The most provocative blog post in the history of the Internets -

The most provocative blog post in the history of the Internets




Filed under:

The most provocative blog post in the history of the Internets

  1. God, you say? Provocative? Well, what's she wearing?

    • What is it with you ____ies. Why does every issue always have to come down to "What's she wearing?" ;-)

      • Whaddya mean every issue? Feschuk was the one who promised provocative!

        • Typical, blame someone else.

      • Whaddya mean every issue? Most of the issues in my subscription are so that I can read the articles!

        • Yeah right, articles. You pervert, you oppressor you.

          • Whatever. When are you gonna return November '09?

          • Uhhh, well, I'm not sure that you'll want it back…

          • Idiot!! You point AWAY!!!!!!


          • Hey! That's good advice. Thanks!

      • All week, veal, etc.

        • Ba-dump!

          • OW!!! Ok, ok, I was just leaving anyways. (Slowly backing up, face still to crowd) Hey, listen you guys have been great (sliding stage left), and my time is up — (already backstage) Good night everyone!!

  2. Kristie Alley.

  3. 'Smatta, Scott? You couldn't stand all the agreement here in comment-land over federal funding of the NHL? Not even one single day of harmony? That was too much for you? Get help, man.

  4. Nope. There's no reference to Harper to get the crowd warmed up. Try again …

    • Harper is a wanker and his supporters are wankerettes,

  5. "God" is just a euphemism for "nobody".

  6. God – doesn't understand why humans created the concept.
    Humans – don't understand why their creation is imperfect.

    • Making him an old white guy really limits his appeal.

      • Why? They seem to be in charge of pretty much everything down here…

        ; )

  7. LOL I wondered if you'd survived the onslaught!

    I gave up after it hit the third page.

    • But did you count the fish?

    • Well played :)

    • Jackie Robinson!

    • What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9

  8. Feschuk,

    If you really don't get why your implication that perfectly ordinary Christian views (which may or may not be Harper's) concerning gay marriage and abortion are intolerant, and if you further think it's funny to lump them in with racism, then you really are clueless.

    Referring to the previous post, of course, not this one. This one is just a lame attempt to deflect blame from your insulting caricature by attributing the reaction to people seeing the word "God" in print.

    • Since it's supposedly okay for 'christians' to tell everyone else how to live and what to believe, you'll have to get used to being criticized yourselves.

      If you don't like the criticism, stay off my porch, keep your brochures to yourself, and get out of my govt.

      • Particularly stay out of my government.

    • You need to read up on what evanlgelicals believe.

  9. This will be more fun if it hits National News Watch.

  10. I've had enough of your yellow journalism too, Feschuk, you damned sewer rat.

  11. God, the creator, the father of us all. Known by so many different names. Whether ours is the God of fire and brimstone, or the God of Love and forgiveness, remains to be seen. At this point in human evolution, I’m sure the case could be made for either. But whether or not you consider Jesus to be the son of God (remember, he/she is father/mother to us all), he is recognized as a prophet in so many other world religions. So even if you contend that Jesus was “just a man”, this wonderful person left the world with the ultimate word of what he believed to be his god. Namely, if we are going to survive as a species, we need to look after each other, cherish each other , look after our sick and our poor, turn the other cheek and forgive our enemies. So regardless of your interpretation of God, Jesus, the greatest person that ever lived, left us the recipe for how we were supposed to live, and that was with tolerance and love. And anyone claiming to follow the message of Jesus, in my opinion, would be tolerant of all people, of all races, of all religions or sexual orientations. I don’t think he intended for us to pick and choose which of his tenants were the most convenient to follow, or best fit with our own agendas. I think that Jesus would weep if he knew that some one, who supposedly loves him, were threatening to destroy holy books, regardless of their religion. And he would weep over the alienation or marginalization of any of our society. And he would weep at the murderous ethnic grudges that continue to exist in the world today. But that’s my opinion, and I certainly don’t seem to be in the majority.

    • Treacle.

      • Thank you for your lovely compliment. It is much appreciated.

        • Dormouse….Alice in Wonderland

          • Thank you Alice??

          • You're the one talking about fairy tales, not me.

      • Bitter

    • Well, that put a damper on the discussion.

      • Bronze age fairy tale. Nobody's listening.

        • I would agree with you about it all being a Bronze Age Fairy Tail, if it weren't for the fact that there are so many religions that recognize the existence of Jesus. They certainly don't all agree on his "nature' but most believe him to be a prophet. I think there is too much evidence to dismiss his existence or his teachings out of hand. But I would certainly agree with you about people listening. Not many are. We live in such a cynical world.

