Quote of the Week #38 - "Paranoid" is one word for it...

Russell Blackford writes of Tom Frame’s take on modern anti-theism;

“…this claim verges on paranoia.”

(Russell Blackford, 2010)

Which claim?

This claim.

“When it becomes acceptable, and even admirable, to mock and ridicule a person’s religious convictions and customs — and especially when the intention is to provoke an indignant reaction — the next step is to prohibit the expression of religious sentiment in all public places and forums. “

(Tom Frame, 2010, Losing My Religion: Unbelief in Australia, pp. 267)

In the same way that mocking and ridiculing someone’s much-loved family recipe leads to bans upon its use; how the complaint that every damn Nickleback song is just fodder for the advertising of crap you really don’t want, leads to bans on live Nickleback performances. Hell, forget Nickleback. After all the Shannon Noll jokes Wil Anderson has made, the next step is just around the corner where Noll is to be taken to the ABC gulag to perform “what about me” for his rations, after long days breaking rocks!

Obviously not. And while I exaggerate a little, the source material I ridicule (get that – ridicule) is still hysterical.

Still, as hysterical it seems, it’s a nice little formula for arguing against people’s rights while pretending to be the victim. First identify something you don’t find desirable, then claim its acceptance will lead to doom and gloom at the expense of you and yours.

A little term substitution makes things clearer.

“When it becomes acceptable, and even admirable, to mock and ridicule a man’s sexual advances toward a woman – and especially when the intention is to provoke an indignant reaction – the next stop is to prohibit the expression of sexual desire in all public places and forums.”

No, not really. The dude with the thinning, gelled-back hair, porno mustache and sweaty palms will be laughed at, but that won’t stop people hooking up in night clubs.

And no, Frame’s argument is not dissimilar to the attitude taken by men who indignantly plead “victimization” after being told off for sexual harassment. It annoys the crap out of me, listening to guys whine about how women have all the power, and how they’re the victim of political correctness, just because they can’t pressure a woman to relieve them. My revulsion toward Frame’s complaint is similar.

“This has been the approach of the French Government in recent years and there are signs that Australia is poised to do likewise under the guise of promoting social cohesion and cultural harmony.”

(Tom Frame, 2010, Losing My Religion: Unbelief in Australia, pp. 267)

Which translates into the analogous, indignant, sexual harassment apologist speak as…

“It’s political correctness gone mad!”

I use the analogy of the disaffected, sexually frustrated male pointedly; the logic of the argument is often the same, and the attitude of the bitter man, crying-in-his-beer over power he once had – power he still feels entitled to – is so very similar to the plight of parts of the old establishment Church. The parts that after The Enlightenment had their metaphorical red-hot-pokers swapped with a warm, limp sticks of celery.

This myopic fixation on how modern, Western Christian majorities with the first-world problem of not having their beliefs loved enough by others; it’s not trivial. While the Tom Frame’s of the world, living in liberal democracies or soft theocracies, complain how bad they have it at the hands of secular fundamentalists and militant atheists, prohibitions on blasphemy are used to repress, oppress and marginalize people living in less fortunate parts of the world.

With the UN trundling down a dark road towards accepting the extermination of GLBTs, a position it reached largely as a result of a lofty, pretentious impersonation of tolerance (towards religious fundamentalism), I’m not sure this self-pitying, developed-world, provincial-piety is the kind of thing we want informing discussions of human rights and human dignity. As much as I like people admitting their mistakes, I’d really would hate on this count to have to see people like Frame having to apologise like this again.

***

Beyond the borderline paranoia, the righteous indignation and the atheophobic dog-whistling, Frame’s polemic is intensely hypocritical. He asks that on the basis of what is clearly a non-sequitur, that Australia should marginalize anti-theistic expression to allegedly preserve religious expression.

(And no, there can be no reliable, enforceable distinction of “respectful criticism” when so very often, all it takes to be branded disrespectful is to fail to bow and scrape.)

Which brings me back to the quote of the week, where Russell Blackford really nails down Frame’s hypocrisy…

“Frame appears to use the word “fundamentalism” for its hurtfulness rather than its accuracy. That is, of course, his legal right in a liberal democracy. However, his analysis exemplifies the illiberal view that satire and robust criticism are illegitimate forms of speech when directed at religion.”

(Russell Blackford, 2010)

He’s enjoying the fruits of liberalism, while denying it as a right for others. Nice call Mr. Blackford.

~ Bruce

Picture Source: Giotto di Bondone – Christ before Caiaphas (from the Scrovegni Chapel). Caiaphas, with feelings hurt by the blasphemy of Jesus, rips open his robe before sentencing him to death. Possibly also the penalty for women who didn’t like the crass jewelry nestled in chest hairs he had on show at night clubs. Go on. Call me a philistine if you want.