Is it OK to make fun of religions?

[Sunstone]

I would suggest one has an obligation not to perpetrate harmful falsehoods about religions, and especially religious people.

 

[Sunstone]

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."

Unfortunately, I disagree with your analysis. I am aware of no evidence from psychology that would suggest there is any profound distinction between someone self-identifying with a religion and someone self-identifying with, say, a political ideology. In individual cases, I'm sure that we can find instances of people who are more self-identified with their religion than with their politics. But I think we would find just as many cases of it being the other way around.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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."

Even if a person's religion is "part of them", their church, denomination, or even their god are not. When making fun of religion is done by making fun of the religion's God or some prophet, for instance (as they often are), isn't the thing being made fun of just as "outside" the believer as a car or a movie character?

What's the substantive difference between making fun of Jesus in front of a Christian and making fun of James Bond in front of a die-hard Bond fan? You said that Bond is different because the fan isn't Bond himself, but by the same token, the Christian isn't Jesus either.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What's the substantive difference between making fun of Jesus in front of a Christian and making fun of James Bond in front of a die-hard Bond fan?

Good grief …

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unfortunately, I am aware of no evidence from psychology that would suggest there is any profound distinction between someone self-identifying with a religion and someone self-identifying with, say, a political ideology. In individual cases, I'm sure that we can find instances of people who are more self-identified with their religion than with their politics. But I think we would find just as many cases of it being the other way around.

Psychologically, there is a difference:

I'll have to find a link, but I've read of functional MRI studies where the subject is asked questions about their own preferences, the preferences of other people, and the preferences of God. Generally, when a person was asked how God felt about something, the pattern of brain activity would match the pattern when they were asked about their own preferences, not the pattern when they were asked about someone else's.

This suggests to me that a person's God may be nothing more than a projection of himself or herself. In this light, it makes sense why people would take mockery of their religion much more personally than other forms of ridicule. However, I gather that these studies are heavily disputed by many religious people. Also, if they are correct, then they would probably warrant a veey different approach to religion than the one we generally use in this society.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good grief …

Thanks for cherry-picking the quote and leaving out the context. :sarcastic

 

[Sunstone]

Psychologically, there is a difference:

I'll have to find a link, but I've read of functional MRI studies where the subject is asked questions about their own preferences, the preferences of other people, and the preferences of God. Generally, when a person was asked how God felt about something, the pattern of brain activity would match the pattern when they were asked about their own preferences, not the pattern when they were asked about someone else's.

This suggests to me that a person's God may be nothing more than a projection of himself or herself. In this light, it makes sense why people would take mockery of their religion much more personally than other forms of ridicule. However, I gather that these studies are heavily disputed by many religious people. Also, if they are correct, then they would probably warrant a veey different approach to religion than the one we generally use in this society.

I've heard of those studies and I find them interesting. But I'm not sure of their relevance here. Is it possible that you misunderstood precisely what I'm talking about?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've heard of those studies and I find them interesting. But I'm not sure of their relevance here. Is it possible that you misunderstood precisely what I'm talking about?

I think I understood you. My point was that the sort of self-identification involved in religion may very well be psychologically different from the sort of self-identification involved with political affiliation, even though they're commonly put forward as similar.

 

[Sunstone]

I think I understood you. My point was that the sort of self-identification involved in religion may very well be psychologically different from the sort of self-identification involved with political affiliation, even though they're commonly put forward as similar.

Maybe. But I don't think the experiments you cited show that. Self-identification seems to me a different psychological process than what they were researching, albeit there would appear to be a superficial resemblance.

 

[ChristineES]

Thanks for cherry-picking the quote and leaving out the context. :sarcastic

I don't see it. Jesus is a religious icon and is worshiped by people. James Bond is a character in books and movies. There is no comparison, in my opinion in comparing making fun of the two.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't see it. Jesus is a religious icon and is worshiped by people. James Bond is a character in books and movies. There is no comparison, in my opinion in comparing making fun of the two.

I should be clear that I would, in no way, make fun of someone for being a James Bond fan.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't see it. Jesus is a religious icon and is worshiped by people. James Bond is a character in books and movies. There is no comparison, in my opinion in comparing making fun of the two.

"Fictional" characters are worshipped to, but we don't tend to put that word to it. Functionally, the adoration, idolization, respect, and reverence people show to modern mythologies is often greater than that people show for the mythos of their actual religion. That's something I've found rather curious. I don't see why we don't just take modern mythology and "fictions" seriously as a source of inspiration and a grounding for contemporary religions. I do. It's not like there's anything wrong with deifying James Bond or basically using him as one icon or model for one's way of life. People do it anyway, they just don't call it religion or deification for some reason.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't see it. Jesus is a religious icon and is worshiped by people. James Bond is a character in books and movies. There is no comparison, in my opinion in comparing making fun of the two.

I'm sure you've heard of the Pacific island Cargo Cults. During WWII, the US stored goods on some of those islands and the islanders began to worship the God of Cargo, I guess.

If I were among those people, I wouldn't make fun of the Cargo Cults, but if I were among my friends back home, I might feel free to tell jokes about it.

Even if I thought that the islanders might one day read my jokes online, I'd probably still make jokes about it, since I consider it funny.

For me, it's the same with Stone Tablets on Mount Sinai, Sons of God walking the streets of Jerusalem, desert prophets taking nighttime flights to Jerusalem, etc. I find all of that pretty bizarre. And while I won't poke fun in front of believers, if I can help it, I might make jokes about it when hanging out with my rationalist buds.

What I'm trying to say is that however you feel about the most bizarre religious beliefs you can imagine... that's how I feel about some religions which are taken seriously by the people around me. I try to be respectful, but at the same time, I can't help sometimes pointing out what seems a bit absurd about them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I should be clear that I would, in no way, make fun of someone for being a James Bond fan.

Sure, but Star Wars geeks... they're fair game!

 

[sojourner]

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.

Close, but no cigar. We may identify closely with a political POV or philosophy. But we are not the party or the candidate -- or the issue. However, where religion is concerned, It's not something we "join," although that's the typical, bourgeois way of looking at it. Rather, religion is something to which we are called -- and called within our innate selves, not from without. It's not something that we "espouse," although, again, bourgeois attitudes understand "faith" as some set of beliefs or tenets that one "espouses," or "adopts" into a pre-existing "way of life," as opposed to an actualization of who we innately are created to be.

Please note that I didn't say "religious affiliation." This has nothing to do with denominational polity or church membership. We can tell Catholic jokes all day. What's at stake here isn't the claptrap of the polity, it's the self-identity of those who identify who they are by the faith-statements that arise out of self-awareness. That's "religion." And that shouldn't ever be made fun of.

 

[sojourner]

Unfortunately, I disagree with your analysis. I am aware of no evidence from psychology that would suggest there is any profound distinction between someone self-identifying with a religion and someone self-identifying with, say, a political ideology. In individual cases, I'm sure that we can find instances of people who are more self-identified with their religion than with their politics. But I think we would find just as many cases of it being the other way around.

Well, sure. "Self-identifying with a religion" and identifying with the polity of the "machine" is substantively the same as identifying with a political ideology. but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the self-awareness out of which belief is formed, and out of which the affinities for particular polities are constructed. Make fun of the polities. Don't bully the awareness of self.

 

[sojourner]

You said that Bond is different because the fan isn't Bond himself, but by the same token, the Christian isn't Jesus either.

Au contraire! Christians are the body of Christ. It's a metaphysical distinction that is entirely cogent to the topic under debate.

 

[McBell]

Even if a person's religion is "part of them", their church, denomination, or even their god are not. When making fun of religion is done by making fun of the religion's God or some prophet, for instance (as they often are), isn't the thing being made fun of just as "outside" the believer as a car or a movie character?

What's the substantive difference between making fun of Jesus in front of a Christian and making fun of James Bond in front of a die-hard Bond fan? You said that Bond is different because the fan isn't Bond himself, but by the same token, the Christian isn't Jesus either.

Good grief …

Thanks for cherry-picking the quote and leaving out the context. :sarcastic

I wonder why he did not answer the question?
Even in the out of context way he presented your question, it is legitimate.

Strip away the personal attachments and there is no difference at all.

 

[Willamena]

I wonder why he did not answer the question?
Even in the out of context way he presented your question, it is legitimate.

For someone with no understanding of "god," no doubt it is legitimate. It paints a caricature, and compares it to another.

 

[McBell]

For someone with no understanding of "god," no doubt it is legitimate. It paints a caricature, and compares it to another.

Yes, but it is comparing apples to apples...

Yet so many people take epic offense to it.