# Is this offensive to a reasonable person? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 23, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471 "2005-10-23T00:23:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/21 "2005-10-24T18:33:08Z")
I don’t find it offensive because I don’t get it. Could you make it simpler to understand? ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/22 "2005-10-24T19:55:28Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Now, for the story. I can see that your tone is satirical towards religion, but IMO it isn’t portrayed in a a cohesive enough light (there’s a sentence for ya!). Honestly, it’s a jumble to read–lists of numbers etc. The Novel thing looks a ton of fun, and I think that one is supposed to just jump in and DO, and not agonize or worry over the writing, BUT. Lighten your touch, allude to the nonsense that entrenched religious power purports, but clear the details (the whole jam/rum/barrel/nephew bit-first paragraph). > > I didn’t pick up on the Jewish reference, but I was somewhat stymied in my comprehension by all the numbers and quick switches as to beliefs, customs etc. Well, it’s actually just a small sideplot of the novel, though the church is going to have a fairly sized role, usally as the entity that is supposed to be the moral center but in reality is not above using a number of methods to make a whole lotta money(selling forgivness, titles, influence, relics for the right amount of money). The idea is that at one point the little blurb about the church would be mentioned, so you know what the deal with the church is. And then we go back to the story, but it gives some context to some of the other stuff, like reference to people eating jam and drinking rum, or the pie people, or statues of the nephew which are used as currency. still not as bad as a certain king who’s a kill happy bastard who taxes everyone to death(At the beginning of the story, there’s an 80% tax rate on everyone, plus a 5% poverty tax on the poor). As a result, nobody likes him or his bratty kid. It’s played in a darkly humorous way, as I’m trying to do everything. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/23 "2005-10-24T20:04:29Z")
> [@Kythereia](#): > > I don’t find it offensive because I don’t get it. Could you make it simpler to understand? Paragraph one is a pastishe on the christ story. The prime/indeterminate number thing being a parody of the paradox of the trinity(“God’s both one and three?”)Rum and Jam being kind of like the Euachrist(Protestants see it as symbolics, Catholics dogma is apparently that it really does turn to Christs flesh and blood when you eat it). The brother thing is making fun of the arian heresy(How one version of the trinity is dogma, but the arian version is enough to launch a crusade over :rolleyes: ) Paragraph two making fun of the various schisms and divisions, and then making fun of the pope’s special status(Jesus said Peter was his right hand man. He never said that applies to anyone else, particulary people who became by influence, money and power centuries down the line). Paragraph three is making fun of the point in the middle ages where there two and later three popes running around, all claiming to be the true one, and then a couple jabs at protestanism. Okay, so it could be better oganized. I haven’t decided how much to keep yet. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/24 "2005-10-24T20:09:08Z")
To answer the OP’s question, I read the parody of historical antisemitism as being sympathetic to the “Jews” and as mocking of antisemitism. I did not construe it as being disrespectful of Judaism, and I don’t think most people would, but we all know that people can read some strange interpretations into things (like those who think Huck Finn is racist). ---
**Author:** ![jali](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecae2f/32.png) [@jali](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jali)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/25 "2005-10-24T20:19:02Z")
I enjoyed it and look forward to reading the whole short story. I think I’m a reasonable person, (but then so does each extremist - smile) and I’m not offended in the least. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/26 "2005-10-24T20:29:18Z")
> [@Kythereia](#): > > I don’t find it offensive because I don’t get it. Could you make it simpler to understand? And read? I only read part of it because, in my opinion, it has very low read-ability. If your excerpt was the first page of a novel, I would take it back to the library unread. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/27 "2005-10-24T20:52:21Z")
I wasn’t offended by the religious parts. Your prose style, on the other hand… I guess I would say that the satire isn’t very pointed. The 12-as-a-prime-number joke is a bit too obscure to be funny. This part - > [@](#): > > Those who included the brother as well as the nephew were given a royal kick in the backside, because there was no brother. also doesn’t make a lot of sense. There is no earlier reference to a brother, so the idea of including him isn’t funny. Same with this - > [@](#): > > Those who did not believe in the nephew, or had feigned ignorance at the nephew, were called the people without the nephew. Why would they “feign ignorance”? There are some other grammatical errors as well - > [@](#): > > He and his nephew, who was ambassador to earth, but promptly told to get stuffed, so he founded the church, signed ownership over to his best friend, called him pope(In the old tongue, “Man with hat”) and went back to heaven. He taught them to eat the jam and drink the rum and remember that life was really just a barrel full of jam and rum, which had been stirred by monkeys. The church believed that the jam and rum was really holy bile and phlegm of the nephew, but others felt it was just a symbolic gesture said while drunk. You don’t “say” a gesture. And the “he” in “he taught them to eat the jam” is unclear - the nephew, or the pope? The part about “holy phlegm and bile” is good as a parody of the blood motif in the Eucharist. I think that if you want to satirize Christianity, you would do better to make each individual element of the satire refer to something specific in Christianity. The part about stirring by monkeys is an example - what, specifically, are you parodying in Christianity with the reference? I suppose I can say that I am not offended by it, but if you rewrote it, I might be. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/28 "2005-10-24T22:06:08Z")
