CFI press release on South Park debacle

“Free expression is the cornerstone of a free society,” maintains Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of CFI. “No belief, no public figure, should be immune from criticism, whether that criticism takes the form of a book, an article in an academic journal, or a cartoon. What is especially disturbing about the South Park controversy is that the show did not even criticize Islam or Muhammad—it merely included Muhammad as a character along with many other famous figures. It is intolerable that the producers of South Park were threatened with violence.”

Go here for the full press release.

Okay, just quickly ...

H/T Ophelia Benson. This article by Lawrence Lessig shows just how the Catholic Church is now shooting itself in the foot when it comes to the game of sustaining its aura of moral authority. As Lessig notes, insurers take over civil suits on behalf of defendants that are relying on insurance policies to pay for any damages that might be awarded. So it's not so odd to see the Church take a hard line in actual court proceedings - it's really the insurer running the case, and the lawyers will be those retained by the insurer. Insurers like to settle on favourable terms if they can and to win in court if they can't. They're pragmatists looking after their own bottom line. Fine so far, but we then see the church itself doing everything possible to try to put itself outside the reach of the civil law, no matter how heinous the acts of its minions.

What will this accomplish? Think about it - the answer is, "Lower insurance premiums."

Blog semi-break

Over the next couple of weeks I plan to do some intensive writing. First, it'll probably take me a couple of days to get some files organised and some structure re-planned. Then, by the beginning of May at the latest, I'll be hoping to turn out 2000 words per day - I have a lot of material in rough form, waiting to be cannibalised, so I won't be doing this entirely from scratch, so therefore it's doable, even though the job will be finicky.

But I need to get into a headspace where I'm not too distracted by debates on other matters, so that will mean trying to cut down my time writing blog posts (and commenting on other people's blogs). It will also mean spending spare time relaxing with loved ones rather than too much of it arguing with people who are Wrong on the Internet (or even giving kudos to people who are Right on the Internet). I won't be able to resist the temptation to blog to some extent - I know myself that well - but at least I won't feel a responsibility to blog each day, as is normally the case. Quite the opposite: I'll feel a responsibility to avoid doing that.

So, with any luck, I'll be a bit scarcer for the immediate future. If that happens, you'll know why. OTOH, don't stop checking; I won't be gone altogether.

An extra note on boobquake for people who don't "get" it

Following from my comment at Jerry Coyne's boobquake post. We're talking about women voluntarily wearing clothes which seem to them to be fun and sexy. Note that it was a woman who had the idea and that many other women are getting into it enthusiastically. I think there's a reason for that. We're not talking about pornographic images that are meant to do dirt on female beauty for the benefit of men who fear it. 

I'm not a fan of pornography because I think that this is what much (I'm not saying all) pornography is all about. In that sense it's deeply misogynist. But we need to make the distinction between rational critique of this kind of pornography and getting upset at the sort of sexual display by women that the women themselves feel good about. Women are entitled to dress in ways that strike them as wild, and fun, and sexy, and we are all entitled to enjoy it if they do. Contrary to the rantings of an Iranian cleric, women get to be flirty or frivolous or to exult in their beauty. The difference between enjoying this and resorting to misogynist pornography is as radical as the difference between laughing with someone and laughing at someone.

Much 1980s radical feminism was too unnuanced to make these sorts of distinctions. Sure, some of its targets - the kind of pornography I mentioned - were legitimate ones. But much of the critique was so scattergun as to give the impression of rationalising anxieties about sex and the body. The people concerned would have been in good company with Saint Augustine or a brace of mullahs from Iran.

Whoa! Great volcano footage!

I'd love to see this IRL.

Outrageous attack on freedom of speech in the UK

As Ophelia says, this means war.

According to the Daily Telegraph (UK):

Harry Taylor, 59, left home made posters at Liverpool John Lennon Airport three times in November and December 2008.

The self-styled philosopher denied three counts of causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress but was convicted in less than an hour by a unanimous jury.

Among the posters, one image showed a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of ''no nails'' glue.

In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: ''Not for women or gays, obviously.''

Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise were told in another: ''Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins.''

Tasteful? No. But he did not do anything that was illegal, independent of the authoritarian legislation used to convict him. Taylor has been slapped with an Anti-Social Behaviour Order, which bans him from carrying "religiously offensive" material in a public place. As reported by the Telegraph, he was also sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, ordered to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and pay costs of 250 pounds.

Taylor may be a bit obsessive, as he's done this sort of thing before, but he should have freedom of speech. Thus, I have a slightly different emphasis from Ophelia. Granted, this debacle may well say something about the rights of atheists; but I also think it shows, more generally, yet again, and very powerfully, how a don't-rock-the-boat mentality is undermining freedom of speech. People who are eccentric or obsessive should be free to spread their messages in public, just like those of us who are more inclined to conform, speak decorously, and not rock the boat.

It's time to redouble our efforts to defend free speech against these constant attacks from people, including legislators and judges, who see it as having low value.

