Religious Parodies

[Smoke]

Awww common, it took me 3 seconds and google...

I knew the answer instantly -- but I used to watch that show every week.

 

[keithnurse]

I agree about Life of Brian being one of the best religious parodies ever. The scene of the stoning where the Roman official himself gets stoned to death has me rolling on the floor laughing every time. I also love the cartoon that shows Muhammed up in heaven and he sees in the distance some suicide bombers who just died and are on their way up to heaven and Muhammed is shouting to them "Go back! Go back! we just ran out of virgins!"

Another funny religious parody is a short article titled "Kissing Hanks ***" over at www.jhuger.com/kisshank It is a short play about a man who hears a knock at his door and John and Mary are at his door inviting him to kiss Hanks *** with them. A very funny parody of evangelistic techniques of evangelical/fundamentalist Christians.

 

[logician]

I'm not following your logic. Sorry. What does ridicule have to do with honest scholarship and inquiry?

I'm not talking about ridicule, I'm talking about honest questioning.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What do the posters on here think of religious parodies? Is this a legitimate way of criticising certain aspects of religious beliefs?

It is the only way of criticizing certain aspects of religious beliefs.

 

[Quagmire]

It is the only way of criticizing certain aspects of religious beliefs.

It's also a way of taking the core teachings out of the hands of the profiteers. :yes:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It all depends. Personally, I prefer to see people poke fun at themselves that to poke fun at other people, and there are a couple of LDS cartoonists and columnists that are hysterically funny. I don't mind good-natured parodies by "outsiders," but some of them can be intentionally inflammatory and vicious. I am more entertained by parodies about religious culture than about doctrine. Some things lend themselves to humor but some things should remain sacred.

I see what you're saying, Katzpur, and I agree. However, in extreme cases a parody need not be good-natured and it should definitely attack doctrine, perhaps even in a way that adherents would call "inflammatory and vicious". I am thinking specifically of a case like Gulliver's Travels.

 

[Willamena]

It is the only way of criticizing certain aspects of religious beliefs.

It's also an excellent way of exposing one's own ignorance of other's beliefs.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's also an excellent way of exposing one's own ignorance of other's beliefs.

An even better way to do this is to claim that all beliefs are relative and they all deserve respect.

 

[Quagmire]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...0-if-warner-bros-did-looneytunes-version.html

 

[Katzpur]

I see what you're saying, Katzpur, and I agree. However, in extreme cases a parody need not be good-natured and it should definitely attack doctrine, perhaps even in a way that adherents would call "inflammatory and vicious". I am thinking specifically of a case like Gulliver's Travels.

Okay, I remember studying Gulliver's Travels in college. Loved it. I can even remember that it was satire. It's been a long time, though. I'm pretty old, remember? Could you refresh my memory as to what it was all about and how it ties to your post?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I believe the bloody war between the Liliputians and their neighbors, over whether eggs should be eaten from the Big End or the Small End, was an attack on religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, and the doctrine of the Host/Sacrament, and the Church's entanglement with the courts of monarchs, and so on.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe the bloody war between the Liliputians and their neighbors, over whether eggs should be eaten from the Big End or the Small End, was an attack on religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, and the doctrine of the Host/Sacrament, and the Church's entanglement with the courts of monarchs, and so on.

Oh, yes! I remember. I see what you mean and I agree, but I don't believe the satire was directed towards either doctrine per se, but to the pettiness of their quarrel.

 

[ChristineES]

I do have to agree that the fact that there are so many different denominations, that people do quibble of petty and minor things. And it's not just in religion, either, it is in all things. I suppose it is human nature.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Oh, yes! I remember. I see what you mean and I agree, but I don't believe the satire was directed towards either doctrine per se, but to the pettiness of their quarrel.

Well....as soon as you say the quarrel is "petty" and liken it to egg-eating you are attacking the doctrine of the Sacrament by saying it is not all-important and that it is arbitrary. This is widely accepted today but back then it may have been regarded as a vicious attack to diminish the sacredness of the Sacrament.

 

[Katzpur]

Well....as soon as you say the quarrel is "petty" and liken it to egg-eating you are attacking the doctrine of the Sacrament by saying it is not all-important and that it is arbitrary. This is widely accepted today but back then it may have been regarded as a vicious attack to diminish the sacredness of the Sacrament.

Okay, Spinks, you win.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Okay, Spinks, you win.

I'm sorry, am I nit-picking?

 

[Katzpur]

I'm sorry, am I nit-picking?

In this particular case, no. You made a good point, and I conceded. (I do that occasionally, but don't expect it to become habitual.)