This is the kind of idiotic bigotry that loses elections for Democrats.

I think trash like this harms the credibility of BlueOregon.com as a forum.

I was shocked by your response, Anthony. What is wrong with this cartoon? MOST political cartoons are satirical, right?

Keep up the good work, Brandan...It is lovely to see a Bus-affiliate with such talent!

Satire succeeds best when it accurately represents folly and shows compellingly why it is folly. By that standard, this cartoon fails (leaving aside any specific consideration of the quality of draftsmanship).

If people who oppose abortion were typically indifferent to the loss of other innocent lives, then the cartoonist might have a point. They are not, so his point fails. Not only does the cartoonist cite a highly controversial figure as if it were simply a reported fact, he compares deliberate killing to accidental death. He also throws in the bible to suggest that the only basis for opposing abortion is religious. Given the tone of the cartoon, that equates to “superstitious.”

If those opposed to abortion are so contemptible that progressive Democrats have no use for them, then by all means use BlueOregon.com as a forum to continue ridiculing them.

Anthony - If those opposed to a womens right to choose are so contemptible that conservative Republicans have no use for them, then by all means use your church as a forum to continue ridiculing them.

Brandon - Many of us really enjoy your work. Don't let a few vocal critics stop you from enjoying the applause of the crowd.

Anthony, i think you missed the part of the cartoon where the character says "members of my congregation"...this implies that he/she is a religious figure -- possibly a priest or some other religious leader/charlatan -- which validates the inclusion of the bible. because, during the last "election" religious leaders came out and urged their congregations to vote their "morals", pro-life thuggery has become the mainstream. there is a definate disregard for the death of civilians in a mindset that supports Bush and his war yet still wants to keep woman making their own choices in regards to their bodies.

additionally, the cartoonist cites his reference to the 100,000 dead figure which validates its inclusion...this is no different from the numerous blog entries on this site and others where, if you are skeptical, you need to check the authors sources. we all should know by now to take random figures (along with polls) with a grain of salt.

lastly, satire can be achieved in a one frame cartoon but its difficult (just look at the political cartoonery of the Oregonian)...i believe pro-life did an okay job given the medium.

Pedro, I find your attempt at satire simply incoherent. What is it supposed to mean?

Iggi, what do you mean by "pro-life thuggery"?

Also, how is there "definitely a disregard of for the death of civilians" among those who agree that the war in Iraq was necessary but happen to oppose abortion? Are you saying that no one opposed to abortion could ever support its country in an armed conflict?

Regarding taking figures with a grain of salt, my point was that the cartoonist suspended his own skepticism for the sake of taking a cheap shot.

of COURSE i took a cheap shot. it's a friekin' cartoon! and yeah, the dude's a priest, that's why the bible's there, it is not an anti-religious comic, or one that says religion is superstitious. with this comic, i was simply pointing out the hypocrisy or calling oneself "pro-life" when it is only meant in one case. also, how is war "accidental" killing? i suppose we figured the bombs would only hit plants and empty buildings, not children and innocents who are actually alive, conscious, and able to feel pain, as opposed to a fetus. it just really bothers me that the term "pro-life" tends to only apply to abortion. a lot of "pro-lifers" also support the death penalty. it's a bullshit nickname invented by anti-abortionists to make themselves seem superior to everyone else.

"This is the kind of idiotic bigotry that loses elections for Democrats."

Idiotic: adj. Exhibiting idiocy.

Idiocy: n. 1. A condition of subnormal intellectual development or ability, characterized by intelligence in the lowest measurable range.

I can better understand why Anthony didn't "get" the cartoon (which I thought was mildly clever).

Bigotry: n. The attitude, state of mind or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

Bigot: n. A person of strong conviction or prejudice, especially in matters of race, religion, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him. [French, from Old French "bigot", a pejorative term for the Normans.]

I see nothing intolerant about the cartoon.

It certainly is a legitimate question to post to those who claim to live their lives as Jesus did.

The question is why so many religious folks selectively live their lives like Jesus did. Remember the famous WWJD? So fair question, and in my opinion of WWJD, I think he would not have supported the killings of any Iraqis, let alone the death penalty.

