My misspent youth had a laugh track provided by the Monty Python crew. There was a time when saying “Neet” in a crowded room was a great way to find a fellow nerd and future friend. Like all good comics, and any prophet, the Pythons mocked the powerful and punctured pretensions.
Anybody thinking the government is here to help has never met the Ministry of Silly Walks. The well placed sneer can deflate a tyrant better than a jeremiad.
Irreverence can be good, but isn’t always. Pity the spouse of a person who uses a deflating snigger at his own wedding. Devils cannot bear to be mocked, but lovers cannot stand it either. I might poke gentle fun at my beloved in private, but it is hard to hear someone else do it.
That makes it hard to admit that the “Life of Brian” made me laugh. This late seventies film by the Pythons sends up the Gospel story by imaging a parallel non-Christ named Brian. From blessed cheese makers to inept Romans, the script is witty, though some of the gags are dated.
It is pretty impious by historic, though not by modern standards. It is funny, but that doesn’t justify just any joke.
Or does it?
Few things are bigger social stinkers than the man or woman who is too serious or cannot take a joke. Protesting any work that one finds offensive isn’t going to go well. The response will be: “it is just a book/game/movie/picture.” Of course, the shrug denigrates the power of art.
No Christian who loves art can be satisfied by pretending bad art doesn’t matter.
“Triumph of the Will,” the Nazi propaganda film, is wicked, even if it is well made. I would be disturbed by even an ironic use of the image of Stalin . . . a man who murdered millions of my fellow believers. When a work of art denigrates the powerless or inflates the ego of a tyrant, then some protest seems worth making.
Which brings me to “The Life of Brian,” and a new play, “The Book of Mormon.”
I love Jesus and He has changed my life. I owe him my allegiance as king. When I see something that borders of mockery of my Savior or later pieces of art that do attack His character, it might be funny, artistically splendid, but it also turns my stomach.
“The Life of Brian” turned my stomach in college, but because it was also funny, I let it go. I know God can take it, His throne does not totter when a group of middle-aged men have a laugh at religion, but it may not be good for me. My friend may be mentally tough enough to take mockery, but as his friend that does not mean I should like or sit through it.
Shouldn’t I at least express my discomfort? Works of art are complex, but while recognizing excellence in them, shouldn’t I point out the bad? I find the racist “Birth of a Nation” unwatchable and am horrified when I hear it was President Woodrow Wilson’s favorite.
This discomfort and disgust is socially acceptable to express. Why isn’t religious discomfort?
I am sorry I gave the “Life of Brian” too much of a pass and fear it was because comedy justifies too much. Real impiety is not good for me, because it fails to recognize reality. Of course, “Brian” is quaint compared to art and literature made and applauded since. But blasphemy is wrong, it is a sin.
I refuse to give blasphemy a personal pass.
Government shouldn’t censor, my neighbor has a right to consume it, and I can learn from what is good in any work of art, but that doesn’t mean I cannot express offense when blasphemy is part of it.
There are artistic times to use it, but rarely.
What of mocking Mormons? Can one safely blaspheme a faith one thinks is often false? I am not a Mormon and believe Mormonism is, on the whole, false, but the problems with Mormonism are widely broadcast. In fact, Mormons are disliked by the broader culture and there are many false ideas about their community and present beliefs. They also share many ideas with traditional, orthodox Christians.
Mocking the mocked seems cowardly and mean.
Safe to say mocking Mormons will cost a theater very little outside of very select regions.
When Broadway revels in impiety and offending Mormons, this disturbs me. It does not disturb me in exactly the same way as if a play mocked my own beliefs, but it breaks the Golden Rule. If I give blasphemy against Mormonism an easy personal pass, then I am not doing to another faithful man what I would have him to do to me.
Surely in a multi-religious society, this failure of the Golden Rule is dangerous.
It is also dishonoring to my Mormon friends if I ignore their pain. Why do I want to laugh at their cherished beliefs, even ones I think wrong? It is mockery that will not help them reconsider and will only harden them against my own views. God help me, but from Conan Doyle to this new play, they have been unfairly lampooned at every corner.
