Amusing religious cartoons

[Hope]

http://sircolby.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pastor-Priest-Rabbi.jpg

This one entitled 'A pastor, priest and rabbi walk into a bar ...'

[SqueakyVoice]

"...what a marvellous way to build interfaith understanding. "

((c) Bernard Righton)

[Owlswing]

http://sircolby.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Pastor-Priest-Rabbi.jpg

This one entitled 'A pastor, priest and rabbi walk into a bar ...'

Ye Gods and Little Fishes! Couldn't you find an older one than that?

Funny yonks ago, but a bit old hat now.

To be truthful there are not many "Amusing religious cartoons" any more as they have gone the way of Irish and Polish jokes under the weight of political correctness, otherwise known as actions likley to incite religious hatred..

[jeremyp]

That's not really religious is it.  I knew it as:

A man walked into a bar

"Ow!"

[Hope]

To be truthful there are not many "Amusing religious cartoons" any more as they have gone the way of Irish and Polish jokes under the weight of political correctness, otherwise known as actions likley to incite religious hatred..

That only applies to jokes about Muslims.  Hindus and Buddhists never did seem to be particularly joke-prone; whilst Christians - especially pastors - are quite happy to tell jokes at their own expense.  The reason this particular one was deemed funny was because the artist is American and its an American site.  I suppose I also found it humorous because I've never seen a visual representation of it.  Its only ever been a verbal joke.

[Owlswing]

To be truthful there are not many "Amusing religious cartoons" any more as they have gone the way of Irish and Polish jokes under the weight of political correctness, otherwise known as actions likley to incite religious hatred..

That only applies to jokes about Muslims.  Hindus and Buddhists never did seem to be particularly joke-prone; whilst Christians - especially pastors - are quite happy to tell jokes at their own expense.  The reason this particular one was deemed funny was because the artist is American and its an American site.  I suppose I also found it humorous because I've never seen a visual representation of it.  Its only ever been a verbal joke.

Fair enough.

However I would dispute your point about it only being Muslims who get offended.

I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.

The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.

[Hope]

I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.

And I wonder who developed this list?  Was it people from the various religious, health-related, etc. groups, or was it a bunch of out-of-touch politicos?  I can think of listening to/watching comedians from the very same groupings that are listed above making fun of themselves and other such groups.  Mind you, I'd probably agree with avoiding poverty and unemployment and anything else that is not a choice; anything that is a choice is, to my mind, open to humour.

The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.

In other words, comedy oughtn't to be allowed in public spaces?   

[Udayana]

Did the lawyers compiling the list remember to exempt themselves? Probably could include them as politicians?

[Owlswing]

I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.

And I wonder who developed this list?  Was it people from the various religious, health-related, etc. groups, or was it a bunch of out-of-touch politicos?  I can think of listening to/watching comedians from the very same groupings that are listed above making fun of themselves and other such groups.  Mind you, I'd probably agree with avoiding poverty and unemployment and anything else that is not a choice; anything that is a choice is, to my mind, open to humour.

I think that there is a world of difference between a, lesbian, making fun of lesbians and a hetero male making fun of lesbians. 

The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.

In other words, comedy oughtn't to be allowed in public spaces?   




I think that there is a world of difference between a, lesbian, making fun of lesbians and a hetero male making fun of lesbians.  Comedy has a place in pubic and in private, it just needs to be vary carefully adjusted to the audience present

Thankfully I no longer have the necessity to worry about it as my humour is now reserved for a group of friends whose tastes I am aware of and can tailor my jokes to that group.

[Hope]

........

Matt, could you reformat this post so as to get the quoting correct.  Its late at night and my brain isn't up to unscrambling the quoting errors.  Thanks.

[Owlswing]

........

Matt, could you reformat this post so as to get the quoting correct.  Its late at night and my brain isn't up to unscrambling the quoting errors.  Thanks.

Can someone carrying less years and more brain cells than I please assist?

[cyberman]

I believe it was meant to look like this:

I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.

And I wonder who developed this list?  Was it people from the various religious, health-related, etc. groups, or was it a bunch of out-of-touch politicos?  I can think of listening to/watching comedians from the very same groupings that are listed above making fun of themselves and other such groups.  Mind you, I'd probably agree with avoiding poverty and unemployment and anything else that is not a choice; anything that is a choice is, to my mind, open to humour.

I think that there is a world of difference between a, lesbian, making fun of lesbians and a hetero male making fun of lesbians. 

The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.

In other words, comedy oughtn't to be allowed in public spaces?   

Comedy has a place in pubic and in private, it just needs to be vary carefully adjusted to the audience present

Thankfully I no longer have the necessity to worry about it as my humour is now reserved for a group of friends whose tastes I am aware of and can tailor my jokes to that group.