When I've talked to relatives and friends about these inconsistencies in their lives, it usually comes down to fear. They are afraid to think independently about WWJD and are more comfortable letting someone else decide that for them, whether it be Falwell, their Bishop or anyone anointed with some special inside knowledge of WWJD.

There are plenty of Christian people who do make their own decisions about WWJD -- and they are far more consistent than the ones suggested in the cartoon.

Sheesh, Anthony. Afraid of some honest discussions about WWJD?

Randy

FYI, abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, although God does direct the Isrealite army to slaughter pregnant women (old Testament). The "best" verse for pro-lifers is that God knew "you" in the womb. Of course, pro-lifers would also acknowledge that God "knew" everyone generations before conception. And Mormons (I think) believe that our spirits existed long ago. In my relatively informed view, the Bible is not a very strong supporter of pro-life arguments.

Randy,

Brendan acknowledges he took a cheap shot, but you think it's the stuff of "honest discussions."

Seems to me that such "cheap shottery" is very much in the spirit of someone "intolerant of those who differ from him." Throw in the strong convictions and you've rounded off the portrait.

If you indeed want to have an honest and serious discussion about the ethical questions involved, I'd be delighted.

Brendan,

Your position seems to be that anyone opposed to the deliberate killing of unborn humans has to be a pacifist. In fact, your argument as stated would seem to imply that unless someone is indifferent to murder, they could never support going to war.

It's not inconsistent for someone to deplore the taking of innocent life in any case, but believe that there are situations in which either lives must be taken, or that accidental loss of life can be tolerated to some extent.

Did anyone see the Dennis Godby guest opinion on Oregonlive.com? ( no I am not sure how to put the URL here). A religious studies teacher thinks biblical prophets would not be happy with the war in Iraq and some other issues. "Being "pro-life," according to Pope John Paul II and church teaching, is a "womb-to-tomb" belief. It's not just about being opposed to abortion. Being pro-life involves a consistent ethic of life. Church teaching is very clear in its opposition to the death penalty, almost all wars, poverty, and for such matters as stewardship of the Earth, health care and full employment. Pope John Paul II could not have been any more emphatic about his opposition to the current war in Iraq or to the death penalty.

Yet self-described pro-lifers have come into my former classroom and proclaimed that they care about life, until you ask them about life issues after birth -- like the death penalty or the environment -- and they give you a glassy stare and say something like, "We don't get involved in that."

My students were outraged at the hypocrisy. I didn't have to say a word. ..............If biblical prophets were alive today they would be yelling from the rooftops, to denounce the U.S. propensity for violence and questioning tax cuts for the wealthy, while our children and grandchildren some day have to pay for the largest budget deficits in U.S. history.

The U.S. spends $400 billion annually for the military; some of that money is to make weapons of mass destruction. Are nuclear weapons pro-life? "

That is an attitude that Hubert Humphrey would have approved of. But then he was also an advocate of programs for children. And if you don't recognize the name, look it up. Very famous Democrat who died in about 1978.

Did anyone else see the interview I saw with a nun who was concerned about needy children? She said those who only oppose abortion and don't care what happens to kids after they are born are merely "pro-birth", not pro-life. She made a good point, no matter how she voted.

Anthony - I simply took the last paragraph of your post: "If those opposed to abortion are so contemptible that progressive Democrats have no use for them, then by all means use BlueOregon.com as a forum to continue ridiculing them." and substituted "a womens right to choose" for "those opposed to abortion" and substituted "conservative Republicans" for "progressive Democrats" and substituted "BlueOregon.com" for "church".

It makes just as much sense as your original post. Looks like you can dish it out but you sure can't take it.

Pedro,

I think what you really wanted to say was, "if those who SUPPORT a woman's right to choose..."

In your previous post you posited Republicans having no use for those who OPPOSE a woman's right to choose, i.e., Republicans having no use for opponents of abortion rights. Does that make sense to you?

Now that I understand you, my view is that Republican activists who ridicule those who believe that abortion is an ethical option are equally foolish, and likely equally bigoted.

Anti-abortionists who have taken the trouble to seriously consider the other side's position know that it is held by serious and sincere people -- and that, moreover, those people have some powerful arguments. And from a party political point of view, those who want to maximize their share of voters make a big mistake in alienating those people.

