Persecuted Christians In America!

[kimmy]

They can make fun of religion all they want, but their goal is to be funny in doing so. Fail.

I don't think you and "the Catholic League" are in agreement on that point.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think you and "the Catholic League" are in agreement on that point.

-k

The only thing to disagree with, on that point, is that people shouldn't be able to make fun of religion. If they disagree, then I guess that's why they're called "the Catholic League" and not "the basic facts of constitutional law League".

[Guest American Woman]

The image was pretty crass, but that's kind of the point. When states are introducing laws requiring mandatory penetration with a 10-inch probe, I don't see any reason to try to frame the discussion delicately.

And I see it as disrespect for women - for a laugh; I don't see that as promoting women's rights. I have to wonder how much of the laughter was nervous laughter. I seriously found nothing funny about it, nor did I perceive it as doing anything to gain respect for women. I think Stewart got at laugh about Christians at the expense of women.

As for the Topeka thing... the real story is apparently that the Shawnee County prosecutor's office had their budget decimated and stopped pursuing domestic violence cases, and the city responded by repealing their civic law against domestic violence to try to force the county to resume, and the standoff only lasted a month, during which at least 35 reports of domestic violence were not pursued.

Yes, as I said, the idea was to get the state to prosecute for budget reasons; but at no time was it legal to beat your wife, as was claimed.

So while beating your wife was never legal in Topeka, it would have been accurate to say that for a month you could beat your wife in Topeka and nobody would prosecute you for it.

The truth of the story-- city council and county prosecutor playing a game of Texas Hold'em using the safety of real women as the chips-- is really not much better than the inaccurate description Stewart used.

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that men were affected in the same way? Men are subjected to domestic violence, too. This wasn't an issue only affecting women. And while it may not have been "much better" than the inaccurate description Stewart used, the point I was making is that it WAS inaccurate. But good for a laugh, eh?

Edited April 22, 2012 by American Woman

[msj]

I'm skipping by all that and pointing out that they failed in their primary objective - to be funny. They can make fun of religion all they want, but their goal is to be funny in doing so. Fail.

To you it wasn't funny.

To many people on here, and in the audience who can be heard laughing, it was funny.

So, no, not a "fail."

[msj]

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that men were affected in the same way? Men are subjected to domestic violence, too.

Men are not subjected in the "same way."

Men are not subjected to the same amount nor the same degree of domestic violence as women are.

[kimmy]

Is the image offensive to women? Taken alone and out of context perhaps it might be offensive to some. In context, I think it made sense. Ultimately if you're a woman I don't see how you could watch that clip and decide that the image was the part that offended you.

As for playing chicken with the county prosecutor by repealing the civic domestic violence law... in theory it might be a gender-neutral action, but in reality we both know that's not the case. Even though we can't obtain the information, we both know that most or all of the 23 people who were let loose from jail without charges in Topeka were men, because the large majority of reported domestic violence cases are commited by men. While we know that women can be the abusers too, and in much larger numbers than people realize, we also know that the large majority of deaths and serious injury in domestic violence incidents results to women.

So I don't agree that declining to prosecute domestic violence isn't a women's issue. The number of reported cases, and the severity of harm to the victims gives the decision a disproportionate impact on women.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Is the image offensive to women? Taken alone and out of context perhaps it might be offensive to some. In context, I think it made sense. Ultimately if you're a woman I don't see how you could watch that clip and decide that the image was the part that offended you.

Taking the entire video into consideration and thus taking it in context, the image is offensive to some. There's no "perhaps" or "might be" about it.

As for what I decided was the offensive part, I clearly stated that to be:

...I see it as disrespect for women - for a laugh; I don't see that as promoting women's rights. I have to wonder how much of the laughter was nervous laughter. I seriously found nothing funny about it, nor did I perceive it as doing anything to gain respect for women. I think Stewart got at laugh about Christians at the expense of women.

