Easy laughs: why Hollywood loves mocking Christians

Sludger says:

09:50am | 27/10/10

Hey Bec, i got a different take from the article than you.  It seems to me it is about movies portraying ALL Christians as sterotype killjoys, not just the moderates.  I have a lot of friends who believe in God and Jesus, but are in no way fundamentalist or extreme.  Most are lucky to get into church.  But they still believe.  The thing is, movies tend to show even these people as being stuck up and narrow, when I can assure you they are not. Not all arabs are terrorists either, or Irish people farmers, but the movies might show a different take.

Adam Diver says:

10:30am | 27/10/10

I agree Bec, I think the following is the very reason for the sentiment against christians

“the existence of organisations such as The Centre for Public Christianity (CPX), according to its website the organisation is ‘an independent research and media organization seeking to promote the public understanding of the Christian faith in Australia.”

I wonder why there are “Anti-Christian sentiments”

Liz says:

10:58am | 27/10/10

Funnily enough, if they would treat for example Muslims or Hindus the same way in those movies, there’d be a public outcry about unjust discrimination and what not. But it’s okay to treat Christians like that?
And just for the record, I’m neither.

Ryan says:

11:27am | 27/10/10

@Liz: they are cowards and too terrified to mock other religions for fear of retribution, hence the pathetic attacks on the soft targets like Christianity and Buddhism.

Trav says:

11:31am | 27/10/10

Mate very simple. Kids don’t take to religion because it’s boring.

Andrea says:

11:42am | 27/10/10

Mocking christians for being judgemental vs mocking muslims for being terrorists…. does anyone else here see why there would be a difference in the public’s perception? You’re comparing a gentle tease with an outright accusation!

Steely Dan says:

12:11pm | 27/10/10

Bec’s hit the nail on the head.  It’s implied that all the other classmates are Christian (unless they’re wearing a burqa or their surname is Weinstein).  Christianity only becomes explicit in these situations as an explanation for their killjoy-ness, where the viewer is supposed to understand that these Christians (unlike the rest of ‘us’) are taking things ‘too far’.  Like Aus, the US is a majority moderate Christian country, Naomi, and its reflected in their films and TV.  Fundies are fun targets because they’re fundies, not because they’re Christian.

Reg says:

12:25pm | 27/10/10

Take it easy Ryan. All religion is good for a laugh and so are agnostics and anything else you can think of. It’s just that people who place their faith in fairies are an easy target and definitely funniest.

Surely you don’t thing that the “Centre for Public Christianity (CPX), according to its website the organisation is ‘an independent research and media organization seeking to promote the public understanding of the Christian faith in Australia”  is really independent? They aspire to convert everyone to accepting their point of view. Anything less they would regard as failure.

Tone says:

12:41pm | 27/10/10

“they are cowards and too terrified to mock other religions for fear of retribution” @ Ryan

All religions are based on works that are unverifiable dogma written over several years a long time after the events are supposed to have taken place: events that include “the supernatural” which are also unverifiable and thus unlikely.

Anne71 says:

01:39pm | 27/10/10

Easy. Film and TV producers mock Christianity because they know they can get away with it. If they made fun of Islam in such a way they would be the subject of a jihad before the credits finished rolling, and they know it.  Can you blame them for sticking to what they perceive to be a soft target?

Aaron says:

02:03pm | 27/10/10

I see the angle but the examples are poor. The Simpson family are depicted as moderate christians, regularly attending church and believing in a divine power, even if they rarely model their life choices on the bible, attitudes most normal christians can identify with. The Flanders are mocked for being devout and unflappable in their belief.

If you’re looking for reasons why younger generations are spending their Sunday’s relaxing instead of knee bound its probably worth noting the reduction of religous teaching in schools and an increase in university attendance compared to fifty years ago. People are abandoning religion simply because we’re becoming a more enlightened, rational society where the youth of today are discovering you can live a good and compassionate life without signing up for the pomp and ceremony or organised belief. As Homer enquires of God, “I love my family and work hard, so why should I spend half my Sunday being told I’m going to hell”.

Roja says:

05:08pm | 27/10/10

Well I believe the Barney from the Simpsons paints alcoholics in a bad light, not to mention Mr Burns painting rich people in a bad light.  In fact Barney from how I met your mother can sometimes paint single men in a bad light. 

It’s almost like they are taking perfectly normally characteristics people have and accentuating them for comedic effect.  Hello people, it’s a freaking comedy not a documentary.  The idea is to take the most absurd elements of society and poke fun at it.

I guess now that religion is no longer taboo and people aren’t burnt at the stake for heracy they are open game for comedy like everyone else.

Grow up and get over it people.

dropdeadfred says:

06:30pm | 27/10/10

christians mock themselves by being so gullible.

Luke says:

06:55pm | 27/10/10

The problem is fundamentalism, whether it be Christian, Muslim or Athiest.

@Aaron, do you really think we are becoming more enlightened?  My view is that spirituality is suffering at the hands of material gratification?  I look around and see very few examples of this being an enlightened society in any category.

Paul says:

03:02am | 28/10/10

I believe it all comes down to technology and the advancement of science.  I mean as science progresses and we discover more about our beginnings and the workings of the universe in general it unintentionally disproves a lot of long standing religious beliefs.  It wasn’t so long ago people believed the sun was a god but to think such a thing now would be absurd.  I’m not saying this is a good thing, and I’m not religious either I’m simply saying as science and technology advance our reliance on religion to explain things, such as the beginning of life, decreases and we no longer fear being struck by lightening every time we poke fun at religion. 
@Bec I agree, many of the other Simpsons families go to church, but they focus on the Flanders as crackpots.

Peter says:

10:07am | 27/10/10

Christian accepting themselves as “sinners” is what Christianity is all about. Any Christian proclaiming to be perfect, is well like you said self-righteous or anyone else for that matter..

ZSRenn says:

10:38am | 27/10/10

No Ian the problem is this. The Christians that are self rightous and condemn peoples nature are the only ones you meet.

The ones with true faith and love you would never even recognise.

Mike says:

10:59am | 27/10/10

iansand, I’m not a Christian myself but I find a lot of the atheists I know are the ones who are nosy and self-righteous. You do realise that banging on endlessly with all that condescending “special friend” and “magic fairy in the sky” crap makes you as fundamentalist and tiresome as the people you’re talking about, right?

Mike T says:

11:27am | 27/10/10

@ iansand…..

As opposed to atheists that are self-righteous that try to push thier beleifs on others (the condescending comment about christians having a special freind, shows you are more then pushing your view ian)

I sort of sit on the fence with the God thing, however, the pushy types tends to be the “non believers” these days. Maybe you guys are the modern day Jahovas (apologies for spelling) wintnesses

Matthew says:

11:34am | 27/10/10

My nature is not sinful since I do not believe in God and the ‘sins’ that is promoted by the members of that particular religious group (since each religion seems to have difference ‘sins’).  So if I choose to sleep around or drink too much or whatever then your God will punish me with AIDS or a busted liver.  Luckily for me, scientists invented condoms and liver transplants!

xyz says:

11:48am | 27/10/10

Mike T:

The day that I’m bothered by local atheists knocking on my door is the day I’ll agree with your comment. It’s funny that since athiests have only recently found a voice in Western society that we are now being told to shut up by all religious believers!

Why can’t we have a voice? Is it that the major religions are very scared that some of their flock will listen to reason instead of fantasy?

iansand says:

12:04pm | 27/10/10

ZSRenn - Then why do I meet so many?

Mike & Mike T - Why can’t I “push my view”?  Or even “bang on”?  I do so at the risk of smiting or eternal hellfire, of course, but I will take my chances.  One thing I won’t do is try to control your behaviour on the basis of a creed in which you do not believe.  Unlike Team God.

Please note this sentence from my first post -  “If they stay out of my life I will happily stay out of theirs.”

Ducks says:

12:12pm | 27/10/10

That’s exactly the problem. For example, on the same punch page as this article claiming Christians are unfairly portrayed, there is also this article:  http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/who-needs-porn-when-youve-got-mtv/?from=scroller&pos=10&referrer=article&link=text

In a nutshell, it insinuates MTV,  with its sexual innuendos, is evil, and should be banned to save us all from ourselves. Like many groups, be it animal rights (PETA), environmental (Greenpeace), gay rights advocates, relgious groups etc, there are always the fanatical beleivers who try to force others into their way of thinking. Unfortunately it’s these who usually have the loudest voice and often where stereotypes stem from.

We are a democratic society and I am an adult perfectly capable of making my own decisions.  Live and let live. While some (albeit a minority) continue to tell me how I shuold live my life, I have no problem with these characters being portrayed on screen.

Rebecca says:

12:15pm | 27/10/10

I’m aware of the irony of this comment as it does sounds a bit self-righteous - but I can assure you that as a Christian I completely respect that other people have different beliefs to me. While it would be great to see more people believe in God, the world is a diverse place and people have the right to whatever spirituality they like. Please don’t see all Christians in a bad way, we aren’t all like that. Oh, and also, the above comments (Peter, ZSRenn, Mike and Mike T) make really good points.

Steely Dan says:

12:19pm | 27/10/10

@ Mike T

“As opposed to atheists that are self-righteous that try to push thier beleifs on others (the condescending comment about christians having a special freind, shows you are more then pushing your view ian)”
There’s a difference between pushing beliefs on people and telling them that they’re beliefs are unjustified.  Atheists (to generalise) tend to be more willing to defend S116 of the Constitution than theists are.

Tom says:

12:44pm | 27/10/10

The problem is that much of the Christian political lobby does seek to impose their world view on others. Be it puritanical drinking/other substance laws, regulation of gambling, access to abortion, gay marriage etc, people such as Fred Nile will be lobbying to ban it.

The difference between atheists and the Christian lobby is that if the above things are legalised, no one is forcing any Christians to partake, and hence it does not make them any less Christian. However, by banning them, they are imposing their will upon others who may or may not agree with the religious basis for doing so.

Anne71 says:

01:53pm | 27/10/10

I always think it’s very ironic that so many of the people who call themselves “Christians” - literally, followers of Christ - actually represent many of the things that Jesus opposed.  They judge other people, they encourage hatred and division, they think war is the solution to all their problems, and they don’t see why the poor and needy should receive welfare.  In other words, they do the opposite of everything Jesus taught. When you consider that Jesus’s ultimate message was “Love one another as I have loved you”, you wonder how that message got so twisted.

David says:

03:58pm | 27/10/10

If we don’t sin, Jesus died for nothing.

Barry says:

04:00pm | 27/10/10

@Ducks
If that’s all you got out of the article, I think you need to seriously work on your analytical thinking skills.  The article was about the ethical considerations of the increasing sexual nature of MTV, and the portrayal of women as sexual objects.  The author didn’t suggest MTV should be banned, but he was interested in getting these issues discussed in the public domain.

Mikey says:

04:37pm | 27/10/10

Not only Christianity is the target because Hollywood is so called “too scared” to insult other religions, Hollywood takes the piss out of Muslims just as well, ever seen “Team America”?

Any religion is worthy to be mocked in my book. Pushing rules on peoples lives and judging others because some book says so… How dare they! Catholics with forbidding condoms in 3rd world countries, the way Muslims treat their women, the list goes on….

PGNEWC says:

08:59am | 27/10/10

Plus Jeremy if you mock Islamic Fundamentalism then the followers of the prophet get really ansy re the cartoons by that Danish guy led to a Fatwah against him. Jewish Fundamentalist will always point you (rightly) to the Holacaust if you mock their beliefs to make you feel guilty . It is easy to to go the Chistians after all our bloke the carpenters working class motto was to “Turn the other cheek”—-  let others do what they want to do.

Sludger says:

09:53am | 27/10/10

Good point PGNEWC.  But don’t forget also there are not many Hollywood movies having a go at Jewish people because this is an industry dominated by that faith.  That is not a bigoted comment, by the way, it is absolute fact due to them escaping from Germany (which had a thriving film industry) and settling in America.

ZSRenn says:

10:46am | 27/10/10

No Christians get mocked because they are the only one’s that can take it. Try making a joke about a Jew or a Muslim. You will both get called anti- Jew and sued for billions or have Jihad placed upon your head. One of the things I like about my Christian god is the dude has a sense of humor.

Reg says:

12:36pm | 27/10/10

I get the impression that some here feel deprived at not being allowed to take an axe to their critics, rather than sit quietly turning the other cheek..

Then Sludge has a side swipe at the Jewish Hollywood while proclaiming his innocence and ZRenn fails to realise that he is sharing Jesus mocking. Grin and bear it chaps.

Aaron says:

02:08pm | 27/10/10

Clearly if you think other religions get some kind of free pass you’ve never watched a season of South Park or Family Guy.

Shows that are not afraid to stick it to every organised faith under the sun. Fundamentalist christians get in the neck from more mainstream comedy fare not because they’re soft targets, but because they’re easy targets. They’re either creationist, 6000 year old earth believers who live in a fantasy world, or loud mouthed bigots who are often guilty of the ‘sins’ they rally against.

Sludger says:

04:46pm | 27/10/10

Reg, what on earth are you on about?  there was no side swipe, it is just a fact.  Okay, why would you put out a movie poking fun at the majority of people who pay for your films?  You would have to be a fool, or a billionaire.  Or both.  What I was doing was following on the thread.  PGNEWC pointed out the Islamic, I pointed out the Jewish.  I don’t have an axe to grind myself, so I simply don’t get what you are on about mate.  Cheers

Reg says:

03:05pm | 31/10/10

Hey Sludger, you mean like decapitating someone and then apologising? Yes I get it, you want to say something negative but not be held responsible for doing so.

I’m not Jewish but in the light of all sorts of history I can understand why the Jewish people have had to take refuge in humour and situational comedy. We are all the richer for it.

Steve says:

09:22am | 27/10/10

Beware of all generalisations, even those that generalise about generalisations

James1 says:

09:49am | 27/10/10

Don’t generalise about generalising generalisations, Steve.

Hatfeld says:

10:02am | 27/10/10

Well Christians themselves are perpetrators of the biggest generalisations themselves - because isn’t everyone who isn’t Christian condemned?