          • News flash: the fact that a bunch of religions recognize the existence of something does not make it a fact.

          • No, lots of people believe in bigfoot, ufos and Nessie as well.

          • Quite right Emily, so many are so willing to believe in monsters but not in universal love and understanding. So how do we change that? How do we get people to live together in relative peace and harmony instead of the universal hatred and mistrust that exists today?. Oh, and whether or not he exists, I think the world is big enough to accommodate "Big Foot" too. The last of the 'Neanderthals" perhaps.

          • Well it won't be with religion, that's for sure. Surely several thousand years of war over religion has convinced you of that much.

            And neanderthals didn't look like bigfoot.

            We could try a decent education.

          • Emily, Yes, religion itself may not be the ultimate answer. Religion can be twisted and interpreted to justify pretty much anything. So if we take the "Jesus" label away, would the concept of universal brotherhood and peace be more palatable you think?
            Well I must say it distresses me that Bigfoot doesn't look at all like a Neanderthal. I had such high hopes that one day, he would be confirmed as such and that it would be a monumental scientific breakthrough. But for the record, what does the big fella actually look like??
            We could all use a better education. Never ever stop learning. Once you stop learning, you stop living.

          • Neanderthals interbred with us long ago

            And….pull the other one, it has got bells on it.

          • Emily. Yes, I suppose Neanderthals and our fore-bearers intermingled quite some time ago. Just natural evolution I would think. So if our primitive ancestors found a way to coexist for the perpetuation of the species ( though granted, while it may have been for the greater good, it was probably far from Universal brotherhood), do you think there is hope for us as a species in this day and age? In all our brilliant sophistication, do we have what it takes to survive?


          • Yes, bells.

            Talking like that you're definitely pulling my leg.

          • Emily. Actually, I'm not pulling your leg…at least not intentionally anyway. Just speaking from the heart as I believe you are. Hope I didn't hurt your leg in the process.

          • Then I'll say…. humans will be around 10,000 years from now, and there will be billions of us.

            We won't all be living on this planet, but we'll be doing just fine.

          • See, SOME people would think that you've just put yourself into the "space cadet" camp; a camp often more ridiculed than the religious.

            Just sayin'…

          • You seem like a reasonable sort RKD so I'd like to have a go with you on this.

            IMO the idea of "universal brotherhood and peace ", is an extremely naive one. It will never happen, no matter how you might wish for it.

            As for "loving your enemies", I don't even find this particularly moral. This is milksop phiosophy IMHO, and only invites evil to spread unchecked.

            I say love your own enemies if you must, but I'll thank you not to love mine.

          • Hello AJR79. Thanks for the comments. I will admit that the concept of "Universal Brotherhood" may sound a tad "Utopian". Judging from where we are now as a species, it must sound like quite the fairy tail, given that humans have messed up every good thing we've ever had. Mother Earth for example. But if we are to survive and evolve as a species, we all, collectively, need to do a much better job of coexisting. We may never achieve Universal Brotherhood, at least in our life time. But it is something to be aspired to, like reaching for the moon or venturing to Mars or a cure for cancer.The beauty about humans is, that sometimes we can surprise ourselves with the extent to which we can rise to the occasion when called upon to do so.

            I've forgiven my enemies. Not an easy thing to do, but it makes living a whole lot nicer and less complicated. But I promise not to love your enemies, but please excuse me if I don't hate them.

          • Just to clarify, I wasn't refering to personnal enemies, so much as the enemies of civilization.

            I think if you "turn the other cheek" to fanatical Islam for example, you are showing weakness and will be overrun. That won't do much good for future world peace.

            It's not that I'd expect you to hate these enemies of civilization, but I'd ask you to stand strong against them. There are always going to be really bad people in the world who need killing. I wouldn't have said that 10 years ago, but I now fully believe it to be true.

            Would you really love a man that cut off his wifes ears, and nose in the name of honour? I can't bring myself to, or to easily forgive it. I don't think the ability to love such a person, is a more moral position then mine.

          • Mr. Bean, thank you for the feed back. You are right, the fact that more than one religion recognizes the same thing, doesn't necessarily make it "so". However, as several of these religions are at odds with one another, I think it adds certain credibility to the existence of that" thing". Don't get me wrong, I believe that "Jesus's" story has been twisted to meet the needs and agendas of certain groups of people as history progresses. Innumerable people have been murdered in his name. But if you look at him as strictly a "man", the various religions seem to agree that he was a man of peace and acceptance. And even if you believe that he didn't exist at all, isn't "his" way a wonderful way for all human beings to live with each other? Certainly beats the hell out of the hatred, ignorance, suspicion, murder and intolerance that permeates most of the world today.

