Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
LA 101H
The truth about the existence and nature of God has eluded man for centuries. Great
minds have spent their lives arguing in this enduring debate which has never yielded a
resolution. Where words have failed; men have turned to violence, so that in a cruel irony, many
atrocities have been committed in the name of a deity that condemns those very actions. It is
not surprising then, that as the world witnessed more of these atrocities, people begun to
wonder if the world would be a better place if God and religion did not exist. It is this question
that the episode ‘Go God Go’1 of the eleventh season of Comedy Central’s hit television show
‘Southpark’, seeks to address. In this essay, I will illustrate how the Southpark writers effectively
utilize rhetorical and literary devices in this episode to challenge the claim: ‘The world would be
While an animated comedy show may, at first, seem an odd platform for such a
ethos over many years. Its writers have done so mainly in three ways. Firstly, they have
specifically written many of the episodes to offer commentary or engage discussions on current
issues as well as to blatantly challenge or ridicule societal commonplaces. Infact, to aide this
end, the show’s creators now completely write and produce their episodes during the same
week when they are aired, allowing them to stay relevant to current issues2. Secondly, whatever
the topic of their episode, the creators do a lot of research and often present the facts
accurately. This lends authority to their evaluation as well as weight to their ridicule. Finally, the
main characters often offer the different opinions surrounding an issue. This allows the show to
1
www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s10e12-go-god-go, 03/01/2011
2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park, 03/01/2011
maintain some degree of objectivity even as the main plot is geared mainly to deliver the
The Southpark studio released “Go God Go” in November 2006, recognizing this time as
the Kairotic moment for the discussion of religion as the major cause of world conflict. It is not
difficult to identify the major elements that have fed into this Kairotic moment. Firstly, in our
world today, religious conflict greatly affects our lives as world citizens. Religious extremism has
led to such events as the September eleventh attacks, the bombing of abortion clinics and still
contributes to the ongoing conflict between Israel and some Arab nations. As a result, the
perception that the world may be better off without religion has gained popularity, and so any
discussion surrounding the issue will find a ready audience. Furthermore, we live in a time of
unprecedented freedom of expression where the blatant criticism of religion, in this episode, is
not only tolerated but finds a large audience in an increasingly secular community.
Logos is a major part of the sender’s arguments in this episode. Using literary devices
such as symbolism, the sender appeals to the logic of the audience in order to persuade them
to the his way of thinking. The sender’s challenge to the claim under discussion is made up of
two main parts. The first part of the argument disputes the idea that the prevailing religious
conflict originates from differences in the beliefs of the major religions. It uses symbolism to
instead put forward the argument that these differences are actually very little compared to the
conflict they supposedly cause and so this conflict must born from a deeper-seeded source.
To present the first part of the argument, the episode depicts a vision of the world 500
years in the future where the population is separated into three waring atheist groups; the
United Atheist League, the United Atheist Alliance and the Allied Atheist Alliance. These three
groups clearly symbolize the three major religions of our time; Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
The great similarity between the names is meant to underline the great similarity between the
majority of the beliefs held by the three religions. In following this idea, one character points out
that the one dispute that they do have is that ,”Their answer to the big question is different from
ours, so we must kill them.” Summarizing the source of the conflict to this one small fact, implies
the sender’s belief that the major religions’ conflict arises from their tendency to focus on the
few things that they disagree on, instead of the many things that they have in common. The
statement is also written to sound ridiculous which connotes that the reasons for the conflict
between the major religions are similarly ridiculous, especially in comparison to the suffering
they cause. The character then reveals that the ‘big question’ is; “What atheists should call
themselves”. By juxtaposing the idea of ‘big question’ with such a seemingly insignificant issue,
the sender further emphasizes his view that the reasons we give for all the dispute in our time
are flimsy and thus implies that there must be a deeper, more concrete reason for all the
conflict.
The second part of this argument directly challenges the claim that the world would be a
better place without God. Despite the total lack of religion in this imagined future, the world still
separates into factions and is in conflict. The sender thus implies the view that our so-called
religious conflict is not a direct result of our differing religious views but rather stems from our
inability to tolerate these differences. Finally as the episode closes, a moment in history is
changed, that in turn changes the future to one where religion still exists. However in this
alternate future, war still continues but the original opponents are now united against a new
opponent; the “French-Chinese”. With this final argument the sender concludes that humans are
innately attracted to conflict and so even if it were not along the established lines of religion,
The sender no doubt makes a convincing argument. By identifying the Kairotic moment,
taking advantage of established ethos and effectively utilizing logos, he succeeds in presenting
a persuasive argument against the claim that the world would be a better place without God.
However, the sender’s conclusions carry with them great implications. To fully embrace them
would be to accept that by virtue of being human we are forever damned to live in conflict.
Regardless of the possible naivety, I am not so ready to damn the human race to such a bleak
future. After all, It should not be ignored that the level of tolerance and co-operation we now
enjoy in many parts of the world was unthinkable just a few decades ago during the world wars.
And given the amazing accomplishments of human beings in the field of science, the arts and in
our unending commitment to explore the universe, I see no reason why world peace should be
unattainable. It may just take a little more time than you or I have on this planet to see it happen.