MD says:

11:39am | 27/10/10

The worst in my experience are the atheists really, talking about special friend and fairy in the sky doing exactly to others what they claim to hate, condemning people who have a different opinion or belief, we have free will in this country, the freedom of CHOICE, so if I CHOOSE to believe in a higher power be it god or the flying spagheti monster it is no one’s business but my own, why must I be labled as off my rocker or a nutbar? what we dislike in others is often what we dislike in ourselves

Faith is the belief in someone in the absence of proof, we don’t need proof or fact to believe

Andrew says:

01:50pm | 27/10/10

MD, we mock you (not you, in particular, but ‘believers’ in general) for the same reason that you would mock somebody who believed that 1) the sky is purple, 2) the world is flat, 3) homeopathy is effective, or 4) leprechauns, unicorns, gnomes, fairies and hobbits walk the earth.  Because you are publicly declaring, in front of the entire world “I have no reason nor logic”, and thus are deserving of scorn.

And, like homeopaths, you are doing immeasurable harm to society by either convincing people to believe in “prayer” over proven medical techniques, or by simply pissing away an ENORMOUS amount of the world’s resources.  The same resources that could and should be used to cure cancer, create renewable energy sources, fight poverty, and generally improve our quality of life.

So yes, you are ridiculed, and the reasons are profound.  The TRILLIONS of dollars that are thrown away each year in the name of religion could have done innumerable good things in the world.  I would think you should be extremely happy to just be ‘ridiculed’, because given what religion is costing the world, hatred would seem to be a far more appropriate emotion.

MD says:

02:39pm | 27/10/10

@Andrew, I am agnostic, I do believe in a higher power but I am against religion, these are 2 different things, you can’t really compare believing the sky is purple and earth flat to the belief in a higher being, there is proof to dispute the first 2, not enough to prove 100% without a doubt that there isn’t someone up there, you are using extreme, and there are extreme in everything even the non believers, I do not agree to let children die by praying at their bedside, i don’t pray as I don’t believe it has any effect on anything.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I may believe but I also believe in evolution, I do not believe in global warming it’s not one or the other

marley says:

03:02pm | 27/10/10

@Andrew - well, I think your criticism of Christians is a tad unfair. 

Do you really think that, because he was a believer, Charles Darwin had neither “reason nor logic?” 

Or that groups like the Salvos are wasting money and ignoring the plight of the poverty-stricken?

Perhaps you should reserve a little of that scorn for those who make thoughtless generalizations.

Chris L says:

07:17pm | 27/10/10

There is no reason for atheists to prove any particular god doesn’t exist because the burdon of proof is on the one making the claim (in this case the claim is that god exists). Otherwise we’d also have to disprove that unicorns, vampires and pretty much every other myth.

While many religious people claim that some atheists are fundamentalist (and there are many that would probably qualify for that definition) the difference is that atheists don’t try to enforce their ideals or behaviours on others. If a person’s faith cannot withstand criticism it musn’t be very strong.

MD says:

11:30am | 28/10/10

@Chris - there is no reason for believers to prove the existance of god or a devine being be it god or the flying spaghetti monster, and as for your vampires thing, I believe they exist, prove to me they don’t, just because you haven’t seen them doesn’t mean they don’t exist, it just means they are careful about exposure because human beings are war like people and we would have something of a ‘witch hunt’ to wipe them out as we would panic, why should they show themselves. and just because you can’t see god doesn’t mean she doesn’t exist either, you can’t see the wind but you can see the effects of it

Heather says:

06:25pm | 28/10/10

>> leprechauns, unicorns, gnomes, fairies and hobbits walk the earth.

Andrew, as the High Priestess of Fluffy The Purple Unicorn (since 2003), I resent that remark.

But that’s okay. She’s a forgiving sort. Just watch out for the horn.

seriously: the trouble with God and science is that neither can prove the other doesn’t exist. Yet, the minority fundamentalists keep arguing, shoving our opinions of “fairy-believing nutjobs” and “fodder for Hell” on each other until Kingdom come or the Universe implodes (whichever comes first). Meanwhile, we’ll keep stereotyping things we don’t understand and putting humans into wee boxes, because it’s what humans do.

Pity, though.

Heather says:

06:28pm | 28/10/10

PS Andrew. Sometimes the sky IS, in fact, purple. Or have you never seen the sky just after sunset but before it gets dark?

Chris L says:

07:27pm | 28/10/10

Actually MD I’m not saying that god, vampires, etc. don’t exist, I’m just saying that atheists don’t have to prove that they don’t because the default position is disbelief until proven (I take the same appoach with the Tooth Fairy ever since I found the bitch was ripping me off compared to my more wealthy friends). Vision isn’t the only way of proving something either, air for example can be measured by other means.

If there were some way to measure/record miraculous occurences that cannot be explained by natural physical law it would go a long way toward convincing me that there is some sort of god.

Of course that wouldn’t necesarily mean it would be the god of the bible (highly unlikely in fact, given that the christian god comes across as an immature and vicious being with a low self esteem).

MD says:

09:28am | 29/10/10

@Chris, I understand your position and respect your opinion, as previously stated I don’t believe in religion but I do believe in a higher power, can you respect my opinion and not force yours on to me telling me that I am an idiot or nutbag which is my main issue, believe or don’t believe I don’t have a problem with that, what I do have a problem with on both sides is people not able to accept that others opinion may differ from theirs, you may not understand it but don’t try to convert me to you view, we can have a lively debate, to be quite honest a lot of the stories in the bible I take with a pinch of salt and see them more as moral fairy tales, david vs goliath about even the little guy can stand up and win with enough effort, I don’t actually believe that this even happened at all, the great flood, where did the water go? if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and covered the entire earth that means the water volume would have had to be over our tallest mountains and the water just disappeared? where did it go? and the whole incest thing, adam and eve were the first humans then got kicked out of paradise and had 2 boy children…....where did the rest of the populace come from then? did the boys have a crack at mum? still means inter-family love, and if all the world perished in the flood except noah and his family then they had to repopulate the earth - incest again. what happened in the years between when jesus was told he was the son of god when he was like what 12? to the next spot where he is 30 and doing all these works.

my belief is these were meant to be a book of fairy tale stories much like the brothers grimm and some higher ups of these churches thought hey we can make some money out of this and twisted it to their ideals to control people and make women 2nd rate citizens, I don’t believe the higher power cares if we ‘worship’ or not, we can get rid of the churches and still believe

Simon says:

08:24am | 27/10/10

Hey Bubby, I disagree with everything you said but I love the way you say it!!

Ex-theist says:

09:35am | 27/10/10

Agreed. If the church had its way, we’d end up like an Islamic country where ‘disrespect’ has its own special religious definition of ‘blasphemy’. Blasphemy in all Abrahamic religions results in murder of the ‘blasphemer’, who to a rational mind is just a person either pointing out the obvious, or using reason and logic in giving an opinion.

The church literally burned satirists for centuries, and Muslim countries still stone them to death, so if anything Christians whose biggest problem is mere stereotypes in entertainment media have it pretty good in comparison. And if Muslims have a problem with people seeing them as terrorists then… well I better be quiet on that one, we know what happens to those who ‘blaspheme’ against Islam.

Jeremy says:

10:04am | 27/10/10

Simon, I am with you..well said Bubby!!
As a Christian I hate the idea of ‘Christian’ schools.. rather my children hang out with bogans and don’t have to be exposed to self rightous ‘christians’ and be brainwashed with imported rightwing conservitive christianity from the US of A.
Long live the socail democratic christian movement!! YAY!

kenny says:

12:20pm | 27/10/10

@Ex-theist
if you actually mean what you say then you have obviously never read the new testament.
The bible does not condone the killing of sinners.
And the church burning satirists and killing non believers and what not, that just shows that the church was not doing what the bible told them to do.

Steely Dan says:

01:27pm | 27/10/10

@ Kenny

“if you actually mean what you say then you have obviously never read the new testament. The bible does not condone the killing of sinners.”
If you’d read the NT (especially Matt 5:17-20) , you’d know it doesn’t replace the OT laws (like Deut 17:2-7,12-13 & Deut 20:16-18 ).

Rev says:

09:15am | 27/10/10

Exactly.  Whenever someone mocks Scientology I point out the fact that Jesus ‘could’ walk on water, cure blindness, be crucified and return from the dead.  It make’s Hubbards’ ranting about aliens and thetans and whatever else sound half coherent.

James1 says:

09:53am | 27/10/10

The alien in American Dad put it quite well (regarding Christmas): “I hope I haven’t missed the part where the three Chinese guys give perfume to the star baby.”

Or, “Its like Harry Potter, but it causes genocide and bad folk music.”

Joe says:

09:29am | 27/10/10

Sadly for many young people today this its all they will ever see of Christianity. How can they learn anything about Christianity from such parodies? At least many of those in previous generations who walked away from their faith knew what they were walking away from, and not a hollywood parody.

Bobster says:

09:43am | 27/10/10

You realise the average tweenies who watched Miley Cirus are now about 18 as well don’t you? Believe it or not, children age.

I’ll believe young people are growing more intelligent when we see solid proof that more of them are finding christianity a laughable proposition.

James1 says:

10:03am | 27/10/10

You have hit the nail on the head Joe.  Catholic school made me the atheist I am today.

AdamC says:

10:32am | 27/10/10

Spot on, Joe.

I was educated in a spiritually arid (but nominally Uniting Church) school and raised by exceedingly agnostic parents who, while not actively hostile to Christianity, certainly didn’t do anything to encourage me to think about it. I think it’s a shame.

By contrast, my Christian boyfriend’s family raised him and his siblings as Christians. Some of his siblings remain committed to it, and soem haven’t. But the ones that haven’t have made an informed decision. I think that is the best way to do things.

Adam Diver says:

12:51pm | 27/10/10

@ Joe, you know god could always pull his weight and teach the populace of his existence. Sure would save alot of time and effort of millions around the world and avoid any nasty hollywood parodies.

TrueOz says:

07:38am | 27/10/10

@Anthony Marshall

There is another reason why Hollywood pokes fun at Christians: Christians believe things that are truly worthy of the highest ridicule - and it’s funny!

Austin 3:16 says:

07:52am | 27/10/10

TrueOz,

Yep that might it.

Austin 3:16 says:

08:13am | 27/10/10

Of course if you’re a doctor and your practice offends Christians then bombings shootings etc are ok. And obviously the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland was caused by too much love and forgiveness between the Protestants and Catholics. And in March this year when 9 members of a Christian Patriot group in the USA were charged with planning to kill government officials that must have just been a misunderstanding. 

Reality, an optional extra for Christians.

Duff says:

10:10am | 27/10/10

Anthony, I think the main reason we poke fun at certain types of christians is nothing more than innocent self-deprecating humour.  ie. we are laughing at ourselves.  That a very healthy thing and we should be proud of it.  The Brits are excellent at it.  It is human nature to be self-critical, just as it is rude to insult others.  I’ll bet you the writers of “Easy A” come from a christian heritage.

Sam says:

02:09pm | 27/10/10

Anthony Marshall, George W. Bush is supposedly a christian, how many bombs do you suppose he is responsible for?

Still Laughing says:

09:36am | 27/10/10

@TrueOz “In Western societies there is a decline in religious devotion, due to better education and a better informed, less ignorant populous for the Churches to brainwash.”

That is hilarious. If you believe this astonishing simplification then you are as blinkered and ignorant as the ridiculous stereotype of a Christian that you so clearly need to hate.
Freedom of religion is one of the foundations of democracy. Judging by the tone of viciousness expressed by yourself and others on this thread, this story should be commended for flushing out a rat’s nest of atheist fascists dwelling in modern Australian society.
Have a look around the world. Wherever there is freedom of religion, there is more likely to be peace and prosperity and a better chance for people to live the way they want without interference from the state while simultaneously enjoying the state’s protection through its Laws.
Yet secular Nazis like yourself want to deny others their fundamental human right on the basis that the “populous”, and no doubt you include yourself in this enlightened group, are “better informed” and “less ignorant”.
That’s priceless. Hypocritical in the extreme and unsustainable in logic, but priceless. Thanks for giving me a laugh over my morning tea.

iansand says:

10:17am | 27/10/10

Still Laughing - Freedom of religion is a political construct, not a religious one.  We have freedom of religion in spite of the desires of the Churches, not because of them.

TrueOz says:

10:32am | 27/10/10

@Still Laughing

How dare you accuse me of failing to support religious freedom, and of being a blinkered, ignorant Nazi. I totally support the right of people to believe anything they wish - yes - even ignoramuses like you. It’s unfortunate when the ill-informed go off spruiking their ignorance as “truth” to small children and people lacking the education and resources to know how to investigate the truth or otherwise of that spruiking. You know mate, kind of like when someone tells others that a certain person is a blinkered, ignorant Nazi or saying that they do not support religious freedom without first asking their view on those subjects, but preaching it as the truth anyway.

I was going to comment on your “logic” in arriving at the conclusions you have, but let’s face it Sunshine - there is none.

As a good Christian might say to you whilst turning the other cheek; “Have a nice day!”

Greg says:

10:38am | 27/10/10

I don’t recall anybody saying anything about banning freedom of religion, just that religions are superstitious nonsense and it would be desirable for less people to believe it. Besides that, TrueOz is quite correct, there is a direct inverse correlation between higher education levels and belief.

James1 says:

10:41am | 27/10/10

Godwin’s Law again.  You lose the argument Still Laughing.

ParkingLot says:

11:10am | 27/10/10

So, Still Laughing, you’re just pointing out that in countries where people aren’t forced into religion and actually have the option to ignore it, society is better off?

I’ve got to say…that definitely sounds like a point for those of us without an imaginary friend.

You’re certainly giving some weight to TrueOz’s point about ignorance. Firstly, it’s a widely known fact that the leader of the Nazi’s, with which you so eagerly equate anyone who disagrees with you, was a Christian.

Secondly, you speak of logic. You are either using this word incorrectly or you just have no idea what it means (not entirely dissimilar to your use of the word hypocrite). There is not one single logical argument for religion. Not one. Every theoretical argument of a religious nature always descends into a less than logical string of emotionally charged name calling (your post, exhibit A). Maybe you should reread you little storybook. Something about stones and who should throw them.

