The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (17 page)

Finally, Joseph Smith makes another appearance in “All About Mormons,” where Stan and his family learn all about Mormonism after Stan befriends a young Mormon kid named Gary. The history of Mormonism is not-so-subtly critiqued by a chorus that sings, “dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb” with each episode in the tale. When Stan finally decides the story is unbelievable, Gary tells him to believe whatever he wants, but not to denounce him. Stan has a nice family, Gary explains, and he was only trying to be nice, not to convert Stan and his family. Then, in a rare moment of Mormon obscenity, Gary tells them to “suck my balls.”

And so, as we see,
South Park
has been littered, not with just offense and mere critique, but also with what, in earlier times, would have been considered punishable blasphemy. Thank the Super Best Friends for free speech!

Frankly, nothing is sacred on
South Park
. But in the first half of the twentieth century, long before the show bravely shattered all pretense of taste, blasphemy could get you thrown in jail, even in the United States with its groundbreaking First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects speech, but not absolutely. Despite the plain guarantee of “freedom of speech,” courts, legislatures, and custom have long prohibited certain forms of speech. Notably, and of no comfort to Parker and Stone, obscenity is not protected, and most of us are familiar with the community standards test for obscenity. Besides obscenity, blasphemy has been punished for some time. As late as 1867 in the United States, it was illegal to contract to lease rooms as a forum for lectures concerning the potential truth of Christ’s teachings. In 1870, a Pennsylvania court held that the “Infidel Society of Philadelphia” was not entitled to receive a bequest because it was illegal, despite the facts that the society was legally incorporated and the bequest’s language and execution were technically correct.
¹
Prosecutions for blasphemy were for some time supplanted by prosecutions for “obscenity.” Charles C. Moore of Lexington, Kentucky edited the free-thought journal
Blue Grass Blade
and was prosecuted under the state’s obscenity laws, serving jail time in 1899. His crime was publishing speculations about the divine nature of Jesus. In 1891, Moses Harman, the editor of an anarchist publication named
Lucifer the Light Bearer
out of Topeka, Kansas, also served jail time for ­publishing obscene materials speculating about established religious dogmas.
²
If you ask me, that dude was just asking for trouble.

In 1940, the Supreme Court finally extended the protections of the First Amendment to religious criticism and religious argument. In
Cantwell v. Connecticut
, the Supreme Court held:

In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp ­differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to ­vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state. [patriotic appeal to foundation of US liberties omitted] … The essential characteristic of these liberties is, that under their shield many types of life, character, opinion and belief can develop ­unmolested and unobstructed.

This essentially nullified state and local blasphemy ordinances that had been in effect, and enforced so as to bring people to jail for public challenges to the dominant religion—Christianity. The court’s ruling echoes the reasoning of the philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). In his
On Liberty
, Mill makes a compelling case for free and open dialogue on every topic, including those held most sacred by church and state. He argues that only free and open discussion can shake out the truth of any matter. But then Mill made himself liable to prosecution for his own lectures, calling into question the divine authority of the Bible in 1851.
³

Despite the 1940 ruling in
Cantwell
, two years later, the same court refused to extend their reasoning to “profanity,” whatever the fuck that is. In
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
, Justice Frank Murphy ruled that profanity enjoyed no First Amendment protection in a case in which a Jehovah’s witness—clearly tired of knocking on doors—
^­
proclaimed publicly that all religion was a “racket” and then, while being arrested, called the cop a “God damned racketeer” and a “damned fascist.” The court reasoned that these exclamations were not a part of the “exposition of ideas,” and that the social interest in order and morality clearly outweighed any potential benefit from those words. As Leonard Levy points out, the
Chaplinsky
decision “violates the establishment clause of [the First] amendment by favoring religious beliefs over nonreligious beliefs.”
⁴
This is because “profanity,” unlike mere “obscenity,” invokes the name of God.

Now, in these enlightened times, neither profanity nor blasphemy is routinely punished, and freedom of speech is extended to the likes of
South Park
, as long as no breast nipples make an appearance. But, despite the legal protection now seemingly afforded the rampant ­profanity and blasphemy of
South Park
, we should ask whether there’s any virtue in self-censorship, tolerance, kindness, and humility, before considering Comedy Central’s outright and unprecedented censorship of the show.

Nah, not really. That is, we can’t unless we all agree not to take affronts to our cherished beliefs personally and, oh, not to kill each other over them, too. Now, with no First Amendment of its own, the European Union’s Convention on Human Rights has demonstrated a renewed effort to revive old notions of human rights so as to punish those who denigrate any religion. Recently, there was a failed effort to expand Britain’s blasphemy statute in response to the Danish cartoon controversy and other recent disputes, in order to protect religions other than the official state religion (Anglicanism). These efforts seem to follow a line of reasoning that holds certain beliefs are beyond mockery, beyond criticism, and beyond question. But is there a human right to have our beliefs so valued by others?

While the Human Rights Commission in Europe believes so, it is difficult to make an honest philosophical argument for that point of view. Nonetheless, in 1983, the Commission held as much, basing its decision obliquely on the Convention on Human Rights, Article 10. The case involved one Professor James Kirkup, who had published a poem entitled “The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name” that was treated as blasphemous by the Crown and censored. Kirkup took his case to the European Human Rights Commission, alleging that the censorship violated his rights of free expression under that the EU Charter, Article 10. The Commission found the British blasphemy law too vague for Kirkup to conclude his poem was proscribed by it, and that the law may have been too restrictive for a “democratic society.” However, the Commission found that the law did protect the rights of others and was necessary in a democratic society. The Commission held that there was a civil right “not to be offended in [one’s] religious feelings by publications.” So the law itself did not violate Kirkup’s human rights, although its use in his case was unwarranted.
⁵

Under the US Constitution, blasphemy can’t be legitimately prosecuted, at least for now. Instead, speech may be restricted for other more secular purposes. This is so because elevating
any particular
faith’s belief-set above others and beyond criticism, or even ridicule, would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, while elevating
every
faith’s belief-sets to that level would elevate religion over other sorts of belief and severely cut back free speech. You could claim absolute protection from criticism simply by declaring your set of beliefs “religious,” seeking tax-exempt status, and suing those who dare question you … just like Scientologists. Oops! Did I say that? Let’s
pretend
I did, and look closely at Comedy Central’s reactions to the Islam/
Family Guy
and the Tom Cruise “Trapped in the Closet” episodes, both of which aired in 2005–2006, and both of which were censored by the network.

South Park
laid a double-whammy on Comedy Central, Scientology,
Family Guy
, and Tom Cruise in these two episodes, which aired within a few months of each other. “Trapped in the Closet” finds Stan attracted to Scientology to heal his alleged depression. Stan learns Scientology dogma while being made into a sort of messiah for the religion/cult. In a none-too-subtle and basically unrelated aside, Tom Cruise gets trapped in a closet, and refuses to come out … of the closet. After this episode aired, Isaac Hayes quit the show, citing the show’s “intolerance” of religious beliefs (like this was a new thing). In the episode, Stan learns the actual dogma of Scientology in brief. The “President” of Scientology tells Stan a short version of the story of Xenu, based directly on the actual Scientology OT III document, and this is accompanied by an on-screen caption reading, “THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE.”

Recall that the same device was used in the “All About Mormons” episode that detailed the actual beliefs held sacred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But recall also the “dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb” chant. The harshest critique of Scientology comes from Stan’s honest desire to transform the church from a profit-making venture into a force for good in people’s lives. By a long shot, this show was more kind to Scientology than was “All About Mormons” to Mormonism. Yet, Comedy Central did not re-air the episode after its November 16, 2006, debut, and it’s suggested it never will.

In “Cartoon Wars Part II,” which aired in April 2006, levels of parody intertwine. Combining the revelation that
Family Guy
is really created by manatees with the appearance of a Bart Simpson-like character who shares Cartman’s loathing for
Family Guy
, this episode skewers Comedy Central itself by comparing it to a fictional Fox ­network that is allegedly censoring the appearance of the Prophet Muhammad in a fictional episode of
Family Guy
. In turn, this episode was itself censored, and a clip featuring the Prophet (as seen in “Super Best Friends”) delivering a “salmon helmet” to Peter was replaced by a black screen with text: “Mohammed hands Peter a football helmet.” Then another caption follows marked by the distinctly sour tone “Comedy Central refuses to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network.” It cuts back to the citizens of South Park saying how this wasn’t bad at all, not offensive or degrading. The show then cuts to a shot of terrorist leader Al-Zawahari, vowing revenge. The revenge takes the form of an Al-Qaeda cartoon featuring various Americans, President George W. Bush, and Jesus all pooping on one another. Of course, the fact that Comedy Central chose not to censor that scene, which was objectively much more objectionable than Muhammad delivering a football helmet to Peter from
Family Guy
, has never been explained. Moreover, Parker and Stone have depicted Muhammad on
South Park
for years, as he makes an appearance, along with many other characters, in the ­rapid-fire musical montage opening.

Episodes “200” and “201” from 2010 saw the return of various ­targets of Parker’s and Stone’s wrath, including Tom Cruise. The Super Best Friends make an appearance, as does the Prophet Muhammad, yet again. And, once again, Tom Cruise becomes the butt of ­homosexual innuendo, depicted as holding a job packing fudge in a fudge factory. Naturally, Stan (who had previously forced Cruise into a closet by denigrating his acting) calls the actor a “fudge packer” because this is literally what Cruise is found to be doing. Cruise sues Stan, and Stan’s father forces him back to the factory to apologize, which Cruise agrees to do if Stan and the boys will help Cruise find Muhammad (since the Prophet supposedly has powers that make him immune to ridicule). Apparently, he possesses some form of magical “goo.” Kyle and Stan enlist the help of the Super Best Friends to help find Muhammad. Meanwhile, the Ginger Separatist Movement threatens South Park with violence if Muhammad is not turned over to them. They’re sick of all the “ginger” jokes and want his goo, too. In episode “201,” the boys take Muhammad to Dr. Mephesto’s lab for analysis (in the aired episode, Muhammad is blocked out by a black box marked “Censored,” and all references to him are “bleeped”). He is then abducted by the Gingers, who begin negotiating for his release to 200 interested celebrities (who want his immunity) if the Gingers can get access to the celebrities’ “goo transfer machine.” Tom Cruise ­successfully uses the machine, rating a black box over his own image. Meanwhile, the Super Best Friends arrive to liberate Muhammad. A fight ensues, “Seaman” leaps on Cruise’s back, and a series of ­predictable jokes ensue. Cruise wonders how it’s ­possible that he’s being ridiculed, when Kyle explains: “There is no goo, you see. I learned something today …” Then the rest of his ­monologue along with Jesus’s and Santa Claus’ lines are all bleeped. Before “201” aired, the group “Revolution Muslim” posted a warning that Parker and Stone could be harmed or killed if the episode aired. Comedy Central censored the image and audio references to Muhammad. This censorship was loudly and vehemently lambasted, even more so than that for the “Cartoon Wars” episodes, but to this day Comedy Central will not re-air “201,” nor is it available on the network’s websites. Thankfully, it is available on DVD in its entirety, however.

As a result of the censorship, comedians Bill Maher and Jon Stewart both made public statements against censorship on their shows, and now a new annual “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day” has begun. The irony and shameful hypocrisy is that that the episode contains blasphemy and near-libel of every other sort, yet only Muhammad is spared—clearly his “goo” is powerful stuff.