15 March 2006

Pandering to Scientologists

I've never been a fan of Southpark, their humor has always been just a little crass for my taste. One thing I have to give them credit for; they are equal opportunity in their harassment of every niche of human existence. Apparently one of their frequent collaborators, Isaac Hayes, doesn't appreciate their fairness in distribution as he recently quit in response to an episode "exploring" Scientology. From the Associated Press:
There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said...

Last November, "South Park" targeted the Church of Scientology and its celebrity followers, including actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta, in a top-rated episode called "Trapped in the Closet." In the episode, Stan, one of the show's four mischievous fourth graders, is hailed as a reluctant savior by Scientology leaders, while a cartoon Cruise locks himself in a closet and won't come out.

Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker "never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin.

I think it was Dennis Miller (MJ, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it from his rant on "Civility"?) who said (paraphrasing, of course) that if someone made fun of you, rather than going home and crying to your mother, you should 'kick start that weed whacker of a brain and come back with a comeback.' Isaac Heyes had no problem helping Southpark make fun of everyone else on God's green earth, why now turn into a conscientious objector?

James Taranto's observation is right on:
Well, after all, it's one thing to mock Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, blacks, gays, whites, Mexicans, Asians, Canadians, Frenchmen, people with birth defects, women, transsexuals, Democrats, Republicans, lawyers, cops, cows, people with red hair and freckles, goths, the handicapped and fat kids. But satirizing Scientology--that's just intolerant!
I hope you, dear readers, see the parallels between this double standard and the one addressed in "Pandering to Muslims." I suppose it is human nature to want to be excluded from the school-yard name calling.

I continue to think of the West's response to the Muslim uproar in response to the printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. In my last post I raised two issues I still haven't seen raised anywhere else.

The first was the fallacious Muslim claim that their religion is somehow "more sacred" or that they are "more serious" about their religious devotion. This has been parroted by moderates in the West who, perhaps because they themselves are not religious, nod their heads in agreement. "Of course," they think to themselves, "these people are more serious about their religion." I rejected this claim and noted that it would be difficult to assess until that time when God, in His great wisdom, decides to air publicly His views on which religion is best. Until then, we should all be content worship how we may and respect the rights of others to do the same.

My second observation was that the moderate pandering was just the latest iteration of liberal condescension towards Muslims. The imagery that comes quickest to mind is that of doting parents and an ill behaved child. Confronted with the child's tantrum, the parent, rather than punishing the child for bad behavior, encourages it by satisfying the every want of the child. It is all too clear that the liberal press and academics see themselves in this role. Rather than rebuking Muslim leaders who inflame the public with their violent rhetoric, they castigate those who embrace the freedom of the press for "causing" the violence.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's like Mason pointed out in Monday's lecture, we are slow to recognition when things are in our favor (read: not against our beliefs, etc.) but all to quick to jump all over the ones causing injustice in our minds to the parties of which we affiliate. Welcome to the paradox of society.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that we allow others to mock our religion, why is that when movies or television programs depict missionaries performing acts we know they wouldn't we sit aside and laugh it off? I know for me often times i was asked if I was like the missionary in one movie who couldn't keep it together I would just brush it off. Sure I do not aggree with Isaac Hayes sudden departure because now he was forced to mock something he liked. I do however feel that there is a time and a place where you should stand up for what you believe in. This is one area where the world has to agree, that you can't mock the Muslim world without reprucussions. Now I do not believe violence is the way to change people's opinion but, certain things that are regarded as sacred should not be allowed to be thrown aside as humor(ie:garments) When in doubt look at Jesus and the money changers. Some times actions must be taken to insure reverance for certain things.

Anonymous said...

This was just a way for Hayes to leave with a "bang" publicity-wise. His part was being phased out and it was just a matter of time until they let him go. Remember there is no such thing as "bad publicity".

StatCounter