And lastly, no one believes that your laughing at all. You can’t spew forth that much hatred and blind ignorance and then claim to find the source of it funny. Not all of us are so willing to believe something that is obviously just a defence mechanism for you.

Waz says:

12:15pm | 27/10/10

And the vast majority of countries with a politically adopted freedom of religion come from a Christian heritage or an historical occupation by a country with Christian heritage…. interesting…

There needs to be differentiation between Jesus’ words and actions and his followers’ words and actions. When humans get involved, things get broken.

Seth Brundle says:

12:33pm | 27/10/10

Spot on TrueOz, the best defence against religion is being well informed and well educated.  Religion is just an effective way to manipulate the ignorant.

Jon says:

02:04pm | 27/10/10

@James1, The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued its was the overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons that should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

It’s still up to the reader to decide if the comparison is appropriate, which means that in some cases it can be.

Not laughing, guffawing. says:

02:12pm | 27/10/10

@TrueOz. You say your support the right of freedom of religion. Simultaneously you use your right to freedom of speech to attack those exercising their religious rights.
Face it. The tone of your posts and those of many in your support crew conveys emotive hatred for Christianity and only Christianity. There’s no reference to the other theisms. Your attitude is not based on reason. It’s based on passion. And on a secularist’s faith in fact. God Bless.

Steely Dan says:

03:49pm | 27/10/10

@ Not laughing

“You say your support the right of freedom of religion. Simultaneously you use your right to freedom of speech to attack those exercising their religious rights.”
You seem to think that ‘freedom of religion’ means ‘right to deny others free speech’.  Religions do not have the right not to be criticised and scrutinised - nobody has such a right.  ‘Freedom of religion’ does not give religions any special status, it simply guarantees that you have the right to believe what you want.  Somebody criticising a religion or religious beliefs is not oppression.
“The tone of your posts and those of many in your support crew conveys emotive hatred for Christianity and only Christianity. There’s no reference to the other theisms.”
Yeah, why is everyone talking about Christians?  Have a look at the title of the piece.  Is it ‘Easy laughs: why Hollywood loves mocking Hindus’?

TrueOz says:

03:57pm | 27/10/10

@Not Laughing

Now that made me laugh! Let me tell you about the religious beliefs I think are nonsense - but support the right of people to believe in;

Christianity
Judaism
Islam
Buddhism
Scientology
Pharaohism

Oh damn - just add in any others you can think of - they’re all equally silly!

Chris L says:

07:29pm | 27/10/10

@TrueOz If I had to choose one it would be ancient greek pantheonism! The Iliad is older than the bible, has archeologically proven concurrences (the sacking of Troy) and their gods are much more interesting! The fact that they are so capricious just makes them more believable considering natural disasters are difficult to reconcile with a “loving god”.

Rebecca says:

12:25pm | 27/10/10

I don’t like Tony Abbott at all, but I will say this - his comments were taken completely out of context. He was asked in the magazine what he would want for his daughters. Pretty sure most fathers of teenage girls, even non religious ones, don’t want them having sex! And then of course the media decided that he is a crazy Christian nutbag who wants every woman in the country to remain abstinent.

FreddoFrog says:

12:55pm | 27/10/10

BK, you are correct.  The big issue is imposing beliefs on others.
While Tony Abbott’s comments were largely blown out of proportion, if he were to become PM, would he be able to put aside his beliefs to apply only intellectual rigour on matters such as abortion, euthanasia, equal rights for same-sex couples?  The minute someone makes a decision of public policy based upon personal beliefs rather than intellect, they are forcing their beliefs upon us.

ParkingLot says:

01:45pm | 27/10/10

BK, although almost everyone tries to get people to come around to their side of an argument (regardless of the topic) the christian vs. atheism impositions are wildly different.

For example, never on a Saturday morning have I answered a knock on my door to find that an atheist has actively gone out of their way to bother me at home. Apparently it’s only O.K. for members of an organised religion to assault you with their uninvited presence at your home.

Also, never in a conversation with an atheist have I been condemned to eternal damnation, torture and suffering if I still choose to have a differing opinion.

Both imposing their opinion? Yes.

Both as bad as each other I think not

Heather says:

06:37pm | 28/10/10

Freddo Frog: straw man argument, because that applies to *all* politicians with beliefs.

People forget to point out, also, that it is the atheist Julia Gillard who has put the kybosh on same-sex marriage, declaring that “marriage is between a man and a woman only.”

Clearly, her atheistic views have also not precluded her forcing her beliefs on others. Claiming that this is the domain of Christians (or Muslims, or anyone else for that matter) is highly ingenuous.

Les says:

08:01am | 27/10/10

Agreed. Less likely Christian fundamentalists will retaliate by blowing up a building or two… sad but true.

Remeber the outrage over the political cartoon depitcting Allah a couple of years back…? Despite Christian fundamentalists being nutbags, they are not dangerous nutbags…

DG says:

08:53am | 27/10/10

Les:

They are dangerous, just in different ways.

One need look no further than the objection to teaching ethics and the objection to the teaching of evolution. At least at the organisational level, there is a strong push against any education that is contrary to Christian religious ideology.

It’s not a case of saying “There is an alternative, here is the evidence”, it a case of “You have to teach that no everyone agrees, and that some people believe in God”. The opposition to the ethics class is similar - if we teach children that they can be good without God, what is God’s role in teaching right and wrong?

The position of these organisations has changed very little from the time of Galileo. The position is effectively this: prohibit the teaching of any science or philosophy that is contrary to the Christian faith.

It is worth noting that the Pontiff supports evolution and the concept of good without God. It is those intermediate layers that actively oppose such teachings and who lobby for change in the political arena that are opposing such education, as they are the ones that are most rapidly losing relevance.

Aaron says:

10:14am | 27/10/10

I think the issue with mocking Muslims is that rather than mocking the views of the religion people go directly to mocking their Prophet. Christians would be the same if people were to mock Jesus.

Something however along the lines of “What do they hide under the burka? ” could actually bring some laughs I think. But regardless of your beliefs depicting somebody “Spiritual” as an animal, well it’s just not all that funny, more childish than anything.

sproket says:

07:56am | 27/10/10

which book is that? the Book of Ooh laa Laa?? I missed that one in Bible Class!

Peter says:

08:28am | 27/10/10

Song of Solomn - racy stuff!

Peter says:

03:17pm | 27/10/10

No sex, no conception.. Why would the bible say no sex? It just says these things are best confined in marriage..

thomas says:

06:26pm | 27/10/10

I thought it was a great article too

Snake says:

01:02pm | 27/10/10

The pastor doth protest too much, methinks?

Duff says:

10:46am | 27/10/10

The film industry will happily make movies about anything they think will sell.  Full stop.  It’s about what makes us laugh, not a conspiracy.  And don’t think for a moment that Jews are not made fun of in movies and television.  Have you not heard of Sienfeld?  Which culture do you think most of the gags are aimed at?  It is an entire sitcom dedicated to poking fun at New York Jews!  Think about South Park.  They pretty much skewer everybody, Jews included.  And Muslims.  And Scientologists.  And Barbara Streisand (quite a bit, actually).  Writers will go after anybody and anything they think will make us laugh.

Joan says:

11:01am | 27/10/10

A Jewish lady told me a Jewish joke… then said ~ It`s OK for me to make Jewish jokes because I`m Jewish. I guess Christians have been taught to `turn the other cheek` so overtime they have become the butt of easy jokes and mockery. And whoever said that to be a Christian is to be perfect.?... Jesus accepted all -with all their imperfections. It would seem that it is only a non- Christians belief - that Christians should be perfect in every way.

bec says:

08:28am | 27/10/10

Audience testing of early Simpsons episodes, when they were put out in the late eighties and early nineties, revealed that Flanders was actually a genuine fan favourite. Hence why that family, and even Reverend Lovejoy, has avoided much of the satire that other TV fundies get.

DG says:

08:39am | 27/10/10

If anything Flanders is mocked for evangelizing, not for being Christian. Even Rev’d gets annoyed by Flanders obsessive approach to religion. Not that he is a ‘good Christian’.

Finally, consider the episode with the following exchange:

Choir: “Every body loves Ned Flanders”

Homer [interrupting]: “Not me”

Choir [correcting]: “Everyone who counts loves New Flanders”.

DG says:

09:08am | 27/10/10

Ignorant?

“Christians believe things that are truly worthy of the highest ridicule” - I think this statement could be made with respect to any group who believe a thing, who allow that principle to close their lives in the absence of any evidence to support their hypothesis, and more disturbingly in the face of evidence to the contrary. It should not be limited to christians.*

It seems only those who demonstrate an academic and intellectual approach to a question - based on evidence, observations and a robust peer-review process would be more than a little disappointed, and some what smuggly superior to a group why by definition, deny proof and demand faith. A person who has considered the situation in light of the available evidence (by pursuing such information from various sources and applying a little bit of their own intelligence) is worthy of such criticism. Whether that belief be religious, or based on one of any number of other demonstrably false propositions such as: homeopathy, anti-vaccination groups, “chem-trails”, moon landing/holocaust denial.

I think one would will find that much of the criticism aimed at Christians is aimed at those who take a literal approach to the Bible (despite the internal inconsistencies), who attempt to force their faith on others and who demand or expect that everyone should live in accordance with the ‘teachings’ of the Christian faith.

*Christian is also a deceptively meaningless term. Technically it requires nothing more than a belief that Jesus was the son of God. A Christian need not have a literal interpretation of the bible, they need not even believe in the virgin birth. They simply need to believe that “JC” was the son of god and the Saviour. Not only that, it is a term that can only be applied by self reporting.

Gareth says:

09:19am | 27/10/10

You are not comparing apples with apples there. A qualified doctor has a medical degree, whereas all god believing Christians believe in a higher power based on faith, not fact.

I believe the judgments about Christians that you mentioned, and many listed in the comments section of this article are about the shared belief in a higher power, not the radical actions of a few believers.

Lara says:

09:31am | 27/10/10

DG you really should learn that your stereotyping of Christianity limits the very argument you are making.
Christianity doesn’t mean you have to “believe” Jesus is the son of God.
How lazy must a religious person be if they relied not on their brains and hearts to find God but allow some person to feed them their own interpretation of their own religion?

Like every religion it is a pathway to spirituality, God and self-reflection.

However basic logic will tell you that a book can be altered in many ways - Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Guru Granth Sahib, etc - but the meaning behind it and the gist of the inspiration in having written it - can still be taken out.

I was an atheist before becoming Christian and yes many Christians annoy me by their absolutes but I realised by hating these crazy bible thumping Christians and their harping of hellfire with no possibility of anything else is the same as the crazy bible bashing atheists and their harping of no God with no possibility of anything else is the exact same in polar opposites.

Both unchanging, both unflinching and obviously not interested in learning about the world around them, and that that encompasses it.

Muttley says:

10:08am | 27/10/10

Reggieman, excellent point. But you are making it in the wrong place. This is the home of the sanctimonious athiest. These judgemental fools give athiests a bad name.

DG says:

10:15am | 27/10/10

Laura -

My point was about the definition of “Christian”. A person who does not believe that Jesus was the son of God is not a Christian.

If however, you are referring to my categorisation of Christianity as a system based on belief rather than evidence you have certainly proven my point. At not point does Christianity look at the reality that we live in, at no point does it explain natural phenomena except in ways that are demonstrably false (see young earth creationism, the opposition to evolution, the opposition to ethics coming from a source other than god).

As a philosophy (i.e a pathway to enlightenment and prism for self reflection, but not to the existence of God as I will outline below), I agree Christianity has plenty going for it. And as a thought experiment it is indeed worthwhile to consider the behaviour of this god and consider whether it is the behaviour of a benevolent father figure or of a petulant, attention seeking child - or somewhere in between.

The reason that it cannot be a pathway to the existence of a physical god is that the argument is circular and is not based on any manner of evidence. It is a matter of faith.

I would suggest that a person who reads the bible and things “Hey, I like the moral of this story. It made me think about myself as a person and about how I should interact with others”, is not a Christian unless they also say “That Jesus guy really was the Son of God”. Can one be a Christian without believing in God, and if so, what then make a person a Christian? I agree that one can demonstrate Christian behaviour, but without that belief in a deity one is, by definition, an atheist (i.e a non theist [where a theist is a person who believes in god]).

The latter statement is one of faith. It is the belief that I would suggest is with without evidence and that is, in some instances, demonstrably false as alluded to elsewhere. As a work of fiction the Bible is a terrible read. I find it’s chapter and verse style to be unnecessarily draining and distracting. It does however make it rather easy to quote and reference.

I also find that the different styles of the various authors is distracting. However, this is outweighed by some of the interesting philosophy and ‘teachings’ or morals to the stories. I mean some are just terrible - Look at God’s punishment of Job’s wife. The new testament is far more liberal, and I find myself taking more from it than I did from the old testament.

Reading them separately one could be forgiven for considering them to be completely separate books about separate deities. One insecure and aggressive, one compassionate and considerate.

iansand says:

10:19am | 27/10/10

Lara - In relation to this - “Christianity doesn’t mean you have to “believe” Jesus is the son of God.” - are you the Archbishop of Canterbury?

George G says:

10:27am | 27/10/10

People mock what they don’t understand, they think they do but they don’t. People also throw ridicule to elevate their own self worth over some one else. I am more intelligent than you, you and your imaginery friend etc. People aslo need someone to blame for their problems, with the Germans in world war 2 it was the Jews now days its the Christians.

Christians have also become a target because in many respects in that they appose the way of life promoted by Hollywood that “you can do what you like”. Why is that? because sex sells, imagine hollywood run by the christian ethos nobody would want to watch any of the movies produced as they would be considered to be boring.

There was a biblical character called Noah and in much the same way was mocked, why build a boat in the desert? Thats crazy what are the chances of if flooding here! Could it be that history is repeating itself?

Matt says:

10:47am | 27/10/10

Sorry Lara, I think Christianity does mean you have to “believe” Jesus is the son of god. I think that’s about all it means.

