Is it ever all right to satirize religious leaders or beliefs?

Rev. GEOFF

KERSLAKE is a priest of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Ottawa.

H aving an ability to laugh at ourselves is very helpful, and life provides us with many opportunities to see the humour in various situations, but the true character of civil discourse is the ability to discuss serious issues that touch the deeply held beliefs of others with respect. Jesus gave us a very good principle that applies to all our social interactions: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31).

What one person finds funny, another may find disrespectful. Particularly when talking or writing of the religious beliefs, traditions or leaders of other faith communities, we need to pay special attention to how our communications will be perceived by members of that community.

An important thing to consider is our motivation for writing in jest about the beliefs of others. If the purpose is to denigrate their beliefs, then we are indeed acting in a deliberately offensive manner. It is hard to build understanding and mutual respect in a social environment if this practice becomes common.

Communication should build bridges between people and foster goodwill. We need to ask ourselves if satirizing the leaders or beliefs of others will help accomplish those goals or whether in fact it is really an attempt to bully others publicly, with words disguised as humour.

Rev. KEVIN FLYNN is an Anglican priest and director of the Anglican studies program at Saint Paul University.

M y dictionary states that satire is the “use of ridicule, irony, sarcasm, etc. …. for the ostensible purpose of exposing and discouraging vice or folly.” When satire is directed against us or our beliefs, our response may range from an uncomfortable squirm to a flash of real anger. Successful satire can have that effect because we can recognize the measure of truth in it.

In that respect, satire can have the helpful effect of piercing some of our pretensions or nudging us to look at things in a new way. Given that we religious folk claim to be dealing with the great truths of life, we can become terribly serious and rather pompous. Well-aimed satire can bring us back down to earth in a hurry.

There’s a difference, however, with humour whose sole intention is to hurt and harm. Its unlovely and usually unfunny character is generally accompanied by a sneering sense of superiority on the part of the “humorist.” It doesn’t really matter if such humour is directed against religion or against any other persons or sets of belief. The world hardly needs any more aggression, vitriol, or contempt. Whatever our differences or conflicts, we all, as human beings, deserve respect. We all need to try to develop empathy toward others.

I realize that these distinctions are not always easy to make. Those on the receiving end of the humour may feel more aggrieved than enlightened. Christians, however, follow one who bore all kinds of mocking, hurtful abuse at the end of his life. His response was to pray for their forgiveness because they did not know what they were doing.

His followers might do well to cultivate a similar attitude.

KEVIN SMITH is on the board of directors for the Centre for Inquiry, Canada’s premier venue for humanists, skeptics and freethinkers.

O scar Wilde didn’t initiate the satirical assault on religion, but his delicious wit produced several zingers. One in particular comes across my Twitter feed on a regular basis, “Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn’t there, and finding it.”

Good thing Wilde had a flourish for writing and not drawing. There was quite a blow-up in 2005 when Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard decided to make a little social statement about a religion that didn’t appreciate his talent.

Ridiculing someone is considered ill-mannered but sometimes it’s our civic duty to indulge. Only the harshest individual would tell an elderly lady her beloved dog is ugly, or her, for that matter. But religion is such an easy target.

When a religious leader says something outrageous, usually related to hurricanes and homosexuals or female breasts and earthquakes, how can even the most humour-challenged rationalist resist? It’s material a comedian would kill for; as long as they don’t die for saying it.

There are times when satirizing religion should be forbidden, where words or actions are no joking matter. Any religion that not only fails to deal with sexual abuses of children in their care but also willingly covers up the vile acts should be held accountable. Otherwise they’ll be the ones getting the last laugh.

Rev. RAY INNEN

PARCHELO, a novice Tendai priest is founder of the Red Maple Sangha, the first lay Buddhist community in eastern Ontario.

T he lead-in about several religious figures and some celebrity walking into a bar is a common comedy clichés and the punch line of “make me one with everything” is now a groaner. We can go back to Middle Ages tale-teller Geoffrey Chaucer, who used his Canterbury Tales to send up a self-indulgent nun, a saintly monk and a pompous priest.

Parody, satire and one-liners about the famous or of stereotypes are a two-edged sword. On the one hand, they can be almost surgical in penetrating absurdity or failings of the target, and this can be valuable social criticism. Psychologists propose that humour appeals to the non-logical side of the brain and allows us to make new insights. On the other hand, it has taken centuries for us to move beyond the implicit racism of jokes.

As Buddhists do, we can turn to the intentions as a way of distinguishing different styles of humour. If the intent is fair-minded and legitimate criticism, popping bubbles of deceit or arrogance and will stimulate reflection, it is serving a valued social role. When the humour darkens and is driven by a meanness of spirit and plunges into insult, demeaning remarks, with a purpose of shaming or discrediting a person, then we are not benefiting from this. When a “joke” incites angry or hatefilled violence at a person, a religious institution or its adherents, then we are not well served.

Rabbi REUVEN BULKA, head of Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa, hosts Sunday Night with Rabbi Bulka on 580 CFRA.

Presumably, your question relates to the recent spate of less than respectful cartoons following the resignation of the Pope.

Before responding to your question, for the record, I think what the Pope did was most admirable. It was a clear lesson in walking the walk, in realizing what is the right action to take, and actually doing it. The fact this is unprecedented in Papal history makes it even more commendable.

In almost every life endeavour, there comes a time when hanging on is not in the best interests of the organization, or group, or calling, for which one is hanging on. To realize that one is after the “best before” period and then making the appropriate decision as a result, is an expression of true, self-effacing dedication. Certainly, the Pope deserved highest praise for this, and not nasty cartoons.

