Monday, December 03, 2007


No surprise, the teacher apologised. She did a number two. Fair enough. I'd be scared of causing offence too - if I lived in a place with lunatic nutters who think that their own religion is so pathetic that it can't take any criticism or mockery. Oh hell, I do live somewhere like that.

Because I am not so offended by the fundamentalist madmen who are orchestrating demonstrations in poverty-stricken Sudan, I'd expect nothing less of them. I am more offended by those in the west who say that the reason that she should be pardoned is because it was the children who named the bear, not her. Implication - it would be ok to imprison/lash/execute her if it had been her own decision.

At least we don't have blasphemy laws in the UK, we can mock bronze age superstitions without fear of reprisal here? Or maybe not.


Ann said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann said...

I'm confused. Where's the proof that Jesus wasn't a promiscuous homosexual? Or where's the proof he was? And why is this blasphemy? If Jesus was gay he might be happy, retrospectively, to be outed. Of course imbuing a spirit with emotion implies belief in things spiritual and maybe hints at an afterlife. I'll get back in my box because things are getting too difficult.

RNB said...

I wasn't suggesting that Jesus was promiscuous, homosexual, bisexual, or anything else. I was only saying that we still have blasphemy laws in the UK, so one particular fairy tale is legally protected from the ridicule that can affect other fairy tales.