making fun of religion

[Overcomer]

A provocative article on comedians who are atheists and their use of religion as comic fodder appeared in the National Post recently. Its author wrote:

But there is another gang of hyper-confident male atheists for whom knee-slapping humour is front and centre in their atheist proselytizing, far more than science or intellectual debate. . . .

As it often does on the schoolyard, their cruel mockery conceals an insecurity, and it offers a pop cultural case study on the ancient human tendency to demonize and vilify people who think differently.

The author quotes an academic named Chris Miller:

In his paper on these comedians, Chris Miller, a PhD student in religious studies at the University of Waterloo, uses the term boundary maintenance to describe a sort of social therapy by which human communities reassure themselves about their own beliefs by describing another groups world in the language of ones own. Thus are religious people painted not as the normal adherents of ancient traditions, but as laughable and confused at best and manipulative or harmful at worst, Miller said.

Another quotation from Miller reads:

These and other comedians defend their particular worldview by negating or critiquing the worldview of others, Miller said. When atheists make fun of religious people, they are therefore pointing out what they believe should be seen as normal.

The author also quotes David Feltmate, a sociologist of religion at Auburn University, Alabama, who says:

. . . this type of humour relies on . . . ignorant familiarity, the idea that people think they are familiar with matters about which they are woefully ignorant. Other peoples religion is a classic example of this.

As Feltmate put it: When enough people share an ignorant familiarity, they can go ahead and act collectively on their ignorance, without being checked, or having to suffer serious consequences for their prejudice.

As I said, the statements are provocative. Is there any validity to them?

The complete article is here:

http://nationalpost.com/news/the-new-ga ... t-religion

[Tcg]

As I said, the statements are provocative. Is there any validity to them?

Of course there is. Once the religious fog has left the brain of a normally functioning human, the claims made by those still stuck in that fog are hilarious. The jokes write themselves.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Overcomer]

In a world of great trouble and dishonesty, it just seems that this kind of mockery is the easiest to publish. However, that doesn't make it true!

Atheists have, presumably, "no religious thoughts, whether voodoo or something else", but I expect them to "worship" stupidity the hardest. Please, see "wart"-religiousness notions of Atheism.

Perhaps, also, that religious people just study the Bible instead, rather than bothering with desperate, hysterical presentations of religious people, hoping for evil all over the planet, I suspect, as their innermost motivation by character-trait of moral blindness and other. Them, the Atheists, rejecting (Atheist/Secular) Humanism.

[marco]

The author also quotes David Feltmate, a sociologist of religion at Auburn University, Alabama, who says:

. . . this type of humour relies on . . . ignorant familiarity, the idea that people think they are familiar with matters about which they are woefully ignorant. Other peoples religion is a classic example of this.

As Feltmate put it: When enough people share an ignorant familiarity, they can go ahead and act collectively on their ignorance, without being checked, or having to suffer serious consequences for their prejudice.

As I said, the statements are provocative. Is there any validity to them?

I am bemused by the term "sociologist of religion" but universities grow many odd varieties these days. The problem with what Feltmate says is that although it has local truth it is wrong to generalise - just as wrong as making silly genralisations about all religious people or atheists.

It is reasonable to examine the lyrics of the song and to point out where the singer seems to be out of tune; it is reasonable to identify bits of the song that set wicked examples; it is also wise, now and then, to point out that sometimes religion is a force for good.

The statements are procvocative only when they are transferred from a misguided few to all who question religion. Religion needs its harsh critics. So do gods.

[marco]

Atheists have, presumably, "no religious thoughts, whether voodoo or something else", but I expect them to "worship" stupidity the hardest.

That is an odd expectation. Sentences that begin 'Americans all think that... ' are clearly making false generalisations; so too, with sentences that start "Atheists have...." Atheists, like religious people, display differences. Religious people often kill because of these differences.

The rebranding of human wisdom as stupidity was done to bring down the mighty from their seat and exalt the humble. We rely on human stupidity to give us modern technology and God to give us wasps, mosquitoes and earthquakes.

[imhereforyou]

A provocative article on comedians who are atheists and their use of religion as comic fodder appeared in the National Post recently. Its author wrote:

But there is another gang of hyper-confident male atheists for whom knee-slapping humour is front and centre in their atheist proselytizing, far more than science or intellectual debate. . . .

As it often does on the schoolyard, their cruel mockery conceals an insecurity, and it offers a pop cultural case study on the ancient human tendency to demonize and vilify people who think differently.

The author quotes an academic named Chris Miller:

In his paper on these comedians, Chris Miller, a PhD student in religious studies at the University of Waterloo, uses the term boundary maintenance to describe a sort of social therapy by which human communities reassure themselves about their own beliefs by describing another groups world in the language of ones own. Thus are religious people painted not as the normal adherents of ancient traditions, but as laughable and confused at best and manipulative or harmful at worst, Miller said.

Another quotation from Miller reads:

These and other comedians defend their particular worldview by negating or critiquing the worldview of others, Miller said. When atheists make fun of religious people, they are therefore pointing out what they believe should be seen as normal.

The author also quotes David Feltmate, a sociologist of religion at Auburn University, Alabama, who says:

. . . this type of humour relies on . . . ignorant familiarity, the idea that people think they are familiar with matters about which they are woefully ignorant. Other peoples religion is a classic example of this.

As Feltmate put it: When enough people share an ignorant familiarity, they can go ahead and act collectively on their ignorance, without being checked, or having to suffer serious consequences for their prejudice.

As I said, the statements are provocative. Is there any validity to them?

The complete article is here:

http://nationalpost.com/news/the-new-ga ... t-religion

Seems to me that anyone who takes comedy (people poking fun at others) this seriously have issues of their own. That's part of what comedy is: pointing out something different and making fun of it.
The problems are, in part:
1) Sometimes this comedy can be taken too far (not being in good nature) and
2) People getting 'mad fun of' (for lack of a better term) have thin skins; everyone is upset over everything these days.

Every mentally stable, thinking adult has the ability to know when something being said is 'in good fun' or 'directly insulting'. Political Correctness (which isn't the best term to use now as people have taken the concept too far) has resulted in people who 'can't take a joke' and over analyze everything. It's almost like a disease - the need to be upset and despondent over [pick something].

If you can't laugh at yourself, you have bigger problems than someone making fun of your religion. Or hair color. Or body type. Or choice of fabric softener. Or whatever.

[Furrowed Brow]

One thing comedy does is poke at conceits, inconsistencies, silliness, hypocrisy, pomposity. Religion is an obvious target. Politics another. It is difficult for a comedian to poke fun of a subject without coming across as a bit superior. Some are able to weave themselves into the humour so they are much a but of their own joke.

Ricky Gervais creates unattractive characters we laugh at. Well I tend to cringe more than laugh. A declared atheist I don't really find anything he said on religion funny.

Sacha Cohen spoofed an American town pretending he was about to invest millions of dollars into the town to build a mosque. I salute his bravery and recognise he has a kind of genius but I struggle to watch Cohen. I tend to wince more than I laugh.

Chris Morris' Four Lions. More clever than laugh out loud funny. But it had its moments.

Maybe I don't find Gervais, Cohen and Morris laugh out loud funny because they have a nasty streak. There is a bitterness often underneath their humour.

Australian Comedian Jim Jeffries become famous for this fifteen minute set on gun control. It is both hilarious and rings true. He did not have to be a gun owner to be funny or get it right. He has another set on religion which kind of falls flat and misses the mark. I strongly suggest you give his latest Netflix special a miss it is very poor. The point is that comedy and comedians can be very uneven and inconsistent. But the reason Jeffries gun owning set was really funny and his religious set much less so is that he was able to point out the absurdities of gun owning culture without necessarily being against it. But he definitely stands outside the gun owning culture. Cleary anti religion his religious set doesn't tickle the funny bone half as well. Sometimes an outsider looking in does not work, and sometimes it does. Jeffries is not a gun owner and that set works.

George Carlin made several swipes at religion. To be honest his religious sets make me smile a bit at times but they don't get to the level of a chuckle. Carlin and Jeffries both seem angry at religion, whilst Jeffries is not angry at gun owners. Maybe there is a lesson there.

Irish comedian Dave Allen famously joked about religion all the time and he was very funny. A religious sceptic who described himself as "a practising atheist...thank God". But he wasn't anti religion. He always ended his sets with "may your God go with you". I think Allen was conflicted and that was the root of his humour.

If you are British perhaps the funniest sitcom in the last forty years was Father Ted. (Apparently this show leaves American's puzzled but maybe you have to be British). Whilst the shows picks fun of the Catholic Church and two very stupid Irish priests, the humour is still warm. It was not an anti religious show or at least you would need a sense of humour bypass to take it that way.

Freud thought that one role of humour was to give expression to what society would usually forbid. Father Ted laughs at two Irish priests and written in the mid 90s at a time when the Irish Catholic church was just about to lose authority and see its congregations slashed. Maybe there is a connection there or maybe I'm reaching.

There are several alternative theories of humour besides Freud. It seems like Chris Miller is offering his own theory of humour. Given the examples that come to my mind I would note that humour and comedy works best when it is not angry at its subject.

Back in the 80s Britain had a plethora of angry political comedians all shaking a metaphorical fist at Margaret Thatcher. Some of these comedians could at times be very funny but frankly their political satire was blunt and a bit boring.

The Creators of South Park and the writes of the Book of Mormon despite making Mormonism a target of their humour seem to have a bit of a soft spot for Mormons. I'd would say there comedy comes from a warmer place than say the anti Islamic cartoons that caused so much trouble in Europe. But maybe I am mixing questions of comedy with free speech on this point. So should Jim Jeffries be allowed to carry on with a not so funny set on religion. Absolutely yes. But we don't have to watch him. Book of Mormon? Yes again. Muhammad cartoons? Qualified yes. Can and should humour be offensive without worrying about who it offends....yes that is a role of humour.

Are comedians guilty of "ignorant familiarity". Maybe some are but I don't think this criticism holds much weight. Clearly comedians like Dave allen were brought up in and around religion. The humour is observational and it draws on life experiences. Father Ted is a silly kind of humour but again the writers know their subject.

Life of Brian? Well that was just a film about a very naughty boy.

[marco]

One thing comedy does is poke at conceits, inconsistencies, silliness, hypocrisy, pomposity. Religion is an obvious target.

That was a comprehensive and beautifully summarised review of humour as she is used to parody religion. I am fond of Dave Allen and Father Ted, and I agree their humour is gentle rather than hostile, and all the better for that.

We must wait eagerly for the humorous insight into the follies of Islam and perhaps the posthumous award for the brave actor playing Muhammad.

[bluethread]

The court jester is able to get away with just about anything because he is presumed to be beyond contempt. The good comedian is aware of this and also aware enough to accept contempt when he goes over the line. When he is making a reasonable observation, he is poking fun at others. When he is making an unreasonable observation, he is making fun of himself. The problem is with the self righteous comedian that doesn't know when to see himself as the butt of the joke.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

There are a number of comedians that do a great job revealing the absurdity of religion.

The greatest humor however comes from the apologists who attempt to support religion. The level of humor produced by those who are blind to the absurdities they support far exceeds that of those who see it and point it out clearly.