Posted by Helen on: 07.03.2007 /
To me, humor about people falls into three categories:
I regard laughing at oneself and laughing with others as safe choices emotionally. Meaning, they aren’t likely to offend other people.
Laughing at others, on the other hand, is risky because they might be offended rather than joining in and laughing at themselves along with you.
I ran across the article Summer Camps for Atheists yesterday in which it seemed to me the author was laughing at others (atheists). I e-mailed him about it and he responded, which I appreciated.
We didn’t agree about whether his article insulted atheists (albeit using humor) and whether atheists were likely to laugh along with him.
Comment by: Stan Guthrie
1 07/3/07 7:15 AM | Comment Link |Is there space online for wry comments? For humorous critiques (but not mean-spirited ones) of those with whom we disagree? Or must we be terminally nice, allowing errors to go unanswered? God knows (and I use the term advisedly) that atheists have not been shy lately in pontificating about “the God delusion” or how “religion poisons everything.”
Any atheist who is offended by my little post poking a bit of fun at a summer atheist camp that supposedly teaches children how to think for themselves needs to lighten up and enjoy the irony. The really funny parts were what the campers said, not what I said.
One thing I left out was the camp volunteer who took his freethinking charges up in his Cessna, hoping to find evidence of a God up in the sky. When they didn’t, they pronounced their findings–scientific ones, I’m sure–as more evidence that God does not exist.
And atheists hold themselves as intellectually superior to us poor, benighted theists? Friends, you’ve got to laugh.
Comment by: Helen
2 07/3/07 7:55 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for dropping by to comment, Stan.
Your Cessna story reminds me of a story a pastor friend of mine told me. He was on a radio call-in show recently talking about spiritual warfare. Someone called in and asked him if Satan could tempt astronauts on the space shuttle since Satan is on planet earth.
Comment by: Friendly Atheist » Christianity Today on Camp Quest
3 07/3/07 8:34 AM | Comment Link |[...] made a post about how this article is poking fun at people (children) in a poor attempt at humor. Guthrie even [...]
Comment by: Paul
4 07/3/07 8:42 AM | Comment Link |thanks helen. i’ve found laughing at others is a risky proposition sometimes - in that i laugh away only for it to begin to dawn on me that i am really laughing at myself as well. Without that humour coating i don’t think i would have been able to recognise what a self righteous always right so and so that i am…
learning to laugh at myself is helping me to start taking myself a lil less seriously :)
Comment by: Jennifer
5 07/3/07 9:49 AM | Comment Link |Hey Stan, you are right. Children don’t have as much life experience as us, let’s laugh at them. HAHAHAHA stupid children! By the way, can I quiz your children? Its probably not so I can mock them online.
Comment by: David H
6 07/3/07 10:24 AM | Comment Link |The old saying is that it is never funny to explain humor. Despite that, some of the most effective social-oriented comics (Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert as prime examples) ask people to laugh at others. However, they defuse a lot of the ire directed at them by making themselves a frequent butt of their own jokes.
I don’t think it is only who I laugh at (or with), likewise it isn’t just how I laugh (behind my hand or openly). The question is just as much why. Am I laughing to cause pain? Am I laughing to share an experience? Can I laugh when others make me the butt of a joke (even if they intend me harm)? Do I know when to laugh and when not to? Can I use my response to disarm those laughing at me without necessarily belittling them? Do I use my laughter (my humor) as a weapon? Do I laugh because something is funny, because I don’t want to be left out, or so that I can be superior to someone else? Can laughter help cause change (without having to shoot anyone or blow up anything)? Sometimes you need to offend people and humor can be an emotionally and physically safe way to do that.
It is risky to laugh at someone else because they might not get the joke. But humor can be a much more effective tool for getting people to see themselves, their situation, their positions in a different light. I can’t help but think of Jonathan Swift and his satire called “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick.” The proposal was that poverty in Ireland could be alleviated by cannibalism. Who can fail to see the humor of a line such as: “A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout.”
Some people got the joke and understood how economic policies they accepted were making commodities of the lives of people. However, many were outraged because they a) took him seriously and b) refused to see how what they did on a daily basis made the lives of children in England of less value than a cut of meat at a market.