Perhaps you found spirituality, but I don’t think you found Christianity if you don’t believe that. You found what Christianity was supposed to be, what it originated as, and what made it great. But that is not what Christianity is now, and that’s why there is so much anger towards it.

Those who attack Christianity generally attack the church and its proponents that have an unwavering belief of the literal meaning of every part of the bible.  This ‘fight’ has been going on for a long long time in one form or another. It started with people wanting to read the bible themselves and interpret it for themselves. The church rightly feared that this would cause people to see metaphor in the bible, and that they would lose their supremacy.

I suspect that Christianity presented not as a history book of inarguable fact, but as a means of developing spirituality, encouraging moral behaviour, self-reflection, depth of character and personal growth would be far more accepted. Like Buddhism, at least it wouldn’t be so threatening to those unacquainted with it. Of course, this would further displace those holding the reigns of people’s faith and beliefs, so this is an unlikely eventuation in the near future.

Markus says:

10:54am | 27/10/10

Lara
‘Christianity doesn’t mean you have to “believe” Jesus is the son of God.’
It does, actually. In fact it is one of the core requirements of being a Christian. Have you even read the Profession of Faith?
“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.”
Without believing that, one would just be a person who thinks some of the values of Christianity are good to live by.

Ben says:

11:02am | 27/10/10

Uh Lara
Im pretty sure that being a Christian means that you believe that Jesus was the son of God. Thats the basis of the Religion, as opposed to say Islam or Judaism.
Also your last comment “Both unchanging, both unflinching and obviously not interested in learning about the world around them, and that that encompasses it. ” is total rubbish.  A lot of athiests who were religious (myself included) became that way because they were interested in learning about the world around them and questioned the amazingly close minded “facts” they were spoon fed from a very young age.

Austin 3:16 says:

11:49am | 27/10/10

Hey All,

If you ever get a chance read Zuckerman’s “Society Without God” in his experience it’s not uncommon in Scandinavian societies to find people who consider themselves Christian, but don’t consider Jesus to be the risen son of God.

Even Richard Dawkins once described himself as a “Cultural Christian”

TrueOz says:

12:03pm | 27/10/10

@Reggieman

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I’ll sleep better knowing that it’s just a small minority (i.e. “...a few”) of Christians who believe in virgin births, the son of God roaming the earth as an illiterate carpenter to spread “His father’s” word, miraculous healings, and all of the other superstitious stupidity that goes with Christianity. Those few people are clearly just giving all of the other Christians a really bad name. Shame on them!

Lara says:

02:58pm | 27/10/10

One can look at the religions today and insinuate whatever one wants to insinuate.
At its current state I’d say there is no pure, unadulterated religion which has not been changed, altered, etc, more especially the holy books of these religions.

@ DG, (Its ‘Lara’, by the way. )

I think I get what you mean.
You and most people have been conditioned to think that to be Christian you must conform to a certain idea of what it means to be Christian today.

This is why you find my argument flawed or off.

With science, lets put it this way.
I believe in science. Science describes the world around us, and translate our physical and non-physical surroundings and inner workings so we may understand them and manipulate them to our needs.
I do not believe that science discredits religion.
Currently, I agree, there is no way of finding out if God truly exists scientifically.
I also agree that it is based on faith because there is no current scientific proof that God exists.

In the same way, science does not adequately explain everything. Science is based on theory which are put forward by scientists many of which are ever changing and may or may not be true until proven to have the highest possible probability of ‘truth’.

Much of science is based on trial and error.
Current technology of science does not adequately explain things far off in our universe, we cannot touch them, we can only observe them and come up with theories which may sound radical, wild or unplausible.

Your ideas I have contemplated when I was atheist, and while they are valid in their own right as an argument, I believe they do not fully explain for the doing away of religion as valid possibility.

I shall explain your concerns about the biblical times below.

@ the others,

If you have read the bible instead of listening to others going on about it (priests, etc - why do you need them to translate it for you when you have a perfectly good brain you can use), or wikipedia, or whatever else you use for your source aside from the bible.

Many Christians agree with me, and many Christians find it blasphemous.
There is no fixed mould of what it means to ‘believe’ in Christianity. This is why there are so many sects of every religion. It does not necessarily imply weakness.

The bible never said that Jesus is the “son of God’, I believe, in the literal sense.

He was a prophet. Through his teachings one finds a pathway to God.
He spoke to God as an authority - He worshipped God.
It does not make sense that he is God as well.

As with the bible, its a chronological book of events.
For those who didn’t know, the bible is compiled of the Jewish Torah and the New testament which is Jesus’s life and teachings.

It is, in short, Judaism in the front, and Christianity at the back.
At his time, Jewish priests had become corrupted (like the Christian ones today), demanding donations in gold before worshipping God, dictating that one must go through them to reach God.

The New testament goes on about how Jesus moved to teach that God is accessible through your own self, without the need for a middle man.
He was not that middle man, he was the prophet who taught you that there is no one standing between you and God.

If you have read with a clearer and objective mind without bias you would see that really, the path to God is not absolute even in its own.

Man made innovations and rituals today by priests and quacks (“You can’t believe in God if you don’t shave your pubes”, “You’ll go to hell if you don’t believe that Jesus is not only the son of God but he is GOD and the holy spirit and blah blah”.) make religion so contrived and hated, although I understand the adversity and scorn - the same as I felt a long time ago - it doesn’t mean that it is right or it makes the religion closed ended.

Lara says:

03:06pm | 27/10/10

@ TrueOz,

You can mock all you want but the brusqueness of how you put your points across only serves to make your viewpoint less significant.

I would rationalise that people of the past would see today’s 3 headed sheep/duck/pig, or 5 hooved animal, reddening of the sea, etc as evil, supernatural or divine.

If you can explain genetic anomalies today with a scientific explanation where in the past no one who didn’t see it but heard of it might have given the same response, perhaps its not too hard to imagine a virgin birth, some illiterate carpenter roaming about teaching what he believed (Buddha, anyone?) - perhaps it is just your cynicalism and fear of the unknown which makes you reject such notions and scorn others.

There is still much we have to learn about the world around us, much less the universe, and even so much of the microscopic world (atoms, etc) is still very much a mystery.

Is it so hard to leave an open mind instead of carving out an absolute?

TrueOz says:

04:01pm | 27/10/10

@ Lara

“...an absolute” - you mean like all that stuff that’s written in the Bible - right?

Markus says:

04:41pm | 27/10/10

Lara sorry to break it to you, but if you do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, the one core belief of all denominations of Christianity, then you are not Christian.
It seems you are exactly what I described - someone who thinks some of the New Testament’s readings contain good morals and values that we can all live and abide by.
That’s not to be taken as an insult (there is some valuable stuff in there), it just is what it is.

David says:

05:02pm | 27/10/10

“At not point does Christianity look at the reality that we live in, at no point does it explain natural phenomena except in ways that are demonstrably false (see young earth creationism, the opposition to evolution, the opposition to ethics coming from a source other than god).”

1. Christianity, like other disciplines that lie outside of science, makes its descisions based on other means.  Most of these are based on the same methods used by the courts of our land.  Where science can help (such as carbon dating a parchment), it is used.
Archeology and history has been used to prove much of what is in the Bible.  Some of this includes other documents written from the time from outside sources, often the enemies of Christianity.
Believe it or not Christianity is, ‘...based on evidence, observations and a robust peer-review process ...’ at the College/University level.

2. Young Earth Creationism - Not all Christians believe in this. In fact, in Christianity there has been discussion concerning this for decades because the word used in Genesis which was translated as ‘day’ actually means a ‘period a time’.  The Earth being 6000 years old was actually rejected by the church shortly after it was proposed.  It has no Biblical bases.

3. Evolution - At the time Darwin came up with the theory the Church of England actually accepted it and Darwin received high praise from the Church.  (The three highest Bishops in England did a combined sermon at the time in praise of the new theory). 
The ‘Evolution Vs Church’ debate came about more because up to that time in history most scientists were actually theologists.  The newly created ‘lay scientist’ (non clerical) of the Victorian age created the divide that lead to the so called schism between church and science.  This was because they were trying to create a ‘ligitimacy’ for their existence.  Most of them had never set foot in a University.

4. Ethics - has always been taught in theology, and a lot of it leaned on earlier non-Christian works, such as Plato and Aristotle.  The courses still require looking at works outside of Christianity.  Ethics is also not scientific.  It, like theology and other disciplines, requires other methods other than the scientific method.  As the Bible doesn’t cover every ethical situation some logic etc is used to determine what is and isn’t considered ethical.

5. Christianity is not trying to be science, nor is it claiming the Bible is a scientific document.  You can easily shorten your statement to, ‘...at no point does it explain natural phenomena ...’ and the answer is, ‘Of course it doesn’t.  It never claimed it was about explaining natural phenomena.’

The scienfitic method was however developed by Christians, who also happened to be scientists.  It was the Christians who developed the segregating of learning into all the ‘ologies’ we have today.  They created the Peer-review method as well as observational methods for scientific discovery.

“...much of the criticism aimed at Christians is aimed at those who take a literal approach to the Bible ...”

Yes, and the article is about how Hollywood protrays all Christians as being like this, when the truth is far from it.

“Technically it requires nothing more than a belief that Jesus was the son of God.”

Actually, there are some groups who do not believe this.  Technically, the traditional teaching is that they believe that “Jesus was God”, but there are many groups classified as ‘Christian’ who fall outside this definition.

Mormons, Christidelphians, JW’s etc and many other groups fall outside either the ‘Jesus is God’ or ‘Jesus is the Son of God’ beliefs yet get lumbered under ‘Christian’ when censes are taken.

DG says:

08:54am | 28/10/10

@Lara (sorry about previous misspelling):

I suppose my point is that the term “Christian” must mean something - If it does not men “Person who believes that Jesus was the Son of Christ” - When was does it mean?

If we take the approach that, like the term homosexual*, it is a matter of self reporting, then the term is meaningless. With no minimum criteria to determine membership it is irrelevant. An atheist could claim to be Christian, as could a Buddhist or even scientologist. Clearly Christianity does not cover such things, necessarily there is some nexus between Christianity and Christ.

Now we are getting to the whole point - What must a person believe to be entitled to call themselves Christian? If, as you have said “There is no fixed mould of what it means to ‘believe’ in Christianity” the term is meaningless unless, as I have mentioned above, there is some pre-requisite belief.

If all that is required is that one believes that Jesus was a prophet, then every Muslim is also Christian. After all they believe that Jesus was a prophet. That is why there trinity of Judaism, Islam and “Christianity” are, in a theological sense, considered Abrehamic religions (as they are based on the God that told Abraham to kill his son).

As one who has read the bible a few times, It is fair to say that not all of the gospel make it clear that Jesus was the Son of God. This has been traced to the times that the various gospel and the prevailing political interests at the time - for example, those that are intended to paint Judaism in the worst light have angels proclaiming Jesus birthright, the others, only Jesus hears that he is the son of God at the time of his baptism.

As for the “Science doesn’t explain everything therefore, GOD” - firstly this is a logical fallacy. But more importantly, you have created an ever decreasing God, as science discovers more, gods powers are diminished. At best it gets you are far as Deism, and does not support any one God over any other. So there is a ‘leap of faith”, to get to the Christian God. It is unjustified, and that’s fair enough, a person is not required to justify their beliefs. But they should have the intellectual integrity to say “You’re right, It’s based on a gut feeling.” - We all have our “Sacred Cows” - Personally I like to believe that my hard work will be rewarded. There is no evidence to support that belief, in fact based on my current life there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. I too struggle with my belief, but I have the courage to accept that it is little more than a gut feeling that things should be fair and effort should be rewarded. However, I digress…

The alternative to the god of the gaps is Gould’s concept of “non-overlapping magesteria”, personally I think that’s a bit of a fudge to appease Christian critics - it is effectively a special pleading. it doesn’t explain anything it just saysin that religious deals with X, Y and Z while science is concerned with A, B and C. That’s fair enough, but it effectively relegates Religion to Philosophy rather than observations of the physical world.

@ David - I very much doubt that many Mormons consider themselves to be Christian, Nor do the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I put to you the same question as I put to Lara - What belief is necessary to make a person Christian. If there is no requisite belief what does the term mean? How can a person be Christian?

* To elaborate: The term homosexual is almost meaningless in the modern world - it is a self reported label. Is a person ho has sex with men homosexual? What if they only do that because they can’t get their preferred female partners? What about a person who is attracted to men, but doesn’t ever have sexual relationships with men is that person homosexual? If a person considers themselves to be homosexual but has never had, but wants to experience,  a homosexual relationship are they homosexual? Where does one draw the line? Can a person be told “No, You aren’t Homosexual?” If so on what basis may it be determined?

Reg says:

11:21pm | 27/10/10

Making an observation is not necessarily being critical of a religion but ignoring the impact of that observation, is apparently justified because it challenges someones “spirituality.”

Hollywood uses these observation to generate humour. And if you think Hollywood doesn’t laugh at Jewishness then you’ve missed the unedited versions of Lewis Black’s one-man shows and of course Seinfeld and Curb your Enthusiasm.

It may be worth pointing out that the Lewis Black shows were shown unedited in the US but will probably never be seen here because of the criticism and language it heaps on all religion. Ahhh.. I should mention Lewis Black is a Jew.

cRook says:

10:05am | 27/10/10

I don’t think that asking to be treated with respect is imposing our beliefs and values on you.

Duff says:

11:01am | 27/10/10

CJ, in your comment you hint at what I think is the crux of the issue.  Relevance.  How many of us have been accosted by “God Botherers” on Campus?  I know I was.  And how many times have we all had to chase away some Christian group that has come knocking on the door, intent on converting anyone in their path?  We’ve all BEEN there.  That’s why the God-botherer character is funny.  We all relate to it.  So it’s not about favouring or ridiculing one religion over another.  It’s just about being funny and we make fun of God-botherers because they are funny, not because we hate them or are afraid of mocking others.

Tim says:

09:53am | 27/10/10

Lisa Simpson is the smartest of the family with the highest ethics and morals. She then converts to Buddhism.

cRook says:

10:06am | 27/10/10

How many planets have you surveyed?

MD says:

11:32am | 27/10/10

How do you know? Have you been to these other planets in the universe? have you surveyed them all?

