Losttoy

[losttoy]

This forum is suppost to be here to hype our own web sites, right? I have been drawing web comics for almost two months now. I got my start right here at zwol and since then I have came up with 14 more comic strips I am currently running at geocities since my first domian didn't work for me. I may move to another domian or host my own, but until then my site resides at:

http://www.geocities.com/dalosttoy

I am still playing around with the style of the comic. So far it has gotten stuck in the gag-a-day or political type cartoons, although I am experimenting with a more abstract style. Check it out. Tell me what you think. What would you like to see?

[reinx]

I'll tell you what I think. I think the comic I saw when I clicked on the page reflected on you being kind of ignorant and not putting a lot of thought into what you were saying. Uninformed if nothing else and unintelligent.

Sorry, but thats my thoughts. I realize that this is hardly the place for us to get into such a discussion about religion and constitutionality.

Good luck on your future endeavors.
PS. The art on the other hand was pretty good!

[Greg Stephens]

Well, politics and religion- especially when combined- make for dangerous territory. It doesn't matter if the opinions are in comic form or not. If you haven't read the rest (sorry, I can't quite tell from your post if you did or not) you may wish to go back and check out the earlier comics, which are not all along the same lines.

Though I agree that this is a simplification of the issue (tough not to do in a one-panel cartoon) and it's not accurate with regard to certain facts, political cartoons have never been the most even-handed of beasts.

[losttoy]

I'll tell you what I think. I think the comic I saw when I clicked on the page reflected on you being kind of ignorant and not putting a lot of thought into what you were saying. Uninformed if nothing else and unintelligent.

I would like to come to my defence. The comic you saw was one of many. A lot of other comics I have drawn are not political nor religious. However the one you speak of is called an editorial cartoon, one you would see in the daily paper in the editorial section. I would say it is not uninformed, nor unintelligent. The fact is, if you keep up with current events, there was a federal court ruling stating the the Pledge of Alliegance is consitered to be unconsitutional (seperation of church and state). On the 4th of July, our nation's celebration of our independance and the consitution it was formed on, President Bush made a speech where he went out of his way to make his voice heard, quoting "under god." The media has also been eating this up in a show of patriotism (there goes objective journarism).

I made this comic to be my voice. That is what art is suppost to be about ... an expression. I am not going to dance around the issues and walk on egg shells for readers. Not every comic is going to be editorial. Some of them involve cute little animals in quarky punchlines (which I hope people will get). The thing is George W. Bush has not censored his opinion that religion should be a part of government (remember when he started an White House office for Faith-Based Organizations?), and I am not going to censor my opinion that I think he is wrong and the consitution and the federal courts agrees with this. As Greg said, it is hard not to over simply when doing a one-panel comic (in which most editorial comics are done in), and appologize if people did not understand the message I was trying to state.

I hope that more people can be open minded and give my comic a chance. If you don't like it ... well I guess we don't share the same point of veiw. My goal is that at least one person enjoys my comics, whatever style or content is. Did anybody like the cartoon?

[InkAddict]

I don't "like" your catoon in the sense of it being funny, but I DO like the fact you express your opinion!

(And I agree whit it: the US of A is starting to drift towards the same bigoted point they are so critical upon when discussing islamic countries : religious government.

Not only 99.99% of all movies and intellectual produce depict the belief in one God as somehow superior --tell me about a movie with a believable atheist in it, and I'll show you flying pigs-- but monotheism has invaded the money (In God We Trust), the govt. ("God bless you and God bless the US of A"), the law ((oaths on the bible, if u do anything else u're sure to be convicted by the jury, because atheism is still considered "weird" by the public opinion)... AND the school system (evolution being considered "nonsense" in some states...).

Waco might just be the beginning!

Comics NEED to be the expression of the opinions of their creators, if it wants to call itself an art, and not only a craft!)

(I hold nothing against entertainment value comics though, so don't shoot ^^^plz^^^!)

[Greg Stephens]

monotheism has invaded ... the law ((oaths on the bible, if u do anything else u're sure to be convicted by the jury, because atheism is still considered "weird" by the public opinion)...

Actually, in my recent jury service I was pleased to note that in all of the swearing-in and oath-taking, not one bible was present and none of the phrasing invoked "God" in any way (no "under God", no "so help me God"). But maybe that's just part of why certain sections of the USA think that California is going straight to Hell.

