Apologies if this was just meant to be silly, rather than at all serious
But whoaaaa, no, that is dangerous thinking and one I’ve actually *seen* in a good chunk of atheists. It’s the same type of logic that lets *religious* people to terrible stuff:
“X is what’s bad, and I’m not X, so I can’t be bad, so I don’t need to reflect on my actions!”
Second, stuff like Elevatorgate and a whole host of other things has shown us that, frankly, misogyny and straight up alt-right crud can absolutely *flourish* even without religion. Genetic-racism, etc etc.
Ana Chronistic is pretty much guaranteed to be being silly rather than serious as they usually make a jokey comment as one of the first on almost every single strip.
Yeah, I read it as a joke, although I do see Felgraf’s point. I have met just as many racist/bigoted/hateful atheists as I have racist/bigoted/hateful theists. The common denominator seems to be “according to my worldview, I am better than you, and that means that I can treat you as less than a person.” What exactly that worldview is varies, but the end result is the same.
Different people are different. This is useful, because the people around me don’t have the same strengths and weaknesses that I have. Working with them, I can compensate for some of their weaknesses, and they can compensate for some of mine. I can also help them improve the areas in which they’re naturally weak, while they can help me improve the areas where I’m naturally weak.
This takes a lot more than two people, because there are more ways to be weak than most of us can imagine, and most of us only have a few natural strengths.
But it also means you can take just about any sort of thinking people do which is not fundamentally bad, and find some people who do that sort of thinking in good ways, and some people who do that sort of thinking in bad ways.
Examples of this include every religion, including atheism and humanism.
Just to be clear: I believe it’s not religious to not know whether there is at least one god. But if you’re sure about the number of gods, even if you’re sure that number is 0, that’s a religion. And if you believe that everybody is naturally good, despite all the evidence against, that’s definitely a religion. Also, if you’re certain it’s not possible for anyone to know whether or not there’s a god, that’s also a religion.
Religion does involve more. It’s not necessary for someone to be insistent on convincing somebody of something in order for them to be religious. But taken to the extent that evangelical Christians or evangelical atheists do, it clearly is a religious act.
There’s a lot more to it than that. I hadn’t thought atheism was a religion before I started hanging out with a bunch of them. They asked me about my beliefs. I said I was agnostic, because it’s somehow easier for a lot of people to decide to drop the line of discussion than if I just said that I didn’t know and didn’t think that I personally was capable of knowing. (I’ve tried both ways, many times.)
I’ve met a lot of atheists who wouldn’t get all religious about that. But this particular group was pretty insistent that I “simplify” things and admit that there wasn’t a god. As if somehow certainty was more simple than not understanding.
It’s kind of like other religions – some people who follow the religion can accept others taking other paths, and some people can’t.
There’s more to it than just this, but my purpose isn’t to convince you. My purpose is just to introduce you to the possible concept, and I don’t think I can do a better job than my prior response plus this one, so I’m done here.
People can take that kind of “insistent on convincing somebody of something” on many topics. Sports, TV shows, operating systems, damn near anything really. We often call that “religious” as a metaphor and I’m perfectly happy saying some people are religious about atheism in that sense, but I would still argue that atheism isn’t a religion.
Even as Christianity still is a religion, even for those sects that aren’t so insistent about converting you.
Atheism is not a religion, it is merely the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Or as Penn Gillette put it: “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”.
Heck if most right wing “Christians” were actually Christian’s under the rules laid out by the big JHC himself then multiple nations would be much better places.
But no, family values are more important than family members, and getting a check from the government at the start of the president’s term is more valuable than allowing other people to not get murdered in cold blood or getting said murderer before a judge, I guess.
In all seriousness, when I first read Lovecraft’s “The Festival,” it seemed kind of sweet and wholesome to me.
That’s how it began. Five years later I took part in a certain rite in the swamps of Louisiana, all of us happily singing along to “Ph’nglui Mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh Wgah’nagl Fhtagn”. Good times!
People of God ‘can’ be evil.
Godless people ‘can’ be good.
Damn it, people are people, and they are good or evil, or both. Their morals fly thither and yon as the mood takes them. They are as constant as the wind. …and about as predictable.
But damn it, Willis, you are really messing with ma’ waterworks, Changin’ Hank so much so fast. Brings a tear to my eye, damn it.
“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
– Good Omens
“And just when you’d think they were more malignant than ever Hell could be, they could occasionally show more grace than Heaven ever dreamed of. Often the same individual was involved. It was this free-will thing, of course. It was a bugger.”
Good Omens
People are people and religious people can certainly be good. Religion is however particularly good at convincing people that basically harmless things are bad.
The parable of The Good Samaritan. Which the Church has “interpreted” as meaning that the Samaritan was “just a metaphor” and “really believed in God, deep down”. Because you can’t be a good person without believing in God, right?
I always thought the parable stood just fine on its own literal interpretation. Of course, I’m a godless atheist, so what do I know about Grace?
Of course the Samaritan believed in God! Samaritans weren’t and aren’t atheists. They were (and still are) Jews whose forebears were not carried off into the captivity in Babylon, and who practiced (and still practice) a version of Judaism little influenced by religious developments during Captivity.
Sorry, this is something that bothers me. Samaritans are not and were never Jewish. They’re related to the Jews, but the Jews and the Samaritans are descended from different Hebrew tribes. Judah for the Jews, like five different tribes for the Samaritans.
Samaria was formed after the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, Babylon only conquered the Southern Kingdom of Judah. It’s kind of messy and confusing, but Samaritans are a distinct ethnoreligious group.
I didn’t really know the Samaritans still existed until now. Apparently their population is less than 1000 and has been down in the range (often much lower) for centuries and yet they’ve maintained a distinct identity. It’s really just a handful of families.
I’m amused by that parable, since the context has changed completely since the origin. For most Christians, that parable is the only context they have for “Samaritan”, so Samaritan has become associated with “good person”. There’s no surprise that the Samaritan would help out, if that’s the only way you’ve ever heard Samaritan used. While in Jesus’s day, they were bad guys, which made it shocking.
To get the same point with the parable today, you’d need to use some group despised by your listeners – perhaps atheists. Or Muslims, for a closer parallel.
The analogy isn’t that it’s an unbeliever; rather, that it’s a heretic. Someone who believes, but believes in a slightly different version of what the strict traditional folk believe. Someone who’s shunned by the “right” people.
They were more than just bad people, they were ‘other,’ which placed them at the very bottom of society according to Jewish Purity Laws, which defined ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ It’s what makes a Samaritan such a stark contrast for the Priest and Pharisee, who were ‘pure,’ but had no love for those in need, and therefore were the real bad guys.
Isaac Asimov wrote an article about it called “Lost In Non-Translation” (sorry, I don’t remember where it was published) in which he argued that to give white Americans (of the 1970s) a real understanding of the point of that parable you might translate “Samaritan” with a racial slur that he could not use in print.
Yes, godless individuals can be good. However, the cultural norms that have developed over centuries that we define as good have their origins in religion. In that way, Hank isn’t wrong to associate Judeo-Christian and Ancient Greco-Roman practices with being a decent human being that doesn’t engage in behavior that jeopardizes oneself or others (the Jews developed “kosher” requirements for their food based on what doesn’t spoil and cause food borne illness in the Sinai).
What Hank needs to do, though, is reread Romans, and especially the passages about the Gentiles. Then sit down to read and discuss some of Douglas Adams’ non-fiction works about religion’s place in society when the latest scientific theories on crop rotation or interior design can’t produce as good a result as religious-based practices honed from centuries of trial and error.
I would disagree they have their origins in religion. We have more than enough evidence to see people reach these basic things all on their own all over the world with or without religion. It seems more like its a result of having empathy and people incorporated these things into their religions.
I don’t think religion gets to have the credit for basic humanity. Even your example of “religious-based practices honed from centuries of trial and error” ignores the fact that the religious part is irrelevant it was the trial and error and humans learning that made it work.
Hank feels more loyalty toward his kids than he does toward his Church. When Carol screamed ‘We stand by our own!’ he felt like she didn’t stand by Joyce. Hank never excused Ross just because they’re from the same church.
I’ve felt like Hank is like a lot of men, in that he kept quiet (at least in public) to keep the peace. The fact that he put the blame for the situation with Jordan on he and Carol and most everything he has done with Joyce and Becky that we’ve seen makes me think that the situation reached a point where he can’t do that anymore and live with himself. We’re just ready to assume to worst of anyone who is fundamentalist so it seems like major growth to us when it’s more not being willing to let silence hurt his kids.
I’d strongly believe that Hank didn’t agree with Ross openly brandishing (not shooting) on campus. If you don’t want the FBI at your church doorstep with warrants, you don’t typically keep guys like Ross around on Sundays.
Hank is the kind of guy that probably got saddled with crazy because dating options in the local church community were limited. Now that he’s getting fed up with Carol, I can personally attest there are plenty of intelligent, beautiful, professional women in the conservative community that aren’t DeSantos.
Can we just find Hank an Ann Coulter or Michelle Malklin? The latter at least plays D&D.
There are sane, decent, conservative women out there. Neither Anne Coulter nor Michelle Malkin fall into this category. They’ re both vicious, intellectually lazy, dishonest people. We can form temporary alliances with such people, but shouldn’t assume they’re good just because we have a common enemy. Stalin hated Hitler but that didn’t make him a swell guy.
I think the pitfall for us here is seeing Hank’s development as linear. He’s always, apparently, had a spark of real ethical decency to him, and that’s blossoming and becoming more broadly defined and applied, perhaps. But his experiences with those outside of their sect of Christianity clearly haven’t been deep and meaningful enough to impress on him that it isn’t unique to only some types of human being (or else, have convinced him of the opposite), and getting back out of those habits may be harder.
That’s one interpretation, and the one I first thought of, but there are two more that I can see.
The first, which Thursday Violet used above, and I got it from them, is that Hank had meant “Godless” as more than just a term for “atheist,” and meant it as an insult, and he’s apologizing for that.
The second alternative interpretation is that he believes that they *aren’t* Godless, at least, from a certain point of view—that even though they don’t believe in God, they still exhibit the personality traits and moral behavior that the God Hank believes in calls for in his followers. That despite not believing in God, they have His grace, which is a deep contrast to Carol, who loudly professes belief in God, but acts with spite and without integrity—without the traits that a benevolent God (whether the Christian God as written is benevolent is neither here nor there; Hank definitely *believes* that God is benevolent) embodies.
And I say this as an atheist myself, if anyone is wondering. But I recognize that there are, in most religions, a set of traits and behaviors that are pretty much universally considered “Good“ and often “Godly”: Humility, charity, kindness, honesty, compassion, etc. In this interpretation, Hank recognizes that the Keeners have these attributes—and he’s being forced to recognize that Carol does not, or at least, has not been exhibiting them lately.
Most religions that a modern Westerner would be familiar with, yes. But some religions (old Norse, Shinto) are more about warrior virtues than kindness and compassion. As to honesty, lots of religions have a venerated Trickster figure.
In fact, I could not think of any modern Western taboo, from incest to genocide, that has not been actively promoted by at least one religion or religious-organized government.
Theres also the point that a lot of fundamentalists consider atheism to be a religon actively venerating not believing rather than a philosophy. And so I could see how your second point would fit in with that nicely.
Judaism (and by extension Christianity) recognise what are termed the ‘Noachide Commandments’ – a set of 7 instructions given by God to Noah after the flood. Any person who keeps to them is considered righteous and will be saved, regardless of their personal religious views. See Genesis 9.
I wouldn’t agree that the Noahide Commandments are exactly “recognised” in Christianity, certainly not in the modern day, and they aren’t actively featured in Genesis 9 (at least not in all translations). It demonstrates a covenant to not again destroy the Earth, and cautions against the killing of man and the eating of still-living (possibly still-bloody) flesh, but the commandments on libido, theft, blasphemy, and law, aren’t present, and one-ness is there only tangentially. Additionally I’d be quite surprised if Trinitarian Christians applied that one-ness of God literally as opposed to it encompassing Him in Three as well. Presumably these are in a separate text, rather than Genesis 9 posessing several additional verses outside of Christian-heritage translations?
Comment above pertains to the Seven Noahide Commandments, just to be specific – the Covenant of Noah in Genesis 9 *is* recognised, but is considered to be permanent and not breachable by misdeed on the human side (to contrast with events from just prior to the Flood of Noah’s record). Alongside it God gave various promises and some specific commands as I mentioned that definitely are in most copies of the text. But I haven’t seen this list of seven specific commandments referenced outside of those publicised in the 20th Century by some Jewish groups.
There’s always a risk, when speaking of religious beliefs, in using absolute terms. You are both speaking accurately of ‘some sects’ of Judaism and Christianity. But practices and beliefs vary wildly.
Some Christians take the line, “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me,” to mean that you have to BE a declared Christian in order to get to Heaven. Others, though, will say that being righteous means that you are channeling Christ’s grace, whether you know it by that name or not. The former route leads you to Carol’s position, with the added proviso that being a declared Christian means that you can trust that Christ will guide your actions and prevent you from doing anything unrighteous.
Hank is valuing them by their fruit ( the results of their actions) and finding his wife and church wanting in comparison. He meant to dismiss them earlier.
Some believe that people can’t really be good without God and thus that most atheists really do believe in God, even if they deny it (possibly even to themselves), since otherwise why wouldn’t they run around murdering people.
