Comments on: South Park Mormonism

By: Gavin

Gavin — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:27:41 +0000

This is hands down one of the best episodes ever. But is it true? I’m afraid of spreading this episode as an actual account of mormons…

By: farah

farah — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:16:29 +0000

i loved this episode! i love just about every episode, but i always look forward to the re-runs of this one…however, my husband who was converted a few months ago, and doesn’t have the strongest testimony laughs too…then i have to separate the fact from fiction/exageration for him…but it’s still funny
btw, i love everyone’s comments on this, i was wondering what other members (who secretly watch SP) thought…hahaha

By: Hellmut

Hellmut — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:23:10 +0000

#52 I agree with that, RT. Beyond that it might be useful to test hypotheses or institutional arrangements under extreme circumstances.

By: Dena

Dena — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:29:45 +0000

I saw the episode, it was pretty funny but the one I truly loved is when all these people are in hell and they are going, “But why am I here, I was a devout Protestant.” and the others are “And I was a devout Jehovah Witness.” and the guy goes, “Yes, the correct answer was Mormon.” I almost died. Too funny.

By: Left Field

Left Field — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 04:17:05 +0000

It’s a satirical cartoon, so I’m not too surprised that it engages in satire. I’m more surprised that people would formulate their views of the church around it. If I espouse or respect only those beliefs and values that can’t be ridiculed on South Park, it wouldn’t leave me with much.

I have to confess that I’ve only ever seen a few minutes of South Park, but nothing about it made me inclined to watch more. The voices are annoying and nearly unintelligible. The animation is poor. And in my small sample size, I didn’t see anything that struck me as amusing. If I wanted annoying voices and unfunny dialogue, I could watch reruns of The Nanny. So, for me, the humor doesn’t do anything to mitigate the mockery. Nevertheless, I don’t lose any sleep over it. Satire is… well, satire. Evidently, others have a different sense of humor. I find The Simpsons, Married with Children, and Third Rock from the Sun to be similarly unfunny. (I know; I’m sure there’s more recent unfunny shows, but I have a 6-year-old and haven’t seen much grown-up TV in a very long time.)

By: RT/JNS

RT/JNS — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:38:49 +0000

Hellmut–of course there are discussions in which the Nazis are relevant. The crucial question, I think, is whether the conversation could plausibly be held without a Nazi reference. Discussions that are actually about totalitarianism, for example, can’t plausibly exclude Nazis. But discussions about satirical cartoons? Arguably could be had without any Nazi references. And therefore, perhaps, should be carried out without Nazi references?

By: Hellmut

Hellmut — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:31:54 +0000

#49 Thanks for explaining Goodwin’s law, RT. He is right in a lot of cases. It seems to me, however, that there are others when Hitler is relevant and useful. That would apply when we need to consider a certain set of extreme circumstances.

The homicide exception of tyrannicide comes to mind. It would be absurd to conclude that supporters of tyrannicide lose the debate because they invoke the example of Bonhoeffer and Hitler.

By: Hellmut

Hellmut — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:15:55 +0000

I think that Tammy is right in the sense that religion and other transcendent matters belong to the realm where people have to agree to disagree. Since there is no reasonable way to determine which religious view is correct, one can only tolerate religious diversity or resort to violence. If we don’t want violence then we need to uphold tolerance.

Having said that, religion does not shield us from responsibility for our beliefs. I have the freedom to believe hateful and stupid things. That does not give me the right to act on such beliefs. Nor can I reasonably demand silence in the name of religious tolerance when I proclaim such beliefs.

More generally, the quality of any faith can only improve when it is exposed to questioning. Surely, our faith can bear enquiry. If not, it wasn’t much of a faith anyways.

By: RT/JNS

RT/JNS — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:20:51 +0000

Godwin’s Law says that any online discussion in which Hitler or the Nazis are invoked will quickly come to an irrelevant conclusion, and that–as the length of the conversation grows–the probability of such a comparison trends toward 1. The normative implication of Godwin’s Law is just as Crystal says: the person who first mentions the Nazis can be assumed to be arguing in bad faith and therefore loses the debate.

It’s actually unclear to me that this implication fully applies to the current thread. But Godwin’s Law did hold; we’re no longer discussing South Park, but instead discussing Godwin’s Law!!!

By: Crystal

Crystal — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:14:24 +0000

Godwin’s Law basically says he who invokes the Holocuast loses.

It may be more complicated than that, but that’s how I remember it.