LT,

I note that you studiously avoid any direct discussion of the ethical questions.

It’s interesting that the Pope opposes the current war but, as you imply, he does not rule out the option of bearing arms against an enemy. So the question becomes whether this war was acceptable, and that’s a matter for argument. One might wonder what his, or another Pope’s, opinion might have been about using force against the Nazis prior to 1939. It’s a fair question.

It is not very interesting to hear the utterly predictable opinions of left-wing Christians whose criticisms have more to do with their vision of the role of government and their attitude toward defense spending than of the ethical questions at issue.

Hypocrisy is a problem for everybody, since its easy to hold noble opinions, hard to live up to them. Nevertheless, I don’t see what was necessarily hypocritical about the pro-life visitor to your former classroom. Certainly, it would help to have been there and heard exactly what it was they said. With the limited information you provide, my reaction is to say that one can become a foot soldier for a particular cause without learning how to brief oneself on other issues. Furthermore, I don’t think that opposing the killing of the unborn means that one logically has to support all the social programs on a left-wing agenda. It should go without saying that, for those who believe abortion is wrong, whatever the solution for children improperly cared for might be, killing them off for their own good — at whatever stage in their life’s progress — is not the answer.

Brendan, I have to support Anthony here. I don't find the drawing particularly effective as satire or editorial cartooning. I think effective editorial cartoons don't put rather simple minded stereotypes to pen (what I'd say this one does -- BUT your previous do not). Instead, they make us think, or make us laugh (nervously), or skewer a well-known political figure.

Other hopefully constructive criticism:

The figure you drew is not a priest--the figure is missing a collar (or if wearing a vestment, a cross). This clearly looks like Protestant garb. Minor point to you I'm sure, probably, but if you are going to enter the world of political and religious debate, you'd better know the difference between a priest and a minister.

Second, you fundamentally misunderstand the religious opposition to abortion, which in their view is murder of an innocent life, and death in war. Your point would have been made better if you listed the number of Iraqi civilian deaths, or wrote something like "100,000 innocent war deaths", thus making the parallel between the religious claim to care are the innocent fetus and the lack of care about the innocent Iraqi. Also, as an artistic point, a discarded newspaper headline, perhaps crumpled up in a trashcan nearby, would have been more subtle. The way you post it in the upper right hand corner is like hitting us over the head with a hammer.

Last point, and the major weakness in the cartoon: I challenge you to find more than a few extreme (e.g. Falwell) religious leaders who actually don't regret the deaths in the Iraq war (both American and Iraqi), but still believe that an anti-abortion vote is the moral choice. That's the point I think Anthony is trying to make.

Now, if you're really an ambitious cartoonist, you have to put up with the criticism. So keep up the good work.

Anthony:

"If you indeed want to have an honest and serious discussion about the ethical questions involved, I'd be delighted...

It’s interesting that the Pope opposes the current war but, as you imply, he does not rule out the option of bearing arms against an enemy"

Could you please point me to the full-page ads ANY religious leader, let alone the Pope took out before the election?

Serious discussion?

So what do YOU think Jesus would say about the killing in Iraq as well as our prisons?

Hmmm?

the prof, seeing as how i've been going to catholic school for the past 5 1/2 years, i think i have somewhat of a grasp on the "religious opposition to abortion" that you speak of, especially since for nearly 6 years i've had this "religous opposition" stuffed down my throat. also, i wasn't intentionally playing off of stereotypes here, i know a lot of people who supported bush/cheney simply because their church told them that abortion and gay marriage (which this cartoon leaves out) are the only issues worth voting on. calling oneself "pro-life" when only one issue is being spoken of is completely, in my view, hyporcritical, and i like how LT put it by saying supposed "pro-lifers" are really "pro-birthers" especially since many people i know who vote on "moral issues" don't pay much mind to capital punishment or the cost of war. also, anthony, just because i said i took a "cheap shot" with a cartoon doesn't make the topic raised by the cartoon not worth having a discussion about. if you really believed this, you wouldn't have posted so much. also, the rest of your arguments were just taking what i said out of context and i don't think they really deserve a response. oh, and the prof, oops on the priest's clothes. i looked up some pictures on google and i guess they weren't very accurate--i should have just taking notes during my school's last mass it seems.

i just wanted to add that personally, i am very conflicted on the issue of abortion, and this comic isn't meant as a pro-abortion comic, but as an anti-hypocrisy cartoon.

