Ship of Fools: What do you give...

Thread: What do you give... Board: The Laugh Judgment / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=61;t=000025

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Joke submitted by Sarkycow:

What do you give a paedophile who has everything?

A bigger parish.

[ 08. July 2005, 11:49: Message edited by: Simon ]

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :

I'm not a prude about this stuff. In isolation, I would probably think it is funny (although predictable). It is just that I think I have read enough jokes about this subject this week.

Maybe next week?

Posted by Papa Smurf (# 1654) on :

you know how some jokes are considered funny becuase they're true, or plausible ?

this one is sick and offensive, becuase it's plausible... [Disappointed]

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :

[Snore]

I must admit that I was distracted from the joke by the spelling of "paedophile".

Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :

Well, I laughed at this, though the spelling irked me, as it was submitted by a UK Shipmate.

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Whoops... the spelling's now been corrected.

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

Nar. Doesn't work I think. Too predictable. Not clever enough. Stereotypical humour doesn't do it for me. Plus paedo jokes are in my no-go zone.

It's not really a religious joke. You could say 'A bigger scout troop' to the same effect.

Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :

It doesn't work because all there is to it is the old "priests are paedos" line: no build-up, amusing images, witty description, etc.

If a joke tries to do without those things, it has to be very clever and this one isn't.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

Not funny. I found it to be one of the most offensive yet - perhaps because I have kids.

Posted by Goodric (# 8001) on :

Hehe but sadly not useable in my pulpit.

Posted by da_musicman (# 1018) on :

Only joke so far that I've found even slightly offensive and that was simply down to the paedophile angle. Due to the fact that this is a concrete thing which can be observed but general religious jokes are more airy fairy.

Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on :

Not funny--pushes my buttons. I was molested as a child, and I have treated the victims of child sexual abuse.

Especially not funny since I heard a Catholic seminary professor say that the press reporting on child sexual abuse in the Catholic church was "a diabolical attack against the priesthood." When I consider molesting children an attack against children.

Your mileage may vary.

Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :

first one that scored a 5 for offensiveness for me not remotely funny [Disappointed]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

My reaction, which I will admit to finding curious, is that I'm more offended by the idea that the paradigm paedophile is a priest, than that the paradigm priest is a paedophile.

I'm going to think about why that is.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

Aside from that this topic is 'done to death,' I'm afraid that neither paedophilia nor the idea of priests with that tendency being promoted to larger parishes has the slightest humour for me. It is too true - and I've known all too many people who have become bitter because of the 'cover ups.' The paedophiles who were constantly moved were predators.

I found this joke really offensive (which does not mean a vote for censorship or legislation on those lines.)

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

This is the only one I've really found offensive so far. It isn't specifically the child molester part that bothers me--I've laughed quite hard at various Michael Jackson jokes--but more that there appear to be too many people who now believe that all priests are pedophiles just waiting to pounce.

Sieg

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
My reaction, which I will admit to finding curious, is that I'm more offended by the idea that the paradigm paedophile is a priest, than that the paradigm priest is a paedophile.

I'm going to think about why that is.

Am interested to hear back. For paradigm, do you mean like archetype? Do they not amount to the same thing eg. the archetype paedophile is a priest (implies priests are heavily represented among paedophiles), the archetype priest is a paedophile (implies paedophilia is widespread in the priesthood).

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

I'm a former child abuse investigator, and I don't think paedophilia is funny in any way, even if it allows us to make fun of other people's religions.

Sorry, but I just can't get certain experiences from my work out of my mind long enough to even entertain the idea of a joke like this.

sabine

Posted by deswarou (# 9714) on :

I'm terribly sorry for the person who was sexually abused as a child.

But . . .

To quote Mark Twain, "The real source of humor is pain not joy. There are no jokes in heaven."

I work with Canadian Indian (First Nations in Canuck) survivors of residential school abuse, and I find this joke breaks the tension. Interestingly, my father-in-law's best friend is a priest who busts other priests for sexual abuse. Now there is a tough job.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

The funniest and happiest workers I know are the Funeral Directors and the Crem staff, go figure. If you knew what they were talking about as the hearse pulls up .......... well.

Pyx_e

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :

What The Coot said.

It isn't really a joke about Christianity, but about paeodophiles.

To be honest, I just find it childish, predictable and boring. Not witty in any way.

I'll give a one for humour and a three for offensiveness, because I don't really find paeodophilia to be a laughing matter.

I know this was submitted by a host but this joke is on the lame side AFAIC.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deswarou:
To quote Mark Twain, "The real source of humor is pain not joy. There are no jokes in heaven."

I noticed this was your first post, deswarou. Nice to have you aboard the Ship!

sabine

Posted by Atmospheric Skull (# 4513) on :

OK, so "All priests are paedophiles" makes sense as an outrageous stereotype, and can therefore be funny (but offensive). "All paedophiles are priests" makes no sense at all, and therefore can't be funny. Or am I utterly wrong?

Posted by Fool of a Took (# 7412) on :

I was talking with some folks tonight about the Laugh Judgement and told this joke - someone responded with a Michael Jackson joke suggesting that pedophilia is a criterion for recruitment into the priesthood... ("One more and you'll get your own Parish" was the punchline, IIRC)

This bothered me more than the posted joke, and I had to do some thinking about why.

I suspect that if you scratch the surface of most jokes you'll find pain.

The pain in the priest-as-sexual-predator is, to me, in the idea that in a tradition that demands celibacy, a basic human drive is given no healthy outlet, and so may often seek an unhealthy one. Combine this with the unquestioned authority of the role of Priest and it seems a recipe for disaster. There's the tragedy - does Priesthood create predators? Tell me a story about a predator-priest and I have to cry. Give it a punch line to coat it and it goes down easier - I can laugh. (From a nice safe Protestant distance)

Does that make any sense in the 'archetypal priest as predator' v. 'archetypal predator as priest' conversation?

Posted by Ophthalmos (# 3256) on :

Again, I'm annoyed semantically. If the paedophile (read: Priest) has everything, he already has the biggest parish, because he has everything.

I don't find it offensive, generally true, or challenging. You might as well just say "I want to point out the fact that some priests have been found to be child-abusers" and be done with it. It's not even good satire, as it only points out something evil - it doesn't even make a point about it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0