      • Go easy on Politicos. He or she may just not be too familiar with Feschuk.

        • You're right "Madeyoulook", I'm not. Just speaking from th heart.

  12. Politikos. I wish we had a face view. I can't imaine politicos saying all that with a straight face. I betcha you will vote for harper and his merry band of right-wing evangelical funamentalists.

    • Hello "Blacktop". Actually, my face was pretty straight when I made the above comment. I had no idea I sounded like a Far Right wing Evangelical Fundamentalist. But now that you mention it…, sorry, still don't see it. I think, and again, just my opinion here, that Fundamentalists, regardless of their religion, tend to pick and choose which parts of their chosen religion are the most convenient to follow and tend to interpret the words of their god in ways that suit their own particular agenda. And for the record my friend, I tend to reside somewhere to the Left of Center.

    • Politikos tone sounds like a polite theist expressing his/her view.

      Your tone is similar to a braying donkey.

  13. correction; for "imaine" read "imagine"

    for "funamentalists" read "fun-amentalists"

    • Dogs I like….even ones that have off moments. LOL

    • Hey… Where is Cats anyways…?

      • All Dogs go to Heaven. All cats ….

  14. Bigfoot. Loch Ness Monster. Easter Bunny!

    • Diet Dr. Pepper Guy…

      • Man from Glad.

    • Funny. Stolen for a Tweet.

    • hs! that makes happiness.

  15. Pics or it didn't happen.

  16. God, the word isn't provocative, as evidenced by the underwhelming response to this Feschuk blog post as opposed to his last one.
    Using your position as a writer at the most popular magazine in Canda to call the PM a big o'le pile of stinking hypocritical gay-bashing God loving idiot AND at the same time say that God is a lie, now, that is provocative.

  17. Feschuk.


    • Needs to chew on the business end of an unregisered firearm!

    • God? so I have this rash…..

  18. Now Scott, God would obviously dominate any event he entered, but the discus?
    It's just frisbee for overachievers who can't catch.

  19. What's up next Scott, burning the Qu'ran?

    God is the Rodney Dangerfield of deities lately… Not that I mind.

  20. You can't tell me what to discuss!

  21. God? Provocative?

    Not really. People have been putting crucifixes in urine, smatteing feces on the virgin Mary etc for decades. The Buddist temples in Afghanistan have been levelled with no worldwide outcry, and the synagogues in the middle east raised to the ground have drawn barely a whisper?

    Perhaps you are referring to the single act of burning a single Koran which drew massive outrage, intervention by the most powerful man in the world and a visit from the FBI?

    Provocative in the sense that the mission of the Muslim brotherhood to bring compliance to Islamic norms within non believers worldwide has essentially been accomplished as evidenced by this latest sad display of capitualtion of the right to freedom of expression if it offends Islam (and only if it offends Islam)?

    Let the world walk on egg shells and let the crime of being "offensive" forevermore supercede the right to express oneself, in order to appease Islam.

    (P.S. flag burnings, bible burnings, arts displays depicting Jesus in bondage etc are all still OK. Only the highest order need be sacrosanct, that being Islam)

    • Geez, kody, lighten up! It's Feschuk, for, um, somebody's or something's sake.

    • It's true. I can't walk for a block in any urban centre without stumbling tripping over plexiglass cases of crucifexes in urine, or statues of the virgin Mary "smattered" in feces. In some cities, they've actually replaced churches with gigantic fountains of urine! It's rather disturbing, but that's what you get when entire city councils are composed of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to check in to my neighborhoods mandatory flag burning ceremony.

  22. Feschuck, you still here? Your fan club is so enthusiastic to have been given something to keep them going on with. Pathetic sophomores, the lot of you.

    • Says ex-canuck, following along. But he's not a sophomore – he is the hall monitor,

  23. God is good. If we could get atheists and evangelicals to mind their own business and stop telling others how to behave we would be on to something.

    • Yeah I'm sure you've had a lot of atheists on your doorstep, or affirming their ideas at public suppers and assemblies, and your neighbourhood is full of buildings for them to meet, right?

      • I find that the most obnoxious, immature "atheists" are usually found braying like drunken jackasses right here on the internet.

        • But at least they let you sleep in on Sundays.

  24. Whether or not "God" or "Gods" or "gods" exist is immaterial, actually. It's enough that the concept of "god" exists, a concept developed to provide explanations for the unknown, and to provide a "higher" authority or justification for the clearly fallible actions and decisions made by human beings.