Joyce has shown elements of this – after her thing with Jacob she talked about how she thought it would be so great to be an atheist and just do whatever you wanted without concern, but that it ran afoul of still caring about hurting people.
Yes, that’s what I was thinking. They don’t believe, but he can see God in them in a way he doesn’t in (say) Carol. And in realizing that, he regrets having used the word in an offhand and insulting way.
If someone tells you they are good because an imaginary person in the sky says they will suffer for eternity otherwise, they are not good, they’re acting good.
As a Catholic, this was always my take on it as well. Arguing that the fear of God is required for people to be good is a pretty damning admission about yourself.
Goodness doesn’t require any belief. There is no gain or loss by your belief, it’s exactly what it says on the tin: Faith.
This isn’t (..usually..) the case, though. It’s more about being good because you believe you’re the creation of something/someOne wholly good, and wanting to carry out their instructions because they are thus the best plan for humanity and for the world. You can still be good innately while trying to actively do this and quite often one is the cause of the other (in both directions). But yes, others are absolutely judgemental and dismissive, and aren’t doing things out of the heart of the idea, just the text.
“Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time!
Can confirm. I was 46 when the weight of the Observable Fact I had gathered through study and research finally broke the structure of misinformation I had been taught All My Life. It was a painful experience that took most of a year to accept, and another two to mostly-internalize.
Thinking — really, deeply thinking about a topic and examining it in the light of Reason — is hard, exhausting work. Most people are not remotely interested in putting in that much effort. I might never have, had it not been for my wonderful wife, whose tolerance for BS has always been lower than mine.
I like how Edison put it: “Five percent of people think; ten percent think they think; and eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”
It is easy … comfortable … seductive … to let some authority figure do your thinking for you. Fundies are trained to do exactly that practically from birth, and the mental gymnastics required to make their church’s teachings jibe (in some fashion) with what they can see of the world become second nature. This has, to understate the case, put a strain on my relationship with certain family members. I can relate to Joyce in that respect.
I think the “think they think” category is much bigger than that. It’s also more compartmentalized – many people learn to really think about specific area and can fool themselves into thinking they also think about many other things.
See for example, all the “rational skeptics” who started with skepticism about religion and then moved to using skeptical sounding arguments to attack feminism, trans people and other such issues.
irrational comes in ALL flavors, thejeff. ALL flavors, not just the ones you’re familiar with. All it takes, is to decide you’re fundamentally BETTER than someone else and that their perspective has zero value.
see how easy that is? I bet you can find someone you, yourself, will reflexively discount even at the price of repudiating what you claim to believe in, because EVERYONE has a streak of it and it’s so very, very, very easy to fall into. One of the reasons for damaging stereotypes is that damaging stereotypes are really very simple mechanisms, while addressing people as individuals takes actual work.
It does and that certainly includes me on some subjects. Some I’m very likely not even aware of.
That said, I’m not sure it’s that directly tied to deciding I’m fundamentally BETTER than someone else, but more to simply not recognizing my own assumptions and biases. Changing deep set opinions is hard work, regardless of your opinions of those arguing for it or even if anyone else is involved.
The other difficulty people encounter in changing their minds about religion is that they’re often used to thinking of their previous religious perspective as embodying not only truth but also virtue, the way to be a good person. And likewise, believing something else is not only incorrect but also morally wrong.
It’s not merely a matter of changing your mind about facts. You also have to train your subconscious into a different understanding of what being a good person is, so you manage to still view yourself as an okay sort of person and remember not to blame yourself for actions and thoughts that you used to think were wrong.
It’s really painful to discover that being factually correct is apparently in conflict with what you’ve always believed to be the way a good person thinks. I don’t think people who have never had to seriously revise their perception of how to be a moral person realise how torturous it can be, and how potentially damaging to one’s sense of self-esteem.
I think it was because “godless” was an insult meaning “can’t be good because no god,” so he’s apologizing for judging their character based on his biases.
Three other people are probably gonna say this before I finish typing, but Hank and Carol met these two on Family Weekend. The two groups didn’t interact very well.
I think Hank is still confusing “godless” as bad, even though the Keeners are proof that you don’t need religion to be a good person. Oh well, he’s doing better than he was so baby steps I suppose.
No. It’s more two separate beliefs: 1) We’re all screwed up so without Jesus we can’t be right with God, and 2) only through Jesus can you receive the Spirit and become as close to truly good as you’re meant to be in this life. (There’s a third, but it would just start a meaningless argument, so I’ll leave it aside for now.)
Of course, then you get the professing Christians who are just narcissists wrapped in religious guise and the genuinely nice atheists and it can throw someone who hasn’t spent time outside of their in-group for a loop. That’s why, in my experience, religious Christians and Jews who went to public school tend to do better in maintaining our faith in college than those who were “protected” from the world too much.
You’ll notice that some of Joyce’s friends have been thrown for a similar loop when she just doesn’t conform to what they think a conservative, evangelical Christian is supposed to do and be. Because atheists and liberals ALSO have their self-righteous echo-chambers and need to get out and talk to more religious conservatives.
Joyce is also accellerating away from being conservative or even Christian at all at a pace similar to a rocket exiting atmosphere, so I’m not sure she’s a great example of someone who Truly Believes in evangelicalism.
(Also I have met quite a number of nice, polite religious conservativesand even religious liberals who would happily see me dead so I gotta say it’s kinda more complicated than that?)
Yeah, but point is, Hank is not “confusing” godless with bad because in that culture godless *is* bad. For the Keeners, the word is a descriptive statement of fact. For Christians like the Browns, it is one of the worst things you can be because it means you have no basis for morals.
Right after meeting the Keeners on Freshman Family Weekend Hank said so in as many words. https://www.dumbingofage.com/2013/comic/book-3/04-just-hangin-out-with-my-family/moral/
Hank is walking back the part of “godless” that means the Keeners are bad people.
I will say I kind of inherently resent Jews just being kind of hamfistedly slapped in with Christians in this same sort of boat here, just like I resent the term “Judeo-Christian Values” because in reality it honestly has very little to do with Judaism or Jews and their lived realities or beliefs and instead is just how Christians stole and chose to interpret our holy text.
Jews *don’t believe in Jesus christ as the savior*, they do not believe humans are inherently wicked, and even if they were they don’t believe in the existence of HELL so they do not condone eternal torture as the inevitable punishment for wickedness which one must be saved from by following religious dogma. Jews don’t even really have much by way of dogma!! (At least not in the same way Christians do.) They don’t try and convert others to their beliefs and in fact the tradition is to actively discourage it!
There is no staggering cognitive dissonance (usually) inherent to Judaism that would cause a young Jewish person to genuinely believe that someone can’t act virtuously without also sharing their specific beliefs. In fact the very idea of that is so counter to Jewish culture it’s kind of laughable, because the most Jewish thing in the world is for absolutely nobody to agree on anything, and to be pretty suspicious of anyone who pretends to.
I was raised as an Anglican, and one of the things that always rather itched at the back of my mind was that, if Jews were God’s chosen people, didn’t that mean that one would have to be Jewish to get into Heaven? And wasn’t it rather disrespectful to be sitting here going through the motions and pretending we were when we weren’t?
When I was, I dunno, around seven or so (back in the late 70’s for context), my Sunday school had a Bible dinner, where we all dressed up like we were back in Biblical times (i.e. our best cracker-ass tea-towel-on-the-head Middle Eastern cosplay), went to the church basement where we usually had Sunday School, and sat around on the floor around those big long community hall tables, but with the legs still folded up so they were sitting on the floor, and ate chili with pita bread with our fingers. You know, like in the Bible!! We probably had grape juice “wine” too, and I loved the hell out of it, and was always disappointed that they never did it again.
That accomplished two things: First, it gave me an ongoing love of historical recreation that I still have today (although now I play in the SCA and dress up as a white person instead of clumsily if enthusiastically and with no ill intentions appropriating someone else’s culture); and second, it made me realize just how far from those Biblical people we actually were. Like, as a Christian, these Middle Easterners from two thousand years ago were supposed to be our direct ancestors, more or less; but as a European/British Caucasian with an interest in history, I was very much aware that they weren’t. Pretty sure my ancestors of two thousand years ago were roaming about the forests of Europe and trying to avoid the Romans.
When I got older, I decided that the true form of Christianity probably wasn’t a rip-off of Catholicism that a horny king had made up so he could legally nail the hot blonde who was refusing to put out until he made an honest woman of her (and who would hopefully give him a son and heir), and went looking for actual Christianity.
Catholicism seemed a decent place to start, but even that wasn’t what Christianity originally was, was it? Greek Orthodox, maybe? Maybe Judaism? I mean, Jesus says you don’t even need a church, you just need to have a couple of fellow believers to hang out with. But is he even the real deal? I mean, the Nicene Convention deliberately cherry-picked what was and what was not to be considered canon, and they don’t let us see the other bits (and while I assume one can find them online nowadays if one bothers looking, back in the Eighties they were a lot harder to track down, so I couldn’t read the original source material and decide for myself.
Besides, I can’t read Greek. Or Hebrew. Or Aramaic. Which would mean I’d be relying on someone else’s translation anyways, and how could I tell how accurate that was in the first place?
In the end I think I decided that from what I could make out, in order to get into Heaven, one needed to be ethnically Jewish and convert to Christianity, and that if one wasn’t ethnically Jewish, it probably didn’t count, lol. And nowadays, after giving Wicca and atheism a go, I’m a Heathen, which aligns well with my need for some kind of a higher power as well as my strong feminist and scientific leanings.
TL;DR: Oh my god, as a former Christian, Christianity is SO appropriating Judaism, and doing it SO BADLY, right?!
Hah!!! That’s a pretty great story AND a great TL;DR. And you’re very right. Like, Judaism has *plenty* of problems, but most of those problems have been born from our incredibly long history of GENUINE suffering and persecution, rather than the mostly imagined persecution that Christians foist on each other to further radicalize themselves.
But like. I’m a Jewish Atheist. And the wonderful thing about Judaism in my opinion (or at least most of it, treating Judaism as a monolith in any way is literally just incorrect) is that you CAN be a Jewish Atheist. That Jews value so heavily that one ACTIVELY chooses to believe in God and challenge their own faith and if you genuinely decide, given all of the evidence and history, that you can’t believe in God’s existence–while still choosing to act in accordance to his most basic moral laws–you are still a practicing member of the Jewish faith in the eyes of your people.
I identified with a lot of this, but came to a different conclusion, and am still a Christian (although a lot more in terms of faith than religion at this point).. Part of it is probably due to Heaven not being the largest factor in my calculations, although, to be fair, it’s pretty difficult to ignore. But mainly there’s a call for disciples to be made ‘from all nations’ and the opening up of automatic belonging to God’s Kingdom thusly to the gentiles (ie. me) that follows from there which made me think it was not quite so impossible. Additionally the idea of that Kingdom being workable, and worth working at, on Earth, just as much as anywhere else or afterwards. We are meant to be providing other people with, and growing, the seeds of kinship and equality and decency here, too. But I know there are a lot of Christians that don’t manage to equate it so well with intersectional feminism/activism and scientific understanding as I hope I’ve done… There has to be an awful lot of impact from coming from a non-US-evangelical background involved :/
With the translation issue, mainly I’ve tried reading as many translations on dubious verses / chapters as possible, and getting more grounded in the historical context via scholars appropriate to it, to try not to misread. But yeah. That’s a work in progress that could last several lifetimes even if it were my only focus (or even as much of one as it really ought to be).
Those aren’t really the only options. Some Christians, especially various forms of fundamentalists really do double down on the “Can’t be good without god” side. Not just in the “can’t be right with God” or even the “receive the Spirit to help you be better” senses, but in a flat out “Morals come from God, so without God, being good doesn’t even make sense” way.
I think you’re mistaking Evangelism for Christianity. A lot of Evangelism bypasses the content of Christ’s message in favor of pushing the expansion of the faith by any means necessary. The actual ‘meat’ of his message was a moral code in which a good person considers their impact on others. Contrast this with the main thrust of Evangelical Christianity, in which the central point is not about that, but instead about push/pull/cajole/dominate/threaten/entice/whatever others into going to the ‘right’ church, saying the ‘right’ things and hating the ‘right’ people. Don’t get me wrong, organized Christianity is miles and away closer to the core message than it was in, say, 1066 or 1632, but that’s with over 2000 years of evolution in the field between Paul the Apostle and the present, and not al of that evolution has been positive…and the bulk of the positive evolution is on an individual level not including people who make their living ‘preaching the word’. (Somehow, distressingly, a lot of those who make their bread preaching the word aren’t preaching the word so much as feeding the mentality of the mob.)
Ehh american dad is better I find there spoofs of conservatives to be funny and there not nearly as preachy as family guy. And I can see the appeal of someone like Stan the fact that anyone ANYONE would marry peter is an insult to women everywhere he really pushed the “dumb dad” trope to far hell even homer Simpson is more likeable than him.
Same, my family used to rent the dvds at the video store. Young me didn’t know any better!
Sometimes I think about how there were (are?) some good jokes in there. Ones that aren’t cruel and dehumanising. But the overall theme of the show is such cruelty, especially for those outside of the straight white cis guy bracket.
