The Necessity of Religious Humor

Last night, as I was driving home from work, I perused the radio dial and landed on the Sean Hannity Show, the forum of one of the "golden boys" of the Right wing of the American political scene. While I am not normally a huge fan of the show, Hannity's predictable and indefatigable advancement of the Right's daily talking points seemed oddly preferable to the discussion of the plight of the Bulgarian yak farmer which was currently occupying the minutes of All Things Considered.

Anyway...On this particular installment of The Sean Hannity Show, Mr. Hannity was interviewing the Rev. Ed Bacon of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace (Pasadena, CA) and Bill Handel, a radio talk personality on KF1 640 AM (Burbank, CA). Apparently, Mr. Handel who, admittedly, is in the business of "offending [with humor] all religions, cultures and ethic groups," did a parody of a traffic helicopter report of the craziness surrounding the Muslim pilgrimage to the Haj.

Recently, 363 people were killed in the regular stampedes that manifest with the unbelievable conflagration of people to celebrate this Muslim ritual. Mr. Bacon of the ICUJP accused Mr. Handel of "hate speech," claiming that the joke surrounding the perennial craziness surrounding the Haj was derogatory of Muslims and made light of the unfortunate deaths of the 363 people. Mr. Bacon further contended that Mr. Handel's "failed attempt at parody" was valueless, and only added to strained relationships between various religious communities.

While I agree that Mr. Handel's humor was perhaps insensitive, I wonder at Mr. Bacon's reaction. After all, every day the media takes incredible shots--through humor--at all religions. For example, Seinfeld was overflowing with humorous putdowns of Judaism; shows like Arrested Development and the Book of Daniel are merciless in their parodying of Christianity; and Leno and Letterman have job security with Scientology and Kabalah. Has Mr. Bacon raised an outcry against these? Has he or his organization arranged picketing and protests of the production companies that inevitably reach a far wider audience than Mr. Handel could ever dream?

I personally think that our county has become a little to oversensitized to "offending" each other. The complete saturation of our culture with political correctness has, in my opinion, not lessened the offense. Actually, if anything, this oversensitivity creates more offense, and the range of acceptable language is narrowed to such a point that communication and expression become virtually impossible. If we really desire peace and respect between religious groups, there must be room for us to laugh at ourselves, and at others. This laughter, I think, is not necessarily motivated by the desire to harm others, but rather is born out of the confusion, absurdity and hilarity that is human existence. Sensitizing groups to such an extent that nearly every word becomes offensive is not a solution--it only creates a barrier and a contradiction. This extreme politicizing of language and expression completely polarizes groups from one another through the gulf of "offense." Such perspectives--while they give lip service to the notion of "unity" and "humanity"--are ultimately dehumanizing for they create a paradox in which one cannot be religious and human at the same time. When we are no longer able to laugh with one another about the craziness of human/religious existence and experience, diverse as it may be, we have lost a central aspect of what it is to be human.

I am not saying that one should not take religion seriously. Quite contrarily, I believe a religion not taken seriously is self-contradictory and a particularly abhorrable neurosis. What I am saying is that in order for one to truly take one's religious convictions seriously, one must not use this commitedness as a political tool through which to suppress and silence all others who disagree. I think humor is one of the most important ways in which to avoid such an awful scenario. The ability to laugh at oneself is a sign of a well-developed self-introspection, a mark of a secure self-identity. Only those who are ultimately insecure and mentally non-committed are those who cry "offense" at every word they perceive to be negatively spoken against them. The ironic--and infinitely sad--part of this is that their very "offense" is concomitantly their self-condemnation.