I can see Putin sitting in Moscow saying, 'Jesus Christ, Iran gets the nuclear weapon, who goes first?' Moscow, not Washington.”
Sounds pretty tame to me -- I feel like millions of Americans use this interjection on a pretty regular basis. But Tapscott has got the vapors pretty bad -- something about how we'd never be this insensitive if it were Muslims (of course, when it is Muslims, Tapscott and his buddies start wailing about how touchy they are and whether they've heard of free speech), Christians are ignored, Biden is a dunce (a gaffe-machine, sure, but a dunce?), etc.. Blech. There is nothing more annoying than a manufactured outrage machine.
UPDATE: Tapscott doubles down, now calling Biden's remarks "hate speech". I don't know what's more hilarious -- Tapscott's claim that if Biden used "Jesus Christ" like "hell" or "damn", he should apologize (because every time I use those words, I certainly do), or his obvious frustration that no major Christian denomination has chosen to make an issue out of this. Tapscott takes that as a sign of their emaciated nature; I take it as one that they aren't run by lunatics.
7 comments:
It's not manufactured outrage. Tapscott, bless his heart, sincerely believes that Christians are an oppressed class in the United States, while Muslims are protected and special. The fact that something bears little relationship to reality doesn't make it manufactured. See also Tapscott's assertion that the U.S. was "created by a mostly Christian people based on principles closely reflecting their faith, including the right of individual conscience."
Evidently the Puritans and various other denominations that did not permit the preaching of other faiths in "their" colonies were not really Christians, since the principle of the right of individual conscience was evidently not part of their faith.
Muhammad as a religious figure is better protected in the US than Jesus Christ as religious figure though, right? See, e.g., the Southpark episode where the network prohibits the creators of the show from airing any depiction of Muhammad whatsoever, but does allow them to include a scene with Jesus Christ and George Bush shitting on each other while singing a song. Just saying.
Come on with the "Christians being persecuted" stuff! This is ridiculous! Christians are the majority in the U.S. There has never been a non-Christian President (only one ever who wasn't a Protestant)! Christmas is an official holiday! Stop your whining!
Sorry for all the exclamation points...
Try coming to the Middle East to meet some Christians who really are persecuted, like those in Iraq or in Gaza.
Tony,
What do you consider to be "protected"? The Comedy Central network decided what it wanted to air. Moreover, South Park has depicted Muhammad in past episodes (e.g. "Super Best Friends") without any opposition from the network. None of these decisions had any input from the government.
PG,
Absolutely. By protected I just meant that there's a certain social norm regarding what are and are not appropriate ways of depicting Muhammad and Jesus. And in large swaths of the United States, and in particular the media, Muhammad is treated more carefully than Jesus (perhaps for good reason). Southpark is just a particularly graphic example. In general, I think I would be more comfortable cracking jokes that involved Jesus than jokes that involved Muhammad. But maybe I'm unusual.
I'm not making any silly claims about "Christians being persecuted" or anything of that sort. (Just in case Rebecca was responding to me instead of the original article).
Do you think the social norms cut the other way? Or that they're basically the same across religious figures?
Tony,
While I think you were adverting to some Muslims' inclination to riot over depictions of Muhammad, I don't think avoidance of jokes about religion is peculiar to Islam. I think most people are most comfortable making jokes about something of which they believe they have a reasonable understanding. I don't encounter a lot of non-Hindus who crack jokes about Hinduism, for example, because those people assume they don't know enough to tread the line between "funny and edgy" and "stupid and offensive."
In contrast, even though I myself am not Christian, I am fairly knowledgeable about Christianity -- I went to an Episcopalian private school where I attended chapel every week; I grew up in an area dominated by Southern Baptists; even the public schools I attended had organizations that promoted Christianity but none promoting other faiths; I majored in English literature, which is heavily influenced by the King James version of the Bible...
Not to be rude, but simply by living in a Christian-dominated culture, I know a lot more about Christianity than the average Christian knows about my family's faith. Therefore, if I make a joke about the Virgin Birth, it will be informed by having actually read and heard the story many times over (heck, I was the narrator for my public junior high production of "The Best Christmas Pageant Ever"). Moreover, the people hearing my joke will have a similar background. They might not understand the nuance of the difference between the immaculate conception (Mary's being without original sin) and the virgin birth, but they grasp the broad outlines.
In contrast, most non-Muslims who make jokes about Islam are speaking from a position of relative ignorance, to an audience that is equally ignorant. I know very little about Islam, have never read more than a few dozen pages of the Quran, and never have attended a Muslim religious service of any kind. In contrast to my education in English literature, I haven't even read many books influenced by the Islamic tradition. I suspect I am representative of the majority of American non-Muslims.
PG,
Not to be boring, but I still agree with you. Well, maybe I don't buy your causal story whole-hog, but it seems like we're on the same page about there being a social norm that says for most Americans, most of the time, making fun of Jesus is a more appropriate behavior than making fun of Muhammad, whatever the reason. I'm perfectly happy to say that that's a good thing (because, as you say, you're less likely to offend or say patently stupid things when you have some knowledge of what you speak). But, whatever the cause, the effect persists, and manifests itself in various forms of communication - be it casual conversation, or the media. After all, presumably media folk are more knowledgeable about Christianity since they live in this "Christian-dominated culture" of ours, and so are less likely to be quite so cautious about Christianity as other faiths.
Post a Comment