The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (21 page)

The eminent Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr (1892–1971) warned us that when any institution claims “unconditioned truth for its doctrines and unconditioned moral authority for its standards,” it can’t help but develop into “just another tool of human pride.”
⁵
Returning to “Cartman Sucks,” we see Parker and Stone picking up on Niebuhr’s critique. When Butters’ young friend Bradley finally exclaims in agony and self-hatred that his homosexuality has made him an abomination of God, his counselor responds, “No, no, we’re
fixing
you.” Not for a second does the counselor enter into a process of real moral reflection, for this would introduce the risk that it may be his own moral code that needs fixing. A textbook case of arrogance, and, unfortunately, not an uncommon one.

But the arrogance that inevitably follows a lack of appreciation for the complexity of moral problems isn’t restricted to right-wing groups. In fact
The Book of Mormon
saves some of its harshest criticism for a moral conviction that shows up across the political spectrum. In “I Am Africa,” the missionaries triumphantly proclaim, “Africans are African, but we are Africa!” Taking a direct shot at Bono (Elder Cunningham exclaims that he’s become just like the shades-sporting musician and activist), the musical asks us to question the idea that’s wheedled its way into mainstream morality that third world nations are incapable of escaping poverty without our help. It’s by no means clear what the role of the West should be in the moral issue of poverty, but what is certain is that benefit concerts and bracelets tend to swell more American egos than African economies.

In a heroic (and hilarious) turn, Elder Price manages to overcome all doubt about his providential calling and decides to take up his mission in Uganda once more. As a Mormon, he has a special knowledge of God’s will for history and of his own place within the divine plan. His only task, then, is to continue believing precisely what he’s always believed. There’s no reason for him to wonder whether or not the things he feels his faith calling him to do are sensible things, or whether they’re at all likely to work. He’s on the side of the good, the side of God, and he knows with certainty that his Lord will see him through.

So he tries to convert a warlord.

A warlord who shoots people

In the face

What’s so scary about that?

I must trust that my Lord

Is mightier

And always has my back.

The Enlightenment philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) once puzzled over this sort of certainty in groups that promote what he called a religious “enthusiasm” among their membership. He found it particularly strange that “whatsoever odd action they find in themselves a strong inclination to do, that impulse is concluded to be a call or direction from heaven, and must be obeyed: it is a commission from above, and they cannot err in executing it.”
⁶
Locke’s subject is very familiar to us by now, even if his flowery language seems a little dated (his
Essay Concerning Human Understanding
is more than a century older than the holy scriptures that Joseph Smith published). Locke’s commentary applies to a belief that Elder Price shares with nearly all religious fundamentalists, that God reveals his will to select people in special and direct ways. Not coincidentally, these ­“revelations” almost always mirror the agendas and values of the group in question. As we know, Parker and Stone love to poke fun at this kind of thinking.

The belief that there is a God who acts in order to direct the course of history is not necessarily a bad belief simply because most religious fundamentalists happen to hold it.
⁷
We haven’t been trying to call into question any particular belief so much as a particular
way
of holding beliefs. We would argue, though, that the more dogmatic a believer is, the more likely she will be to confuse her own will for God’s will. And this is never a good thing.

Take one of Elder Price’s beliefs as an example. For the greater part of the musical, he’s convinced that God’s mission would be better served if he were carrying out his work in Orlando rather than Uganda. Call me cynical, but I’d be willing to bet that if he were a bit more open to having his beliefs questioned, he might realize that his own desires had just as much to do with his holding this belief as any divine revelation he may have received. At this point Elder Price might have a thing or two to learn from Stan in
South Park
. In the episode “The Biggest Douche in the Universe,” Stan exposes the self-­proclaimed psychic John Edward, who alleges that he hears mysterious “voices” in his head. Just like Elder Price, Edward believes he has somehow tapped into a reality higher than human reason and that his “feelings” can therefore be trusted as infallible guides. But Stan won’t have any of it. When Edward tells him about the voices, Stan quickly replies, “We all hear voices in our head. It’s called intuition.” Indeed we all have feelings that come from some other place than reason—only, by adulthood most of us have learned that these feelings shouldn’t always be acted upon.

Naivete and arrogance inevitably go hand in hand when this kind of thinking crops up. In the episode “Probably,” Cartman receives a divine revelation informing him that God wants everyone to give him a dollar. Of course, in this case Cartman is fully aware of his own manipulative schemes, but what’s worse than this is when a religious leader utters similar things actually
believing
that his message comes directly from God. The fundamentalist’s remarkably naive certainty that his own human desires play no role in his perception of God’s will also has the convenient implication that his words carry the unconditioned force of divine authority. This is the worst sort of naivety and arrogance, for by refusing to recognize that he is still human, the religious fundamentalist effectively names himself God. The famous philosopher and theologian Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) had this kind of narcissism in mind when he remarked, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
⁸

Elder Price has been blessed with a new revelation. Sure, upon his visit to Uganda the Mission President had been horrified by Elder Cunningham’s “additions” to the scriptures, and for this reason he refused to name even a single member of the new African church a bona fide Latter-day Saint. And, yes, Elder Price’s valiant attempt to convert a warlord resulted only in a hospital visit and a permanently shaken faith. Nevertheless, his experience as an African missionary has taught Elder Price something new about his faith, something very important. As he explains, “We are still Latter-day Saints, all of us. Even if we change some things, or break the rules, or have complete doubt that God exists. We can still work together to make
this
our paradise planet.”

