|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Inciting Religious Hatred - the death of religious jokes?
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
inquisitiveunbeliever asks:
quote:
One thing that isn't really being discussed so much is the original intention of all this - to talk about offence, religious hatred, censorship etc.
One thing I have noticed is that the jokes rarely attack religion - they are either 'inside' jokes for christians (perhaps of a particular denomination) or just generally offensive (ie all the paedophile ones).
One thing they definitely don't do is to 'incite religious hatred'. They might make religious people hate the teller (if they were very touchy) but they wouldn't make other listeners hate Christians. Perhaps a possible exception is the ongoing stereotype about Catholic priests and children, which could cause violence and prejudice on the part of impressionable people.
I'd like to know whether people think this new act will have any effect on humour (personally, I don't think it has any such intention) and indeed whether it ought to. I'm also interested by what was said about the Bible itself being an incitement to hatred against 'idolaters' - how far can people go with the idea of righteousness and damnation before it just turns into hatred and prejudice?
The Religious and Race Relations Bill 2005 has had its second reading in the House of Commons and now goes to the House of Lords. The text of the Bill, as at 12th July 2005, is here. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill is here.
[ 20. July 2005, 01:15: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
themanwiththegingerhair
Apprentice
# 9691
|
Posted
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill sayeth:
quote:
The words, behaviour, written material or recordings or programme must be both threatening, abusive or insulting and intended or likely to stir up racial or religious hatred. Hatred is a strong term. The offences will not encompass material that just stirs up ridicule or prejudice or causes offence. Further what must be stirred up is hatred of a group of persons defined by their religious beliefs and not hatred of the religion itself. Of themselves, criticism or expressions of antipathy or dislike of particular religions or their adherents will not be caught by the offence.
In the 20 years since the race hatred laws were intoduced less than 80 people have been prosecuted. The ability to prove that a given speech is likely to incite religious hatred (i.e. turn someone ambivolent into a hater) is a huge sticking point.
Sikhs are already covered by the race hate laws and yet there were no prosecutions brought against the theatre following the performance of Behtzi.
It is a pointless law designed to send out a message rather than create an offence.
[ 22. July 2005, 06:19: Message edited by: themanwiththegingerhair ]
Posts: 28 | From: Birmingham | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
kbe323
Apprentice
# 9837
|
Posted
Comes the question:
Much as main-stream religionists nay say, do they, deep down, 'hate' the God-basher, the Satanist, the pagan, the idolator? The official line of course is to 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. But do we make that distinction? Really?
Maybe there are no jokes in the Christian-Judeo-Muslim etc circles about non-believers or about other beliefs (or, are there?--hmmm). But I would go out on a limb and say joke or no it's the thought that counts. Casting that first stone may involve a bit of selective memory loss.
And, do the (paraphrased) words of sociologist Karl Gunnar Myrdal: "Every man is a king as long as he has someone to look down on" only apply to those who don't believe as we do?
--------------------
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us"--Pogo
Posts: 19 | From: Florida | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Considering that I found that 3/4 of these jokes were yawners, I'd say the death of religious jokes is unfunny, religious jokes.
Isolated jokes are a bit passee anyway. The funniest religious humor I've heard in the last few years are from comics who relay stories of their own or family experiences in religion: Catholic school and catechism, Jewish study for the bar mitzvah, and passionate, holiness church stories. And what grandma told them about it. And how the nun responded to the class clown. And how a thirteen old Jewish kid tried to be grown-up. How could such stories be construed to "incite hate"...?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kbe323:
Comes the question:
Much as main-stream religionists nay say, do they, deep down, 'hate' the God-basher, the Satanist, the pagan, the idolator? The official line of course is to 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. But do we make that distinction? Really?
Maybe there are no jokes in the Christian-Judeo-Muslim etc circles about non-believers or about other beliefs (or, are there?--hmmm). But I would go out on a limb and say joke or no it's the thought that counts. Casting that first stone may involve a bit of selective memory loss.
And, do the (paraphrased) words of sociologist Karl Gunnar Myrdal: "Every man is a king as long as he has someone to look down on" only apply to those who don't believe as we do?
Speaking as someone who is rapidly approaching Athiesm and has little faith in any organised belief system (including the various forms of Buddhism), I would say that SOME Christians hate non-Christians of all or selected types. Some athiests hate Christians.
But religious bigotry is not confined to any one set of beliefs, nor is it shared by everyone in any one such set.
FWIW, when I was a Christian I did not really hear many anti-nonChristian jokes. A handful, maybe, that were too inoffensive for me to remember...
Also FWIW, I think that the vast majority of the jokes submitted so far are yawners. But then I'm not really into stand-alone jokes...
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geoff the Steam
Apprentice
# 4364
|
Posted
The problem with all humour is the cash between who is hearing/seeing the Joke versus who is telling the Joke. As a protestant I found Dave Allen's religous gags funny. The problem I have is did I find them funny because they were about Roman Catholics, or was it because I could recognise the humour of the situation? I used to watch Goodness Gracious Me. There were sketches I found funny, but some I felt were perhaps nearly racist (but funny) is it because I am white?
Posts: 12 | From: Enderby - England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TorahJew
Apprentice
# 10203
|
Posted
All good points. Just a thought, the Bible (Hebrew version) dealt with Israel combating idolatry primarily among its OWN people, not waging "jihad" against others, and only within its own borders. History confirms it was idolatrous nations that attacked Israel, not the other way around (except in the one case where Israel was commanded by G-d, not once, but twice to attack Canaan - the first time Israel disobeyed caused a 40 years exile in the desert: so even when G-d commands it, it does not happen easily). So the idolatry bigotry charge does not hold up well based on the Hebrew Bible.
--------------------
TorahJew
Posts: 2 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TorahJew
Apprentice
# 10203
|
Posted
Here is a joke that shows the conflicting view between the secular world and the religious world:
WHY G-D DID NOT RECEIVE TENURE
Subject: HUMOR: Why G-d did not receive tenure
- He had only one publication.
- And it was in Hebrew.
- And it had no references.
- And it wasn't published in a refereed journal.
- And some even doubt if he wrote it himself.
- It may be true that he created the world, but what has he
done/published since then?
- His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
- The scientific community has had a very rough time trying to repeat
his results.
- He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects.
- He expelled his first two students for learning.
- Although there were only ten requirements (613 for Jews), most students failed his tests.
- His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.
- It's rumored that he drowned nearly the entire sample group to cover
up a failed experiment!
--------------------
TorahJew
Posts: 2 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Hosting
Welcome on the good Ship TorahJew. Whilst I loved the joke we are closed to jokes. If somehow you had wangled into a deeply theological point I would have loved it more but I can not let it pass or we will be inundated. No more jokes please.
You could try another board (cough Heaven cough) and start a joke thread, we have not had on for ages, if it bothers you.
Thanks.
Pyx_e
Hosting
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trini
Shipmate
# 7921
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TorahJew:
(except in the one case where Israel was commanded by G-d, not once, but twice to attack Canaan
Are you saying that it's okay to attack others if God commands it?
What if the 'idolatrous nations' also said that God told them to attack Israel? Couldn't everyone equally use the defense that God told them to do it?
Posts: 816 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