I would not use any stick to beat a dog and only a wicked man would use any rhetorical stick to beat on a neighbor with whom he had disagreements.
I am told this play, “The Book of Mormon,” is “affectionate” while blasphemous and brilliantly witty. The very name, however, rankles. My assumption will be that this is true, but in a society overrun with impiety, mockery, and sarcasm I find no need to fill my soul with more.
Even the Pythons seem less funny now, because when Disney films roll-the-eyes at the audience, we don’t need much more of their humor.
And so I protest this play, I hope it fails, though I suspect it will not. I protest the easy cursing and misuse of God’s name in spaces I cannot avoid. Freedom of speech, which I will grant any other man, also gives me the right to be offended.
Lord Jesus Christ son of God have mercy on me a sinner.
April 7th, 2011 | 12:58 pm | #1
I think the Pythons are less funny now because so much of their satire has become reality. And by the way, it was “silly” walks.
April 7th, 2011 | 1:17 pm | #2
“Mocking the mocked seems cowardly and mean.”
I think this could be the key issue. Satire (mockery) can be entirely appropriate (e.g. Jesus and the Pharisees), but I’m reminded of the wise rule of King Lune of Archenland:
“Never taunt a man save when he is stronger than you; then, as you please.”
April 7th, 2011 | 1:56 pm | #3
Yes, silly of me.
April 7th, 2011 | 2:06 pm | #4
On the Mormon stuff, I think it is significant whether you are mocking in order to have an entertaining laugh at their expense, or in an effort to expose the genuine absurdities of their theology to the glory of the true and living God.
Isaiah said some pretty funny stuff about the kind of a guy who cuts down a tree, toasts his cheese over part of it and worships another part of it. But it wasn’t to give the Israelites a good laff — it was in order to preach against idolatry in a deadly serious way. Though I don’t think Isaiah would have berated the man who cracked a smile at the thought…*provided he got the point.*
April 7th, 2011 | 2:46 pm | #5
I’m getting to the point where I’m “accepting” the reality and fact of Double Standards.
Eg., It’s okay to make fun of and mock Christians or Mormons, but it’s not okay to make fun of and mock Liberals or Islam.
Get trampled on while tip-toeing delicately for the easily offended. The meek will inherit the earth, yeah?
April 7th, 2011 | 3:51 pm | #6
Poking fun at ideas from powerful folk seems good, but in my area Mormons are hated by many. I see no good in it and much harm.
April 7th, 2011 | 6:10 pm | #7
but in my area Mormons are hated by many
Hated – really? Are you referring to a congregation or a geographical location?
April 7th, 2011 | 6:56 pm | #8
On The Life of Brian – it’s quite easy to say it is problematic, but exactly what parts are you thinking of? Isn’t the whole thing a parody of the church, rather than of Christ? I think a lot of the humour in it was directed at Christians, or pious/religious people in general, and much of it was deserved.
April 7th, 2011 | 7:38 pm | #9
I am talking about California. I have deep sympathy with the treatment of Mormons in my area. Today I was sitting in a store and heard non-religious people talking about Romney. They were expressing disdain for him based only on the fact that he is a Mormon. They were utterly ignorant of Mormonism.
April 7th, 2011 | 7:39 pm | #10
Well, I love the church . . . the Cross just isn’t funny to me.
April 7th, 2011 | 8:49 pm | #11
I am considering what light the passage of Elijah mocking the sacred religious beliefs and god of the prophets of Baal may shine on this topic.
April 7th, 2011 | 10:05 pm | #12
“I am considering what light the passage of Elijah mocking the sacred religious beliefs and god of the prophets of Baal may shine on this topic.”
An offensive, insensitive light. See comment #5 above.
April 8th, 2011 | 3:09 am | #13
Mocking any faith is wrong. John, thanks for showing empathy, and consideration, for mormons.
I used to be a Mormon, and most of my family is Mormon. I have great respect for Mormons, and the Mormon Church. I don’t believe it’s true, but it’s outrageous to believe that, it’s tolerable, or “funny” to make fun of, what others hold to be sacred.
Certainly, if anyone was making fun, of evengelical Christian views, and Mormons found this tolerable, Evangelicals, would rightly, be offended.
