Hmmm….

“Nothing bothers me more than people who seek to limit the exercise of free speech by throwing around the word “offensive.” If the people who write the GGMM want to continue mocking Christianity, they are free to do so.”

“The Passion of Jesus Christ…is not something that should be laughed at lightly. It is highly offensive for Christians that it should become a framework for lewd, degrading, disgusting mockery.”

One of these statements is not like the other one. You can’t on the one hand say that you’re against limiting free speech by throwing around the word offensive, and on the other hand, in the very next paragraph, base your argument on something being “highly offensive.”

And sorry Peter, but mocking religion is not just an easy way to avoid seriously challenging religion-it can also be a way to religion head-on.

George Carlin’s routines about religion resonate for a reason. One, they’re funny, but two, the man makes some good points. Along the same lines, you may be offended by the GGMM line, “Man, wouldn’t a virgin birth be some shit? I mean, wow. That shit would HURT!”, but frankly, that’s a good point. It’s no more offensive than you’d find in any comedy club, it’s funny, and it makes a decent argument to boot.

The fact that many Christians, Muslims and Jews take their religion very seriously should never be used as an argument for self-censorship or for “going easy” on these particular groups. Voltaire attacked Judaism and Christianity mercilessly, mocking them and ridiculing their many contradictions in ways that nowadays would be considered “unnecessarily offensive” by many. Speech, especially offensive speech, should be met with arguments and condemnation, but never with censorship. As for the existence of an unfair bias toward protesting offensive speech in areas of gender or ethnicity more than in reference to religion, this may be true of Dartmouth, but I assure you that in many parts of the world outside the “hallowed halls” the exact opposite is the case. In Europe (where I live), an unholy coalition of radical Muslims and conservative Christians (especially Roman Catholics) is successfully censoring supposedly offensive speech aimed at religion as never before. We have seen instances of blatant self-censorship in Europe recently in film festivals, art exhibits and publications for fear of reprisals by radical muslim groups often acting in connivance with the church. If Voltaire lived in contemporary Europe and included Islam in his attacks, he would have trouble speaking in public, his writings would disappear from some public libraries and he would be banned from many a TV station. We would all be poorer for it, and I would hardly call it progress.

I’m no fan of Peter Blair’s editorials (frankly, I think many of them are poorly researched and badly argued), but in this case I think he is correct: the GGMM message is distasteful.

However, I take issue with this statement: “Not many people, for example, receive the GGMM, and those who do probably receive the message because they are the type of people who enjoy reading offensive material.” Many people find themselves on blitz lists by chance, not by choice. Do not condemn the entire campus for the actions of a few people, just because they happen to witness it.

In addition, the statement, “If you can trivialize and laugh at religion, you have made it easy for yourself to ignore it and to remain unchallenged by its message. But if the lives of people like Mother Theresa or St. Francis of Assisi tell us anything, they tell us that Christianity is something we ought to treat with the utmost seriousness. The Passion of Jesus Christ — if it is truly what Christianity claims it to be — is the most revolutionary and the most importance occurrence in all of human history. It is not something that should be laughed at lightly. It is highly offensive for Christians that it should become a framework for lewd, degrading, disgusting mockery.”

There are also many atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christ (e.g. The Crusades). Some people only see the harmful consequences of religious fervor, but it is just as disingenuous for you to harp on the positive impact of Christianity, without acknowledging the negative outcomes.

Furthermore, not everyone thinks that the Passion of Christ was the most important occurrence in all human history. The e-mail was inappropriate, yes, and you have a right to be offended. But please do not assume the entire world ought to bow down and accept your personal views about Christ (which is essentially what we have to do in order to agree with your ultimate argument). There needs to be more discussion about religious diversity on this campus, but the exclusively Christian logic you employ in this editorial is not the way to convince people to do so.

The problem with comparing this to racism or sexism is that, unlike those two, religion is not a unmutable characteristic. It is an ideology— and on the plain of ideas, some ideas can attack other ideas (using humor as a vehicle). You chose to have a religion because of certain ideas, others chose not to for others. Racism and sexism are far worse evils because you are attacking someone for something that is not their fault.