[cdoc]

Hmmm... Are NY and CA becoming bookends to the US? No "so help me God" in the court here either when I served on jury duty recently.

One of the freedoms we enjoy inthe US is freedom of speech and along with that we also enjoy the freedom to ignore comments/writings/cartoons of others. So, rather than being rude and crude, just leave alone those writings of things you don't like and keep your insensitivities to yourself. This does not preclude the need for constructive criticism/comment, preferably done in a mature manner.

[reinx]

Maybe I'm overstepping my boundaries here, but I'm just curious as to what religion most of the people on this board consider themselves. Remember, atheism is a religion too!

[Randy]

Maybe I'm overstepping my boundaries here, but I'm just curious as to what religion most of the people on this board consider themselves. Remember, atheism is a religion too!

I really, really like talking about spirituality and religion. ::smiles::

I believe that everything stems from belief. All of the worlds religions have miracles, things that just happen without an explanation that we can provide. These things stem from that person's belief in their religion. I have a seen many different friends of mine, from different belief systems do miraculous things. I've had a catholic grrlfriend that would talk inside my head. I have a mormon friend that has taken shamanistic journeys to other worlds. I went to a huge party and had two tarot reading and a rune reading, all independent of each other, come out practically identical. I've walked up to people and said hello, you don't know me but we're really good friends. And we both realized that we are. We hang out regularly now.

My family has a history of spiritual questing and wizardry. Though my family prefers to think of it in different terms (everyone but me is christian). My uncle is renown in my hometown for healing the sick. I have taken the spiritual questing a different route than my family (they explore different ideas within christianty). I've always liked the idea of wizards and I decided that I would start to explore what exactly that was.

So as a result I've read a lot of different material. What really started me off was the Seth Material, by Jane Roberts. Then I started to play with Tarot cards. (I have a deck that I really like.) And then I started to read about Chaos magick, being a Grant Morrison fan. Now I'm learning to become a neo-shaman with my friend Trish.

I would like to ramble on more, but I think that the post is long enough. If anyone has any questions, let me know.

Later,
Randy

[Greg Stephens]

Remember, atheism is a religion too!

Um... No.

religion:

1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

atheism:

1. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
   2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

[reinx]

I didnt write this, but it sums it up pretty good:

atheism is a religion. Whether it fits technically with the semantics or not is not a concern of mine; the practical definition of religion is what matters to me, not the letter of the law. And the practical definition, distasteful though it may be to those who disdain religion in all its forms, is that the very thing most atheists hate is what they have become: a religion, with clearly defined rules, eschatology and a philosophy by which to live. Religion is a means of understanding our existence. Atheism fits that bill. Religion is a philosophy of life. So is atheism. Religions has its leaders, the preachers of its tenets. So does atheism (Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx). Religion has its faithful believers, who guard the orthodoxy of the faith. So does atheism. And religion is a matter of faith, not certainty.

I admit it does lack a few things typical of religion (pray, a holy book, etc..) but come on, you knew what I meant.

[Greg Stephens]

I know what you're trying to say, but it's still incorrect. It's fuzzy logic and with fuzzy logic you can "prove" any number of things that can be disproven by applying just a little bit more logic.

And the practical definition ... is that the very thing most atheists hate is what they have become: a religion, with clearly defined rules, eschatology and a philosophy by which to live.

There are no rules, clearly defined or otherwise, that define atheism other than the lack of belief in a god or gods. And this is not even a rule, but simply the definition. Likewise, there is no clearly defined eschatology to atheism and there certainly is no clearly defined philosophy by which to live. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a certain thing. Atheism isn't. Atheism is not.

Religion is a means of understanding our existence. Atheism fits that bill.

No, it does not. Science may be described as a means of understanding our existence, but that is not atheism. Atheism doesn't describe anything, seek to explain anything or give any guidelines about how to go about understanding our existence. It is merely the rejection of a certain way of thought.

Religion is a philosophy of life. So is atheism.

Incorrect. Atheists do not have to share any common philosophy of life. Each individual atheist may have a philosphy of life, but this is not dictated by any specific tennants of atheism because there are none.

Religions has its leaders, the preachers of its tenets. So does atheism.

And so do political parties, corporations, nations and any number of human organizations. This is a red herring and has no bearing on the issue.

Religion has its faithful believers, who guard the orthodoxy of the faith. So does atheism.

