Isaac Hayes, in a huff, hangs up Chef’s hat

March 14, 2006 | General | By: Mark VandeWettering

Bye to the ChefSouthpark has lampooned, roasted, poked, prodded and generally mocked religion at every turn since its very beginning. It’s mocked Catholics and Jews, Hindus and Muslims. Whether you think it’s justified or not, whether you think its funny or not, one can hardly say that Messiers Stone and Parker had a secret agenda: their assault has been relentless, consistent and unceasing. But apparently when Scientology comes under the microscope of their comic stylings, Isaac Hayes has had enough.

ContraCostaTimes.com | 03/13/2006 | Isaac Hayes, in a huff, hangs up Chef’s hat

We have a word for people who feel comfortable with mocking other people’s religious beliefs, but become indignant when it happens to their own: we call them hypocrites. To me, hypocrisy is a worse crime than not being funny. If you are going to cash a check at the expense of people’s religious beliefs, but suddenly gain a conscience when your own religious beliefs are subjected to the same scrutiny, you get a special measure of my contempt.

I suspect we’ll see the Chef meet a particularly odious end.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Addendum: S. McPherson over at the Christian Pundit’s blog  also thinks that Hayes may be a bit of a hypocrite, and linked back to me in agreement.  The problem is that I don’t actually agree with Christian Pundits: I’m not offended in the least that Southpark portrays religion negatively.   The problem that I have with Hayes is that he thinks that different rules should apply to him and his religion than to others.   But in the view of this blogger, there is much worthy of ridicule in most religions.    In fact, there is much that is linked from the Christian Pundit which is worthy of ridicule, such as their `manifesto’:

With the millions of people worldwide that profess to be Christian our voice should be the one heard above all others. But far too often the voice of the Christian becomes obscured in the barrage of liberalism that is invading every area of our lives and attempting to abolish our religious and constitutional rights. Now is the time for Christians to rise up and let the world know we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.

Ah, nothing like the tyranny of the majority.   Ironically (if somewhat predictably) Christian Pundits is guilty of precisely the same crime that they accuse Hayes of: adopting a different standard for protection of their beliefs than for the beliefs of others.

Witness this plea for outrage.   I could see how the image of Jesus performing oral sex on a pig might be offensive to Christians, but what I want to know is where is Christian Pundits outrage over “political” cartoons which mock Islam?   Aren’t they falling into the same kind of hypocrisy that they are accusing Hayes of?  Perhaps somebody should read Matthew 7:3 and think about their own actions…

Share Button
Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

Pingback from Christian Pundits – Christian news commentary on political and religious issues
Time 3/14/2006 at 2:52 pm

He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin.” SOURCE BINGO! Christian Pundits doesn’t believe Hayes’ miraculous conversion for a second, and adds our voice to that of thebrainwagon blog – “We have a word for people who feel comfortable with mocking other people’s religious beliefs, but become indignant when it happens to their own: we call them hypocrites.” and Mark Noonan’s at GOP Bloggers

Comment from mneptok
Time 3/14/2006 at 6:19 pm

Now is the time for Christians to rise up and let the world know we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.

Now *there’s* that Christian spirit! Time for a little Matthew 5:39, too?

Comment from Christian Pundits
Time 3/16/2006 at 1:07 am

Geez, here I respected your opinion enough to link to it and this is the thanks I get?

As for the ‘Jesus Cartoon’, it wasn’t that the cartoon was published – it was the hypocritical stance The Sheif took by publishing it when they had refused to print the Mohammed cartoons out of respect for Islam – and that the American MSM completely ignored the story that was the focus of my outrage.

And about the Mohammed cartoons, had you taken the time to read the archives you would have found this post dated February 3, 2006.

“You have to understand that Islam prohibits any depiction of Mohammed due to their concerns about idolatry. So when the newspaper included images of the prophet with a bomb-shaped turban and refusing suicide bombers entry to heaven I can imagine the kick-in-the-gut feeling the Muslims got when they saw the cartoons. I know because I’ve experienced that same feeling when I’ve seen Jesus portrayed in a degrading or humilitating manner.

