Well, this week I have taken a look at three new responses to the original video, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.” From now on I want to refer to the video as WIRLJ (acronym of the title) because that is far easier to write than the full title. The three responses I chose for this post are two video responses and comments on the original video material.
The video responses made for WIRLJ are actually pretty similar in their format. Most individuals who decided to respond in video format decided to create their argument in the same style as Jefferson Bethke’s original video. The responses consist of spoken word, take place in a metropolitan area or church, and utilize the same style of onscreen text. These individuals mirrored the original for a reason; perhaps it is because Bethke’s original video garnered such a huge response and was impressive in nature that these responders felt the need to argue in kind.
Let’s look at the first video which is titled, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus - A Catholic Response.” Now, if you remember, I looked at a Catholic response last week as well. However, this response was different in its critique of WIRLJ. While this video kept with the style of the original, and other video responses, the argument posed has a different tone to it. Something to notice is the use of personal pronouns. He uses “we,” “us,” and “my” in reference to the Catholic church. This indicates a strong attachment to the institution of the Catholic church, which plays a major role in the focus of his argument. Something that the use of these possessive and personal pronouns is that it causes a separation; He is completely connecting himself with the Catholic church (as a religion/institution) while simultaneously dissociating with Christians outside Catholicism. Bethke’s argument consists of his conviction that Jesus is greater than religion and came to abolish religion. This Catholic man responds in a couple of ways. In the video he refers to doctrinal type facts, showing that he has constructed his faith around the doctrine of his church, but he also argues by listing all the accomplishments of the Catholic church throughout history. He equates the Catholic church with progress and more or less poses the question, where would you be without the Catholic church? So, does his obviously strong attachment to the Catholic church (at one point he refers to the Catholic church as being like a mother) affect his response? Does this imply that the response was more emotionally driven? Also, is he constructing his faith based on the doctrine and beliefs of the Catholic church or around the history and accomplishments of “his” church? Simply based off of this video, I would have to assume that a good portion of his faith is constructed around the accomplishments of the Catholic church.
The second video is called, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Critics and Jefferson Bethke Corrected!” This guy proved challenging to analyze. Like the Catholic response, this man dissociates himself. However, he dissociates himself from both Bethke and critics. So my question to him would be, where would you place yourself then? He’s correcting Bethke. He’s correcting those who disagreed with Bethke. He himself disagrees with Bethke, and yet he does not associate with the critics. So, he’s in a realm of his own? I’m not sure what his response would be, but I’ll move on. It’s somewhat difficult to piece together how he is constructing religion. He claims Christianity, though something I find interesting is that he believes that the Sabbath should only be on Saturday--or more technically, sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. I find this very interesting because that is the Jewish holy day, it’s generally not the “holy day” for Christians. Generally Christians have their day of rest or “holy day” on Sunday. I believe the main reason for this switch is because Sunday is believed to be the day that Jesus rose from the grave after being crucified. Yet, this Christian guy says the Sabbath is supposed to be on Saturday, and only Saturday. So, he’s obviously diverging from the Christian “norm” in his construction of his faith. Also an interesting thing to notice is that he says many Christians “jump to legalism” when he argues his point of having a very specific day, and he argues that that’s not how it is. Also, he somewhat dissociates himself from other Christians, which I find odd since he is still claiming to be a follower of Christ. So, he definitely constructs his beliefs differently than the majority of Christians who use generally Sunday for rest, but can use other days as well, like Saturday or Friday. As far as his visuals go, they mirror WIRLJ. It takes place in a metropolitan area, uses onscreen text of what he’s saying, and he makes many hand gestures for emphasis. However, I don’t see anything necessarily original in his visuals or anything that causes me to pause or ponder. Visually, I believe he achieved his goal which was to monkey the original video. Actually, there is one difference visually that I feel is important. This man, Jordan Gardner, performs his spoken word and gives his argument while holding a Bible. I feel this is a rather important difference because whether he used the Bible in his argument or not, it gives the impression that he did. Him holding it as a prop implies that his argument is based in the Word and therefore perhaps would make it seem more plausible to someone who puts worth in the Bible or believes it to be true.
Finally, I’ve been looking through comments made by one individual in particular. His username is bushman0145, and though I’m not 100% sure he associates with Christianity (though I’m relatively sure he does) he at the very least defends Christianity. His responses are interesting. At times, he responds with a more academically charged argument, while at other times it’s more emotionally driven. His comments are found in the stream on the original video, and it is a stream that has been quite active for over a year. From what I’ve gathered, he is one of the regulars and one of the few who defends Christianity. The majority of the comments are extremely antagonistic toward religion, some pinpoint Christianity specifically and others simple hate all religious institutions. Bushman0145 responds to many arguments and has a constant debate going with users such as Lord Dennis and Haythem Kenway. One thing I’d like to point out is that the debates occurring in the comment section have almost completely veered away from the video itself and are now focused around more basic, but certainly not less debated, topics such as the existence of God, the origins of the universe, the origins of man, etc. Something I find so...well, interesting at times and frustrating at other times, is all of this construction happening online. The internet has so altered the way people approach religion and the way they live it out. As I’ve said before, it’s safe behind the computer screen; there’s a definite sense of anonymity and deindividuation. These users, including bushman0145, are constructing their beliefs using a keyboard and a computer screen. They debate, accuse, question, and relay all kinds of information about what they believe. Some pull from doctrine, some from academics, and some from their own emotions, but all are creating this sense of faith that the others are able to see and either accept or not. Bushman0145 has given me the impression that he constructs his beliefs on both emotions and academics. He makes some good seemingly logical arguments, but some of his arguments are more emotionally charged and perhaps less logical. Many times he will utilize reciprocity in his responses and will respond academically to an academic argument, but will allow his emotion to come through on a critique that is emotionally driven.
All of these responses bring a different construction of faith to attention. Partially because of the different mediums used. However there’s also the difference in reasoning behind their respective constructions; there’s a doctrinal/biblical argument, a logical/academic debate, and a defensive stance for the Catholic church. All claiming Christianity as their tradition, all responding the the same video, and yet if I were to see their responses separately I may not guess that they had the common origin of WIRLJ. (Well, except for the stylistic similarities of the two videos.)