I saw a much more modern example last night. Carlos Mencia, a notoriously foul-mouthed comic, did a video bit about how the “N” work has been adapted for different uses and who is allowed to use that word. The humor was in the divergent views of people on the subject. It was very funny to see an older white man with a black companion talking about how it was a term of endearment while his pal looked at him like: “Are you nuts?” A recurring theme of the bit was Mencia calling the California DMV trying to get a vanity license plate that had some variation of the “N” word. He used different accents and different permutations, but was always told that was not acceptable. He closed the piece by calling and asking if he could have a plate that read: “W-E-T-B-A-C-K.” The DMV person responded: “We have that available.”
Sometimes humor can be harsh. But those who are best with it use it to point out areas where things could be or should be different. Healthy laughter can often take the edge off that harshness and help people embrace the need for change.
Comment by: seekingsomething
7 07/3/07 11:52 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for the link Helen. I’ve joined in this conversation at a point that the number of aggressive and discourteous comments on that link are more worrying than the original post, and if I had my own blog I might be tempted to write a post on ‘Being mean to people’….
Someone on that post commented:
“To anyone who felt insulted by Hitchens’ book, respond to it as you would respond to a mentally ill man on the street shouting unreasonable insults at you: forgive him, acknowledge that God loves him, and give him not another thought”
I’m kind of at an in-between point where I call myself neither atheist nor Christian. This suggestion as to how to behave towards a supposed ‘mentally ill’ person scares me. Hitchens aside, I’m scared that someone professing to be a Christian (Edited to add: scrub the Christian bit, I’m scared that ANYONE…) would recommend that another person behave like that towards another human being. Does being ill really warrant being written off and given ‘not another thought’?
Thanks for the level of decency and courtesy that you encourage on the conversation here. :)
Comment by: seekingsomething
8 07/3/07 1:22 PM | Comment Link |A comment on the original topic: I agree with you about the three types, but personally I find it difficult on some occasions to discern between 2 and 3. Sometimes I find that people present as ‘laughing at themselves’ when really they are hurting and are ‘laughing’ to cover up that hurt. Conversely I sometimes laugh *at* people, to lighten a situation, without intending to be mean and it is usually (I hope!)taken as lightly as it is intended. I think it is important in either scenario that we are sensitive to the reactions we get and able to change tack/apologise if necessary.
On the whole I like humour and I’d rather take the risk of offending occasionally (and I’d rather others take the risk of offending me) than to omit humour altogether. But I think sensitivity to individuals and to context is important.
But as a general rule, and as the saying goes: Do unto others NOT as you would be done by, but as THEY would be done by :)
Comment by: Rachel
9 07/3/07 4:55 PM | Comment Link |Oh, dear!
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
10 07/3/07 8:55 PM | Comment Link |David H, ah, Swift’s modest proposal. Delightful!
I use humor a lot, mostly to cover the fact that I’m an introvert. I’m definitely able to laugh at myself, and seem to be able to have a good laugh with others.
Humor can be dangerous, however.
Comment by: Helen
11 07/4/07 5:36 AM | Comment Link |Thanks everyone.
For me, the Camp Quest article comes close enough to ‘laughing at people’ that it makes me uncomfortable. I would rather err on the side of not laughing at people than laugh at them and if they don’t laugh with me, attribute it to some failure on their part to have a sense of humor. I don’t know their backstories - I don’t know how much hurt they may have endured in their lives - or seen loved ones endure perhaps - over this issue.
I love humor and I love it to have a part in my relationships. In the context of relationship, laughing at someone becomes less risky because they are likely to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you’re being mean-spirited. On the Internet there is often little to no relationship, which means - imo - it’s best not to presume on getting the benefit of the doubt from readers.
I think atheist indoctrination is as problematic as Christian indoctrination. I have no problem with Christians exposing atheist indoctrination where they find it and saying “Hey, you’re doing the very thing you complain about us doing!” Given the level of misunderstanding between Christians and atheists, I think it’s wise to consider the way this is done, and how it might come across to atheists.
Stan, in response to some of your questions - I don’t think it’s an either/or where, either we are nice or we tell the truth. Doesn’t the Bible say something about speaking the truth in love?
When you read what you wrote do you see ‘in love’ inherent in it? If not then maybe you aren’t where God wants you to be yet, in tone. If you do see it then I would be curious to know where you see it, so I can understand your thinking more clearly. Since I often run into Christians who use a tone similar to yours. And every time I find myself confused and wondering, “Where is the ‘love’ part?”
To be honest, I have heard ’speaking the truth in love’ so much from Christians in whose speech I don’t find love, it has become a meaningless cliche. I prefer to retranslate this concept as ‘being honest, yet kind’ - and that is my own goal, in communications, as far as it is possible given the reality of the world I live in.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
12 07/4/07 6:54 AM | Comment Link |Stan wrote on his blog
Frankly, any parent of any persuation who does not teach his or her children this is doing that child a disservice.
It’s a huge leap from teaching there is no God to encouraging a child to think and reason for his/herself. I have a lot of respect for this camp’s M.O. This is certainly a more “friendly atheist” approach than what one might expect if one stuck to stereotypes.
I feel sorry for Christians of any age who think if they aren’t sure or sometimes question whether there is a God, that must mean they aren’t a “good” or “real” Christian.
Doubt is encouraged. I have found that doubt has only strengthened my faith.
poetcomic.blogspot.com
Comment by: Rachel
13 07/4/07 6:57 AM | Comment Link |I also adore Benjamin Franklin’s The Speech of Polly Baker.
Comment by: Laura M.
14 07/5/07 4:45 AM | Comment Link |My favorite comedien is Ellen. Her humor is mostly self deprecating, although she can laugh with others when they are laughing at themselves.
One thing Ellen never does is single anyone out. She doesn’t name specific people to ridicule, or groups of people, the way most comediens/humorists do.
I wonder why Stan Guthrie felt it necessary to attach a name to the quotes from children that he found humorous, or to describe Camp Quest as a camp for atheists’ children that Christians have nothing to worry about?
The way he wrote/worded the article invites criticism from atheists that he was ‘picking on children’ and ‘laughing at’ atheists, not with them. This may not have been his intention but the article as written certainly comes across this way.
Nor do I understand the implication that there was something very important in this article that needed to be said and that this particular modus operandi was the best way to do that.
What, precisely, needed to be pointed out? That the children of atheists are just as susceptible to illogical thought processes as the children of Christians? Of course they are, this is why it is so important teach them how to think critically, to not be afraid to ask questions and make mistakes, to not believe that all the answers to ‘life, the universe and everything’ are found in one source, and to learn to develop logical reasoning skills.
And that is what is good about Camp Quest. Children need time and space to do what children are supposed to do,develop.
Comment by: Laura M.
15 07/5/07 5:17 AM | Comment Link |Questioning why anyone would kill their own brother sounds precisely like a child trying to think for themself. Or does Stan Guthrie seriously think that the child was taught at Camp Quest that brothers never kill brothers? All the atheists I know also celebrate Christmas, so I doubt the child picked up the Santa Claus comment there either.
Perhaps they simply noted that there was no evidence for God’s existence. There is a difference, and Mr. Guthrie perhaps should have considered asking the couselor to explain his intention rather than risk mischaracterizing the situation.
Comment by: Rachel
16 07/5/07 8:04 AM | Comment Link |I have found that as well, Doreen.
Comment by: seekingsomething
17 07/5/07 8:24 AM | Comment Link |On the positive side, I really enjoyed the link that Stan’s article provides to the Chicago Times piece on Camp Quest. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-campatheist_27jun27,1,4522407.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true&coll=chi-news-hed
Coming from the UK, I didn’t realise that Christians were in such a big majority in America and I’d not thought about the possibility that atheists might be actively persecuted by Christians for their beliefs. Thought-provoking stuff.
Are all US summer camps slanted in some way towards encouraging particular beliefs? When I was a child, (before I joined a church) I didn’t go away on many holidays with peers, but I seem to remember them being focused on having fun, learning to be part of a team, and exploring new things.
Comment by: David H
18 07/5/07 8:56 AM | Comment Link |My daughter just went to a Seaworld summer camp for kids 12-15 years old. She didn’t mention meeting any atheists, but there seemed to be a range of beliefs among the people she did hang out with. Their camp had them swimming with dolphins and exploring the Everglades. Sounds like fun to me.
Comment by: Eliza
19 07/5/07 2:27 PM | Comment Link |Rachel & Doreen - I’d be interested in hearing more about doubt has strengthened your faith, if you’d be open to saying a bit more about your experiences & thoughts around this…
Comment by: Rachel
20 07/6/07 1:13 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for asking, Eliza! Helen has given me the opportunity to post something on Monday on the topic of faith and doubt. So stay tuned…
And I’d love to hear Doreen’s reflections as well.
Comment by: Helen
21 07/6/07 1:53 PM | Comment Link |Yes Doreen, please do share your reflections when Rachel posts.
Comment by: Helen
22 07/10/07 11:19 AM | Comment Link |Here’s the link to Rachel’s post:
Faith and Doubt