::: sigh :::
Oliphant is not “softening” the word, nor is he claiming that God cannot say the word.
Oliphant is old enough to remember when the word was actually the participle, “damned,” that was often pronounced “dam” before American speakers of English began to lose the participle in speech, employing present tense verbs as adjectives, His use of the apostrophe is simply his recognition that the word (as he remembers it) “damned” is often pronounced “dam” and typically spelled “damn.”
So wait- instead of just having God say “damned”, Oliphant is having Him use a modernism that he dislikes enough that he uses an uncommon spelling and an apostrophe?
This is not helping me find it funny, but if true, it gives a certain amount of insight into the thought process behind the remainder of the piece.
:dubious: Look, not all religions or religious practices or beliefs are worthy of respect or courtesy. At any rate, all are not equally worthy of respect. Scientology, not very much. Nor the Unification Church. Nor such solidly Scriptural Christian practices as exorcism or speaking in tongues. Some things are just plain silly.
One True Church there is that is everywhere and always worthy of awe and fear and lust, but respect hardly seems relevant and courtesy hardly seems conceivable.
43 posts and nobody said anything about Oliphant making them think of “Lord of the Rings”?
Anyway, to answer the question in the OP, even though I’m not the “Nothing is sacred” type, I don’t think this crosses the line at all. It seems to me that the cartoon is making fun of Palin. If anything, I’d take from this cartoon that it’s either calling Palin a phony or that she really doesn’t know what she’s doing, which is why God can’t understand her. If I read the Washington Post and saw that cartoon it would never occur to me to think that it’s making fun of speaking in tongues in general, just Palin.
Is there a guy of that name or religion running for pres?
How is it rude? All our beliefs ought to be held up like this. I don’t have any religious ones to be sure but feel free to mock any others I have. It’s healthy.
Those genuinely offended by the cartoon because of their religion (all 3 or so of them), probably need to get the hell over themselves.
The rest are just a bunch of hypocrites.
Same as for when people call Obama a monkey, I presume.
Regards,
Shodan
I am attempting to find a contradiction between what I said in my post in this thread and the one you quoted, but I can’t. Care to offer or invent one?
Hmmm…Speaking in tongues or the Black Speech of Mordor?
Am I the only one who doesn’t understand why this is insulting to Pentecostals?
What is being insulted in McCain’s statement (which actually seems smirkily condescending to Pentecostals) and the positions of McCain-Palin. Yeah, a Pentecostal believes that God can understand tongues but what McCain-Palin says is still nonsense in any language, even tongues. Hilarious? No. Amusing? Mildly. Makes the point? I think so. Insulting? Not to Pentecostalism in any way that I can see. To McCain-Palin, yes. Out of bounds? Why?
Up until now, my impression of “speaking in tongues” was someone being so caught up in spontaneous religious ecstasy that they lose control of their actions and start babbling. Although I don’t agree that it means what people think it means, I always found it a beautiful and sincere gesture that it would be unfair to mock.
After seeing the docudrama “Jesus Camp” and seeing what the practice has now become, I have no problem mocking it. The pastor (or layperson or whoever) just says “Let’s all praise god now by speaking in tongues.” For the next 30 seconds or so, everybody starts babbling in vaguely Hebrew syllables until they’re told it’s time to stop, and then everybody stops. It had all the spontaneity of a line item on a meeting agenda. It’s cued, intentional, and obviously not a state of religious rapture or ecstasy. I have absolutely no problem calling this out as an empty gesture that merits a good mocking.
Because speaking in tongues is used as the device through which the satire is delivered. It’s not directly insulting to them, but it’s not respectful, and a lot of institutions (religious and otherwise) just can’t stand disrespect.
As a Baptist, I agree.
Being strongly religious shows me that you are willing to believe ludicrous things without any evidence. Which is bad enough, but this is America and I understand that the non-religious need not apply.
Speaking in tongues shows me that you are willing to *invent *evidence to support those beliefs. Anyone who speaks in tongues needs to not have any authority over others, because they aren’t rational and are prone to fantasy.
Not that funny, and not at all offensive religious-wise as far as this agno can tell. The only person who could be offended is Palin herself, in that it’s mocking her political view points, and I guess Pubs in general who have her back…
I mean, God’s right there in the cartoon. He exists! Though I question why He questions St. Peter… God doesn’t ask questions, does He?:dubious:
Only a couple of years back, there was a great international hue-and-cry in the Muslim world over some Danish cartoons that poked fun at Mohammed. Aside: I was actually in a “liberal” Muslim country at the time, for a couple of weeks, and listened to everyone tell me how shameful it was. They had no understanding whatsoever of what free speech means.
Anyhow, I would be that the same people who are screaming about how Oliphant is laughing at their religious belief, were outraged that the Muslims would complain about some cartoons.
Hypocrisy is the name of the game. When the cartoons mock THEM, it’s just fine, but when they mock ME, it’s a shame and scandal.
There is no need to invent anything. The contradiction is your assertion that nothing is out of bounds for satire, and your earlier suggestion that now that a black man is running for President, lampooning him as a monkey is questionable…
As far as I can tell, it is perfectly acceptable to condemn cartoons that lampoon you, just as it is acceptable to lampoon your opponents. The part that most people objected to was the riots.
Regards,
Shodan
You can’t lampoon a black man as a monkey, because it isn’t funny, it’s just racist. Satire has to have at least a kernel of truth.
Portraying someone as a monkey isn’t satire unless there’s some aspect of him that is monkey-like… does he eat bananas? Swing from trees? Throw his poo? Portraying a black man as a monkey isn’t satire, it’s just an oblique reference to the dehumanizing old racist saw that black people are really more monkeys than people.
That being said, I wouldn’t even censor that… it only serves to reveal the ignorance and racism of the author, and the more they do that, the better.