Equal Opportunity Offender?

So, a little backstory. Black Sheep from over @ Not Sheep Minded and I have been having a little bit of a back and forth, and like usual, it got me thinking…

Have you ever noticed how popular it is to make fun of Christianity, Christian traditions and holidays, God even. And when challenged, the usual response is “I make fun of all religions” or “I’m an equal opportunity offender”. But I don’t believe that is the case.

How many Jew jokes have you told lately? What about Indian jokes, any Islam jokes, maybe something about the Prophet Muhammad? Any jokes about Hindus or Buddhist?

I don’t hear to many jokes about Islam or Muslims or Allah or the Prophet Muhammad in public, especially from white people.

When’s the last time anyone made fun of Indians in public or Indigenous peoples? Ya know, Aborigines.

Any Jew jokes come to mind?

What about jokes about goddesses? You can’t leave jokes about feminine gods out of the mix.

Listen, I get the ease and simplicity of cracking jokes about Christians, God, Jesus and the Christian faith as a whole, but if you claim to “make fun of all invisible sky people”, then prove it.

Making fun of Christians has been popular in the west for the past 60 or so years now, it’s nothing new. Show how you truly think all faith, religion and traditions are rubbish, if you don’t care for Christians, that’s fine, just don’t hide behind the monicker of “equal opportunity offender” tell us what you truly think.

I can understand if someone is afraid of being labeled “anti-semitic” or “racist” or “sexist” or any other label meant to shame into conformity.

Advertisements

86 thoughts on “Equal Opportunity Offender?

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Are they now? I’ve never heard that before. Since Judaism predates Christianity, I would think that the Jews were first.

          1. hawk2017

            Most religions claim the turth but the god they believe in does not claim they Are the truth, as our God does.:)

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Now I understand. Thanks for the explanation Hawk, I’m slow from time to time.

              I agree, there is no competition, only one God for all.

  1. Anonymous

    Maybe you’re right. I guess if you call yourself gods chosen people, you are a pretty big virtue signaler. However, isn’t it virtue signaling if you walk around telling everyone that they are sinners because of a book you read?
    For instance: if you have an abortion you’re killing a baby and that makes God cry!!!!! I.E.- Look at me, I’m virtuous!!!
    Then again, maybe me sitting around trying g to figure out who is the bigger virtue signaler is a form of virtue signaling all its own.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Ha, or tossing gays off of buildings because they are gay to prove how much they despise sodomites (Muslims).

      Or killing your neighbors because they are Muslim and do not worship the same gods as you do (Hindus).

      How about wearing funny hats and dancing around, while getting high, in preparation for war or rain (Indians)?

      Or, atheists, like other religions where everyone else is wrong except for them, because they read a book and had an epiphany.

      1. Over simplification. Thinking about a topic for your whole life, reading many books, watching many documentaries, talking to many folks (religious and non-religious) and having spent many years actively praying to a deity that does not answer is not the same as “reading a book and having an epiphany.”

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  Does the journey enable the epiphany?

                  How long or short must the time period be, before a discovery is made?

                  1. An epiphany is just a sudden, striking realization about something. It can happen on a journey or independent of one.

                    The scientific method does not set a time limit for a discovery to be made, rather a set principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge.

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Who controls those parameters of science?

                      Who decides what is a legitimate discovery and what is not a legitimate discovery?

                      What are the defining characteristics that must be met to be considered a scientist?

                    2. What do you mean by the parameters of science?

                      Legitimacy of discovery is checked by following the same experiment and seeing if you get the same result.

                      A scientist must follow the scientific method.

                    3. It is the system of making an observation, asking a question, forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and repeating until a conclusion can be drawn.

                    4. Scientists are people. People are capable of lying. At one time people were getting burned at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun. The established theory about the solar system was a lie.

                      Then a scientist came up with a theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Then another scientist with a telescope took observations, proving it. The scientific method was born out of this. Since then thousands, if not millions of people, have confirmed these observations.

                      Do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? I do. But the scientific method allows the data to be quesitoned at any time. If someone can come along with data that disputes this, they are more than welcome to.

                    5. bottomlesscoffee007

                      What science do you believe, even though you’ve never run the experiments yourself or have firsthand witnessed the results?

                      Yeah, people kill people, it’s it how it has always been and will it will always be. Does that completely illegitimize faith or beliefs?

                      So, if a scientist lied, does that mean that observations should not be discussed or criticized?

                      What does science mean to you?

                    6. I’ve run experiments when I was taking electrical engineering. And guess what? The predicted outcome occurred just like the science books said it would.

                      If a scientist lied, the observations should definitely be discussed/critisized. That’s partially the point of the scientific method.

                      To me science means the act of confiming one’s observations through the scientific method.

                      It’s been working nicely since the 13th century.

      1. Context one:
        You were talking about making jokes about religion. You mentioned Buddhism. That is the only Buddhist joke I remember…tho, if Alan Watts were still alive, he’d have plenty.

        Context two:
        Buddhism isn’t really a religion. That is the first kicker. According to Watts, Buddha, himself, never claimed to be a deity, a leader or practice religion. That’s the second kicker. If anyone claims to “be” a Buddha (follower), kill him as it is not a religion & shouldn’t have followers. That’s the third kicker.