Interestingly, at least the Mormons I know, have respect for other Christians, and have even come to the defense, of Catholics, Evangelicals, and other Christians, who have been mocked.
April 8th, 2011 | 2:13 pm | #14
Bret,
Since you like Mormons, what do you think of their staunch stance against gay marriage, such as seen in Proposition 8 in California? Mormons endured a lot of bashing from the GLBT community for its anti-gay-marriage funding and stance.
April 8th, 2011 | 2:14 pm | #15
Bret,
I think there was even a Youtube video produced by Gays that mocked Mormon neighborhood missionaries.
April 9th, 2011 | 3:11 am | #16
TUAD: I believe that, gays/lesbians have a right to marry. I’ve made that very evident, in my comments. So, I clearly disagree with the mormon view, on homosexuality, which is a view, that’s not much different than the conservative Christian view, on homosexuality.
ANY mocking, of others, in my view, is wrong.
I
April 9th, 2011 | 3:13 am | #17
TUAD: I haven’t seen the you tube video, of which you speak. Do you have a link?
April 9th, 2011 | 3:33 am | #18
Bret,
Here you go:
“Home Invasion”: Vote NO on Prop 8.
April 9th, 2011 | 6:35 am | #19
As I’ve said, ANY mocking, or making fun, of anyone, is wrong.
Certainly, no individual, or group, that was/is a victim of mockery, or discrimination, gets a “pass”, to mke fun of others.
April 9th, 2011 | 1:18 pm | #20
Bret: “As I’ve said, ANY mocking, or making fun, of anyone, is wrong.”
There are examples of mocking in the Bible.
April 10th, 2011 | 4:18 pm | #21
Whats inaccurate with the video? Isn’t that what the Mormons did with Prop 8?
Ok, so they didn’t invade homes literally. But they certainly did extrinsicly. It certainly doesn’t raise to the level of Catholics and Mormons who call me a pedophile or work with or celebrate Iran at the UN to help Iran avoid criticism or condemnation when they murder people simply because they are gay or who advocate for the denial of freedom of speech, petition, protest, association, or religion in multiple nations around the world.
If a religion wishes to make law for people who don’t follow their religion, then they are fair game.
April 11th, 2011 | 1:15 pm | #22
but in my area Mormons are hated by many
Hated – really? Are you referring to a congregation or a geographical location?
There have been Mormon temple arsons in California (at least two, not counting the failed Westwood attempt), Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, and Washington.
It’s hard to find them now because Google is sending the latest releases on the Washington fire to the top of the results, but I think there were others as well.
What really upset me was the flaming Book of Mormon on the temple steps in Denver, CO. I hope that was the only such incident.
This happens because people do not see this as a public policy dispute. They see how Mormon beliefs impact their life (“coming into our living room”), but deny how the same is true in reverse – that changing the laws about gay marriage would force humanism into Mormon living rooms. Therefore, people can and do depict Mormons (and other conservatives) as invaders and bad guys, instead of more accurately recognizing a zero-sum situation where both sides disputing over where the boundary should be drawn are in fact wanting something that will be perceived as invasive to the other side.
For instance, Tom in Lazybrook says, “If a religion wishes to make law for people who don’t follow their religion, then they are fair game.”
But somehow I don’t see him supporting burning sacred icons on the step of a Unitarian Universalist church, even though Unitarians are supporting “making the law for everyone” just as much as Mormons are.
People seem to honestly believe Mormons don’t have a right to participate in the political process, since their views will be influenced by their religion. That, to me, is scary.
April 11th, 2011 | 2:20 pm | #23
And those who enjoy mockery need no pass, because no one can stop them. Those who think they can merely will become targets themselves.
April 11th, 2011 | 2:26 pm | #24
Homosexuals Call for Violence against Christian Supporters of Prop 8
Excerpts:
o “In a stunning reaction to the passage of state constitutional marriage protection amendments in California, Arizona and Florida, several self identified homosexuals on a number of homosexual blogs are advocating violence against Christians and other supporters of traditional marriage.
