There's a musical of Catherine the Great. This got me thinking - Isn't it a shame that they seem to have ceased giving royalty these monikers… What's so great about Catherine?
So myspacers, I'm asking you. What would Elizabeth II be?
I have this friend. He is now training to be a Presbyterian Minister. He's a good friend of mine. Here's what happened when a late night msn chat turned a rather theological/philosophical....
And of course his name isn't Minister, I changed it to protect his anonymity. To read a colour coded (easier to read) version click here
Minister says: Lonely is a state which one must learn to accept Sophie says: Is that the lesson you're going to teach me? Sophie says: What a downer sermon Sophie says: jeez Minister says: believe me, when you tell people you are studying to become a minister Minister says: you have to deal with lonley Sophie says: really? people can be so closed-minded Minister says: Yup Minister says: but it's ok Sophie says: talking about it is nice though Minister says: You should have heard my sermon on Sunday Sophie says: what was it about? Minister says: it was about making tough choices Minister says: title was Minister says: Be Alert Minister says: (as in Allen) Sophie says: *is alert* Sophie says: Woody Allen? Minister says: yaar Sophie says: i heart woody Minister says: ANYWAY Minister says: I'll bet you do, girl Sophie says: so how do you make a tough choice? Minister says: Through prayer and contemplation Sophie says: how does the decision come about? Sophie says: and who do i pray to? Sophie says: if i pray, right, and i'm just doing it because you told me to, will god still hear me? or will he ignore me because i don't believe in him? Sophie says: hello? are you ignoring me because i don't believe in you? Minister says: whom, please Minister says: (English students!) Minister says: To God Sophie says: (who is accepted in spoken english as a colloquialism) Minister says: Not in my world Sophie says: okay, so anyway, answer my question Minister says: And neither is the split infinitive Minister says: I shall go boldly Sophie says: is that something up with which you shall not put? Minister says: Yaar Sophie says: stop evading the question! Minister says: Which one? Minister says: To whom should you pray? Sophie says: if i pray, right, and i'm just doing it because you told me to, will god still hear me? or will he ignore me because i don't believe in him Minister says: Well, that question is loaded, and well you know it Minister says: IF you choose to pray Minister says: you should pray because YOU fell you need/want/wish/are compelled to do so Minister says: NOT because I tell you to Minister says: or anybody else Sophie says: of course, that is logical. but what if i'm doing it as a pascal's wager kind of thing. i don't believe in it, but hey, give it a go in case it's true Minister says: Good question: perhaps I am not the right person to ask, because Minister says: like Paul Minister says: (as in writer of Romans/Corinthians etc) Sophie says: i know! Minister says: I am PERSUADED that there is no alternative Minister says: You see: the trouble is, we tend to pray (eg HELP) when things go belly-up Minister says: always assuming that we know what the right thing is Minister says: BUT Minister says: and this is the difficult bit Minister says: actually, often the 'right' thing is not the thing we want, but rather the thing which happens Sophie says: right according to? Minister says: only we only know this is the case when we reflect Minister says: right according to how life turns out Minister says: (with BIG squeezy, huggy emphasis on life!) Sophie says: not according to what god wants? Minister says: And cheese Minister says: Oh dear: Minister says: Mis understanding of the idea of God, perhaps Sophie says: well isn't everyone's understanding of god different? Minister says: Yes and no Minister says: Now don't interrupt! Sophie says: he gave us commandments didn't he? surely he has a view of what is right and wrong? Sophie says: sorry Minister says: ok Sophie says: carry on Minister says: Lost thread now Minister says: ermmmmmmmmmmmm Minister says: oh yes Minister says: and three pints of wine Minister says: oooops Minister says: sorry Minister says: wrong notes Sophie says: pint glass eh? Sophie says: classy Minister says: Isaiah 45:7... Sophie says: (i'd prefer your words) Minister says: ....I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. Sophie says: what a guy! Minister says: Everything that is exists within God Minister says: Nothing can eclipse or diminish or control or overpower God Minister says: If my knee hurts, I can ask for strength to deal with it, but the HURT exists as much within God as I do Minister says: I may not understand WHY it hurts Minister says: (I don't) Minister says: but I must learn to exist WITH it Sophie says: yes, so what is this to do with god having an idea of what is moral/right and whether it happens. because if nothing controls or overpowers him (eg fate) then surely it's all up to him? Minister says: You clearly need some RS lessons! Minister says: Moral/right etc etc: human constructs Minister says: GOD is right Minister says: punkt Minister says: BUT Minister says: I cannot begin to comprehend God Minister says: Over centuries people have recorded their experiences to try and gain some kind of access to God, but it is at best through a glass darkly Minister says: (that's Paul) Minister says: !!!!!!! Minister says: BUT Sophie says: okay, so if there's this huge distance why does he exist to you? Sophie says: (sorry) Minister says: Because God does exist to me. Minister says: At the darkest times Minister says: (and there have been many) Minister says: God has been there Minister says: even though I have denied it Minister says: (AND i HAVE......VEHEMENTLY) Minister says: I feel it, then know it....if that makes sense Sophie says: That does make sense Sophie says: totally Sophie says: that's how I used to feel, then I realised that it was the atmosphere of the church, the music, it made me feel stuff Minister says: And why couldn't that be God? Sophie says: why should it be? Minister says: BIG question: why try to limit God to what suits us at the moment? Sophie says: is that what you think i'm doing? Minister says: It's what we all do most of the time Sophie says: is it? Sophie says: but that's assuming god is an entity in everyone's lives. which isn't true
You have just sent a nudge.
Sophie says: stop looking in the bible for quotes! Minister says: and as poor old Job found out, it's not for us to demand answers Sophie says: my nickname as a child was jobby Sophie says: ... Sophie says: we should question though, surely!? Minister says: It is sufficient for us to accept that God IS, and that everything is held within that Minister says: Question, yes Minister says: But it is the slant of the question.......... Minister says: If someone said "Sleep with me or I won't belive that you love me" Minister says: That is conditional love, yes??
Minister just sent you a nudge.
Sophie says: yeh, that's just .... emotional blackmail Minister says: exactly Minister says: Now (and this is not a cheap get out) Minister says: read the New Testament! Minister says: And the Old! Minister says: God is love, created the universe in love, and, although the OT is full of blood and guts stuff, it is Minister says: or I believe... Minister says: must be read in the light of the NT Minister says: ie: God loved the world into existence Minister says: and continues to love it Minister says: BUT Minister says: free will allow me to make a choice Sophie says: what of the noah story then? Minister says: when someone uses that particular argument Minister says: (OT darlin, and READ it, in light of NT) Minister says: re love Sophie says: i've read quite a lot of it Minister says: towards me, it took a while until I got what was going on Sophie says: i did go to church youth group y'know Minister says: But where is YOUR relationship with God? Sophie says: I don't have one Minister says: Why not? Sophie says: Same reason you do. It's my belief Minister says: THAT is NOT an answer! Sophie says: Okay Sophie says: ready? Minister says: Because life has shat on you? Sophie says: No! Life is okay, highs and lows, but okay Minister says: go for it Minister says: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Sophie says: because it's based on myths and there are so many different religions believing similar and opposite things, and i believe people have religion as comfort AND Sophie says: i believe in the dinosaurs and evolution Sophie says: let me find a quote that sums me up (from a theist) Minister says: So do I
Minister just sent you a nudge.
Sophie says: "When I see the blind and wretched state of man, when i survey the whole universe in its dumbness and man left to himself with no light, as though lost in this corner of the universe, without knowing who put him there, what he has come to do, what will become of him when he dies, incapable of knowing anything, I am moved to terror, like a man transported in his sleep to some terrifying desert island, who wakes up quite lost with no means of escape. Then I marvel that so wretched a state does not drive people to despair." Sophie says: Religion and God is a way to put these fears aside, If you believe in that you are slightly more free from existential dread Sophie says: As a person who doesn't believe in that, i'm astounded by the world, i feel lost, alone, and scared. Sophie says: But what can I do, pretend to believe? I just don't. Minister says: I'll share something: Minister says: Religion is a creation of man Minister says: God is WAY outside that Minister says: I am just as scared, unhappy, confused and lonely as the next person........ Minister says: but I am not nailed up on a couple of pieces of wood for telling people to live lives for the benefit of all Minister says: for teaching about love Minister says: and self-sacrifice Minister says: and respect Sophie says: yes yes, so let me ask you this, is the bible stories, metaphors, fact, or a mixture. To you... Minister says: The Bible containes truths about life/existence etc Minister says: but these truths need to be teased out Minister says: therefore prayer and contemplation are an essential part Minister says: there is history/experience/ faith/metaphor/story in the collection of books which make up the Bible Sophie says: ok, so. creationism? Minister says: stupid Sophie says: good, ok. i'd like to ask, prayer and contemplation to tease the truths about existence from the bible.... Sophie says: how is this different from contemplating on any other writings from men, philosophers, and so on Minister says: In many ways it is not Minister says: the major difference is perhaps linguistic Minister says: BUT Minister says: The Greek Philosophers looked for the ONE force Minister says: for ME this one force is God Minister says: But God is bigger than I shall ever comprehend Minister says: but I shall love the journey of discovery Sophie says: Part of me is jealous Minister says: Why? Sophie says: I don't know. Minister says: Just let go! Sophie says: Of what? Minister says: The need to KNOW Minister says: Just be! Sophie says: I have a curious mind (which god gave me?) Minister says: Indeed Minister says: Watch Dogma! Minister says: Then Bruce Almighty Minister says: Then read the book of Job...carefully! Minister says: And now I must go as I have to be in college at 9! Sophie says: Okay, I've done the first two, I'll look at the third tonight. Minister says: You'll need more than an evening! Sophie says: I know, I meant start Sophie says: git Minister says: Happy reading.
I don't like watching films much. And I think I've just realised why.
I just watched The Darjeeling Limited. I've wanted to watch it for a long time, but (as I said) I don't like watching films much. If you've seen the film you will know that there are tender moments in it, but it is hardly the sort of film you'd cry at.
I didn't cry, but if I was on my own I would have.
When I watch a film, I feel sad. I am moved too easily. Even if a film has a happy ending, I will feel elated, and then the realisation as the credits roll that I will soon have to leave the comfortable world (if it be that) that the film has created. If it is a sad film, I will be moved even more so. I think I have cried harder at a film than any situation in my life. I'm really thinking hard. I can't think of a moment in my life where I sobbed so thoroughly as at The Elephant Man. It's not as if nothing sad as ever happened to me, I have cried plenty. But I think that films give you a comfortable sphere, or bubble, or something like that, where you can cry and cry and cry and cry. Really indulge yourself in tears.
Because it feels good.
When the film is over, I find it hard to return immediately to being me (that's the happy, jokey, fun, whatever-you-think-of-me, Me.) I'll feel sad for a while. Often if I watch a film I'll feel upset for hours. I'll pontificate on how the film made me feel, why I was so upset, why do I get so upset? I'll examine why I found certain scenes so sad, was it because of something that happened to me, or how I'm feeling about someone at that time?
People say that cinema is escapism. It allows you to hide away from your life for a couple of hours. But it doesn't. It doesn't. It makes you feel, hurt, love and drags up all these feelings and they can't be simply extinguished by rolling credits and some nice music at the end.
Enough with the dissertation crap, let's resume normal blog life. Hello there! Sit ye down and enjoy a nice cup of nonsense.
Ssssip. Mmm it goes down well!
I really don't know what I'm going to talk about today. The main British news story is that Humphrey Littleton has died. Sad news. I have nothing funny, nor (more importantly) insightful or wise to say about that, so I shall not even mention it.
I suppose I could talk about student 'japes'. I went to this party, and funny stuff happened! HAHAHAHA!
I guess you had to be there. It seems anecdotes are not the way, not today.
So..... erm.... why write a blog when you have nothing to say? Well, isn't that essentially what I'm trying to say? Isn't it true that no one ever actually has anything to say? No.
Oh I KNOW! Boy, did anyone watch Question Time when the three main runners for London Mayor were on it? It was brilliant. There was bickering, name calling, sulking and shouting. But the best bit, by FAR the best bit was where some idiot in the crowd asked the question -
"If your leadership style were a food, what food would it be?"
(I've just googled to see if I can find the exact quotes and it seems I picked out the same bit as The Sun....)
