Is it OK to make fun of religions?

[sojourner]

How did we go from making fun of religion to bullying people? I didn't say anything about bullying people.

Go back and read post #116. Much "fun-making" is bullying behavior and it is reprehensible. If you're telling Catholic jokes that's one thing. If you're dissing someone's beliefs as being totally worthless, that's bullying.

 

[sojourner]

It's not a thin line at all, and your analogy isn't worth the electrons wasted on my screen to read it. Come on people, changing the words that someone states in order to change the meaning is not saying the same thing as what that someone stated in the first place.

hence, post #116. We need to clarify what's meant by "making fun."

 

[sojourner]

Sometimes an eye for an eye can be a prevention against further injustice. Force is sometimes necessary not to harm but to prevent further harm. It is not necessary to murder a murderer but it is necessary to lock them away and keep them from murdering again.

The whole "eye for an eye" thing was mitigated, not advocated, by Jesus. "You have heard it said 'an eye for an eye' ... but I say to you, do not resist an evildoer." It's Matthew 5, part of the sermon on the mount. It's an advocacy of passive resistance, not punitive measures.

 

[Sunstone]

If you're dissing someone's beliefs as being totally worthless, that's bullying.

I'm not sure about that just yet. But I do think you can make a stronger case for this: If you're dissing someone as worthless or less deserving of respect because of their beliefs, then that is bullying.

 

[sojourner]

Is this OK?



Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


Emo Philips

Yes. But this:

In my opinion, religions are a joke and the only reasonable thing to do is to make fun of them.

isn't.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The whole "eye for an eye" thing was mitigated, not advocated, by Jesus. "You have heard it said 'an eye for an eye' ... but I say to you, do not resist an evildoer." It's Matthew 5, part of the sermon on the mount. It's an advocacy of passive resistance, not punitive measures.

Christ said "resist not the Evil One", not "do not resist evil doers", that passage is about how we should react to overwhelming oppression, it's about the powers and principalities of this world not ordinary evil doers.

We have to bring those who do evil to justice, for our own self protection and for the protection of the weak. We turn the other cheek in order to humiliate the Evil One and show the Evil One that the Evil One has no power over us. You can't resist the Evil One by ordinary force, but you can and should resist evil doers when it becomes absolutely necessary and Christ did so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oral tradition is so dramatically undervalued. It is still strongly valued in Jewish communities, isn't it?

It's Judaism. From the Wikipedia entry on Rabbi Ben Zion Boser …

He stressed the Rabbinic sages and the Talmud as the source of Judaism. "This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. . . Judaism is not the religion of the Bible" (Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, p. 59).

 

[Philomath]

I think it's perfectly OK to make fun of religions. I personally don't do it, but I don't have problems with it.

 

[sojourner]

Christ said "resist not the Evil One", not "do not resist evil doers"

No. That's not how it goes. Your exegesis is a little skewed here.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure about that just yet. But I do think you can make a stronger case for this: If you're dissing someone as worthless or less deserving of respect because of their beliefs, then that is bullying.

I disagree. Here's why. Religion isn't finally an objective endeavor to which we relate from outside ourselves. Religion is a very subjective thing that is a reflection of who we are and informs who we are. It is part of our identity, just as race, sexual identity, and boy shape are.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think steeltoes misunderstood what I meant by its a fine line.

Not many people can actually talk to a person and explain why they disagree with them. Tell them plainly that they think their beliefs are a load of bull but still try to remain respectful to the individual. Though specifically seeking out and making fun of people for their religious beliefs is bullying.

If we lived in a reverse world where the majority of people were atheists and 3 high school kids found the 1 catholic and went and ganged up on him for no reason and told him that his beliefs were stupid and that he was a delusional fairy tale believer then that would in fact be bullying. However having an honest conversation with someone and telling them plainly that their religious beliefs are not shared and in fact looked down upon is not an example of bullying.

Though the receiving end is also a problem. Few people can take criticism to their religion without being personally offended.

 

[Sunstone]

I disagree. Here's why. Religion isn't finally an objective endeavor to which we relate from outside ourselves. Religion is a very subjective thing that is a reflection of who we are and informs who we are. It is part of our identity, just as race, sexual identity, and boy shape are.

That's an insightful point, and yet, I think much the same could be said for so many things. There is something about the human ego that it typically aggrandizes itself by self-identifying with all sorts of things.

