Thursday, May 13, 2010

When a guy does something wrong (Doghouse Diaries)

(click to enlarge)


Kim K. said...

Maybe this is a girl/guy thing, but I also think it's a kid/parent thing. Out of 7 kids I have a couple that are pros at this. I'm about to really lay into them for something and 2 seconds later I'm apologizing. Too bad it took me about 15 years to figure it out!

Paula said...

If I shared this with my hubby, I suspect we would need to make an appointment for marital counseling [except it's in the reverse] Better left unshared. Ouch!

MSC said...

The subtle and expert craft of blame shifting has a long and prestigious history.

DJP said...

Paula... sorry.


Pooka said...

In our marriage counseling, this precise issue was right on the top of the stack.
The toon TOTALLY shows how screwed our self-centered thinking processes.

Luke 17:3
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
1 Corinthians 6:1

Rita Martinez said...

hahahaha spot on...

Halcyon said...


Do you not realize that the whole notion of "gender" is a socially constructed artifice that inscribes a false dichotomy of "male" and "female" on free subjects? By posting this comic, you are simply re-enforcing the patriarchy and its play for power. Shame!

BTW, have I ever mentioned that secular colleges and grad schools are vacuous wastelands were idiocies of all types and stripes go to die? I am so glad that I am graduating in August. 8^D

Stefan said...

Congratulations, Halcyon!

Believers who are down there in the trenches studying or teaching in the public education system deserve some admiration and encouragement for their efforts.

Rupert said...

'Believers who are down there in the trenches studying or teaching in the public education system deserve some admiration and encouragement for their efforts.' - I think they deserve to be arrested for fraud.

DJP said...


Rupert said...

sorry DJP, I should not have generalized so simplistically.

If they are bringing their 'faith' to bear on what or how they teach, then they should be arrested.

I just love some of the words in the 'word verification' section, don't you.

DJP said...

Yes, they can often be very ironic.

So, you feel it should be against the law to practice Christian faith?

Sir Aaron said...

I just blame the broken things on the kids or the cat.

Rupert said...

'So, you feel it should be against the law to practice Christian faith?' - you see, now there's the problem.

Every time people of faith are prevented from foisting their beliefs onto others or turning the secular state into a theocracy, up goes the cry 'what about our freedom of speech, what about freedom of religion!'

No. I don't feel it should be against the law to practice Christian faith, there are actually very few people who do.

You can believe what you wish. You can pray or practice your faith. On a personal level and in your personal space. Not anyone elses. Do as you wish in your church or temple. But not in schools or government organizations or facilities.

Is that really a difficult concept to grasp?

DJP said...

I take it you don't know much about Biblical Christianity. God owns everything and everyone (Psalm 27:1). My faith says I need to practice my faith whoever I am, wherever I am, whatever I do.

Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?

If you tell me I can't, and that the power of the law should be brought to bear to force me not to, then you believe it should be against the law to practice my faith.

So, do you believe that should be against the law to practice Christian faith, given that there can never be "Keep out" signs to practicing Christian faith?

Stefan said...


Ironically, I wasn't even thinking in terms of believers sharing their faith with their fellow students or teachers.

I meant that the whole worldview of the public education system (schools, colleges, universities, grad schools) is inherently hostile to simple biblical faith in Jesus Christ.

(I should know: I was an atheist for the first 18 years of my life, and a skeptical agnostic for the next 18 years. Frankly, I thought Bible-believing Christians were kooks.)

Therefore, it has got to be challenging for a Christian to work or study in an environment where they are assumed to be crazy and deluded for believing what they believe. That's what I was referring to, and it seems like you made my point.

DJP said...

Rupert, your reply was too boring to print. So I rejected it.

I don't allow cutting, pasting and sniping. Are you able to interact substantively? You get one more try.

It's pretty funny, though. You come to a blog named "Biblical Christianity" (subtle, eh?), and try to start fights with your first two comments — telling Christians to stay out of your face!

As I said, though, take one more swing. Type your own substantive interaction. Or move on. Your choice. You're the one who decided to step in to the conversation.

DJP said...

Oh and Rupert, just one more thing, to give you the best shot at coming up with something worth space on my blog. In case you wanted to waste your one try on a complaint instead of a substantive, on-topic, thought-out response:

It's my blog. You're my guest. They're my rules. Don't want to play by them? Okey doke, thanks for stopping by.

Rupert said...

Stefan, I applaud your intent. Unfortunately the evidence shows us that all too often that is not the case. Nor do I believe the whole system is hostile. People simply don't want theistic beliefs intruding into areas where they are not relevant.
I think your final paragraph, to an extent ate least, contradicts your first sentence.

Rupert said...

DLP, ok, no paraphrasing rule understood.

I believe I stated a cogent and substantive argument in response to your claims regarding laws and religious practice.

From my point of view your response couched the same argument in a different manner rather than provide evidence for your case.

My case amounts to the fact that the law does not prevent you from practicing your faith. What it is intended to prevent though, is the promoting of those views and practices onto those who do not wish to participate.