Family Guy was okay, then it got canceled, then had a couple decent revival seasons, then got formulaic and too reliant on random pop culture references.
I have a theory that Seth MacFarlane has grown to hate the show, but just keeps doing it for the sweet cheddar it keeps raking in and so the network lets him do other projects he actually wants to.
That’s not just a theory. He’s openly said he’d end the show if it didn’t mean losing all that money and putting the (hundred and?) fifty people who work on it out of a job.
Wow, I don’t keep up on MacFarlane news; I thought that was just facetious cynicism.
It’s not really surprising, mind you. Dude’s way too talented to get pigeonholed as “the guy who does Family Guy”. You can also kind of see it in American Dad, which is more like early Family Guy.
He seems to be having fun with Star Trek with the serial numbers filed offThe Orville… But yeah he’d probably be happy doing voice work and hosting award ceremonies.
Ah, when a word has two close, but not identical meanings.
Deborah and Jeremiah think “godless” means “without a god.” Do they understand that it also means “depraved, amoral, evil, and the worst”?
“Welch” is an alternative (though archaic) spelling of “Welsh” in other senses, too. There is or until recently was a British army regiment called something like “The Royal Welch Fusiliers”.
By the way, the origins of the verb “welsh” are disputed. Nevertheless, at least some Welsh people are offended by the use; their offend feelings are real even if etymologically unjustified.
Once again I find myself wondering about Hank and Carol’s religious history. Were they both born into a conservative Christian family, or was one or the other a convert.
They got worse. Halloween was okay when John and Jordan were little.
You don’t need to have been raised in a conservative church to end up in one.
We were raised in a hippy-dippy Jesus church (by conservative parents, go figure) and one of my siblings ended up going full fundagelical.
I think it depends on the type of person, that conservative churches attract the fearful and controlling.
Kind of like conservative politics.
“Convert zeal” is definitely a thing. IMO, a big part of it is trying to prove (to self and others) that the conversion is sincere, and not just an act or a phase or something like that. Another part is throwing themselves into the idea of the new thing that they have in their head, and which made them abandon their old thing for something they wanted more; this may or may not look anything like what the new thing actually is.
We do know that Hank had them change churches when Joyce was younger because he didn’t like the people (IIRC it was because the church members were Not Nice People) which makes me think Hank was always the better of the Browns, bc he valued kindness.
Their current church seems nice enough, until something like this scratches the veneer. And he doesn’t like what he sees.
Hank was not pleasant when they met the Keeners beginning of the school year, but I bet Joyce got him thinking.
He was fine with Becky, because he knows her and knows she’s a good person. Unlike Carol, he didn’t turn against her because he kept his eye on the person he knows, instead of throwing that out and judging her solely on that one part of her.
I am sure that hearing the nasty things said at church about Becky, when she is still the same Becky she was when she left for Anderson, made him really start thinking.
My guess is he never really thought about how the church’s beliefs affect people, and seeing it in action against a kid he knows and likes, he he’s realizing those beliefs have a real human cost.
Do we know that it was Hank who made them change churches? Rather than a mutual decision?
Also, since it was when Joyce was young, but apparently old enough to remember, John was probably already on his way to becoming the Christian that he is now.
I’d agree that Hank always valued kindness, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t always fundamentalist. I’ve long seen him as much like Joyce, but a version that didn’t get exposed to all these weirdos in his youth. A Joyce who didn’t meet an atheist to become best friends with or have a best friend come out as gay.
We do not know that as fact, no, but it’s not an unreasonable read on the situation. Carol is clearly both unable and uninterested in critically examining her church.
Carol is unable and uninterested in critically examining her CURRENT church. Unlike what appears to be the majority, I’m fully convinced that it was Carol that made them keep changing churches because the previous ones weren’t intolerant enough.
Whereas I’m not sold on the theory that Hank was always better and just pushed around by Carol. Partly because I find him more interesting if his arc involves more change and growth than just standing up to Carol for what his beliefs always were.
He said to Joyce earlier that he’s trying to listen and learn from her and I like that take on him.
We have reached maximum allowed nesting, and so I am forced to reply to myself. Anyone that tries to put me in a buttons-at-the-back white shirt should be forewarned that I’m very good at biting AND kicking and I think fighting fair is for people who don’t want to win.
Hank strikes me more as a go-along christian. He’s christian because everyone else around him is, and he’s this particular toxic version of christian because that’s the one he has around him and he gladly kept that up until recent events because none of the toxicity was directed at people he knew and so he didn’t care about it. Basically, he’s the Nazi Germany dude that doesn’t see anything wrong with Nazis because he neither is nor knows any jews, blacks, romani, gays, *insert list of demographics the Nazis tried to genocide here because I don’t have all year*
Hank connected them changing churches to him being like Joyce and ‘no quarter given’ so I assume he at least wanted to change churches even if he didn’t initially come up with the idea.
Could be the religious form of background noise, or depending on the religion the timeline for education about the religion. Speaking at least from the experience of someone raised in catholicism, being raised in the faith has your religious education primarily from about the time you enter kindergarten to age 15, spreading it out a lot and requiring very child-friendly methods of explaining it. Converts have to learn a lot more depending on their age, and at appropriate comprehension levels, so they tend to know ‘more’ about the intricacies of the mythos, though it’s still highly sanitized and revisionist.
There’s also just “I chose to be in this religion.” Human psychology self-reinforcing decisions made for personal validation or something like that.
Tbh it doesn’t sound like their church switching was “going into the fringe.” They just weren’t blindly willing to accept anything the church did once upon of time, so a lot of behaviors that are not STRICTLY SPEAKING part of fundamentalist doctrine but, shall we say, closely correlate, were things they were at the time willing to pack up and switch to a different church for.
I suspect they basically reach a halfway point, as they radicalized their way into Halloween no longer being acceptable their standards for all the other behavior got lower, but also it was different enough that Joyce was able to realize why they had been switching churches. but yeah that’s basically why I said that was “once upon a time,” there’s no way carol would switch over the ‘closely correlated’ behaviors now.
I know. It just kills me that the storyline(s) all feel so relatively recent as if it’s has just been a college semester, but the strip has been around for a decade. It’s a compliment for Willis’ writing.
What I find interesting is that in the second panel, both of dorothy’s parents are smiling. Even if they aren’t pushy/shrill like Walky’s parents, you wouldn’t expect them to be HAPPY to see the parents that helped get their daughter’s kidnapper freed from jail. Cold indifference is what I would expect.
So are the keeners that forgiving? Did they just not know the relationship between Ross and Hank/Carol? Or did they overhear the current argument between Linda and Carol and realize Hank was innocent?
I read the initial smiles as oh-shit-hes-coming-to-pick-a-fight de-escalation smiles, but after Hank apologizes and backs off they seem genuinely taken aback and inclined to forgive.
It’s possible they take the rational approach and think the church couldn’t possibly have expected him to do what he did.
We have to admit that if some other random stranger had posted his bail out of the goodness of their heart, Ross would not have kidnapped 6 other kids. He’d have done something sh!tty towards Becky no doubt, but it takes a Blaine to come up with that wacko plan.
We readers have the advantage of knowing Blaine is pure evil and that it was going to be Bad. But none of the other parents know what we do.
Mind you, they were gullible Christians to believe whatever story Blaine spun. But that brand of xianity avoids asking questions about things it likes. Less brainwashed people might have wondered what his angle was.
Even so, could anyone have suspected that Ross would get entangled in a scheme to kidnap 6 college students to get them to contact a masked vigilante to get her to kidnap Ross’s daughter, all just a ploy to get his hands on the vigilante and to scare his daughter into dropping out of school?
The church sucks for bailing him out, and they should have been suspicious of Blaine, but it’s not really rational to blame them for Blaine’s idiotic Rube Goldberg Criminal Scheme.
But bailing out the kidnapper in this context is bad enough. Even if the church had been able to do it on its own without Blaine’s help, it still would have escalated – not to those crazy levels, but definitely to another kidnap attempt and one likely to threaten Becky’s friends.
Much like the first one did.
Given how close they were in the panel where all this started, they may have heard Hank’s ‘I agree. They shouldn’t have done that’ line at the start. Tells them two things upfront:
– Hank was not involved with the bailing (‘They’ shouldn’t have done that,)
– Hank does not support what happened on any level.
Both of which mean they’re willing to exchange a few awkward ‘hello’s, especially after he starts apologizing. (That, and as Dorothy says, they aren’t aggro. Having been through the Brown Parent Gauntlet once, they probably want to avoid it again if they can.)
I am godless and probably chaotic good, or just chaotic. Also, Family Guy isn’t as funny as in the first seasons because almost everyone in that show became socipaths that abuse Meg.
And the fact that they had an episode where Brian said she was the “lightning rod” to justify her families abuse is really fucked up I mean you can argue it’s a comedy but that came across as a genuine moral that its audience of teenagers will internalize and it really pissed me off.
Brian’s character also degrades significantly over time from having some genuine intelligence to being more of a faux intellectual and being just as abusive to Meg, losing the previous sympathy he used to have for her.
I usually only watch new episodes when I’m bored with nothing else to do there are some good jokes in Family Guy and American Dad but there are also plenty that should never have been made.
I don’t mind the changes to Meg… Yes, it’s disfunctional, but the fact that it is done in such an over-the-top waymakes it funny.
On the other hand I find the changes to Brian (making him a fake-intellecual) detracts from the show… (It’s much funnier to see the intelligent Brian revert to dog habbits, and to see him be the voice of reason).
She probably recognizes that her father was not the evil person her mother is, but after the kidnapping she isolated herself from both of them. She may not be ready to deal with them as anything but a couple.
Hank’s still looking for a “church” that fits him. I hope he’s just taken that first baby step towards figuring out the truth – “good” doesn’t come from any “god.”
I feel like what may be getting lost here (and I may just be overthinking/projecting) is that many Christians* use “Godless” as a sort of “Bless Your Heart” phrase that they can pretend isn’t meant as an insult. Here is Hank, realizing he previously called good people “Godless” with the intent to insult/judge them, and is now feeling remorse for his actions. I read this as “I’m sorry I insulted you, you’re good people.”
Though if you didn’t register his previous “godless” comments as the castigation they are often meant as (or were attempting diplomacy by ignoring the insult), this scene definitely does come off as awkwardly insisting that “good people CAN’T be ‘Godless'”
Hank comes from a religion where God is not just good but the source of all goodness, light, and decency in the world. It’s like the Force. You are a part of God and he is a part of you.
Saying you’re Godless is not a statement of belief. A person who rejects God is rejecting love, goodness, and what is right.
Hank is acknowledging by the fact that they are good they are not.
Which the Dot Family would be confused as fuck by. Its nonsensical to their worldview because good has nothing to do with God.
I haven’t met an atheist yet who considers being called godless an insult. Is that an American or a religious thing?
Also, there’s this weird assumption among some religious people that the only thing that makes a human behave is the fear of punishment by God. I thing that says more about them than about nonbelievers.
Being called godless is an insult, because when people call you godless, they mean you’re a bad person. If everything good comes from God, after all, a godless person is at the very least horribly ungrateful.
Just because we’re not insulted by “godless” doesn’t mean we don’t know it’s meant as a grievous insult.
That “weird assumption” is exactly why it’s insulting. They’re saying you are completely amoral.
If you don’t believe in God (or any form of religious figure or multiple religious figures), it very much is not, because with the idea of a God holding no power of you, it is as powerful as making a factual statement about an obvious thing like that your shirt is red or your eyes are blue!
To the religious it is the equivalent of saying you are an immoral person and an ungrateful person for the blessings you have – to a fellow religious person, that could be devastating. To an atheist though, the response is more like ‘k, good talk, I still have morals by the way actually’.
It is the type of insult that really only works to full effect on your own exact group of people and on absolutely no one outside of it.
In the branch of Christianity that I grew up in, “Godless” is intended not as “indifferent to morals” (without morals, “amoral”) but rather as actively being against good (“anti-moral”?)
People from other branches of the same major religion were “mistaken”, sometimes so much so that they had to be gone against in wars, but atheists were in league with evil, either knowingly and willingly or else being unknowingly actively guided by Evil and needing to be purged of evil spirits.
You might have noticed a conflation between “Satanists” and atheists. Pagans, by the way, were people who had not yet been converted, and so perhaps destined for eternal punishment if they didn’t wise up — but atheists were considered to have actively rejected the supernatural pantheon and so must surely be Bad.
I was fortunate, relatively, that the particular schools and churches I went to in those days were on the more liberal side and did not emphasize anti-athiesm (but it was in the background), but the church hierarchy could be pretty mean all the way up.
“but atheists were in league with evil, either knowingly and willingly or else being unknowingly actively guided by Evil and needing to be purged of evil spirits.”
That’s certainly the environment I was familiar with in Texas, especially in more rural parts. I often heard “[some hostile comments against Muslims]” followed by “But at least they’re not Atheists! Atheists.. don’t believe in God! At least Muslims understand that there is a God, however confused and wrong and wicked their beliefs may be, but Atheists are the servants of the devil, trying to corrupt us from the light of God!” [or similar].
Well, it’s not just christians, though- I’ve seen quite a number of homosexuals who’ve been actively hostile towards asexuals [such as myself], as though our disinclination towars sexuality was a direct attack on their very existence. The hypocrisy of their approach aside, I do vaguely comprehend the premise, given how so many homosexuals base their entire identity and social positioning off of their sexuality [rather than just considering it one of many parts of themselves].