Brendan,

I believe just about anything is worth having a discussion about, but I posted because your cartoon irritated me, not because I thought — or think now — that you were making a good argument. Of course, the capacity for irritating people can be a good thing in a cartoon but I would hope you would prefer to achieve such effects while supporting a more defensible position.

I don’t see how “the rest of my arguments” were taking what you said “out of context.” Actually very little of what I wrote in this thread is addressed to you, and what I did write either to you or directly about the cartoon is very germane. To distill: your cartoon implies that supporting the war is inconsistent with opposing abortion. Otherwise, where is the hypocrisy?

My contention is that one doesn’t need to be a pacifist in order to oppose abortion. That being the case, one can believe that this war was worth fighting, despite all its horrors, and still believe that unborn humans shouldn’t be deliberately killed. If I’m right, then your hypocrisy thesis fails, and your cartoon along with it.

And anti-abortionist would indeed be a hypocrite if he thought that war or any other activity involving homicide were DESIRABLE. I think it’s safe to assume that hardly anybody in our society holds that position, and I doubt that any who did would have much of a problem with abortion. The genuine example of “pro-life” hypocrisy, it needs to be said, would be of someone who vocally opposes abortion for others but favors it to solve his or her own problems.

To address some other points you made in the longer of your last two posts, you say:

“I know a lot of people who supported Bush/Cheney simply because their church told them abortion and gay marriage… are the only issues worth voting on.”

First of all, you “know” nothing of the sort. You may have good reason to believe which way some people voted. But I doubt you have much to go on regarding how they made their decision, let alone being able to claim with confidence that they voted Republican “simply because their church told them” anything. You’re just promiscuously speculating under the influence of your prejudices — likewise, when you pretend to know many people who “vote on moral issues” and “don’t pay much mind to capital punishment or the cost of war.” Seriously, how many people that you know specified to you that they voted on “moral issues”? And of those, how much do you really know about their views on capital punishment or “the cost of war,” and how they came to hold those views?

The “pro-birther” slur similarly speculates about the intentions of people in the service of a poor ad hominem argument. In the first place, how does LT’s sanctimonious nun know whether people “care about kids after they’re born”? Presumably she thinks they should be doing more to help those children. But even if she has a point, it seems harsh to imply that their lack of help is owing to callous indifference. And if it were, would she praise their consistency if they advocated rounding up the surplus children of the world and exterminating them? Her position ought to be, "At least they're right about one thing."

Exactly how much people are required by duty to do for the needy children of the world (beyond their own family) is a thorny question, and applies to everyone equally. And even if you’re not going to tackle the difficulties of that question, why pick on opponents of abortion? Say that someone doesn’t object to abortion but does object to child abuse. Could it not be said of them that, “Oh, sure, you’re against beating children, but where are you when the beating stops?” What does such argumentation contribute to a meaningful debate about the ethics of the question at hand, whether it be abortion or child abuse?

Nothing.

Anthony, I think you may be missing the point.

First off, I have to say, I'm surprised how worked up you are over one comic. Anyway....

I personally have had discussions with many people who have flat out told me, "I supported Bush because I agree more with his stance on abortion/gay marriage than I do with Kerry." Often, many positions go together--for example, someone with a more conservative view on things tends to be "pro-life", against gay marriage, for the death penalty, and for the war. Of course, not every conservative has those same beliefs, but those are considered more conservative views. So, I think I know where brendan's idea for this cartoon came from.

It is also a well known fact that many churches "indorsed" Bush. I don't think anyone would disagree that there are many church communities which tend to have the same conservative views mentioned earlier. Like in any community, there are ignorant people who blindly follow what they are told. I think this comic is cleverly attacking those people.

This comic is stereotyping a group of people. Is that bad? If you think so, I would suggest you read some more political humor. It's a comic. I found it quite amusing.

