Has comedy provided a better vehicle to discuss "god" than religion?

I don’t think it’s a good idea to try to get too much wisdom out of south park.

@Whitsoxdude

True – in many ways it’s like getting your news from “The Daily Show.”

But on the other hand, whenever the boys have their “I learned something today” moment, I’m left agreeing with the lesson as stated in almost every case.

Well, what you list are not vehicles for discussion…more like vehicles to make fun of god and religion…that, to me, is not discussion, it’s antagosism – one I welcome but, nonetheless, that’s what it is.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

Interesting point! But I think that one allows for more discussion than another, since it seems ready to break down what’s ridiculous about all sides, rather than all the OTHER sides.

@iamthemob That’s the thing – it doesn’t discuss ‘all sides’.

Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

I bring up this movie because, though not about “god” per se, it focuses on people’s real and /or perceived need to find something to believe it that’s higher than themselves and then let the search for such get seriously out of control. And in this film, the ways were both religion and politics, each being used by various people for various ends.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

How does it not?

And also, the question can still be addressed understanding that both foreclose certain discussions, but that one allows for more discussion than the other, regardless of which it is right?

@aprilsimnel

Great example. Do you think that the same focus is as easily gained, or even possible, through a religious perspective?

@iamthemob It makes caricatures out of religious people without providing representation of people not living for religion alone – it doesn’t show how atheists can be just as dumb or cruel and it certainly doesn’t talk about how diverse religion is and really just take jabs at the popular ones here (which makes sense, given the target audience). Anyway, my answer to your question is no.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir

Comedy absolutely does and has shown the above – nothing stops it from doing so regardless of whether it hasn’t already. South Park did a multi-part series on atheism run wild (Richard Dawkins and Ms. Garrison are worshiped as god-like figures and “God” is replaced with “Science” in phrases like “Science help us!”). South Park (sorry to focus) also did an episode where a group of “Super Best Friends” worked together to better the world much like the “Justice League” – and the group was made up of seven or eight important religious figures.

Sure, comedy is more likely to deal with only the most popular religions – but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t or can’t deal with the lesser known ones.

@iamthemob I have never seen South Park so I can not discuss any of those episodes and if you say they equally bash on atheists as they do on religious people, I’ll believe you. From what I’ve seen of comedy, my answer remains the same.

I’m not sure what you mean, @iamthemob. Religions pretty much take themselves seriously, so should a particular religion or system of belief admit that their way isn’t the only way, they’re leaving themselves open to losing adherents, which no organization wants to do. If I’m understanding you correctly.

I believe that comedy says what it says, and once we’ve listened, we can then discuss the merits of the issue without pretense, and that opens up conversation.

I believe that religion often prevents conversation, as to claim the alternative is to sometimes disrespect the statements previously made, and therefore we are left having to “agree to disagree”.

But that’s my opinion.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – you should watch those South Park episodes. Beyond anything, they’re kind of hilarious.

Interesting question. I once attended an inspirational speaker’s seminar. One of the topics he covered was that messages are taken in via three methods: the mind, the heart and the gut.
The Mind: some people listen when statistics are produced that seem valid.
The Heart: more people are willing to listen when it tugs at their emotions.
The Gut: most people will sit up and pay attention when they instinctively relate to the message.

As an example, he showed a news clip of George W. Bush reporting the status of Hurricane Katrina. While first reporting statistics of how many people were attempting to clean up and how many were stranded, the camera panned to those in attendance; some which seemed to be disengaged. As soon as he started to give examples of specific individuals and how they are dealing with the situation of being stranded, the news clip showed more interest in the audience. And when Mr. Bush talked about what we, as individuals can do to help out in the situation, it inspired many to make an effort.

In my experience as a classroom trainer, the most successful facilitators get buy-in to their message when they share humorous stories vs. standing up with a PowerPoint presentation filled with bullet points and statistics. We also used clips from movies and TV shows to generate a discussion.

When it comes to God, I would enjoy developing a workshop series around comedian Julia Sweeney’s Letting Go of God and offering it to churches. If you haven’t seen it, it is about growing up in a religious environment and slowly becoming an Atheist. The purpose wouldn’t be to convert anyone, but to generate a discussion around the statements she makes from her own point-of-view. Her comedic documentary had me hanging on her words more than 20+ years did attending sermons, Sunday school and Bible Camp.