So at the very least, I don’t think we can pin that kind of mindset on religion alone- it seems to be based more on [If something is within our framework, we can work some kind of connection to it. But if something invalidates the overexaggerated social value we put on our framework, then it is the embodiment of evil and must be destroyed.]
Basically, it’s just a matter of “self-reflection is just far too difficult”, and the more self-reflection is demanded by new information, the less keen those of simple mindsets are to accept the new information.
Much like some people think calling someone a feminist (*gasp*) or even WORSE, a SJW (*double gasp with onions*), is going to make us
1) wake up to the awful reality of what we have become
2) apologize
3) forget that the conversation was about the crap *they* just pulled
SJWs are anyone who disagrees with my opinion, or who tries to force me to logically reconsider information or look up information on my own. They’re truly the most awful of human beings, what with their logic and research and careful considerations to things. How can I possibly go wild if I gotta think things through first? Geesh. Fucking SJWs. Stinky Juggling Winos, I think it stands for? Yeah, that sounds right. I bet they’re all drunk. Trying to juggle all those unimportant things. Terrible people. What? I should look up what SJW really means and should be used for? YOU! YOU’RE AN SJW, AREN’T YOU!
My mother once told me I wasn’t allowed to disapprove of her white supremacist friend because I liked Family Guy.
My mother knowing nothing about me, making shit up to fill the void, and then judging me for the shit she made up was pretty standard, though this one was particularly wild.
What really shocked me was that she recognized Family Guy was racist.
I get what he is tring to say, good man Hank
Most reliogious people are not like those in this comic or in the USA…people in the USA are fanatics, both relious and Atheist, everything is so extream in the USA
But admiting when you are wrong is a good thing, specially about people
Also you can be relious and open minded.
And you can be a religious scientiest
A smart atheist
(or a lazy atheist that says he belives in science but doesnt know first grade biology…insted of just saying you are Agnostic)
That came agresive on pourpose im tired of lazy Atheist, that try to convert people like realiguios people without noting the hypocresy. I deal with 2 every day in the lab. (use too is not essential investigation if its not medical)
Regardles learning to accept people and seeing when you fucked up and were prejuicious its vital. No Bigotry against any faith, race, gender, etc…
Even in the US, there are plenty of decent, non-fanatical religious people. It’s just that the fanatic ones get the airtime and the power – thanks largely to the Religious Right’s alliance with Republican party.
Plenty of non fanatic atheists too. Again the fanatics are louder, though this time they lack any real power.
And that’s ignoring how firmly CHRISTIAN the Religious Right is, and how religiously diverse the US is. We run the full spectrum of religions, and frequently more than one tradition within them.
See, see. Hank has spent like five seconds on college ground and he already speaks up against his wife and hangs out with atheists. College really does corrupt!
Since Christian wives have to follow their husband’s lead in everything and Karol is such a good Christian woman, she’ll soon be handing out Commie pamphlets with the hand that’s not busy washing leper’s feet.
What kinda fake christianity do YOU subscribe to? That kinda shit isn’t in the Bible, y’know. I mean, I’ve never read it, but I’m quite confident in my presuppositions that the Bible’s sole purpose is to give me a list of things I can safely hate on. I mean, what else could it possibly exist for?
Step 1: Realize your wife doesn’t really care what happens to anyone, as long as she looks good.
Step 2: Realize that people can be good, even without a religion, and that religion is not what makes someone good
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Divorce the selfish evil harpy and do your best to better yourself and do better for your daughter/sons
And unfortunately at least one son will take moms side, the other one its unclear if he will benefit from this or not.
But please get divorced Hank you already lost your sons but you have a chance to salvage things with your daughters. And unfortunately I think its fare to assume that Carol cannot be trusted even simply to not kill her eldest daughter, and as long as you choose to remain married that means you cannot be trusted.
I don’t think we’ve heard from the son that supports the mother since the kidnapping took place.
He may change once he sees his mother trying to downplay the kidnapping, attempted murder, then second kidnapping of his sister as “just a servant of god doing what he thought was right. also, we have to support him and his decision to do so, because he is a servant of god, and we therefore cannot criticize him or it will make us(me) look bad”
John’s big (only?) appearance was when Joyce went home with Becky after the first kidnapping. He dismissed Joyce punching of Ross as an overreaction, dismissed all of Becky’s problems and stomped off because he couldn’t talk to her when she was angry.
Another thing to consider is the financial aspect of this whole situation. I’m not 100% sure whether his missionary work is through the “family church” specifically, but assuming it is the same church, he’d take Carol’s side purely out of his own self-interest, before his own fucked worldview even entered the conversation. He talked big game about real life being hard and kids in Joyce’s generation being entitled brats who can’t function on their own, but I think the truth is he is entirely conscious of how easy he has had it throughout his entire life, and what’s more, he fucking likes it. He wants to preserve it, and it will be this instinct, combined with his genuine belief that Ross’ actions were a justifiable response to Becky’s sin (and possibly even Joyce and the other victims’ sin for associating with Becky), that will make him take Carol’s side, at the loss of at least Joyce and Jocelyne, and possibly Hank. And that’s assuming John hasn’t directly or indirectly lost Jordan already.
Just going through the archives to refresh myself on Jerry and Deborah.
Deborah has freckles, which I’d somehow forgot, but is always a plus with me.
It’s amazing to see how much of the Keeners’ and Browns’ previous interactions are about the “A” word and Hank siding with Joyce to still be with Dorothy, her friend, sorta predicts this.
I just wanna say, That First Panel is all about Music.
First I thought Neil Young’s; “Don’t let it Bring you down, it’s only brain cells burning…
But then I thought, ‘Nah, it’s gotta be “Smokin’ gray-matter, and fire in his eyes.”
I wouldn’t have thought that one of the adult characters would actually turn out to be so interesting, I saw them mostly as a background for the kids. But I’m really happy to see a middle-aged character go through some personal growth, instead of just repeating the same behavior over and over because “I’m an adult, therefore I’m always right”. I always hated it so much as a kid when adults acted like theirs was the only reasonable way to act or think, and eventually I, too, would see reason and become just like them. The worst thing about that was the fear that they might be right, and I’d really end up being that way.
I want to keep an open mind and strive to be a good person all my life, and things like this strip give me hope that I actually can.
Side note: I think Carol might actually have helped this development, in a way, because she showed him a clear example of what he didn’t want to be. Though I hope I don’t sound like Blaine now, with his “I made you” speech. It was still his own decision, his own courage, that made him nope the fuck out.
No, it makes a lot of sense. I think Carol being so inflexible – especially in the face of Whatever Happened With Jordan, and it now being several years since estrangement – has been an eye-opener for him on some level (in that I think he’s starting to go ‘Oh. THIS is why religious types like me get a bad rap.’) Obviously, he could just choose to double down harder – after all, Carol and Ross have – but he saw how that worked with Jordan, and he’s seeing now how applying harder pressure is starting to drive Joyce away.
He’s still got quite a bit to learn, but honestly the fact that he clearly is still a work in progress makes it better/more realistic for me. He’s continuing to grow, and that’s great.
“You see, one thing I’ve learned is that you can find God in people I never expected to… often in people who never expected to that He would be there. You just have to have your eyes open enough to see it.”
Loading ...
“BECAUSE we’re godless”
“shh, he’s trying to get better”
“No, I mean, I meant it as an insult then. So I’m apologizing.”
I don’t like what you’re implying. And I’m a bitter atheist.
I’m implying a sarcastic response on the part of the Keeners, which is no doubt 100% out of character
(saying as a similarly bitter atheist)
As a non-bitter atheist would you two care for spicy porkchop ramen?
Apologies if this was just meant to be silly, rather than at all serious
But whoaaaa, no, that is dangerous thinking and one I’ve actually *seen* in a good chunk of atheists. It’s the same type of logic that lets *religious* people to terrible stuff:
“X is what’s bad, and I’m not X, so I can’t be bad, so I don’t need to reflect on my actions!”
Second, stuff like Elevatorgate and a whole host of other things has shown us that, frankly, misogyny and straight up alt-right crud can absolutely *flourish* even without religion. Genetic-racism, etc etc.
Ana Chronistic is pretty much guaranteed to be being silly rather than serious as they usually make a jokey comment as one of the first on almost every single strip.
Yeah, I read it as a joke, although I do see Felgraf’s point. I have met just as many racist/bigoted/hateful atheists as I have racist/bigoted/hateful theists. The common denominator seems to be “according to my worldview, I am better than you, and that means that I can treat you as less than a person.” What exactly that worldview is varies, but the end result is the same.
Different people are different. This is useful, because the people around me don’t have the same strengths and weaknesses that I have. Working with them, I can compensate for some of their weaknesses, and they can compensate for some of mine. I can also help them improve the areas in which they’re naturally weak, while they can help me improve the areas where I’m naturally weak.
This takes a lot more than two people, because there are more ways to be weak than most of us can imagine, and most of us only have a few natural strengths.
But it also means you can take just about any sort of thinking people do which is not fundamentally bad, and find some people who do that sort of thinking in good ways, and some people who do that sort of thinking in bad ways.
Examples of this include every religion, including atheism and humanism.
Just to be clear: I believe it’s not religious to not know whether there is at least one god. But if you’re sure about the number of gods, even if you’re sure that number is 0, that’s a religion. And if you believe that everybody is naturally good, despite all the evidence against, that’s definitely a religion. Also, if you’re certain it’s not possible for anyone to know whether or not there’s a god, that’s also a religion.
Shouldn’t get into it, but no, it’s still not a religion. Religion involves far more than being certain of something.
Religion does involve more. It’s not necessary for someone to be insistent on convincing somebody of something in order for them to be religious. But taken to the extent that evangelical Christians or evangelical atheists do, it clearly is a religious act.
There’s a lot more to it than that. I hadn’t thought atheism was a religion before I started hanging out with a bunch of them. They asked me about my beliefs. I said I was agnostic, because it’s somehow easier for a lot of people to decide to drop the line of discussion than if I just said that I didn’t know and didn’t think that I personally was capable of knowing. (I’ve tried both ways, many times.)
I’ve met a lot of atheists who wouldn’t get all religious about that. But this particular group was pretty insistent that I “simplify” things and admit that there wasn’t a god. As if somehow certainty was more simple than not understanding.
It’s kind of like other religions – some people who follow the religion can accept others taking other paths, and some people can’t.
There’s more to it than just this, but my purpose isn’t to convince you. My purpose is just to introduce you to the possible concept, and I don’t think I can do a better job than my prior response plus this one, so I’m done here.
People can take that kind of “insistent on convincing somebody of something” on many topics. Sports, TV shows, operating systems, damn near anything really. We often call that “religious” as a metaphor and I’m perfectly happy saying some people are religious about atheism in that sense, but I would still argue that atheism isn’t a religion.
Even as Christianity still is a religion, even for those sects that aren’t so insistent about converting you.
Atheism is not a religion, it is merely the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Or as Penn Gillette put it: “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”.
That said, some can treat it as a religion, at least in the metaphorical sense. In the way football’s been called a religion.
There are also some religions that are (or can be) atheist. At least some strains of Buddhism have no gods, for example.
And yet, some atheists can clearly make a religion *OUT* of it, or Rokko’s Basilisk wouldn’t even be a thing.
UPVOTE.
Good and ill are clearly relative, and claiming that lacking some particular influence makes you good is wrong.
Lacking that same thing CAN still *contribute*, though, so technically Ana is only semantically inaccurate, not wrong.
It just isn’t that one lacks some element, that *definitively* makes one good.
Just like being an atheist *alone* does not make one good.
Or as Yoda once said, “wars not make one great”.
Heck if most right wing “Christians” were actually Christian’s under the rules laid out by the big JHC himself then multiple nations would be much better places.
But no, family values are more important than family members, and getting a check from the government at the start of the president’s term is more valuable than allowing other people to not get murdered in cold blood or getting said murderer before a judge, I guess.
I mean, they do venerate Cthulhu, but he’s technically a Great Old One, not an Outer God.
Besides, they’re really just Christmas, Easter, and The Black Festival of Soul Harvest Cthulhuists.
Oh, I LOVE Black Harvest, but I feel like modern celebrations get lost in the decorations and pagentry.
It’s supposed to be about the HARVESTING.
In all seriousness, when I first read Lovecraft’s “The Festival,” it seemed kind of sweet and wholesome to me.
That’s how it began. Five years later I took part in a certain rite in the swamps of Louisiana, all of us happily singing along to “Ph’nglui Mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh Wgah’nagl Fhtagn”. Good times!
That’s how they getcha!
Then it turned into an Arbonne MLM scheme.
Godless people can be good!? Sooooooo many people need to learn that.
People of God ‘can’ be evil.
Godless people ‘can’ be good.
Damn it, people are people, and they are good or evil, or both. Their morals fly thither and yon as the mood takes them. They are as constant as the wind. …and about as predictable.
But damn it, Willis, you are really messing with ma’ waterworks, Changin’ Hank so much so fast. Brings a tear to my eye, damn it.
“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
– Good Omens
“And just when you’d think they were more malignant than ever Hell could be, they could occasionally show more grace than Heaven ever dreamed of. Often the same individual was involved. It was this free-will thing, of course. It was a bugger.”
