ABSTRACT
When I first began teaching Religion and Popular Culture as a college course, I was surprised to find that a significant number of students failed to appreciate religious satire. It seemed that from their perspective, some television programs, movies, and literature, while occasionally humorous, contain highly exaggerated and mean-spirited depictions of religious people and their practices. As a result, students found these cultural products offensive, and failed to appreciate their value as entertainment or as educational tools. Over time, it seemed that this sort of reaction was more common among stu-
dents who self-identified as belonging to more conservative religious traditions. In addition, it appeared that such students were, by and large, more offended when their own traditions were satirized than when they encountered satires of someone else’s traditions. Did the failure of these students to appreciate religious satire derive from a lack of understanding about what really satire is and how it works? Were they simply insecure about their own traditions? Were certain religious topics strictly off limits for critique or humor? Although I never performed a scientific study to identify the exact causes,
I concluded that many students would benefit from being better educated about the nature of satire as a genre, as a method of communication, and as a contributor to the maintenance of a free and open society that ascribes value to the notion of separation of church and state. This essay is an attempt to make available to students and teachers a useful approach to understanding religious satire when it occurs in the context of popular cultural media. I would like to begin by briefly reviewing a few of the real life examples that
convinced me of the necessity of this endeavor. One day while teaching a college course on Religion and Pop Culture, I made reference to the highly provocative episode of South Park titled “Christian Rock Hard” (Season 7). The episode critically examines the degree to which a contemporary Christian may actually have a “personal relationship with Jesus.” This was apparently in response to the reality that the language of personal relationship is so common in evangelical Christian circles. To demonstrate their conviction that some Christians take this idea too
literally, the creators of the show decided to explore the notion of an intimate relationship with Jesus in an obviously ludicrous and blasphemous way. In the episode, the character named Cartman, who regularly functions as a ste-
reotype of bigotry and selfishness, creates a Christian rock band in an attempt to win a bet with his friends to see who can be the first to make a platinum album. Cartman chooses the genre of Christian music for his band because he believes Christians are gullible and easily persuaded into buying a product simply because it has a Christian label or Christian lyrics, regardless of how superficially religious the message. After quickly securing a record deal, Cartman’s band makes a television commercial in which he sings a few lines from a number of cheesy love songs that treat Jesus as the object of the singer’s romantic feelings. In one particular song that parodies the prayer life of the believer, Cartman’s lyrics suggest that he would like to have oral sex with Jesus: “I wanna’ get down on my knees and start pleasin’ Jesus; I wanna’ feel his salvation all over my face.” This is one of the most provocative and potentially offensive treatments of
Christianity I have ever encountered in a popular culture product, and I cringe whenever I show this episode in the classroom. However, I continue to use it because I consider it very effective for demonstrating several important characteristics of religious satire. One day, after merely referring to (rather than showing) the scene described above, one of my students was so offended that he accused me in a private e-mail of personally making fun of Christianity “as a matter of principle.” It seemed that, from the student’s perspective, my use of this material in the classroom was equivalent to advocating the disrespectful ideology it was perceived to express. It quickly became apparent to me that I had failed to communicate clearly and convincingly why I considered this material worthy of my students’ time, attention, and tuition dollars. I hope this essay does not repeat that mistake. A second enlightening incident occurred one semester when a particular student
asked in advance to be excused altogether from viewing any episodes of South Park. The class had been forewarned in the syllabus about the potentially offensive nature of certain course material, but as a concession to the student, I suggested that she view some episodes of The Simpsons. I assumed that this material would serve as a less provocative and offensive substitute, but still demonstrate some of the key principles of satire that I wanted my students to learn. The student’s reaction, however, was to say in so many words, “I’d rather not. I really don’t want to fill my head with that kind of stuff.” I was stunned, and temporarily found myself in a rare situation-I was at a complete loss for words. How could I teach the nature of religious satire in a Popular Culture class without actually introducing the student to real life, modern-day examples? What was it about religious satire that made it so offensive that students really didn’t care if they understood it or not? How could I impart a deeper understanding and appreciation for this method of communication? This essay is, in part, an attempt to answer these questions. First, the reason for exposing students to religious satire, and the goal for any
other teaching endeavor, should never be simply “to fill a student’s head with
something,” as if education were merely an exercise in indoctrination, rather than the application of critical analysis to various subject matter. Professors should never seek to “make fun of” any religious tradition “as a matter of principle” (whatever that principle might be). While I will admit that all education has its ideological slant, ultimately, good education seeks to develop important skills in the student, including the ability to analyze data in intelligent ways. Education necessarily requires students to be exposed to new ideas, and new ways of viewing old ideas, but it need not require them to agree with everything they hear, read, see, and reflect upon. In the case of teaching Religion and Popular Culture, the goal should be to enlighten students about the nature of popular culture and its religious aspects, particularly the ways in which Western culture typically provides room for religious ideas, themes, and values to be communicated, explored, and evaluated in various forms of so-called “secular” media. Second, and conversely, students should be taught to recognize ways in which religious communities sometimes make use of popular secular ideas, products, and practices to further their own so-called “sacred” goals. Students should never be required to agree or disagree with a particular ideological perspective, and all participants in the academy should be expected to provide supporting evidence for their positions. So, given these clarifying and apologetic comments about the study of religious satire, what is it about the nature of this material that makes it so difficult for some to appreciate or even study without revulsion?
