David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« More Clerical Umbrage | Main | Secret Knowledge, Revealed »

February 28, 2007

Comments

mww

To their credit, and in stark contrast to the UK, the entire French establishment - politicians, media, judiciary - came out fighting for Charlie Hebdo's right to publish those cartoons. Even the prosecutor of the case recommended it be dismissed, and the Grande Mosque de Paris were so overwhelmed that they regretted they had brought the suit in the first place because it had become so "politicised". The judgement will be declared on March 15, and it looks like it's going to be unequivocal.

Cambridge dons, on the other hand, are divided about to what to do about the Clarefication editor. It is really quite shameful.

http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=675

David Thompson

mww,

Thanks for the link. What interests me is the way in which religious authoritarianism, most obviously with regard to Islam, has been strangely recast in terms of “poor me and my delicate sensitivities…” Or, just as deplorably, misrepresented as ‘racism’. If nothing else, Berkeley was fairly upfront about his motives and didn’t resort to passive-aggressive sentiment and claims of injured feelings.

mww

Yes, I think that's because of the way the power has shifted out of religious hands. In power, they can be frank about their motives. Out of power, they are reduced to cringing pleas for "sensitivity" (albeit often backed up with veiled threats of "consequences") or to defaming their critics with smears of racism. Let's just hope they never get back into a position of power!

David Thompson

mww,

Well, quite. It’s generally a cringing pantomime with menacing overtones.

And yet this passive-aggressive posture has, in very large part, been taken at face value. It’s extraordinary just how widely this victimhood rhetoric has been accepted without question - either as somehow self-evident or as central to what any debate ‘ought’ to be about. Thus we have earnest discussions about the exact extent to which believers are being ‘victimised’ and just how wicked their critics are, or about the particular ways in which this ‘victimisation’ occurs (and, again, how wicked critics are).

Chris Harper

“Truth is not a defence....But, of course, no-one would say that now"

Other than in the Australian state of Victoria, where the law against religious hatred says just that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll