Via the delightful Bean:
I’m not sure whether to read this as real propaganda, parody, or clever fake propaganda.
Also, I’ve given up coffee, but that cup looks pretty good.
OK, the image seems to be from Objective 4 Kidz, home of Lambuel who is apparently hearted by Jesus. Can you help Lambuel through a maze so that he can reach church while avoiding temptation along the way?
My OBJECTIVE is JUST 4 KIDZ! The “Z” is for “ZEALOUSNESS,” ’cause Jesus wants us to be hot for Him, not lukewarm. I read in the Bible that He said: “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”… Let’s do that!
Based on the front page, I would tentatively guess the site was real — but then there’s a page called draw Lambuel featuring a smirking, loincloth-clad Jesus:
A drawing of vegetarian dinosaurs worthy of Scalzi:
Jesus as superhero, burning atheists with fire that shoots out of his palm:
And finally, Jesus as pedophile:
I’m going with my original theory — Mr. Gruff is clever fake propaganda created by atheists with the hope that people will read it, believe it, and stop trying to convert us.
(IMO, the funniest thing here is the video of Scalzi’s. Hop on over and check it out if you’re frustrated by creationist imagery of vegetarian dinosaurs rampaging through Eden.)
—
UPDATE, because I realized I hadn’t said this expressly: For the record, I really dislike the images that suggest Jesus is a pedophile. They’re problematic and not funny.
Right you are (See the Wikipedia entry for Objective Ministries for more info).
I myself am particularly fond of OM’s war on Triclavianism. Their running feud with the (similarly parodic) Landover Baptist Church is also a great deal of fun.
“For the record, I really dislike the images that suggest Jesus is a pedophile. They’re problematic and not funny.”
No, they’re downright hilarious.
I think it needs to be said: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
How was this a troll? It’s a parody. Enjoying a parody is not the same as being trolled.
“No, they’re downright hilarious.”
You want to defend that statement?
Also:
“YHBT. YHL. HAND.” Mrr?
Also, where was trollishness or accusation thereof? Confused.
Ah, it has been explained to me.
I haven’t actually been trolled… If I’d thought the site was real, then I’d have been trolled, neh? Whatev.
I’m surprised you only saw Jesus as a paedophile in the last image. I thought it was crying out from the second.
The only thing missing was the adjectives “hot white sticky”.
After living with evangelical Christians for over a year, I can say without a doubt that if they’re a parody, someone has already made a real version of them. The people I lived with made a “Rambo Jesus” action figure, which was a muscular Jesus in a loincloth with a bullet belt wrapped around him. He also had a sword of righteousness. I can see many of them seeing the above pictures and not seeing anything wrong with them.
There is also an atheist tent every week at a gathering set up for a free exchange of ideas at my college. The members of the Christian groups on campus used to come up all of the time to argue with the head atheist, who used to be a preacher himself. Now, it’s the adult leaders of the group who come up, all vowing to force Jesus’s love onto the poor, poor sad atheists.
Oh, and there was a girl (okay, more like a 25-26-year old woman) who made many figures of a loin-cloth clad Christ with his arms around little kids out of sculptee clay.
I also think it’s funny. Mostly because I think mocking Jesus is funny. Also, because I think it’s generally OK to mock the dominant religion.
And finally, because the very thing that makes it funny is also what makes it less offensive: Pedophiles (real ones) aren’t funny, and pedophile jokes with real people aren’t really funny either. But it’s JESUS, son of God and the perfect person–if he existed in that image, he couldn’t be a pedophile… it’s the dichotomy that is funny.
I agree.
Hm. To me, it’s playing off of a history of children being abused in religious contexts. I hear a bit of a subtext saying “All Catholic priests are pedophiles, and by extention all Christian authorities are pedophiles, and probably all devout Christians, stick that in your righteousness” which is not true, but not enough to ping my “stop saying that” meter. What I strongly dislike is the giggly ain’t-pedophilia-funny look-he-kind-of-wants-it rape apologia which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. My reaction to it is similar to my reaction to this trope.
