Archepiscopal weight thrown around
So the archbishops have changed their minds about not resisting the repeal of the blasphemy laws? They’ve decided to resist after all? Why? Did they look around themselves and decide that religious types don’t interfere with the government enough and they’d better get busy and start meddling?
Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu say in a letter today that the Government should not lightly change laws that, though their day-to-day importance may be small, “nevertheless carry a significant symbolic charge.”
Why yes, they do, and that’s exactly why they should be not only changed but ground into powder and then torched. The significant symbolic charge they carry is that it is Not Permissible to mock or tease or chaff or rally or quiz or fall down laughing at religion. That’s a bad thing to be symbolized, which is why the laws should be ground into powder and then torched.
It should not be capable of interpretation as a secularising move, or as a general licence to attack or insult religious beliefs and believers.
The Anglican church is supposed to be a relatively liberal body, isn’t it? Well – if that’s liberal, what would reactionary look like?
“that’s exactly why they should be not only changed but ground into powder and then torched.”
Exactly!
I am glad to see that you are in fine form as ever, Ophelia! No touchy feely ‘respect’ issues clouding your analysis. Keep getting at the bastards, woman!
Before we get too cheerful, my reading is that the abolition of the blasphemy law is purely in order to ensure a level playing field for legislation to ban ANYTHING that could be construed as ‘incitement to religious hatred’.
thats the way I see it as well Cris, I wish we had a first amendment in the U.K!
The full text (scroll down to the end of the press release) is even worse. Incoherent special pleading to keep the blasphemy law, because abolishing it now might send a signal that we are free to lampoon Christians’ beliefs, at time when the religious hatred law isn’t (yet?) being used as they hoped to punish lampooners. (They mean Muslim beliefs, of course, but are too woolly and cowardly to say so.) Then, after much gibbering, they say they won’t actually resist abolition, but hope it won’t be seen as a step towards a secular state, or disestablishment. I wish.
“ground into powder & then torched”
Why not torch them first – then ground the remaining ashes into powder.
Still, some powder will remain. Should we not enshrine it & ritually carry it around every seven years or so as show of our species’ evolutionary strength?
Stick ’em in an urn and make it the trophy of an international debating event.
A series of three day debates, teams of, say, eleven. Insanely complicated scoring system, lots of breaks for tea.
But don’t invite Keith Richards.
Is all the Anglican clergy taught to write in meaningless, warm sounding expressions or do they select as archbishops those who are very good at it?
With Canterbury the best of them all.
It must make job interviews very funny.