To make “real peace” among themselves, members of all three religions would each have to alter some portion of their own manmade beliefs. But, in a typical example of “religious unity,” Muslims, Christians and Jews, alike, have always been unwilling to alter any part of their own beliefs! So, each embraces their own clergy’s interpretations of their own Sacred Book — interpretations that have provoked hatreds and wars throughout their shared religious history. And those are the same interpretations that are now driving us into a “shared” nuclear war.

Of course, so many self-centered Christians are so convinced they will be “whisked away” before violence consumes the rest of the world that they have no incentive to alter their own understanding. And stubborn Jews are so accustomed to being persecuted and ostracized, they have long since closed their ears and their minds to the beliefs of “outsiders.” And self-satisfied Muslims believe, so thoroughly, that the whole world will someday be “Islamic”— in whatever way they define “Islam” — they can scarcely bring themselves to denounce the violence their “extremist” members are wreaking. After all, what the “fanatics” are doing could be “God’s Will.”

So, here we are with each religious family too convinced their understanding is too right to be altered. Each convinced the others should change. Each “deep-down” resigned to enduring whatever happens or gladly anticipating their own “deliverance.” And each convinced that all they can do is urge their fellowmen to “convert” or urge them to practice “tolerance” — as though “believers” have ever proven truly tolerant of other beliefs for more than an occasional public minute!

All the while, Jews need to recognize the world’s Messiah, rejected by their presumptuous clergy, because Jesus did not do what they expected the Messiah to do for them. And Christians need to recognize Abraham’s One and Only unseen God, Who, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures which introduced Him to the world, never inferred He was one of three gods, as Christianity’s brazen clergy identified Him. And Muslims need to recognize that they have not become God’s “chosen people,” whose “Holy Land” has been usurped by Jewish “infidels” supported by Christian “infidels” (another name for “unbelievers”), as their egotistical clergy declares.

In general I agree with you that artistic bomb throwers are different than folks who really try to create tension between people and then use it for their own purposes….Mel Brooks, Natham Lane, etc are satirical and their targets are genrally fairly broad. I would support Rushdie’s right to defecate on any religion he sees fit, but I wouldn’t hold up that type of an expression in any sense as a model of how we talk to each other about senistive and personal choices.

FP

I was tempted to say, “who cares if Rusdie is a bomb thrower?” and leave it at that. But there is more to this issue, I think. Many bomb throwers have earned their popularity from being just that – a bomb thrower.

You (apparently) suggest that some things are off limits. Would entertainment legend Mel Brooks agree with you? Here is an unambiguous bomb thrower if I ever saw one. Whether or not you enjoy such films as ‘Blazin Saddles’ or ‘History of the World – Part 1′ cannot undermine the fact that Mel Brooks has made a career, and a respectable treasure chest, off of irreverent humor.

Mel Brooks is a Jewish man who has written, directed, produced, starred in, and shared with us his comedy that not only makes light of things we like to enjoy but he has also made light of: Judaism, black people, gay people, white people, native americans, writers, actors, producers, Nazis, Latinos, Catholics, Germans, etc etc… He is an equal opportunity comedian.

Or what about Nathan Lane? Here is a gay man who has starred in such films as ‘The Birdcage’ where Lane played a cross dressing (or whatever you prefer to say) homosexual, giving in to all the campy stereotypes and making it enjoyable (for some, at least).

Saturday Night Live, whether you like it or not, has provided us endless irreverent humor for at least thirty years. To my knowledge no ethnicity, minority, majority, religion, etc has been spared the axe on this show.

Which reminds me of a skit SNL did not too long ago about the controversy surrounding Vincente Fox (Mexican President, former) and his alleged bias against blacks. SNL did a short skit as part of their Weekend Update with actors playing both Vincente Fox and Al Sharpton. They traded jibes and ethnic jokes with all the levity for which SNL is known. The skit was ended with ‘Fox’ and ‘Sharpton’ sharing with us the ‘ol truism, “If we can’t laugh at ourselves then who can we laugh at?”

Because I frequently make fun of cats means in no way that I hate cats or would be cruel to them. Sometimes we need a little humor, irreverent or not, in our lives to help break the stresses of said life.

Can you get it published for posterity? Expand it to a book?

Go ahead and make fun if you want–my guide was intended for people involved in campaigns or teaching in public schools. But I think it is usually inherently cruel and counter-productive to do so. And I would answer your question with another question. Why don’t we “make fun’ of other deeply personal choices or external characteristics? In general, many of us don’t because we give respect to the person qua person– whatever their choices or external characteristics. The choice to be or not be religious is deeply personal, as personal as a person’s sexuality or personality. It is entitled to respect, just as every individual is.

FP

FP