I understand the message the cartoons were trying to convey, but at a time when leaders all around the world are repeating the mantra of “religious tolerance” to print something as insulting as these cartoons is questionable.

Not to mention that it is downright disrespectful to Muslims worldwide.

But, as a staunch supporter of free speech I have to say that the newspaper had every right to publish the cartoons. No matter how disrespectful or insulting they may be.”

Admittedly as the chaos over the cartoons escalated my
sympathy waned, but excuse me if I find it a bit difficult to be sympathetic to a group of extremists that kills Nigerian Christians by burning them alive over a cartoon that originated in Denmark.

May I also say that the fact that you found Christian Pundits “worthy of ridicule” because we may have different opinions on issues, and accused me of being a hypocrite without taking the time to ‘dig deeper’ seems to justify my manifesto.

And since you and mneptok appear to appreciate biblical scripture, here’s one for you. Luke 24:36

Comment from mneptok
Time 3/16/2006 at 2:15 pm

I appreciate the, “Peace be unto you,” sentiment from Luke 24:36, but frankly, I’m not the one that is, “mad as hell and not going to take it any more.”

Perhaps Luke 4:23 would be apropos here.

Comment from Susan
Time 3/16/2006 at 11:32 pm

Argh, you people are precisely what makes it so hard to be a Christian in California.

For the record, not all of us are nit-picking, bible-verse quoting, bible-thumping right wing conservatives. Not all of us feel a need to vilify the masses, or to ‘educate’ evil-doers (ack, I am quoting Bush, help me!) on what the Christian stance is and what we think. Maybe because I think ‘we’ are actually individuals capable of independent thought.

We are not all like this Mark, darling. Mark, call me a moron! Do it! Because guess what? You are entitled to your opinion! AND your religion (which just happens to be atheism).

Christian Pundit guy, relax already! Mark is not a hypocrite, he simply expressed his opinion. If you are going to dish out your opinion, you have to be willing to listen to others’ opinions.

Why is it that so many vocal christians seem to forget that freedom of religion, which entitled them and their ancestors to practice christianity ALSO grants freedom of NOT practicing religion?

Christian, supportive of gay marriage rights, supportive of a woman’s right to choose, and oh so out of place irritated at how nit-pickers share everything but the gospel,
Susan

Comment from Christian Pundits
Time 3/17/2006 at 6:48 am

mneptok,

What is it about me being mad as hell that bothers you?

That I used the word h e double hockey sticks – or that I don’t conform to the portrait of a meek, nicey-nicey Christian?

At the risk of being labeled a bible-thumping right wing conservative – which I am, right wing conservative that is – it is my opinion that being “nice little Christians” is partly to blame for the moral degeneration of the U.S. We’ve stood by for too many years while our values and yes, even our rights, have been trampled upon – because it was “unchristian” to rock the boat.

Yes I’m mad, and because I am not able to go to the ‘temple’ to overthrow the tables of the ‘thieves’, my blog is the next best thing.

In response to Susan,

I see no-where in my comment where I called Mark a hypocrite. On the contrary, it was he who called me hypocritical, which I wanted to show was unwarranted. I “listened” to Mark’s opinion and then offered mine, nothing more.

I also see nothing in my previous comment that remotely suggests I was trying to deny someone the right to NOT practice religion.

I do not try to shove Christianity down someone’s throat, and am a firm supporter that everyone has the right to practice their own religion, even if its atheism.

Comment from Mark
Time 3/17/2006 at 9:19 am

To be fair, I don’t believe that Christian Pundits labelled me a hypocrite, just as no where did I label all Christians as hypocrites, or all Christianity worthy of ridicule.