Good Omens
People are people and religious people can certainly be good. Religion is however particularly good at convincing people that basically harmless things are bad.
And at convincing people that particularly harmful things are good (genocide, conversion therapies, forced religious conversion, etc)
But is he really ready for Nietzsche?
Don’t you remember? “All the good we do is God workin’ through us!”
The parable of The Good Samaritan. Which the Church has “interpreted” as meaning that the Samaritan was “just a metaphor” and “really believed in God, deep down”. Because you can’t be a good person without believing in God, right?
I always thought the parable stood just fine on its own literal interpretation. Of course, I’m a godless atheist, so what do I know about Grace?
Of course the Samaritan believed in God! Samaritans weren’t and aren’t atheists. They were (and still are) Jews whose forebears were not carried off into the captivity in Babylon, and who practiced (and still practice) a version of Judaism little influenced by religious developments during Captivity.
Sorry, this is something that bothers me. Samaritans are not and were never Jewish. They’re related to the Jews, but the Jews and the Samaritans are descended from different Hebrew tribes. Judah for the Jews, like five different tribes for the Samaritans.
Samaria was formed after the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, Babylon only conquered the Southern Kingdom of Judah. It’s kind of messy and confusing, but Samaritans are a distinct ethnoreligious group.
Thanks for the correction.
You’d agree, though, that Samaritans are and were believers in God, not atheist?
Yeah, of course.
I didn’t really know the Samaritans still existed until now. Apparently their population is less than 1000 and has been down in the range (often much lower) for centuries and yet they’ve maintained a distinct identity. It’s really just a handful of families.
That’s pretty amazing.
I’m amused by that parable, since the context has changed completely since the origin. For most Christians, that parable is the only context they have for “Samaritan”, so Samaritan has become associated with “good person”. There’s no surprise that the Samaritan would help out, if that’s the only way you’ve ever heard Samaritan used. While in Jesus’s day, they were bad guys, which made it shocking.
To get the same point with the parable today, you’d need to use some group despised by your listeners – perhaps atheists. Or Muslims, for a closer parallel.
The analogy isn’t that it’s an unbeliever; rather, that it’s a heretic. Someone who believes, but believes in a slightly different version of what the strict traditional folk believe. Someone who’s shunned by the “right” people.
So, like Becky, basically.
They were more than just bad people, they were ‘other,’ which placed them at the very bottom of society according to Jewish Purity Laws, which defined ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ It’s what makes a Samaritan such a stark contrast for the Priest and Pharisee, who were ‘pure,’ but had no love for those in need, and therefore were the real bad guys.
Isaac Asimov wrote an article about it called “Lost In Non-Translation” (sorry, I don’t remember where it was published) in which he argued that to give white Americans (of the 1970s) a real understanding of the point of that parable you might translate “Samaritan” with a racial slur that he could not use in print.
Yes, godless individuals can be good. However, the cultural norms that have developed over centuries that we define as good have their origins in religion. In that way, Hank isn’t wrong to associate Judeo-Christian and Ancient Greco-Roman practices with being a decent human being that doesn’t engage in behavior that jeopardizes oneself or others (the Jews developed “kosher” requirements for their food based on what doesn’t spoil and cause food borne illness in the Sinai).
What Hank needs to do, though, is reread Romans, and especially the passages about the Gentiles. Then sit down to read and discuss some of Douglas Adams’ non-fiction works about religion’s place in society when the latest scientific theories on crop rotation or interior design can’t produce as good a result as religious-based practices honed from centuries of trial and error.
I would disagree they have their origins in religion. We have more than enough evidence to see people reach these basic things all on their own all over the world with or without religion. It seems more like its a result of having empathy and people incorporated these things into their religions.
I don’t think religion gets to have the credit for basic humanity. Even your example of “religious-based practices honed from centuries of trial and error” ignores the fact that the religious part is irrelevant it was the trial and error and humans learning that made it work.
What religion is very good at though is enforcing and preserving those cultural norms – often long past the time when they were useful.
It’s a step in the right direction.
They are both! Hank’s getting there are recognizing that.
Yep. He’s learning. Good!
i think i’ve seen joyce make that face when she sees different foods touching
Oh my, is this change we are witnessing?
Still having trouble with the concept that “good” and “godless” can exist in the same person.
Admittedly, a big step for him!
This makes me wonder just how much Hank accepted Ross’ initial shoot-up. I always thought that Hank was further along than he apparently is.
Hank feels more loyalty toward his kids than he does toward his Church. When Carol screamed ‘We stand by our own!’ he felt like she didn’t stand by Joyce. Hank never excused Ross just because they’re from the same church.
I’ve felt like Hank is like a lot of men, in that he kept quiet (at least in public) to keep the peace. The fact that he put the blame for the situation with Jordan on he and Carol and most everything he has done with Joyce and Becky that we’ve seen makes me think that the situation reached a point where he can’t do that anymore and live with himself. We’re just ready to assume to worst of anyone who is fundamentalist so it seems like major growth to us when it’s more not being willing to let silence hurt his kids.
I’d strongly believe that Hank didn’t agree with Ross openly brandishing (not shooting) on campus. If you don’t want the FBI at your church doorstep with warrants, you don’t typically keep guys like Ross around on Sundays.
Hank is the kind of guy that probably got saddled with crazy because dating options in the local church community were limited. Now that he’s getting fed up with Carol, I can personally attest there are plenty of intelligent, beautiful, professional women in the conservative community that aren’t DeSantos.
Can we just find Hank an Ann Coulter or Michelle Malklin? The latter at least plays D&D.
Why would we want Hank dating a racist dumbass like Ann Coulter?
Ann Coulter? seriously? He would be far better off staying with Carol then getting involved with that loon.
There are sane, decent, conservative women out there. Neither Anne Coulter nor Michelle Malkin fall into this category. They’ re both vicious, intellectually lazy, dishonest people. We can form temporary alliances with such people, but shouldn’t assume they’re good just because we have a common enemy. Stalin hated Hitler but that didn’t make him a swell guy.
Just a reminder that “crazy” is frequently used as an insult about mental illness, and “sane” as a synonym for “good” is ableist. ♥
I think the pitfall for us here is seeing Hank’s development as linear. He’s always, apparently, had a spark of real ethical decency to him, and that’s blossoming and becoming more broadly defined and applied, perhaps. But his experiences with those outside of their sect of Christianity clearly haven’t been deep and meaningful enough to impress on him that it isn’t unique to only some types of human being (or else, have convinced him of the opposite), and getting back out of those habits may be harder.
That’s one interpretation, and the one I first thought of, but there are two more that I can see.
The first, which Thursday Violet used above, and I got it from them, is that Hank had meant “Godless” as more than just a term for “atheist,” and meant it as an insult, and he’s apologizing for that.
The second alternative interpretation is that he believes that they *aren’t* Godless, at least, from a certain point of view—that even though they don’t believe in God, they still exhibit the personality traits and moral behavior that the God Hank believes in calls for in his followers. That despite not believing in God, they have His grace, which is a deep contrast to Carol, who loudly professes belief in God, but acts with spite and without integrity—without the traits that a benevolent God (whether the Christian God as written is benevolent is neither here nor there; Hank definitely *believes* that God is benevolent) embodies.
And I say this as an atheist myself, if anyone is wondering. But I recognize that there are, in most religions, a set of traits and behaviors that are pretty much universally considered “Good“ and often “Godly”: Humility, charity, kindness, honesty, compassion, etc. In this interpretation, Hank recognizes that the Keeners have these attributes—and he’s being forced to recognize that Carol does not, or at least, has not been exhibiting them lately.
Most religions that a modern Westerner would be familiar with, yes. But some religions (old Norse, Shinto) are more about warrior virtues than kindness and compassion. As to honesty, lots of religions have a venerated Trickster figure.
In fact, I could not think of any modern Western taboo, from incest to genocide, that has not been actively promoted by at least one religion or religious-organized government.
Theres also the point that a lot of fundamentalists consider atheism to be a religon actively venerating not believing rather than a philosophy. And so I could see how your second point would fit in with that nicely.
Judaism (and by extension Christianity) recognise what are termed the ‘Noachide Commandments’ – a set of 7 instructions given by God to Noah after the flood. Any person who keeps to them is considered righteous and will be saved, regardless of their personal religious views. See Genesis 9.
I wouldn’t agree that the Noahide Commandments are exactly “recognised” in Christianity, certainly not in the modern day, and they aren’t actively featured in Genesis 9 (at least not in all translations). It demonstrates a covenant to not again destroy the Earth, and cautions against the killing of man and the eating of still-living (possibly still-bloody) flesh, but the commandments on libido, theft, blasphemy, and law, aren’t present, and one-ness is there only tangentially. Additionally I’d be quite surprised if Trinitarian Christians applied that one-ness of God literally as opposed to it encompassing Him in Three as well. Presumably these are in a separate text, rather than Genesis 9 posessing several additional verses outside of Christian-heritage translations?
Comment above pertains to the Seven Noahide Commandments, just to be specific – the Covenant of Noah in Genesis 9 *is* recognised, but is considered to be permanent and not breachable by misdeed on the human side (to contrast with events from just prior to the Flood of Noah’s record). Alongside it God gave various promises and some specific commands as I mentioned that definitely are in most copies of the text. But I haven’t seen this list of seven specific commandments referenced outside of those publicised in the 20th Century by some Jewish groups.
There’s always a risk, when speaking of religious beliefs, in using absolute terms. You are both speaking accurately of ‘some sects’ of Judaism and Christianity. But practices and beliefs vary wildly.
Some Christians take the line, “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me,” to mean that you have to BE a declared Christian in order to get to Heaven. Others, though, will say that being righteous means that you are channeling Christ’s grace, whether you know it by that name or not. The former route leads you to Carol’s position, with the added proviso that being a declared Christian means that you can trust that Christ will guide your actions and prevent you from doing anything unrighteous.
Hank is valuing them by their fruit ( the results of their actions) and finding his wife and church wanting in comparison. He meant to dismiss them earlier.
Some believe that people can’t really be good without God and thus that most atheists really do believe in God, even if they deny it (possibly even to themselves), since otherwise why wouldn’t they run around murdering people.
Joyce has shown elements of this – after her thing with Jacob she talked about how she thought it would be so great to be an atheist and just do whatever you wanted without concern, but that it ran afoul of still caring about hurting people.
Yes, that’s what I was thinking. They don’t believe, but he can see God in them in a way he doesn’t in (say) Carol. And in realizing that, he regrets having used the word in an offhand and insulting way.
If someone tells you they are good because an imaginary person in the sky says they will suffer for eternity otherwise, they are not good, they’re acting good.
As a Catholic, this was always my take on it as well. Arguing that the fear of God is required for people to be good is a pretty damning admission about yourself.
Goodness doesn’t require any belief. There is no gain or loss by your belief, it’s exactly what it says on the tin: Faith.
This isn’t (..usually..) the case, though. It’s more about being good because you believe you’re the creation of something/someOne wholly good, and wanting to carry out their instructions because they are thus the best plan for humanity and for the world. You can still be good innately while trying to actively do this and quite often one is the cause of the other (in both directions). But yes, others are absolutely judgemental and dismissive, and aren’t doing things out of the heart of the idea, just the text.
“Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time!
“But He loves you.”
– George Carlin
“You love your daughter. If I knew nothing else about you, that would be enough.”
I think he does understand that.
But when he *CALLED* them godless, he *meant* “bad people”, and he is apologizing for that.
^yeah I think so, too.
He’s got a lot of brain washing to work through okay? Remember how long It took for Joyce and she only had 18 years of brainwashing.
Can confirm. I was 46 when the weight of the Observable Fact I had gathered through study and research finally broke the structure of misinformation I had been taught All My Life. It was a painful experience that took most of a year to accept, and another two to mostly-internalize.
Thinking — really, deeply thinking about a topic and examining it in the light of Reason — is hard, exhausting work. Most people are not remotely interested in putting in that much effort. I might never have, had it not been for my wonderful wife, whose tolerance for BS has always been lower than mine.
I like how Edison put it: “Five percent of people think; ten percent think they think; and eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”
It is easy … comfortable … seductive … to let some authority figure do your thinking for you. Fundies are trained to do exactly that practically from birth, and the mental gymnastics required to make their church’s teachings jibe (in some fashion) with what they can see of the world become second nature. This has, to understate the case, put a strain on my relationship with certain family members. I can relate to Joyce in that respect.
I think the “think they think” category is much bigger than that. It’s also more compartmentalized – many people learn to really think about specific area and can fool themselves into thinking they also think about many other things.
See for example, all the “rational skeptics” who started with skepticism about religion and then moved to using skeptical sounding arguments to attack feminism, trans people and other such issues.
Good points!
irrational comes in ALL flavors, thejeff. ALL flavors, not just the ones you’re familiar with. All it takes, is to decide you’re fundamentally BETTER than someone else and that their perspective has zero value.
see how easy that is? I bet you can find someone you, yourself, will reflexively discount even at the price of repudiating what you claim to believe in, because EVERYONE has a streak of it and it’s so very, very, very easy to fall into. One of the reasons for damaging stereotypes is that damaging stereotypes are really very simple mechanisms, while addressing people as individuals takes actual work.
It does and that certainly includes me on some subjects. Some I’m very likely not even aware of.