    If we could pretend, for a moment, that the concept didn't exist, it seems pretty clear to me that we would invent, or develop it, because the concept itself is functional to the maintenance of any society. I'm pretty sure every religion has some version of the ten commandments; "thou shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife", etc., are pretty good basic rules to ensure that people can live together in society.

    • Not an original concept, but one worth introducing to the discussion.

      Voltaire: "If god didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

      John Lennon: "Imagine there's no heaven
      It's easy if you try
      No hell below us
      Above us only sky
      Imagine all the people
      Living for today…

      Imagine there's no countries
      It isn't hard to do
      Nothing to kill or die for
      And no religion too
      Imagine all the people
      Living life in peace…"

  25. I should point out that the proscriptions of the ten commandments, or other similar set of rules, are NOT unique to any particular religion, and don't even require a religious justification. They're just functional to a "well-ordered" society, and even societies that didn't believe in gods would probably adopt most of them, with the obvious exception of the ones about not worshipping other gods, etc.

    • Yes, all societies have had rules forbidding murder, theft etc. It's just common sense, and doesn't require any 'god' or 'gods'.

      • Funny thing about "common sense" though, Emily; it doesn't seem to be that "common"! And in societies that promote individual interests over collective ones (consciously and deliberately or not!) "common" sense would justify individual actions that are injurious to the functioning of the society. So an imposed "restraint" on the actions of individuals that is justified by invoking a "higher power" (which could literally be ANYTHING, really) makes sense.

  26. It seems to me that "God" did not create "man", but rather that "man" created "God"…for better or for worse. What we conceive of as "God" is a product of human invention and is limited only by the capacity of our mental and emotional processes, which may or may not be evolving.

    Which is why I've always liked Tom Waits' line, "Don't you know there ain't no Devil, there's just God when he's drunk!", as it highlights the very human origins of "God".

  27. And yes, I recognize that terrible things have been done in the name of "God"…by human beings. But good things have been done as well. In both cases, though, "God" has been inert, that is, not an active participant in what has been done in his/her/its name.

    The invocation of "God" and "God's will" as a justification for human action has always struck me as a blatantly transparent grab for power, power that is held to be beyond questioning, unlike any other forms of power. To me, this fundamentally attacks the very basic human capacity of reason and of being able to question "Why". Again, it doesn't really matter if the invocation of "God" is in the service of good OR evil actions, it is nontheless an attempt to "trump" human beings collective responsibility to justify their own actions.

  28. …Therefore, be at peace with God, whatever you conceive him to be…

    And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should!

  29. love it! they just can't let go…

  30. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. St. John 3:16, 17

    • For God (who?)so loved the world (how?) He gave His only begotten Son (evidence of parentage? evidence of "only"?) that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (how's that been delivered on?)For God did not send His Son into the world (did "God" send anyone, anywhere?) to condemn the world (proof?…and what if he did?) but that the world through Him might be saved. (errr…from what…salesmen?)

      Pretty good pitch(EVERLASTING LIFE! CALL AND ORDER NOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU TWO!), but really only believable if one suspends disbelief. It doesn't seem all that productive to quote Scripture (written and edited by who, and with what agenda?) to people unless you're pretty sure that they share the faith you have in the existance of YOUR god in the first place, because it will fall on deaf ears. And if they do share your faith, you're preaching to the choir loft. What's the point?

      • Mr. Feschuk opened the door for discussion concerning God and so what better way to address the issue than to quote John 3: 16 & 17? JHVH God is love and JHVH God is just, both attributes are dealt with in these scriptures, aren't they. Since you appear to believe that you are god I suggest that you write your own scriptures.

    • I appreciate how many people in hopeless situations may be attracted to this creed, especially in "early historical" times, but it provides no "comfort" or "explanation" to me. You're welcome to it, enjoy it, whatever gets you through the night, I'll never deny anyone the right to believe what they choose. Just please extend that same courtesy to those who choose NOT to believe what you believe in. (I think that's a version of "The golden rule", isn't it?)

      • Mr. Feschuk opened the door for discussion concerning God and so what better way to address the issue than to quote John 3: 16 & 17. God is love and God is just, both attributes are dealt with in these scriptures.

  31. Ha ha. "Signed off on it." That's funny. You're funny. I WISH i'd had the authority to sign off on stuff. You'd have seen a lot more A-Team references and cleavage (not the PM's).

  32. It's hard to get death threats with a post like this. For that you need to say something about Allah.