I have to wonder how all of that translates exclusively to "the image" to you. Again. I don't see the clip as supportive of women; I see it as mocking Fox News first and foremost, and Christians secondly, and promoting women's rights as a disrespectfully and poorly presented distant third, if at all. As I said, I see Stewart going for laughs regarding Fox News and Christians at the expense of women.

As for playing chicken with the county prosecutor by repealing the civic domestic violence law... in theory it might be a gender-neutral action, but in reality we both know that's not the case.

"We" know no such thing as I realize that domestic violence also involves violence against men.

Even though we can't obtain the information, we both know that most or all of the 23 people who were let loose from jail without charges in Topeka were men

Again. "We" know no such thing, especially regarding "all." I will agree that it was "most," but even at that, it was falsely presented as a women's issue on Jon Stewart, and worse, it was presented as if Topeka had actually decided that it wasn't unlawful for husbands to beat their wives. I wonder how many people saw the Daily Show or that clip and actually believe Topeka thinks it's ok for men to beat their wives; that it's legal for men to beat their wives.

While we know that women can be the abusers too, and in much larger numbers than people realize, we also know that the large majority of deaths and serious injury in domestic violence incidents results to women.

Women can be and are abusers too. I repeat, yet again. The law is in reference to domestic violence, and it's an attempt to get the state to prosecute. Being that it's against the law in all of Kansas for a man or a woman to beat their spouse, what Jon Stewart said is outright false.

So I don't agree that declining to prosecute domestic violence isn't a women's issue. The number of reported cases, and the severity of harm to the victims gives the decision a disproportionate impact on women.

I'm sure the men who have been subjected to domestic violence appreciate your seeing it as "a women's issue." I'm also willing to bet it's why more abused men don't come forward.

At any rate, in a nation of 320 million people, a good percentage of them Christians, I'm sure one or two will do something worthy of being mocked* - and we can leave this particular instance behind.

*I still say (some) Canadians care a lot more about religion in America than Americans do.

Edited April 23, 2012 by American Woman

[dre]

Decent episode. Dont see anything to complain about. Not his best work maybe but nothing much to talk about here.

[bleeding heart]

It doesn't require that IF it's a defense against the point that some things should never be said, or that the comedian had no right to mock something.

I'm skipping by all that and pointing out that they failed in their primary objective - to be funny. They can make fun of religion all they want, but their goal is to be funny in doing so. Fail.

But what's funny or not is trememdously subjective. (The Hangover Part 2, a near-literal reprise of the superior first, was apparently quite a successful film.)

Many people--including myself, Kimmy and some others here (and presumably we can extrapolate to a degree) do think it's funny. Pass.

[Michael Hardner]

But what's funny or not is trememdously subjective. (The Hangover Part 2, a near-literal reprise of the superior first, was apparently quite a successful film.)

Many people--including myself, Kimmy and some others here (and presumably we can extrapolate to a degree) do think it's funny. Pass.

There are some polarizing views on what is funny or not, but the funny-ness of this joke is likely polarized by politics, and not by that gross image as it should be. There's a place for gross out humour, and a place for pinched smile liberal titters. I like both, but I don't expect to see Noel Coward when I go to a Farrelly brothers film.

[kimmy]

Taking the entire video into consideration and thus taking it in context, the image is offensive to some. There's no "perhaps" or "might be" about it.

As for what I decided was the offensive part, I clearly stated that to be:

I have to wonder how all of that translates exclusively to "the image" to you. Again. I don't see the clip as supportive of women; I see it as mocking Fox News first and foremost, and Christians secondly, and promoting women's rights as a disrespectfully and poorly presented distant third, if at all. As I said, I see Stewart going for laughs regarding Fox News and Christians at the expense of women.

If you've concluded that the primary point of the segment was to mock Fox News, I congratulate you on your masterful grasp of the obvious. Outstanding work!

"We" know no such thing as I realize that domestic violence also involves violence against men.