Anyway, Boris said this ... "My style would be the difference between Tesco's brand cornflakes and the most extravagantly priced brand of cornflakes."
Paddick said this... "rare fillet steak — fit, lean and does you the world of good".
and reigning champ, Livingstone said this... "I'd be fruit and veg because it's good for you and it helps the environment with less cows."
How 'Blind Date' can you get? Are we asking these types of questions because we have no idea what these people are like, and are going on personality rather than policies? If this is the case, we simply have to go for Paddick. What rhetoric. I'd get on that.
Speaking of chat up lines, how's this one -
"If I were an enzyme, I'd be DNA helicase so I could unzip your genes."
You like that one? Of course you do. You wonderful geeks.
Now, I'm a multimedia sort of gal, unlike most of the world, I read books as well as look at screens, but right now, I'm going to keep you at your screen. But I promise you, it's giggletastic. I was sent this video with the idea that it is a genuine chat show where the presenter gets the giggles at a man with an unfortunate 'voice disability'
That's funny right? Now, I've seen it a couple of times now and I can't help but think it's a staged sketch. A good one, though! Just the fact that none of the audience laugh too gives it away for me. That laughter is so infectious I can't believe everyone would be able to keep a straight face. Unless of course they were actually deeply offended.
What do you reckon?
I'm not going to do the conundrum any more because no one really cares, right?
Don’t Blaspheme for God’s Sake! Part 5 - Conclusion.
Last bit I promise! Bibliography available on request.
Conclusion
In times of national and international strife, as Amis observes we are in today, it is human nature to laugh at each other and, importantly, to laugh at ourselves and be laughed at. Perhaps the reason for such a rich history of satirical comedy in Britain is that it reflects our nature; laughing in the face of terror, using laughter as a coping mechanism.
It is in the very nature of comedy, satire in particular, to challenge and mock the most serious issues of the time. While religion is the 'question of the day' and is treated with kid gloves, it will naturally be criticised, and comedians with their role as the fool with the power to illuminate hidden truths, are not only in the perfect position to practise this criticism, but also hold it as a key role within society. As with the medieval fool, comedians will continue to attract an audience because it is in comedy that people will hear what they may not be able to hear elsewhere, whether it be a dirty joke, jokes about taboo subjects or political rants worthy of Speakers' Corner. Comedians air grievances that may otherwise remain unspoken.
From tracing the roots of challenging religion back to the Enlightenment, I have seen that there is a mirroring role between today's writers and comedians and the 'intellectual enlightenment' of the eighteenth century.By using their position on stage, television or the page, comedians can spread their message of enlightenment and try to encourage others to question the religious institution. They are attempting to use their art as a form of communication to incite social change, or even revolution.
The case of Jerry Springer: The Opera, for a play with such humble roots played a significant role in revealing the archaic nature of the blasphemy and blasphemous libel offences. This demonstrates the power of free speech, protest, and comedy. It is ironic that, although Christian Voice's protest was in some respects successful in halting the show's tour, Green's campaign to prosecute the BBC and the producer of the show for blasphemy, ended up playing a significant role in the abolition of that very law. I would argue that were it not for Jerry Springer: The Opera, the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel would not have been repealed so swiftly. It could even have been around for another thirty years before it was brought up in debate again, as it regularly has been since 1949.
But between 1949 and the present day there have been drastic social changes, especially with regard to civil liberties, attitude to religion and patriotism. The multicultural nature of Britain means that the religion of the state, the Church of England, does not automatically receive the respect and reverence it previously had. Different religious groups in Britain and across the world appear to be jostling to raise their profile in the league of religions. A key way to do this is to seek offence and protest so they can prove they love their God more than any other religion might love theirs. It appears that being offended has becoming a more active role than that of offending.
It must be observed, however that offending is not always inadvertent. This was shown with the example of Brendon Burn's show So I Suppose This is Offensive Now! at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival 2007, but it is also a worldwide concern. The Guardian's Charlie Brooker, himself not one to shy away from offending, brings attention to the plight of one of the twelve cartoonists involved in the 'Motoon' scandal. Brooker remarked that he felt sorry for him because despite the fact that "instead of depicting Muhammad [he] drew a schoolboy writing 'The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs' in Arabic on a blackboard." (Brooker 2006), he still got caught up in the international row. Brooker dubs the row, the 'war on satire'.
In terms of freedom of speech, as laid out in the European Convention of Human Rights, it is important that comedians and artists of all modes are not restricted in their output. This may have been marginally alleviated with the abolition of the blasphemy law – though we are yet to see the consequences of this move – but there are still large obstacles to overcome.
As Marx said, to have equality in a society with many creeds the church must be separate from the state. In a multicultural or 'multireligious' democracy, an alternative to a secular society – as ridiculous an alternative this may sound – may be to hold a national vote to decide which religion should be in power, leading to a religious totalitarian state. This alternative may not be as far-fetched as it first appears. Political and religious views are becoming intrinsically linked as John Gray asserts, "Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals" (2008, p.5) and high ranking politicians are declaring their faith. Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair converted to Catholicism and will be lecturing on faith and globalisation at Yale University in the United States, while leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, declared his atheism on national radio.
"In a modern democracy, it should be possible for a leader to be religiously anything or nothing. If Clegg has started this process, then God bless him. But probably, in the pious climate of these times, God help him." (Lawson 2007)
It is interesting to note that the blasphemy law abolition was hardly covered on the news on the television, radio or in newspapers. The following day there appeared little more than a small column some way into the paper. A law change like this will have a strong effect on not only human rights and civil liberties, but also Britain's international reputation and to keep it quiet could mean one of two things. Either the media was advised to keep it quiet because, as Lord Elton suggested in the House of Lords, it could be seen as a secularising move which would upset some citizens. Or, it could simply be that it was not considered newsworthy; that blasphemy does not affect the layman. However, I think that with religion being such a political 'hot potato' at present, it is suspicious that such a significant law change should go by quietly.