That said, I’m not sure it’s that directly tied to deciding I’m fundamentally BETTER than someone else, but more to simply not recognizing my own assumptions and biases. Changing deep set opinions is hard work, regardless of your opinions of those arguing for it or even if anyone else is involved.
The other difficulty people encounter in changing their minds about religion is that they’re often used to thinking of their previous religious perspective as embodying not only truth but also virtue, the way to be a good person. And likewise, believing something else is not only incorrect but also morally wrong.
It’s not merely a matter of changing your mind about facts. You also have to train your subconscious into a different understanding of what being a good person is, so you manage to still view yourself as an okay sort of person and remember not to blame yourself for actions and thoughts that you used to think were wrong.
It’s really painful to discover that being factually correct is apparently in conflict with what you’ve always believed to be the way a good person thinks. I don’t think people who have never had to seriously revise their perception of how to be a moral person realise how torturous it can be, and how potentially damaging to one’s sense of self-esteem.
I think it was because “godless” was an insult meaning “can’t be good because no god,” so he’s apologizing for judging their character based on his biases.
godless but not goodless
It seems like Hank is looking back on the person he used to be and does not like what he sees
hopefully this means when Jocelyn is ready to come out she has a supportive father
I miss Jocelyn. Occasionally getting voted for in a bonus strip isn’t enough, we need storylines!
Hank seems to be moving in the right direction…
…. but I think he needs to move a bit further in that direction before he’s ready for her.
Oh, Hank, you seriously need a hug.
You and your daughter.
(daughters, plural)
In this case I just meant Joyce because Joyce is the one that’s gone thru the immediate trauma.
I missed something. What is this referencing?
The first encounter between Joyce’s and Dorothy’s parents didn’t really go so well.
Move a couple of days forward, so Hank can explain that “without god, people have no moral foundation.”
I considered it, but that particular part wasn’t in front of Deborah and Jeremiah so I ended up opting in favor of a strip that was.
I went back and read this, and then ended up reading Ruth’s interaction with her brother, which was really cute.
Panel one Hank “has an attitude”.
Three other people are probably gonna say this before I finish typing, but Hank and Carol met these two on Family Weekend. The two groups didn’t interact very well.
Sounds like a way of acknowledging that godless doesn’t mean evil without saying it out loud, to me, Hank.
Dang, that first panel. I think this is the angriest we’ve ever seen Hank.
I think Hank is still confusing “godless” as bad, even though the Keeners are proof that you don’t need religion to be a good person. Oh well, he’s doing better than he was so baby steps I suppose.
He’s not confusing it. In that Christian culture “godless” *does* mean bad, because they believe it’s impossible to have morals without Jesus.
I think you’re confused as to what “confusing it” means
How meta.
No. It’s more two separate beliefs: 1) We’re all screwed up so without Jesus we can’t be right with God, and 2) only through Jesus can you receive the Spirit and become as close to truly good as you’re meant to be in this life. (There’s a third, but it would just start a meaningless argument, so I’ll leave it aside for now.)
Of course, then you get the professing Christians who are just narcissists wrapped in religious guise and the genuinely nice atheists and it can throw someone who hasn’t spent time outside of their in-group for a loop. That’s why, in my experience, religious Christians and Jews who went to public school tend to do better in maintaining our faith in college than those who were “protected” from the world too much.
You’ll notice that some of Joyce’s friends have been thrown for a similar loop when she just doesn’t conform to what they think a conservative, evangelical Christian is supposed to do and be. Because atheists and liberals ALSO have their self-righteous echo-chambers and need to get out and talk to more religious conservatives.
Joyce is also accellerating away from being conservative or even Christian at all at a pace similar to a rocket exiting atmosphere, so I’m not sure she’s a great example of someone who Truly Believes in evangelicalism.
(Also I have met quite a number of nice, polite religious conservativesand even religious liberals who would happily see me dead so I gotta say it’s kinda more complicated than that?)
Thank you for wording that so well, a tip o’ the hat for that.
Yeah, but point is, Hank is not “confusing” godless with bad because in that culture godless *is* bad. For the Keeners, the word is a descriptive statement of fact. For Christians like the Browns, it is one of the worst things you can be because it means you have no basis for morals.
Right after meeting the Keeners on Freshman Family Weekend Hank said so in as many words. https://www.dumbingofage.com/2013/comic/book-3/04-just-hangin-out-with-my-family/moral/
Hank is walking back the part of “godless” that means the Keeners are bad people.
I will say I kind of inherently resent Jews just being kind of hamfistedly slapped in with Christians in this same sort of boat here, just like I resent the term “Judeo-Christian Values” because in reality it honestly has very little to do with Judaism or Jews and their lived realities or beliefs and instead is just how Christians stole and chose to interpret our holy text.
Jews *don’t believe in Jesus christ as the savior*, they do not believe humans are inherently wicked, and even if they were they don’t believe in the existence of HELL so they do not condone eternal torture as the inevitable punishment for wickedness which one must be saved from by following religious dogma. Jews don’t even really have much by way of dogma!! (At least not in the same way Christians do.) They don’t try and convert others to their beliefs and in fact the tradition is to actively discourage it!
There is no staggering cognitive dissonance (usually) inherent to Judaism that would cause a young Jewish person to genuinely believe that someone can’t act virtuously without also sharing their specific beliefs. In fact the very idea of that is so counter to Jewish culture it’s kind of laughable, because the most Jewish thing in the world is for absolutely nobody to agree on anything, and to be pretty suspicious of anyone who pretends to.
Wait!!! Are you telling me that Jews don’t call the Old Testament the Old Testament???
:o:o:o:o:
I…am *assuming* you’re being sarcastic, but just in case you’re not, no. It’s called the Torah.
I was raised as an Anglican, and one of the things that always rather itched at the back of my mind was that, if Jews were God’s chosen people, didn’t that mean that one would have to be Jewish to get into Heaven? And wasn’t it rather disrespectful to be sitting here going through the motions and pretending we were when we weren’t?
When I was, I dunno, around seven or so (back in the late 70’s for context), my Sunday school had a Bible dinner, where we all dressed up like we were back in Biblical times (i.e. our best cracker-ass tea-towel-on-the-head Middle Eastern cosplay), went to the church basement where we usually had Sunday School, and sat around on the floor around those big long community hall tables, but with the legs still folded up so they were sitting on the floor, and ate chili with pita bread with our fingers. You know, like in the Bible!! We probably had grape juice “wine” too, and I loved the hell out of it, and was always disappointed that they never did it again.
That accomplished two things: First, it gave me an ongoing love of historical recreation that I still have today (although now I play in the SCA and dress up as a white person instead of clumsily if enthusiastically and with no ill intentions appropriating someone else’s culture); and second, it made me realize just how far from those Biblical people we actually were. Like, as a Christian, these Middle Easterners from two thousand years ago were supposed to be our direct ancestors, more or less; but as a European/British Caucasian with an interest in history, I was very much aware that they weren’t. Pretty sure my ancestors of two thousand years ago were roaming about the forests of Europe and trying to avoid the Romans.
When I got older, I decided that the true form of Christianity probably wasn’t a rip-off of Catholicism that a horny king had made up so he could legally nail the hot blonde who was refusing to put out until he made an honest woman of her (and who would hopefully give him a son and heir), and went looking for actual Christianity.
Catholicism seemed a decent place to start, but even that wasn’t what Christianity originally was, was it? Greek Orthodox, maybe? Maybe Judaism? I mean, Jesus says you don’t even need a church, you just need to have a couple of fellow believers to hang out with. But is he even the real deal? I mean, the Nicene Convention deliberately cherry-picked what was and what was not to be considered canon, and they don’t let us see the other bits (and while I assume one can find them online nowadays if one bothers looking, back in the Eighties they were a lot harder to track down, so I couldn’t read the original source material and decide for myself.
Besides, I can’t read Greek. Or Hebrew. Or Aramaic. Which would mean I’d be relying on someone else’s translation anyways, and how could I tell how accurate that was in the first place?
In the end I think I decided that from what I could make out, in order to get into Heaven, one needed to be ethnically Jewish and convert to Christianity, and that if one wasn’t ethnically Jewish, it probably didn’t count, lol. And nowadays, after giving Wicca and atheism a go, I’m a Heathen, which aligns well with my need for some kind of a higher power as well as my strong feminist and scientific leanings.
TL;DR: Oh my god, as a former Christian, Christianity is SO appropriating Judaism, and doing it SO BADLY, right?!
Hah!!! That’s a pretty great story AND a great TL;DR. And you’re very right. Like, Judaism has *plenty* of problems, but most of those problems have been born from our incredibly long history of GENUINE suffering and persecution, rather than the mostly imagined persecution that Christians foist on each other to further radicalize themselves.
But like. I’m a Jewish Atheist. And the wonderful thing about Judaism in my opinion (or at least most of it, treating Judaism as a monolith in any way is literally just incorrect) is that you CAN be a Jewish Atheist. That Jews value so heavily that one ACTIVELY chooses to believe in God and challenge their own faith and if you genuinely decide, given all of the evidence and history, that you can’t believe in God’s existence–while still choosing to act in accordance to his most basic moral laws–you are still a practicing member of the Jewish faith in the eyes of your people.
I identified with a lot of this, but came to a different conclusion, and am still a Christian (although a lot more in terms of faith than religion at this point).. Part of it is probably due to Heaven not being the largest factor in my calculations, although, to be fair, it’s pretty difficult to ignore. But mainly there’s a call for disciples to be made ‘from all nations’ and the opening up of automatic belonging to God’s Kingdom thusly to the gentiles (ie. me) that follows from there which made me think it was not quite so impossible. Additionally the idea of that Kingdom being workable, and worth working at, on Earth, just as much as anywhere else or afterwards. We are meant to be providing other people with, and growing, the seeds of kinship and equality and decency here, too. But I know there are a lot of Christians that don’t manage to equate it so well with intersectional feminism/activism and scientific understanding as I hope I’ve done… There has to be an awful lot of impact from coming from a non-US-evangelical background involved :/
With the translation issue, mainly I’ve tried reading as many translations on dubious verses / chapters as possible, and getting more grounded in the historical context via scholars appropriate to it, to try not to misread. But yeah. That’s a work in progress that could last several lifetimes even if it were my only focus (or even as much of one as it really ought to be).
Those aren’t really the only options. Some Christians, especially various forms of fundamentalists really do double down on the “Can’t be good without god” side. Not just in the “can’t be right with God” or even the “receive the Spirit to help you be better” senses, but in a flat out “Morals come from God, so without God, being good doesn’t even make sense” way.
That’s the tradition I was raised in. Kinda sucks to think I bought that for 2/3 of my life.
I think you’re mistaking Evangelism for Christianity. A lot of Evangelism bypasses the content of Christ’s message in favor of pushing the expansion of the faith by any means necessary. The actual ‘meat’ of his message was a moral code in which a good person considers their impact on others. Contrast this with the main thrust of Evangelical Christianity, in which the central point is not about that, but instead about push/pull/cajole/dominate/threaten/entice/whatever others into going to the ‘right’ church, saying the ‘right’ things and hating the ‘right’ people. Don’t get me wrong, organized Christianity is miles and away closer to the core message than it was in, say, 1066 or 1632, but that’s with over 2000 years of evolution in the field between Paul the Apostle and the present, and not al of that evolution has been positive…and the bulk of the positive evolution is on an individual level not including people who make their living ‘preaching the word’. (Somehow, distressingly, a lot of those who make their bread preaching the word aren’t preaching the word so much as feeding the mentality of the mob.)
Not as much a “step in the right direction” than a “accidental tripping in the general direction of a bit better than before”
I think it’s becoming less accidental at least.
Deborah: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re the alt-text, when I see Family Guy I do laugh, but I don’t feel good about it. I will not judge the Keeners for that.
I regret the time I spent enjoying Family Guy. I was young! I didn’t know any better!
Ehh american dad is better I find there spoofs of conservatives to be funny and there not nearly as preachy as family guy. And I can see the appeal of someone like Stan the fact that anyone ANYONE would marry peter is an insult to women everywhere he really pushed the “dumb dad” trope to far hell even homer Simpson is more likeable than him.
Heck, Homer himself used to be more likeable in earlier seasons. Then the rot set in that seems to affect every long-going TV series.
Same, my family used to rent the dvds at the video store. Young me didn’t know any better!
Sometimes I think about how there were (are?) some good jokes in there. Ones that aren’t cruel and dehumanising. But the overall theme of the show is such cruelty, especially for those outside of the straight white cis guy bracket.
Family Guy is like McDonald’s. You know it’s not good for you, but sometimes you just want it.
Family Guy is propaganda for cruelty and crudity.
I would add misogyny and racism and homophobia to that but yes.
Oh and transphobia as well.
And too much lounge singing by the creator.
Family Guy was okay, then it got canceled, then had a couple decent revival seasons, then got formulaic and too reliant on random pop culture references.
I have a theory that Seth MacFarlane has grown to hate the show, but just keeps doing it for the sweet cheddar it keeps raking in and so the network lets him do other projects he actually wants to.
That’s not just a theory. He’s openly said he’d end the show if it didn’t mean losing all that money and putting the (hundred and?) fifty people who work on it out of a job.
Wow, I don’t keep up on MacFarlane news; I thought that was just facetious cynicism.