Time to wake up says:

12:40pm | 27/10/10

The problem is “God” does not exist and is a man made concept that has plagued peoples perception that live on this planet for centuries. It is time to end the bullshit and open our eyes to reality. And no I am not an Atheist or what ever you like to call it, I don’t label myself.

Regardless of the rest of universal existence.

MD says:

01:18pm | 27/10/10

People have the right to believe what they want, they shouldn’t be told that their belief that they use for whatever reason is wrong, who cares if it is a man made concept? which we don’t really know for sure, just let people believe what they want, it’s not right or wrong it is just different to your views, you have the right to believe what you want and so do others, they don’t deserve to have the extreme non-believers tell them they are idiots if they personally haven’t been trying to convert you

someone comes to your door or stops you in the street, feel free to let rip, someone quietly believing in something that has nothing to do with you, leave them be

john smith says:

06:56pm | 27/10/10

your helirious….

Nicole says:

07:49pm | 27/10/10

@John, who’s helirious? Some Greek God?

Get REAL says:

08:36am | 28/10/10

Actually it BECOMES wrong when they claim to somehow know better than anyone who does not share their beliefs, as they are claiming to somehow know something more than the rest of us, which is utter nonsense as they cannot prove anything more than the next person.

MD says:

09:31am | 29/10/10

@Get Real - that works both ways you know, don’t try to tell me that your way is the only way or that you know better than me

A Bob says:

11:26am | 27/10/10

This concept is not being mocked. What is mocked is the way the concept gets lost in the reality of Christendom.

Reg says:

01:19pm | 28/10/10

Mary if you must use sarcasm, the modern indicator is to shove a “NOT” on the end.  I know, I think it’s stupid to, why not just say what your mean?

Steve Montgomery says:

09:55am | 27/10/10

When a faith is fundamental to an individual’s existance,the mocking careless and disregarding approach is hurtful. As a Christian, I subscribe to the Jewish approach - only jews shpould tell jokes that put down jews. It has nothig to do with ratings, humour or talent - just respect. Unfortunately the world is rapidly losing self respect and the outcome for all will be I fear an increasingly unpleasant society in which to to live (exist). Where do our children get their role models - Hollywood! What role models out of Hollywood appeal to you - not as enetertainment - but as persons your childern would wnat to emulate. There are not too many.
Steve

Reg says:

11:56pm | 27/10/10

Come on Steve, admit it, when you say role model you really mean a religious pattern you expect your children to follow. The Catholic Church accepted The Simpson because it makes people think by inserting humour into the otherwise long-faced equation.

Please tell me why religion and sex are opposites. It’s pretty obvious to me that this is one of the reasons Lewis Black bombards his audience with the F word. Every point he makes is driven home to those who smart at it’s insulting sound.

Time to wake up says:

10:10am | 27/10/10

Very true, but the problem is “God” does not exist and is a man made concept that has plagued peoples perception that live on this planet for centuries. It is time to end the bullshit and open our eyes to reality. And no I am not an Atheist or what ever you like to call it, I don’t label myself.

Ben says:

11:13am | 27/10/10

Majority of these Christians really just repeat what someone else says or what the church says without knowing historical facts and scientific facts yet they claim religion is the answer but they know very little about religion at all.

There, I fixed that part for you.

Bobster says:

02:33pm | 27/10/10

Watch Bill Maher’s Religulous - pretty impressive in its efforts to point out that the religious generally have pretty scant info on their religion.

In many cases the interview subjects claimed the bible contained things that were not even mentioned. I think some just attribute their own moral beliefs to god because it makes them feel better.

Christianity is a nice way of avoiding any internal moral deliberations, I’ve found

Reg says:

11:29pm | 27/10/10

@Snoogens ...“atheists really know very little about the subject manner<sic> in.sic> which they love to talk down”

How can anyone know very little about something that doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t exist, no-one knows anything about it. That’s what faith is. A belief in something that isn’t.

No wonder people find it humorous.

GingerKitty says:

11:35am | 27/10/10

Because it stirs something deep inside us all - they know what to write about to get the people talking!

Steely Dan says:

12:33pm | 27/10/10

Comment # 128: They get comments.

Josie says:

01:53pm | 27/10/10

Christians bring it on themselves? By being corny? The problem with this whole religion thing is that people have too much stupid things to say and not enough respect for other people’s beliefs. if the ‘athiests’  dont belive in religion then don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter holidays which are CHRISTIAN traditions. Don’t celebrate with us. Go to work and find more articles liek this to write your pathetic comments on.

Brad says:

02:18pm | 27/10/10

Well said Josie

Steely Dan says:

02:56pm | 27/10/10

@ Josie

” if the ‘athiests’  dont belive in religion then don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter holidays which are CHRISTIAN traditions.”
Really?  You sure?  Read Jeremiah 10 (Gods and Idols).

The only Christian thing about Christmas and Easter celebrations is the special church services (which most Christians don’t attend), nativity scenes and the religious childrens television programming from the 1970s.  All the fun stuff you do at Christmas and Easter is pagan or secular!

Bobster says:

04:10pm | 27/10/10

@ Josie

I don’t. Don’t play Christmas carols in supermarkets. Deal?

Bobster says:

04:58pm | 27/10/10

Also - Christmas was originally a Roman festival to celebrate the harvest. Constantine just placed the Christmas holiday there to keep the Roman’s annual pissup going, thus making the whole new religion thing more palatable.

Get god out of the harvest festival, I say.

David says:

05:51pm | 27/10/10

Bobster - “Christmas was originally a Roman festival to celebrate the harvest.”

I doubt it.  It was midwinter.  Easter was to celebreate the harvest and it still has the Norse/Germanic goddess name, ‘Easter’ attached to it.

Christmas just happened to fall at the same time as the old Mid Winter celebrations, so they merged.  Every Saint has a day where they get celebrated and the day for celebrating Jesus’ birth (not celebrate his birthday, but the fact that he came) just happened to fall close to Dec 25th (it was originally Dec 6th and in some orthodox churches in January) and got merged with the pagan festival due to proximity.  That merging took place long after Constantine as well.

Easter merged with the celebration of Jesus death on the cross due to it’s proximity with the Passover (which is when Jesus was crucified).

Bobster says:

08:52pm | 27/10/10

I’ll concede the minor points but the major point remains - you stole our piss up and wrecked it.

Who would you rather at a party, Bacchus or Jesus?

St. Michael says:

09:17pm | 27/10/10

@ Bobster: Jesus, hands down.  He could make sure the wine supply never ran out as long as there’s wateraround.  What’s Bacchus going to do, prance around playing a Pan pipe?

Gen says:

09:04am | 28/10/10

Josie, what would you say if one of your family told you they were going to stop celebrating Christmas and Easter? I tried and my family (not even practising Christians) stopped talking to me because I was “just trying to get attention” and ruining what should be “a special day with family and loved ones”. Sometimes it’s easier to just go along with it to keep the peace.

Jon says:

02:36pm | 28/10/10

josie@ from my research, Christmas is the Roman festival of Saturnalia renamed. Even the sit down meal with pointed hats and the giving of presents, the singing of songs from house to house is Roman. Dates of the original festival run from the 17th to the 23rd of December. I still like Christmas as an atheist and I can pay respect to the positive contribution that the so-called pagan Romans have had to this tradition. Other religions have many pagan traditions also, but they don’t like to admit it.

GGibson says:

10:07am | 27/10/10

Good one True Believer.
Have you read WHAT WILL BECOME OF AUSTRALIA 1974 by Jack Burrell.
Its on the net. It speaks about half of Australia lost to an invader…a Judgment for Australias sin.
I have little doubt that many of the critics here will one day fight that invader. No mockery in those days.

Elphaba says:

10:15am | 27/10/10

I don’t think it’s fair to say that those who don’t share your belief in God and religion are morally bankrupt.  I also don’t think it’s fair to tie your perceived decline of society to a lack of religion.  I just think that nothing lasts forever.  People much older than us would probably complain about the time you so nostalgically remember as being morally corrupt too.  I can be a good, moral person without religion.  The question is, can you?

Insult me all you like, you are the losers - and I take no joy in saying that, but you have made your choice.

Yes you do.  The glee is practically dripping from this statement.  You thik you’ve got all the answers, and are happy to mock those who don’t follow the beat of your drum.  Hypocrite, much?

DG says:

10:41am | 27/10/10

“schools, hospitals, even the probation service, nursing homes for the aged, a sense of community and a better way of living with your fellow human being on this planet. “

All of these things existed long before Christianity - once can find references to such institutions in ancient Egyptian and Grecian times, not to mention in “the east”. And they certainly continue without Christianity - I am not sure how you attribute those things to Christianity.

“Language used in media and on the streets is gratuitously filthy and disgusting. “

On what scale? Where is your basis for determining that a string of syllables is disgusting? There was time when chicken meat could not be called “breast” or “thigh”, as those words were to risque, are we suggesting that is appropriate? One could reasonable conclude that as we have moved away from Victorian prudishness, and have allowed language to evolve with use. While some of Victorian sensibilities may be offended the average pun tern on the streets is not, one must ask why those Victorian sensibilities are preferable. 

“People had morals, there was loyalty in the working environment from employers and employees”

People have morals - they are just different to the once that the Church sells. After all , the church was in favour of slavery (or doesn’t that count?) Clearly the morals of the church have also changed. As they must with the development of society and as people develop new ways of interacting with each other.

People still determine right from wrong - however, they do so in their own right, rather than as an act of subservience to a power that threatens them with an eternity of pain and torture. Just because pre-marital sex between consenting adults is frowned upon by a group of Celibate men in Rome is hardly a measure for determining that it is “immoral”. It does nothing to say why it is or should be immoral.

Jotun says:

12:01pm | 27/10/10

What is sad, True Believer, is you think that everyone around you was living the fairytale.

In your ‘better time’, people still robbed houses, people were still shafted by their workplace all the time (why do you think the union movement started?), illicit drugs were in existence and used, but the problem was ignored and/or silenced, like the commonplace abuse of the married women, marginalisation of anyone outside your community of people who ‘cared about others more than themselves’, murder has been commonplace since man began and your ‘better time’ was no different.

You think your little microcosm world was a result of the teachings of Jesus and God, huh? I would point out it is a fear of the repercussions of not following such teachings that creates your bubble of wishy-washy sense of peace and community.

Christianity brought us holy wars, cultural suppression and destruction, witch-hunts, money-hungry evangelists and church leaders, power struggles, haves and have-nots, conquistadors, fundamentalism, terrorism and authoritarianism. Humans of reason brought us the lessons we teach in those schools, the treatments we give in hospitals, the need for aged care homes, and better ways of living with other people on the planet.

Christianity is based on the ramblings and outlandish ‘miracles’ performed by one of many men who claimed to be the messiah in those days, when the population were easily led into any belief set that promised them a better anything. You have been sucked into that same coercion; you believe that questionable morals set out in ten bullet points for simple guidance for sheep is the answer, as opposed to personal morals which are ingrained into the human brain from birth, as a result of evolution.

So please contain yourself in your strange little bubble, stay away from our world, and watch us proactively create a better planet for everyone while you kneel in your room, praying for it. It’s already happening, you just can’t see it.

TrueOz says:

12:23pm | 27/10/10

@True Believer

Sunday, Monday, Happy Days
Tuesday, Wednesday, Happy Days
Thursday, Friday, Happy Days
Saturday, what a day!
Cruising all week with you…dum, dah, dah, dah…

As the Fonz might rightly say to any other judgemental, rear view mirror watching dreamer; “Sit on it”.

Carlos says:

12:38pm | 27/10/10

I think if you got off your high horse and did a bit of research you would find that religion and murder have had a pretty close relationship over the years. And with out digging too deep you will probably also notice that Religion and Greed have long been happy bedfellows. and as far as morals go how about the Crusades (past and present), Slavery, Priests and little boys this could become a very long list so i will stop, in order to ask you “True Believer” a very simple question.
How does having an imaginary friend make you a better person than someone without an imaginary friend?

Ange says:

01:05pm | 27/10/10

True Believer - I find it fascinating that you attribute the decline of morals and society itself to society turning away from God. I consider myself an extremely moral person but I am an athiest. My lack of belief in god does not make me want to murder anyone or ignore another’s pleas for help nor would visiting a church once a week improve my morals.

Like you I despair at the way society is now however this is more likely due to things such as overcrowding, the disparity between rich and poor (oh and FYI - the Vatican has enough funds at its disposal to pay off the debts of most of the 3rd world) and our quest for riches - not completely the domain of the ungodly. Several high profile ministers and church officials have been caught with their hands in the collection plate on many occassions. Oh and let’s not bring up the catholic priests with a penchant for the company of young boys. Surely the scourge of society well hidden behind the collars of their faith. I could go on…but I think I’ve made my point.

Grant says:

01:22pm | 27/10/10

Wrong.

Almost all types of crime are on the decrease, this can be attributed to better policing, improved situational crime prevention, education and an increase in societal stability and is detailed in the ‘Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective’ produced by the UN clearly details the reduction in crime in Western nations including Australia.

Have a think about how safe people were in medieval times or the early wild west or the industrial age.  Corruption, poverty, no social justice, no health care, regular running water or effective police or judicial system.

This is just your fear of crime talking.  A genuine anxiety of crime by an individual which includes an increased perception of risk of victimisation.

Adam Diver says:

02:57pm | 27/10/10

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours”

True Believer says:

03:11pm | 27/10/10

GGibson:  Thanks I will look that up.
Elphaba: Because it is not “fair” in your eyes does not render my comments untrue.  I said I get no joy from the fact that unbelievers are the losers and I meant that most sincerely. If you cannot accept that well that is really not my problem. I know what I meant.  I only too readily admit I do not have “all the answers” - no human does. Not me, not you, not anyone. The difference between us is that I, having once been an unbeliever, now know as my Lord and Saviour One who does have all the answers.

As for all unbelievers being morally bankrupt - your words not mine - I said the moral fibre of our nation is at an all time low. There are wonderful, caring, moral people out there whether believers, unbelievers, or those following different beliefs from mine.  Sadly however, it is becoming increasingly trendy to cast our moral considerations on many very important social and individual issues.

