T. Nast; one of the great 19th century talents.
He was a hell of a cartoonist, but also something of a ... you know ... bigot.
The controversy swirling around 19th-century political cartoonist Thomas Nast, who died more than 100 years ago, and his entry into the New Jersey Hall of Fame can be put on hold for at least a year.
... Nast — whose nomination stirred outrage among some politicians and the Ancient Order of the Hibernians because of his anti-Irish and anti-Catholic cartoons — failed to make the cut for induction this year. ...
I stumbled on Nast while in knee socks. He's famous for cartoons like this:
And in 2012 a wee bit infamous for the virulent anti-Catholicism:
In any event, Tommy will have to wait until next year to get into the N.J. Hal of Fame. So ... good luck in 2013!
Posts
24 comments:
No different than current fundamentalists who consider Catholicism and Mormanism cults.
Makes me glad we don't live in a theocracy.
Yet.
Man, religion is stupid. No one knows if god exists or if there's an afterlife. Can't we just leave it at that?
Hoe do you know there isn't? Last time I checked anonymous trolls who spout opinions for facts weren't a legitimate source.How about letting people make their own conclusions?
religion of every kind is for the weak minded--usually seeking power. It's all bunk. I, too, am glad we live in a country established as a secular civil society. Believe what you want, but keep it to yourself and out of public policy and government.
If we wanted to mount a defense of Nast we might note that anti-Catholicism of the 1800's wasn't so much on the "they will kidnap your children" level as it was an opposition to anti-democratic church teachings of the time.
Pope Pius IX's 1864 encyclical "Quanta Cura" came out solidly against the notions of free speech, freedom of religion and church-state separation, which at the time were highly valued elements of the American Constitution.
The Church has walked back back those positions quite a bit since then, but in Nast's time the teachings of "Rome" seemed as much a danger to democracy as the teachings of Marx would 50 years later.
Also, until 1870, the Pope ruled as a monarch over an actual country, as much as a quarter of Italy, with an army and police and jails to enforce the official church position. I'm sure that did not look good from the American perspective.
Hey Matt. Read what I said. I didn't say "there isn't a god."
I said, no one knows, and that's a fact.
Anonymous trolls who spout opinions for fact can also go by the name of "Matt"
It's not an opinion that there is no "god." Prove to the world there IS one.
Oh...you CAN'T.
There is no god. Not one of them.
There is no god. Not one of them.
Dory: OK, OK, Mister Bossy!
Losing argument? Resort to mockery!
I agree with the very well informed Anon 7:48. Nast was keenly and narrowly focused on politics and the abuse/corruption of power, not religion or ethnicity. His target was not Catholicism per se, or individuals who happened to be religious. He was criticizing the cronyism practiced by Irish politicians at the time. Of course, since Nast's time we have become more sensitive about ethnic stereotyping. Instead, politicians use "dog whistles," like "welfare queen."
Hoe do you know there isn't?
Thats a textbook argument from ignorance. Even has a latin name, "ad ignorantiam". You see, even IF is the case that one cant prove the non existence of something, that does not give you a get-out-of jail free card to conclude the opposite. You still have the burden of proof to provide evidence for existence. Otherwise, things like ghosts and unicorns can be argued using the same logic.
el diablo
HA! Good one. I'm an equal opportunity religious offender. They're ALL stupid--christianity, scientology, buddhism. Bunk.
Not even very good FAIRY tales.
I'm sorry, but yes. I am intolerant of people who believe in fairy tale nonsense, and have had the audacity to rule the world by blood and force in the name of god. At least when non-religious people rule the world by blood and force they at least admit they do it because they love power, not because Jesus told them to.
Are you tolerant or people who insist on believing in things that have zero evidence? What if I accused you of rape with zero evidence? Would you be tolerant of that? I'm sick of hearing about prayer and Christians when it's all literally hocus pocus dark ages nonsense.
Losing argument? Resort to mockery!
Not arguing, just making an observation on your bitter tone. Sorry bout that. I thought you might have a sense of humor.
Now let's get back to berating those who have a religious belief! Yay!
First rule of comedy: you have to be funny. Second rule of comedy: see rule #1.
Thank you oh ruler of comedy!
Pointing out the obvious does not make me the ruler. I'm sorry your lame, passive aggressive jokes made you feel self conscious.
I'm glad you are so sure of yourself. Good luck with that.
I've only said two things:
A) No one knows if god exists. So, Im actually saying no one can be sure of anything, and anyone saying otherwise is lying or deluded.
B) You arent funny. Im pretty sure of that.
Nast should be here to draw a cartoon about internet blog commenters.
*folds arms*
God exists. Jebus lubs me. I'm special. Hmpth.
I understand the frustration that leads to swearing when it comes to religion.
Its been in control over people's fears for far too long. Condemning people to eternal hell for their petty sins against a jealous god deserves to be cussed at sometimes.
Not all those who resort to swearing are immature, and not all those who refrain from it, are.
Which sect of Christianity doesn't believe in hell?
Post a Comment