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.

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?

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

There are examples of mocking in the Bible.

Certainly, no individual, or group, that was/is a victim of mockery, or discrimination, gets a “pass”, to mke fun of others.

Here you go:

“Home Invasion”: Vote NO on Prop 8.