DG I was not speaking about all the planet in my comment about hospitals etc I was speaking of Australia.  My apologies for not clarifying that.

Interestingly the healing services you refer to in other times and other cultures in the main invoked some god or gods to facilitate their outcome.

On language - well perhaps you can demonstrate to me how describing events, people, situations by referring to sexual intercourse, female genitalia, urination enhances discourse between humans or produces better communications. Can you do that?

You talk about “churches” ie denominations having done this and that - yes they have done some despicable and dreadful things unworthy of any person/group who professes to follow Jesus. He spoke about such people - my para-phrasing “many will come to Me in that day and say I did this and that in Your name and I will say ‘away from Me I never knew you’ ”  Denominations are made up of human being, Christians should never say they are perfect. We are forgiven and we follow one who was, is and ever will be - without blemish. The true
Church is the body of true believers wherever they may be and regardless of their shortcomings.

I am not sure where you get the eternity of pain and torture as being from God - He said “I put before you life and death - choose life”  We choose how we will spend eternity by our acceptance or rejection of the life He grants us.  I have chosen life, I know unconditional love and the ‘peace that passes all human understanding.’  It does not mean my life is free of trial and tribulations, far from it, but when they come I know I am not alone.  He is also there in my joys, happiness and laughter. So much you folk do not understand about the Lord.  Perhaps you have been hurt by churches. That is sad, but do not throw the baby our with the bath water because of human fallibility.

Jotan, TrueOz, Carlos, Ange, Grant:  Sadly you have all to one degree or another resorted to all the old predictable gobblegook used to denigrate followers of Jesus by the ill-inrormed. Generalisations on wars etc etc so easy and mindless to throw around - human beings cause wars. Jesus said “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” - for things done in His Name see my answer to DG.

The assumptions some of you make about me would be laughable if they were not so rude and ill-mannered.  You would probably be quite amazed at the breadth of my experience and knowledge - on both sides of the argument - something you all have yet to attain.  Talk to me more when you mature and broaden your thinking, then we can discuss these things.

TrueOz says:

04:06pm | 27/10/10

@True Believer

Unless I’m mistaken, the Fonz never said a damned thing about war, he just said “Sit on it”. You should take his advice - really!

St. Michael says:

06:17pm | 27/10/10

“You would probably be quite amazed at the breadth of my experience and knowledge - on both sides of the argument - something you all have yet to attain.  Talk to me more when you mature and broaden your thinking, then we can discuss these things.”

Shall we add Christian humility to the discussion list, then?

True Believer says:

08:31pm | 27/10/10

St MIchael

So do you set yourself up to judge me? Not much humility of any kind in doing that I suggest . I stated facts and a wise comment.  Your perception of what I meant or where I was coming from is just that, your perception, nothing more, nothing less.

Jesus also taught “do not give what is holy to dogs and do not cast your pearls before swine.”

St. Michael says:

09:15pm | 27/10/10

“I stated facts and a wise comment.”

Not only humble, but wise too.  Is your power level over 9000 as well?

NEGATIVLAND says:

03:23am | 28/10/10

” i am so glad I saw Australia in a better time, ok things were simpler, yes we were taught by parents to pray, sent to Sunday School, married in churches, belonged to a community where there were people who cared more about others than they did themselves (a rare person these days).  People had morals, there was loyalty in the working environment from employers and employees. Illicit drugs were unknown, people did not have to get drunk all the time to enjoy themselves. Young people knew how to enjoy themselves without having to wreck their brains, cars and lives. “

Yes, and the streets were lined with gumdrops….

WHAT AUSTRALIA DID YOU LIVE IN ??????? sounds like you lived in a COMPOUND True Beleiver….

GrantC says:

08:28am | 28/10/10

Ancient mythology has no place in modern society. Please take your stupid belief in your imaginary sky god elsewhere.  Try reality for a change.

Reg says:

09:22am | 28/10/10

Angie I have to ask. If the Vatican has enough treasure to pay off the debts of the Third World, I assume you mean that the First World has enough disposable income to purchase those treasures for diversion to the deprived persons.

Otherwise I find it sickly humourous to visualize a starving Abyssinian gnawing on a gold picture frame. I would like to request the Simpson formulate a programme that will assist me in my dilemma.

I have always found hillarious, the contention that all the treasures of the world should be converted to fertilizer to be excreted in some remote sand-dune. I trust you see my point and its relevance.

Elphaba says:

09:58am | 28/10/10

@True Believer, i think you were pretty clear about what you think is the downfall of society, and that people with religion in their life are better than those without it.

Beides, smugly admitting that your God has all the answers does, by and extension, make you believe you have all the answers.  I am happy to be proven wrong. Hell, I’d be psyched if God was proven - I’ve got some questions I need answered.  I worry for you not because you believe in God - but because believing in something to the exclusion of everything else is a dangerous thing.  What if you are proven wrong?  How will you cope?

Yo didn’t answer my question, either.  I can be a good person without God.  Can you?

Lack of morals is not a problem that’s reared its head in the last 20 years.  It’s human condition.  We are biologically predisposed to think of ourselves first.  The only reason you hear about more crime is because of 24hr news.  Make no mistake - the world and its creatures have always been in a state of terrible flux.  It’s just that in the last few years, the TV and the interwebz have been beaming it straight into your home.

True Believer says:

10:49am | 28/10/10

Angie:What pedophiles posing as priests do has nothing to do with belief in Jesus and the Roman Catholic Church is only one of very many Christian denominations - true Christians can be found in all of them and outside the denominations as well. The Church is the body of true Christians wherever they may be. Don’t be blinded to Jesus by a group of evil men and a denomination which has handled their criminal activity badly.

St. Michael: I know where my good gifts come from so I have no need to boast of them, I give the glory to He who created you and me.  The are a blessing and I thank Him for them.

You obviously excel cynicism and sarcasm - do you know who gave you that “gift” ????  Perhaps you need to think about it.

GrantC: What a childish, immature comment.

Negativland:  Perhaps if you spent more time talking with older and wiser people instead of watching cartoons you would come to realise that yes Australia was a much nicer place - far from perfect, but not so damaged and damaging as it is now.  Young people back then were not sitting behind computers writing rude posts - they were laying down their lives in foreign places so that you and I would have a better country. What a loss and given where the country is heading was their sacrifice in vain. Do the computer cowards of today have that sort of intestinal fortitude - sadly I think not.

You obviously are big on cynism and sarcasm

Reg says:

01:48pm | 28/10/10

True Believer is obviously a Professional Christian. There is no need to read beyond, “The same tired old rhetoric.”

To summaries his words, if you have a perfect religion you have a perfect world. He is happy at having found something to blame all imperfection on and Hollywood is part of it.

YOU are living the fairy tale True Believer and all Hollywood does is develop and illustrate the various ways of looking at fairy tales. It’s clear why you find this unacceptable, your demand is they have but ONE interpretation.

This is exactly what we expect of tired old rhetoric.

True Believer says:

03:33pm | 28/10/10

Greg: I am not sure what you mean by “professional Christian” - perhaps you could clarify that comment.
I never mentioned Hollywood - I was addressing the cynical, childish, ill-informed, rude, disrespectful and often sarcastic comments of some unbelievers commenting on this article and Christianity - the belief system of 33% of the world’s population. Not a minority at all as some here would try to fool us with.

For me I have better things to do than follow foolish cartoon figures, or fantasy figures whether on tv or at the cinema. I gave cartoons and fantasy characters up when I became an adult.  I also gave up fairy tales a very long time ago I can assure you.

You make erroneous assumptions about my gender - your assumptions about me are about as valid as your assumptions about the reality of Jesus. 

If the rhetoric of your and my God (He is there I can assure you) offends you, take it up with Him - you will find Him every present and willing to engage with you. But no, you are too rationalistic. You deny a whole aspect of humanity, presumably you also identify yourself as a higher type of animal - how boring. Animals cannot have the gift discerning humans can that there is a spiritual realm and that we have a loving God and Saviour in His son Jesus.  Your choice to settle for a lesser assumption about who you are.  Sad but seems to be the trendy way to go. I suggest you and those who belittle God are the ones living a fairy tale - or could it turn out to be a nightmare.  I hope you find out the difference in time. It is my prayer for you.

Could you put your human pride aside for once and open yourself to what He has to offer. I can promise you, you have everything to gain and nothing whatsoever to lose. What are you frightened of.  A lot of frightened people in here it seems. They have nothing to fear in Jesus I can assure you.

Elphaba:

No one is altogether good or bad - some lean more one way than the other at times in their lives. People of themselves do not have righteousness in God’s eyes. That is why Jesus came - in Him and through Him we have righteousness and are connected to the Living God.

Of course there have always been immorality, but it was not promoted as a preferable lifestyle at least in the Western World as it is now. Society expected better of its citizens in the main. There are alway exceptions.

Before the tv and the internet I can assure you people have many means to remain in contact with world affairs - it may not have been instantaneous as it is now, but no one who was concerned for their fellow human being need be in ignorance of what was happening in this country and overseas before the explosion of instant communication.

Elphaba says:

03:56pm | 28/10/10

@True Believer:

Fear?  Fear is what stops us believing in Jesus?  No.  It’s personal choice.  You personally decided to believe in a higher power - but don’t mistake that for being right.  I chose not to believe in one.  I don’t assume it’s correct - it just feels right to me.  That’s all belief in God is - a feeling.  You don’t know.  I don’t know.  No one knows. 

The difference between you and I though, is that I can cope with being wrong.  If God doesn’t exist, I suspect you won’t cope.  Tell me, how to you draw strength from that which doesn’t exist?

Lean on yourself, True Believer.  That, is a sure bet.

True believer says:

10:11am | 29/10/10

Elphaba: Thanks for your advice but no thanks. I have been there (leaning on myself) for more years than you probably have been on the planet and found how futile that was.
I am a much stronger person in Jesus than I could have ever been leaning on myself. I have access to power mockers and scoffers are lacking because of their foolish arrogance. I have the very best now and now I am a whole human being. Far from perfect, but whole.

Austin 3:16 says:

07:38pm | 29/10/10

Access to power, you gotta be kidding. Why not try access to reality instead.

In the real world it would appear that there is no relationship between the levels of religion in a society and the health of that society. If any relationship exists it may be an inverse. See “Society without God” by Zuckerman or “The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions” By Paul as examples of research in this area.

Reality, Christianity’s optional extra.

Reg says:

09:56pm | 30/10/10

True Believer, first I apologise for assuming your forceful presentation was masculine, but it does seem to me that you went to pains to conceal your gender perhaps for reasons best known to yourself..

No I do not consider myself a higher form, there are far too many similarities in other creatures for me to fall in line with the religious assumption that we are god’s chosen bodily variation. Perhaps you secretly regard skin colour as a yet uncoded indicator of god’s preference? I’d also suggest that your objection to cartoon form clashes somewhat with your willingness to accept the existence of your imaginary friend. Cartoons are simply modern means of communication and most are far more accessible than the various holy books. Naturally for the cartoon, the interpretation of the story is in the hands of the writer.. Not greatly different from the goals of the biblical “scholar” who chooses to put his own skew on the opaque biblical presentation or it’s historical variations.. 

But of course, all communication is intended to induce a cartoon of communication in the receiver’s brain, as I’m sure you have found with your biblical considerations.  Some do this better than others and humour is a prime ingredient for keeping the attention of the audience. (I find it hard to believe the biblical writers were unaware of this inducement.)  So if you don’t like the interpretation of the writer you are perfectly at liberty to disagree and ignore his presentation. This applies to everyone, but neither has the right to restrict the presentation of the other unless it can be shown to be dangerous. There are plenty of instances where religion has been shown to be dangerous and evil and we can only judge within the span of recent memory and its fading historical past. 

As an almost exclusive reader of non-fiction, I have always found it hard to classify religious tomes, which is it ....fiction or non-Fiction?

Christian says:

10:33am | 27/10/10

Jews - not mocked because they own hollywood and the Holocaust is always thrown in our face.
Muslims -  not mocked because it could lead to death
Christians mocked because our God is a forgiving God…
Also if Christians around the world do speak out not only are they not heard, but they are doing exactly what they are mocked for - and therefore giving the mockers more ammunition.  You have exteremists in all religions… in Islam they are terrorists in Christianity they are bible bashers… one is feared, the other is mocked - simple.

HappyCynic says:

11:05am | 27/10/10

Pu-lease, I’m jewish and I can think of many movies, sitcoms and standup comics that mock Jewish people and religion, why shouldn’t we do the same with other religions?  The Producers (by Mel Brooks), Fiddler on the Roof, Robin Hood Men in Tights (tight tights lol), Billy Crystal, Jerry Seinfeld and more.  These are just the Jewish comics who take the piss out our own religion.  South Park’s Cartman takes aim at poor Kyle Marsh (who’s jewish) all the time, they’ve also taken on Scientology in a brilliant manner.

It’s not Christianity that’s mocked in my opinion because the Simpsons have also shown some excellent episodes that respect and glorify some of the best parts of Christianity, it’s hypocrisy that’s mocked.  Mocking hypocrisy is easy, mocking Christian hypocrisy is even easier (some might say it’s too easy) because it’s so prevalent and shoved in your face all the time - just look at the proselytizers and missionaries and Jehova’s Witnesses etc who shout from the street corners or knock on your door with this whole “repent or die” and “Jesus loves you” stuff.

It’s important to have a sense of humour to go with your religious beliefs.  If Christian zealots weren’t so easily offended by material that gently mocks a few extreme Christian ideals (and alot of it is pretty tame) then it would’ve died out a long time ago. 

Oh and I object to your “Jews own Hollywood” generalisation, we only own about half of Hollywood, Italians have a big part as well and so do Christians, we just have control of the money (who else would you trust?) 

kyzz says:

04:37pm | 27/10/10

I’m not Jewish but as far as owning Hollywood goes, can I pretty please have Matt Damon???

Reg says:

11:53am | 28/10/10

I am absolutely certain Monty Python’s Meaning of Life did NOT originate in a Hollywood studio and considering it’s religious contentions, I guess that frees the Jews of Hollywood from blame.