A few additional notes:

  1. Atheism is not a religion.
  2. When you argue that “our voice should be heard above all others”, how precisely are you arguing that “everyone has a right to practice their own religion”?
  3. Thanks to the Constitution, nobody has to ask your permission to have their own opinions or religion.
  4. Lastly, on’t you think that Muslim extremists are “mad as hell, and not going to take this anymore?” Anger can be righteous and a fuel for justice, or it can be all consuming and dangerous. The line is often hard to see, especially when the anger is your own…

Comment from Christian Pundits
Time 3/19/2006 at 4:19 pm

“To be fair, I don’t believe that Christian Pundits labelled me a hypocrite, just as no where did I label all Christians as hypocrites, or all Christianity worthy of ridicule.”

Thank you.

“Atheism is not a religion.”

I do apologize if I mispoke. I guess I based my understanding that atheism was a religion on Baggini’s argument that atheism is a self-contained belief system, just as organized religion is a belief system.

“When you argue that ‘our voice should be heard above all others’, how precisely are you arguing that ‘everyone has a right to practice their own religion’? “

When my statement is taken out of context, yes, it may appear that I advocate a “Christian Only” America. However what I’m actually referring to are issues of society such as abortion, homosexuality and education.

If you include the part that you quoted with the rest of my statement, …too often the voice of the Christian becomes obscured in the barrage of liberalism that is invading every area of our lives and attempting to abolish our religious and constitutional rights, I don’t see how one can conclude that I’m attempting to deny others the right to practice their own religion. Only that Christians also be given the opportunity to have our voices heard in matters that concern us, a trait that too many Christians have quietly abandoned.

“Lastly, don’t you think that Muslim extremists are ‘mad as hell, and not going to take this anymore?’ Anger can be righteous and a fuel for justice, or it can be all consuming and dangerous.”

I agree that righteous anger can be dangerous, such as those who wrongly bomb abortion clinics or perpetrate acts of violence against homosexuals, in the “name of Christianity”. But I don’t think anyone who spends more than a few minutes at the Christian Pundits blog would even remotely suggest that I approve of or advocate such behavior.

And in my opinion, the Muslim extremists who resorted to rioting and killing because of the Mohammed cartoons, did so not because of indignation over the cartoons, but as just one more excuse to spread their terrorism.

Comment from Mark
Time 3/19/2006 at 5:23 pm

I’ve lived nearly the second half of my life in one of the areas which is widely recognized as the gay center of America, and before that, attended colleges which would accurately described as liberal. In all that time, I’ve never met any gay people whose agenda included convincing anyone who wasn’t gay that they are or should be gay. Nor have I ever met anyone who said that having an abortion was a good thing, or a normal mode of contraception. The cartoons against which right wing fundamentalists tilt constantly are mere phantoms of deep, complex, and underlying problems.

It is not religious discrimination when the Supreme Court rules that mandated school prayer is unconstitutional. The point that escapes the religious right is that these actions work to uphold religious freedoms, because they prevent religion from gaining the imprimatur of the state. That this rule applies to your (possibly even majority) ideas about religion as well as minority opinions is irrelevent: all religion should be the function of the individual, the family and the community, not the state.

But what the religious right wants isn’t religious freedom: it’s religious dominance. When you say that your voice should be heard above all others, you weren’t misquoted, or taken out of context. You want your voice to be heard above others, which means that others will be heard less. You ask that homosexuals be relegated to second-class status, denied the basic rights to have their unions recognized by the civil authorities because it offends your religion. While I would recognize and uphold your religions rights in denying the validity of such unions in the context of your church, I think it is an absurd abuse of democratic rule to deny individuals the right to set up wills and medical decision making power just to make you feel more at ease. That you choose to use the ballot box and the legislature to oppress others is better than doing it with guns and sticks, but not by much. That you would accept the publication of anti-Muslim cartoons, but applaud the removal of an editor who published a similar cartoon is hypocrisy: you accept criticism of Islam, but applaud punishment of anti-Christian sentiment.

I’ll just leave this thread with this one last comment: I didn’t write your manifesto, you did. My interpretation of what you wrote is my own, and it is up to you to decide whether people such as myself might be lead to conclude something other than you intended is our fault or yours.

Write a comment






9 − = five