CR said...

Okay, so I read the cartoon and was ROFL! Rupert comes in starts and off-topic conservation but in this instance sanctioned by DJP so I'm going to opine, briefly.

The early church did not see itself as having a faith that was private and personal and only to be practiced in the family, the home and in church living off some remote reservation having nothing to do with penetrating the life of the world around us. Jesus through the Holy Spirit empowered us to go into the nations bearing witness to the reign of God over all life.

But people like yourselves have been successful in pushing the church to the outer fringe of cultural life. It's the reason why Christianity is almost dead in America. We're afraid to talk about the gospel with our friends or our co-workers in our jobs. The church in America has pretty much accepted the banishment by the secular community.

Anyway,...that was a funny cartoon by the way, really.

Stan McCullars said...

Profile Not Available?


DJP said...

CR - conservation but in this instance sanctioned by DJP....

Exactly right. It's an exception, but I thought I'd give Rupert a bit of space, see if we could be of any help.

DJP said...

...and maybe it's because "Rupert" is the name of a favorite character from the Whedonverse.

Stefan said...

...And the name of the anthropomorphic bear in the Rupert comics, the third greatest comic series of all time, after Tintin and Asterix.

And one of the few redeeming contestants on the one of the otherwise sleeziest shows on television, Survivor.

Halcyon said...


Thank you for wanting to have me arrested for "fraud". That's very encouraging. I'll remember that while I'm pursuing my PhD at Northwestern next year.

BTW, you sure like to make public your personal opinion that people's personal opinions should be kept private and not public. Just sayin'.

DJP said...

I'll give Rupert this, with no snark or sarcasm: I feared he'd storm off, but instead he came back with the requested substantial statement of his opinion.

Props for that.

Rupert said...

Halcyon, you have misrepresented my words.

I do not wish to have you arrested for fraud for the faith you hold. Only if you infuse that faith into factual elements you may be teaching if that is your role. What you do while you study is of no concern to me.

I do not recall mentioning 'opinions'. Only 'practices'. I am happy to peruse the opinions here and elsewhere, and offer mine in return. If we worked together and you told me you were a person of faith my response would be that that is fine for you and I am glad that it makes you happy.

If you attempted to introduce group prayer in the workplace, thrust printed material into my hands or lecture me on aspects of your faith however, we would then have a problem. If you wish to observe your faith on your own, I support that. That is the point I have been trying to make.

Yes my posts are off-topic from the original article. They were in response to Halcyon's and Stefan's earliest posts.

Thank you DJP.

Sir Aaron said...

Also of note is that during the Protestant Reformation, there was a lot of discussion as to how much the church should control the state and vice versa.

The founding fathers would also cringe at today's environment. Even Benjamin Franklin, who was no moral giant, believed that the Bible was invaluable and should be taught. I'm not aware of a single founder of this country who did not agree that knowledge of the Bible was crucial to the success of this country.

And, the establishment clause only applied to the Federal government. States could and did establish state rules of religion.

Halcyon said...


You can't dodge my point by merely changing your terms. Saying "practice" rather than "opinions" is merely a distinction without a difference. "Practice" is merely opinions on the practical level, a place that all opinions go if we are serious about them (and not just mere talkers or hypocrites). It seems that you would prefer it if theistic people were not serious about their beliefs (as DJP mentioned earlier).

Just so you understand: You are distinctly talking about "foisting [your] beliefs" and "promoting of [one's] views" in someone else's "space" rather than keeping it in "your personal space". In other words, you are against this foisting of one's private and personal beliefs onto others, of making what is personal a universally applicable standard for everyone else.

And yet, you have no problem foisting onto others your private and personal belief about what should and should not be in "schools or government organizations or facilities" or other areas that you deem theistic beliefs would not be "relevant".

So which is it? Is it or is it not okay to take a personal/private belief and make it a blanket universal statement applicable to everyone?

BTW, you seem to be giving a level of objectivity and disinterestedness to "secular" institutions that simply is not there. Everyone has beliefs. Everyone brings their beliefs to bear on what they say or do (as you have demonstrated). Just because something is "secular" does not give it some sort of belief-free status.

THUS, if you want secular institutions to be belief-free, then you are asking the impossible. It will never happen.

HOWEVER, if you are simply stating that only "theistic" beliefs should be excluded and all who try to bring them to bear should be arrested, then you are a biased bigot who needs to explain himself quickly. Exactly how are theistic beliefs anymore "irrelevant" than your secular ones in the public sphere and sector?

Halcyon said...


BTW, if you feel that this sparing match is getting out of hand, then feel free to blow the whistle on us.

Rupert said...

Halcyon, I did not change my terms whatsoever. I strongly dispute your definition of practice compared to opinion.

I clearly stated that I am happy for you to tell me that you are a person of faith (opinion) and that there should not be anything stopping you from praying and attending church.

I spoke of 'foisting one's beliefs' by attempting to get other to participate, such as initiating prayer meetings in the workplace (practice). I'm not asking you to participate in anything.