It’s not really surprising, mind you. Dude’s way too talented to get pigeonholed as “the guy who does Family Guy”. You can also kind of see it in American Dad, which is more like early Family Guy.
Seth needs to stop writing shows and just become a voice actor and musician
He seems to be having fun with
Star Trek with the serial numbers filed offThe Orville… But yeah he’d probably be happy doing voice work and hosting award ceremonies.I can’t help but think the solution is to come up with a better show, end Family Guy, and hire the Family Guy crew for the new show.
I’ll do it for you, if you like.
Cueing up…
Ah, when a word has two close, but not identical meanings.
Deborah and Jeremiah think “godless” means “without a god.” Do they understand that it also means “depraved, amoral, evil, and the worst”?
They resent and reject the implication. Kind of the way that Welsh and Romany people resent “welshed” and “gypped” meaning what they do.
Oh! I’d never made the connection between “welshed” / people of Wales. Thanks for letting me be one of today’s 10,000!
I’ve also always seen/heard it as “welch”, which makes the connection even harder to see.
“Welch” is an alternative (though archaic) spelling of “Welsh” in other senses, too. There is or until recently was a British army regiment called something like “The Royal Welch Fusiliers”.
By the way, the origins of the verb “welsh” are disputed. Nevertheless, at least some Welsh people are offended by the use; their offend feelings are real even if etymologically unjustified.
Typo: for “offend feelings” read “offended feelings”.
Here’s a treat for you, then. “Wales” and “Wallachia” both get their names from an ancient Germanic word for “foreign”/“enemy”.
Huh. I always thought the word was “welched” and didn’t know it was connected to Welsh (or any other) people the way “gypped” is to the Romany.
(As a kid, I couldn’t figure out how grapes were related to the issue.)
Once again I find myself wondering about Hank and Carol’s religious history. Were they both born into a conservative Christian family, or was one or the other a convert.
They got worse. Halloween was okay when John and Jordan were little.
You don’t need to have been raised in a conservative church to end up in one.
We were raised in a hippy-dippy Jesus church (by conservative parents, go figure) and one of my siblings ended up going full fundagelical.
I think it depends on the type of person, that conservative churches attract the fearful and controlling.
Kind of like conservative politics.
That’s why I’m wondering, because converts sometimes seem more inflexible than those raised in a faith, no matter what the beliefs of the faith are.
“Convert zeal” is definitely a thing. IMO, a big part of it is trying to prove (to self and others) that the conversion is sincere, and not just an act or a phase or something like that. Another part is throwing themselves into the idea of the new thing that they have in their head, and which made them abandon their old thing for something they wanted more; this may or may not look anything like what the new thing actually is.
We do know that Hank had them change churches when Joyce was younger because he didn’t like the people (IIRC it was because the church members were Not Nice People) which makes me think Hank was always the better of the Browns, bc he valued kindness.
Their current church seems nice enough, until something like this scratches the veneer. And he doesn’t like what he sees.
Hank was not pleasant when they met the Keeners beginning of the school year, but I bet Joyce got him thinking.
He was fine with Becky, because he knows her and knows she’s a good person. Unlike Carol, he didn’t turn against her because he kept his eye on the person he knows, instead of throwing that out and judging her solely on that one part of her.
I am sure that hearing the nasty things said at church about Becky, when she is still the same Becky she was when she left for Anderson, made him really start thinking.
My guess is he never really thought about how the church’s beliefs affect people, and seeing it in action against a kid he knows and likes, he he’s realizing those beliefs have a real human cost.
Do we know that it was Hank who made them change churches? Rather than a mutual decision?
Also, since it was when Joyce was young, but apparently old enough to remember, John was probably already on his way to becoming the Christian that he is now.
I’d agree that Hank always valued kindness, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t always fundamentalist. I’ve long seen him as much like Joyce, but a version that didn’t get exposed to all these weirdos in his youth. A Joyce who didn’t meet an atheist to become best friends with or have a best friend come out as gay.
We do not know that as fact, no, but it’s not an unreasonable read on the situation. Carol is clearly both unable and uninterested in critically examining her church.
Carol is unable and uninterested in critically examining her CURRENT church. Unlike what appears to be the majority, I’m fully convinced that it was Carol that made them keep changing churches because the previous ones weren’t intolerant enough.
You may be onto something there.
Whereas I’m not sold on the theory that Hank was always better and just pushed around by Carol. Partly because I find him more interesting if his arc involves more change and growth than just standing up to Carol for what his beliefs always were.
He said to Joyce earlier that he’s trying to listen and learn from her and I like that take on him.
We have reached maximum allowed nesting, and so I am forced to reply to myself. Anyone that tries to put me in a buttons-at-the-back white shirt should be forewarned that I’m very good at biting AND kicking and I think fighting fair is for people who don’t want to win.
Hank strikes me more as a go-along christian. He’s christian because everyone else around him is, and he’s this particular toxic version of christian because that’s the one he has around him and he gladly kept that up until recent events because none of the toxicity was directed at people he knew and so he didn’t care about it. Basically, he’s the Nazi Germany dude that doesn’t see anything wrong with Nazis because he neither is nor knows any jews, blacks, romani, gays, *insert list of demographics the Nazis tried to genocide here because I don’t have all year*
Hank connected them changing churches to him being like Joyce and ‘no quarter given’ so I assume he at least wanted to change churches even if he didn’t initially come up with the idea.
Could be the religious form of background noise, or depending on the religion the timeline for education about the religion. Speaking at least from the experience of someone raised in catholicism, being raised in the faith has your religious education primarily from about the time you enter kindergarten to age 15, spreading it out a lot and requiring very child-friendly methods of explaining it. Converts have to learn a lot more depending on their age, and at appropriate comprehension levels, so they tend to know ‘more’ about the intricacies of the mythos, though it’s still highly sanitized and revisionist.
There’s also just “I chose to be in this religion.” Human psychology self-reinforcing decisions made for personal validation or something like that.
From the description Joyce gave, they are searchers. Always looking for that “perfect” church. They inevitably go further and further to the fringe.
Tbh it doesn’t sound like their church switching was “going into the fringe.” They just weren’t blindly willing to accept anything the church did once upon of time, so a lot of behaviors that are not STRICTLY SPEAKING part of fundamentalist doctrine but, shall we say, closely correlate, were things they were at the time willing to pack up and switch to a different church for.
To be honest Ive assumed that Carol is the reason they stopped.
I suspect they basically reach a halfway point, as they radicalized their way into Halloween no longer being acceptable their standards for all the other behavior got lower, but also it was different enough that Joyce was able to realize why they had been switching churches. but yeah that’s basically why I said that was “once upon a time,” there’s no way carol would switch over the ‘closely correlated’ behaviors now.
It’s amazing that they both remember that happening… SEVEN YEARS AGO! Where has the time gone. It feels like this strip just started.
It was only seven years in our universe. In the DoA universe’s timeline, this was a couple months ago, I think.
I know. It just kills me that the storyline(s) all feel so relatively recent as if it’s has just been a college semester, but the strip has been around for a decade. It’s a compliment for Willis’ writing.
More like a month. This is not a fast moving strip. XD
Half a semester. The mass kidnapping interfered with midterms. 🙂
Oh yeah, Joyce is more like her dad.
[sigh] Two steps forward, one step back
Wait, I can be good even though I am godless? I can resign from the Evil League Of Evilness for Evilness’s Sack? I’ve wanted to do that for years.
What I find interesting is that in the second panel, both of dorothy’s parents are smiling. Even if they aren’t pushy/shrill like Walky’s parents, you wouldn’t expect them to be HAPPY to see the parents that helped get their daughter’s kidnapper freed from jail. Cold indifference is what I would expect.
So are the keeners that forgiving? Did they just not know the relationship between Ross and Hank/Carol? Or did they overhear the current argument between Linda and Carol and realize Hank was innocent?
I may be a mere autismo, but those smiles look pretty forced and/or nervous. It’s a common response to social discomfort.
I also think they are uncomfortable with the encounter even if being as polite as they can to not escalate.
I read the initial smiles as oh-shit-hes-coming-to-pick-a-fight de-escalation smiles, but after Hank apologizes and backs off they seem genuinely taken aback and inclined to forgive.
It’s possible they take the rational approach and think the church couldn’t possibly have expected him to do what he did.
We have to admit that if some other random stranger had posted his bail out of the goodness of their heart, Ross would not have kidnapped 6 other kids. He’d have done something sh!tty towards Becky no doubt, but it takes a Blaine to come up with that wacko plan.
We readers have the advantage of knowing Blaine is pure evil and that it was going to be Bad. But none of the other parents know what we do.
Mind you, they were gullible Christians to believe whatever story Blaine spun. But that brand of xianity avoids asking questions about things it likes. Less brainwashed people might have wondered what his angle was.
Even so, could anyone have suspected that Ross would get entangled in a scheme to kidnap 6 college students to get them to contact a masked vigilante to get her to kidnap Ross’s daughter, all just a ploy to get his hands on the vigilante and to scare his daughter into dropping out of school?
The church sucks for bailing him out, and they should have been suspicious of Blaine, but it’s not really rational to blame them for Blaine’s idiotic Rube Goldberg Criminal Scheme.
But bailing out the kidnapper in this context is bad enough. Even if the church had been able to do it on its own without Blaine’s help, it still would have escalated – not to those crazy levels, but definitely to another kidnap attempt and one likely to threaten Becky’s friends.
Much like the first one did.
Given how close they were in the panel where all this started, they may have heard Hank’s ‘I agree. They shouldn’t have done that’ line at the start. Tells them two things upfront:
– Hank was not involved with the bailing (‘They’ shouldn’t have done that,)
– Hank does not support what happened on any level.
Both of which mean they’re willing to exchange a few awkward ‘hello’s, especially after he starts apologizing. (That, and as Dorothy says, they aren’t aggro. Having been through the Brown Parent Gauntlet once, they probably want to avoid it again if they can.)
I am godless and probably chaotic good, or just chaotic. Also, Family Guy isn’t as funny as in the first seasons because almost everyone in that show became socipaths that abuse Meg.
I kind of just want it to end with meg getting the hell out of there I mean she’s 18 now if I was her I would leave her family and never go back
And the fact that they had an episode where Brian said she was the “lightning rod” to justify her families abuse is really fucked up I mean you can argue it’s a comedy but that came across as a genuine moral that its audience of teenagers will internalize and it really pissed me off.
Brian’s character also degrades significantly over time from having some genuine intelligence to being more of a faux intellectual and being just as abusive to Meg, losing the previous sympathy he used to have for her.
I usually only watch new episodes when I’m bored with nothing else to do there are some good jokes in Family Guy and American Dad but there are also plenty that should never have been made.
I don’t mind the changes to Meg… Yes, it’s disfunctional, but the fact that it is done in such an over-the-top waymakes it funny.
On the other hand I find the changes to Brian (making him a fake-intellecual) detracts from the show… (It’s much funnier to see the intelligent Brian revert to dog habbits, and to see him be the voice of reason).
Kind of think it would be interesting if Hank wound up joining the Keeners, Joyce, and Sarah for lunch.
That’s what I would like to see happen, tbh
Not sure how Joyce would react though.
She probably recognizes that her father was not the evil person her mother is, but after the kidnapping she isolated herself from both of them. She may not be ready to deal with them as anything but a couple.
Sounds like Hank’s sorta where Joyce was at the start, maybe a little further in some aspects.
Still….
he’s trying.
Hank’s trying.
Hank’s still looking for a “church” that fits him. I hope he’s just taken that first baby step towards figuring out the truth – “good” doesn’t come from any “god.”
I’m glad it was Hank the Keeners ran into and not Linda, who I can only assume still believes Walky is dating Dorothy. Though the day is still young..
He’s a little confused, but he’s got the spirit.
THERES the Will Smith quote I was looking for!
baby steps.
He will get there.
Glad to see Hank’s getting better, but like many religious people he still hasn’t realized that the word “godless” doesn’t mean “not a good person”.
I think maybe he has, but he’s apologizing for the way he meant it back then?
Whelp. That synches it.
Hank’s getting murdered in a Domestic Violence event tonight. or within the next week.
Deborah and Jeremiah Keener? And they’re Godless? Kinda feel like Willis was trying to make a point here.
@ktbear : does it involve “magic underwear”?
Hank: No, you’re good, kind, and loving people.
Dot Parents: But that has nothing to do with God.
Hank: God is all those things.
Dot Parents: Whaaaa?
Two very different worldviews. Obi-Wan and Han Solo.
I feel like what may be getting lost here (and I may just be overthinking/projecting) is that many Christians* use “Godless” as a sort of “Bless Your Heart” phrase that they can pretend isn’t meant as an insult. Here is Hank, realizing he previously called good people “Godless” with the intent to insult/judge them, and is now feeling remorse for his actions. I read this as “I’m sorry I insulted you, you’re good people.”
Though if you didn’t register his previous “godless” comments as the castigation they are often meant as (or were attempting diplomacy by ignoring the insult), this scene definitely does come off as awkwardly insisting that “good people CAN’T be ‘Godless'”
Hank comes from a religion where God is not just good but the source of all goodness, light, and decency in the world. It’s like the Force. You are a part of God and he is a part of you.
Saying you’re Godless is not a statement of belief. A person who rejects God is rejecting love, goodness, and what is right.
