My only gripe against Catherine Deveny, alleged comedian and occasional panelist on Qanda is that she’s a comedian who is not funny. At least I don’t find her funny.

The ABC’s Tony Jones disagrees.

>>“Deveny's shock and awe humor does for atheism what Mark Arbib does for espionage. And she's still my favorite tweep.”
Tony Jones - host of ABC’s Q and A>>

See: http://www.catherinedeveny.com/

Here’s what Deveny has to say about Jesus:

>>"Who was Jesus? So a long time ago there was this woman called Mary and she was a virgin. Hang on I'll answer questions at the end. And an angel appeared before her and told her that she was going to have a baby. Shhhh boys, let me finish. So Mary gave birth to Jesus who was the Son of God sent to earth to die for our sins. Hey, cut it out guys this is serious. When Jesus grew up he performed miracles, walked on water, bought people back from the dead fed a crowd of thousands with a few loaves of bread and couple of fish, turned water into wine and then he was nailed to a cross and he died. But he came back to life three days later. Actually hang on guys. This sounds like a croc of (profanity deleted).’’>>

Would Deveny still be Tony Jones’ favourite tweep if she wrote:

>>"Who was Muhammad? So a long time ago there was this merchant-warrior. Hang on I'll answer questions at the end. And an angel called Gibril appeared and over a 22 years period transmitted this koran verbatim to him. And the koran told him to crucify, mutilate or exile everybody who made mischief in the land. ….Actually hang on guys. This sounds like a croc of (profanity deleted).’’>>

For the record I don’t care what Deveny says about Judaism or any other religion just so long as I don’t have to sit through one of her shows.

Steven,

What's your point? Humour like art is subjective. You don't like
Catherine Deveny - so what? If you don't like her - you don't have to listen to her. It's not mandatory.

I emailed a slightly edited version of my original post to Tony Jones with a copy to Deveny. I concluded my email as follows:

>>For the record I personally don’t care what Deveny says about Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion. But, then again, I wouldn't designate her "my favourite tweep".

I do, however, want to know whether your atheism extends to endorsing comedians who disrespect religions other than Christianity.>>

I don't expect a reply. But I do wonder whether Jones' ringing endorsement of Deveny will disappear from Deveny's website.

Steven,

Whatever happened to your very strong pro "Freedom of Speech" stand?
What comedian hasn't offended someone?

'Tis easy to make dispariging remarks about Christianity but it takes real guts to insult Islam.

I await Deveny's even handed display of guts.

Lexi wrote:

>>Whatever happened to your very strong pro "Freedom of Speech" stand?>>

In what way have I contradicted my pro freedom of speech stance.

So far as I'm concerned Deveny can say what she likes about any religion and Jones is free to express his admiration for her publicly.

All I'm doing is probing the boundaries of what the duo are prepared to admit to in public.

Is Mise wrote:

>>Tis easy to make dispariging remarks about Christianity but it takes real guts to insult Islam.>>

Precisely my point. I doubt Deveny or Jones are prepared to take on Islam in the way they do Christianity. I'm also sure they have some kind of mealy-mouthed rationalisation such as a desire not to appear "racist".

Sounds like Catherine is a lot of fun.
saw her at the atheist convention.
I think this is just what Sydney needs.

the heading
''Catherine Deveny on 'God''
dosnt match the reading in the article
some would say this....'is(profanity)'

i recall reading
somwething about you can blaspheme jesus?
or blaspheme god?...but dont go blaspheming the holy spirit

now the thing is
any who think jesus to be god
well mate their are decieved..