I'm not the one trying to incorporate anything into schools or government. That is something that I thought I clearly stated is inappropriate.

Your statement regarding blanket universal statements appears to be confused and obfuscating the point.

The term secular belief is an oxymoron in my opinion. What secularists try to do is prevent beliefs from infecting areas which ought to be free of anything other than proven facts and straight-forward operation requirements. Atheism is a belief the same as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I find your last paragraph to be lacking in rationale, contradictory and merely a verbal diatribe in an attempt to tar secularism with the same brush as those bringing faith to bear. But that is only my opinion, you are free to offer yours in return.

Sir Aaron said...


Is it so horrible to ask you if you want to join a prayer meeting? Are things so bad at work that you can't stand to have somebody participate in any theistic activity? Couldn't you just say "No"?

Rupert said...

Sir Aaron (love to know the roots of that pseudonym) no it's not 'horrible' to ask me, once.

I see no link between the mood of a workplace and theistic activity, can you extrapolate?

Yes, I can say 'no', once.

Halcyon said...


"The term secular belief is an oxymoron in my opinion. What secularists try to do is prevent beliefs from infecting areas which ought to be free of anything other than proven facts and straight-forward operation requirements."

So...secularists have no beliefs...other than the belief that beliefs should not infect areas which ought to be, etc. Huh.

Well, thanks for proving my point. 8^)

Rupert said...

If you think you've proven your point Halcyon, I'm happy for you.

The image that comes to my mind is of a chicken scratching around for tit-bits.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

DJP said...

It's not that easily brushed aside, Rupert. He just pulled not only the rug, but the entire floor, out from under you.

When it's someone else's worldview, it's "beliefs," but when it's yours, it's just reality? Because you don't have beliefs?

HSAT, I'm not sure we're all agreed about the subject. Who's advocating forcing non-Christian employees to attend prayer meetings, or whatever?

Remember, you were the one who advocated the arrest of Christians merely for being "in the trenches studying or teaching in the public education system."

Rupert said...

Hi DJP, I believe I clarified my initial claim when I stated that this should only occur when their teaching is affected by their faith. I still stand by this.

We appear to have a dichotomous dissonance here, in that you and others assert that my position in regards to keeping 'beliefs' out of institutions is of itself a 'belief'. I think I've made my point clearly and in a number of veins without it being recognized. As a rudimentary example, I am happy for someone to tell me of their joy at being a nudist, however I would not want them to be naked in any any of the places or situations in which I have stated faith should not be practiced. This is not to equate your faith with nudism though!

While I feel that my position is stronger and more logical, I acknowledge that this will not be accepted and to continue this discussion is a bit pointless. This does not however, mean that I cede my position.

DJP said...

But it's a de facto ceding. Repeating something that's been refuted isn't really forwarding an argument.

So, what you propose is hypocrisy? That's your better idea? That someone claim to have a belief, but not let it affect his life.

It's interesting how you're sidling into an observation I've often made of the media, to whom the only good Christians are (A) hypocrites and (B) apostates.

So again I ask: who is proposing forcing anyone to do what? I'm trying to help us be specific here.

Rupert said...

Yes DJP, my posts have become a little arcane. I have cleared my mind and feel that if I return to a simple explanation of my position it will have more value for yourself, Halcyon et al.

I am happy for you to have faith. You believe in a god, pray, read the bible, attend church etc. With this I have no problem. Let your belief affect your life, but not the lives of others.

If as a teacher, you bring your faith to bear, or have an influence on what you are teaching; that is a problem.

In the workplace I have no problem with you advising me that you have faith, pray, read the bible, attend church etc. If you try to bring me into your practices, or attempt to incorporate your practices into the workplace, that is a problem.

If you attempt to have your faith incorporated into the laws or operations of the state, that is a problem.

I am a 35 year veteran of motorcycling, the high speed, dragging the knee, road racing version of motorcycling. It is my belief that this assists my mental facilities, heightens my senses and response times, it certainly has a positive effect on both my moods and my damaged spine and skeleton, exposes me more to my surroundings and a myriad of other things. For me to attempt to 'convert' others, or have undue influence on what goes on in the world because of this, would be a problem.

The people proposing forcing anyone to do anything are those who would bring creationism into the science classroom, overturn womens' right to choose and proclaim a day of prayer under the auspices of the state.

I hope I have clarified my position to the extent that I can ask, what is it that I am trying to actually impose on others?

DJP said...

I'm closing up dangling threads.

You actually are just repeating what's already been answered, Rupert. Nobody has advocated forcing religion on anyone, other than you. You force your materialist, atheist religion on Christians. You have a tidy little unprovable/unfalsifiable uncreation-myth that you want to dub "It," and exclude all others. If we Christians are free to practice our faith, then that means we're free to prefer the necessarily-true eyewitness testimony of God over the patchwork house of cards proposed by many "scientists." We have a right to insist on its presence. To exclude that viewpoint is to declare a religion (Darwinism) and exclude others.

BTW, what does this have to do with what happens "when a guy does something wrong," again?