The video clip below has gotten a bit of feedback, and at least one person has said that it may be blasphemous. I'd like to address that issue.
In the first place, I don't think that either the first part, which skewers the hypocrisy of televangelical hucksters, nor the second part, about Marshall the 13th Apostle are blasphemous. If I had thought so, I never would have put them up, but I'd like to explain why they are not in fact blasphemous.
Blasphemy, as I understand it, is mocking God. Of course, there are a lot of people who believe that any reference to or representation of God or associated people or ideas that is less than completely pious is by definition blasphemous. Under that definition, not only would the Mr. Show clip be blasphemous, but so also would many episodes of the Simpsons, Monty Python, The Canterbury Tales, The Divine Comedy, and many other cultural artifacts, both sublime and ridiculous. It would also make criticism of religion or religious figures impossible, which is to the benefit of those figures, but certainly not helpful in speaking truthfully in an imperfect world. Such a broad definition of blasphemy tends to obscure more than it reveals about true piety and pious speech about God.
More narrowly construed, i.e., having to do with "mocking God," the idea of blasphemy allows us to criticize religious hypocrisy without criticizing God per se. This was something Chaucer was a master of, and his ability to hold religious scoundrels up to scorn and ridicule produced some of the finest poetry (and comedy) ever to be produced in English.
It also comes to explain the pointlessness of things like the "blasphemy challenge," which, far from mocking God, turns out to look a lot like self-mockery, since it requires its participants to recite a particular set of magic words, presumably on the theory that by doing so they are committing an unpardonable sin against a God in which they don't believe. This is a bit like chanting "bloody Mary" in the mirror three times at midnight (an analogy also made by Slacktivist), a test of "courage" that is substantially meaningless since courage necessitates belief in a real threat, of which the blasphemy challengers have none. While there may be some god-mocking taking place in the blasphemy challenge, it's more a juvenile game than anything else. (In fact, the only thing more juvenile than the challenge itself is getting worked up over the challenge, particularly since it's not like there's anything anyone can do about it).
But the clip below, far from being blasphemous, to my mind is an antidote to the blasphemous trivialization of Christian faith, as practiced by TV preachers and self-help gurus. Is there any fundamental difference between Warren the 13th Apostle and Joel Osteen? I think not. They both preach a false gospel of self-fulfillment and self-aggrandizement at the expense of authentic faith. The fact that Jesus wants the poor to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven and Marshall wants them to inherit "a whole lot more" is evidence that Marshall like Osteen, just - doesn't - get it. The fact that Jesus wants to give away loaves and fishes while Marshall wants to sell them means that Warren sees religion as a means of personal enrichment, and not service to God. And finally, the fact that God himself tells Warren to shut his trap is further evidence that we aren't meant to see the skit as mocking God, but as mocking those who mock God themselves through false piety!
And as for the first bit, about the so-called "ex-gay" ministries, I think the point is self-evident. Indeed, I found the clip less amusing than the Marshall bit because it's point was so obvious: The "ex-gay" movement is peddling snake oil. How it would be blasphemous to point that out is beyond me.