Atheism has no orthodoxy of faith to guard. It is, in fact, as absence of faith. As stated above, the mere fact that there are proponants of this way of thinking does not make it a religion. That there may be "faithful believers" does not make a thought a religion either, otherwise you could say that people who believe faithfully that J.F.K. was the victim of a conspiracy are also members of a religion (in fact, there are those who probably would say that, but there are onther factors that rule that school of thought clearly apart from religion).

It may be tempting to say that atheism is a form of religion because it sounds wonderfully ironic, but that theory simply does not hold up to analysis.

[Merlin]

> but I'm just curious as to what religion most of the people on this board consider themselves.

Pagan agnostic. Also, non-practicing chaos magician. Also, founder of Merlism. Occasional chants with Mithras. Occasional chats with 'big G' God, but you can blame my Church of England primary school for that one.

Religion can be a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

[Alexander D.]

Maybe I'm overstepping my boundaries here, but I'm just curious as to what religion most of the people on this board consider themselves. Remember, atheism is a religion too!

Devoutly agnostic -- I'm very committed to the idea that no truly solid proof exists for either side of the argument. Lots of circumstantial evidence for both, though.

Of course, being agnostic doesn't rule out having an *opinion* though. Sadly, my opinion fluctuates. I would very much like to believe in a benevolent creator, and all the good stuff that goes with that -- but I have a very hard time getting the idea past the ol' logic center. Still, every now and then something happens to nudge me back in that direction.

Incidentally, the religous culture I was raised in was Greek Orthodox. For those unfamiliar with it (which is ususually most people), it's not too far off from the Catholic Church. To their credit, they do allow their priests to marry. On the other hand, they're far more ritualistic, which makes their services take forever. And, of course, they're chock full of archaic and socially irresponsible moralisms.

[losttoy]

My "religion"?

I am not a religious man in the typical sense, however I am very spiritual. Call me a potporri of faiths. I was an atheist and scientist for the longest time until I experienced my own spirituality. I studied a bit of Japanese Shintoism, some Native American beliefs, and some old Pagan beliefs. I even studied the bible, which is why I do not like Christians because the majority (but not all) tend to ignore their own morals that their religion was based on.

This is what I believe: I do not believe in (an) all seeing/all powerful god(s). I believe that the universe is composed of stuff made out of atoms and stuff that is not (whatever you call it; spirits; soul; god; the great spirit; pa; chi; the force; etc). We are all one, yet all individual; parts of one universe. It is all on how you look at it. It is like the blind men and the elephant (see this link for the full story) and we can only see one part of "god", yet we will never be able to see what the whole being of what "god" is. All religion is right, yet all religion is wrong.

What I try to do is keep an open mind. I believe in evolution and the big bang and still keep in touch with the spirits that live this world.

[Greg Stephens]

I believe that the universe is composed of stuff made out of atoms and stuff that is not (whatever you call it; spirits; soul; god; the great spirit; pa; chi; the force; etc).

I believe that "stuff that is not" composed of atoms is called "energy."

Not that it makes it any less mysterious.

[losttoy]

I have a new comic up. It is neither political or religious. It is a cross-over with a much better web-comic than mine, Absurd Notions. I have gotten very little feed back on my comics (other than the above political debate) and would like to hear what you think. Are you reading it? Do you like it? Are you bookmarking it for futuring veiwing?

[Alexander D.]

Okay, I actually went back and read a bunch of your comics. There were a few chuckles in there -- the "what was he talking about...something about a submarine?" was funny, and I liked the "Trust No One" quarter, though I thought that strip would have been stronger without the other three coins.

I think the biggest weakness really is that while all your comics have a point, your points are mostly fairly obvious things... "Subway isn't actually fresh, but people eat it anyway" ... "long speeches are boring." Sure these can make for funny subject matter, but only if you offer a new spin on what we already know. I was particularly confused by the speech one -- your comic didn't have much to say, but then you immediately followed it with a long paragraph where you had quite a bit to say. It seemed to me that what you really wanted to talk about was inappropriateness and dishonesty of the speech, so I couldn't understand why you didn't make your comic about that instead of just the typical "long speeches are boring" stuff.

As for the comic that caused the above ruccus: I really didn't find it compelling or even convincing. Which would be fine -- you cerntainly can't expect to convince everyone -- but the problem is that I already AGREED with the sentiment behind it before I even read it. And if someone who agrees with you finds your argument unconvincing, then it's certainly not going to get your point across to the people you're actually trying to convince. The problem, I think, is that you don't really offer any argument -- just a blunt accusation, without any support for that accusation. The observation you offer is just the crudest summary of how many of us already feel, but without the spark of original insight or commentary.

