Is it OK to make fun of religions?

[sojourner]

No, they shouldn't. It's been part of my point all along. Why should some religious beliefs be given more protection from mockery than others?

But I also want to point out another aspect that has caught my attention....it seems as if we're arguing in this thread the possibility of the extremes of behavior. And the argument tends to ignore the HUGE gray area in between. The "making fun of religions" is being taken to be equated to the big muscle-bound jock who kicks sand in the face of the smaller guy on the beach. When it can be something along the lines of lightheartedly cheering and winking to follow Christians this Sunday that we're looking forward to "Zombie Jesus Day."

To say that they're both the same is wildly inaccurate. There is a gulf of possibilities of humorous references in between the kick-in-the-teeth insult, and the walking-on-eggshells "I'm just kidding" apologetic humor.

I pointed this out at the beginning when I stated that we need to clarify what is meant by "making fun."

 

[Sunstone]

The Atheist mind set refuses to argue from theology. This is, however, patently an infantile argument, because it argues from a very poor theological basis. If you can't think like those who don't think like you, why bother to argue at all?

While it's generally a good thing to be able to understand how other people see the world, it does not strike me as especially reasonable to dismiss atheism as infantile because of its rejection of theology. You seem to be assuming that anyone who rejects theology does not understand theology.

 

[Sunstone]

...it seems as if we're arguing in this thread the possibility of the extremes of behavior. And the argument tends to ignore the HUGE gray area in between.

True, it's easier to argue against extremes.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't believe that the bible is "the word of God," as that phrase is usually understood. And I'm a Christian. BUT -- I don't cross the line and further state that such a belief is "wrong," "stupid," or "unhealthy."

Oh, I definitely think it's unhealthy. And I don't think it's crossing the line for me to say so. Word worship is unhealthy.

In a message you just now posted, you spoke of the infantile arguments of atheists. That's probably crossing some line somewhere, but it sure doesn't bother me to hear you claim such a thing, as mistaken as it seems.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When you remove Jesus from the equation, you have no religion left. It's -- as you say -- a straw man argument, and deserves no answer.

So now Mary has nothing to do with the Christian religion? Funny - I've never heard that one before.

 

[Sunstone]

I think my objection to humorous takes on religion and religious beliefs, customs, rituals, etc might be coming down to when such takes vilify or demonize people, or when they misrepresent people or religions by not having a core of truth to them.

 

[sojourner]

While it's generally a good thing to be able to understand how other people see the world, it does not strike me as especially reasonable to dismiss atheism as infantile because of its rejection of theology. You seem to be assuming that anyone who rejects theology does not understand theology.

You misread, Sunstone. I'm not dismissing atheism as infantile. I'd never do that, because I respect the atheist position. I'm dismissing the theological argument that has been presented as infantile (loving Jesus is the same as loving James Bond -- the "pedestal" argument). The argument isn't an "atheist argument," because, by definition, atheism cannot argue from theology.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, I definitely think it's unhealthy. And I don't think it's crossing the line for me to say so. Word worship is unhealthy.

In a message you just now posted, you spoke of the infantile arguments of atheists. That's probably crossing some line somewhere, but it sure doesn't bother me to hear you claim such a thing, as mistaken as it seems.

No. I didn't say that. Read it again.

Wait a minute... I'll read it again, because you're the second person to take it the wrong way -- that certainly isn't what I meant. Lemme double check.

 

[sojourner]

I see the problem in post #337, and I've rectified it. Please read it again. it was hastily written, and didn't accurately reflect what I'd hoped to say.

I don't think the atheist position is infantile.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, I definitely think it's unhealthy. And I don't think it's crossing the line for me to say so. Word worship is unhealthy.

In a message you just now posted, you spoke of the infantile arguments of atheists. That's probably crossing some line somewhere, but it sure doesn't bother me to hear you claim such a thing, as mistaken as it seems.

You may think it's unhealthy. But I think it's in poor taste to say so in such a way as to deliberately demean someone.

 

[sojourner]

While it's generally a good thing to be able to understand how other people see the world, it does not strike me as especially reasonable to dismiss atheism as infantile because of its rejection of theology. You seem to be assuming that anyone who rejects theology does not understand theology.

What I assume is that anyone who puts forth a poor theological argument either doesn't take theology seriously enough to waste time arguing with, or doesn't understand theology enough to make an argument worthwhile. It has nothing to do with atheism per se.

 

[sojourner]

So now Mary has nothing to do with the Christian religion? Funny - I've never heard that one before.

That's not what I said, now, was it?

Poor argument form, Penguin.

What I said (for the second time) is that if you take Jesus out of the equation (which is what you're trying to do) then you have no religion left. (Hint: That's why the religion is called... "Christianity".) Mary is corollary to the whole Jesus thing.

Another poor attempt at a poor theological argument.