[Owlswing]

I believe it was meant to look like this:

I did a charity gig about a year ago and was sent a list of "subjects not considered suitable targets for humour". This included, among other things - Ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion (any and all), obesity, anorexia, mental illness (where not covered by disability), poverty, unemployment.

And I wonder who developed this list?  Was it people from the various religious, health-related, etc. groups, or was it a bunch of out-of-touch politicos?  I can think of listening to/watching comedians from the very same groupings that are listed above making fun of themselves and other such groups.  Mind you, I'd probably agree with avoiding poverty and unemployment and anything else that is not a choice; anything that is a choice is, to my mind, open to humour.

I think that there is a world of difference between a, lesbian, making fun of lesbians and a hetero male making fun of lesbians. 

The final line of the letter stated that in order to avoid giving offence comedy should, if possible, be restricted to the weather and politicians.

In other words, comedy oughtn't to be allowed in public spaces?   

Comedy has a place in pubic and in private, it just needs to be vary carefully adjusted to the audience present

Thankfully I no longer have the necessity to worry about it as my humour is now reserved for a group of friends whose tastes I am aware of and can tailor my jokes to that group.

Thanks!

[BashfulAnthony]

For a cartoon or joke to be such, it has to actually be funny!   Some cartoons, in particular, are simply a vehicle to deride and no more, under the disguise of humour.

[Owlswing]

For a cartoon or joke to be such, it has to actually be funny!   Some cartoons, in particular, are simply a vehicle to deride and no more, under the disguise of humour.

I disagree.

Humour is one of those things which is peculiarly personal; one person's humour is another's derision.

A friend of mine thinks that Roy 'Chubby' Brown is the greatest and funniest comedian ever. Personally I find his "humour" anything but humourous, like Frankie Boyle, relying almost totally of an obscenity every other word. 

[Nearly Sane]

For a cartoon or joke to be such, it has to actually be funny!   Some cartoons, in particular, are simply a vehicle to deride and no more, under the disguise of humour.

This seems to imply you believe in Objective Humour?

[BashfulAnthony]

For a cartoon or joke to be such, it has to actually be funny!   Some cartoons, in particular, are simply a vehicle to deride and no more, under the disguise of humour.

I disagree.

Humour is one of those things which is peculiarly personal; one person's humour is another's derision.

A friend of mine thinks that Roy 'Chubby' Brown is the greatest and funniest comedian ever. Personally I find his "humour" anything but humourous, like Frankie Boyle, relying almost totally of an obscenity every other word.

I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point  To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived. 

[Nearly Sane]

I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point  To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.

What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?

[King Oberon]

In fairness NS I find bashers one of the most amusing people on here.. especially when he's being serious 

[BashfulAnthony]

In fairness NS I find bashers one of the most amusing people on here.. especially when he's being serious 

It must be hurting by now.  Your tongue in your cheek, that is!     

[BashfulAnthony]

I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point  To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.

What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?

Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh.  If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.

[Nearly Sane]

I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point  To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.

What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?

Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh.  If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.

But funny is as already covered is subjective, and if I find something like the cartoons funny, then that is humour. Further cruel is subjective

[BashfulAnthony]

I, in turn, agree with you, up to a point  To me the difference is that the likes of Roy Brown are attempting to be funny, even though many find them offensive; but cartoons have an agenda, and often the "humorous" aspect is pretty contrived.

What is this 'attempting to be funny'? You seem to be implying that any humour that has any form of a point e.g. satire - is not humour?

Basically, humour simply has to make you laugh.  If it is satire, fine as long as it's funny, and not cruel.

But funny is as already covered is subjective, and if I find something like the cartoons funny, then that is humour. Further cruel is subjective

Cruel is cruel!  Unless the person/organisation, whatever, being satirised is in some way objectionable, then why be cruel?  An example that springs to mind (for some reason) is the Duchess of Cornwall.  She's not my kind of person, but some of the stuff aimed at her, is acutely unkind.  We can all think of people who become the butt of unkind humour, euphamistically called satire.

[Nearly Sane]

And I might agree with you about what is cruel but it is opinion, and it does not mean that something I think of as cruel I might not also find funny. Rowlandson and Gillray spring to mind.

[BashfulAnthony]

And I might agree with you about what is cruel but it is opinion, and it does not mean that something I think of as cruel I might not also find funny. Rowlandson and Gillray spring to mind.

I admit, when I see or read what are blatantly cruel "jokes" or humour, I do laugh;  but feel guilty about it.  I think of how I'd feel if subjected to such humour.