February 27, 2003


What Would Satan Drive? (Jean Jennings, Automobile)
We love sport-utility vehicles. They move us and the vast stuff of our lives. They welcome our dogs and their kennels, our kayaks and bicycles built for two, our armoires and armaments. They are more convenient than renting trailers or shuttle buses. You can drive them through the woods. You can drive them through deep snow. You can see the road ahead. They just fit.

So when did sport-utility vehicles become the work of the devil?

When did it become time to repent, time to ask yourself, "What would Jesus drive, you ignorant, gas-guzzling, war-mongering, earth raper?" It's a question we've heard asked and answered in the name of the Lord so many times in the past couple of months that we've gotten a little slap-happy about it.

We may not know for sure what make of car Satan drives, but we know what's on the bumper:
Posted by Orrin Judd at February 27, 2003 6:35 PM

I find that Darwin sticker one of the most obnoxious things in the world. Plain and simple, it exists to mock and denigrate a person's religious beliefs. I am not an Evangelical Christian, I am Roman Catholic. I don't have the fish symbol on my car. But this is terribly obnoxious.

Posted by: pchuck at February 27, 2003 7:27 PM

And the Inquisition continues.

Scence and relgion (all religions not just Christianity) both seek to resolve the questions of how the universe works, the difference is, scientists formulate theories based on collecting of observable date, the religions just make stuff up.

Ancient people once thought an unseen got made the winds blow and the lightning strike, now we know it's the result of high and low pressure air masses colliding rapidly. Ancient people used to think that the Earth was the center of the Universe, The Catholics even went as far as to convict Gallileo for suggesting otherwise. He was later proven right. Darwin's theory is not completely proven, but the evidence behind it is a lot more impressive than the "because we said so" the creationists throw out there. It's possible at some point that another scientific theory will come into conflict with Darwin's evolution, and when that happens, it will be handled more peacefully than just about every religious conflict throughout the years. The decline of the Islamic world relative to the rest of Earth's civilazions is largely due to the assertion that nothing outside of the Koran was worthy of Study. This anti-Darwinian crusade is the first step down that same road.

Religion still has a place in this world in establishing morality (though each time the Pope grants an audience to Terique Aziz or sends an emissary to hold hands with Arafat for a photo op, or every time they look another way when a priest buggers an altar boy) and would do well to stay out of matters of science before they sacrifice their one purpose in a futile attempt to recover the one they lost.

Posted by: MarkD at February 27, 2003 8:25 PM


Inquisition, my aren't we self-important, as well as humorless. It's all fun and yucks when these stickers belittle people's beliefs, but take a jab at yours and you see Torquemada coming?

Posted by: oj at February 27, 2003 8:45 PM

What's fun is to ask someone with a "Darwin Fish" to explain their understanding of evolution. At best you get some warmed over Lysenkoism, but more often they have no idea at all, other than it's something those Evil Right Wing Fundamentalists Xtians don't like, which means it must be good.

(Although I must admit I once bought a "Phish" Fish for a friend of mine for his car, which I'm sure confused a lot of people.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 27, 2003 11:51 PM


I think you started it, by equating evolution with Satan. If you meant it tongue-in-cheek, an emoticon might have helped get the point across. Otherwise, you are guilty of being the pot calling the kettle black.


Religious believers are the world champions in denigrating other's beliefs, far too often fatally. A year or so ago the Pope issued something effectively denigrating all non-Catholic Christian beliefs, didn't he? Or doesn't that count?


Jeff Guinn

Posted by: at February 28, 2003 7:24 AM


I created the Darwin fish?

Posted by: oj at February 28, 2003 8:02 AM


You put the Darwin fish on the page, accompanied by We may not know for sure what make of car Satan drives, but we know what's on the bumper:

Tongue in cheek, or not?



Posted by: at February 28, 2003 12:25 PM

The Darwin fish was a tongue-in-cheek response to the Christian fish symbol on cars -- the American Christian equivalent of a Tibetan Buddhist prayer wheel, a proud assertion that the driver is a superstitious bigot.

Get over it, pchuck.

Posted by: Harry at February 28, 2003 1:02 PM


Or an accurate reflection of the fact that y'all just worship a different superstition.

Posted by: oj at February 28, 2003 3:49 PM

Maybe, but I do believe in cause and effect, and pchuck has his sequence backward.

Posted by: Harry at February 28, 2003 4:51 PM


As you surely know, the fish was a symbol for Christians when they were hiding in the catacombs and being persecuted as fiercely as they ever treated heretics. It's no more bigotted than an American flag.

Posted by: oj at February 28, 2003 7:21 PM

The fish may not be bigotted, but implying that people who believe in evolution are evil, certainly is.

Posted by: DJS at February 28, 2003 7:50 PM

Jeff Guinn:

Most Christians I know of are very tolerant. Non believers are fanatical in their opposition to any religious expression. We see this throughout the US, most recently in a decision of the 9th Circus stating the pledge was unconstitutional because it included the words "under God." Christians survived the Romas and will be here when you are dust.

Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at March 1, 2003 3:45 AM

Mr. Jackson:

Some theists are extremely intolerant. (Over the centuries, religions have pretty much owned the whole concept of intolerance.) Some
(nowhere near all, as you clearly imply) atheists. It must be said that non-religious believers are rather less likely to slaughter people.

Regarding the Pledge decision. Despite being an atheist, I said "under God" right along with everyone else, without even thinking about it.

If I believed in religion, I would be concerned with assertions that have become so much verbal wallpaper.

Read the 9th's decision--it is on their web page; search for Newdow. Two of the three found the phrase contradicted the First Amendment. The third didn't disagree, but found the effect of the violation so trivial as to not be worth worrying about.


Jeff Guinn

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 1, 2003 8:25 AM

Ooops. I meant to say "Some
atheists are extremely intolerant. (although their intolerance probably extends more to not getting pestered)

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 1, 2003 11:06 AM

Jeff --

We've just come out of the 20th century, in which religion slaughtered (relatively) few people and avowed atheists slaughtered tens of millions.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 1, 2003 11:51 AM


What is the Darwin fish meant to express if not contempt for, bigotry towards, Christians? Geez, give you people a little of your own medicine and you squeal like schoolgirls.

Posted by: oj at March 1, 2003 2:20 PM

The fish was a pagan symbol long before the Christians took it over. It represented the womb and vagina of the mother goddess. Some early Christian fishes use it this way, showing Jesus as a baby inside the 'fish'.

Posted by: Buss Slate at March 1, 2003 4:43 PM

The bastards--they're making fun of pagans too!

Posted by: oj at March 1, 2003 5:55 PM

David -- good point -- a hundred million dead from Communism and fascism, and the secularists are still getting mileage out of a few tens of thousands killed in the religious wars of the 16th century.

Posted by: pj at March 1, 2003 9:46 PM

You, as a Catholic, must also believe in evolution as Darwin described it. Pope John Paul II decreed it so and so you must believe, right?

Posted by: Jim at June 26, 2004 8:21 AM