5 ms·

For all the commenters laughing at those silly religious folks who protested the film, consider this: is there anything you hold sacred? What if a film came out

by sxyuan 7y ago

For all the commenters laughing at those silly religious folks who protested the film, consider this: is there anything you hold sacred? What if a film came out that satirized, I don't know, science, or abortion, or same-sex marriage, or racial equality? Admittedly, such a film may not have much comedic value, but I suspect it would nonetheless induce a decent amount of outrage, at least with the average reader here. You may protest that this is a false equivalency, that the above-mentioned things are different from Christianity, which is merely belief. But that would simply be picking and choosing what you personally feel is open to ridicule - what's left is, by definition, sacred. You may say, "I'm secure in my beliefs - go ahead and mock." Well, to be honest, we'd be in the same boat, you and I. As a Christian, I suppose I wouldn't mind watching "Life of Brian". But to put ourselves in the shoes of the protesters - would you want the next generation to grow up in an environment where, say, the science of evolution is the target of mockery? (I imagine in some parts of the US that's not so far from the truth.) My point is, laughter is a powerful weapon. And children laughing along at the jokes may not catch all of the nuance outlined in the BBC article. Even if nothing is sacred, some things may still be important enough to try to influence the culture over. Were the protests silly? Did they end up achieving the opposite of what they intended? Sure. But that's a matter of results, not purpose. Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh.

moogleii 7y ago
"You may protest that this is a false equivalency, that the above-mentioned things are different from Christianity, which is merely belief. But that would simply be picking and choosing what you personally feel is open to ridicule - what's left is, by definition, sacred." Is it? You've tried to distill things down to belief or sanctity, but if we go one step further, we're talking about opinion. E.g. "It is my opinion x is sacred." The actual false equivalency to me would be that we can freely strip down facts and science to mere opinion and sanctity. "The Earth is sphere-like is an opinion and I hold it sacred." Sure, people are welcome to question facts, but the bar is higher if you actually want others to believe your version. And that's the difference. If I have a differing view challenging a fact or theory, well, prove it. Do the work beyond just opening my mouth. Science is always trying to self-correct. One man in the system may hold firm to a belief without merit, but his colleagues may not, and what is provable lives on. But if one decides to have a different religion or decides gruyere is better, they don't have to prove anything to anyone, except maybe themselves. If there is a time where the science of evolution is mocked and laughed at, because of the inherent bar of provability, I think we'll be fine either way. "Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh." I personally think it would be healthier for people to learn to accept constructive criticism and be the butt of a joke once in awhile. Which, if we get back to the heart of the matter (rather than "science"), The Life of Brian isn't just mockery for mockery's sake. It's satire and satire is meant to provoke and challenge thought, to raise questions. It is the opinion's humorous version of an opposing scientific view. The bar of quality is not so high as a scientific proof, but satire generally only works when the questions it raises are valid.
- sxyuan 7y ago
  Thanks for the response. Many fine points, here and in sibling comments. There was one point I did want to reply to: "It's satire and satire is meant to provoke and challenge thought, to raise questions." That's a good way to separate mockery and satire, but unfortunately on sensitive subjects I get the feeling that some people may be so used to getting the former that it's hard to distinguish the latter. Humour can open up a conversation, but it can just as easily shut it down. And with a movie, it all comes down to the one watching; even well-meaning satire can end up being received as mockery, by both those who agree with the views presented and those who disagree. The result may end up being less thought-provoking and more calcifying pre-existing opinions. Anyhow, I didn't intend to stir up debate re. science vs. faith. There's a much longer conversation that could be had there. My original intent was simply to try to provoke a bit of empathy, regardless of what one's beliefs may be.
- ErotemeObelus 7y ago
  > Science is always trying to self-correct. You guys sound like the teenager whose parents (priests and theologians) are "always going on about that" wrt his drug usage. "No mom and pop. I don't have a drug problem. I can self-correct myself any time I want in time for Varsity."
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
winchling 7y ago
Yes, for instance Life of Brian itself contains a scene which mocks transgenderism. It seems that we haven't outgrown blasphemy. We merely go from one regime to another regime. And specifying the new blasphemies can itself be blasphemous.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  I found it remarkably sensitive toward transgenderism. It was absolutely withering on stupidity, though. Stupidity will always get the sand kicked in its face, even though The Stupid are a by-god majority everywhere you look! Some of The Stupid were even out protesting it, but brought along the wrong signs.
  - winchling 7y ago
    >I found it remarkably sensitive toward transgenderism. Yes, although it does give Reg the last word, who claimed that Loretta was struggling against reality. Regardless, that scene would I'm sure be regarded as too offensive to be released nowadays. The BBC article either didn't notice or they simply ducked the issue. My original comment, an innocuous statement plus link to a YT clip of the scene, was flagged and removed by HN.
phissk 7y ago
Science stands up pretty well to ridicule because once people are done laughing you can come back with facts. Religion on the other hand, once you have temporarily broken the hold it has via blind faith is left with ... nothing. Which is why religious folks are so easily threatened. Laughter is a fantastic weapon because it is most effective against pompous bullies.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Is there anything I hold sacred? No. Well there probably is, but I would hope someone would point out that I am doing so and ridicule my silly assumption or inculcation. Have to get right down the list of definitions, to the very end, to find a secular usage of sacred. Which then makes a circular religious dependency: "treating a policy or law as though it had religious significance, deserving of sacred separation". I'd argue we have almost a duty to hold precisely nothing sacred of itself, perhaps especially those held sacred. "Because that's the way it is" and "because some people 1,000 years ago said so" are damn poor reasons to leave something alone. Heresy and blasphemy should be especially encouraged. If there really is a $deity, it can handle a little ridicule, or it would have created beings that did not ridicule the system. > Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh. I couldn't agree more. What we choose to ridicule matters greatly. The institutions, systems, social mores and assumptions I am so wholly a part of I no longer see them, those are deserving of endless and ongoing ridicule at every opportunity. At least until a majority wonder if the historic choices are actually the best approach or conclusion. I want extensive heresy of government, the system - any and every system, human choices, churches and all organised religions, of buildings and social habits. They are all choices, sometimes made a very long time ago. That includes the multiple, wildly diverging and mutually exclusive views held by all the different sorts of Christians. Ridicule the silly edifice they built, and rules they make, but not who they are. On matters of biology or what you cannot choose, well those are fundamentally different. You can't change an accident of birth, the processes of biology or ageing, the car crash that cost you your legs, or skin colour. Yet I don't hold those sacred either, just that they not be used as a means of discrimination, repression and othering. Targeting $other for being that way is not OK. Making reference to $self and ridiculing $self's disability, upbringing, biology, features and culture is perfectly fine.
Fnoord 7y ago
Non-Christians in the West have suffered for centuries under the moral rule of Christianity [1]. This was one of their outlets. Moreover, religions are not based on science, and therefore the comparison is moot. > And children laughing along at the jokes may not catch all of the nuance outlined in the BBC article. Children miss a lot of nuance in contexts. To assume such is always going to be nefarious..? [1] I witnessed it first hand as atheist growing up in a Catholic region.
ErotemeObelus 7y ago
> What if a film came out that satirized, I don't know, science, or abortion, or same-sex marriage, or racial equality? You are wasting your time. All people of faith believe that everyone else's beliefs are based on insane delusions and that their beliefs is based on evidence and truth and so they cannot do an unbiased comparison of their beliefs with others. Comparing belief in e.g. rights for sexual minorities with e.g. Islam is always going to be seen as a false equivalency. Just like the Muslim is going to see a comparsion of belief in e.g. feminism as a false equivalency with Islam. You see, the Quran is based on truth while feminism is based on an insane delusion. They can't both be right. At least one of them is wrong.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > All people of faith believe that everyone else's beliefs are based on insane delusions and that their beliefs is based on evidence and truth Plenty of people of faith do not believe that, even within the Abrahamic monotheistic religions, which are known for being particularly exclusionary.
  - ErotemeObelus 7y ago
    I want to hear more.

