When Is It Funny?
We were silent too long last week, but we experienced some technical difficulties with our news gathering system and my recovery is not yet to a point where I can chase this stuff down rapidly.
“South Park” Hates Religion
I know that the cartoon “South Park” can be outrageously funny, but I never could watch it on a routine basis, I was uncomfortable that it made so much fun of people’s misfortune and when it discussed religion it just made me angry. I speak in the past tense because while the show is still in production, I have paid no attention in a very long time. But it hit the news this past week for the first time in a long time.
It caught my eye when our friend Peggy Fletcher Stack pointed out that the creators of South Park are crafting a Broadway musical based on the Book of Mormon. But then Comedy Central decided to edit (censor?) an episode based on its depictions of Mohammed and apparent threats from Islamic sources. Here is the story from:
I’ve never thought religion was a good place for humor, other than perhaps self-deprecating humor. People who take their faith seriously think to make fun of it is sacrilegious. I am not sure that being even-handedly sacrilegious helps much either, it just insults more people. While I would never deny Jon Stewart the right to do the “comedy” he profiles in Lowell’s post, I did not find it funny. Note that Lowell had to warn you about it.
Years ago there was a televangelist by the name of Earnest Angley. He was almost the definition of “self-parody.” (Sadly I cannot find him on YouTube.) I would watch that show and laugh until I cried. Then one day he came to South Bend, Indiana where I was living. A Catholic priest friend of mine and I decided to “take in the show.” (Imagine that, a Catholic priest in the same town as Notre Dame University, but I digress) Earnest Angely ceased being funny when we were sitting in that audience. Not because his shtick was different – it wasn’t – but because of how seriously those sitting around us took it. It was not shtick from their perspective and had I sat there and laughed, I would have accomplished nothing but to hurt them. Not to mention that even though I disagreed pretty extensively with ‘ol Earnest’s take on Christianity, to squelch, through laughter, what faith these people did have – I would have made enemies when I needed to make friends.
Death, physical violence, and other threats are an inappropriate response to sacrilege. While it may be a matter of free speech to allow sacrilege – legally – such sacrilege is nonetheless highly inappropriate. There are other ways to be funny. That being the case, the old Jewish tradition of “shunning” makes a lot of sense. Of course, threats of violence should be responded to with appropriate physical safeguards for the objects of the threats, but beyond that, silence should be the response. When we verbally respond to the prevarications of those that threaten we act as if they matter, when we should be shunning then from the community of the reasonable.
Speaking of which, would coverage like that wanted by GetReligion here make rifts wider or smaller? I am wondering if it does not give voice to those that should be shunned.
The National Day Of Prayer
I have to part with my friend Hugh Hewitt who this week denounced on-air the court decision declaring the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. Hugh, of course, defended the non-sectarian practice of the day – but the problem is its practice has grown increasingly sectarian in recent years. To his credit, President Obama is attempting to defend the day in court.
But Obama should do more. He needs to “fire” (he does not have direct power to do so, but needless to say he can bring an inordinate amount of pressure to bear on those that can) Shirley Dobson, Chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, and bring in someone that can bring a far less sectarian feel to the enterprise. The first action by that person should be to put institutional controls in place that will prevent the kinds of abuses seen under Shirley Dobson from occurring again.
If those events occur, then perhaps in deed, and not simply legal argument, the National Day of Prayer will have a leg to stand on as the appeals move forward. Otherwise, I don’t think the defenders of the day have a leg to stand on
SCOTUS
Do we care about the religious make-up of the Supreme Court? I care about judicial philosophy and credentials, but religion? This is supposed to be our first “post-racial” administration, a term defined by many to mean that race simply does not matters, politics alone does. If we accept that definition, I’m ready for “post-religious” too.
That’s going to bring a lot of howls from a lot of my friends, but I’d much rather have a judge that votes to overturn Roe v Wade based on sound legal reason regardless of the religion, than one that votes to overturn based simply on religious conviction. The first vote is defensible in the American system, the second reduces such a critical issue to simple sectarian adherence.
That Kennedy Speech
Archbishop Chaput continues to discuss it. (HT: First Thoughts) At some point, I think this argument gets too far into the long grass. The difference lies in dogmatism and reason, not religious influence. When we elect someone, I think we expect them to be true to themselves, and religion is an enormous part of the formation of an individuals character. but we do not enact national policy on the basis of religious dogma – we enact it on the basis of reason and truth.
Now, most of us believe our religion to be the source of truth, and that is fine, but truth is evident on its own, and we can argue based on that fact, but to simply dogmatically dictate policy is a problem.
Kennedy, I believe, overstated. He wanted to make sure people understood that Rome could not use him to dictate American policy and in so overstating he did move things a a wrong and secularist direction, but I also believe that direction was inevitable.
Which brings us to…
This little NYTimes book review by Mark Halperin:
Romney deals not a whit with either his well-earned reputation for moving right on critical issues or the unique political challenges his Mormon faith represents. If he runs again, he will have to address both matters. It is striking that he chose not to do so here.
Boy, talk about an attempt to force an issue. But then Halperin’s partisan leanings have long been evident. But it is interesting to note how, even in 2008, Romney has stopped short of the overstatement that Kennedy made in the ’60′s and how pilloried he was for that after the “Faith in America” speech.
You know, Romney is loathe to “toot his own horn” character wise, which is in itself a mark of character, but I wonder if the key to this thing in ’12 is to shift the discussion to character versus dogma as I outlined above? Thinking out loud here – comments?
Posted in Reading List, Religious Bigotry | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
CarlH on 26 Apr 2010 at 10:48 am #
Ross Douthat had an op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday that does a pretty good job of summing up the South Park censorship controversy, and concludes with this insightful view of what it says about our culture:
A Little More on South Park and Satirizing Religion | Article VI Blog | Lowell Brown on 26 Apr 2010 at 11:42 am #
[...] Comments CarlH on When Is It Funny?When Is It Funny? | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on Defending Our Dobson Context ContentionCarlH [...]
coltakashi on 26 Apr 2010 at 1:53 pm #
Halperin the reviewer of Romney’s book is obviously disappointed that Romney did not write the book that Halperin wanted him to write, so Halperin could have an excuse to criticize Romney all over again at length for the fact that people who didn’t like Romney had such a good time repeating the specious claims that he was a political chameleon and that this was due in no small part to being a Mormon, since all Mormons cannot be trusted.
Halperin attacks Romney’s book for praising American values and policies of the past century that made and kept America strong enough to serve as the leading superpower of the world. Halperin calls this a relic of Romney’s “childhood”, which apparently ended with the Bush Administration in 2009, according to Halperin. Halperin also criticizes Romney for not proposing “new” solutions to America’s problems in dealing with the resurgent Russia, China and Jihadist Islam. On the other hand, Halperin offers no reason why the “old fashioned” solutions Romney favors won’t work. The fact that President Obama’s adoption of a weak-state stance of mea-culpa and refusal to criticize or oppose our adversaries has no logical prospect of bringing about a favorable condition for either America or the world is not enough for Mr. Halperin. A solution that works is not enough; it must be “novel” and “creative”, especially a kind of magic solution that does not require hard work and sacrifice.
Mr. Halperin has a short memory that fails to appreciate how truly novel America’s leadership of the Free World was. Unlike every other victor in history, including the Soviet Union, the USA did not use its victory in World War II to acquire territorial control and dominion over conquered nations. It has consistently rehabilitated former enemy nations and raised them into colleagues that could join it in the defense of economic and political freedom. It has practiced justice and mercy on an international scale, something that even Britain, with its shared heritage of democratic freedoms, found difficult to do. Freedom across Europe, Asia and the rest of the world is very much a direct result of America’s support for freedom with the sacrifice of the blood of its sons.
Obama’s International Apology Tour demonstrates a blindness to this reality. There is nothing that America has done to any nation or its people since 1900 that those nations have not done worse to each other or to their own citizens. To a large extent, America is resented by many other nations precisely because it has restrained them from doing their worst to their own people and their neighbors. That is certainly the case with Russia.
Two things will happen as Obama’s American Retreat takes hold. Our allies will begin to distance themselves from us, and take either or both of two other options: Cutting deals (especially in the short term) to placate their voracious neighbors like Chiina and Russia, and taking action (especially in the long term) to increase their independent defense capabilities. For Japan, as the generation that felt guilt over World War II and resentment of the Imperial Japan government and its militarism fades away, it may well be forced to decide that it must have a France-style basic nuclear defense force of its own. As Russia shrinks to a Japan-size population, the historical conflicts along the northern boundary of the two nations, where Japan bottles up Russian shipping and forces it to pass through Japan-controlled straits, will be a potential flash point. Japan, in its own interest, will encourage independent action tantamount to secession by Russia’s Pacific provinces.