By Donald
B. Ardell – November 8, 2009
Sometimes art not only imitates life - it pokes fun at it
and shows how ludicrous humans can be when religious dogma, learned piety and
superstition raise their ugly heads. The latest evidence for this assertion is
seen in the dustup by theocrats that want blasphemy rules in this country. They
would love to stifle freedom of speech that offends their sacred symbols. Never
mind that large numbers of Americans do not regard their "sacred"
objects with any reverence whatsoever, nor do they wish to be compelled to
behave as if they did.
I'll tell you about the controversy in a moment, though I
suspect you might be aware of it from the reactions of cable news and Right-Wing
talk radio screechers. Fortunately, this particular controversy has a positive
side. (I like to put a hopeful spin on everything.) The bright side is that the
Christian Right reaction to the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode
dramatizes the likely consequences if a United Nations resolution entitled,
"Combating the Defamation of Religion" is adopted.
Americans beware - Islamic fundamentalists seek not only to
blow us up but also to muscle us into abandoning modernity - they want to strip
your First Amendment rights to speak freely. The "Defamation"
initiative at the UN could restrict your liberty to offend religious
sensibilities. The Islamists have plenty of supporters among fundamentalist
theocrats in America, who likewise would love to stifle speech that offends
Christian sensibilities.
If successful, the UN effort by Islamists would have
consequences injurious to valued privileges we enjoy based on our own
constitution's Bill of Rights. The resolution proposed would have the effect of
spreading Sharia and other religious law throughout the Western world and would
block criticism of Islam - and other religions, no doubt Scientology among
them.
The 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on Resolution 62/145.
Fortunately, the US is on record as opposed to this resolution, stating that
"defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to
restrict human rights around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been
caught in the web." Want an idea of where this kind of resolution leads?
Consider these cases:
- An Afghan student is on death
row for downloading an article about the role of women in Islam.
- In December 2007, a court
sentenced two foreigners to six months in prison for allegedly marketing a
book deemed offensive to Aisha, one of the Prophet Muhammad's wives.
- A British teacher was
sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing
students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.
- In February 2007 in Egypt an
Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison for writing a post
that critiqued Islam.
Kevin Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty, termed the UN resolution an affront to human rights law. He was
quoted as follows: "The whole idea of the defamation of religion is a
Trojan horse for something else. When you talk about defamation, you talk about
people being defamed and people being libeled, but ideas can't be defamed.
Ideas don't have rights - people have rights." He said the resolution is a
shield for Islamic fundamentalists who retaliate against perceived offenses and
want to make Islamic Sharia law the law of the land. He said the resolution
passes under the guise of protecting religion, but it actually endangers
religious minorities in Islamic countries. (Source: Jennifer Lawinski,
"U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution Curtails Free Speech, Critics Say,"
Fox News, October 06, 2008.)
The foreign governments promoting blasphemy legislation have
little use for democratic rights, as is the case with the Right Wing religious
extremists in this county who want to shut down criticism of their religious
sensibilities.
Which brings me back to the delightful Larry David episode
that has O'Reily and Catholic apologists in a stew bordering on a hissy fit.
Bill O'Reilly, Bill Donahue and Deal Hudson (the Fox
bloviator and two professional Catholic PR lobbyists, respectively) claim not
to be amused by what I consider hilarious scenes in a recent episode of HBO's
"Curb Your Enthusiasm." The scene makes fun of simple-minded
believers, the type long infamous for perceiving images of Jesus, Mary and/or
Joseph (or all three) on cookies, building walls, clouds and so on. In case you
have not watched "the episode," I can offer a little background,
since I was watching when it first aired.
In the half hour sketch, Larry David is shown to have a bit
of a urinary problem. Due to medication gone awry, his urinary trajectory has
the force of a fire hose, and this is why a droplet flew up from the toilet to
land under the eye of a Jesus painting. The woman whose home Larry was
visiting, along with her equally devout (and quite frankly, moronic) daughter
visit the bathroom after Larry departs, see the "tear" under Jesus'
eye, and believe it is a sign, a miracle and some kind of message - and drop to
their knees blessing themselves, all as choral church music soars. I fell off
my chair laughing - but then that might be due to the effects of 12 years of
Catholic education.
Anyone not amused by all this has, in my humble if proudly
sacrilegious opinion, a serious religious addiction and a sorry sense of humor.
As I suggested earlier, I believe that O'Reilly and the two Catholic lobbyists
fall in this category, unless of course they, too, laughed their arses off but
later decided to play outraged in order to fire up their base and generate a
larger audience and/or more donations from the faithful. Consider these
factors:
Larry David makes fun of everybody, particularly himself.
With David, nothing is sacred. My sentiments, exactly.
Larry's peeing on Jesus was accidental. Besides, it was only
a little drop. And what's Jesus' picture doing next to the crapper, anyway?
Should he not be hung in a more prestigious location? Don't these people have a
chapel somewhere, like right off the kitchen or something?
No real pee was used nor was the "real" Jesus
harmed in any way during the filming of the episode.
Is it even possible to be overly critical about or
sufficiently disrespectful of an institution that has given us the Crusades,
promoted slavery, unleashed the Inquisition, advocated bigotry against Jews and
gays, discriminates against women, fosters child abuse and a delusional belief
in miracles and expectations of a vague but wondrously lovely afterlife, not to
mention meatless Fridays? (I still resent no hot dogs on Fridays when I was a
kid.) Don't religions deserve all the mockery we cynics can marshal against
them?
I recommend you tune in to "Curb Your Enthusiasm"
every chance you get and hope (but don't bother praying) for the defeat of
blasphemy resolutions from the UN and conservative propagandists.
If the UN resolution passed, would Richard Dawkins have been
allowed to write, "Without religion a good man may do good things, and a
bad man may do evil things. But for a good man to do evil things you need
religion." What a loss this would have been - almost as regrettable as the
loss to our humor index if Larry David had been intimidated by the UN and never
went ahead with his delightful episode when he (accidentally) left a couple
ladies convinced that Jesus had shed a tear in their bathroom. 
Don Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and
meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his
books (14), newsletter (505 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across
North America and a dozen other countries.