> [@featherlou](#): > > And read? I only read part of it because, in my opinion, it has very low read-ability. If your excerpt was the first page of a novel, I would take it back to the library unread. Well, fortunatly, it isn’t. The first two chapters are already written and this, if I put it in there, will be somewhere in the 3rd chapter or beyond. And frankly, it really hasn’t been edited much. It would not be as written in the actual story. I was checking for content, not writability(and I realize it’s pretty wierdly written). ---
**Author:** ![bluecanary](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bluecanary/32/3614_2.png) [@bluecanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bluecanary)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/29 "2005-10-24T22:06:21Z")
The whole thing reminds me of some kind of pale imitation of Monty Python ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/30 "2005-10-24T22:11:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The 12-as-a-prime-number joke is a bit too obscure to be funny. This part - > also doesn’t make a lot of sense. There is no earlier reference to a brother, so the idea of including him isn’t funny. > > The part about “holy phlegm and bile” is good as a parody of the blood motif in the Eucharist. I think that if you want to satirize Christianity, you would do better to make each individual element of the satire refer to something specific in Christianity. The part about stirring by monkeys is an example - what, specifically, are you parodying in Christianity with the reference? The Brother thing would be something like. Missionary: And the Nephew of God… Potentional Convert: So what about the brother of God? Missionary: What brother? Potentional Convert: If God has a nephew, doesn’t that imply a brother exists in some way? Missionary: Don’t be silly… THe monkey stirring the barrel has nothing to do with Christinaty at all. I did the rum, I did the jam and then I decided…put rum and jam in a barrel. And then I figured, since I have the barrel, why not a monkey invovled as well? Why? Because I like monkeys. ---
**Author:** ![bluecanary](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bluecanary/32/3614_2.png) [@bluecanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bluecanary)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/31 "2005-10-24T22:11:53Z")
Dang hit send. I like “Man with hat”, and the jam and rum, the “never invited to parties” bit, and the cotton candy. I especially like the bit about no brother. I don’t think much of the second paragraph, and I especially don’t think much of the grammar. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/32 "2005-10-24T22:25:33Z")
I want to make one thing clear: The whole point was to find out if the passage was offensive to a reasonable person. The passage itself is a barely edited nugget of an idea that will surely be improved upon(in content and style) before the novel is finished. I realize it is confusingly written and I apologize. I should have cleaned it up more. It is going to be tucked somewhere into the novel, but not in the first chapter, in some form or another(what I haven’t quite decided yet). I’m not wher where yet, but around the time the church gets more invovled in the story. However, those who are interested in what the thing looks like, I do have the first chapter available for those who are interested. It’s in it’s fairly finalized form(That is, I’m pretty happy with it and plan to change very few things) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/33 "2005-10-24T22:36:05Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > The Brother thing would be something like. > > Missionary: And the Nephew of God… > Potentional Convert: So what about the brother of God? > Missionary: What brother? > Potentional Convert: If God has a nephew, doesn’t that imply a brother exists in some way? > Missionary: Don’t be silly… Well, OK, but my sister’s son is also my nephew. So God having a nephew does not necessarily imply a brother. Humor is the sudden perception of incongruity. Things that do not push towards that sudden recognition tend not to be funny. Satire that isn’t funny doesn’t work very well. IMO. > [@](#): > > THe monkey stirring the barrel has nothing to do with Christinaty at all. I did the rum, I did the jam and then I decided…put rum and jam in a barrel. And then I figured, since I have the barrel, why not a monkey invovled as well? Why? Because I like monkeys. It seems to me that satire works when the reader immediately recognizes the references and applies them, without having them explained. Jokes that you have to explain aren’t often very funny. Especially if the explanation is only meaningful to the author. Often, good writing is as much about what you take out as what you put in. It depends, I expect, on who your audience is. If you are writing for your own amusement, have at it - you don’t need any of the jokes explained, so all is well. If you want to write for anyone else, then you will need (I would expect) to write so that your meaning is clear, but without explicit explanations, which tend to bog down the narrative. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/34 "2005-10-24T22:51:03Z")
