His dislike for money-changers, money-lenders, or whoever, had nothing to do with their religion, merely their greed. Jews can be good or bad, just like everyone else.

Read what you want into it, but actively looking for an offense where none *may* have been intended can actually cause far more harm than good.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the strip amounts to antisemitism. That said, most of Trudeau’s critics grasp that the real target was the predatory lending companies that helped create the current financial crisis. The issue is that he used an interpretation of scripture that is heavily anti-Judaic in order to do so and then followed it up with a popular anti-Semitic trope as the punch line.

Both the interpretation of scripture and the stereotype have been used in recent history as incitements to anti-Semitic violence– this isn’t to say that Trudeau used them with that intent– it’s entirely possible he used both without a full awareness of the consequences.

I agree the delivery could have been more clear, but to go from there to an accusation of antisemitism is going a bit far.

money-lenders > Jews > enemies of mankind

You don’t need to put in a panel of a grinning hook-nosed Shylock or say the phrase “Jew money-lenders” or even put (or hint at the concept) “Jew” and “money-lenders” in context with one another for the term — left unrebuked — to be understood for what it is.

Plus, Trudeau’s a Canadian. They have a “Human Rights” kangaroo court up there that’ll smite writers and authors to ashen heaps for a whole lot less than what went on here. Hoo boy, he got a heap o’ trouble now.

I think that you miss the point that leading up to the panel about Jesus’ anger at the “money lenders” there is a theological discussion about the difference between Jesus and God as presented in the Tanakh. Leaving aside that it’s a pretty inaccurate reading of the texts in question, it’s essentially a claim that Judaism is inferior to Christianity and thus deserving contempt.

I’ve been a lifetime fan of Gary Trudeau, but the cartoon does does repeat an anti-Semitic canard.

But as I’ve said many times, you don’t get on television by saying something nice or congratulatory. You need a crisis or a scandal to get prime time coverage.My favorite example is Ice Cube’s film “Barbershop”, a black produced film with an almost all-black cast dealing with a uniquely black social gathering place, and it drew stellar crossover crowds. He drew white people to a “black” movie. The “urban leaders” (Sharpton’s crowd) could have come out and commended Cube about making a film that didn’t make black people out to be drug dealers and gangbangers, and to be able present a positive set of characters to a wide audience, but instead thay pilloried the film over a joke about Rosa Parks. If they’d presented him with a plaque for his positive achievements, it probably wouldn’t even have gotten the spot after the weather – a scene involving black outrage, it got covered and discussed for days. Which is all people are really interested in.

Writes the ADL: “Doonesbury’s Reverend Sloan is guilty of promoting anti-Jewish stereotypes and biblical illiteracy. He owes both Jews and Christians an apology.”

They want a cartoon character to apologise!?!?!?

Eh. It’s not that Whedon gave up on writing/directing the movie, it was Warner that wanted something else and did everything to scare him off. Maybe if they change their approach (same as DC comics-wise), it’ll be doable.

It was a a page worth of quote followed by “Naruto’s TPB’s are numbered, Spider-Man’s aren’t”.

There’s no real point other than stating the obvious. No discussion of what Marvel could do better. No reasons why things are as they are.

I have no idea what (who?) a “Naruto” is.