As paradoxical as it may sound, a genuine, fruitful faith isn’t possible until we start learning how to
doubt
. In fact, religious conviction misses its mark whenever it refuses to open itself in humility to the questions of those who hold opposing perspectives. Like Elder Price before his “conversion,” religious fundamentalists cling to a tenuous faith that requires certainty, simplicity, and security in order to sustain itself. By contrast, the French philosopher Jacques Ellul (1912–1994) suggested that the “movement of faith is unceasing, because no explanation it offers is ever finished.”
⁹
This, I believe, is the lesson that Elder Price has learned.

Fundamentalist thinkers have the luxury of living in a black and white world of cold absolutes. The rest of us, fortunately or unfortunately, don’t. Rather, we have no choice but to live in the real world, a world of difficult questions and deep ambiguities. But the real world is also a fascinating place of brilliant color and real diversity. For the religious believer, it’s a place where beliefs are shared and discussed with fellow believers of different creeds and faiths, as well as with those who don’t claim any particular faith at all. Now, nobody can deny that the real world is a rough world to call home, and ­fundamentalist thinking remains a constant temptation. Still, the wise words of the great sage Stan Marsh from “The Biggest Douche in the World” continue to ring true: “The big questions in life are hard.” Or as Keith Ward humbly puts it, “Philosophy has no equations, predictions, or conclusive confirmations. That is precisely why some of us become philosophers in the first place.”
¹⁰

1
. Charles S. Peirce, “The Fixation of Belief,”
Popular Science Monthly
12 (1877): 1–15.

2
. Hans-Georg Gadamer,
Truth and Method
(New York: Continuum, 2006). For a more technical discussion of Gadamer and the history of hermeneutic philosophy, see Jean Grondin,
Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics
, trans. Joel Weinsheimer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). We would also recommend the recent and very accessible introductory text from Monica Vilhauer,
Gadamer’s Ethics of Play: Hermeneutics and the Other
(New York: Lexington Books, 2010).

3
. Friedrich Schleiermacher,
On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers
, trans. Richard Crouter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21.

4
. Keith Ward,
Is Religion Dangerous?
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 125–126.

5
. Reinhold Niebuhr,
The Nature and Destiny of Man
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1966), vol. 1, 201–202.

6
. John Locke,
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
(1690), book 4, chapter 19, sections 6–8.

7
. For two notable and differing discussions of this issue, see Alvin Plantinga,
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) and David Ray Griffin,
God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004).

8
. Blaise Pascal,
Penseés
(New York: E.P. Dutton Publishers, 1958), 265.

9
. Jacques Ellul,
Living Faith: Belief and Doubt in a Perilous World
, trans. Peter Heinegg (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980), 268.

10
. Keith Ward,
The Independent
, Feb. 10, 2009.

David Valleau Curtis and Gerald J. Erion

To first-time viewers,
South Park
might seem to offer little more than crude animation and tasteless jokes expressed with an immature, offensive vulgarity. But Douglas Rushkoff argues in his book
Media Virus!
that sophisticated criticisms of culture often lurk beneath the surface of cartoons, comics, and video games.
¹
Such is the case with
South Park
, a show that often conveys a veiled social criticism illuminating principles of democratic political philosophy, including ideas from such great thinkers as Karl Popper and Thomas Jefferson.

For example, consider
South Park
’s treatment of overzealous political activists. Though the show’s core characters of Kyle Broflovski and Stan Marsh fill moderate roles, many of the remaining cast members are extremist caricatures who serve as objects for some of the sharpest jokes on
South Park
. Eric Cartman, for instance, often plays a buffoonish exaggeration of a right-wing conservative. Meanwhile, Hollywood celebrities like Rob Reiner appear as liberal fanatics whose political views have little connection to the mainstream. And religious extremists of all types receive particularly harsh treatment. Indeed, anyone familiar with the show knows that this is one of the main reasons why
South Park
is so regularly targeted for censorship, boycott, or outright cancellation.

Maybe extremists receive such unflattering portrayals on
South Park
because they threaten the very free expression that makes the show possible.
South Park
co-creator Trey Parker, for example, hints at this point during an extended interview with his partner Matt Stone on the PBS program
Charlie Rose
: “What we say with the show is not anything new, but I think it is something that is great to put out there. It is that the people screaming on this side and the people screaming on that side are the same people, and it’s OK to be someone in the middle, laughing at both of them.”
²
But
South Park
doesn’t silence the radicals and fanatics it targets. Instead, it allows them to express their views, which are then held up for consideration and subsequent ridicule. So, while extremists are tolerated on
South Park
, they are not permitted to suppress the sort of free expression that is so crucial to the show itself.

In this chapter, we’ll explore themes like freedom of expression and what makes for a democratic society by examining characters and ­situations collected from a variety of
South Park
episodes. Along the way, we’ll consider some of the important democratic concepts and arguments presented by thinkers like Popper and Jefferson. Of particular interest are the roles of free expression and unfettered intellectual inquiry—even when they’re offensive—in a democratic society. In the end, we’ll see that Popper and others understand this sort of freedom to be absolutely
essential
to a healthy democracy.

An Austrian by birth, Karl Popper (1902–1994) made major contributions to philosophical thinking about knowledge and science. However, it’s his demolition of the ideas behind totalitarian government in
The Open Society and Its Enemies
that concerns us here, since we can see dimensions of his critique in many
South Park
episodes.