        I think Watts also stated that, when Buddha was approached by those wishing to learn of his ways, his response was “I have nothing to teach and nothing to tell you.” Paraphrasing, of course.

        It’s kind of a joke within a joke.

          1. Yep. I’ve seen people follow sports, celebrities & musicians as a form of religion…and start fights over the above. Their versions of holy wars… Boggles a thinking mind. 🤔🤨🧐🙄😖😵🤯

                1. Marleen

                  Martin Luther similarly didn’t think people should “follow” him. But I went to Lutheran schools (affiliated with a network of Lutheran churches). I also visited a denominational study (or bible* study) at a Lutheran church decades later. They had an image associated with the course of a winking scholar (I don’t remember if it was supposed to be Martin Luther himself or not — I only went to like two sessions).

                  * The winking was explained more as having to do with the saying, “Bible only” (maybe also that Luther wouldn’t want to have a type of religion named after him, but not missing that Lutherans don’t claim to be living in the Bible rules or strict about the Bible).

                2. Marleen

                  Meanwhile, I would differentiate them, too. Martin Luther wanted to reform a religion. Siddhartha wasn’t seeking to improve a religion. I think of him as more of a philosopher or even simply someone who had to face reality after being raised in a palace (or in Hinduism).

  2. Oh boo hoo. Poor Christians, so persecuted. 74% of Americans claim to be Christians. And yet here you are bellyaching about being made fun of. Give me a freakin’ break, for crissake.

      1. I try to not bother commenting because it’s pointless. But when Christians bitch and moan about being persecuted or made fun of, I can’t be silent. Sheesh.

          1. You’re back to parsing my words again, which is why I have been avoiding commenting on your posts. I don’t care about “Christians bitching.” What I said was “But when Christians bitch and moan about being persecuted or made fun of, I can’t be silent.”

              1. What bothers me? American Christians who bitch and moan about being persecuted and made fun of when three-quarters of Americans are Christian. I thought I made that clear in my original comment.

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Fandango, why not just spell it out for me. Obviously, I don’t understand what you are eluding to.

                    2. I think you mean that you don’t understand what I’m *alluding* to. But, yes, it does seem that my meaning is, indeed *eluding* you. Too bad, so sad.

  3. Marleen

    I don’t think these are jokes, people.

    I just watched a stand up comic who made jokes about himself personally and Jews a little bit and one joke that could be considered Christian (but wasn’t really negative but about his aversion to death). Yes, I hear Native American jokes and other jokes.

    And, I ask you, one of the most common regular types of jokes are the kind with like a priest and maybe a rabbi and somebody else go into a bar. Don’t you hear those? You might want to check out Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj (hope I spelled that right).

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Thanks Marleen. I have heard those jokes before. In my opinion, many will go out of their way to avoid making fun of the “brown” religions for fear of being labeled a racist or some other trope.

      1. Marleen

        A lot of added posts that weren’t put through when I posted (when there were maybe ten or so to see). With humor, there is always the potential question of whether something is actually funny (and whether it’s hurtful). Sometimes people say they were kidding when they were racist. Or they just minimize how important bigotry is.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          And sometimes people call others racist or bigots because they felt that the joke wasn’t funny.

          Who’s the arbiter of what is funny and what isn’t funny?

          Isn’t that the purpose of comedy? To make people laugh.

          Referring to someone as racist or a bigot simply because you don’t agree with their opinions or beliefs, is basically telling someone that you don’t like the way they look.

          1. Marleen

            Whatever. Were not discussing outlawing speech, right? (Other than inciting violence and that sort of thing.) So people can joke or call something racist or whatever seems good. I’m against nihilism and hatred. Be an honest broker.

  4. That’s true – people seem to like poking fun at Christians, but never any other religion. Like in movies – they will show some religion(s), but it’s always Catholic, or any other religion but Christianity. Especially in disaster movies where everyone’s praying before the climax strikes.

          1. Yeah. In this day and age, we are too worried about offending someone. As someone in my TAFE class said “This is 2019. We don’t have to do anything or we could offend someone” – he was being satirical.

          2. I meant to say that that classmate was being satirical later on when we would talk to him or tell him off for his childish behaviour, and kept saying “I’m offended” – satirical, of course.

  5. Marleen

    I just started looking at BlackSheep’s blog site a couple nights ago. I appreciated this (by rsrook):

    https://notsheepminded.com/2019/10/05/sky-friends-contest/#comment-4933

    ….

    … if you start criticizing religions which are practiced predominately by non-white people, it tends to attract and goad on that crowd that … hate black & brown people or foreigners. I wouldn’t want to contribute to that.

    ….

    That was after a paragraph talking about the fact it makes more sense to joke about one‘s own religion or that with which one is familiar (and that’s mostly various manifestations called Christianity here).

    I would add the thought that the various types of Christianity or people who call themselves Christian criticize and argue with each other too. This happens from the pulpit and in discernment ministries and so forth.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Ok, I can see that. So, why not just be honest then and lead with that.

      Remember, the court jester’s job was to make fun of the king’s enemies. Never to make fun of the king or queen, that would be sure death.

Please Like This Post, Follow and Comment to Aid in the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.