Monty Python and Philosophy (19 page)

This scene illustrates that too much of God’s presence in sexual affairs is likely to, shall we say, take the lead out of the pencil. When Chapman explains that each time Catholics have relations they have to have a baby, Idle does not understand the difference between Catholics and Protestants like themselves, because, “we have two children and we’ve had sexual intercourse twice.” “That’s not the point,” Chapman responds. They could have “it” as much as they want, and furthermore Chapman could purchase
products intended to enhance pleasure. Idle’s temperature rises at the prospect, but he soon realizes, probably for the zillionth time, that all this talk about God is cold water on the fire.

This assertion of God’s concern about reproduction suggests that He spends much of His time voyeuristically observing the sexual practices of His human creations. Before you accuse God of perversion, realize that He has little choice but to spy if He is to know which members of His flock are guilty of naughtiness. If the Catholic position is correct, God must watch sexual preliminaries for possible application of contraceptive devices. Even if Chapman’s Protestant viewpoint is right, God still must go “undercover” to monitor copulation for unauthorized positions (any but missionary) and for the proper number of persons (two), sexes (one male and one female)
⁵⁷
and marital status (married) of participants. God must also ensure that couples are not “doing it” too frequently or making too much noise during the proceedings, since these infractions would undermine the dignity and holy purpose of screwing. The Pythons ask us to consider the consequences of the belief that God cares about reproductive practices and sees everything. If so, then he watches our sexual activities. The attractiveness, endowments and skills of a given couple no doubt affects the quality of the viewing experience, but Christians must concede that all things considered, this is one of God’s less onerous responsibilities.

In Monty Python’s Life of Brian an old man is to be stoned by a crowd impatient to hurl their rocks. The condemned man cries out that he only meant to compliment his wife’s cooking when he said “that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.” As soon as the mob hears the name “Jehovah,” one of them strikes the old man with a stone. The official in charge (John Cleese) chastises the offender and commands the group to allow the charges to be heard. When he further instructs them not to react
when hearing the name “Jehovah” until the proceedings are concluded, he too is struck. One of the offenders (Eric Idle) defends his action, saying to Cleese, “After all, you did say ‘Jehovah,’” and Idle is also assaulted. Each time the name “Jehovah” is spoken, however inadvertently, rocks fly.

The uncivilized may view the stoning of blasphemers as despicable violence, but it is actually a religious duty. After all, the condemned man’s statement that the halibut served was “good enough for Jehovah” clearly uses the Lord’s name for some purpose other than reverence or worship. “What’s a little blasphemy?” you may ask. The old man’s statement may seem like a minor infraction, but remarks like this are the marijuana of blasphemy: they lead to more serious usage. For example, people who say “Jesus H. Christ” know Goddamn well that “H” is not His middle initial. And even though God is peeping, it is not appropriate to call out “Oh, God!” during sexual intercourse.
⁵⁸
So, there is no such thing as a “little” blasphemy. Stoning, then, is an ancient form of intervention meant to save blasphemers from bringing down the wrath of God. The punishment may seem severe, but if stoning saved just one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?

All seriousness aside, the Python’s sketch encourages us to reflect upon how absurd the policy of punishing blasphemers becomes in practice, when an old man is to be stoned to death for complimenting his wife’s dinner and others are battered for accidentally saying “Jehovah.” Apparently God is highly offended by these slights. To accept this view the believer must suppose that God heard the old man’s compliment and said to himself, “Well, I’ll be damned. I provide the halibut, the seasoning, the fire, and the cook gets all the credit. All she did was shove the darn thing into the oven, which I also provide, by the way. I tell you, I don’t get no respect.” Believers eager to punish transgressors evidently judge the All-Mighty incapable of handling these insults Himself. According to this view, God sanctions stoning and perhaps enjoys the spectacle as much as the participants who treat them as amusements not to be missed.

Socrates would no doubt take a dim view of this treatment of blasphemy. Blasphemy is a form of impiety or sinfulness and includes any false representation of the gods. In Plato’s
Republic
,
Socrates discredits the work of Homer which depicts the gods acting out of anger, jealousy or pettiness. Socrates contends that the gods, as perfect beings, do not so conduct themselves, and therefore any such portrayal must be false. According to Socrates’s usage, blasphemy involves words which reflect negatively on the gods, particularly if such language is offered in the name of the gods. The condemned man in
Monty Python’s Life of Brian
is not guilty of blasphemy properly defined, and the mob’s definition has been inappropriately stretched to include simply uttering His name. To say that God authorizes punishment for such usage of His name is to portray God as arrogant and nasty. On Socrates’s account, the stoning citizens are guiltier of blasphemy than those they punish since their actions, performed in God’s name, present an image unbecoming to God.

Toward the end of
Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life
three freshly dead couples are led to Heaven. They are greeted with “Merry Christmas” as they check-in at the front desk. Is it Christmas? Well, you see, every day is Christmas in Heaven. This seems reasonable since one might expect that in Heaven believers eternally celebrate the birth of Christ, who made their salvation possible. The guests are seated and the master of ceremonies (Graham Chapman) is introduced to the soft strains of “Silent Night.” This is a “wonderful, warm and emotional moment,” he says, and begins the song “Christmas in Heaven.” The musical tempo increases and showgirls appear in red suits and caps. Chapman sings that in Heaven it snows above their heads but the weather is warm down below. There are great films on TV, toiletries and games, all that anyone could possibly desire. Surprised? As it happens, Christmas in Heaven is
Santa Claus
Christmas.

This scene presents Heaven as a place filled with earthly rewards, and is a comic depiction of the conflation of religious and commercial versions of Christmas. Some religious hymns describe Heaven as the land of milk and honey, with streets paved with gold. This conception of Heaven conveys that even Christians do not believe the religious life has sufficient intrinsic
value to motivate moral behavior. The sketch suggests that believers do not actually renounce their sinful appetites for worldly pleasures, but hope that by restraining themselves on earth they will receive an unlimited supply of material goods and services in the afterlife. The scene implies that God, as the architect of Heaven, understands human nature and has material compensation waiting up there for His followers. If Heaven was not always this way, apparently even God could no longer bear to watch the disappointment of those who discover that their Heavenly reward amounts only to eternal communion with Him.

Once upon a time people died. Believers ascended to Heaven to dwell in the house of the Lord (animated version from
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
) forever, while unrepentant sinners were immediately escorted (by the Grim Reaper from
Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life
) to Hell. Heaven and Hell were structured to reward the saved and punish sinners. Since salvation is its own reward, those in Heaven spent eternity singing hymns and praying to God (led by Michael Palin’s chaplain from
Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life
). Since sin is its own punishment, Hell was designed (by interior decorator Graham Chapman) in a manner conducive to sin, thereby ensuring everlasting suffering. Inhabitants of Hell were furnished with gambling, liquor, and whores. An eternity of debauchery (and annoying parenthetical interruptions) would teach them a lesson they would never forget. Expensive material goods were purchased from Acme Decadence, Inc. to promote high-stakes wagering; the scorching climate encouraged the removal of clothing which facilitated fornication.
⁵⁹
As everyone knows, nothing goes with gambling and whoring like booze. Unfortunately the plan backfired when, incredibly, the residents actually enjoyed their vulgar surroundings. Word of the “suffering” soon reached Heaven and all Hell broke loose. A
group of trustees in Heaven (led by John Cleese) filed a class-action discrimination suit claiming that the sinners had received preferential treatment. The case was settled out of court and the afterlife stations were redesigned (by new decorator Eric Idle). Henceforth sinners would be mounted on rotisseries to roast forever, creating the Hell we have all come to know and love. The saved were awarded material compensation for renouncing worldly possessions on Earth. As a measure of good faith, the trustees agreed to maintain a prominent role for Christ (Terry Jones) in the new and improved Heaven. In an ingenious compromise, both sides promised that every day would be Christmas, and Santa Claus (Terry Gilliam, who did not want the part but failed his auditions for other roles) would deliver gifts to the faithful. That is how Christmas became merry!

In
Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life
, after dutifully praising God, the chaplain (Michael Palin) leads the congregation in the following song.

Apparently there is reason for even the faithful to live in a state of fear and trembling. Since all human beings are born into filthy sin and cannot cleanse themselves, their fate is determined by God. He is the final authority on sin and is accountable to no one. We cannot know how He will decide, and it would be imprudent to wait until Judgment Day to persuade the court. Therefore, the best approach for believers is to beg their loving God in advance for mercy. By having the song follow the prayer, the scene illustrates how ridiculous it is for Christians to worship a God they believe may at any moment capriciously chuck them all into Hell. In the Christian tradition Hell is presented as the final destination
for sinners who fail to repent. Nevertheless, as the scene demonstrates, the faithful live in terror that despite their righteousness, they too may be judged unworthy and sentenced to burn forever in the eternal flame.

Socrates would reject that God behaves this way, and in the
Apology
he explains why the virtuous need not fear death or the afterlife. According to Socrates, death is either a state in which the dead are nothing, with no perception of anything, or death is simply the relocation of the soul from one realm to another. If death is the former, then it is like a dreamless sleep. If death is the latter, souls of the virtuous join those of great men and women already deceased. Imagine abiding with the Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, and the Godfather of Soul, James Brown.
⁶⁰

The Pythons’ “Please don’t burn us” song asks us to consider the following. The righteous should have no fear of Hell. If God is good and just, as believers claim, why would He condemn the righteous to Hell? The concern that He could do exactly that stems from the Christian portrayal of God as unpredictable and wrathful. After all, God condemned the descendents of Adam and Eve (us) before they were born. According to the Christian tradition, Heaven is not a reward for faithful service, but a gift from God which He may award or withhold. But if God condemns the righteous to Hell as well as the wicked, there is little incentive to be righteous
for Heaven’s sake
. The Pythons are able to draw humor from these scenes because of the unspoken belief of righteous yet “God-fearing” Christians. If the faithful and righteous must live in fear, God must be one bad-mutha-shut-yomouth.

In an early scene from
Monty Python and The Holy Grail
, a mob intends to burn a woman whom they claim is a witch. How do they know she is a witch? She looks like one. The mob’s chief representative, Eric Idle, confesses that they dressed the woman to look like a witch, but nevertheless insists she is a witch. Apparently clothes make the woman. A philosophical cleric, played by Terry Jones, announces that there is a logical way to determine whether the woman in question is actually a witch. He leads them through the following (slightly abridged) line of reasoning: