Is religious satire ever unacceptable?

[Rick O'Shez]

Ireland

 

[mainliner]

IM feeling guilty.

 

[Quintessence]

What about when religion is used as a cover for intolerance, bigotry and hatred?

What about it? Anything that violates the cardinal rule of "don't be a $#@%" is typically regarded as unacceptable by cultural and social norms.

Is a mature religion one that can laugh at itself, and therefore doesn't have a big problem with people making jokes at it's expense?

No. It's a mature person; you're anthropomorphizing religion far too much here.

But, although by many this would be an indication of personal maturity, it can also be an indication of naivety. Only a naive person would suppose that jokes made at one's own expense can never have adverse consequences to one's own safety and well being.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Anything that violates the cardinal rule of "don't be a $#@%" is typically regarded as unacceptable by cultural and social norms.

The reason that some religious groups attract criticism and satire is because they indulge in intolerance and bigotry. Then when they are criticised or satirised they get hypersensitive and over-react. It's hypocrisy.

 

[oldbadger]

[QUOTE="Spiny Norman, post: 4101458, member: 48981"
If you think there are circumstances where religious satire is unacceptable, please describe what they are.[/QUOTE]

Hi....
Yep, I think that some satire (religious) is unacceptable.
Let's say, for instance, that a satirical mage or telly program deliberately picks on a religion's god, or messenger, and portrays that in a crude and nasty picture...... say, a cartoon?

How would we feel if, say, we or our spouses were photographed and then portrayed in the media with our bodies photo-shopped to show huge (or tiny) genitals and have fun made of us? Could we cope with that?

I'd be really upset if my wife's face or head was phot0-shopped onto a picture of a woman having sex against a wall........ how would you feel about that (your wife, not mine! )

And so, yeah, I think we need to revisit what we call freedopm of expression/speech etc.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Let's say, for instance, that a satirical mage or telly program deliberately picks on a religion's god, or messenger, and portrays that in a crude and nasty picture...... say, a cartoon?

How would we feel if, say, we or our spouses were photographed and then portrayed in the media with our bodies photo-shopped to show huge (or tiny) genitals and have fun made of us? Could we cope with that?

I don't think those are at all the same.

 

[Quintessence]

The reason that some religious groups attract criticism and satire is because they indulge in intolerance and bigotry. Then when they are criticised or satirised they get hypersensitive and over-react. It's hypocrisy.

And? If someone is a $#@%, does that make it acceptable to be a $#@% in return? Isn't that hypocrisy as well? Seems to me all that does is magnify the amount of $#@% in the human world. *shrug*

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think those are at all the same.

In what way do you feel they are different? Aren't both defiling something that is sacred and of value to someone else?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If someone is a $#@%, does that make it acceptable to be a $#@% in return?

You're missing my point.

Person A is acting like a complete ****
Person B points this out.
Person A starts whining about being victimised and then acts like an even worse ****

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Aren't both defiling something that is sacred and of value to someone else?

"Defiling" is melodramatic. People satirise peoples' political beliefs all the time, why do religious types get so precious and over-sensitive about their beliefs? I don't see the difference.

 

[columbus]

In what way do you feel they are different? Aren't both defiling something that is sacred and of value to someone else?

They are very different. One is defiling an actual person. The other is shining a spotlight on the shortcomings of an abstract concept.

One of the ways western values are superior to Islamic values is that we generally put living people over abstract concepts like honor and piety.

Generally.

Tom

 

[Quintessence]

You're missing my point.

Person A is acting like a complete ****
Person B points this out.
Person A starts whining about being victimised and then act like an even worse ****

Okay? What is your point exactly? Are you simply pointing out the universal human tendency to react negatively when other people criticize us? If so, well... uh... sure? We all do it? That's not going to change any time soon? And it's mediated by a whole host of factors, ranging from personality to circumstances?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are you simply pointing out the universal human tendency to react negatively when other people criticize us? If so, well... uh... sure? We all do it?

No, we don't all do it to that extent,that's the point. And if somebody is acting like a complete **** then criticism is justified.

Political parties get a lot of flak when they go off the rails and mess up peoples lives, why not religious groups? Why should religious groups be exempt from justified criticism?

 

[columbus]

Okay? What is your point exactly? Are you simply pointing out the universal human tendency to react negatively when other people criticize us? If so, well... uh... sure? We all do it? That's not going to change any time soon? And it's mediated by a whole host of factors, ranging from personality to circumstances?

"React negatively" is not comparable when one person draws a cartoon and the other mows down a crowd with a machine gun.

Tom

 

[Quintessence]

"Defiling" is melodramatic. People satirise peoples' political beliefs all the time, why do religious types get so precious and over-sensitive about their beliefs? I don't see the difference.

Calling it defilement is not melodramatic at all, if one bothers to look at things from the point of view of the other person. See, this isn't about how you see things. It's not about how I see things either. It's about how the person being offended sees things. And maybe they have a melodramatic personality. So what? If you don't like it, eschew that person from your life.

As for the habits of "religious types," could you elaborate on what that means? I didn't realize that such an extraordinarily heterogenous category that covers pretty much the entire human species was a "type."

They are very different. One is defiling an actual person. The other is shining a spotlight on the shortcomings of an abstract concept.

One of the ways western values are superior to Islamic values is that we generally put living people over abstract concepts like honor and piety.

Generally.

Tom

Huh? What's Islam or western values got to do with any of this?

That aside, see what I wrote above. The exact nature of the thing identified as sacred and valuable is really kind of irrelevant with respect to how people emotionally react to it being criticized.

No, we don't all do it to that extent,that's the point. And if somebody is acting like a complete **** then criticism is justified.

To what extent? Were we talking about a specific example? I wasn't, so I have no idea what I'm supposed to be using here as a basis for evaluation.

Also, I didn't say criticisms cannot be justified. Humans are fantastic at coming up with all sorts of reasons and rationalizations for things, so I really couldn't care less whether or not a criticism is justified or not. What I question is the mode of delivery and the usefulness of speaking it.

 

[Quintessence]

"React negatively" is not comparable when one person draws a cartoon and the other mows down a crowd with a machine gun.

Tom

Obviously.

I have no idea what you're talking about, by the way. I'm not talking about specific examples, guys. I'm speaking in the general. So if there's some sort of sensational news story you're referring to, I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think those are at all the same.

Well, obviously they're not the same, but.......

Let me try another....
Let's say that a journalist doesn't like dogs.
So we get an article about dirty dogs (whatever) together with a cartoon of a vet carrying out a caesarean op on a pregnant dog, but nurses are taking the puppies and chopping them up with axes, then throwing them in the bin. Is this a form of free-expression about a journalist's feelings for nasty doggies? I reckon that you'd get a 'bit' of a kick-back on that........... especially in the UK!

Now pick on a religious group's religious icon, or God, or messenger and portray same with horribly exaggerated features etc....... OK?..... or not?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's about how the person being offended sees things. And maybe they have a melodramatic personality.

If somebody is acting like a complete **** then they need to be told. If they're "offended" tough luck.

 

[columbus]

Obviously.

I have no idea what you're talking about, by the way. I'm not talking about specific examples, guys. I'm speaking in the general. So if there's some sort of sensational news story you're referring to, I have no idea what you're talking about.

At the moment we are talking in the context of, yet again, Muslims responding to criticism with murder. This time in France.

Tom

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Now pick on a religious group's religious icon, or God, or messenger and portray same with horribly exaggerated features etc....... OK?

I still don't see the difference between religious satire and political satire. It's apparently fine for some religious types to discriminate against gay people, but criticise them and they start whining about being discriminated against. It's sheer hypocrisy.

Do you remember the Spitting Image puppets?