@Pied_Pfeffer

I think I’ve seen some of that – I definitely have to check it out.

“Sure, comedy is more likely to deal with only the most popular religions – but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t or can’t deal with the lesser known ones.”
The problem with comedy is that it is passive and a one way communication. So you can stand up and lampoon something to your hearts contene, and you may even hit a few correct notes. I enjoyed Monty Pythons Life of Brian and Meaning of Life, and I can recognize that certain beliefs that we have held to are being laughed at.
So your phrase “deal with” is nominally correct but it does not allow for point-counterpoint discussion. Justa one sided lampooning which necessarily leaves out many aspects of a very complex thought process.
And for that matter, you can do that to any extreme view that people take about any issue, whether it be political, social or otherwise. Something that means a lot to you does not necessarily mean the same to another person. I’m fairly sure you would not laugh at certain other topics if someone poked fun at them or showed what they considered to be ridiculous about something that meant a lot to you.
So what would be your goal in showing someone what is ridiculous about their chosen religion?

So you can stand up and lampoon something to your hearts contene, and you may even hit a few correct notes. I enjoyed Monty Pythons Life of Brian and Meaning of Life, and I can recognize that certain beliefs that we have held to are being laughed at.

I think that it has to do with perspective. As @Pied_Pfeffer shows above, so much of comedy has to with how we “let go” of something. Religion can do a great deal of good…but I think it’s religion when it’s mixed with comedy that it can show us the best how we can help build a better world, and have a more open discussion about job. I feel that so much of religion is about “holding on” as opposed to “letting go.”

The question is about whether religion closes off more conversation than it opens up when we talk about god as opposed to comedy, which allows us to freely dismiss the ridiculous and come to the real and salient points. Comedy isn’t about ridicule in every sense, it gets through the ridicule and at the heart just as often. (at least, GOOD comedy does).

The episode of “Louie” does just that – it discuss the extreme in a funny manner, and then god becomes a discussion about personal belief between a mother and her son, and some real truth is revealed.

“it discuss the extreme in a funny manner, and then god becomes a discussion about personal belief between a mother and her son, and some real truth is revealed.” Truth is not universal, because there are simply too many points of view. Congratulations that you feel that yours is the only correct one.
This is not a discussion, it is a planned, pre written dialogue. However you want to look at it, it is counter productive to try to “show” someone how ridiculous is their religion. As it would be counter productive for someone to tell an activist to tone it down a bit, or that everyone on the planet can not possibly have the same views or concerns of said activist. Do you see where I’m going with this?
And it is not a conversation. It is a one-way communication that does not allow for response or rebuttal.
What would be your goal in showing someone what is ridiculous about their chosen religion?

having super extreme deja vu with all of this question’s comments – I feel like we’ve said all these things before. wow.

I’m with @iamthemob on this. Few religious institutions are anxious to let their adherents look at the religion critically. When I was religious if I had issues or questions about something about God or religion that undermined the faith the pastor invariably advised I “give it to god” or “pray on it” rather than actually addressing my concerns. That’s not conversation, that’s “don’t worry about it”.

Hell, the pastor told the parents in his congregation that maybe they shouldn’t send their kids to college if it might result in them losing their faith. It’s hard to come up with something more opposed to conversation than advocating the suppression of education.

A given comedy may be one sided but comedy isn’t. Believe it or not comedy doesn’t have a side in the matter. There are religious comedians and comedies, they just aren’t as funny.

Truth is not universal, because there are simply too many points of view. Congratulations that you feel that yours is the only correct one

That’s why I said “some truth”, precluding the idea of “the Truth” – and I don’t know how you feel that I declared I had the right answer, and wanted to preclude discussion of alternatives…congratulations unnecessary, therefore. ;-)

This is not a discussion, it is a planned, pre written dialogue. However you want to look at it, it is counter productive to try to “show” someone how ridiculous is their religion.