 

[sojourner]

I think my objection to humorous takes on religion and religious beliefs, customs, rituals, etc might be coming down to when such takes vilify or demonize people, or when they misrepresent people or religions by not having a core of truth to them.

That constitutes "bullying." Yes?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You may think it's unhealthy. But I think it's in poor taste to say so in such a way as to deliberately demean someone.

Sometimes it can't be helped. People often feel demeaned when they hear a truth which discomfits them. Creationists may feel demeaned to hear that humans share lineage with apes, but I think NatGeo does right to ignore Creationist sensitivities when presenting nature programs on TV.

For me, it is a Great and Necessary Truth that people should discard the notion of scripture. At least in any sense that even hints of word worship. So I feel like I have to say that. Same with prophets. I think it's unhealthy (wrong) to believe that another human has a closer connection to God than each one of us has. So I say that.

I don't think the pain of contrary truths can be helped, really. Not for those who hang their whole lives on a particular truth... which generally means 'the religious'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not what I said, now, was it?

It is, actually. You said that an analogy where Jesus was replaced with Mary had "no religion left".

At least, that was the best interpretation I could come up with. That last post of yours came off as rather confused. I did my best, but was uncertain - that's why I phrased my reply as a question for clarification.

What I said (for the second time) is that if you take Jesus out of the equation (which is what you're trying to do) then you have no religion left. (Hint: That's why the religion is called... "Christianity".) Mary is corollary to the whole Jesus thing.

Another poor attempt at a poor theological argument.

So is the Christian also part of Mary? If so, does this apply to all religious figures?

Note: just so I'm not misunderstood again: this is not me trying to impose any sort of view on you; this is just me trying to tease a point out of what you're saying.

 

[ChristineES]

The whole trouble with the Jesus vs. James Bond argument is: 1. Although an atheist would not believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God, we, as Christians do. 2. I can't argue or give an answer to the question to the answer because I, as a Christian, don't see Jesus as a fictional character, while James Bond is a fictional character. 3. A comment I made earlier that was ignored was: Christianity is an established religion while there is no religion worshiping James Bond, just some fan clubs. It may be the same if someone ever establishes James Bondism.

I was only able to compose these answers after a couple of days of thinking about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The whole trouble with the Jesus vs. James Bond argument is: 1. Although an atheist would not believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God, we, as Christians do.

But what about being the Son of God implies that it's not okay to make fun of Jesus?

2. I can't argue or give an answer to the question to the answer because I, as a Christian, don't see Jesus as a fictional character, while James Bond is a fictional character.

I don't think this is relevant here. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it would work just as well if James Bond was replaced with Ronald Reagan or some other real person who isn't a religious figure but is held in high regard by people.

3. A comment I made earlier that was ignored was: Christianity is an established religion while there is no religion worshiping James Bond, just some fan clubs. It may be the same if someone ever establishes James Bondism.

But this is circular. The original question was why it should be okay to make fun of a non-religious figure but not okay to make fun of a religious figure. We realize that Jesus is central to the Christian religion; the question is why that should place Jesus or other religious figures and ideas off-limits from being made fun of to a greater extent than other people and ideas - real or fictional - that aren't religious.

 

[steeltoes]

The whole trouble with the Jesus vs. James Bond argument is: 1. Although an atheist would not believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God, we, as Christians do. 2. I can't argue or give an answer to the question to the answer because I, as a Christian, don't see Jesus as a fictional character, while James Bond is a fictional character. 3. A comment I made earlier that was ignored was: Christianity is an established religion while there is no religion worshiping James Bond, just some fan clubs. It may be the same if someone ever establishes James Bondism.

I was only able to compose these answers after a couple of days of thinking about it.

The Bond stories are fiction but the Bond character, apparently, is actually based on a card playing spy that lived the high life, the latest Bond movies try to reflect that character. The Jesus character may be based on a preacher type Jesus but the gospel story is fiction, so Bond and Jesus might be real life people placed into fictitious stories. They both have something in common as well as fan clubs.

 

[ChristineES]

But what about being the Son of God implies that it's not okay to make fun of Jesus?


I don't think this is relevant here. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it would work just as well if James Bond was replaced with Ronald Reagan or some other real person who isn't a religious figure but is held in high regard by people.


But this is circular. The original question was why it should be okay to make fun of a non-religious figure but not okay to make fun of a religious figure. We realize that Jesus is central to the Christian religion; the question is why that should place Jesus or other religious figures and ideas off-limits from being made fun of to a greater extent than other people and ideas - real or fictional - that aren't religious.

Nothing I said was about making fun of religion. I was talking about comparing Jesus to James Bond, an answer to another poster.

You make fun of my religion all you want, I really don't care. I've seen it before and I will see it again and again.

 

[Sunstone]

That constitutes "bullying." Yes?

I wouldn't entirely reduce it to just bullying. Significantly misrepresenting someone's views is not always considered bullying, for instance. But it's still unacceptable when it's done willfully.