We routinely define ourselves in terms of our relationship to, say, sport teams, politics and political parties, socioeconomic class, favorite entertainments, family and friends, social groups, occupations, consumer products, and so forth.

And those identifications are not necessarily any less emotionally moving for us as our identification with a religion. I once knew someone who would start a fight if you criticized her brand of cigarettes -- and to her, she was fighting in defense of her self. And while her self-identity might seem trivial or unimportant to most of us, there would appear to be nothing in its essence -- in its fundamental psychology -- to distinguish it from a self-identity based on religious affiliation.

The argument that you cannot attack a religion because some people deeply self-identify with it would ultimately prohibit your attacking any ideology, idea, or concept.

 

[sojourner]

That's an insightful point, and yet, I think much the same could be said for so many things. There is something about the human ego that it typically aggrandizes itself by self-identifying with all sorts of things.

We routinely define ourselves in terms of our relationship to, say, sport teams, politics and political parties, socioeconomic class, favorite entertainments, family and friends, social groups, occupations, consumer products, and so forth.

And those identifications are not necessarily any less emotionally moving for us as our identification with a religion. I once knew someone who would start a fight if you criticized her brand of cigarettes -- and to her, she was fighting in defense of her self. And while her self-identity might seem trivial or unimportant to most of us, there would appear to be nothing in its essence -- in its fundamental psychology -- to distinguish it from a self-identity based on religious affiliation.

The argument that you cannot attack a religion because some people deeply self-identify with it would ultimately prohibit your attacking any ideology, idea, or concept.

I don't think that's quite the case. Self-identity with celebrities, branding, sports teams, cities, etc. can be a form of unhealthy transference, depending upon how deeply one identifies with those things. Religion is different, as I said, precisely because religion isn't about what one "likes" (such as celebrities or sports teams or brands with which one can identify. Religion is about who one is.

I can "like" Ford all I want to. But I am not Ford. i can identify with Daniel Craig as 007. But I am not 007 -- or even Daniel Craig. And for me to become upset when one makes fun of those things is an unhealthy overreaction based upon an unhealthy attachment.

But I am Christian. The tenets as put forth by the religion are part of my moral/ethical personality and persona. The religion isn't something outside of myself with which I identify. It's something inside myself -- part of me -- that makes me who I am.

That's a difference that's worth noting, especially as it relates to the voicing of opinions that can be defined as "bullying."

 

[steeltoes]

I'm not Catholic, but I gave up picking my belly button for lint.

another from Emo Philips

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Here is a funny one for you atheist to use and always makes laugh...

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to b***s***.” - Richard Pryor (one of the funniest atheist ever)

 

[steeltoes]

Here is a funny one for you atheist to use and always makes laugh...

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to b***s***.” - Richard Pryor (one of the funniest atheist ever)

Odd, I don't see Richard Pryor on the Celebrity Atheists list nor on the Famous Dead Nontheists list. Maybe he ought to be on it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why should I? I don't believe in bullying. But I will not stand by idle as the weak are bullied. I will stand up and say it is wrong.

And sometimes, standing up and saying "this is wrong" takes the form of making fun of religion:

Tim Minchin - Pope Song: Tim Minchin - Pope Song - YouTube

(Warning: profanity)

 

[Revoltingest]

An old classic....
[youtube]_YcGRNmkB00[/youtube]
Tom Lehrer - The Vatican Rag - with intro - YouTube

 

[LuisDantas]

Justice can't be attained because there are men who are not willing to do so.

I guess I agree, but that is a bit of a misleading emphasis IMO.

Justice is very decentralized. It can only happen when a high enough percentage of a community wants it to happen. Or when people have a lot of will to suffer self-sacrifice.

The laws people have made can only be applied to some percentage of the population. The percentage that goes under it, uses corruption, extortion and murder, but legally runs business under our laws. Nobody's even talking about damage control. True damage control can't be seen thru with law and justice.

What does law serve for besides damage control by way of making (relatively worthless) decisions?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. Here's why. Religion isn't finally an objective endeavor to which we relate from outside ourselves. Religion is a very subjective thing that is a reflection of who we are and informs who we are. It is part of our identity, just as race, sexual identity, and boy shape are.

Since religious affiliation isn't a matter of some innate trait but is something adopted, and since religion is something that informs a person's actions, I'd say that a much better analogy than any if the examples you gave would be politics.

... And we make fun of political beliefs all the time.