Fox News vs. Kathy Griffin

I spent so much time formulating my replying to this post on Kj's blog (which should probably be read first for context), that I figured I should post it here as well:



We live today in an increasingly post-Christendom culture. In times past, Christianity was really the only acceptable religion in the United States, and in many places it still is (You still pretty much have to claim to be a Christian to get elected president).

That may sound great to some people, and in some ways I think it is, but in many other ways it distorts the faith.

When Christianity is given power, we historically don't tend to handle it better than others in power for very long (See the Inquisition, the Crusades, the 30 years war, Native American Genocides and countless other acts of cultural and theological arrogance). A culture's favorite Bible verses are quoted out of context (or allegorized) in order to justify just about anything.

It is this Jesus that Kathy Griffin is protesting - an oppressive non-Jesus born of eisegesis, greed and hunger for power. He is a mythical figure who indeed founded democracy and capitalism, not to mention the modern day Republican party. He is the God of American superiority, and we are his chosen people who will take his gospel of freedom and free markets to the ends of the earth. He is a white male with blond hair and blue eyes, and he is worshiped everyday in strip malls and Wall-Marts nationwide.

I am not at all offended by Kathy Griffin's remarks, which seem intentionally comedic and appropriately satirical. But I am offended by Fox News's Lauren Green and her ill-conceived and ahistorical attempt to connect the annointed messiah of democracy, capitalism, and consumerism with the Jesus of the Bible and my faith.

Also, one final point. If Kathy Griffin had attacked Mohammad, she would have been attacking a religious figure whose followers are - in this country - marginalized. Attacking the primary religious figure of an oppressed group is very different than attacking the primary religious figure of a group who has used that person to justify their acts of oppression[1]. It is now socially acceptable to critique the majority (or perhaps now, plurality), which I think is great. Maybe we should focus less on the speck in Kathy Griffin's eye, and more on the log in our own.



[1] I'm also aware of the fact that many Muslims use Mohammad in similar ways, and I would extend the same critique to them where they are in power, though in a different way, since on the world's stage we are still the dominant power.