[Newby]

Was there ever any answer as to how he was 'attacked' by 'religious' people? Or how he was 'censored'?

 

[Unkotare]

Was there ever any answer as to how he was 'attacked' by 'religious' people? Or how he was 'censored'?

No, there was not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

a link to GT's own words on the subject:

‘Doonesbury’ creator Garry Trudeau discusses divisive strips about abortion - The Washington Post

Q: After four decades, you’re an expert at knowing the hot-button satiric words and phrases — such as, in the case [this] week, terms such as “10-inch shaming wand.” Can you speak to how you approached writing these strips?

A: Oddly, for such a sensitive topic, I found it easy to write. The story is very straightforward — it’s not high-concept like [the satiric] Little Timmy in “Silent Scream” — and the only creative problem I had to work through was the physician’s perspective. I settled on resigned outrage.

Texas’s HB-15 [bill] isn’t hard to explain: The bill says that in order for a woman to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure, she is first compelled by law to endure a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand. The World Health Organization defines rape as “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration — even if slight — of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.” You tell me the difference.

Pretty staightforward. HE's the bigot? What world do you people think you live in where everyone else has to livetheir lives by your religious sensitivities? This isn't a theocracy, yet.

theological minded people all over the world are the same, to varying degrees. they want you to live your life according to their delusions and dementia