As to your question, we live in a democracy, wherein people are free to express themselves, and utter even the most irreverent comments, however unjustified or ill-informed the comments may be.

But the fact that it is legally OK to make such comments does not translate into it being OK on other levels.

The Pope was certainly no stranger to controversy, even within the church. Arguing with his views on matters of principle is fair game. But this is all fair game when it is within the boundaries of respect.

Arguing not on the issues, and instead undercutting the person, is difficult to justify. I can see it when there is evident hypocrisy, or lying, or deliberate truth twisting, but failing that, it is important that we have some appreciation of the sacred.

If nothing is sacred, we at our own peril undermine the very foundation of our value system. Children need to grow up with role models whom they respect — parents, teachers, elders, even friends. Removing fundamental respect from the way we interact has serious implications far beyond a cartoon or two. It filters into our life as a pervasive cynicism that can easily become a “nothing matters” attitude. At that point, when nothing matters, we have effectively denuded life of its potential meaningfulness.

In short, we need to focus less on what is legally permissible, and more on what is morally responsible.

JACK MCLEAN is a Bahá’i scholar, teacher, essayist and poet published in the fields of spirituality, Bahá’i theology and poetry.

With this question, we encounter, not the clash of civilizations, but the clash of values. Those who would defend “freedom of speech” would argue that nothing short of a criminal, i.e. an exclusive legal definition, should be exempted from satire. But the religious who revere the sacred, would naturally not countenance the satire of their holy figures or cherished beliefs.

By definition, satire is mockery and abasement. It follows that it is not appropriate to ridicule what another holds dear, be that God, your family, country, race, ethnicity, religious leader, or beliefs.

What other ethical principles should we invoke in order to clarify the answer? The Golden Rule comes to mind, as does that princely virtue, common courtesy. One adage says “to give no offence.” Another says “to take no offence.” These precepts would clearly exclude the ridicule of religious leaders or beliefs.

Now jokes are appropriate if the joker and the target of his mockery are both laughing. If both parties are laughing, we can conclude that harmless fun and comic relief are at work. Both parties feel comfortable enough to laugh and to be laughed at within the comfortable walls of friendship. But the satire of religious leaders or beliefs can start a raging fire that will prove impossible to extinguish, as recent events have shown.

Bahá’u’lláh ( 1817-1892), the Prophet-Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, revealed: “For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endureth a century.”

His son and successor, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (1844-1921), emphasized: “Beware! Beware! Lest ye offend any heart! Beware! Beware! Lest ye hurt any soul! Beware! Beware! Lest ye deal unkindly toward any person! Beware! Beware! Lest ye be the cause of hopelessness to any creature! Should one become the cause of grief to any one heart, or of despondency to any one soul, it were better to hide oneself in the lowest depths of the earth than to walk upon the earth.”

ABDUL RASHID is a member of the Ottawa Muslim community, the ChristianMuslim Dialogue and the Capital Region Interfaith Council.

O ur Creator tells us in the Holy Qur’an, “We have conferred dignity on the progeny of Adam” (17:70). Therefore, it is not acceptable to satirize any human being, and not just a religious leader.

Islam warns us against negative practices that are likely to sow the seeds of disunity, hatred and enmity and destroy the community. It is important that we should be conscious of these and rebut them whenever wherever they occur.

Among these harmful human traits is what you call “satire.” Islam condemns this strongly. In chapter 49 of the Holy Qur’an, God Almighty orders us: “O you who believe! Let not some men among you deride others; it may well be that those (whom they deride) are better than themselves. Nor let some women laugh deride others; it may be that those (whom they deride) are better than themselves, nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by [offensive] nicknames; ... and those who do not desist are [indeed] evil-doers” (49:11).

The scripture calls this practice “sukhriyyah,” which may be by word of mouth or by parodying another person, making fun of another person’s personality or clothes, or laughing at another person’s normal actions. Anything that can hurt the feelings of another person is not allowed.

I have stated briefly my faith’s perspective on this practice at the individual level. Its ill effects are significantly multiplied at the collective level. When this occurs in the case of a religious leader or any person held in respect by others, it becomes a source of rancour and ill feeling in the society. Therefore, it is NEVER OK to satirize religious leaders or beliefs.

Rev. JOHN COUNSELL is discipleship pastor at Bethel Pentecostal Church in Ottawa.

A common belief I happen to agree with is that “being able to laugh at yourself is one of the surest signs of emotional and mental health.” I would say that is true for religious leaders as well.

We are told that Jesus was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” However, Christ was a master at the use of humour as well. In fact, there is much evidence his use of irony against the Pharisees contributed heavily to their resolve to have him executed (See Elton Trueblood: The Humor of Christ, a scholarly thesis on the subject).

I think satirizing religious leaders is a wonderful way of keeping them accountable. Even Christ said to be wary when all men speak well of you and he promised persecution to anyone who follows him.

Mockery is a mild form of persecution that can also strengthen one’s resolve, like the fire that forges the blade of a weapon. Satire can sometimes be cruel and unnecessary, but most of us are pretty good at discerning when someone crosses the line. In fact, the persecuted one is often seen more favourably because the satire is perceived as unfair.

Jimmy Swaggart and Jim and Tammy Bakker, (both at one time part of my denomination) were as skewered by comedians as any religious leaders in history. It was painful for many of us in our fellowship, but in retrospect, we needed a good cultural kick-in-the-pants, because what was masquerading as ministry was nothing more than spiritualized greed and self-righteous bravado.

I think satirizing religious leaders is not only healthy but necessary. If what we preach is authentic, it will only be strengthened by greater scrutiny, if not, it deserves to fall.