**HPL** – It’s not offensive, at least not to me. However, it _is_ incoherent and tedious; I’m guess that you’d rather go for sharp and funny. Please keep working on it. And for the love of Christ (or whatever satirical variant thereof you may contemplate) _please_ work on your spelling. What you’ve presented so far is almost painful to read. Good luck; no matter what, keep working. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471/35 "2005-10-27T02:39:23Z")
Okay, I’ve rewritten it to be much more readable and coherent. It’s probably still not offensive anymore, except to fundementalists. > [@"The basis of our faith”](#): > > The church had it’s origins in the distant past, when God, fed up with so many people had been going to Hell, sent his nephew, Douglas, to earth to ask people to stop being so naughty. Although Douglas was pleasant and fun at parties, when he told him he was the nephew of God, people would always say that they didn’t realize God had a nephew, or siblings for that matter. Douglas always told them that God didn’t have a brother nor need one to have a nephew. Many said that made no sense and turned away from him. He told them that God could do anything he wanted, in the same way he could be as many as 50 people at once and thus throw great parties with only himself attending. > > The nephew told stories about animals that offended God, so God lectured them on morals, but since they were animals, they didn’t listen and were eaten by hunters. Douglas said “Don’t be animals” as he ate pigeon on a stick coated with corn batter. Finally, after 6 months of people making fun of him for his ideas on god, and asking him about God’s brother, he finally got fed up and decided this wasn’t working. He applied for a permit to start a church, and when the clerk acted snooty toward him, he turned the clerk into a gold statue (which was stolen soon after) and started his church. Later, the nephew felt bad for the clerk, who was just trying to do his job, and turned him back, but as the gold had already been melted into coins and bars, the whole affair was rather messy. > > Douglas founded his church, for the purposes of teaching people to be nice to each other and to explain how there could be a nephew of god without being a brother. He invited his seven friends to come and have breakfast with him the day the church opened. During the breakfast, He had cakes with jam, and drank some rum. He then said that the Jam tasted like phlegm, and the rum like bile, that had then been put into a barrel and stirred by a filthy monkey, and then left early to go walk around the garden before his departure. One of his friends, Joshua, arrived late, heard the story about the jam and rum, and then wrote it down after he had a bit of rum himself. The Nephew then signed the church deed over to his best friend, Petrov, told him he was a great guy and the biscuit of his breakfast (for only the biscuit had pleased him), and then rose into heaven, saying that he would be glad to going somewhere where people weren’t so stupid and brutish. > Petrov became the first Pope, which in the old tongue means, “Man with Hat”. He passed his control of the church down through his family, but this was frustrated when his only child accidentally died in a bizarre shaving accident before bearing children. A power struggle ensured until, Sebastian VI graciously contributed a significant amount of gold to the bishops for “purposes of upkeep” and due to his generous nature, was declared the new pope. From that time on, those who showed the greatest compassion and generosity became reluctant popes. > > This held until the Bishop of Marequine, whom, seeing the vast corruption of the church in his time, rallied the faithful around him and marched on the church in Antiqua. His case was helped immensely by the fact that Pope Gregori suddenly died when a gargoyle fell from the roof of the cathedral when he was passing beneath, and smashed him into a rather nicely dressed red paste, no doubt the work of God who was unhappy with his sinful ways. And the fact that the faithful had the backing of 200 knights, 10,000 soldiers and 50,000 mercenaries who had suddenly been compelled to convert and make a pilgrimage to Antiqua(and who had been very upset when the Pope had refused them entry and called them “Dirty, Nasty Brutes”). God’s will was done, and the bishop became “Pope Popular the anointed by God”. And before anyone says it, I realize the Latin spelling/grammer sucks. > [@"Papal in excessium et Papal nilhil infernos”](#): > > When this was written, There were 5 popes. One of them, Pope Bernard, was the leader of the church, and god’s representative on earth. Then there was Pope Ira, who was also the leader of the church, and the true representative of god on earth, much more so then Pope Bernard. Another pope was Pope Alicia, who was no doubt the real leader of the church, and who God had personally made his representative on Earth, as evidenced by the fact she was pope. Then there was Pope John the Pope, who elected himself pope because it seemed like the popular thing to do. And then there was Pope Meyer, who wasn’t Pope, but everyone agreed that his hat was very Popeish and thus, should be considered an honorary Pope. > > This naturally caused great confusion, because you could get all of the popes in the same room together (which was nearly impossible) and asked them a question, you could get as many as fifteen different answers and a number of black eyes. Fortunately, nobody but the clergy paid attention to the popes most of the time, so it wasn’t as big a problem as it might seem. > > With all of this popery, there were some who had begun to believe that the pope had no real authority from God and was merely a man who wore a funny hat and rode around in a glass carriage. They believed that all men had equal footing in the eyes of God. These people, called Nopopers, were, of course, dangerous heretics who were often burned in the fireplaces of the Pope on cold days. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-offensive-to-a-reasonable-person/327471.md?page=1)