(blah blah blah)

I'm sure the men who have been subjected to domestic violence appreciate your seeing it as "a women's issue." I'm also willing to bet it's why more abused men don't come forward.

Breast cancer can also strike men, but breast cancer remains seen as a "women's issue", because in terms of frequency and severity its impact is heavily weighted against women. Ditto domestic violence. There is no doubt that the decision to send 23 people jailed for domestic violence back to their homes impacted women disproportionately higher than men. There is no doubt that the decision to repeal the civic law against domestic violence was widely seen to be putting womens' safety at risk. And as such, it entirely fits in place with the other examples provided.

At any rate, in a nation of 320 million people, a good percentage of them Christians, I'm sure one or two will do something worthy of being mocked* - and we can leave this particular instance behind.

The point of the thread isn't to mock one or two Christians who do dumb things. The point is to mock Christians who present laughable claims of victimhood as a means of promoting political, legal, and social objectives.

If you look back through the thread, you'll find examples of how this "Christians are being persecuted!" claim is being used by politicians to boost their campaigns. You'll find examples of how Christians are using "we're being persecuted!" to try to get "GCB" and "All-American Muslim" off TV and billboards from atheist groups removed from buses. You'll find examples of it being used for purely partisan political purposes, like the "Obama hates religion because he didn't thank Jesus for Thanksgiving" flap or Bishop Jenky's comments likening Obama to Hitler and Stalin and Otto von Bismarck. Or the religious lobby group getting Michigan politicians to sabotage the anti-bullying law in the name of "protecting religious freedom"; only public backlash stopped them from getting their way.

I have no quarrel with Bishop Jenky if he is content to stay in his cathedral. But if he's going to step into the political arena, he had better be ready to defend himself. He's not immune from criticism just because he's a religious figure.

I make no apologies for posting about this stuff. If religious people are going to make claims in an effort to influence public policy or public opinion, the merits of those claims need to be examined. And funny, it seems like they're usually found wanting.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

If you've concluded that the primary point of the segment was to mock Fox News, I congratulate you on your masterful grasp of the obvious. Outstanding work!

Are you being purposely obtuse, or are you really this thick? I was explaining why I found the segment to be insulting to women - in spite of all the talk about women's rights. Go back and reread my post if you must. At any rate, this is as far as I read because it's a waste of time to explain something to someone who either refuses to understand what I was saying or can't grasp it (I would wager it's the former, but perhaps I've given you too much credit).

Edited April 25, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Are you being purposely obtuse, or are you really this thick? I was explaining why I found the segment to be insulting to women - in spite of all the talk about women's rights. Go back and reread my post if you must. At any rate, this is as far as I read because it's a waste of time to explain something to someone who either refuses to understand what I was saying or can't grasp it (I would wager it's the former, but perhaps I've given you too much credit).

kimmy not being able to grasp one of your arguments?

Excuse me for a minute: :lol:

[msj]

kimmy not being able to grasp one of your arguments?

Excuse me for a minute: :lol:

You forgot the "times infinity" part.

Edited April 26, 2012 by msj

[dre]

At any rate, this is as far as I read because it's a waste of time to explain something to someone who either refuses to understand what I was saying or can't grasp it

[bleeding heart]

There are some polarizing views on what is funny or not, but the funny-ness of this joke is likely polarized by politics, and not by that gross image as it should be. There's a place for gross out humour, and a place for pinched smile liberal titters. I like both, but I don't expect to see Noel Coward when I go to a Farrelly brothers film.

I understand the argument against misplaced genre-smashing (and it's why I think Salman Rushdie's novel Fury is a self-indulgent piece of garbage); but there's no real rules about it. And at times it's perfectly fine. Some great comedy has had successes in mixing low and high-brow. Heck, look at Stephen Colbert; he famously mixes it up on every single show, without exception.

And no, it doesn't always work. But the mixing-up is not the reason it doesn't work.

As for polarizing by politics....another long and noble comic tradition.

[bleeding heart]

Are you being purposely obtuse, or are you really this thick? I was explaining why I found the segment to be insulting to women - in spite of all the talk about women's rights. Go back and reread my post if you must. At any rate, this is as far as I read because it's a waste of time to explain something to someone who either refuses to understand what I was saying or can't grasp it (I would wager it's the former, but perhaps I've given you too much credit).

It's pretty clear from Kimmy's post that she did read and understand your argument. She simply--gasp!--disagrees with you.

[Michael Hardner]

I understand the argument against misplaced genre-smashing (and it's why I think Salman Rushdie's novel Fury is a self-indulgent piece of garbage); but there's no real rules about it. And at times it's perfectly fine. Some great comedy has had successes in mixing low and high-brow. Heck, look at Stephen Colbert; he famously mixes it up on every single show, without exception.

And no, it doesn't always work. But the mixing-up is not the reason it doesn't work.

As for polarizing by politics....another long and noble comic tradition.

It can be a reason it doesn't work. The rule is it has to be funny and jarring, gross, base or obvious humour doesn't gibe with the tone of those shows.

Polarizing by politics in this context means that people force a laugh at something that isn't funny, because they agree with the politics.

[bleeding heart]

Polarizing by politics in this context means that people force a laugh at something that isn't funny, because they agree with the politics.

Yes, but again, only in your won subjective view that it isn't "actually" funny.

And consider a comparison: Stewart recently did a little editorializing about Iran's supposed intransigence. And while people could certrainly make an honest argument that Iran isn't the only party being hostile and intransigent--thus making Stewart's comedy bit inherently "polarizing by politics", if not wilfully, politically blind--I still thought it humorous.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, but again, only in your won subjective view that it isn't "actually" funny.

I could look at it again, but the link is gone.

I gave my reasons, and of course all art is subjective but from my memory, at least, this bit was at the very least at odds with how they usually do comedy.

And consider a comparison: Stewart recently did a little editorializing about Iran's supposed intransigence. And while people could certrainly make an honest argument that Iran isn't the only party being hostile and intransigent--thus making Stewart's comedy bit inherently "polarizing by politics", if not wilfully, politically blind--I still thought it humorous.

Even minded people can find humour in all points of view, but whatever piece you're talking about wasn't polarizing. People don't seem to be talking about it on here, at least.

[bleeding heart]

Even minded people can find humour in all points of view, but whatever piece you're talking about wasn't polarizing. People don't seem to be talking about it on here, at least.

Ah, true. Polarizing is the wrong word.

But it is every bit as much politicized as the piece we're discussing here...and worse, it is a more factually arguable point of view.

So are we to say that if a politicized and crudely-thought-out comedy bit is bad according to the debates generated in places like this?

Or are there more objective measures by which we can measure (and bemoan) "improper" politicization, regardless of how sectors of the viewing public bites at it?

And your (correct) response raises another, and related, issue: why is the crudeness of the religious bit polarizing, where the sycophantic, Establishment-foreign-policy view (Iran is hostile, we are reasonable) is not "polarizing"?

Edited April 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

So are we to say that if a politicized and crudely-thought-out comedy bit is bad according to the debates generated in places like this?

Somebody opened the door to that response when they brought subjective art into the discussion.

Or are there more objective measures by which we can measure (and bemoan) "improper" politicization, regardless of how sectors of the viewing public bites at it?

I can't think of any examples of improper politicization. It's the arts, and to my book pretty much any communication should be permitted and is proper. Whether it is successful is another question. And we're dealing with the masses, not the public. I only bring that up because you seem to be interested in precision.

And your (correct) response raises another, and related, issue: why is the crudeness of the religious bit polarizing, where the sycophantic, Establishment-foreign-policy view (Iran is hostile, we are reasonable) is not "polarizing"?

Because the latter is wonkish and the former cuts to the heart of identity, which is for my money the only thing we fight about publicly these days.

