Jesus speaks at GOP fundraiser

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:29 am

This is pretty funny:

http://www.slate.com/id/2124768/

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:00 am

Funny? No.

Sad commentary on the Republicans' lust for more and more money? Absolutely.

Side note: why is it that pundits use Christ in satire peices like this? Why not Mohammed? Why not Buddha?

Are we afraid of offending their believers? If so, what about offending Christians?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:20 am

Well, since the GOP tends to hold out Jesus Christ as their inspiration for so much of their policy, it makes for good satire when Jesus is used in a literal way in the present tense to point out some of the contradictions in their own policy versus his teachings.

I have seen plenty of satire that incorporates other religious figures, but it has to be set in a context that makes sense for the culture in particular that is being satirized.

I'm sure it's not a conspiracy against Christians or in favor of other religions -- it's just a function of the fact that Christianity if the most prevalent religion in our country, and therefore is that much more likely to be the subject of satire by American writers.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:23 am

GOD:

All Knowing
All Powerful

Just can't handle money. I am sure the Devil can spare a good accountant or even a lawyer for that matter!

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:06 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:Well, since the GOP tends to hold out Jesus Christ as their inspiration for so much of their policy, it makes for good satire when Jesus is used in a literal way in the present tense to point out some of the contradictions in their own policy versus his teachings.

I have seen plenty of satire that incorporates other religious figures, but it has to be set in a context that makes sense for the culture in particular that is being satirized.

I'm sure it's not a conspiracy against Christians or in favor of other religions -- it's just a function of the fact that Christianity if the most prevalent religion in our country, and therefore is that much more likely to be the subject of satire by American writers.

So that makes it okay? What would the reaction be if I slandered [insert demographic group here] by attempting humor and justified it by saying that it's expected, so buck up and deal with it?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:40 am

Who exactly is being slandered in this example?

Speaking directly to satire, I do think that satire is an important part of the social dialogue in our culture. It utilizes irony to point out the absurdities in our world that we don't often see because we are too close to them. Only by changing the perspective on a subject of the viewer/reader entirely in an unexpected way can one make a point.

Shows like South Park, The Simpsons, and the Family Guy are brilliant for utilizing this concept so well, and often make very insightful social commentary in the process. The Onion has become a household name using the same method.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:48 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:Who exactly is being slandered in this example?

"Slander" was not the word I intended. Forgive my mental difficulties--my brain is still functioning on Korea time. I meant plain old vanilla "offended."

BAC wrote:Shows like South Park, The Simpsons, and the Family Guy are brilliant for utilizing this concept so well, and often make very insightful social commentary in the process. The Onion has become a household name using the same method.

I'm not saying satire is wrong--I happen to enjoy most satirical bits. I was just wondering what the reaction would be had the same satirical peice used Mohammed or Buddha as the speaker. I think no one would write that peice because we've become so sensitive to offending others.

I then postulated that the same thought should be given to satiring Christian beliefs--but it's not.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:55 am

I have seen lots of examples of satire that specifically do use Mohammed and Buddha as speakers as well. In fact, every one of the TV shows I noted above have used them, as has The Onion. What makes those shows (and good satirists in general) good at what they do is that they aren't afraid of offending people, but they also make a solid point in the process and aren't just tweaking somebody for the sake of tweaking them.

As an aside, Mohammed is getting plenty of bad press as it is ... satire is the least of his worries, although some humorless and fatwa-happy clerics might disagree.