Additionally, some homosexuals are calling for church burnings in response to yesterday’s three state referenda in defense of natural marriage.”
o “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.”
“Angelo Ventura,” said, “… hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil!
BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM!”
And, “Jonathan,” warned, “I’m going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”
o “Meanwhile, over at JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”
April 11th, 2011 | 3:07 pm | #25
I still remember the Church of Christ down the street from my home, who has one of those sign posts where you can put up and take down letters at will. They usually put up a new Scripture verse every week. One week they had Lev. 18:22 up, ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.’ (Lev. 18:22). Within two days the whole signpost was torched and burnt to the ground.
April 11th, 2011 | 4:16 pm | #26
“One week they had Lev. 18:22 up, ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.’ (Lev. 18:22). Within two days the whole signpost was torched and burnt to the ground.”
Hi Steve,
Your story sounds very much like the following one:
“Some feel national statistics regarding homosexuals committing hate crimes against heterosexuals may be underreported. For example, the First Baptist Church in Gravois Mills was vandalized and threatened by homosexual activists and received obscene phone calls. An FBI agent refused to list the incident as a hate crime. The incident involved an anti-homosexuality Bible verse on the church’s sign.”
From Here.
April 11th, 2011 | 4:29 pm | #27
Hi TUAD,
I stopped in at the church office the day after to offer my condolences and support for standing on Biblical grounds. They were appreciative, but have never put up a similar verse since. This happened in the late 90′s.
April 11th, 2011 | 5:04 pm | #28
“They were appreciative, but have never put up a similar verse since. This happened in the late 90′s.”
That’s a long time ago.
Violence, and the threat of violence, by those who see offenses in anything that disagrees with their beliefs, and who will then act violently in response to their perceived offenses have taken away the liberty of free speech by others.
Offended Gays —> Violence.
Offended Muslims —> Violence.
Spineless Libs and Cowed Conservatives —> Silence.
April 11th, 2011 | 5:29 pm | #29
Cowed silence. What does that say about the use of violence against conservative Christians? Once violence is used as an effective tactic, we shut up? I’ve got my family, and my job, and reputation to worry about, let alone my mortgage. Quite the dilemma, eh?
April 11th, 2011 | 6:00 pm | #30
“What does that say about the use of violence against conservative Christians? Once violence is used as an effective tactic, we shut up?”
Liberals use verbal violence and physical violence against conservative Christians.
Gays use verbal violence and physical violence against conservative Christians.
Muslims use verbal violence and physical violence against conservative Christians.
Would Jesus want His disciples to shut up about Liberals, Gays, Muslims using verbal violence and physical violence?
Liberals support violent murder of the unborn. Should conservative Christians shut up?
Some GLBT’ers think upholding Scripture’s teaching that same-sex behavior is sin is Hate Speech. Should conservative Christians shut up about what Scripture teaches?
Some Muslims kill Christians for being Christian. Should conservative Christians shut up about that?
April 13th, 2011 | 9:16 am | #31
I’m sorry to come late to this conversation. In defense of “Life of Brian,” anyone with access to Netflix should check out episode five of the documentary “Monty Python: Almost the Truth,” which focuses on the making of that film. The Pythons, in reminiscing about the writing of “Life of Brian,” point out that Jesus only appears twice in the film — at the Nativity and the Sermon on the Mount — and that he is portrayed just as in Sacred Scripture. The humor occurs around Christ, rather than about Christ — it’s about how people misinterpret Christ (“Blessed are the cheesemakers?!”), not about what Christ actually does or says.
Their original drafts had much more blasphemous material, but it turned out not to be as funny. In fact, John Cleese makes a most astute — and Christologically relevant — point. Working from the Bergon theory of comedy, Cleese explains that character humor arises from the conflict between an inflexible character and the situation around him. Think of the upper-crust aristocrat who refuses to acknowledge the chaos in which he finds himself. Christ, on the other hand, would not have been inflexible. In Cleese’s words he would have been “infinitely flexible” because he had no ego — and thus attempts to turn humor on him fail.
Deflating egos — even Christian ones — seems to me an important and necessary role of comedy. In that respect, “Life of Brian” is a classic.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact