Another Meek Christian Voice Heard From
Interesting developments. And people sometimes ask me, whether plaintively or (more often) crossly, why I insist on trying to argue with metaphysical beliefs, which is a futile and even meaningless thing to do. Well, this sort of thing is one reason. Because ‘metaphysical’ beliefs seem to be the kind that prompt people to feel outraged, ‘offended,’ attacked, insulted, disrespected, challenged in the very core of their identity. I think that’s not a mere coincidence, I think it’s kind of the whole point. When people can’t point to evidence in reply to critics and skeptics of their beliefs, what can they do instead? They can of course do nothing, or they can shake their heads over the benighted ways of the heathen and then go on with their lives. But they can also get very worked up. They can find the home phone numbers of BBC executives on the ‘Christian Voice’ website and use them to make threatening and abusive phone calls. And then other believers can express a certain amount of approbation .
And although I don’t have strong feelings about blasphemy myself – Catholics are used to being scoffed at, and learn to be robust about it – I am glad that many Christians did make their feelings known about the transmission. I don’t say I like to see Roly Keating, the controller of BBC2, having to flee with his wife and family from his home, lest he be subjected to threats or unpleasantness. But it is gratifying when the BBC panjandrums have their cages rattled a little.
Hmm.
There is a penalty to be paid if you insult Islam; you may, like Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, end up with your own mocking words pinned bloodily to your chest. But there is no penalty for insulting Christianity – Christians will meekly accept it all (which, inconveniently, is just what the New Testament commands). When Sikh militants successfully got Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s play Behzti closed at the Birmingham Rep last month, it was certainly an encouragement to offended Christians whose anger against the desecration of their taboos has been simmering away over the years…There is still a big debate to be had on how a society combines freedom of speech with respect for the values of others. An artist has to push boundaries, and offend sometimes; but the artist also has to recognise that there will be consequences of his actions.
Yeah, like getting stabbed in the chest and then having Mary Kenny gloating over the fact. Now that’s what I call respect for the values of others!
I suppose the Guardian has to allow people like Mary Kenny their say, but one would hope that the editors were reaching for the sick-bag as they contemplated that drivel.
When I was a child I was often reminded that ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but names shall never hurt me’. If somebody challenges my beliefs with irrational argument, that is just name calling and should be ignored. If the argument is rational, then far from being hurt I am being healed.
This whole incident is not without some funny bits, particularly the dispute over the number of profanities in the play. The implication seems to be that a one-man show that somehow managed to squeeze in 7000 profanities would ‘lower the tone’ less than Jerry Springer the Opera did. I also couldn’t help smiling when I read DJ Taylor comment ‘…the British Humanist Association, whatever that is…’
I guess it provides a bit of light relief from the depressing message of these articles.
Mike S – I am a believer in an addage that states if you have a very deeply held belief it should be robust enought to be challenged every couple of days…
OB A couple of rough figures about all this nonsense: 45000 protested before screeening, less than 900 actually complained after the event. Wusses. It never received one complaint from any of these whack jobs when it ran succesfully as a play at a number of venues in the Capital over many months.
As for the statement “there is no penalty for insulting Christianity”, er, she’s not heard of the blue states then, many of the inhabitants of which she was just standing up for ?
Unfortunately Kenny’s right about Germaine Greer though…
OK, whoops, I meant the red states,… old UK political associations with colour going on there …
snicker
I know! This blue red stuff drives me crazy, I’m always having to stop and think hard – I know it reverses my expectations but by now I’ve forgotten what my expectations are or rather were before this ridiculous new angle came along – so I find myself thinking ‘blue is red no the other way around no wait oh hell’
Not to mention how meaningless it all is. It’s not as if there are no blues in red states or reds in blue states. A pox on all of it.
I agree about Greer – also about the word ‘bitch’. But even silly people get things right once in awhile.
The point here is that a distinction should be made between public and private broadcasting (moidered Mary Kenny failed to make it, but Michael Ancram put it across quite intelligently (see here). The BBC is a taxpayer-funded, public institution and taxpayers are perfectly justified to insist that they should not be forced to pay for programmes that offend their sensibilities (regardless of how absurd these sensibilities may appear to others). Of course, taking that to extremes would prevent the BBC from discussing virtually any controversial issue (and in a de facto multicultural society what isn’t potentially controversial?), but at least it is a valid argument based on a principle which most people, regardless of conviction, can accept. It is NOT censorship to seek to prevent an organisation from spending your money on promulgating ideas which are anathema to you. Imagine how gays would (quite understandably) go up the wall if their lifestyles were subject to the same disparagement on BBC as Christians’ beliefs have been. How would B&W react in such an eventuality?
“at least it is a valid argument based on a principle which most people, regardless of conviction, can accept.”
Not really. Remember ‘schools’? They’re taxpayer funded and they teach things that some people disagree with. Remember ‘libraries’? They’re taxpayer funded and they have books that some people disagree with. That’s the breaks.
“Imagine how gays would (quite understandably) go up the wall if their lifestyles were subject to the same disparagement on BBC as Christians’ beliefs have been”
But you’re mixing categories here. ‘Lifestyles’ or ways of life are not the same thing as beliefs. And do you mean gays’ ways of life, or do you mean ideas about equality and justice and human rights that entail treating gays like other people – treating them like people who are equal before the law – rather than as a special group of some sort who need to be segregated and/or suppressed? Gays’ ways of life already are subject to, if not disparagement, certainly joking and teasing, often by gays themselves. So I don’t think your thought experiment works.
I’m not a free speech absolutist, as I’ve said several times, and I agree even with Kenny that people label actions ‘censorship’ that aren’t. I don’t think I’ve been flinging around the word ‘censorship’ much, if at all. My disagreement is more one of specifics than one of principle.
Oh never mind – a commenter at Crooked Timber said it much better:
The letter writer to Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph put it best.
He questioned why we, the taxpayer, should pay for superstitious twaddle and demanded forthwith that songs of praise be removed from the BBC schedules.
And that’s pretty much the argument really. In my perfect world, the BBC would have no religious scheduling. I’ve yet to riot about it, however.
Cathal
“The BBC is a taxpayer-funded, public institution and taxpayers are perfectly justified to insist that they should not be forced to pay for programmes that offend their sensibilities”
– yes, and the UK public has just the same right and unlikelihood in succeeding in campaigning against no-brainer ratings-based dross being programmed seemingly 24/7 on the BBC these days, very arguably in contravention of the BBC’s Charter, such as dire daytime shows that are so awful and subversive to the integrity of our people they inspire smart-arse musicals.
And what’s wriong with the off-switch ? Tolerance ? Rubbing along together without rioting, as the writer says above ?