[bleeding heart]

Somebody opened the door to that response when they brought subjective art into the discussion.

Sure, I get that, and I'm one of those who did bring it in.

But subjective remains subjective, whether it's generating debate on MLW or not.

I can't think of any examples of improper politicization. It's the arts, and to my book pretty much any communication should be permitted and is proper.

I agree completely. I had thought the improper bit was part of your argument. If I read you wrong, I apologize.

Whether it is successful is another question. And we're dealing with the masses, not the public. I only bring that up because you seem to be interested in precision.

I appreciate that, but I'm not perfectly clear on the distinction.

Because the latter is wonkish and the former cuts to the heart of identity, which is for my money the only thing we fight about publicly these days.

I think the idea that Iran is behaving badly and we are behaving properly also cuts to the heart of identity, namely a kind of relativistic triumphalism about the purity of our motives (compared to the dankness of all Official Enemy's motivations). I have these sorts of discussions all the time, up to and including an explicit support for terrorism itself, if it's we who are involved in it.

[Michael Hardner]

But subjective remains subjective, whether it's generating debate on MLW or not.

The question to me is did they make me laugh with this thing, and they didn't. Making something gross, or politically charged and polarizing is fine but people will be shocked and will react more, IMO,

I think the idea that Iran is behaving badly and we are behaving properly also cuts to the heart of identity, namely a kind of relativistic triumphalism about the purity of our motives (compared to the dankness of all Official Enemy's motivations). I have these sorts of discussions all the time, up to and including an explicit support for terrorism itself, if it's we who are involved in it.

My response - people get mad about religion.

It's not about what's right, it's about what plays and doesn't play.

[kimmy]

Although some people apparently got the impression that this thread was to laugh at "one or two Christians who do something worthy of being mocked," the real point is to challenge the idea that Christians are some persecuted victim group in America. "The war against religion" has been a big theme in US politics lately, with several of the Republican contenders having vowed to "end Obama's war against religion", as well as various religion leaders adopting the same sort of rhetoric (Bishop Jenky, mentioned a couple of pages ago, being a recent example.)

Back in February, congressman Darrell Issa convened his House Oversight Committee panel on the contraception mandate. He marched out a panel of religious leaders, as well as staffers holding up 8 foot tall posters of Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi. The message they hoped to send was clear: we're here fighting oppression, fighting for liberty. This isn't about womens' reproductive choices, they explained. This is about defending religious freedom against government intrusion.

And there wasn't really a whole lot of discussion about the kind of religious freedoms that they feel are under attack. There was a lot of talk about how important religious freedom is, and of course who could be against freedom? It's like kittens and pie. Nobody's going to stand up and say "I hate freedom!" They told us to not focus on contraception, but asked us instead to think about the bigger picture. But didn't actually do much to paint that bigger picture for us.

A case that is now heading to court helps illustrate the kind of religious freedoms the church people feel are under attack. Indiana schoolteacher Emily Herx has been fired for receiving in-vitro fertilization treatments. Emily taught English at a Catholic high school. She's married and wants to have a baby, but she and her husband have not been able to conceive naturally so they began IVF. I thought that Catholics loved families, but apparently not. Using unnatural means to conceive makes Emily a "grave, immoral sinner," according to the school's pastor. So she was fired.

Emily believes that the firing is illegal. The school believes it's an allowable "ministerial exception", allowing religious institutions to fire "ministers" whose conduct is at odds with religious doctrine. Unfortunately the law is not very clear on who exactly qualifies as a "minister", and the case will hinge on whether an English teacher can be considered a "minister" or not.

Whichever way the court decides, this illustrates the kind of "religious freedoms" the religious leaders claim are under attack. The church is upset that their right to fire an English teacher for attempting to have a baby is being challenged.

When you look at the "big picture", defending religious freedom sounds like such an awesome cause. But when you look at which specific freedoms the religious leaders say are under attack, it always basically boils down to their right to be assholes.

-k