It takes a person of broad insight to see the funny side of situations, otherwise we emerge with the anemic presentations seen on Christian television for so long. I just remembered, I can use the child lock on that rubbish.

MD says:

02:41pm | 27/10/10

not yet it hasn’t

Barry says:

04:25pm | 27/10/10

Tell that to the many religious people, who have been termed as “Fathers of Science”.  Ah, they must be rolling in their graves realizing their own child is now attempting to kill something they believed in.

Reg says:

12:29pm | 30/10/10

What this Barry? This the story of life, people going along with ideas that were totally wrong and never getting a chance to revise them before death intervened.  I presume the flat-Earthers have a special mark on their head-stones to indicate they may be found in some disarray after all that spinning.

It’s fairly clear that many of the scientists of the past were afraid of being ostracized if they were honest about their religious doubts. There is even one who made a grand point of affirming his religiousity to such an extent, that he could not have been serious.

MD says:

01:55pm | 01/11/10

um Reg whether the earth was flat or not was hardly a religious stance, it was the scientists who were convinced of that until someone took a boat trip

Duff says:

11:05am | 27/10/10

Ben, to turn us into what, exactly?  And why?

Ben H says:

05:45pm | 27/10/10

Duff, I think it’s obvious once the blinkers are removed. Religion/faith, patriarchy/family, truth, free-speech, heritage, nation, civil rights/liberty, peace the ability to think critically and independently, along with myriad other traditional pillars, are under fire from the global ruling class (mostly Zionist bankers with fingers in all sections of industry, but that’s for another day). They want to homogenise all cultures and ideology into their dominant one, in the form of a new world order, in which they assume the role of God, provider, protector, etc. You only have to look objectively - away from the ‘entertainment’ industry - at the false-flag attacks on 9/11 (and the subsequent war on a fabled enemy) to see how this clique manipulate ‘truth’ to achieve their agenda. Try a google search: ‘9/11 inside job’ or ‘new world order’. Are hundreds of millions of hits just paranoid rants by ‘conspiracy nuts’ and ‘anti-semites’? The vast majority of ideology promulgated through the mass media isn’t just random.

A.W says:

12:21pm | 27/10/10

Are you saying Christians don’t have a ‘world stage to present their opinions’? What a load of trite…all Christians have been doing is creating a world stage, with the Vatican as head PR body Corporate.. It’s a good thing Hollywood has come along, created by a group more fiscally intelligent but just as good at spinning stories and influencing people

marley says:

02:52pm | 27/10/10

What on earth makes you think the Vatican is a world stage for all Christians?  It’s less a symbol of the entire Christian world than Mecca is of the Muslim world.

Reg says:

12:08pm | 28/10/10

So Marley means that Hollywood is really mocking Protestantism. I get it.

An interesting concept.

TrueOz says:

12:39pm | 27/10/10

@Glen

Please spare us the moralising bull-shit. Moral behaviour - by whose standards? Your premise seems to be that unless you have a code of behaviour proscribed by a sky fairy and interpreted by his anointed ones (i.e. those who establish and run religious movements) that it is not possible for you to behave in a moral manner.

Most intelligent people quickly figure out that it is in their own best interests to behave in a manner that you might think of as “moral”. No sky fairies or oracles of God involved - just observation of what is going on around them and simple desire to live a happy and productive life.

It’s ignorant and ill-informed views like those that you have expressed that cause the very mockery you seem so opposed to.

A Bob says:

01:30pm | 27/10/10

Ah, the “you’ve never met a ‘true’ Christian” defence.

Problem is, they all belive they are the true ones. They are all good at twisting their book to support their agenda. They are all good at crying “Splitter!” at the rest.

Your argument relies on flawed reasoning. You can identify a real Christian because they are the ‘good’ ones. But how do we determine what is ‘good’? Well, it’s done either by your own beliefs, which is called circular reasing, or by an external reference. That is, a non-Christian. So it’s us athiests who should be judging you lot. And so we do, with humour, often as not.

Akrasiel Rising says:

01:37pm | 27/10/10

So all the societies that predated christianity and monotheism were lawless with no moral conscience or accountability?? Lets try this…

The rise in lawlessness within western societies directly correlates to the restrictions imposed on police by the civil libertarians (predominantly preaching Christian ideals) who believe that offenders have the same rights as the rest of us who, irrespective of our religious beliefs, get along just fine living by the laws of the country. As a result of this “turn the other cheek” and rehabilitate approach there is no real deterent to offenders and the police can no longer give the obnoxious youth a swift kick in the arse when they are disrespecting all around them.

If these same laws were based soley in Christianity, as you suggest they should be, then we would be burning Homosexuals and chopping off offending hands as prescribed in that wonderful book you like to quote when it works in your favour. Interesting to note that these same laws are quoted in the Koran and are exercised in many Muslim nations and there is moral indignation spouted by the Christian majority about how terrible it is.

Have your religion if you must,  just keep it at home and leave the rest of us alone.

Ange says:

01:44pm | 27/10/10

Glen says: “Most western countries are goverened by laws that are fundamentally established on Biblical-principle”

Sorry Glen but this is a long-held misconception. There are only two commandments which our laws reflect - Thou Shalt Not Kill and Thou Shalt not Steal. Both of which I’m pretty sure we concluded were wrong without the assistance of Moses or God.

You go on to say “Even history can show that most cities that have experienced a “Christian Revival” also had a dramatic decrease in crimes and other anti-social behaviour, and experienced an increase in general morality” I find this one fascinating. One only has to look at the crime statistics in the USA to know that this is a complete contradiction. The US prides itself of being a ‘gard-fearin nation’ but their crime statistics speak for themselves.

I’m very tolerant of anyone’s beliefs but I really take offence to the implication that unless one believes in God they are morally bankrupt and doomed to a life of degradation. I’m managing quite well without him/her thank you and am fully accountable to myself, my loved-ones and my community

Greg says:

01:53pm | 27/10/10

hi Glen.

Basic morals are an evolutionary survival mechanism adapted by intelligent and social creatures. Us. Morals existed long before Christianity or Islam or any other religion. Humans would have destroyed themselves thousands of years ago with out them! So please stop laying claim to this natural mechanism, you sound very arrogant indeed.

Snoogens says:

10:52am | 27/10/10

I congratulate you cRook.

Too many people debate the issue about religion and science while both are standing on one side of the fence. I have found that those who actually jump the fence have a better understanding and appreciation for what IS actually rational and true.

You cannot argue against the other without having knowledge and or understanding of both.

Tim the Toolman says:

04:16pm | 27/10/10

“Now I practice both because I have found that Christianity is rational and science is mysterious.”

Rational:  “agreeable to reason.”

In what way is Christianity agreeable to reason?  You maim and kill those who don’t fit into your worldview, force your beliefs on others and try to tell everyone what you believe is right with no appreciation for evidence.  Religion is the antithesis of reason and rationality.  It is, quite simply, codified intellectual degeneracy.

Religion has no place at all in a civilised society.  There is a reason it flourishes in places of poverty, violence and human misery.  It’s the environment at which it is most at home and what it strives to achieve.

David says:

06:04pm | 27/10/10

Tim the Toolman -  “You maim and kill those who don’t fit into your worldview, force your beliefs on others and try to tell everyone what you believe is right with no appreciation for evidence. “

You do realise that the USSR did all of that resulting in an esitmated 85 to 100 million deaths of people who refused to give up religion in order to embrace atheism.  Many of these people were actually dedicated commuinists, but Stalin et al had them imprisoned, tortured and put to death all because they refused to become atheists.

Your entire argument can just substitute ‘Christianity’ for ‘Atheism’ and still make sense.  In fact, substitute any belief system and it still makes sense.

The point cRook was making is that you can’t judge everyone who holds a belief by a minority who do bad in its name.  Yet, you have done so.  If the religious were to be like you, then just the deaths, torture etc done in the USSR in order to attempt people to give up their faith should be reflected on atheism ... yet, the religious do not do that.  Who is being the more reasonable and rational here?

James1 says:

12:08pm | 28/10/10

Got a credible source for 85-100 million believers killed for not giving up their belief?  Are you aware that constitutes more than half the poplulation of the former Soviet Union?

TheRealDave says:

12:21pm | 27/10/10

See, thats another thing I despise about the made up religion of Christianity. We are all, without exception, born sinners. Doesn’t matter what you do in your life you’re a sinner who needs to bow down and beg forgiveness every few weeks. That 6 month old dribbling ‘goo’ing ball of mess is a dirty rotten sinner just as much as that 25 year old heroin addict breaking into your house to steal your DVD player.

No thanks, pass.

A Bob says:

01:00pm | 27/10/10

Interesting stuff, Ken. For all the good the Reformation did, it’s worst failing was to make metaphysics respectable to theologians again.

TrueOz says:

01:06pm | 27/10/10

@Ken Maynard

You seem to be forgetting about the necessity of sin in redemption. Without sin, the precious blood of sweet Jesus (I high jacked that one from an absolute wanker of a televangelist) will have been wasted. Christ died for each of us, paying the price for our sins - sins which if we failed to commit he would have paid for needlessly.

It is incumbent upon each one of us to sin, and sin big! Rasputin (a first rate religious scammer if there ever was one) used this train of thought in seducing hundreds of women before the dawn of Communist Russia. I’ve used it to great effect myself with many “good” Christian women, including a Preachers wife. You should try it too - really!

I really enjoyed the logic of your arguments, but at the end of the day - why bother - what does it matter. You can always deflect any criticism by saying “...but the Bible says so”. End of argument.

Anyway, just wanting to give you a heads up on the religious and spiritual benefits of sin. You seem like a bloke who could use a bit of sin in his life - loosen up Bro!

Reg says:

09:41pm | 28/10/10

Ah but TrueOz you’ve forgotten that without acceptance of the proposition of “original sin,” the whole kit and caboodle falls apart. The circle of the answer for everything is broken.

That’s why in religious circles every new born baby is an evil little bastard until it’s been baptized. Which of course explains all those uncivil teenagers we meet every day.

Grant says:

12:29pm | 27/10/10

I agree

Barry says:

04:30pm | 27/10/10

Who would have thought the Australian Christian Lobby’s goals and the socialist agendas of the Labor government would go hand in hand!

Reg says:

09:37am | 28/10/10

Then taking a very straw poll and bearing in mind that those younger than fifty are hard pressed to get on the bus or what-ever, the early risers are obviously the sleep deprived elderly or the professional Christian. (I’ve yet to spot a Moslem.)

Balancing the enthusiasm of the sweaty-browed key slogging man of God against the lay-back resignation of the more mature persons who have decided this for themselves ages back, for the sake of a good laugh, I declare the man of God, the loser. 

In the words of Homer Simpson, “it works on so many levels.”

Anne Ti says:

11:36am | 27/10/10

Well said…
Besides, religious nuts just look funny. How can you not laugh at them. Their vacant heads pushing quasi smiles. (shiver) Almost makes me want to write a script.

xyz says:

11:51am | 27/10/10

John:

It’s not a choice for a child who has been deliberately indoctrinated into a belief system!

xyz says:

12:23pm | 27/10/10

John:

There is no choice for a child who is deliberately indoctrinated into the belief system of their parents!

marley says:

02:48pm | 27/10/10

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the Left and/or the atheists go after aboriginal dreamtime myths?  Until they do, it’s all hypocrisy.

St. Michael says:

06:45pm | 27/10/10

To be fair, most anthropologists deal with most primitivist religions with a raised eyebrow and little else - as if the nature of the belief speaks for itself.  See Joseph Campbell’s “The Hero With A Thousand Faces” on that.

marley says:

09:37pm | 27/10/10

St Mike - you might pass that message on the Philip Adams.  He seems to have a different view.

James1 says:

02:42pm | 28/10/10

There is a big difference, marley.  There are more than a billion Christians who take their myths very seriously, while you could probably count the people who really believe in the dreamtime stuff on one hand.

Humour needs to be topical, otherwise it is just boring.  I could make some jokes about Greek myths, but who would pay to hear that?

Greg says:

02:16pm | 27/10/10

steve,
i don’t think ‘fashion’ hasn’t got anything to do with it. i suspect that there is a current generation of people in western countries, who like myself, were raised as christians but were educated well enough to realise that it’s BS by the time they are adults. i mock christians because of my ridiculous upbringing (by moderates, not fundies), which still has negative effects on me. for example, i still feel irrational guilt whenever i am having fun.  i mock christians because my girlfriend, who has a few health issues, is told by her fundi family that she DESERVES her pain and is going to hell for turning her back on god.

so yeah, i think you can expect this ‘fashion’ to grow, as more and more people wake up the fact that they’ve been duped.

Ben says:

02:23pm | 27/10/10

“In any case, it’s become fashionable these days for people to proclaim themselves as non-believers and then expect people to think that makes them look sophisticated as a result.”

Or of course they, you know, don’t believe.  Christians are proud to proclaim what they believe in, why, when an Athiest does the same is it mere to look sophisticated?  Double standard much?

A lot of Athiests, like myself, were uncomfortable with expressing it for fear of persecution by the religious nutters who surrounded them.  Finally we can have a voice (something the Religious have enjoyed for a LONG time), and people like you dismiss it offhand as a fad.  And you wonder why we like to ridicule the religious, the hypocrisy is almost tangible.

G says:

01:09pm | 27/10/10

Well when you put it like that it all sounds a bit silly.

Steve says:

03:27pm | 27/10/10

Name anything you believe in and I could misrepresent it and make it look just as silly by using certain words.

Reg says:

05:34pm | 28/10/10

I wish I hadn’t read that. My medication already combines all this stuff into nightmares that would lift your head off, but worse, I remember the lot. Don’t touch the ones with the yellow tops, they are for Hollywood scriptos only.

Ange says:

03:20pm | 27/10/10

I knew it!!

Tom says:

01:59pm | 27/10/10

The list of things you mentioned (and others) which Christians lobby against all can have dire consequences if misused.
Do you agree with drink driving ads, road safety ads, ads about being healthier?  Should we tell doctors to piss off and let us live our lives when they say to control our weight, exercise, etc? Or should we be allowed to choose how fast we can drive in a school zone and how much we want to drink before we get in our cars? Why do we have these warnings and rules? We should be able to live how we want right?