“The problem with comparing this to racism or sexism is that, unlike those two, religion is not a unmutable characteristic. It is an ideology- and on the plain of ideas, some ideas can attack other ideas (using humor as a vehicle). You chose to have a religion because of certain ideas, others chose not to for others. Racism and sexism are far worse evils because you are attacking someone for something that is not their fault.”

It is true that people choose various religions- or no religion- because of certain ideas. It is equally true that ideas can be debated, disagreed upon, and challenged in a way that race and gender cannot. I, personally, am a devout Catholic, but I understand that many, many individuals do not agree with Catholicism, and that in and of itself is fine by me. I welcome and often enjoy reasoned debates about ideas and theology, and I do not have a problem with people putting forth reasoned, respectful arguments against various ideas and religious beliefs. I also don’t have a problem with good-natured, religiously-targeted humor, which can be funny and even insightful without being offensive (heck, rather than object, I am usually the first person making a crack about the Inquisition or “Catholic guilt,” and the one leading everyone else in a rousing chorus of “The Vatican Rag.”) However, there is a vast difference between respectfully disagreeing with a belief and saying why (“I do not agree with Christianity because I find these beliefs it espouses to be illogical and its doctrines do not make sense to me”) and making a cheap and insulting attack upon someone’s deeply held religious beliefs (“Hahaha, virgin birth my ass, you know that Mary was a slutty whore!”)

Engaging in a reasoned and respectful exchange of ideas (with perhaps some light-hearted, good-natured ribbing thrown in) is a good thing. Making cheap and insulting jokes at the expense of something as personal and sacred as someone’s religious beliefs is just as repulsive as belittling someone’s race, gender, or sexual orientation.

“Jesus Meets His Mother,” they wrote, “Man, wouldn’t a virgin birth be some shit? I mean, wow. That shit would HURT!”

++++++++++

That’s the best satire a Dartmouth student could manage? Someone notify admissions. Standards are slipping. Hard to believe this is the same school that produced men like the Rev. George Rutler ‘65, pastor of Our Savior in NYC who ran 3 miles against a tide of humanity to assist at Ground Zero on 9/11; like the Rev. Myles Sheehan '78, a physician, professor, and provincial superior for the Jesuits in New England; like the Rev. Jack Fagan '94, who works at an innovative Jesuit school in inner city Worcester, MA; or like the Rev. Francis Belanger '89, assistant chaplain at Aquinas House.

“Jesus Meets His Mother,” they wrote, “Man, wouldn’t a virgin birth be some shit? I mean, wow. That shit would HURT!”

++++++++++

That’s the best satire a Dartmouth student could manage? Someone notify admissions. Standards are slipping. Hard to believe this is the same school that produced men like the Rev. George Rutler ‘65, pastor of Our Savior in NYC who ran 3 miles against a tide of humanity to assist at Ground Zero on 9/11; like the Rev. Myles Sheehan '78, a physician, professor, and provincial superior for the Jesuits in New England; like the Rev. Jack Fagan '94, who works at an innovative Jesuit school in inner city Worcester, MA; or like the Rev. Francis Belanger '89, assistant chaplain at Aquinas House.

Yes, it is hard to believe that a school that graduates more than a thousand students annually could have a student body so varied that there are some who choose to become Reverends following their time here and some who choose to give religion no respect (nevermind that it is foolish to judge someone entirely on one sentence). Unbelievable!

Er, yeah. Take a deep breath, “Are you serious?” I couldn’t find one of those winking emoticons to signify that the “standards are slipping” remark was said in jest. Clearly, in a student body of 4000 undergraduates, a few eejits will manage to slip in. Eventually, they “out” themselves by their promiscuous (but so very humorous) use of coarse Anglo-Saxon words and ignorance of how the female reproductive system works. (Hint: the difficulty of birth—and by tradition, Mary’s wasn’t difficult, but I’ll spare you the exegesis—has nothing to do with how many times a woman has had intercourse.)

Hey, you know what else is funny? Jesus being nailed to the cross. “Nailed” Get it? Heh. heh.