I didn’t mind the occasional Easter and Christmas preachy strips. “What the hey,” thought the Spaz, “it’s his faith. Let him celebrate it on his religious holidays.” Then the characters found the bookcase… :rolleyes:
Okay, let’s look at this closely. Peter is still sending stone tablets to his anonymous pal across the water and suddenly they have books? Written on paper and leather-bound? Uh-huh. And then one of the books is, of course, the Bible. All of it, Old and New Testaments. Before any of the events/stories in that book even occured. Proselytize much?
I don’t even read it anymore. I just glance at it to confirm my suspicions that it’s still there and move on. I get enough conservative Christian claptrap at home thankyouverymuch.
Yup. And the one that got me is when his ‘stereotype indian’ character Conahonty reads it, he wonders at [paraphrase]why do they call it a ‘Holy Bible’. It has no holes at all! [/paraphrase] :rolleyes:
Picard had said, quite emphatically, that society had evolved beyond the need to believe in gods. That was the gist of it, but the actual phrasing was a lot worse than that. In fact, Phil Farrand called attention to this fact in one of his Nitpickers Guide books.
Also, as far as negative depictions of religion on TV go, how can anyone forget South Park?
Which doesn’t change the fact that religion IS mocked… and yet there’s nary an outcry from the public or the media. It helps that the Simpsons mocks other people too, but religion is most definitely a victim, and the show continues to thrive.
I’d have to say that The Simpsons isn’t mocking religion so much as its mocking some of the practictioners of religion. There is a difference. I don’t think that they’ve ever come out and said that Christianity/Hinduism/Snake Handling/Homer’s religion (those are the ones that I can think of that have appeared on the show) are bad religions, only that some of the practioners can be a little flaky at times (And this is different from real life how?)
As for South Park’s depiction of Jesus, the last time I watched the show, they never did anything to conclusively prove that the character was Jesus, only that he thought he was. And I never saw him do anything that would be so wildly out of character for Christ as to be implausible. (Admittedly I haven’t seen the show in several years so my info could be out of date.
Yes, religion is sometimes a victim on the Simpsons. Sometimes, though, Christianity winds up getting the last word over the doubters. Lisa mocks the townsfolk who believe in the angel skeleton, but she still gets scared when it appears to come to life. Homer abandons his faith and is rude to believers, but they save him when his house catches on fire, and he comes back to the fold. Flanders questions his faith after his wife dies, but when he returns to church he meets a new potential mate. If you look at the entire run of the show, I’d say “The Simpsons” has been fairly sympathetic to religion overall.
Heck, there’s actually a book called “The Gospel According to the Simpsons,” and unless I’m mistaken, Christianity Today (or some such magazine) has run a positive article about the way Flanders is portrayed. Clearly, these writers don’t see “The Simpsons” as anti-religious.
In my opinion, the bottom line is that the media is an enormously complex organism, and it includes niche markets for both anti- and super-religious people. There are examples of religion-bashing out there, but there are examples of religious arrogance as well. Jonny Hart is a case in point. He’s clearly fundamentalist and arguably a bit racist (Conahonty and Anno), and he has no trouble getting his message out. His strip is well circulated. I’ll bet his daily audience is considerably larger than Bill Maher’s.
As far as I can tell, though, religion-bashing and Bible-thumping both make up very small fractions of the media machine’s enormous yearly output. After all, most businesspeople want to avoid controversy.
Revtim, your original remark about “mythology” was most certainly a bit snide. You claim to use the word in place of “religion,” but there was no need to use either of those words in your post. Why go out of your way?
Not to mention the fact that “mythology” doesn’t refer to ancient religions, but to their stories. While it is accurate to refer to the bible as “mythology,” it is incorrect to refer to either Christian beliefs or ancient Roman beliefs with that word.
dougie, hate to break it to you, but Bill Buckley is a frickin’ moron. In general, in my opinion, but most certainly in this case. The character in Sleepers was a character. He is not meant to represent religion. He is meant to represent himself and that’s all.