Boobquake

Jen McCreight has produced a meme - "Boobquake" - ridiculing the idea that "immodest" dressing by women leads to lascivious thoughts from men, which results in fornication and adultery - which, in turn, cause earthquakes. The idea was proposed a few days ago by a senior cleric in Iran, but of course it's in line with the common thought in Islam that there's something wrong with a woman "showing her beauty to the world". Christianity is not much better, of course: there's a long tradition of Christian theologians problematising women's (and men's) bodies, deprecating sexual beauty, and expressing anxiety about sex itself.

Go back to the Church Fathers, to Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome, for example, and look at what they have to say. Their writings are saturated with ideas of sexual sin and shame. Those ideas have carried right through to the present day, but they are absurd, miserable, and life-denying, and they deserve our mockery. They exemplify the way that religion does dirt on the good things that this world has to offer.

Unfortunately, there was a lot of 1980s radical feminism that took a similar attitude to that of Christianity and Islam, problematising displays of female beauty and even expressing disgust with heterosexuality itself. This looks like the use of feminist-sounding language to rationalise the religion-based anti-sex morality into which the individuals concerned were socialised. But they lacked the self-insight to understand that it's what they're doing.

Get it clear: there is nothing wrong with the beauty of the human body, male or female, nothing wrong with enjoying it, and nothing wrong with displaying it to the world. If you've been blessed with physical beauty, then for Aphrodite's sake display it; take pleasure in your good fortune, and let other people take pleasure in it. Strut your stuff, and don't let anyone make you feel ashamed about so-called "immodesty". Feel free to scorn the moralism of Islamic clerics and anyone else who tries to put you down.

I find it incredible that there's still so much irrational, religion-based shame and guilt about the body even within Western societies: so much fear of the body's beauty, and of its power to arouse sexual feelings. We see this shame, guilt, and fear even among atheists, many of whom have not fully liberated themselves from traditional morals. (For Zeus's sake, what's the point of being an atheist if you still buy into a version of the same old religious morality? You need to get beyond that.)

Let's return to a healthy pagan value-set. For the Greeks, beauty, creativity, analytical intelligence, athletic ability, and many other things would have been seen as excellences that it's good for a human being to have. Unfortunately, few of us possess them all (I most certainly don't!), but all of them are worthy of enjoyment and celebration wherever and whenever we do encounter them. All of these human excellences open up possibilities of one kind or another, and give a sort of power to those who possess them; all of them are admirable; and all of them can be used to bring pleasure to others.

Anxiety about the body and its beauty is sometimes rationalised on the basis that we should value cognitive abilities above physical beauty, though I'd love to see a rational argument as to why we should adopt any particular hierarchy of values. In any event, this is not a zero-sum game. You can have many of these human excellences; they don't exclude each other; and you can take a proper pride in them all.

Immaturity

To quote:

One highly-placed source in the Vatican said: “This could have very severe repercussions and is embarrassing for the British government - one has to question whether the action taken is enough.

“It is disgusting. Britain’s ambassador to the Holy See has been in to see the Secretary of State and explain what happened and this will all be relayed to the Pope.

“It’s even possible the trip could be cancelled as this matter is hugely offensive.”

Cardinal Renato Martino, the former head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said: “The British government has invited the Pope as its guest and he should be treated with respect.

“To make a mockery of his beliefs and the beliefs of millions of Catholics not just in Britain but across the world is very offensive indeed.”

Notice the immaturity here? No, not the civil servant who made the original joke - people are entitled to make jokes. I mean the immaturity of these Vatican officials who can't look at it with any sense of proportion. Grow up, children!

There's matter in't indeed, if he be angry.

It appear that some Vatican hierarchs are angry about a joke within the British Foreign Office, where a junior-ish civil servant brainstormed about various unlikely activities for the pope when he visits the UK. They're so angry that some of them supposedly regret the plan for the forthcoming papal visit. Too bad that these regrets will come to nothing and that the British are going to go ahead and waste millions of dollars (and, no, Herr Ratzinger won't be arrested for alleged crimes committed outside of British jurisdiction).

Of course, British government officials have issued an apology - what else could they do, tell the pope to grow up and get a sense of humour? Well, that might have been an idea!

As a matter of fact, the Foreign Office suggestions make a lot more sense than the pope's typical activities on such visits. How many times does it need to be said? The pope is not some kind of moral leader. If anything, quite the opposite. He is the head of a very large, very wealthy, overly powerful religious cult whose "moral" teachings are based on morbid attitudes to the human mind and body. However much or little Ratzinger may be personally implicated in the cover up of child sex abuse cases within the Church - and I'm not following the detail all that closely - he deserves no particular respect in any event. Certainly not the ludicrous deference that he's accustomed to. He's not anyone's holy father, and the sooner his organisation collapses like a house of cards the better. That's not to deny that there are good, compassionate people in the Church, but they could find a healthier environment outside it.

Not necessary (overall, you understand) to destroy sculpture of Muhammad

These women Muslim lawyers carefully considered the issue, you see, and decided that destruction is not necessary. Well, thank Zeus for that.