Not enough Fun and far too Mental

So, Northern Ireland's christian fundamentalist minority have, once again, ridden to the rescue and ensured that this society can't be exposed to the horrors of such blasphemous material as The Reduced Shakespeare Company's the complete word of god abridged.  Phew, that was close.  I bet that people living near the other 40-odd locations in the UK where this production is going to be staged wish they had elected representatives who were as vigilant as husband and wife DUP councillor team Billy and Audrey Ball.  After all, as Billy said:

"This is supposed to be a Christian nation and we are allowing the Bible to be mocked and slated,"

And we couldn't have that.  I mean, if someone, somewhere, is treating the bible with less than 100% seriousness, then that automatically inflicts injury on every christian everywhere, right?

Or maybe it pains christians to know that someone's getting enjoyment out of biblical subject matter being treated humourously?

Or maybe, if a christian went to see the performance, it would upset them?

Or maybe the bible's just too important to be the butt of a joke or two?

Or maybe none of the above constitutes anything remotely like a reason to cancel the show.

I am not a christian.  I had chosen not to go see this production, though I suspect I would have enjoyed it.  But, thanks to the narrow-mindedness of christian fundamentalists as exemplified by both the councillors and members of the public  who endorse them, my opportunity to make that choice has been taken away.  Because those christians played the offence card.  Because they assert that someone failing to take the bible as seriously as they do, and doing so in public,  in some way infringes upon their rights.  Which makes absolutely no sense, but is the sort of non-sequitur that consistently gets a bye in this society because it's asserted by the religious.

Offence has one important thing in common with beauty; it's very much in the eye of the beholder.  Some christians may well find a comedy stage show based on the bible offensive (especially if they actually went to see it, unlike those responsible for the show getting pulled by Newtownabbey Borough Council).  Others may well not, and treat it like water off a duck's back. Atheists like myself might even find it highly amusing (or not, depending on how well written it is).  The point is, feelings of offence are an individual's personal, subjective reaction to somebody else's exercise of freedom of thought and expression.  Those reactions are as varied as the people experiencing them.  And so, arguing that something should be suppressed because it is offensive is a nonsense.  Basically it's saying  that someone who publicly expresses an idea should be held accountable for all possible human reactions to that expression, and that someone who reacts by feeling hurt gets to exercise a veto over that act of expression in the first place.  And that's just thinking about offence in terms of censorship.  Consider the case of blasphemy laws - where not only is the offender held accountable for the reactions of others, but is actually held to be criminally liable for those reactions.

There can be no place in a democratic, free society for either blasphemy law or censorship on the grounds of religious sensitivities.  Any activity which would fall foul of such prohibitions does not actually infringe upon the rights of those claiming offence.  There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.  There is the right to express your own counter-arguments peaceably and as publicly as you wish.  There's also the option of ignoring the source of the offence and rising above it all.  There's no right to expect that the state or civic society make something that disturbs you, but doesn't actually infringe upon your rights, go away so you don't have to think about it.

In this case at least, there hasn't beeen any formal (legally-enforced) censorship, but still, a supposedly democratic public body has capitulated to the demands of small-minded local politicians backed up by some equally small-minded elements within their electorate.  The same sort of people who used to have the swings in public parks locked up on a Sunday in case anyone might be tempted to go out and have fun on their lord's day.  The same sort of people who want to ban us from going into the off-licence section of a supermarket with our children in tow because, well, they disapprove of alcohol.  The same sort of people who legislate to restrict Sunday trading hours.

Christian fundamentalists need to get their head around a simple concept:  There are people out there who have a right to disagree with you, and who choose to exercise that right.  That exercise does not infringe upon your rights, and so you do not have any entitlement to block it.  This is the nature of a free society.

I'll finish off with a quote from  Christopher Hitchens, who sums it up better than I ever could: