Free I Drink for a Reason by David Cross Page A

difference is that the
Slate
authors weren’t trying to be funny. Any religion, plus political aspirations on the part of one of its adherents, could equal
     pure comedic gold, given a proper witty treatment. Sadly, Cross fell short of the task he set himself. Cross ended his piece
     with “Mormons are F***ing idiots”—not one of the more socially tolerant statements we’ve ever heard. But hey, maybe nobody
     told him it was Martin Luther King Day.
    I promptly wrote back, which I rarely do because as we all know it’s a losing situation, * but I felt obligated to clear up this issue, since it lives on forever on the Internet and I don’t like being called a bigot.
    Dear Emily,
    I just read your review, and I would like to address a number of things that I find to be either disingenuous or just plain
     wrong (sometimes mildly irresponsible, and other times so wrong it borders on libel). I won’t get into who had what kind of
     set and argue about quantifying laughs and then the quality of said laughs, but I take great issue with your calling me a
     bigot. You call me a bigot and then fail to represent truthfully what I said and ignore the context in which I said it, two
     very important tools in comedy. And keep in mind that the set was taped. I have it all on tape. Every word, every laugh, every
     pause, every quiet moment. Everything.
    And Emily, if that was “the most blatant display of bigotry [you’ve] ever witnessed in person,” then you have lived a charmed
     life, for sure. I think you are being hyperbolic and overdramatic, to say the least. While it’s true that I made fun of Mormons
     and their beliefs, you completely ignored the context in which I did it. The
ENTIRE
premise of the piece was first prefaced (and this lasted over a minute) by saying that, should I ever choose to run for any
     kind of office, that, no matter how many good ideas I might have to improve the quality of everyone’s life or implement a
     universal health care plan etc., that I could never get elected because I am an atheist. For the simple fact that I don’t
     believe in God, most people wouldn’t vote for me. I then brought up that Mitt Romney, a Mormon, had just announced his candidacy.
     I
then
explained that a lot of pundits thought that his prior stance in support of gay marriage might turn voters away. Then I said,
     “so his support of equal rights for all Americans would be the thing that made people suspicious of him, not his belief that . . .”
     and here is where I described the story of Joseph Smith along with side commentary about the angels names sounding like they
     were members of Sha Na Na, and comments about the Freemasons etc.
    I appreciate your pointing out that there is a difference between making fun of something and attacking it, and that scientists
     have discovered a fine line between the two, but when you go on to say that “the greatest cultural and religious satire takes
     the beliefs held by a group of people and spins it to show the comedy inherent in those beliefs,” you imply that I didn’t
     “spin” it or “show” it. I disagree with you, and my tape of the set and the laughs that I was receiving are evidence that
     the audience (minus some, of course) disagreed with you as well. I can’t (nor should I ever) assume that each audience I ever
     do that bit in front of is familiar with the
South Park
episode, the
Slate
article about Romney being Mormon (which I am not familiar with, but I would imagine any good journalist might find it to
     be an interesting subject), or even the basic tenets and history of Mormonism itself. And looking over your review I notice
     that I
did
in fact mention everything you cite as being so integral to the
South Park
episode.
    To represent on this website that bit the way you do is damaging, if not worse. Emily, you can’t simply reduce everything
     I said and its obvious (to most, at least) intent to merely a vitriolic, bigoted soap-box lecture