Letting go of something as being serious means that you have to be open to them saying, “Sure…but what you say is ridiculous because….” If you don’t, then you’re just lecturing. Comedy doesn’t necessarily require lecturing. Religion doesn’t either, but I feel it might tend towards that more often than a comedic approach….

As it would be counter productive for someone to tell an activist to tone it down a bit, or that everyone on the planet can not possibly have the same views or concerns of said activist. Do you see where I’m going with this?

There’s nothing counter productive, by necessity, in telling an activist to tone it down. It’s most important, I feel, to ask “What are your goals?” For instance, I think if vegetarians took the approach of asking meat eaters to reduce meat consumption, they might be more likely to reach more people. If you can get half the people who eat meat to reduce consumption by 30%, you have done better than getting 10% of people who eat meat to stop altogether. So why can’t it be productive to tone it down?

And it is not a conversation. It is a one-way communication that does not allow for response or rebuttal.

So is a sermon, lets say. People can talk about what is said by a speaker among the others who heard what was said…they don’t need to speak to the person who preformed the bit, or who gave the sermon.

@iamthemob I do agree that both a comedy routine and a sermon are both one-sided with no interaction or questioning – too bad.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir is right, and I was a bit surprised at agreeing with many of her comments today, as I generally fall on the other side of the fence. I personally think that all people are entitled to believe in whatever religion they need, as it seems to be hardwired in most of us as just that, a psychological need.
I also think that we all have differing points of view and this is better than ok. It brings us diversity and avoids stagnation. My wish is that we all stop trying to make the others who have a different POV than ourselves feel less intelligent, and stop trying to ram our POV down each other’s throats as if we have the only one correct way of loking at things. I don’t feel the need to tell other people that thier religion is wrong, or that they should eat a steak, or not own a gun, or get an abortion….
I feel how I feel and I enjoy having discussions about it. This I believe is why I feel this way about…. You feel this way? That’s interesting. How do you think you arrived where you are? Hmmm. Cool. Thank you for discussing it with me.
I wish we could just keep it on that level, instead of this consant liberals bashing conservatives, or vice versa. Saying that because a person does not see it your way indicates that they simpy “don’t get it” as if your way is the only possible correct way.
How ‘bout we all drop the superior “My way is better than your way” and just come together and discuss view points wihout trying to convert each other or tear each other down for seeing things differently?

I wish we could just keep it on that level, instead of this consant liberals bashing conservatives, or vice versa. Saying that because a person does not see it your way indicates that they simpy “don’t get it” as if your way is the only possible correct way.

I agree with the above. That’s a different thread though…

Comedy holds nothing that is expressed within its context sacred. So, it opens things up for discussion by bringing the expressions involved under scrutiny, if that’s what you mean.

I’ve often felt that comedy is the most honest form of dissent. Most people don’t take humor as seriously as I do.

@zophu

I take nothing more seriously than humor. ;-)

Religion is boring. I fall to sleep trying to read just one page of the holy bible. Frankly, God knows that the bible is really poorly writen. I think that a little humor would make the topic of God and religion more interesting. Perhaps a droll and ironic type of humor with a little sarcasm mixed in would work best. I about died laughing when Mel Brooks played Moses in “The History of the World Part 1”. You know that part where Moses was brining down the 3 tablets containing the 15 commandments and he accidentally dropped and smashed one tablet. Jesus Christ! That was funny!

Comedy is scorn. Cracking jokes instead of discussing honest philosophical questions is not an attempt at a better interchange, it is merely an attempt to win the conversation by saying something to which there is no possible response.

The word ‘religion’ appears in the bible just four times and all four emphasize that it is something made up by men telling each other what to do. God wants no part of it. If you want to know something about God you should get away from the fools and jesters and read the book He gave for that purpose. Read a chapter of Proverbs every day. Proverbs has 31 chapters so you can keep your place by just looking at a calendar. There is no religion or nothing in Proverbs and you don’t have to believe anything. Just read to find comfort and confidence. When you are comfortable with that, then read the bible from Romans to 2 Thessalonians over and over until you start to remember what it says. That is the part that applies to Christians. HERE is a book to help you to understand the bible. It’s a free download and you can get a hard copy at any bible book store.