[see me see my father
dont mean i am god]

it reveals a son ..trying to reveal
that due to our father [good /god]

the claim of a trinity is pure dogma
to insist god makes virgins pregnant..is a deciete
when is it time to wake up to the fact of dying
[for 3 days] means jesus died ..for us to sin

its all just insane creed
jesus died to reveal we ALL LIVE ON AFTER DEATH
[to wit there is no day of judgment or rerserction day]
we die to the flesh...then live on in spirit..

till we accept others lied
saying only via us..
lol

[about just egsactly why jesus died]
or that he did die ..but wasnt dead

mate its time we all saw the joke
some needed vigins..others creed
but all a true xtian needs is to help others in need[by deed]

by their works
not their words

when has anger
helped fix anything

love is all we need
its time to make peace
have a good laugh..[make love not war]

Steven,

Sorry I'm not buying it. Why should either Catherine Deveny or Tony Jones say anything at all about Islam? It seems to me that you're again on a anti-Islamic roll. I'm not interested in feeding your existing hostility towards this group that you so obviously dislike.

I'm with Lexi on this, stevenlmeyer.

>>It seems to me that you're again on a anti-Islamic roll.<<

The odds, let's face it, are pretty slim that you are innocently occupied in...

"...probing the boundaries of what the duo are prepared to admit to in public<<

Do you also intend to demand "equal time" for jokes about Poles, Irishmen, Newfies and Melburnians? If not, there can be only one reason why you choose to pick out Muslims, can there not?

Of course, the other difference between your two examples is that only one of them is even remotely amusing.

It must be the way she tells 'em.

as always, the Islamophiles miss the point.
Obviously, Islam was used as an example to prove that this 'comedian's' humour is one-sided.
Being an athiest myself, I couldn't give a rat's ass if christianity is ridiculed but, as for ridiculing islam and all other religions, as wee Kevin said 'fair shake of the sauce bottle'.

Definitely equal time for jokes about all races and religions.

I remember well when Irish jokes were all the rage and a 'commedian' at Blacktown Workers Club told a Bobby Sands Diet joke, Bobby's cousin was in the audience and walked on stage and dropped the jokester.

I just wondet if the lady has the intestinal fortitude to tell Allah or Mohammad jokes.
She's already on the way to upsetting Muslims to whom Jesus was a great prophet, not the greatest but up near the top, and his mother, Miriam, is revered in Islam.

"I just wonder if the lady has the intestinal fortitude to tell Allah or Mohamed jokes." (With spelling correction)

Of course she won't and of course "they" won't ("they" being any comedian of whatever calibre) and for one very simple reason. Look what happens to those who dare mock Islam. Remember Salman Rushdi? Not to mention that Danish cartoon! Deveny is well known, an easy target especially if she's thinking of travelling O/S, so there's no way she's going to purposely put her life at risk for the sake of making a joke. Better to reserve that for the Christians. They might get angry, but at least they don't run around waving AK47's and putting a fatwa on people. It was fortunate for Rushdi that his fatwa was eventually lifted.

Anybody in the public eye would think twice about insulting Islam. People are scared of Islamic fundamentalists and I'm almost certain that's what causes a lot of hatred towards people of Islamic faith in this country. Put simply, Islamists don't live and let live. The slightest hint of an insult against their religion and they are forced by their own religion to kill you. Thankfully, Christianity gave that nonsense away during the middle ages!

What, all of them, Aime?

>>Put simply, Islamists don't live and let live. The slightest hint of an insult against their religion and they are forced by their own religion to kill you.<<

If not, please re-phrase, this time with less obvious less fear-and-loathing.

Or perhaps you do mean, all of them?

(quote)"I just wonder if the lady has the intestinal fortitude to tell Allah or Mohamed jokes." (With spelling correction) (unquote)

'Mohamed' is generally considered incorrect spelling of the Prophet's name.
Mohammed or Mohammad is more correct but the accepted Islamic spelling in English is Muhammad.
Muhammad ibn 'Abdull&#257;h. In Arabic: &#1605;&#1581;&#1605;&#1583;; Transliteration: Mu&#7717;ammad; also spelled Muhammed or Mohammed.(from Wikipedia)

So as the old adage says "Fools (or the illiterate) rush in etc. . . .".

"Muhammad ibn 'Abdull etc.,..."

