Okay, this will be a terribly undeep discussion. Aaron sent me a link to WorldNetDaily the other day and I read the article, commented and then browsed a couple of the links. From what I gather, WorldNetDaily is a christian news website (I think it used to be a magazine?), so one of it’s article titles struck me: “Obama aide says he didn’t mean to blaspheme Jesus”
The title doesn’t strike me because it has anything to do with politics, but that it seems to imply that they think this guy blasphemed Jesus. I clicked the article to see what they considered blasphemy; wouldn’t want to show up in one of their articles myself. Here’s what they said:
(Subtitle of article) Stopped using ‘gay’ video piece after Christian confronted him
[Larry Lessig] denies he had blasphemous intent by including in his lectures a video of a ‘gay’ Jesus Christ sashaying nearly naked down a city street to the tune of Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive,” only to get run over by a bus.”
From what I gather what’s blasphemous is:
- The writer at WorldNet finds the way Jesus is depicted in the video as ‘gay’.
- Lessig’s showed the video (not made by him) to others.
But, here’s what’s crazy about this to me:
- From what I can see in the video and the article, the only person insisting Jesus is ‘gay’ is the WorldNet author. The character in the video is certainly expressive, but it is quite simply reinforcing a stereotype to say that his personality in the video is ‘gay’.
- WorldNet news actually shows the video on their website article! They have a concise youtube video embedded in the article, available for you to see the whole thing. If Lessig’s blaspheme was in showing the video to others, then WorldNet is just as blasphemous.
So, I guess the decision is up to you. Is the video blasphemous? And if so, are Lessig’s and WorldNet news both guilty? (And I guess I might be guilty as well in suggesting you should go watch the video)
oh good grief. first of all, I can’t believe this was in any way news worthy. second, the way I see it, the Jesus character is mimicking the moves in the original song – if people think he’s being “gay” then as you said, they’re just reinforcing stereotypes. finally, I think it’s ridiculous to judge the video without context or intent. As the man said, his purpose was to give an example of remix – I think it’s an excellent example. However, I have to say that I’m impressed with his sensitivity.
Well, I think it’s newsworthy to them because they can link it to Obama, but that’s beside the point.
I just think it’s ridiculous that they actually show the video on their site. How is that any different then what Lessig’s did?
Kudos to you for keying in on the fact that labeling the Christ character as “gay” is a perpetuation of gay stereotypes.
The term “blasphemy” annoys me. It smacks of elitism and self-centeredness. Yes, making fun of Jesus shocks and offends people who regard Jesus as the son of God, but not everyone regards him that way. Differing opinions are a fact of life (isn’t “free will” a major part of Christian doctrine?) and it’s rude of Christians to tell non-Christians that they must treat our doctrine with the same reverence we expect of ourselves. We must also remember that in today’s pop culture, Jesus isn’t just a historical person, he is a symbol and an idea. People who have not had a personal experience with Jesus as Lord will not regard him with the same love and reverence as I do. I cannot fault the creator of this video for buffooning the idea of Jesus’ resurrection, because to an outsider, the doctrine of the resurrection IS absurd. (Even Paul acknowledged that the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world.)
As a Christian – albeit a very liberal Christian – I’m amused by the video. It’s absurd and silly, and a wry play on the idea of the risen Jesus. I wish more Christians had a sense of humor about this sort of thing, instead of having the knee-jerk reaction of “how dare you make fun of my beliefs?!” Jokes give us a window into others’ feelings and ideas, and if we’d just listen to those ideas, we’d have a better understanding of the people we are called to love.
Emily,
Right on! Thanks for chiming in. What you just shared is so accurate and definitely some points I hadn’t considered before. Thanks.
emily – very very well stated
On the one hand, I agree with Emily.
On the other hand, I think we can all say that this video is making fun of/is disrespectful towards Jesus (and not because of the gay-stereotype implications). I’m not sure the real question is whether it’s blasphemous or not, but the real question is what our response should be when an unbelieving world blasphemes. Personally, I think it’s OK for Worldnet and/or other Christians to be offended by this. The question is what would an appropriate response be when your brother/the world around you offends you.
can we say that? can we REALLY say that this person is making fun of Jesus? how do we know that? I think that what happened in this instance was that a student (I think?) came to the prof. and said “I find this offensive”. The prof. thought about it and decided to pull the film from his curriculum. I think that was a good example. It’s perfectly fine to say “I find that offensive because…” and then have a dialog about what should/can be done about it.
It’s one thing to say “I as a Christian find that offensive because..” it’s something totally different to say “that is blasphemous”.
Let me clarify, I think (and this could just be my perception) that blasphemy implies (infers?) a certain intent that we cannot just assume. It’s not just to assume someone’s intent. We can only know that by talking to them and asking them what their intent is.
In this case, the prof. didn’t have blasphemous intent, he thought it was a good example of remix of a song in the context of religion. And we don’t know if the creator had blasphemous intent (I don’t think, unless I missed it in the article) because we haven’t heard from the creator.
Richard – I agree that the video can be construed as disrespectful towards Jesus. (I say “construed” because I have no idea what the creator of the video intended.) At one point in my life, such a video would have offended me greatly, but now I find it amusing. I don’t expect someone to show respect towards the things that are important to me, unless the someone in question is a friend of mine. I offer respect for my friends’ opinions and expect the same in return. And even then, I think that respect can only be expected in personal interactions.
As you pointed out, however, disrespect isn’t the issue. The issue is how do we respond to the disrespect. Do we let it open a dialogue, or do we just point fingers and say, “That’s disrespectful! How dare you?”
I don’t think WND is a Christian website. It is at least not stated to be on their “About Us” information.
As for the issue you raised, it was not a free-expression issue at all. No one questioned the guy’s right to show the video, or anyone’s right to produce it. There apparently was an attempt to tie Barack Obama to the guy, and therefore to the guy’s use of the video. If he was indeed selected by Obama as an advisor, and plenty of people were offended by the video, then it matters in the sense that Obama wants to be the president for all the citizens of the US, not just the ones who would not be offended by such a video. It is a fine point, and maybe even a cheap shot, and certainly not something I am worked up about.
Consider this though, Ariah and Emily, What if one of the candidates had as advisor someone who used a video used an Uncle Remus or blackface video clip in his presentations? What about John Hodgeman’s “hobo” comedy?
I don’t think that’s an equal comparison. A professor who shows a video to teach about “remixing” in music who likely isn’t a Christian and didn’t realize something like that would be offensive and then pulls it when a student says it is is not at all a big deal …and it means NOTHING in terms of Obama.
honestly, if christians are going to get that worked up over this stuff I don’t want to be associated with them as a religion.
Aaron,
My fault on labeling them Christian. Have you heard of World Magazine? I just assumed they where the same, and I’m pretty sure the mag is ‘christian.’
Anyways, I understand the reason they found it newsworthy is the tie to Obama, seems like they don’t have a single good thing to say about that guy from the headlines listed. But, I don’t really care about that, they are entitled to their opinion. And I hear you on it being offensive. But again, that wasn’t my point.
My point was that if it was offensive, then WorldNet is doing the exact same thing as Lessig’s by presenting the same video as he did. That’s all.
I also wanted to say that I would not have a problem with a professor showing a blackface clip if the intent is to teach or demonstrate something. In fact, I have been shown such clips in art history.
as to the point – I think it’s well made. The INTENT of the article was to provide the video for a point of reference AND YET, people refuse to acknowledge that the prof. is doing the very same thing