You may disagree with some of brendan's opinions, especially some "cheap shots" he makes, but I doubt brendan expects everyone to believe the same things he does. brendan never says that religious reasons are the only reasons to be "pro-life". I certainly don't think he is attempting to maliciously attack every person who is "pro-life", as obviously people are against a woman's right to choose for different reasons. But it sounds like he has had many conversations with conservative Catholics, and many of them have the same beliefs (which he probably finds are beliefs that contradict each other). He's trying to make a point here, and he succeeds in doing that.

(Of course, this is only what I assume brendan is saying in the comic. Hope I'm not too far off the mark ;) )

Keep up the good work, brendan. Your comics have been great.

Missing the point? All sarcasm aside, Philo, reading your post I had to wonder for a second whether you missed the entire thread. As far as being “worked up” about one comic, I’m sure we could come up with a single comic that could get you sufficiently worked up. A single comic could start a war – it all depends on the content.

Harsh as it may sound, the fact that you’re surprised that this content should elicit a strong response demonstrates your incomprehension of what’s been written here. I think it also says something about your disposition toward those who disagree with you.

As does your saying that, “in any community, there are ignorant people who blindly follow what they are told.” Allow me to suggest that there is no shortage of people – themselves undistinguished for knowledge or insight — that like to fantasize that those who disagree with them are “blind followers.”

Anthony said: "As far as being “worked up” about one comic, I’m sure we could come up with a single comic that could get you sufficiently worked up. A single comic could start a war – it all depends on the content. "

 That's probably true.  It's a weakness I have.  I still don't think that anyone should get too worked up over one comic, but I suppose I didn't say that very well.  I can understand how you would get so worked up, so that was a pretty stupid thing for me to say.  I certainly hope I wouldn't call what someone else said "idiotic biogtry", though, which seems to imply that they have a "subnormal intellectual ability".  I can see myself getting worked up, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, in essence, say someone is stupid.

Anthony said: "As does your saying that, “in any community, there are ignorant people who blindly follow what they are told.” Allow me to suggest that there is no shortage of people – themselves undistinguished for knowledge or insight — that like to fantasize that those who disagree with them are “blind followers.”"

That's completely true. I hope I'm not one of them. I did not say that everyone who disagrees with me "blindly follows" what they are told. But, in my opinion, some people who agree with me and some people who disagree do blindly follow what they are told. I don't mean to offend an entire group of people. I'm only saying that there are people who have told me that they believe in this or that, or that they support this candidate only because someone told them to. Do you disagree with that? But, sure, there is no shortage of people that like to fantasize that those who disagree with them are "blind followers", I can't disagree with that.

You made good points in that post, Anthony. I can't really refute them. I still believe, though, that this comic was satirical, and so there should be no problem with stereotyping a group of people or taking a cheap shot. You may not agree with what the cartoonist is saying, but it was a joke, simple as that. It made me laugh, and just because it didn't make you laugh (I am assuming) doesn't mean the cartoonist failed in representing folly.

people have told me point blank they either voted for, or if they were too young to vote (like me) that they supported Bush/Cheney solely because of abortion and/or marriage. this is not a random assumption i made up to offend you, anthony. also, it is the language that is hypocritical. no matter how "just" you feel a war is, anything that kills people intentionally (and war ALWAYS kills intentionally, that's the point) is not "pro-life." if you feel people are better off without a specific dictator, maybe you could argue the ends are "pro-human rights" or something, but if the means are a war, then they are not "pro-life." it's a ridiculous title for anyone who is only "pro-life" on one issue to adopt.

I'm not sure I understand your objections, Brendan. Who advocated war in Iraq as an explicitly "pro-life" project? On the other hand, why would "pro-human rights" be inconsistent with "pro-life"?

As what I've written here might suggest, I'm not interested in the term "pro-life," and think you're hung up on it because of a seeming inconsistency (i.e., how can someone call themselves pro-life and yet make accomodations to actions that result in deaths?). The arguments I've presented here were meant to show the error of that fixation by demonstrating that there's no inconsistency in believing both that war is sometimes necessary and that early human life shouldn't be killed deliberately. If you had understood those arguments, I don't think you'd still be talking about "anyone who is only 'pro-life' on one issue."