I think people like you hate the fact that religions are the ones lobbying for this. Limits need to be put in place on things which can harm a person or others around. I don’t need to tell you how drugs and alcohol have ruined and ended lives. Or how STDs are on the rise despite all the modern prevention measures. And when should we be allowed to abort a child? Why not stretch it out to 3 months after a baby is born if we don’t like it. Why is a living baby in a womb so different to a living baby outside the womb. I dont mean to start an argument with you but for you to understand that there is more to life than “just let me live how I want”.

I know many Christian lobbyists are extreme and tend to push their views more than the religion’s belief. But it is no different than a doctor saying a certain type of lifestyle will have negative consequences. As people have said, everyone has the right to an opinion and Christians have theirs. Having an opinion can mean arguing someone else’s opinion (which you and I have just done). But you are saying we shouldn’t have an opinion. Argue what we are arguing, not argue that we are arguing.

HappyCynic says:

02:26pm | 27/10/10

Tom, you fool, Abstinence only educations are not aimed at reducing abortions they are aimed at preventing kids from engaging in safe sexual practices by some deluded belief that “sex is immoral”

The fact is (and this is a fact backed by evidence) you actually increase the age kids begin having sex and decrease the spread of STIs and decrease the teen pregnancy rate by teaching kids a comprehensive sexual education including (but not limited to) safe sex, abstinence, the Pill, consent etc.

Besides this you haven’t even acknowledged the point Kris was actually making and that was that most of the portrayals of Christianity in Hollywood are actually positive but given the evangelicals have been attacking common sense and people’s freedoms in the US for the last 10 years, some feel the need to fight back and do so with humour.

And one more thing, how is removing a philosophy (Intelligent Design) from science a negative thing on par with smoking and alcoholism and speeding?  Are you really that obtuse?

kris says:

12:14am | 28/10/10

Tom, I started to read your thoughts regarding my own. You lost me at ‘people like you’.
I didn’t mention abortion so you mustn’t have read or understood my opinion. I guess the ‘gist’ you must have gleaned from what could only be a preconceived judgement of my opinion makes me one of ‘those people’ to you.
how ironic.

xyz says:

01:07pm | 27/10/10

I love Southpark for that reason. I could be wrong, but I can think of only 2 religions that have so far taken public offence to a Southpark roasting… Islam and Scientology! The Mormans may have, but I didn’t see it.

Jon says:

01:10pm | 27/10/10

South Park were, but they got spooked by a Muslim group who issued a threat against Parker and Stone, warning them that “what they are doing is stupid and they will probably end up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show.”

Shame, there is so much material to work with in Islam.

Steve says:

03:30pm | 27/10/10

@xyz mormons do cop it a lot on southpark but I think most of them have enough of a sense of humour to let it pass (the ones I know certainly do). Apparently the show’s creators grew up with a lot of close mormon friends and their familiarity with them makes it easier for them to reference them in a way that doesn’t bring accusations of being unfair.

Reg says:

09:40am | 28/10/10

Ok chaps, define “sense of humour”?

Venise says: says:

04:45pm | 27/10/10

Good one Vicki.

TrueOz says:

08:37pm | 27/10/10

@Vicki

Your comment just makes me sad. All that talk of Jerry Falwell and Jim and Tammy Baker - it make me remember how much I wanted to become a televangelist as a young boy. Try as I might though, I could never develop the necessary number of personality defects to make it work for me.

James1 says:

02:07pm | 27/10/10

So true.  That is why I love Greek myths.  They are so interesting, but like the Bible they are also probably not literally true…

HappyCynic says:

04:21pm | 27/10/10

Homer Simpson (talking to Ned Flanders after stealing Flanders’ aircon):  “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

*stone hits Homer in the head*

Todd Flanders:  “Got him Daddy” 

The younger generations can defend themselves.  You just worry about cleaning up your own behaviour   and for the record I’d be glad to make my feelings known on the subject matter at hand but, like everything, there is a time and place for such things.

A Bob says:

04:29pm | 27/10/10

That’s pretty much the point, isn’t it? Atheists don’t do what you challenge them to because it’s wrong.

But Christians see it as their right to intrude upon my home and try and convert me, stand in the street and pronounce judgment, or burn down clinics that do abortions and kill the doctors.

No, we make a few jokes in a place you can easily avoid, like The Punch, a film or a TV show. Shame on us. Shame, shame, shame.

The Civet says:

04:57pm | 27/10/10

Well that’s easy. It’s only the fundamentalists of any religion that become so po-faced about it. The Jews-the ones just like this Atheist-have a delicious sense of humour about their religion.

Even the Catholics were capable of producing a Dave Allen! To ask if the Muslims can bear to suffer mockery about their religion is to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists. A theory I cannot believe.

Steely Dan says:

03:52pm | 27/10/10

@ Naomi

“The claim that all science that has come before is without error or fallacy is a peculiar stance to have. Doesn’t mean a God isn’t real, but to denounce the possibilty with absolutely no doubt seems shortsighted.”
Who actually holds that position?

Vaben says:

04:14pm | 27/10/10

Nicely stated Naomi.  I admit, i have a soft spot for ridiculing blind faith believers, but only because they’re such a soft target, much the same as politicians and anyone else who proclaims something so adamantly that it is to the exclusion of all else.  Myself, I take a dim view of every belief system and only feel compelled to investigate it further should it have the capacity to accept mockery and so forth.  This makes it worth plumbing a little further.

Dazeddazza says:

05:04pm | 27/10/10

Religious figures were perceived as wise, trustworthy, god fearing, helpful, etc etc, but now that the middle ages have passed (with the exception of the Middle East) and most people are quite capable of thinking rationally.  Nowadays, we understand that religious leaders are not as claimed, they are and were human, and can now, quite fairly,  be seen as acceptable figures to mock!!!  I have zero respect for any of them.  They have proven their “holiness” time and time again.

St. Michael says:

06:39pm | 27/10/10

“Side question: Do people consider those like Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, or Jesus himself to be fundamentalists? Or only the people who follow them? This isn’t meant to be an incendiary question, I really am just curious about how a religious figure is perceived.”

For Jesus attaching the label of fundamentalist depends on which of the Gospels you read.  Matthew’s Jesus comes across like a fundamentalist, John’s Jesus is a new age hippie, and Mark and Luke basically describe a reformist Jewish rabbi.  And in many of these tracts Jesus rails against overly complex religions that require lawyers just to interpret them - Pharisees, Sadducees, and so on.

To me, the word “Fundamentalist’ actually is misleading.  Its true identity is far more loathsome: literalist.  You would have to be seriously disturbed to literally believe that the Book of Genesis is anything more than a creation myth no diffierent to many such myths told in every major world religion.  But there are people out there who seriously think the Earth was created in 6 days and apparently without the dinosaur fossils that we keep turning up in bog pits (or alternatively that the dinosaurs were created but men were running around with Tyrannosaurs at the same point in the past.)

Similarly, there’s a lot of reason to raise the eyebrows in the New Testament, particularly when one reads a little more widely and sees that the four evangelists, like most political autobiographies, have an agenda other than dry recitation of the facts.

However: reading the Bible again with less of an eye for literal detail and on the hunt for inspiration, for me personally it becomes a more palatable exercise.  For all the crap that’s in it, there is a core set of morals and ethics hidden in there which are worthy of propagation: I find very little objectionable in the exhortation that people should love one another, which is possibly the heart of the Christian religion.  Even Dawkins concedes you can pick some wonderful ethics out of the Bible - he doesn’t say absolutely everything in it is unworthy, only that there are parts of it which are brutal and cruel.  At its core, Christianity requires belief that Jesus Christ was the Saviour of mankind and/or the Son of God.  Exactly what that all means I really have no complete idea, and I don’t think the combined weight of the world’s theologians do, either, but I’m prepared to believe that without fully understanding it - there is a simple, stubborn feeling that there’s something “right” about him, but whether it’s the massive Catholic theological construct placed on him since St. Paul onwards, I’m uncertain and I don’t think I’ll ever really know.  But I am prepared to observe a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, being a view an atheist I hope would respect if not agree with.

It is when fundamentalist Christians get hold of the Bible and start doing things as amusing as calculating the start and end date of the universe or as disturbing as stringing up homosexuals or burning entire Jewish towns on the way to the Holy Land based on single lines out of the New Testament or Old Testament that this inspiration is perverted.  In this is the source of every evil that has been committed by the Christian Church.  It is, in short, completely missing the point.  It is also the mark of a fundamentalist that he thinks he knows everything there is to know about God from the literal text, which is plain old human arrogance, nothing more.

marley says:

09:46pm | 27/10/10

The Catholic Church is not Christianity.  Ask a Quaker.  And Muslims believe in that invisible man in the sky too. Hindus, on the other hand, believe of six or eight of them, including half human, half elephants.  So why not try to broaden the scope of your contempt a little?

Reg says:

10:56am | 28/10/10

Then since Marley thinks that the Catholic Church is not Christianity, he obviously considers all of Hollywood’s humour is aimed at Protestants.

Perhaps you too need to broaden the scope of your contempt Marley, your paranoia is poking through.

Reg says:

10:09am | 28/10/10

I know it’s not Hollywood, but I think you need a great big dose of Monty Python’s Meaning of Life.

Brad says:

09:49pm | 27/10/10

“How many people in this blog are actually educated enough to state that their point of view is absolutely correct.”
Relevance? You can determine on your own that santa claus is not real, or is it your conjecture that you require a masters in folklore to discuss such matters?

“Maybe everyone should actually involve themselves in the serious study of the “other side” before proclaiming outright knowledge in all things.” Has anyone here claimed “outright knowledge in all things” here? Possibly a bit of an overdramatisation? Some food for thought however, many anti-thiests have better knowledge of religion than thiests themselves. This is due to them taking a deeper approach to investigating and analysing their position. Learning far more about the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita and so on, due to the strong motivation they have for the subject. Doubt this is true? Review the studies done on it The most recent study was done by the Pew Research Center in September this year.

notsurprised says:

09:40am | 28/10/10

Gee, that’s clever, would you have fun baiting Jews and Muslems as well?

Andrew says:

08:34am | 28/10/10

There are other ways. Try Buddhism, the training of the mind towards peace. In Buddhism, none of what you have listed is necessary, including belief and faith. Also, your point about atheists is not a point at all. An atheist calls out “God” because they live in a culture where this commonly occurs, not because they secretly believe in pie in the sky. It is part of the idiom. Believe it or not, they have as much depth of character as you.

Bob says:

09:47am | 28/10/10

Re: your second paragraph. When there’s no evidence for anything it’s quite easy to believe in nothing. As for the rest, you hope because it might happen. Hope isn’t faith that something will happen, merely the acknowledgement (and desire) that it might. However most sane people should be able to recognise the difference between wanting something to be true, and something being true.

Brad says:

10:08pm | 28/10/10

“don’t tell me it doesn’t exist.”

Ok, provide us conclusive evidence that it does.

“when faced with a life or death situation, always calls out “Oh God!””

Idioms have no reflection on one’s beliefs. 

“How can you believe in nothing?” Believing in something for which there is no evidence is more rational? Also, rejecting a belief in a deity does not reduce the universe and its contents to nothingness, quite the opposite, it enriches the beauty and awe of naturally occurring phenomenon.

“Have you never made a wish or had hope for a good outcome?” One can certainly hold a position of hope without the need for prayer or higher powers. I hope its not raining on Melbourne cup day, its simply a state of my preferences over something i cannot control. does this equate to me begging a deity for assistance in stopping the rain? no. lol.

Faith is what you have when you know you have no evidence but you believe it anyway. Faith and hope are completely independent ideas. Also one does not require faith to get through hard times. Positive attitude, help from loved ones etc are much more supportive to the human mind than blind faith.

Barry says:

11:33am | 28/10/10

Except Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus.

But I think you will find most modern Christian and non christian dont debate the existance of Christ. They do debate his claims to be God or if there is a God.

As far as easy laughs why not easy pickings really look at what Christians wear and there attitude to life is out dated compared to the world.

Brad says:

09:52pm | 28/10/10

Suetonius - born 70 AD
Tacitus - born 56 AD
Josephus - born 37 AD

As it is commonly seen that jesus died around 30AD i fail to see how any of these sources could be credited with anything more than hearsay?

Furthermore, a guy who can raise the dead, cure the blind, yadda yadda, that story would get around quick… why didnt the romans ever enslave him as a doctor for their leaders… i mean they were fairly intelligent after all.

hot tub political machine says:

02:08pm | 28/10/10

Not sure what the Islamic explanation of the story is but one view in Judaism and Christianity is the Abraham knew that there would be no killing. To me it seems fairly clear in the context of the story when Abraham says “God himself will provide the sacrifice”.

DG says:

03:47pm | 28/10/10

Hot Tub - Where do you get that interpretation from?

The line that you quote is the words that Abraham offers to his scared son when the son (whom he has taken to be the sacrifice) asks why they haven’t taken the sacrifice with them. The son is then tied up and set upon the pyre to the offered as a sacrifice.

If Abraham didn’t believe that he would be required to execute his own son where was the demonstration of faith that is so highly valued by Abrahamic religions. Your approach denies this act of faith, and makes it a mission in which Abraham took his son with no intention of sacrificing him

In the context of the story (Genesis 22 for those who are reading along) - it is clear that either Abraham fools Yahweh OR Abraham had every intention of sacrificing his son until Yahweh intervened. Yahweh acknowledges (Gen 22:12) “Now I know that you fear Yahweh , because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son”.

It is important to note that this is not the only place that Yahweh demands human sacrifice: Consider Exodus 22:29 “You must give me the firstborn of your sons, just after it says “Whoever sacrifices to any God other than the Lord must be destroyed” (Ex 22:20) - making it clear that this is not a sacrifice to any god other than Yahweh.

Just curious how you correlate those passages. And consider that in Ezekiel 20:25-26, where, through the prophet Ezekiel, God appears to apologise for demanding the sacrifice of the firstborn,  saying that by doing so he defiled them, but his intention was to make the Israelites fear him (as if that is some form of justification).