If you do plan to do more political cartoons, I'd suggest studying some of the better political cartoonists (Tom Tomorrow's "This Modern World" is a favorite of mine. Reuben Bolling's strip "Tom The Dancing Bug" is also a great strip, though not as uniformly political. Actually, it's probably an even better model for you, though, since it varries greatly in its form and content, much like what you're shooting for. Both can be found on Salon.com). If nothing else, these will give you good examples of how to turn very expository arguments into effective cartoons -- very helpful if you'd like to give a go at turning that paragraph you wrote about the pharmaceutical speech into a comic.

Okay, that's it -- I hope you find my comments helpful. I apologize for contributing to the extensive digression.

[Rip Tanion]

Atheism may not be a religion per say, but many Atheists are fanatical about their beliefs (or lack thereof). My grandfather is a perfect example.

Although raised Jewish, back in the old country, my grandfather was a impressionable teenager when the Bolshevik revolution broke-out in Russia. He got caught up in that cause, and probably would have stayed over there, had his father (whom he had not seen since he was an infant, and who was already living in America long enough to have been naturalized) not brought him over here in the 1920s. Because he remained in America, and never lived through the true horrors of Stalinism, his idealism of the Soviet Workers Paradise never waned. And Atheism was among those ideals.

He has remained an Atheist ever since, even though some years after marrying my grandmother, he took in her widowed father, who was Orthodox and observed the Sabbath, wore his beard long, and always kept his head covered with one of those old "pill box" yarmulkes that were common amongst Eastern European Jews of his era. However, my grandfather was as orthodox is his atheism, as his father-in-law was about his Judaism.

My grandfather, like many atheists, is intolerant of other people's religions. I can remember when I was a kid, I went to Hebrew instruction, twice a week after school. My grandparents lived in the neighborhood of the synagogue where I took my lessons. One day, I dropped by their house after Hebrew school. I showed my grandfather this book I had been given called "Jewish Heroes", and compilation of Old Testament stories written for children. Loudly, he exclaimed, "Fairy Tales, it's all fairy tales. There vas no Abraham! There vas no Joseph! No Moses!" He tried to shoot down everything I had just learned, in classes that my parents were paying for.

At my Bar-Mitzvah, he made a stink in Temple about having to wear a tallis (inside Temple, especially during services, all adult males are required to keep their heads covered, to wear a tallis, or prayer shawl - regardless off that man's religious beliefs.) He frequently criticizes people for their religious beliefs, weather they be Jew or Gentile. He is now 96 years old, and is still the same stubborn Atheist he always was.

The problem with the strip in question (aside from the fact that is rather simplistic, juvenile, unsophisticated and just plain incorrect), is I think Losttoy doesn't understand what the Pledge Of Allegiance law suit was all about. The atheist who brought suit was not so much concerned about his child saying the word "God", but simply hearing it. No one was forcing his child to participate. He was trying to dictate was the other children could say. He was trying to take away their right to say "God". He was taking the attitude many devout Atheists take..."There is no God...and NOBODY should believe in HIM...because I say so."

Someone who imposes his Atheism on someone else is just as bad as some who tries to impose religious dogma on others. If you don't want to believe in anything, that's fine; just don't tell me I shouldn't believe as well. (Actually, I'm not religious at all, but I do believe there is an active and moral intelligence to the universe, call It God or what you will, but that's entirely a whole other post.)

But then, this is the great thing about freedom of speech. People are free to say stupid things, and others are free to criticize what is said. May it always be this way.

[Jack Masters]

Someone who imposes his Atheism on someone else is just as bad as some who tries to impose religious dogma on others.

It is my experience that any imposing of athiesm is vastly dwarfed by the proselytizing carried out by all major western religions.

If you don't want to believe in anything, that's fine; just don't tell me I shouldn't believe as well.

Atheism means "not believing in gods", not "not believing in anything". I myself am an atheist, and I believe in science, art, philosophy, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and innumerable other things.

I am not satisfied with a "live and let live" attitude toward religion. I respect a person's right to think whatever they like, but religions never seem to stop at thinking, do they?

[Alexander D.]

