Minimus,

MTR's legal representatives sent letters threatening defamation action.

"...you don't have a right to know anything more than she cares to tell you."

But you do have a right to ask - and you do have a right to discuss in the public sphere the ethics incumbent on those who seek to affect societal attitudes.

Usually when I come to OLO I read about an issue. Today I find I’m reading a debate about a person, Melinda Tankard Reist. If I were her, I’d be chuffed to have so many people kicking up dust over me. Reminds me a bit of Jesus. Everyone had an opinion. Some loved him, some hated him. Most found him hard to ignore.

I’ve only vaguely ever heard of her before today, but now I’m interested. Who is she and what does she actually believe? (Unless I’m mistaken, there’s no actual quote from her, in any context, given in the article.)

Dan,

Actually in MTR's case it's morphed into the Streisand effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

I agree with much of this article in that Christians should not be ashamed to admit what we are. And it’s refreshing to find a non-believer standing up (sort of) for the right of believers contribute to debate on politics, ethics, etc. Often nowadays we are told that religion is a “private” matter, and to keep our beliefs to ourselves and not foist them on others.

That said, I can’t help feeling the call for MTR (how did she become an acronym, by the way?) to admit religious underpinnings to her ethical stand is to introduce an excuse to dismiss her view because it has a religious underpinning. Jennifer says she does not wish to be forced to live subject to Christian morality. Fair enough. But - as others, especially Miska have argued – MTR’s moral positions should be judged according to its moral coherence, not its religious (or other)motivation.

Martin Luther King’s calls for equal rights and an end to racial discrimination were deeply rooted in his theology and religion, but that in no way undermined their moral authority or the obligation of both believers and non-believers to treat them on their merits.

This entire article was doused in idealism and impracticality. It might work on paper but it doesn't work in real life

'Actually in MTR's case it's morphed into the Streisand effect.'

Although, I think in reality we have a reverse-streisand, considering the ubiquitous PR industry tactics of our time.

MTR cant lose! Dan S is living proof. Increasig market share for career feminist social commentators is all this is about. Feminism is all about popularity and entertainment. That's the moral of the story.

Jen, what you're missing is that you should cash in as well. A bit of ambush marketing is in order, fly along on the coat tails and turn up to every book signing she has. I reckon you're more marketable to the male demographic. You must milk it for all it's worth. I know you are looking for that Feminist Social commentator role;-)

I fail to see that 'outing' someone as a Christian who is already known to be Christian and has stated such before, is defamatory. Did she get the flavour slightly wrong? I thought being a christian is generally considered a good thing.

If John Eales campaigns for more funding for Rugby, and someone points out that he used to play rugby for Australia, well how exactly does that defame him? Is it because his lobbying has somehow nothing to do with his love of rugby, and shouldn't cloud the merits of his campaign. Give me a break.

So much goings on, and really I think if feminists were to discuss MonkeyGate with such fervour, they would get much more men interested for a start.

2 interesting points in all this..

1. Forests impeccable research about the attempt to blacklist Jen on OLO before the threat of legal action.

2. The stuff from Jen about the irony of a so-called feminist using the silencing tools of... du du dum....! 'The Patriachy!'

As Bill would say,

Got 'im, Yeeees!

Who behaves like this? Really? Is it just me that sees it all as extremely childish and cowardly of MTR?

But what a brand! M... T....R! M... T... R!