Essentially, at the heart of this debate there is a human desire to live in a society where they are equal to their fellow man. The European Convention of Human Rights states how things should be by law but it is, in actuality, much further from our grasp than we might think. We are a long way from Jerry Springer: The Opera's Stewart Lee's idea of a multicultural idyll,
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I look forward to living in a genuinely multicultural society and genuinely global world where non-sectarian education means we all know enough about each other's cultures to be able to use them in the service of art, music, theatre and, yes, comedy from an informed position of strength." (Lee 2006)
Don’t Blaspheme for God’s Sake! Part 4 - The Law of the Land.
Another day, another chapter.
The Law of the Land
This chapter will look at how Christian Voice's protest against Jerry Springer: The Opera led to a series of knock-on events in the Houses of Parliament, and ultimately the abolition of the blasphemy law.
The National Director of Christian Voice, Stephen Green attempted to bring a private prosecution against Mark Thompson, the head of the BBC and Jonathan Thoday, producer of Jerry Springer: The Opera. The court rejected the case, so Stephen Green appealed to the High Court. Here again, the House of Lords' Appeal Committee rejected the case on the grounds that the show was protected by the Theatres Act 1968 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 which prevent a play or broadcast being prosecuted for blasphemy or blasphemous libel.
As an aside, it is interesting to note that Christian Voice are in fact defying God in their action of prosecution. Aside from the old adage 'So forgive me!' there are biblical writings that forbid Green's actions as Marx here notes,
"Do you consider it wrong to appeal to courts if you have been cheated? But the apostle writes that it is wrong. If you have been stuck on one cheek, do you turn the other also, or do you rather start on an action for assault? But the gospel forbids it" (1975, p.32)
Stephen Green was furious his prosecution was rejected and announced on his website that,
"Christians will now have to take matters into their own hands when Christ is insulted on stage and on screen. As it happens, our campaign against the theatre tour of Jerry Springer: The Opera was highly successful, by the grace of God. The producers and theatres lost a fortune and Stewart Lee himself said it was 'ruined'." (Green 2008)
This sentiment would, perhaps surprisingly, be met with agreement from freedom of speech campaigners. Ursula Owen – the Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, a UK published journal against censorship – writes, "Offensive words, whatever they are, should be met with more words, and not with censorship." (Owen 2005)
Although the case failed and Christian Voice must continue their campaigns with no law behind them, there is one thing Stephen Green did succeed in, and that is bringing the question of free speech where religion is concerned into the public sphere. The dispute highlighted the dilemma the government faces, ensuring respect for both freedom of expression and individuals' and cultural sensitivities. In 2005, I would suggest partly in response to the Jerry Springer: The Opera row, New Labour proposed a law preventing incitement to religious hatred. This was met with immediate disapproval from writers, artists and campaign groups for freedom of speech and human rights. Shami Chakrabati is the director of Liberty, a British pressure group that campaigns to protect civil liberties and promote human rights. She remarked in response to the proposed law,
"People have the right to be offended, they have the right to protest against a play or an article that has caused them offence. What they don't have, is a right to take the law into their own hands, or even suggest there should be a law to limit speech that is merely offensive" (Chakrabati 2006 cited Lee 2006)
At the House of Lords in January 2005, comedian and satirist Rowan Atkinson spoke on behalf of 'authors, journalists, academics, actors, politicians and comedians', not one of whom had been consulted in researching the bill. He professed their fear that the proposed act may impose constrictions upon, or even mean censorship of their work. He declared his idea of a tolerant society being one in which people, ideas and ideals are at risk of being offended, but that they have the right to answer with their own criticisms and arguments, to make their case, "That is my idea of a tolerant society: an open and vigorous one, not one that is closed and stifled in some contrived notion of correctness." (Atkinson 2005 p. 117)
In his speech, Rowan Atkinson also drew attention to the readiness with which race and religion were put together as if they were similar ideas. This was a major criticism of the act with many. The government claims the bill is to protect individuals rather than institutions, believers rather than beliefs, but as Atkinson observes, "If you attack beliefs, you are automatically attacking those who believe the beliefs. You wouldn't need to criticise beliefs if no one believed them." (2005, p.118)
This brings us back to the idea of religion as an identity rather than a faith. As patriotism can lead to war, religious groups can 'fight for their tribe'. Some worried that the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2007 would act as an impetus for these fundamentalist groups, "Religious extremists will lead, fired not by fear of violence or threat of crime, but by the desire to bring their apostates and critics to court to be punished and silenced." (Jayasekera 2005)
This seems to be the case with Christian Voice's protest against, and attempted prosecution of Jerry Springer: The Opera. They campaigned to see the makers of the play punished for insulting the Christian religion. On top of their protest, they sought prosecution.
With the free speech debate fresh in their minds and the safety net of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2007 now passed, secularists, atheists and people of faith alike, began to push for the blasphemy law to be repealed. The Jerry Springer: The Opera dispute showed the law to be outdated, and people argued it had fallen into disuse. At the centre of the campaign was the National Secular Society (NSS), pushing for its abolition for 140 years. Dr Evan Harris, Honorary Associate of the NSS and Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, tabled a cross-party amendment for debate in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, January 2008. He attracted the support of senior Labour back-benchers, religious and secular MPs. Justice Minister Maria Eagle said that the government had sympathy for the case of abolition but thought it necessary to have a 'short and sharp' consultation with the Anglican Church before they brought forth the amendment.
The amendment was tabled again on 5 March 2008 and the debate was an impassioned one. The Jerry Springer: The Opera argument was used several times to show the law to be moribund and unusable. Lord Elyston drew attention to another work, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, citing the following passage that describes God as,
"a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (Dawkins 2006, p.51)
Lord Elyston argued that if the blasphemy law counted for anything at all, it would find problem with a comment of this nature. He then went on to point out that if it did, thousands would be prosecuted every year.
As well as the argument for free speech and the justification that the law had fallen into disuse, the claim that God can protect himself was used by several members of parliament. The Earl of Onslow remarked that,
"If Jesus Christ exists, and if Jesus Christ in his Godlike form was capable of creating the universe, then he could quite easily hack the bit of left-wing obscurantism and b-mindedness that writes things such as Jerry Springer: The Opera. If he does not exist, nothing will happen; if he does exist, it is up to him to get hold of the chap who wrote it and make sure that he does time in the diabolical house of correction. The offence is unnecessary." (Onslow 2008)
Christian Voice use the biblical tale of David and Goliath to argue this criticism. Although God has the power to slay Goliath himself, he has David do so. They believe they are acting as David in the tale of them versus Jerry Springer: The Opera.Another to debate this point was the Bishop of Durham, putting forward what he called "the biblical and Christian argument for abolition" (Bishop of Durham 2008) His angle of argument was that Jesus was a man who refused to be defended but was content to be mocked, spat at and ultimately crucified. To have a law saying Jesus must be defended, the Bishop found in direct opposition to his Christian values.
The resounding argument, however, was that of equality. In multicultural Britain, having a law that protects Christianity and the Church of England, but no other religious groups and those of no faith, could be seen to be contrary to Article 14 in the European Convention of Human Rights, that of the prohibition of discrimination on any grounds, including religion. Marx asserts that in a multicultural and 'multireligious' society, church and state must be separated for true equality.
"Once a state includes several creeds having equal rights, it can no longer be a religious state without being a violation of the rights of the particular creeds, a church which condemns all adherents of a different creed as heretics, which makes every morsel of bread depend on one's faith, and which makes dogma the link between individuals and their existence as citizens of the state." (Marx 1975, p.33)
With these arguments piling up against the blasphemy law, the only argument those in opposition had was that abolition would be seen as a move towards secularism. Lord Elton suggested this is how the public would see it, even if it were not necessarily the case. Dr Evan Harris said in response to the Archbishops' letter, that "It should be seen as a secularising move and with pride – by both religious and secular people – because it removes a layer of religious privilege in, and religious censorship of, society which is no longer seen as appropriate" (Harris 2008 cited Thomas of Gresford 2008). The Lords voted 148 in favour of the amendment and 87 against, so the amendment was passed accordingly and the blasphemy law was repealed. In an immediate press release on the Christian Voice website, Stephen Green responded to the news, "This is a sad day for the United Kingdom. Parliament has set the honour of Almighty God at nought just to please a few hard-line secularists" (Green 2008a).
Were he to realise the intrinsic role he would play in the abolition of the blasphemy law, Green would perhaps not have sought so fervently to punish those questioning his religion. By attempting a private prosecution he brought to light the archaic nature of the blasphemy law and how it is not applicable in modern Britain.
Don’t Blaspheme for God’s Sake! Part 3 - Jerry Eleison.
Hello,
For the benefit of the two people who have been reading, here is part 3 of my dissertation.
'Jerry, Eleison'
The right for freedom of speech was compromised following the extreme reaction to the broadcast of Jerry Springer: The Opera. As a result of it offending religious sensibilities and because of the personal struggle they faced, the creators of the show have said it will never be performed in Britain again. In this chapter we are going to look at who was offended, why they were offended and whether comedy is in fact the place to tackle such issues.
Jerry Springer: The Opera is, in the first act, a musical version of The Jerry Springer Show (1991- ), an American talk show where people fight their feuds in front of a studio audience with host Jerry Springer as moral 'referee'. The guests include a man who is cheating on his wife with a transvestite ('Chick with a dick'), a woman who wants to be a pole dancer and a man who likes to defecate in a nappy and be treated like a baby. At the end of the act, Jerry Springer is shot and the second act sees him taken to hell to referee a time long argument between Jesus and the Devil. It was in this act where the controversy lay, including the fact that the same actor who played the man in the nappy now played Jesus in a similar loincloth. At the end it is revealed that Jerry has imagined the whole scenario while he was unconscious.
Jerry Springer: The Opera started out at Battersea Arts Centre and the Edinburgh Festival as early as 2002 before a successful run at the National Theatre on London's South Bank in 2003. It received high critical acclaim and was honoured with 4 Laurence Olivier Awards along with a collection of Critics' Choice awards.However, controversy ensued when a recording of the show was due to Broadcast on BBC 2, on the 8January 2005. In advance of the broadcast, Ofcom received 7941 complaints and the BBC received around 55,000 complaints prior to broadcast and approximately 8,000 complaints following transmission. Ofcom is responsible for regulating the content of Radio, Television, and Telecommunications in the UK. It is the responsibility of the broadcaster to comply with their code. In their broadcast bulletin they responded to the Jerry Springer: The Opera complaints, recognising that a large number of people were offended. With regards to respect for religious communities, they commented that
"Importantly, in Ofcom's view, the Opera did not gratuitously humiliate individuals or any groups and in particular the Christian community. Its target was television and fame." (Ofcom 2005, p.16)
They concluded that the BBC was not in breach of the broadcasting code. The fundamental Christian group Christian Voice were behind many of the complaints Ofcom received.Their National Director, Stephen Green, led demonstrations outside the British Broadcasting House, and threatened to release BBC employees' addresses.They fervently rallied against the opera, protesting outside productions. They persuaded Sainsbury's and Woolworths to withdraw the DVD from their shelves and even convinced Maggie's Centres, a cancer charity, to reject a £10,000 donation from a benefit performance.Sarfraz Manzoor, writing for Index onCensorship, a pro-free speech journal, suggests that these protests were the success of an elaborate marketing campaign "Religious groups like Christian Voice have learned how to marshal the power of the Internet to further their cause." (Manzoor 2005)
On the Christian Voice website, Stephen Green describes what parts in Jerry Springer: The Opera he regards as blasphemous,
"There is a shouting (singing) match between Jesus and Satan, Jesus says He is 'a little bit gay' and Mary rants at Jesus for abandoning her by dying on the cross. The Saviour of the world is told in his duet with Satan to 'F*** off', while He sings 'Talk to the stigmata'. So even His wounds are ridiculed."(Green 2006)
'Talk to the stigmata' refers to a commonly used phrase on The Jerry Springer Show. When a guest does not want to hear what is being said, they turn their face away, putting their hand up as a shield and say 'talk to the hand (because the face ain't listening)'.
