Latina Teachers: Creating Careers and Guarding Culture

tian rock bands, and the Christian rock audiences are largely portrayed as earnest and genuine in their beliefs, albeit easily duped by Cartman’s feigned pieties. Likewise, Feltmate argues that the South Park episode ‘‘The Ring’’ paints Christianity as dangerous due to its sexual puritanism. However, the episode’s main satirical target is the Disney Corporation and its hypocritical exploitation of boy bands like the Jonas Brothers who wear purity rings to profess their virginity, while Disney simultaneously markets them based on their sex appeal to young girls. While Feltmate acknowledges that Judaism is both a religion and also an ethnic affiliation, he nonetheless seems to construe the appearance of Jewish stereotypes as attacks on the Jewish religion. ‘‘For them (Cartman and Family Guy), the religiousness that is part of Jewish identity is a reason to heap scorn upon the Jewish identity’’ (p. 105). While Family Guy does derisively refer to Judaism, and all other religions, as worthless in one episode, references to actual religious aspects of Judaism are rare. Instead, both Family Guy and Cartman are much more likely to conceive of Jewishness as an ethnic affiliation. Moreover, while Feltmate is right about Family Guy’s unfortunate use of certain Jewish stereotypes, Cartman is routinely portrayed as stupid for his ill-informed beliefs about Jews. In a similar vein, Feltmate seems to regard Homer and Peter’s, the buffoonish fathers on The Simpsons and Family Guy, respectively, farcical invocations of biblical passages to justify their behaviors as undermining the authority of the Bible. To be sure, the shows, especially Family Guy, take a less than reverential stance toward the Bible. Nonetheless, when Homer claims that the Bible states, ‘‘Thou shall not horn in on thy husband’s racket,’’ it seems pretty clear that the show is ridiculing Homer’s desperate attempt to convince Marge not to take a job at the power plant where he works. Lastly, the author fails to differentiate between different styles of humor and the different functions they serve—in Feltmate’s reading, playful or absurdist humor is seemingly absent and the overwhelming majority of religious references are examples of biting satire. For instance, in the episode ‘‘Team Homer,’’ Homer taunts Ned, calling him ‘‘God boy’’ after Ned fails to get a strike. Ned whispers to God, ‘‘It’s me, Ned,’’ whereupon God knocks down the last pin for him and has the ball return machine electrically shock Homer. Feltmate regards this as satirizing ‘‘the idea that one can pray and can change the physical environment. ’’ Conversely, I would argue that the quick gag is predicated on a humor of incongruity—it is funny to audiences, even those who believe in the power of prayer, precisely because of the juxtaposition between the supernatural fulfillment of the prayer and our real-life knowledge that such an appeal to God is not going to be effective. Despite the book’s flaws, it could be constructively used in graduate courses on media, religion, and popular culture. Given the familiarity of many students with the three shows, it is likely to spark constructive discussions about satire, religion, and, in particular, the reception of religious satire in contemporary America.