h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Have this afternoon watched on yoo-toob the absolutely fantastic Stewart Lee documentary "Don't get me started" about religious censorship of comedy.

In light of the South Park episode being censored this week it is quite topical. Do check it out it is ace. Part one link here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn2NMzb0OXU


Led me to wonder, what do Hootooizens think about this, should religion be open to ridicule and satire or should it be protected.

FB

>>should religion be open to ridicule and satire<<

Yes.

Period. (Or "full stop" if you prefer.)

Y.

Oh, and don't just take my word for it

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/philip-pullman-nobody-has-the-right-not-to-be-offended/

Y.

It's like asking if porn is appropriate content for the internet.

The answer is, tiresomely, of course.

I see the Comedy Channel's censorship as more a precaution against potential violence than an effort to keep anyone happy.

Everything else is so why not?

Sure... why not?

I'm just a little sad that it takes the fear of Islamic retribution to
get South Park to clean up their act. Nothing is sacred of course but
those a-holes got no respect for nothing and it's about time somebody
showed them up for the foul-mouthed toilet-giggling cowards they are.

And while I'm at it I might as well tell you that besides being profane, stupidly
scatological and artistically worthless, South Park's main character - in style,
behavior, attitude - is a rip-off from the 1981 Pulitzer Prize winning novel 'A
Confederacy of Dunces' by John Kennedy Toole. Right down to the funny
ear-flap hat.


~jwf~

Does the pope wear a silly hat?

Squiggles>

You are joking surely? South Park is great, and the reality its profanity and toilet humour frequently may disguise the fact that is is really cutting satire.....

As well as being side splittingly hilarious...

FB

P.S. Kyle isnt the main character anyhow, it has an ensemble cast, and if you had to pick a principal antagonist it would be Eric Cartman.

South park didn't *clean up their act* - the network censored the show.

No I think the bigG should smite all blasphemers with thunder bolts, boils and flamming frogs.

South Park are the natural succesors to Monty Python and a few people didnt have a kind word to say about them back in the day. I remember that Della had major issues with the show, the films, the records, the musicals and the Venezuelan beavers cheese they produced.

Yes, of course religion should be fair game for ridicule and satire. As should marriage and democracy. And intelligence. And, well, any part of human behaviour - because ridicule and satire are, in essence, a branch of anthropology, or maybe of the study of human behaviour.

But that doesn't mean that picking a soft target means you don't even have to think. I think the word "satire" is overused to the point of uselessness now.

religion is fair game untill the big G turns up in person and sues........

like thats ever going to happen

Family Guy does it so much better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIZYqZrdwIM

Yup.


Nice link, btw.

That was a reply to the first posting by FB.

To answer the original question... Yes, of course it should. It is inherently ridiculous, so it should be ridiculed. The same goes for synchronised swimming, folk dancing and xenophobia.

Christopher:

>>It's like asking if porn is appropriate content for the internet.

>>The answer is, tiresomely, of course.

Indeed. It's a non-question. *Anything* is fair game for ridicule and satire...but you shouldn't necessarily be surprised if anyone takes offence - or even lashes out. Be prepared to deal with the consequences.

I was struck by this in particular by the Jyllens Posten affair. Granted the complainants did their best to kick up a stooshie - but the paper published the cartoons in the expectation that they would cause offence. Fine. They have a right to do that and should have full protection of the law. But it was utterly nonsensical of papers like Le Monde to republish the cartoons out of solidarity. There's a difference between supporting the right to offend and supporting the offence.