The standards of general acceptability are different regarding Christianity to those who think that religious beliefs are off limits when it comes to humor. People who feel that religion (i.e. Christianity) is no different than any other subject when it comes to humor will most likely feel that the standards are the same. I don’t think it matters which side of the argument you belong to whether you find these particular comics funny. Humor sometimes knows no bounds.

I don’t necessarily think that someone can always just choose not to be a Chrsitian, or any other religion. Maybe some people do just wake up one day and decide to be Christian, but most people I know can cite the exact happening that triggered it and/or the exact instant it happened. Whether you think faith is a spiritual change or something triggered by obtuse chemical reactions in your brain, getting it or losing it is not necessarily a choice.

L.B., religion is a choice; most people choose to stay with the religion of the environment they were raised in (cultural features in general have a certain amount of inertia), but again, it is a choice, whether conscious or not. If it wasn’t a choice, there would never, ever be any point in trying to “convert” anyone to a different relgion, any more than you can “convert” anyone from being short, or a hemophiliac (both of which would get a lot of takers!). As I said, you could change your religion, but might not consider that to be very desirable.

Which “light” you wake up to when/if you have a spiritual awakening depends on what environment you are in; raised surrounded by Muslims and with no other religious offerings on the “menu”, you aren’t real likely to wake up and see the “light” of Apollo, for instance. Again, this what missionary work and conversion attempts are all about; to inject your “light”, whatever it might be (usually by definition The Truth), into a foreign environment, where you hope your proposed converts will take it up in preference to whatever else is on the local “menu”.

The “Christian” comments in this thread seem to fall into two types. Comments from Heather and HowAbominable (who both like the cartoons) want non-Christians to be respectful towards Christian people, which I think it pretty reasonable. L.B. and Jack want non-Christians to be respectful towards Christian doctrine, which I think is not so reasonable, particularly when playful, non-rude, silliness is interpreted as disrespectful.

* I agree that the difference between true and nominal Christianity might be ambiguous. That does not mean that we are forbidden from offering opinions, and I was simply offering mine, just as others offered theirs.

* I was only offering an explanation of why Christians get offended at such comics, I was not offering a detailed description of my personal thoughts about the comics, or otherwise making any sort of political case for banning such comics, etc.

* There are tragedies, and there are tragedies. Of course we find something humorous in a comic strip character’s woes. But there are certain events (see the examples that I gave) that many people just don’t find funny, period. You used the word “trivial,” which is a pretty subjective word. I think many people would find it hard to believe how it could be trivial to make fun of the Savior as He died for the sins of the world, if it indeed really happened as it is described in the New Testament.

* I understand you explanation regarding the difference in criticizing beliefs vs. criticizing a person. However, I still believe my analogy stands. Think, for example, of a hypothetical family whose son died in war. There were two different stories circulating about the son’s death; one was that he was killed by hostile fire crossing enemy lines to save an injured comrade, and the other was that he died while clearing a weapons jam that resulted because he hadn’t kept his rifle cleaned properly. The family may (for obvious reasons) choose to accept the former view, and other people may accept the latter view. It would be one thing to publish a periodical analyzing the evidence and explaining that the family’s opinion is not well-established; it would be quite another to publish a comic strip which made fun of the circumstances regarding the son’s death.
Anyhow, I hope I have cleared the waters a little; once you remove the religious element from belief, it is maybe a little easier to see how some things are offensive to some people.

* I agree that the fanatical Muslims’ reaction to the Muhammad comics was abominable, however, I think that they were still mean for the comic writer to publish.

*Thanks for your comments, acs, and thanks to everyone else for a lively discussion. Once again, I hope my comments have been of use.

-jd

However, these two particular cartoons don’t offend me. The SMBC one is just too lame to be offensive. The Left Side is kind of humorous, although I don’t understand why Arnold is completely naked, except for the glasses. But I’ve never seen the movies, since I believe they’re bloodier than I would like.