WorkInProgress, you’re talking about mocking people. What’s your view on mocking beliefs?
DanBlather, I don’t see how the passage you quoted relates to mocking, specifically.
You don’t? (either do I really, I looked for a quote on mocking and had to settle for that one)
It becomes okay to mock a religion if
a) It hurts people- this needs to be on a widespread scale and officially approved by the church. Fred Phelps fits in this category.
b) It is in obvious conflict with known physical laws. Here’s where we put the Breatharians.
It’s not OK to mock Xerxes or the Persians, apparently. At least, a bunch of Iranians have taken offence.
It is OK to mock “intelligent design” advocates. In fact it’s practically an obligation.
Similarly one may in good conscience mock anyone* who drags out the old saw “There are no atheists in foxholes”. So what? If fear of impending death induces panic sufficient to cause unbelievers to invoke Baal or Chthulu, what does that say about the rationality of religious faith?
*including the poopiehead who wrote that article in the N.Y. Times Sunday Magazine recently.
… and every other religion of which I’m aware (are they a religion? I thought they were a health cult. Anyway.). Is there one that does not conflict with known physical laws?
When religious people go around “witnessing” it’s worse than mocking nonbelievers. They’re proclaiming that they’re saved and headed for paradise and the nobelievers are damned and are possibly evil and following saten. So yeah…it’s ok when you run into any of that.
Much of this thread is off topic. The point is why some religions are openly mocked while others aren’t, not the morality of mocking religion at all. No doubt it is more polite not to mock at all, but that’s not the point. Quite simply, Algher nails it in post #12. It’s just a power thing: people are amused by the mocking of inanities, but don’t like their own inanities being mocked. So the less powerful are mocked more openly than the more powerful.
I guess the other element is that one gets blase about absurdity the more pervasive it is. There’s nothing inherently less ridiculous about the physical impossibilities that are part of the traditions of major religions than those of minor religions. However, the fairy tales that are part of major religions are deepy embedded into the culture in which those religions reside. In particular, they often form an integral part of childhood indoctrination.
That’s why you have someone say:
without apparent consideration of just exactly how many physical laws are in conflict with the fairy tales that form part of the major religions.
Not specifically, but surely you are not suggesting that the Bible is saying it is OK to be set against and make enemies of those who are not of your religion, but not OK to mock them? What are you going to do to make enemies of them? Look at them funny? Mere mockery would seem to be the least of what this passage potentially authorises.
It’s always okay - just don’t make it your only reason for being here.
Actually, only the perpetual virginity of Mary (that she was a lifelong virgin after birthing JC). While the power of the Catholic Church to bless objects and grant indulgences & the like are satirized quite heavily, the very premise of DOGMA is that the RCC indeed does have such authority, as JC is God, and the RCC is His original Church, EVEN in the midst of making so many sex & poop jokes.
Which is why, as Serendipity would say, Kevin Smith is the King of Fin’de’Siecle Apocalyptic movies of Spiritual Depth and the maker of LEFT BEHIND is a schmuck!
The verses that I was referring to are Matthew 22:37-40. The part about loving your neighbor as yourself.
My answer to the OP is that it is never OK to mock people (to offend them) with the caveat that people should not be so thin skinned.
And in fact, blessed are you when they mock you and utter every kind of slander against you because of Me, for your reward will be great in heaven.
I must’ve sent hundreds to heaven, by that standard. I’m a freakin’ saint!