The atheist who brought suit was not so much concerned about his child saying the word "God", but simply hearing it. No one was forcing his child to participate. He was trying to dictate was the other children could say. He was trying to take away their right to say "God". He was taking the attitude many devout Atheists take..."There is no God...and NOBODY should believe in HIM...because I say so."

Whether the guy pressing the suit was doing it for right or wrong reasons is really beside the point -- there is a real issue here with or without him. Our pledge of allegiance does include a pledge to God as well. It is unconstitutional for the US to require a pledge to God as proof of loyalty to the country, and it is most certainly unconstitutional for secular teachers to be leading children in a pledge to God. Trying to seperate the pledge of loyalty to the country and the pledge of loyalty to God has nothing to do with trying to deny them the right to believe, and everything to do with leaving their religious indoctrination to their families and religious leaders. That's the whole idea behind seperation of church and state.

[Greg Stephens]

Well, the separation of Church and State with regard to the Constitution of the US is a tricky topic because it's not stated in such plain terms. For a good discussion of what IS said in the Constitution and what is NOT said, follow this link: http://www.au.org/myths.htm

And even though it is implied and can be enforced by the Constitution, many people of a religous mindset feel that such separation is wrong. This makes arguing any point (such as the use of the word "God" in any governmental context) based on this concept difficult, becuase one party is assuming that this separation is proper and bases their argument on it and the other party finds fault with that very foundation, thus rendering any logical conclusions based on it suspect, if not false.

It is also important to note that students in public schools are NOT required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (by a 1943 Supreme Court ruling which prohibits such laws). Having said that, though, there's great power in the fact that when the rest of the classroom stands to recite the pledge- in fact, the rest of the school does this- if you're the only one abstaining, you're likely to face some sort of social stigma from the other students, and possibly some teachers. This makes a voluntary pledge seem mandatory to most children, even if they do realize that they don't have to say it if they don't want to. (During my school career, I certainly never knew that NOT reciting the pledge was an option granted to me by law.)

Lastly, I disagree with the statement that the Pledge of Allegiance includes a pledge to God as well as to a flag. The mention of God is incidental to the oath being recited and serves only to lend legitimacy to the existance of the nation in question (the U. S. of A., in this case). Granted, if one does not believe in a God, then that can be seen to weaken the pledge, but saying that the republic for which the flag stands is "one nation, under God" is more rhetoric than anything else.

Having said all that, it is my considered opinion that there are better ways to phrase such a pledge than invoking any religious doctrine, if only because it distracts from the matter at hand, which is the pledge at allegiance to a particular nation. To my mind, the issue is not one of Constitutionality, good citizenship or spiritual belief, but one of poor writing.

[losttoy]

First of all, I would like to thank Alexander D for his critique. You are right about my comic, although I am new at this and will continue to work to improve. I will take your suggestions and look up those two comic strips. Thanks

Second, Rip Tanion said:

The problem with the strip in question (aside from the fact that is rather simplistic, juvenile, unsophisticated and just plain incorrect), is I think Losttoy doesn't understand what the Pledge Of Allegiance law suit was all about. The atheist who brought suit was not so much concerned about his child saying the word "God", but simply hearing it. No one was forcing his child to participate. He was trying to dictate was the other children could say. He was trying to take away their right to say "God". He was taking the attitude many devout Atheists take..."There is no God...and NOBODY should believe in HIM...because I say so."

This is not necessarily true. It was not about atheists saying you couldn't believe in god. The case in the courts was not about one kid not liking another kid's religion, but the fact that "god" was being used in a school activity. There is a difference. If there was a school assembly and a student did a speech and talked about god, that is freedom of speech. If god is used daily in a state sponsored public school, it violates the constitution’s separation of church and state. It's kind of like a public school requiring that all the children would start the day in church and then saying they don't have to pray.

Let everybody get this straight. I do understand what the law suit is about. I know they are not forcing the words "under god". The fact of the matter is not that the kids are saying it ... it's the fact that it is there when it is not suppose to be there. This is not about dictating people's choice in their religion nor dictating what people are allowed to say. It is about what written law says about what activities a state sponsored school is allowed to participate in. The fact is that atheists do not go around trying to impose their beliefs on people, although most religions do and atheists have to fight to have their rights protected.

[reinx]

Somebody once told me that the only reason we even have "Under God" in the pledge is that they added it to add on to anti-communist sentiment (since commies were all about some atheism and us red blooded Americans believe in God). Has anybody else heard this?
-Casey