According to its creators, “JC” was to be a 30-minute-per-episode animated series about Jesus Christ who wanted to escape the overwhelming shadow of his father and live as an ordinary man in New York. The project was developed by comedian and writer John Michaelson. However, due to the controversial nature of the subject matter, only the pilot was produced and filmed, and it did not secure a full series order.
“A lot has changed in 2000 years and he is the ultimate fish out of water. Meanwhile his all-powerful yet apathetic father would rather be playing video games than listening to JC recount his life in the city,” the filmmakers told the Los Angeles Times.[1] While the filmmakers consider “JC” to be a show that satirises religion and society with references to “human stupidity,” many Christian organisations have deemed it to be pure blasphemy disguised as entertainment.
Irony and religion
An effective means of criticising the flaws of society or individuals, irony can be found as far back as ancient Greek theatre and Roman satirical literature. Its purpose was not to hurt or attack a specific person, but rather to create a “shock of recognition” by exposing the ridiculous. The fault was identified and presented in an unfavourable light. This shock was masked by humour, making the (unpleasant) message much easier to accept. The primary goal was not entertainment, but rather to educate the public and remedy the flaws in society. Similarly, even in the speeches of Jesus Christ, a dose of humour with an ironic tone can be detected. Examples include straining gnats and swallowing camels, and the invitation to remove the beam from one’s own eye before looking for the speck in one’s neighbour’s eye. In the context of argumentative logic, ridicule “is the weapon that must be used against those who take it into their heads to hold and persist in holding two incompatible points of view without trying to remove the incompatibility.”[2]
Although it may seem obvious, the difference between satirising human stupidity and showing irreverence towards the religious values of others is imperceptible to some. On the one hand, people who attack religion, either directly or subtly, believe that religion contains aspects worthy of ridicule. Undeniably, unpleasant contrasts within Christianity exist. Gandhi’s memorable statement was: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Blasphemy Day
Conversely, many believe that religion itself is a form of human stupidity, and it is this phenomenon that is the target of irony. A notable example is Ronald Lindsay, the director of the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York, who initiated the Blasphemy Day project. In an interview with CNN on 30 September 2009, he stated that religious beliefs should be subject to scrutiny and criticism like political beliefs, yet criticising religion has become taboo.
Current controversies between religious and non-religious people arise against the backdrop of invoking individual freedom of expression, with religion increasingly being perceived as an “anachronistic curiosity.” “Blasphemy Day” is intended as a holiday for celebrating the open expression of criticism of religion, whether alone or in groups. September 30 was chosen as the date for the celebration to mark the anniversary of the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005.
One step further
Originally, blasphemy meant mocking the divine in a direct and concrete way. Among the Greeks, in particular, direct impiety towards deities and sacredness was considered blasphemous. In ancient Israel, irreverent use of God’s name was also considered blasphemous. Later, Christianity extended the meaning of the term to include heretical beliefs.
Reflections of the concept of blasphemy can also be found in secular culture, even though the term has lost its strictly religious meaning. For example, in today’s secular society, mocking concepts considered “sacred” such as political correctness or the absolutisation of freedoms is considered “blasphemous.” According to Grace Davie, a specialist in the sociology of religion, we are dealing with a redefinition of the sacred[3] in a world that must continually learn how to manage freedom.
In order to evaluate this, several questions need to be asked. For example, is it right to hurt the religious feelings of people belonging to a particular denomination in the name of freedom of thought? Where does freedom of expression begin and end when it may hurt the beliefs of others? What is the difference between satire and mockery, intelligent criticism and offence, irony and blasphemy? In a society where satire has lost its educational purpose and is primarily used for entertainment, the following question inevitably arises: How legitimate is it to use religious subjects in entertainment?
Freedom of thought, expression, and religion are undoubtedly fundamental, inalienable rights confirmed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over the last 75 years. However, any manifestation of individual freedoms and rights is inevitably limited by the rights and freedoms of others. In the spirit of the Universal Declaration, freedom of expression is defined in terms of the benefit to society. For example, in the current context, freedom of expression cannot be used to justify denying the horrors of Nazism. Therefore, invoking freedom of expression to insult or demean is a malicious manipulation of the concept.
While satire that condemns societal flaws has an educational and corrective function, irony loses its purpose when religious values and symbols are attacked. What possible purpose could be served by portraying Jesus as a street urchin who breaks the rules of decency or as a libertine homosexual? Without any critical or educational purpose, irony becomes anger, which in turn becomes gratuitous vulgarity—the attitude becoming ridiculous in itself. Rebelling against authority and defying everything laden with the symbolism of traditional values is characteristic of counterculture and has been around since the 1960s. We have now reached a point where not only religious but also national symbols are treated with disrespect.
The Blasphemy Challenge project began on the internet in December 2006 with an initial investment of $25,000. As part of the initiative, atheists are encouraged to publicly declare their disbelief by denying the existence of God and, in particular, the Holy Spirit. According to the organisers’ interpretation of certain Bible passages (Mark 3:28–29; Matthew 12:30–32), such an act constitutes an “unforgivable sin,” which participants deliberately commit.
In his book A Jewish Conservative Looks at Pagan America, Don Feder observes that “Christians are the only group Hollywood can offend with impunity”—not because they are more sensitive, but quite the opposite. The promptness of the Muslim world’s reaction and solidarity in response to offence, for example, could explain Comedy Central’s decision to censor scenes that alluded to the prophet Muhammad in a more or less direct way. The violent response of the Muslim community to irreverent attitudes is certainly an exaggerated and disproportionate reaction, discouraged even by the Quran. However, there is a global concern that Muslims might be offended, a concern that cannot be found among Christians or Christian values.
In the book, Feder shows that if you hear Allah’s verses being denied or mocked, you should not sit with those who do so unless they start another discussion; otherwise, you will be like them (Quran, Sura 4:140).
There is often talk of religious feelings being hurt by various works of art or performances that are rightly considered irreverent. On the one hand, it is not desirable for Christians to respond similarly to Muslims. They should not use violence against secular attacks and attitudes that may be considered blasphemous. On the other hand, the lack of a decisive response from the Christian world, combined with the hypocrisy and duplicity of some Christians, largely explains why Christianity is the religious community most subject to irony for entertainment purposes. Regarding hypocritical or duplicitous Christians, the Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Romans: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Romans 2:24).
Religious people have no means of controlling possible blasphemous attitudes. During His life and work, Jesus Christ Himself faced irony and mockery, but He did not feel obliged to respond. Respect for the sacred is irrelevant to non-believers. However, the emphasis here is not on belief, but on respect. While it is understandable that individuals may choose not to believe, it is neither understandable nor acceptable to have a phobia of the absolute and a dark thirst to destroy religious values through irrational mockery. Those who live in a culture of blasphemy denigrate not a particular cult or religious denomination, but religion itself. Curiously, it is precisely those who invoke freedom of expression that do not respect one of the central principles of fairness: the privacy of religious feelings and the right to believe.