Hank is acknowledging by the fact that they are good they are not.
Which the Dot Family would be confused as fuck by. Its nonsensical to their worldview because good has nothing to do with God.
I haven’t met an atheist yet who considers being called godless an insult. Is that an American or a religious thing?
Also, there’s this weird assumption among some religious people that the only thing that makes a human behave is the fear of punishment by God. I thing that says more about them than about nonbelievers.
Being called godless is an insult, because when people call you godless, they mean you’re a bad person. If everything good comes from God, after all, a godless person is at the very least horribly ungrateful.
Just because we’re not insulted by “godless” doesn’t mean we don’t know it’s meant as a grievous insult.
That “weird assumption” is exactly why it’s insulting. They’re saying you are completely amoral.
To the religious, it is.
If you don’t believe in God (or any form of religious figure or multiple religious figures), it very much is not, because with the idea of a God holding no power of you, it is as powerful as making a factual statement about an obvious thing like that your shirt is red or your eyes are blue!
To the religious it is the equivalent of saying you are an immoral person and an ungrateful person for the blessings you have – to a fellow religious person, that could be devastating. To an atheist though, the response is more like ‘k, good talk, I still have morals by the way actually’.
It is the type of insult that really only works to full effect on your own exact group of people and on absolutely no one outside of it.
In the branch of Christianity that I grew up in, “Godless” is intended not as “indifferent to morals” (without morals, “amoral”) but rather as actively being against good (“anti-moral”?)
People from other branches of the same major religion were “mistaken”, sometimes so much so that they had to be gone against in wars, but atheists were in league with evil, either knowingly and willingly or else being unknowingly actively guided by Evil and needing to be purged of evil spirits.
You might have noticed a conflation between “Satanists” and atheists. Pagans, by the way, were people who had not yet been converted, and so perhaps destined for eternal punishment if they didn’t wise up — but atheists were considered to have actively rejected the supernatural pantheon and so must surely be Bad.
I was fortunate, relatively, that the particular schools and churches I went to in those days were on the more liberal side and did not emphasize anti-athiesm (but it was in the background), but the church hierarchy could be pretty mean all the way up.
“but atheists were in league with evil, either knowingly and willingly or else being unknowingly actively guided by Evil and needing to be purged of evil spirits.”
That’s certainly the environment I was familiar with in Texas, especially in more rural parts. I often heard “[some hostile comments against Muslims]” followed by “But at least they’re not Atheists! Atheists.. don’t believe in God! At least Muslims understand that there is a God, however confused and wrong and wicked their beliefs may be, but Atheists are the servants of the devil, trying to corrupt us from the light of God!” [or similar].
Well, it’s not just christians, though- I’ve seen quite a number of homosexuals who’ve been actively hostile towards asexuals [such as myself], as though our disinclination towars sexuality was a direct attack on their very existence. The hypocrisy of their approach aside, I do vaguely comprehend the premise, given how so many homosexuals base their entire identity and social positioning off of their sexuality [rather than just considering it one of many parts of themselves].
So at the very least, I don’t think we can pin that kind of mindset on religion alone- it seems to be based more on [If something is within our framework, we can work some kind of connection to it. But if something invalidates the overexaggerated social value we put on our framework, then it is the embodiment of evil and must be destroyed.]
Basically, it’s just a matter of “self-reflection is just far too difficult”, and the more self-reflection is demanded by new information, the less keen those of simple mindsets are to accept the new information.
Your point on self-reflection is exactly right. It’s difficult, painful work, and most people don’t want to do it.
Much like some people think calling someone a feminist (*gasp*) or even WORSE, a SJW (*double gasp with onions*), is going to make us
1) wake up to the awful reality of what we have become
2) apologize
3) forget that the conversation was about the crap *they* just pulled
SJWs are anyone who disagrees with my opinion, or who tries to force me to logically reconsider information or look up information on my own. They’re truly the most awful of human beings, what with their logic and research and careful considerations to things. How can I possibly go wild if I gotta think things through first? Geesh. Fucking SJWs. Stinky Juggling Winos, I think it stands for? Yeah, that sounds right. I bet they’re all drunk. Trying to juggle all those unimportant things. Terrible people. What? I should look up what SJW really means and should be used for? YOU! YOU’RE AN SJW, AREN’T YOU!
Jeez, and me thinking it was Secret Jehovah’s Witness all this time!
Believing in other people of our chosing
Let’s go, Hank!
I guess it’s okay if they liked one episode of Family Guy, so long as they promise to never do it again.
My mother once told me I wasn’t allowed to disapprove of her white supremacist friend because I liked Family Guy.
My mother knowing nothing about me, making shit up to fill the void, and then judging me for the shit she made up was pretty standard, though this one was particularly wild.
What really shocked me was that she recognized Family Guy was racist.
This is very nice. I like it.
I think that Hank is done with hating random strangers, even in indirect ways.
I don’t really think he has ever hated random strangers, but he has definitely been judgemental of them. But that’s not the same thing.
I get what he is tring to say, good man Hank
Most reliogious people are not like those in this comic or in the USA…people in the USA are fanatics, both relious and Atheist, everything is so extream in the USA
But admiting when you are wrong is a good thing, specially about people
Also you can be relious and open minded.
And you can be a religious scientiest
A smart atheist
(or a lazy atheist that says he belives in science but doesnt know first grade biology…insted of just saying you are Agnostic)
That came agresive on pourpose im tired of lazy Atheist, that try to convert people like realiguios people without noting the hypocresy. I deal with 2 every day in the lab. (use too is not essential investigation if its not medical)
Regardles learning to accept people and seeing when you fucked up and were prejuicious its vital. No Bigotry against any faith, race, gender, etc…
Even in the US, there are plenty of decent, non-fanatical religious people. It’s just that the fanatic ones get the airtime and the power – thanks largely to the Religious Right’s alliance with Republican party.
Plenty of non fanatic atheists too. Again the fanatics are louder, though this time they lack any real power.
And that’s ignoring how firmly CHRISTIAN the Religious Right is, and how religiously diverse the US is. We run the full spectrum of religions, and frequently more than one tradition within them.
True, though we’re still overwhelmingly Christian – roughly 75%. With no other religions rising much above 2%.
…SO close.
See, see. Hank has spent like five seconds on college ground and he already speaks up against his wife and hangs out with atheists. College really does corrupt!
Carol is right in everything and there is no reason to ever question her, is what I’m saying.
Something something about how college/acadrmia is a commie trap rigged aganist conservatism
Yes, because it involves thinking and a respect for objective reality.
The horror!!
Didn’t he use to go there?
Since Christian wives have to follow their husband’s lead in everything and Karol is such a good Christian woman, she’ll soon be handing out Commie pamphlets with the hand that’s not busy washing leper’s feet.
What kinda fake christianity do YOU subscribe to? That kinda shit isn’t in the Bible, y’know. I mean, I’ve never read it, but I’m quite confident in my presuppositions that the Bible’s sole purpose is to give me a list of things I can safely hate on. I mean, what else could it possibly exist for?
P.S. I never swear.
BWAH HA HA HA HA!
/o\
I mean, it’s not like the two are mutually exclusive.
Anyway. Like daughter, like father, I guess ^^
Oh boi, things are escalating fast for Hank.
Oh my! Walky is growing a spine, ditto Hank. C’mon, Charlie! You know you can(‘t)!
Step 1: Realize your wife doesn’t really care what happens to anyone, as long as she looks good.
Step 2: Realize that people can be good, even without a religion, and that religion is not what makes someone good
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Divorce the selfish evil harpy and do your best to better yourself and do better for your daughter/sons
Daughters. Plural. Which is gonna be another thing for him to learn, I believe.
And unfortunately at least one son will take moms side, the other one its unclear if he will benefit from this or not.
But please get divorced Hank you already lost your sons but you have a chance to salvage things with your daughters. And unfortunately I think its fare to assume that Carol cannot be trusted even simply to not kill her eldest daughter, and as long as you choose to remain married that means you cannot be trusted.
I don’t think we’ve heard from the son that supports the mother since the kidnapping took place.
He may change once he sees his mother trying to downplay the kidnapping, attempted murder, then second kidnapping of his sister as “just a servant of god doing what he thought was right. also, we have to support him and his decision to do so, because he is a servant of god, and we therefore cannot criticize him or it will make us(me) look bad”
John’s big (only?) appearance was when Joyce went home with Becky after the first kidnapping. He dismissed Joyce punching of Ross as an overreaction, dismissed all of Becky’s problems and stomped off because he couldn’t talk to her when she was angry.
John ain’t going to change his mind. Not easily.
Yes, it was already an INSANE reaction to being kidnapped at gunpoint.
Another thing to consider is the financial aspect of this whole situation. I’m not 100% sure whether his missionary work is through the “family church” specifically, but assuming it is the same church, he’d take Carol’s side purely out of his own self-interest, before his own fucked worldview even entered the conversation. He talked big game about real life being hard and kids in Joyce’s generation being entitled brats who can’t function on their own, but I think the truth is he is entirely conscious of how easy he has had it throughout his entire life, and what’s more, he fucking likes it. He wants to preserve it, and it will be this instinct, combined with his genuine belief that Ross’ actions were a justifiable response to Becky’s sin (and possibly even Joyce and the other victims’ sin for associating with Becky), that will make him take Carol’s side, at the loss of at least Joyce and Jocelyne, and possibly Hank. And that’s assuming John hasn’t directly or indirectly lost Jordan already.
A for effort, man.
Just going through the archives to refresh myself on Jerry and Deborah.
Deborah has freckles, which I’d somehow forgot, but is always a plus with me.
It’s amazing to see how much of the Keeners’ and Browns’ previous interactions are about the “A” word and Hank siding with Joyce to still be with Dorothy, her friend, sorta predicts this.
Basically vaguely here
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2013/comic/book-3/04-just-hangin-out-with-my-family/godless/
thru here
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2013/comic/book-3/04-just-hangin-out-with-my-family/takeafter/
I just wanna say, That First Panel is all about Music.
First I thought Neil Young’s; “Don’t let it Bring you down, it’s only brain cells burning…
But then I thought, ‘Nah, it’s gotta be “Smokin’ gray-matter, and fire in his eyes.”
Hank: FAMILY GUY!?!? No, wait, the Lord is merciful and forgiving, surely he will allow for the occasional indiscretion, it was only one episode!
Deborah: It was a two-parter…
Hank: FOULEST HERESY
Oh, I love Hank so much right now 🙂
I wouldn’t have thought that one of the adult characters would actually turn out to be so interesting, I saw them mostly as a background for the kids. But I’m really happy to see a middle-aged character go through some personal growth, instead of just repeating the same behavior over and over because “I’m an adult, therefore I’m always right”. I always hated it so much as a kid when adults acted like theirs was the only reasonable way to act or think, and eventually I, too, would see reason and become just like them. The worst thing about that was the fear that they might be right, and I’d really end up being that way.
I want to keep an open mind and strive to be a good person all my life, and things like this strip give me hope that I actually can.
Side note: I think Carol might actually have helped this development, in a way, because she showed him a clear example of what he didn’t want to be. Though I hope I don’t sound like Blaine now, with his “I made you” speech. It was still his own decision, his own courage, that made him nope the fuck out.
No, it makes a lot of sense. I think Carol being so inflexible – especially in the face of Whatever Happened With Jordan, and it now being several years since estrangement – has been an eye-opener for him on some level (in that I think he’s starting to go ‘Oh. THIS is why religious types like me get a bad rap.’) Obviously, he could just choose to double down harder – after all, Carol and Ross have – but he saw how that worked with Jordan, and he’s seeing now how applying harder pressure is starting to drive Joyce away.
He’s still got quite a bit to learn, but honestly the fact that he clearly is still a work in progress makes it better/more realistic for me. He’s continuing to grow, and that’s great.
lesson of the day : having or not having faith is entirely unrelated to being a good or bad person
Takes time to unravel these things. Hank is riding the train alone now and he isn’t quite sure where it’s going.
That’s exactly how you end up in Vancouver.
[Side-note, Google “Vancouver social distancing”.]
Hank is making that progress we were hoping for, and immediately after he stood away from his wife too!
Clearly she has an aura of Think Jamming, makes it hard to parse thoughts and brain like people
There are people that cultivate that kind of aura. Carol is one of them.
Huh. I’m Joyce on my phone, but on my desktop I’m Lucy. Wonder why.
Do you have different email addresses entered with your username?
If the email addresses are the same, perhaps a character within the other is changed or missing.
Different capitalization is enough to change the avatar, but is ignored by email programs.
I like Hank. He always shows that he can be better when given the chance.
Hopefully he’ll continue moving forward and away from Carol.
If they enjoy Family Guy, does that mean they like, uh, “Family Values?”
“You see, one thing I’ve learned is that you can find God in people I never expected to… often in people who never expected to that He would be there. You just have to have your eyes open enough to see it.”
Awwww…..Hank is doing a Joyce, and I love it.
She is very much her father’s daughter, and vice-versa.
respect grudgingly rising.
m,../˜Zb
Does the hover text mean they accidentally swear, or that they swear they watched Family Guy by accident?
I hope they don’t accidentally give Joyce the impression that only her dad is on campus (and may no longer be)
Well, godless isn’t goodless
very early pages Joyce, makes one nostalgic lol