When I interviewed Stewart Lee, director and co-writer of the show, he defended his and Richard Thomas' intentions for the moment when the character portraying Jesus in Jerry Springer's hallucination says he is 'a bit gay';
"We thought first of all it doesn't matter because it's in the imagination of Jerry Springer and secondly they'd been behaving like children all the way through so it was kind of what would happen in a schoolchild chorus of devils. But then also we thought when Jesus says 'Actually I am a bit gay' that obviously it's slightly provocative but on the other hand he's supposed to be this everyman figure embodying all points of view and we thought he should be a bit gay actually, it's not an unreasonable thing to expect from a God that's supposed to represent everyone." (Lee, Appendix A)
Whether or not the show was intended to offend, the free speech argument is that Stewart Lee and Richard Thomas had and continue to have the right to argue their point and criticise the Christian tradition, just as Christian Voice and others offended by Jerry Springer: The Opera have the right to counter-argue and counter-criticise. Christian Voice's Stephen Green poses that he is in fact in favour of freedom of speech, "Be sure we Christians support free speech... We should all be free to criticise one another's religion in decent, respectful, moderate tones." (Green 2006)
However his actions do not seem to demonstrate this respect for freedom of speech. Stephen Green felt so strongly against Jerry Springer: The Opera, that he started a private prosecution for blasphemy against Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, and Jonathan Thoday, the producer. This ultimately failed, but we shall look at this further in the following chapter. Were he really for freedom of speech would he try to silence them in a court of law? As Chomsky puts it,
"If you are in favour of freedom of speech, that means you are in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise – otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech." (Chomsky 1992 cited Achbar 1992)
Christian Voice is a fundamentalist group and their attitude is not representative of the Christian community as a whole. In Stewart Lee's documentary Don't Get Me Started (2006), Reverend Simon Stevens insists "You don't need to protect God. God is either God, or he's not" (Stevens 2006 cited Lee 2006). Lee himself remarks in his stand-up that he finds the idea of insulting a super-being 'laughable'.
The key thing to bear in mind is that the broadcast came at a time when religious fundamentalism was on the rise. It seems the reaction to Jerry Springer: The Opera was encouraged by other protests, Christian Voice were following a trend.Only one week prior, a production of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti's play Behzti, which includes a scene where a woman is raped in a Gurdwara, the Sikh place of worship,was halted when four hundred Sikh protestors stormed the Birmingham Repertory Theatre. In his documentary, Stewart Lee interviews Reverend Stevens, who suggests that religious groups are reacting as if competing to see who can be the most upset,
"I feel that a lot of the Christian response to things like Jerry Springer the Opera is coloured by Muslim offence and Hindu offence, so in a sense we want to prove that we love God as much as they do, so let's be just as offended as they are" (Stevens 2006 cited Lee 2006)
On Christian Voice's website the leader of the movement seems to confirm this suspicion, that indeed they were trying to prove they are just as loyal to their Christian God,
"God sent a challenge to Christians to look at the willingness of Sikhs to stand up for their religion. We all know about David and Goliath, but in contrast to the Sikhs, God was telling us to start polishing and aiming up a few round spiritual stones!" (Green 2006)
The extreme reaction taken against Jerry Springer: The Opera and Behzti demonstrates the dilemma the government, and society as a whole, faces. Is it ever possible to balance freedom of expression and religious sensibilities? Stewart Lee spoke about the right to offend and the right to not be offended, "You shouldn't go round seeking to be offended, but people are now because it's become a political hot potato and white racists feel that special treatment is being given to Muslims and Sikhs and therefore they have to go out of their way to be as offended as they are!" (Lee, Appendix A)
Lee went on to argue that the right to offend is inadvertent, that artists do not seek to offend for the sake of it. However, if you were to examine the shows at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, for example, you could not escape the number of shows 'bashing' religion in recent years. It seems tackling religion to the point of offence is a popular bandwagon that some comedians would be happy to jump on, as it might mean a boost to their ticket sales if they are seen to be controversial. The winner of the if.comedy (formerly Perrier) award in 2007 was Brendon Burns with his show So I Suppose This is Offensive Now! The poster showed him breaking various taboos, being 'blacked-up' in face paint, in a wheelchair and being crucified. It seems obvious from the title and poster that he knew he was being offensive for the sake of offence, but the point stands that however lacking in cultural artistic integrity his show may or may not be, to be true to freedom of speech, one must argue his right to do this.
The key thing to notice is that comedy seems to have become the arena in which to discuss the most serious of issues. This idea has evolved through the growth in popularity of satirical comedy in the twentieth century. Groundbreaking satires include That Was the Week That Was (Sherrin, 1962), Not the Nine O'clock News (Posner, 1979), Spitting Image (Bendelack, 1984), The Mary Whitehouse Experience (Mortimer, 1990)and the more recent Bremner, Bird and Fortune (Connelly, 1999).In publication there is Private Eye launched in 1961 and Punch in 1841.Comedians who grew up watching these shows and reading these magazines are now taking to the stage and challenging the questions of today, one of which we established in the previous chapter as the question of religion. However, it is necessary to go back even further to discover the root of the role of comedy as uncovering truths, to the medieval fool or jester.
"In one sense, the right to speak freely as a fool is both a perennial liberty and a response. To say what is forbidden is the universal prerogative of the jester, the half-wit and the crazed prophet." (Coleman 1995, p.4)
The fool as a purveyor of a certain truth was used in Shakespeare's King Learand was a popular theory of Mikhail Bakhtin. In Rabelais and His World, Bakhtin celebrates the medieval carnival as a chance for people to laugh in an otherwise religious state, putting carnival laughter up against the seriousness of the church. Bakhtin says laughter has an "essential relation to freedom... The rights of the fool's cap were as inviolable as those of the pileus" (1984, p.89).
In the case of Jerry Springer: The Opera it appears that they were not inviolable once the show had been broadcast on national television. Still, on the stage and in comedy clubs around the country, stand-up comedians are acting as the medieval fool and Bakhtin's carnival clown did, spouting truths to grateful ears.
"The Fools certainly found audiences. The rarity of outspokenness within the confines of feudal ecclesiastical totalitarianism made Fools an obvious magnet for common folk enduring silent grievances" (Coleman 1997, p.5).
With this in mind, I would suggest there is a distinct mirroring between today's stand-up comedians with, not only the medieval jester, but also those of Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner. Indeed, at the end of an impassioned set in London, comedian Robin Ince commented that he would probably be better suited standing on a box in Speakers' Corner rather than in a comedy club.
Bakhtin's study invites us to seriously contemplate the role comedy plays in unmasking social and political truths. By donning the fool's cap, comedians are able to proclaim truth to their audience and generally stay under the radar.