The kinds of quotes that they want to mock — “Jesus makes me happy” “Jesus touches me” –do have a sexual subtext, and are funny. But why not show adult men or women swooning over a buff, underwear-clad Jesus? The images could still be funny, if the men and women were presented as appropriately hypocritical.
I should add — I think at some point Amp said that something can be both funny and offensive. I don’t think these images are funny, because the shot is so easy that it doesn’t surprise me. But I can understand that other people would think they’re funny; the humor value doesn’t make them less offensive.
Here’s something that mocks the sexual subtext of the dominant religion, but not victims of pedophilia:
Because it makes me laugh.
The first one is obviously a parody. In real life, an evangelical Christian would never pass up an opportunity to talk to an atheist, even via children.
I have a problem with jokes about pedophilia because it in effect ridicules victims of childhood sexual abuse.
I have to say, I have a huge problem with this statement: “I think it’s generally OK to mock the dominant religion.”
I do not understand the idea that it makes a difference whether the religion is dominant or not. If you had said ‘stifling’, ‘oppressive’ or ‘proselytizing’, I could see it. But ‘dominant’? And then, dominant where? Is it OK to show a cartoon of Mohamed fondling a prepubescent girl, as long as you are doing it on Sadeghiie Square in Teheran?
I think that mocking people’s religion involves in almost all cases making them feel bad. There better be a reason for it. You may be trying to get revenge on an asshole who came and promised you eternal damnation while you were minding you own damn business. You may think be trying to take someone off a course that you think will harm them. You may be fighting against an attempt by religious people to oppress others. And Hell, you maybe doing it just to make yourself feel better about your choice, or to make yourself feel smart (are these different, anyway?)
But why does it matter whether the person you are making feel bad or angry is a member of a dominant religion? I would bet my life that if any religion has been dominant in any sense of the word, it has been used to oppress. Power is prone to abuse and any group of people gets its share of assholes. But does the abuse perpetrated by them justify mocking those who share similar beliefs?
Most of the Christians I know would feel disgust at the association of Jesus and pedophilia. It will not make them look at their religion with a critical eye. No, they would just think that us damn Atheists respect nothing, and are out to get them. I’ve seen many ‘fake religious’ sites. They can be good for a laugh, but given that they are only slightly less offensive than the real thing, I really do
not see the point. They are nasty propaganda, and I think they do more harm than good, where good is defined as ‘undermining the power of religion’.
But hey, I believe in Freedom of Speech. If it floats your boat, go ahead and make up all the fake hate speech you want, or put all kind of inane comments in the mouth of them unwashed bible thumpers. But when you say that it is only
OK if your target can be associated with the dominant religion…
Well, how much respect would you have for a kid that think that it is OK to
kick others in the shins, as long as they are bigger than him? And what about
the one that somehow only does that to the rather good natured giant that will
not punch him back?
Generally speaking, from an intellectual standpoint I think it’s OK to mock all religion. But that gets modified by the feeling that I don’t want to pile on to the troubles of people who are already being handed a load of shit because their religion, because my anti-religious beliefs are secondary to my anti-oppression beliefs.
Dominant may not be the best word, and a better substitute might be “widely accepted” And yes, that would mean that (were I in Tehran, and were the laws in Tehran quite different from the way they are now) that it would be OK to mock Muslims in such an atmosphere, in a manner that might not be acceptable elsewhere.
OK.
Right on both counts. Serious conversation about things is often less effective than outright mockery. Sad but true.
See above.
Sure. The dominance aspect reflects which group wins and gets to screw over the other groups.
Yes, if the similar-belief folks aren’t forthcoming about the abuse part. Which is an “if” that in practice turns out to be fairly rhetorical.
For some reason the use of “most” is, well, confusing. what do the other ones think?
If it works for only one christian then it’s valuable.
I’m not out to get them, but I don’t respect them. Why should I respect their religion?
OK, what’s “harm” defined as? I don’t know whether or not I agree with you until we get that.
That’s a pretty one sided hypothetical. Which misses the whole point. If Christians (and other majority religions) DIDN’T use their power to oppress others than this would not be an issue. It is the existence of such an imbalance that makes this appropriate.