The paste from Wikipedia doesn't come across as it reads when viewed.

Ah well!!

Lexi

I have never made any secret of my loathing for Islam. But that is not the point. If Deveny is an atheist with the courage of her conviction she should be as ready to heap scorn on Islam as on Christianity or any other religion.

Pericles

I claimed to be probing boundaries. I never claimed this was an “innocent” undertaking whatever that may mean in this context.

Austin Powerless and Is Mise

My feelings exactly.

Isn’t it interesting how so many people who boldly proclaim their atheism find all manner of rationalisations for refraining from attacking Islam while attacking those who do attack Islam?

Now why do you suppose that is?

At least Dawkins is not so muddleheaded. In this youtube clip he explains why he considers Islam to be a great evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhYus6TiGEE&feature=related

For my part I see little danger from Islam. I think the threat of Muslim terrorism is overblown.

The threat I do see lies in APPEASING Islam. Appeasing Islam takes many forms. These include:

--Refraining from subjecting Islam to the same kind of critique, analysis, attack, contempt, satire and scorn (CAACSS) that we routinely heap on Christianity and other belief systems.

--Attacking those who do venture to subject Islam to CAACCS

--Conflating a loathing for Islam with racism and passing laws that in the end make it an offence to subject Islam to CAACSS.

In short we are slowly imposing blasphemy laws on ourselves to appease Islam.

Steven,

What a load of bollocks. The comedian can choose whatever subject she wants to ridicule. Because she chooses not to take on Islam - doesn't mean she's scared to do so. You're simply making assumptions from your own narrow perspective. Give her the benefit of the doubt.

Lexi

Deveny is free to choose whatever she likes as the target of her humour.

And I am free to point out the inconsistencies between her choice of targets and her publicly proclaimed position of atheist.

And you are free to label my statements bollocks.

Isn’t free speech wonderful?

These are all freedoms we enjoy and take for granted.

And unless we resist appeasing Islam or any other religion we shall start losing these freedoms.

And I think Deveny is appeasing Islam.

Steven,

You don't think - that's the problem.

You're arguments are not based on a mature intelligent level but on an emotional one.

Deveny is a great advert for Christianity. Her vile god hating rants are the fruit of her godless dogmas. Dawkins is one of her high priests so its not surprising that she is full of vitriolic rants. It is no wonder she is a favourite daughter of ABC. No one with any decent morals is likely to much of a run on this tax payer funded social engineering medium. Along with other collegues she is to gutless to criticze Islam. It is funny to listen to her rant on about climate change as if she really had any clue.

Christians can rest easy knowing that these fools will never have the last laugh when mocking their Maker. They may get a few snide giggles from fellow god deniers but their knee will bow to the One they mock. The fruit of their immoral lives speak volumes about their inner beliefs.

Stevenlmeyer
FWIW I appreciate your thoughful, mature and intelligent input into these discussions.

If I were prone to poet flourishes, I might describe your work in with words like:
Your posts are like a crisp sea breeze that flushes away the stifling miasma of political correct appeasement.

But I am not versed in that genre, so all I can add is: keep up the good work.
Cheers!

Lexi, 'The comedian can choose whatever subject she wants to ridicule. Because she chooses not to take on Islam - doesn't mean she's scared to do so.'
So why doesn't she? As an athiest 'comedian' she should feel free to make jokes about any religion. The fact that only christianity is singled out speaks volumes.
Get your head out of the sand. Unless, of course, you are really a closet islamist.

Austin,

Your last post was entertaining, and splendidly written. I was elegantly cajoled, cleverly harangued into shedding myself of the
superstitious nonsense that has bedevilled me since my first visit to
Sunday school - so many years ago. Well done. Logic like yours contributes so much to this Forum.

Uh oh, SPQR, you've got William Wordsworth spinning in his grave again.