The Brass Eye Special (Shapeero 2001) on paedophilia broadcast on Channel 4, 26 July 2001 was hailed the "Sickest TV Ever" (2001) by Mike Darvill, a journalist for The Sun. In a rare interview, Chris Morris said of the show, "It's just one way of substantiating an idea, of giving authority to any bollocks you invent... The point is not being cruel, but substantiating those ideas" (Crook 1999, p.126)
In his book Because I Tell A Joke or Two, Stephen Wagg agrees that comedy is inherent in coping with the serious issues,
"Humour and comedy work precisely by subverting moral properties, by challenging us to laugh at the seriousness with which we take our own codes, precepts, values and beliefs. Peter Cook's statement that 'one of the ways of getting out of anything which you find you are taking over-seriously at the time is to escalate it into comedy' is based solidly on this conception of comic effect" (1998, p.291)
Due to the rise of extremism, and the political 'hot potato' religion has become, comedy has become the place to challenge religious ideas, to tackle the 'question of the time' and give us the relief of laughter as Jerry Springer: The Opera did.
It turned out, however, that this one piece of theatre affected society in a greater way than could have been predicted, as we shall see in the next chapter.
Don’t Blaspheme for God’s Sake! Part 2 - The Enlightenment to the ’Motoon’
Here's part two of my dissertation. It's a sort of background chapter.
The Enlightenment to the 'Motoon'
One cannot open a newspaper today without coming across an article around religious debate. Atheists, Agnostics and Humanists are many in number, Religious Fundamentalism, and the new idea of 'Fundamental Atheism' is on the increase. Even new words such as 'Islamophobia' have entered the nation's vernacular. We should take note of a remark from Karl Marx here, "When such questions begin to interest the public as questions for newspapers, they have become questions of the time." (1975, p.32) So Religion has become the 'question of the time'. We shall take a look now at the journey religion has taken through socio-political history.
The French Revolution brought with it what was known as the Age of Enlightenment, an 'intellectual enlightenment'. In France, Britain and across Europe, writers and artists were questioning faith and, in particular, the institution of the Church. The Church was seen as the enemy of the state by some. Atheist Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, wrote -
"If we are asked, "Do we now live in an enlightened age?" the answer is, "No," but we do live in an age of enlightenment. As things now stand, much is lacking which prevents men from being, or easily becoming, capable of correctly using their own reason in religious matters with assurance and free from outside direction. But on the other hand, we have clear indications that the field has now been opened wherein men may freely deal with these things and that the obstacles to general enlightenment or the release from self-imposed tutelage are gradually being reduced. In this respect, this is the age of enlightenment." (Kant 1784)
It seems logical that this coincided with a time of extreme advances in industrialisation and modernisation. They affected society's view on religion because these things were not 'God given' but man-made,
"The great transition into modernity comes through the loss of that sense of intellectual and physical powerlessness which in the past accompanied man's dependence on God or the gods." (Edwards 1969, p.25)
The Enlightenment, although considered in the eighteenth century, has its roots much earlier. It could be possible to choose any point in history, as it could be argued it has ancient roots in Aristotelian logic, but for the purpose of this discussion we need only go back as far as the seventeenth century. In what was known as the Age of Reason, René Descartes attempted to use logic to prove the existence of God, but applying reason to religion only highlighted there was no 'reason' and raised doubt, "nobody really doubted the existence of God until theologians tried to prove it." (McGrath 2004, p.31) By the very nature of faith, it did not stand up to reason; whether to be proved or disproved.
This intellectual enlightenment was – as is implied – for intellectuals: it did not affect the mass population. "By the beginning of the eighteenth century, most British intellectuals had lost patience with institutionalised religion." (McGrath 2004, p.13) It must be stressed that this was intellectuals; the elite, the educated, artists and writers who held this opinion and tried to share it in their art or work. The middle and lower classes would still herd to Church. It could be argued there is a similar group or an 'enlightenment movement' in Britain today. The Atheistic and Agnostic principle has been popularised by Professor Richard Dawkins particularly, but also, organisations like the National Secular Society (NSS), and other writers, artists and comedians. Still, as in the eighteenth century, they may not represent the majority. However, it seems clear that it is a more popular point of view now, if you compare the following. In 1811, Percy B. Shelley was expelled from University College, Oxford, for having published a brief essay entitled The Necessity of Atheism, whereas Richard Dawkins' A God Delusion became a top seller. As John Gray observes, "The anti-God squad has dominated the sales charts, and it is worth asking why."(2008, p.4) I would argue that the answer is simple; their success echoes an opinion growing in popularity.
On 11 July 1977, Gay News and its editor were found guilty of blasphemous libel, the first case since 1921 when a Mr Gott was sentenced for publishing a pamphlet that suggested Christ looked like a clown when he rode into Jerusalem. Mary Whitehouse, campaigner for The Festival of Light, a right wing Christian group, took out a private prosecution of blasphemous libel against them because Gay News published a poem that showed a centurion having homosexual desires for Christ at the crucifixion.Only two years later, Monty Python's Life of Brian (Jones 1979) was released to cries of blasphemy, despite their best efforts to "ensure that no one could possibly conclude that it was the life of Christ" (Perry 1994, p.160) There were problems in production however, and it seemed at one point that the film would never be released. After Mary Whitehouse's prosecution of Gay News, producers and sponsors were concerned about there being a similar blasphemy prosecution and pulled out. George Harrison, ex-Beatle and Monty Python fan, remortgaged his house and personally financed the production. The film was made and passed by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) without any cuts. Despite their best efforts, the film offended many with possibly the most offensive scene being the crucifixion, where Brian is sung the song 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'. The Catholic Church proclaimed it a sin to watch the film and groups such as the Festival of Light lobbied against it. As a result the film was banned by some local councils and in some places this ban remains today. This status of a 'taboo' film only made it more popular. George Perry, writing in The Life of Python states, "Not until the appearance of Martin Scorsese's serious The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988 was so much hot air in the name of religion spouted on both sides of the Atlantic" (1994, p.163)
The event that arguably had the greatest impact on worldwide religious attitude was '9/11'. On 11 September 2001, terrorists said to be part of the Al-Qaeda network crashed two aeroplanes into the World Trade Centre, causing both towers to fall to the floor. Three-thousand people died as an immediate result of the attacks and the crisis became global and all-encompassing. In his book Two Hours That Shook the World, Fred Halliday argues it is
"global in the sense it binds many different countries into conflict, more obviously the USA and parts of the Muslim world. It is all-encompassing in that, more than any other international crisis yet seen, it affects a multiplicity of life's levels, political, economic, cultural and psychological." (2002, p.31)
Britain was also greatly affected due to its being allied with America. Tony Blair's support of George Bush and his policies lead to the country being swept along in what became known as 'The War on Terror'.
