By Martha Quillen
When Dante Alighieri produced his epic poem, “The Divine Comedy,” it was dubbed Dante’s “Commedia,” not because it was supposed to be funny, but because in medieval times a “comedy” was a story with a happy ending.
Over the centuries, our definition of comedy expanded to include jokes, satire, and slapstick – along with the burlesque, the ludicrous, and the inane. Now, events of any sort tend to inspire comedy – although not always intentionally.
Take the U.S. House of Representatives, for example.
During a House subcommittee hearing in March of 2009, Representative John Shimkus of Illinois implied that congress didn’t need to address global warming because God promised Noah, “As long as the earth endureth, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”
What did that have to do with global warming?
Nothing – since global warming theorists have never contended that day and night, summer and winter, or cold and heat will cease to exist. Nor do they claim that the planet and its inhabitants will actually be destroyed any time soon. Concerned scientists merely warn that human beings may face serious and costly consequences in future decades (from flooding, coastal reconfiguration, habitat alteration, violent storms, and the like) if climate change cannot be slowed or ameliorated.
Shimkus also quoted Matthew 24:31, “And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” He continued without pause, “The Earth will end only when God decides it’s time for earth to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”
In conclusion, the Illinois representative avowed, “I believe the word of God is infallible, unchanging, and perfect.”
But if so, why did he add his own prognostic passages to Matthew?
In retrospect, it’s unclear whether Rep. Shimkus purposely misrepresented Biblical scripture and global warming theory in order to further his own political goals, or was merely trying to reaffirm his faith in God before congress, television cameras, and the world. But whatever the case, I doubt he was trying to be funny in 2009.
Nor does humor appear to be his forte as he seeks a chairmanship on the House Energy and Commerce Committee this November.
And yet humorists have been the most notable beneficiaries of Shimkus’s pronouncements about the importance of CO2 emissions in providing plant food, and how the earth may actually be CO2 deficient.
The idea of Shimkus advising congress on energy has inspired a wealth of response. In mid-November, Discover Magazine Online posted 115 comments regarding Shimkus; author and professor Juan Cole posted 105; UK’s Daily Mail posted 239; Newser 34. I found another 57 here, another 30 there, and all sorts of sites featuring 5 to 20 Shimkus comments – most of them comical. A few examples:
• This guy has a magnet against his mental compass.
• So why are ‘theologians’ testifying before congress on climate change?
• I’m pretty sure the issue is that PEOPLE are causing climate change, not GOD.
• Only God Can Destroy the Earth? Well that’s reassuring. Now we don’t have to worry about global warming or nuclear war.
• Is it okay with your God if we try to be better stewards of the Earth?
• I swear, everyday I get up the world just gets more surreal.
• God? What God??
• Too bad the rapture is a fairy tale. Wouldn’t it be nice to wake up tomorrow morning and find that all the wacko fundis had disappeared?
• Wow. I wish I was able to be shocked by this, but you get kind of numb after awhile.
Online comments about Shimkus run the gamut, including posts by flummoxed foreigners, aggravated atheists, and frustrated Christian environmentalists, many of whom shared Biblical passages that support worrying about the environment, among them:
“Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.” Lev. 25:23-24
“I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.” Jer. 2:7
“… and the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the world and it becomes unfruitful.” Mark 4:19
However, there was a conspicuous lack of response by religious authorities of any persuasion. That’s what I went online looking for: How did church spokesmen respond to Shimkus’s Biblical interpretations?
But if such responses were out there, they were meager.
It used to be you could count on Christian clergy and communities (especially the Pope) to weigh in when government officials assumed controversial religious positions. But not anymore. Today, conservatives have so thoroughly inserted religion into their politics that people are starting to talk as if Christianity were a branch of the Republican Party.
Who are Christians?
People who support Sarah Palin, corporate tax cuts, and putting razor wire along the Mexican border.
What would Jesus do? Join the NRA and endorse Tea Party candidates.
I find this matter-of-fact mixing of the political and holy disturbing on many levels: It mocks the faith, distracts from earnest political argument, clouds religious convictions, and taints people’s respect for religious freedom.
And yet I don’t think it’s a threat to our environment or country.
The real threat, I think, is how truly mind-boggling American political discourse has become. Forget about how the word “Christian” is being redefined; the word “liberal” has been crucified.
What does the word “liberal” mean? After the recent campaign, one can only assume it is somehow akin to a four-letter word.
Republican advertising this time around seldom even bothered to support or defame an issue or candidate. Just purporting that a vote for some candidate or measure was a vote against liberal spending, liberal health care, or liberal takeovers was apparently enough of a message.
Today more and more people are talking about armed rebellion. They say they’re going to take back America. They’re mad, they’re armed, they’re grizzly.
But they aren’t proposing many non-violent solutions.
So is this all talk and bombast? Or are they serious?
Does all of this crazy, hyperbolic, grandstanding signify something? Or is it downright irresponsible?
At the local level, where things aren’t nearly as scripted, staged, and rehearsed, political discussion tends to be considerably more subdued. Here in Chaffee County, you occasionally even hear serious questions get thoughtful answers.
Of course, that may only be because in towns as small as Salida (where everybody may not know your name, but enough people do) you can’t get away with carrying a sign portraying a local candidate as a monkey without everybody remembering and talking about it behind your back – for a long, long time. And it’s probably best not to threaten to shoot someone here (or in modern euphemistic parlance to threaten to resort to second amendment remedies) – because the opposition may have more weapons than you.
Given my druthers, I’d like to see less political posturing and preaching and more earnest exploration into issues like war, health care, and energy conservation. But I don’t expect that to happen any time soon.
We’re on a roll these days. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are tops in the news. Michael Moore is making the documentaries. Glenn Beck is playing the heartbroken clown. It’s 98% comedy – 99% of the time, even when people don’t intend it to be.
Let’s just hope this comedy has a happy ending.
Martha Quillen frets about the future of her faith and country in Salida, a sane retreat in an increasingly lunatic world.