by sxyuan 7y ago

moogleii 7y ago

"You may protest that this is a false equivalency, that the above-mentioned things are different from Christianity, which is merely belief. But that would simply be picking and choosing what you personally feel is open to ridicule - what's left is, by definition, sacred." Is it? You've tried to distill things down to belief or sanctity, but if we go one step further, we're talking about opinion. E.g. "It is my opinion x is sacred." The actual false equivalency to me would be that we can freely strip down facts and science to mere opinion and sanctity. "The Earth is sphere-like is an opinion and I hold it sacred." Sure, people are welcome to question facts, but the bar is higher if you actually want others to believe your version. And that's the difference. If I have a differing view challenging a fact or theory, well, prove it. Do the work beyond just opening my mouth. Science is always trying to self-correct. One man in the system may hold firm to a belief without merit, but his colleagues may not, and what is provable lives on. But if one decides to have a different religion or decides gruyere is better, they don't have to prove anything to anyone, except maybe themselves. If there is a time where the science of evolution is mocked and laughed at, because of the inherent bar of provability, I think we'll be fine either way. "Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh." I personally think it would be healthier for people to learn to accept constructive criticism and be the butt of a joke once in awhile. Which, if we get back to the heart of the matter (rather than "science"), The Life of Brian isn't just mockery for mockery's sake. It's satire and satire is meant to provoke and challenge thought, to raise questions. It is the opinion's humorous version of an opposing scientific view. The bar of quality is not so high as a scientific proof, but satire generally only works when the questions it raises are valid.

sxyuan 7y ago
Thanks for the response. Many fine points, here and in sibling comments. There was one point I did want to reply to: "It's satire and satire is meant to provoke and challenge thought, to raise questions." That's a good way to separate mockery and satire, but unfortunately on sensitive subjects I get the feeling that some people may be so used to getting the former that it's hard to distinguish the latter. Humour can open up a conversation, but it can just as easily shut it down. And with a movie, it all comes down to the one watching; even well-meaning satire can end up being received as mockery, by both those who agree with the views presented and those who disagree. The result may end up being less thought-provoking and more calcifying pre-existing opinions. Anyhow, I didn't intend to stir up debate re. science vs. faith. There's a much longer conversation that could be had there. My original intent was simply to try to provoke a bit of empathy, regardless of what one's beliefs may be.
ErotemeObelus 7y ago
> Science is always trying to self-correct. You guys sound like the teenager whose parents (priests and theologians) are "always going on about that" wrt his drug usage. "No mom and pop. I don't have a drug problem. I can self-correct myself any time I want in time for Varsity."

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

winchling 7y ago

Yes, for instance Life of Brian itself contains a scene which mocks transgenderism. It seems that we haven't outgrown blasphemy. We merely go from one regime to another regime. And specifying the new blasphemies can itself be blasphemous.

ncmncm 7y ago
I found it remarkably sensitive toward transgenderism. It was absolutely withering on stupidity, though. Stupidity will always get the sand kicked in its face, even though The Stupid are a by-god majority everywhere you look! Some of The Stupid were even out protesting it, but brought along the wrong signs.
- winchling 7y ago
  >I found it remarkably sensitive toward transgenderism. Yes, although it does give Reg the last word, who claimed that Loretta was struggling against reality. Regardless, that scene would I'm sure be regarded as too offensive to be released nowadays. The BBC article either didn't notice or they simply ducked the issue. My original comment, an innocuous statement plus link to a YT clip of the scene, was flagged and removed by HN.

phissk 7y ago

Science stands up pretty well to ridicule because once people are done laughing you can come back with facts. Religion on the other hand, once you have temporarily broken the hold it has via blind faith is left with ... nothing. Which is why religious folks are so easily threatened. Laughter is a fantastic weapon because it is most effective against pompous bullies.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Is there anything I hold sacred? No. Well there probably is, but I would hope someone would point out that I am doing so and ridicule my silly assumption or inculcation. Have to get right down the list of definitions, to the very end, to find a secular usage of sacred. Which then makes a circular religious dependency: "treating a policy or law as though it had religious significance, deserving of sacred separation". I'd argue we have almost a duty to hold precisely nothing sacred of itself, perhaps especially those held sacred. "Because that's the way it is" and "because some people 1,000 years ago said so" are damn poor reasons to leave something alone. Heresy and blasphemy should be especially encouraged. If there really is a $deity, it can handle a little ridicule, or it would have created beings that did not ridicule the system. > Maybe we should all learn to think twice before we laugh. I couldn't agree more. What we choose to ridicule matters greatly. The institutions, systems, social mores and assumptions I am so wholly a part of I no longer see them, those are deserving of endless and ongoing ridicule at every opportunity. At least until a majority wonder if the historic choices are actually the best approach or conclusion. I want extensive heresy of government, the system - any and every system, human choices, churches and all organised religions, of buildings and social habits. They are all choices, sometimes made a very long time ago. That includes the multiple, wildly diverging and mutually exclusive views held by all the different sorts of Christians. Ridicule the silly edifice they built, and rules they make, but not who they are. On matters of biology or what you cannot choose, well those are fundamentally different. You can't change an accident of birth, the processes of biology or ageing, the car crash that cost you your legs, or skin colour. Yet I don't hold those sacred either, just that they not be used as a means of discrimination, repression and othering. Targeting $other for being that way is not OK. Making reference to $self and ridiculing $self's disability, upbringing, biology, features and culture is perfectly fine.

Fnoord 7y ago

Non-Christians in the West have suffered for centuries under the moral rule of Christianity [1]. This was one of their outlets. Moreover, religions are not based on science, and therefore the comparison is moot. > And children laughing along at the jokes may not catch all of the nuance outlined in the BBC article. Children miss a lot of nuance in contexts. To assume such is always going to be nefarious..? [1] I witnessed it first hand as atheist growing up in a Catholic region.

ErotemeObelus 7y ago

> What if a film came out that satirized, I don't know, science, or abortion, or same-sex marriage, or racial equality? You are wasting your time. All people of faith believe that everyone else's beliefs are based on insane delusions and that their beliefs is based on evidence and truth and so they cannot do an unbiased comparison of their beliefs with others. Comparing belief in e.g. rights for sexual minorities with e.g. Islam is always going to be seen as a false equivalency. Just like the Muslim is going to see a comparsion of belief in e.g. feminism as a false equivalency with Islam. You see, the Quran is based on truth while feminism is based on an insane delusion. They can't both be right. At least one of them is wrong.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> All people of faith believe that everyone else's beliefs are based on insane delusions and that their beliefs is based on evidence and truth Plenty of people of faith do not believe that, even within the Abrahamic monotheistic religions, which are known for being particularly exclusionary.
- ErotemeObelus 7y ago
  I want to hear more.