In a House of Commons Debate on 15 October 2001, David Blunkett raised the issue of racial and religious hatred that could follow 9/11.
"The events of September 11 have led to a new determination to co-operate at European and International level... Regrettably, there are those who are prepared to exploit the tensions created by the global threat. Racists, bigots, and hotheads, as well as those associating with terrorists, are prepared to use the opportunity to stir up hate" (Blunkett 2001)
This threat to religion led to a rise in fundamentalism as well as the creation of new laws and acts, for example the Terrorism Act 2006.The more at risk religious communities felt, the further they would go to protect their faith, sometimes with aggressive means. A Muslim man holding a sign reading 'Behead those who insult Islam' has become somewhat of an iconic image and sums up the current social climate.In Religion and Change, David L Edwards suggests that a strong impulse is the idea of religion as identity rather than faith,
"Religion has meant to them the solidarity of their clan or class or nation, in contrast with others; and religion has enabled them to express the loyalty and the hatred in their hearts." (1969, p.19)
With this argument in mind, it could be said that the willingness to die and kill for an idea – as shown with suicide bombers – comes from the willingness to die for your country or tribe, 'Dulce et decorum est; Pro patria mori'. This could explain the clash between different religious cultures within Britain today; they are not held together by patriotism, but divided by religion.
On Analysis, a BBC Radio 4 discussion programme, secularist and atheistA C Grayling spoke of the post 9/11 friction;
"When there is a genuine friction, when two cultures like the culture of the West – reductive and secularist and money orientated – meets a point in the development of another culture, which feels that that goes too far, then you get this result and a lot of screeching and creaking and groaning and bashing, noises emanate from the conflict between the two. That's what we're hearing, that's what people think is religious revival, but it's the sound of change" (2008)
Intellectual atheists like A C Grayling would encourage a move towards secularism where church and state are exclusive from one another. It was Nietzsche who famously announced 'God is dead'. I would argue that today, God is dead, or apathetic at least, but religion is very much alive. As long as there is strife in the world, humanity will hold on to their faiths, their cultural unit.As Marx said,
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world just as it is the spirit of the spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people." (1975, p.39)
So even if 'God is dead' and the 'opium of the people' is no more than a placebo, while the strife and tragedies of life continue, so will religious belief and while religion is rife, it shall be debated. Chomsky observed, "Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be" (1989, p.48). While there are sensibilities being offended and such polarised opinions as a result of the war on terror, there will be debate and artists, writers and comedians debating the subject in their respective media.
One of the most controversial moments in recent times was the publication of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. It resulted in a violent international reaction by members of Islamic communities. It raised again the question of free expression and the extent to which it can go when religious sensitivities are affected. Of the twelve caricatures published, the one which caused most offence was where the prophet's turban was replaced with a bomb; though all were considered highly offensive due to the fact they showed the image of the prophet which is forbidden in Islamic culture. Stewart Lee, writer and comedian, said of the cartoons;
"I think when you satirise something it's really good when you know the rules and you choose to use the tool against it. Whereas that, it didn't really do that, it didn't really get under its skin, it was a very superficial way of looking at it. So I kind of understand Muslim offence there because actually it wasn't really very thorough. They could have said much worse things if they hadn't trodden on the landmine of drawing Muhammad." (Appendix A)
Stewart Lee found himself a place in religious social history after being accused of blasphemy following the controversial broadcast of Jerry Springer: The Opera. This personal prosecution from Stephen Green, founder of the fundamental group Christian Voice, was the last blasphemy case before the agreed repeal of the Blasphemy law in March 2008. The case will be examined in further detail in the following chapters and how it played a part in the law abolition.
Attitudes to religion have changed; people such as Professor Grayling and American philosopher Daniel Dennett believe that religion is evolving, that it is changing, "in about 25 years almost all religions will have evolved into very different phenomena" (Dennett 2007 cited Gray 2008). We have seen how this change may have come about, but in this age of equality, theologian Alister McGrath makes a succinct point,
"One of the most obvious lessons of history is that atheism thrives when the church is seen to be privileged, out of touch with the people, and powerful." (2004, p.55)
While religion is seen to receive special treatment, or to be superior, there will be atheists, agnostics, humanists and those of other faiths fighting for equality, and particularly, the right to freedom of speech.
Don’t Blaspheme for God’s Sake! Part 1 - Introduction
I've decided to share my big ole piece of work known as 'dissertation' with you guys. I'll still be doing normal blogs as well.
All work is copyrighted to me, so don't go stealing it or I'll set God on you.
Please leave a comment or email me e9086418@bournemouth.ac.uk with any thoughts.
Thanks.
Sophie x
Introduction
"Religions continue to insist that they provide special access to ethical truths, and consequently deserve special treatment and protection." (Rushdie 2005, p.23)
On the 8th of January 2005, Jerry Springer: The Opera (2005)was broadcast on BBC 2 to religious outcry. A fundamentalist Christian group protested as they regarded the show blasphemous. To begin with both parties exercised their right to freedom of speech; the creators of the play and those protesting. However the protestors, Christian Voice took the case further by attempting to prosecute the BBC and the show's producer to punish and silence them. They believe their religion and its figureheads should be treated with respect.
Utilising the satirical form, the creators of the show Stewart Lee and Richard Thomas, challenged people to criticise the Christian tradition and even made jokes at its expense. In Britain today, questioning religion is considered taboo and is approached with caution, and it is not uncommon for the word 'blasphemy' to be bandied about in reaction to challenges of religious ideas. Until March 2008, the ancient blasphemy law protected the Church of England from questioning and now, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2007 threatens to do the same for other religious groups. This appears to be an impingement on the basic right to free speech as set out in the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 10.1 states that,
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
