Oliphant cartoon lampoons "speaking in tongues" ... out of bounds?

The WP Ombudsman wrote:

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”?

And what’s with dam’ instead of damn or damned?

As a staunch atheist who believes that all religious beliefs should be met with mockery by everyone (especially by their adherents), I am clearly an unbiased commentator on this subject.

No. The cartoon was not out of line.

Much as I thought the Obama’s New Yorker cover thing (with the Angela Davis fro, the terrorist fist-bump, and the burning American flag) was a totally fair game thing to do, I think this is too.

Except I think this one is actually funny.

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.

However, that is one of the major things that religions have in common… “DO NOT QUESTION YOUR BELIEFS! You in the back there - stop thinking!!”

So from that point of view, I can see why religions would be upset.

I think newspapers have every right to insult their customers. I would encourage them to do so.

I never understood this terrorist fist bump thing. What separates a terrorist fist bump from a regular fist bump?

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.”

I am all for freedom of speechifyin’ but that cartoon is about as funny as the side of a cereal box.

Terrible, long-winded political cartoons should be protected regardless of the target.

Christian Sunday school teacher checking in…

Word. It’s a free country. Everything is ripe for satire.

Depends on whether you’re a Muslim or not. And Obama is clearly a Muslim.

72 virgins?

Aw, c’mon, man: it’s got some good songs on it! “Burning Down the House,” “This Must Be the Place”…

For that matter, what about the blasphemy of depicting God as old white guy in serious need of a barber?

Well since “speaking in tongues” comes from a mis-reading of the bible, I vote fair game.

We may take it for Gospel that the Lord of Hosts has an excellent sense of humor. I cite: the creation of the platypus, and Mark Twain.

And everyone knows that a large portion of WaPo readers are Pentacostals who speak in tongues.

They should be happy, actually - the cartoon shows that their words do get through to God. Maybe they’re pissed at the thought of God not being a Republican.

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. :smiley:

Ah heck, the Mohammed thing already got mentioned- oh well, I already posted it. I’ll let it stand.