> > Most of the Christians I know would feel disgust at the association of
> > Jesus and pedophilia.
>
> For some reason the use of “most” is, well, confusing. what do the other
> ones think?
>
I was obviously not clear. I should have rephrased this. I meant that they would feel revulsion that someone would dare associate Jesus and pedophilia. It goes without saying that pedophilia is disgusting.
> > You may think be trying to take someone off a course that you think
> > will harm them. You may be fighting against an attempt by religious
> > people to oppress others.
>
> Right on both counts. Serious conversation about things is often less
> effective than outright mockery. Sad but true.
>
You know, I remember us disagreeing on this one before. I believe in the power of mockery a lot less than you do. While I admit that it does a great job at pleasing and encouraging allies, I think that it mostly mobilizes opponents. Great as a weapon, poor as a way of influencing anyone but the convinced.
> And yes, that would mean that (were I in Tehran, and were the laws
> in Tehran quite different from the way they are now) that it would be
> OK to mock Muslims in such an atmosphere, in a manner that might
> not be acceptable elsewhere.
>
OK, do not take this as an attack, or an insult – I am honestly curious. You say
‘would be OK’. Do you think that it’s not OK now because they have the right to their own laws, and it’s immoral to break them on their soil, or do you believe it’s not OK because it it is not worth the price? I can assure you that even if it were not against the law, you would still pay with your life if you were to do it.
> > where good is defined as ‘undermining the power of religion’.
>
> OK, what’s “harm” defined as? I don’t know whether or not I agree with
> you until we get that.
>
In addition of “Prompting someone to act because he believes that atheists hold nothing sacred and will stop at nothing as they destroy people’s faith and way of life”? “Making a human being who personally never harmed anyone feel bad.” You see, I have a great problem with guilt by association. The life of one of my former coworkers was destroyed by a cult styling itself ‘The Church of Christ’. While I would drown the pastor in his own shit for what he did to his daughter, my friend, and probably many other kids, I have trouble blaming other Christians (whatever that means)
> Which misses the whole point. If Christians (and other majority
> religions) DIDN’T use their power to oppress others than this would
> not be an issue. It is the existence of such an imbalance that makes
> this appropriate.
Anyone with power can be accused of oppression. The problem is that when you say “Christians”, you include people who would scream bloody murder for being lumped together. Yeah, it very hard to fight any organization unless you are willing to see it as a homogeneous entity. But I do not buy the ‘similar-belief folks aren’t forthcoming about the abuse part’ justification. I assume that Christians do not feel the need to apologize for those who attend military funerals while shouting ‘God hates fags’.
It is only natural to say ‘I do not do this, I disapprove strongly, this person is not like me, I bear no responsibility, I need not do anything’. As for me, I may go a bit further, and take action if someone I care about is the perpetrator (or of course the victim, but that’s a different story). I also act when my ego says ‘Are you gonna allow this asshole to act like this around you, as if you did not matter?’ But mostly, I do not feel justified in acting on any scale greater than my tiny circle of acquaintances.
I know you go beyond not respecting this way of thinking. And I may even envy your sense of righteousness. I just do not have it in me. I find it much easier to justify attacking all religions on their common failings, and I believe that one achieves the best results by engaging in a rational and above all non-threatening or insulting discussion… at least until the other person escalates.
While the cartoons portraying Jesus as a paedophile may be morally problematic, at least this set is rescued by the cartoon illustrating T. rex as a vegetarian using the VeggieTales characters. I laughed until my jaw ached. ROTFL!
I don’t find Jesus/pedophilia jokes funny myself. Yes, many priests molest children. Yes, the Catholic church is evil and hypocritical and such for attempting to cover it up. I find many aspects of Christianity, in all of its sects, ludicrous and hypocritical and downright strange. Christianity and Christians are definitely worthy of ridicule. I find most ridicule of Christianity and Christians to be funny.
However, Jesus Christ was maybe possibly perhaps a real person, who maybe possibly perhaps advocated many of the things, like loving your neighbor, that Christians say he advocated. There is no evidence that he was a pedophile and no evidence that, if alive today, he would approve of any of the things that people do and have done in his name.
I’ve always sort of felt bad for Jesus, actually. I suspect he was probably a real person and a good person and that a bunch of fanatics took over his image and used it to do crazy things.
I don’t have anything against Jesus and I’m not sure why anyone else would. You just have to separate the man from the religion.
“While the cartoons portraying Jesus as a paedophile may be morally problematic, at least this set is rescued by the cartoon illustrating T. rex as a vegetarian using the VeggieTales characters. ”
Heck yes!
“at least until the other person escalates.”
You’re not paying attention to collectivity, Petar.
I’m firmly in the “it’s funny” camp, and I don’t see it as rape apologia at all, nor as mocking the child, nor even as mocking Christ. What is being mocked here are Christians, specifically the type of Christian that could look at these images and see nothing but religiousity. This is also funny for the same reason.
I laugh too – but in appreciation, not mockery – at the ingenuity of the child who is able to communicate a message to us: “I’m really being abused here”, while concealing it from the aforementioned Christians.
These images can be interpreted as you said somewhat literally, as a reference to child-molesting priests, but also less literally as suggesting that the daily diet of religious claptrap force-fed to children in these families is also abuse.
I think that final cartoon is being misunderstood. It isn’t about paedophilia at all, but rather about homoerotic feelings passing for religious fascination. The blond-haired boy is being mocked for his self-deception. His interest in Jesus – the muscle-bound Jesus we see him imagining – is clearly sexual in nature (notice where he’s placed his left hand) but he is still naive enough not to know why he “just can’t stop thinking about” Jesus.
if they were any less offensive than the real thing, i’d agree there wasn’t much point. the point of satire lies in its being only slightly more offensive than the real thing, so as to draw attention to the fact that the real thing is offensive, and provide a yardstick for roughly how badly so.
oh, and count me as another atheist who doesn’t respect religion either. i respect lots of stuff, but if my failure to respect that one thing makes religious people think i respect nothing, that frankly points out just yet another problem with religion.
That’s an interesting interpretation.
As is this one.
I don’t read the cartoon in these ways, but I find your interpretations funny.
Mandolin
Well, I mean, look where the kid’s got his right hand.
I rest my case.
If pedophilia is involved, that’s creepy, but if it’s simply a mtter od sexuality, that is good solid theoogy. Jesus described himslef as a bridegroom and Paul described the bond between Jesus and a believer as a marriage. Sexual enough? It may not be Tantra, but it’s getting there.
As for comedy, it can be a very good way to make a theological point. I once saw a t-shirt at a Pride Parade that said “Jesus is my husband”. Theologically rock solid.
Jesus was not above soem very close to the edge joking himself, even playing with racsim, or tribalism I suppose it was – he joked with a Gentile woman when she asked for teaching that he wasn’t going to give the children’s bread to dogs, about as racist a remark as he coould have made, and it is obvious from her answer that she and he were both joking.
he joked with a Gentile woman when she asked for teaching that he wasn’t going to give the children’s bread to dogs, about as racist a remark as he coould have made, and it is obvious from her answer that she and he were both joking.
Would that be the conversation where she then debased herself by saying that even the dogs may eat the scraps that fall from the childrens’ table, and Jesus replied “Great is your faith” in response to this self-debasement? Because I must admit that I never found that really screamed “joke”. But then I never laughed at Stepin Fetchit, either.
The Stepin Fetchit comparison is bogus because the relationship between between Jews and Phoenicians was hardly, hardly Jim Crow. To spell it out for you, the point was that they were both making light of tribalism.
“Jesus was not above soem very close to the edge joking himself, even playing with racsim, or tribalism I suppose it was – he joked with a Gentile woman when she asked for teaching that he wasn’t going to give the children’s bread to dogs, about as racist a remark as he coould have made, and it is obvious from her answer that she and he were both joking.”
I’ve seen that passage interpreted in a number of ways, including that Jesus was first and foremost a Jewish supremacist, and that he was feigning bigotry to test the woman’s faith. I’ve never heard the “joke” interpretation before.