Was this really so far out of bounds? It is certainly, to borrow the word Pat Oliphant’s syndicate uses to describe him, “acidic.” But are ALL religious practices unlampoonable?
Now, I’m not a Pentecostal. I know Pentecostalism is one of the biggest and fastest-growing denominations in the world. But to me, “speaking in tongues” is utter nonsense. Sorry, that’s just the way I see it. Just as, to me, strict Biblical creationism that says that God created the world a few thousand years ago is nonsense. So I don’t think that this cartoon was out of bounds.
However, the bright light of satire could make (and has made) mincemeat out of ANY faith’s traditions/beliefs/practices. The whole “transubstantiation = cannibalism” thing has been done to death. And I would have a hard time putting up with a mainstream political cartoonist who made fun of devout Jews for wearing “beanies” or ripped on them for being “afraid of eating a cheeseburger”, for example.
But speaking in tongues …? I dunno. I somehow can’t work up any outrage at Oliphant. Maybe it’s just because I’m on the other side of the belief. What do you all think? Was Oliphant way out of line with his cartoon?
I just can’t see the harm here. Everything should be available for satire. Including the things you said made you uncomfortable. And including my own beliefs (okay so there are no religious beliefs in my set but satirize anything else you like). It’s healthy. It’s funny --even when directed at you. At worst it can make people question themselves, as they should.
I wonder if the outrage level would be different if God was saying “All I can hear is some politician spouting gibberish” instead of “All I can hear is some dam’ right-wing politician spouting gibberish”?
I find it interesting that they cited the outrage over the Danish cartoon as an example of how Pentacostal’s are fair game but Muslims aren’t.
IIRC all the outrage came from Muslims in the Muslim world and Europeans were more of a screw them attitude…it’s a cartoon. I’d be interested to see if that same blogger (Ken Gurley) mustered up righteous rage over the Danish cartoons or let that slip.
No outrage here…particularly for absurdities like speaking in tongues.
Palin does belong to a Pentacostal church that speaks in tongues.
No religious belief or practice is out of bounds for satire. Check that – NOTHING is out of bounds for satire. People are entitled to free belief and practice of religion. They are not entitled to mandatory respect for those practices, and there is no such thing as a right to not be offended.
The people whining about this would not be complaining about a strip that ridiculed Muslims or Raelians or Scientologists or “liberals.”
Palin does not now attend a Pentecostal (Assembly of God) church. She did when she was younger, but she now attends an independent Evangelical church. She still has a good relationship with her former church, but I think one of the reasons she left the AoG was because it was too “Pentecostal” for her.
And as one of the few Dopers who does speak in tongues, I’ll say- the cartoon is stupid & offensive, but Oliphant & the WaPo are certainly within their rights to print it & people are certainly within their rights to complain about it.
Of course (obligatory parallel made here-) I’m sure Oliphant & WaPo will be printing Mohammed cartoons any day now.
Ah heck, the Mohammed thing already got mentioned- oh well, I already posted it. I’ll let it stand.