"B.C." cartoonist Johnny Hart R.I.P.

[LoneWolf]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/08/obit.h ... index.html

I always enjoyed his work. He'll be missed.

[roadrunner]

Hmm. I liked that strip...when he wasn't trying to force his religion into it.

[LoneWolf]

Hmm. I liked that strip...when he wasn't trying to force his religion into it.

I'm always curious, so without intending to flame, troll, etc...

Why is inserting religion into anything automatically "forcing it" on others?

I'm always made more curious about this because the people that say this to me are generally the same people that would tell me if I didn't like the content of a certain TV show, that I didn't have to watch it. And because I think showing what we think/believe from time to time is a measure of who we are as people. It seems to be "forcing it" on other people, when it includes even a casual mention of one's faith.

It's one thing to continue upon a subject that someone has indicated they don't wish to talk about...but I myself wouldn't cite B.C. as an example of that.

[roadrunner]

My biggest beef is kids read comics, too. No need to to corrupt their minds, too.

His beliefs are just that: his. I don't care what others believe; they can believe whatever they want. But I don't want my kids exposed to anything preachy like that.

[dolphinius_rex]

Hmm. I liked that strip...when he wasn't trying to force his religion into it.

I'm always curious, so without intending to flame, troll, etc...

Why is inserting religion into anything automatically "forcing it" on others?

I'm always made more curious about this because the people that say this to me are generally the same people that would tell me if I didn't like the content of a certain TV show, that I didn't have to watch it. And because I think showing what we think/believe from time to time is a measure of who we are as people. It seems to be "forcing it" on other people, when it includes even a casual mention of one's faith.

It's one thing to continue upon a subject that someone has indicated they don't wish to talk about...but I myself wouldn't cite B.C. as an example of that.

Because athiesm is the only belief system allowed to be publically mentioned. Didn't you get the memo?

[roadrunner]

First, I 100% agree with LoneWolf in we don't need to start a flame war. But, I feel I probably need to clarify my previous posts...looking at them now they seem a bit harsh.

First, I am an atheist. This is what I believe.

But there is something I believe in even more strongly than that:

Choice.

People need to make up their own minds about things, period. No child should ever have any belief system forced on them. I don't think parents should ever take their kids to church. Or, for atheists, force a "there is no god" belief down their throats. Young kids are highly impressionable; it's possible to raise them to make good, moral choices in life without religion.

Wait for the kids to be old enough to make up their own minds. They can do it, they're not stupid. Really!

Show them both sides. Give them a "Religions of the World" book along with a few science text books. If my kids choose to be Christian, so be it. It's their choice. Maybe they'll choose to be Hindu. Or choose to warship Ra, the Egyptian sun god. Or maybe they'll choose to believe in science, since it can backed up. If they need to believe in a higher being, so be it. I respect that choice.

Because it IS their choice.

I think religion is an outdated idea; not everyone else does, though. The problem that I see is kids having it jammed down their throat by being taken to church every week. The whole "our religion is the only right choice" thing pisses me off. Maybe you're Catholic, but your kid wants to be a Buddhist. Ok, fine...let them. Respect their choice. Don't make the choice for them.

Whatever my kids end up believing in, I'll respect that descion, weather or not I agree with it.

And THAT is how things SHOULD be.

[Wesociety]

Great post roadrunner. I completely agree with you!

About the topic: I was never a big B.C. fan, so I can't comment on the alleged religious undertones of the comic.

[Dartman]

I liked BC but the local paper hasn't carried it in years so haven't been able to keep track for a long time. I don't remember too many times of it being overly preachy but maybe that's why they stopped carrying it, that and good strips like Calvin and Hobbs, Opus, etc coming online probably about when they stopped running it.
He'll be missed.

[roadrunner]

Dartman:
http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/index.html

It wasn't "preachy" very often; mostly on Sundays...

[Dartman]

Dartman:
http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/index.html

It wasn't "preachy" very often; mostly on Sundays...

Thanks, i can catch up on B.C. and others I may have missed, good link. I spose from his point of view it was Gods day so he could throw some religion in.

[Wesociety]

When I was a kid, I used to clip out the Garfield comics from the paper and save them, especially the Sunday colored ones. I never really got into any other comic strips though...

No Garfield comics on comics.com

[LoneWolf]

When I was a kid, I used to clip out the Garfield comics from the paper and save them, especially the Sunday colored ones. I never really got into any other comic strips though...

No Garfield comics on comics.com

No surprise there. Garfield started being a business and stopped being a comic strip only a few years (at most) after its release. Garfield is a very profitable business, and I'd hazard a guess that there wasn't enough money in it.

I don't know when Jim Davis stopped drawing the strip personally, but it's been a long time (a cartoonist friend told me that at one point, it was being done by hired college kids). He's been interviewed several times, and has made it fairly clear that Garfield is about business/money, and not about comics. Including the movies, which were designed as a profit vehicle --they were designed to be enough above mediocre to get kids interested and to get people to attend.