If you go looking for slanders, you will see them even when they aren’t there. As I believe was illustrated with your (later recinded) statements about Father Mulcahy. Who, for the record, was always a favorite character of my father, an Episcopal clergyman. Call him open-minded, but Dad just loves complex, true-to-life representations of priests who are more than just ciphers for their religion.
You believe this about Buckley, eh? Why tell me? Tell him–if you believe what you’re saying. (As many of the Teeming Millions know by now, I will not delve into movie content on my own. I don’t believe it is worthwhile or necessary to eat a whole bad breakfast in order to ascertain just how unpalatable it is.)
As for Hart on one side and Mencken and his ilk on the other–I address those opposed to Hart and obviously outnumbering him, in the immortal words of Moe, and say, Quit stacking the deck!
As for Ned Flanders, I think Groening has portrayed him as a nice guy–and to be pitied not because of his religious convictions (when he is obviously outvoted), but because he is a widower. Flanders’ demeanor really seems to get on Homer Simpson’s nerves–but since when is Homer a role model?
Incidentally, Kyomara, I consider your connection of the Bible with “mythology” out of line. Same as with Rethvin. Hey, suppose I were to come to your home with a big black stamp and stamp “MYTHOLOGY” on any printed material that got my nose out of joint? Wouldn’t you object to that? Of course you would. My sentiment would be, Practice what you preach.
Some of you guys are making a big deal about the fact that TV has both pro- and anti-religion elements. I don’t think that means anything, though. After all, the question isn’t whether TV is mostly pro- or anti-religion.
Earlier, RevTim said “I wonder how long a comic strip would last if it made jabs at religion and had a detectable atheistic bent.” Well, some TV shows DO take jabs at religion, and have definite anti-religious themes, yet they continue to thrive. The fact that other TV shows are pro-religion is interesting, but not really relevant to this topic.
Er…the bible doesn’t “get my nose out of joint.” Like many religious writings, I find it to be chock full of wisdom and meaning, both spiritual and historical.
Calling the bible “mythology” is not an attempt to put it down. The stories in the bible are ancient and religious in nature. It fits the definition of the word. I am aware that the word “mythology” also gets used to mean “lie,” but I am using it in its original meaning.
Re-reading my post, though, I see how it could be read in the same way that I read Revtim’s post: going out of my way to use terminology calculated to offend you. That was not my intention, and it makes me wonder if I didn’t misinterpret Revtim’s original post as well…hm.
Whenever someone makes a claim like this, I always have to ask, “Where are these shows?”
Because, as a card-carrying atheist, I would love to see a regular – even thriving – television program that counters all the nonsense that gunk that I get on Sunday mornings. I’m wondering where the atheistic equivalent to The 700 Club is, even though fundies keep saying they’re out there. And I’d giggle like a delerious schoolgirl if I could watch programs like “Top Ten Reasons Why ‘Creation Science’ is Bunk” or “Improving Your Life Without Making Wishes to Imaginary Dieties” on an all-atheist, all-the-time network or cable channel.
So make me a happy camper, Jubilation, and tell me where to tune in!
Cruising the C-Band satellites (the 10’ dish that moves) for feeds to netwroks and stuff, I see lots of unusual religious programs, but no “Agnostic Hour…I think.”
You have to remember that any religious-type discussionissue on TV that DOESN’T end with either “Fall down on your knees and Jesus will fix it” or a consensus of “You’re all going to rot in hell for this” judgement will be considered anti-religious by some Christians.
Take my word for it: if I meant my comment to be snide, I wouldn’t deny it. What would be the point?
If I take any shots, it would be at Dougie’s clear double standard. Hart can make a cartoon clearly mocking people’s beliefs, and that’s fine and dandy to our pal Doug, since he and Hart are of same mind. But when I make comment that could be possibly INTERPRETED as a shot at his precious beliefs, he takes offense.
Dougie, how to you expect people to treat your beliefs as something so sensitive that they May Not Be Mocked, when you give Hart the old atta-boy when he makes cartoons at the expense of other’s beliefs?
Flanders’ demeanor really seems to get on Homer Simpson’s nerves–but since when is Homer a role model?