Of course they are.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it OK to make fun of religions?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Really, sojourner, you and I see things so differently. I think it is entirely true that prophets have been seen and are seen as closer to God than are average folk.
It's why people think of scripture as special -- because it was written by those with a closer connection to God.
But we're getting off point, so I'll let you have the last word on it.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yes we do see things differently. It's precisely that difference of perspective that has sparked this debate. Those who don't see the value in religion are fairly quick to dismiss it out of hand, refusing to see that it does have value for others -- indeed, that it is inseparable from who they are.
There have always been those who have been perceived as being "closer to God." If told that they are "closer to God, though, they'd deny it. Indeed, theology tells us that we're all close to God. It's not a matter of propinquity, it's a matter of discernment. That was my whole argument with Mestemia -- the "pedestal" argument. It has wholly to do with either not understanding or appreciating the nuances (perhaps the validity) of theology, and arguing from a position of misunderstanding.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Religion is about how we understand and live life, and interact with each other in community. That's not art.
Not everyone sees it that way, though...
Why art and religion are natural bedfellows | Giles Fraser | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Plenty of artists like myself and others are fully engaged in the arts as not just an integral part of our lives, but that we are what we embody. Skill sets, performance quality, and the ability to guide a captive audience are only parts of the entire equation. Art is a conversation, a journey, a meditation, and a wish. It's a call to greatness, to idealism, and encompasses more than a simple expression. It includes the audience and opens the space for the viewer, the object, the subject, and the artist to engage in the ever-evolving grand conversation.
I see religion as an art. I don't feel as if it at all demeans religion. In fact, I believe it elevates it in my eyes (I've said before that I see the Bible as a mythic narrative telling the story on how humankind seeks it's place in the Kosmos). Attempting to quantify religion, measure it, analyze empirical data, and seeing it as a science has a very different impact on my views on it. It becomes a reduction into a materialistic endeavor.
I can't - and don't want to - measure love, grief, or commitment.
The arts open the space to invite wonder, ridicule, piety, humor, austerity, and indulgence. Religion - to me - does the same. It is why I don't see religion as being off-limits to mockery. Especially if a religious belief includes harmful and abusive ideologies. Religion opens the space to include me in its audience because it exists and I exist in the space used. As an audience member, I have the opportunity and the obligation to offer feedback. Humor is tremendously helpful, because it does not seek to be liked. There's no pretense in good humor. Good humor is honest.
Now, back to suggesting that religion should not be held to mockery. That it's in bad taste. It's disrespectful. That it speaks more about the person who is mocking than not. Consider that many an artist in his or her life's work, has been willing to go to prison, to die alone and impoverished, or even to be executed publicly for his or her art. To suggest that art overall does not compare to religion is in error, IMO. These are people who understand it is much much more than putting paint to canvas, scribbling down prose, singing an anthem for a movement, or dancing to the drumbeat of a march. It is all encompassing. The universe becomes the stage, and we all participate.
And if the arts are open to ridicule, I believe religion should be too. Don't go to the artists door, kick it open, and throw acid in the persons face. Let the person be. But point and laugh all you want at the work. Any artist worth his or her salt understands it isn't personal. A religious practitioner who takes ridicule of the practice personally is simply egoistically grasping at a concept, and attempting to protect the concept/ego.
The Bullfrog
Member
The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." - Aristotle
Art is more than "the expression of a sense and beauty and form". It is an expression of the soul and a journey for the artist. The artist creates because they seek expression. An expression that is beyond what simple description and image can capture. It is something they themselves don't understand and art is their path to discovery.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Riiiight... which is what I said: art is about expression through form and beauty. Religion isn't about expression. Religion uses art for expression.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I hear what you're saying -- and I agree, for the most part. I think you and I are arguing semantics.
Entirely possible. :yes:
I'll be over here on the trampoline. You're more than welcome to join me anytime.
Or just grab a beer and watch (seems like the fellas and some chicas like doing that).
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Except that beliefs aren't even comparable to genetics, so it's a rather asinine comparison. No action or idea should be exempt from critique, scrutiny, or if warranted, contempt.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Who decides when it's warranted? What are the criteria? Who decides the criteria? Who decides what sort of critique, scrutiny, or contempt? Cultures aren't genetic, either, but it's bad form to poke fun at them.
Why is it bad form? What if I am immersed in a culture most influenced by white supremacists?
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Not worth qualifying with an answer.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
You said that it was bad form to poke fun at cultures. I think steeltoes gave you an example of a culture which very much needs fun to be poked at it.
And I feel the same about religions, or at least about some religionists. Their ideas are bad for the community, for humanity... so I'll sometimes oppose them.
McBell
Unbound
The person poking fun, critiquing, scrutinizing, and or holding the contempt.
It is then up to others to agree with or disagree with the person poking fun, critiquing, scrutinizing, and or holding the contempt.
McBell
Unbound
Really?
Why not?
Seems you have run into a conflict of interest which you wish to avoid....
So what are we making fun of: The religion itself or the person who has the religion? The OP was speaking of making fun of the religion itself and that is what we are discussing, but are we going into the dark area of making fun of an individual? There is a major difference between making fun of some religion or another and making fun of a person who follows that religion, (not really the contemptible individuals), of course, but of the mainstream folks who are just living their lives.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
He has a valid point, so if you can't answer the question then we're left with no choice but to dismiss your statement.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
What culture is that?