I have nothing against that, I guess, though it just doesn't feel right. It's not like it's not out in the open. At any rate, I stopped finding Garfield funny a long time ago, so I stopped reading. It ended up with other strips I started out loving (Get Fuzzy, Pearls Before Swine), although its one main difference from them is that I look at the early Garfield strips now and feel like the only reason I found them funny is that I was 5-10 years old, and if I'd first read them at age 25, I'd never have found it funny, kind of like looking at clothing that was all the rage in the 80's and saying "How could I have ever worn that?"

[Wesociety]

Dang, I had no idea Garfield had sold out that bad! Thanks for all the info
Like I said, I don't read Garfield anymore anyway, so I guess it's pretty moot for me...

[socheat]

Oh boy. I'd like to say I'm more agnostic than atheist, but I'll throw in my two cents.

I was pretty neutral towards B.C. I usually read all the comics (except Cathy, because I didn't have hours to read the 4 boxes of text ). While it did cover religious matter occasionally, I noticed that it usually was on Sundays where a Christian holiday occurred. I can live with that. Otherwise, I'd have to complain about Christmas presents, chocolate during Easter, packzis in general, and I'm sure a whole bunch of other things that are part of regular life in the US, that once started out as Christian practices and over time just became "normal".

I don't think parents should ever take their kids to church. Or, for atheists, force a "there is no god" belief down their throats. Young kids are highly impressionable

Something doesn't sound quite right about this. I agree that children should be able to make their own decisions about religion, and nothing should ever be forced down their throat. And honestly, as a non-Christian, I probably wouldn't take my kids to church unless they asked me to.

But, as parents, it's our job to guide them and teach them things. And, it's only natural for us to teach what we know. Is it then also bad to take our kids out to learn an instrument or join a soccer team, baseball team, or go snowboarding, because mommy and daddy liked those things? Yes, kids are very impressionable and easily influenced... but if it's not parents influencing them, it WILL be someone else, and probably not someone we want influencing them.

Wait for the kids to be old enough to make up their own minds. They can do it, they're not stupid. Really!

I agree! My family was sponsored to the US by a Christian church, and as a kid, we went every Sunday. I'm not exactly sure why, because my parents aren't Christian, but I think it was partly because they wanted to assimilate into US culture as best as possible, to not be different. I hated it. Once I got old enough, they finally agreed I didn't have to go any more.

I'd say it's better to take your kids to church (if you are church-going type people) and let them know that if they don't want to go, they don't have to (but it better be a reason other than to sleep in and watch TV, which was my reason when I was really young )

Bottom line is, parents shouldn't be discouraged from teaching what they know or what they are passionate about to their kids. Kids naturally look to their parents for guidance and cues on what is "normal". It's up to the parents to make sure the kids learn that what mommy and daddy like aren't the only things in life.

[Ian]

Just my two cents on this..

I'm not a religious nut, but my kids will go to Sunday school and all that just like I did. If they decide when they get older that church isn't for them, that's okay with me. I just want them to learn why we really have Christmas and Easter as well as the basic Christian beliefs, especially the ones on how to be a good person, etc.

[LoneWolf]

It's great to see we've been able to have a discussion on this and a real dialogue. I really like that all of us can just talk out how we feel without it becoming an "us vs. them" sort of thing.

For the record, I am a Christian. I attend church, but more than that, I hold to the premises of Christian faith. And by premises, I don't mean the stereotypes the media tends to hold up (i.e., Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, whom I believe are far more in love with their own voices and their pictures in the paper and sound bites on TV/radio than they are in their faith). I believe in what the Bible has to say (though I'm far from perfect at following it) and I also believe in following a standard of behavior set out by it. Since I don't want to "force it" on anyone, I'll leave the details at that --a very very short summary.

I believe Socheat is very right. Children are meant to have guidance from their parents. To leave them to choose whatever and leave them just hanging there is kind of like letting that same child eat all the chocolate ice cream that they want, or to choose whether or not to play in traffic. I don't have children yet, but I believe that I should set a standard of behavior for children to respect and follow, in some cases out of safety to their well-being, and in others, out of my wish that I raise children to do what is right. That includes my faith.

At some point, all children grow up. Once they are recognized as adults, it is up to them to determine their own system of beliefs. If at that point, they believe my faith is incorrect, it is their decision as an adult to choose their own system. I might find that disappointing if I were their parent, but it is their right to do so. And I also believe that if I truly "rammed it down their throat", then it would be likely that they would reject my belief system. However, there are ways to raise my children according to what I believe without it being like that.

If someone wishes to discuss that topic, I'll leave it for another thread. As everyone knows, I make posts too long anyway, and I've said enough.

P.S. (yes, I know I should have shut up by now) --After reading Ian's post, it always reminds me of one thing I find concern in. For so many of us, it seems that even the simple mention of one's faith among those who don't share it might brand someone a "religious nut" (note: that's not the implication I got from you Ian, just an observation ). I always hope that no matter whether we share beliefs or not, none of us are "religious nuts" any more than any of us are "atheist/agnostic fools". Peace.