>>If I were prone to poet flourishes, I might describe your work in with words like: Your posts are like a crisp sea breeze that flushes away the stifling miasma of political correct appeasement.<<

For a start, you can't get away with that sea breeze being "crisp". A sea breeze has its own salty, dampish quality. Which clashes horribly with the idea of it somehow being crisp as well, don't you think?

And a breeze that "flushes away"? I hardly think so.

In my experience, flushing requires a not-insignificant amount of water, to carry away the, errr... debris. And there is no debris here.

Just... miasma. Not easy stuff to flush, eh?

Also, miasma is pretty noxious.

It could, I suppose, also be "stifling", although I can't honestly see anyone sticking around long enough to get stifled. They'd be hoofing it as far away as they could, at top speed.

And the final crunch. "Political correct appeasement". A phrase with all the elegance of changing gear in an FX Holden without the benefit of the clutch.

Y'know, not a lot of poets would attempt to shoehorn that phrase into verse. Even with your attempt to even out the metre by substituting the adjectival for the adverbial, it still doesn't work too well.

Altogether, not quite the glowing encomium to stevenlmeyer's "thoughful, mature and intelligent input into these discussions" that you were hoping for.

Although, somehow... appropriate.

Pericles,
Thank you for your little critique . I suspect it might say more about you than me.

// For a start, you can't get away with that sea breeze being "crisp". A sea breeze has its own salty, dampish quality. Which clashes horribly with the idea of it somehow being crisp as well, don't you think?//
No I don’t agree. You tell us you perceive sea breezes as “salty,dampish” and that’s well and good but, others might just perceive them differently, particularly if they were at Manly on a winters day.

// And a breeze that "flushes away"? I hardly think so. In my experience, flushing requires a not-insignificant amount of water, to carry away the, errr... debris.//
Here, again, you’re telling us about you i) “In my experience” and ii) “I hardly . think so”. Have you stopped to consider that your experience and thoughts may not be universal.

//Y'know, not a lot of poets would attempt to shoehorn that phrase into verse. Even with your attempt to even out the metre by substituting the adjectival for the adverbial, it still doesn't work too well.//
Yes, perhaps, “not a lot of poets would” but, so what?
Even an old poetiphobe (Judged from your comments to Foxy some time back) must allow that poetry is one of the most iconoclastic of genres—things have moved on a bit since William Wordsworth.

// Altogether, not quite the glowing encomium to Stevenlmeyer's "thoughful, mature and intelligent input into these discussions" that you were hoping for.//
Aaaah, Jealousy is a curse ain't it!
I still maintain, that –for me at least – Stevenlmeyer’s posts are as crisp and bracing as a sea breeze. Practically when juxtaposed against some others who appear to want to shoehorn content & style onto their own narrow gauge track.

Not quite, SPQR.

>>Even an old poetiphobe (Judged from your comments to Foxy some time back) must allow that poetry is one of the most iconoclastic of genres<<

It isn't poets that I dislike. Just their poetry.

And I strongly dispute that poetry is at all iconoclastic. It is, I know, a conceit that poets have about their work, but it is not one that bears the slightest scrutiny.

You are right, of course, that my opinion of your attempt at "poetic" flowery language is a personal one. And that the critique itself is based entirely upon my ignorance of the history of poetry - "things have moved on a bit since William Wordsworth", who knew?

But I do value words. Which, when properly organized can indeed be iconoclastic. This little spat we are having here about Catherine Deveny is all about her words, and how she chose to arrange them. In the mouth of someone with greater skill to organize them, they could even have started a riot. In an extreme case, perhaps a holy war.

When was the last time a war was started by someone employing poetry?

"I wandered lonely as a cloud that floats on high o'er vales and hills, when all at once I saw a crowd, a host, of aristocrats.

Aux barricades, citoyens!"

Incidentally, you mention "others who appear to want to shoehorn content & style onto their own narrow gauge track"

Shoehorning onto narrow gauge track? That's some "brave" imagery, right there.

Hi SPQR, Austin Powerless

Thank you for your support.

I am not going to enter into the discussion on poetic styles and conventions. I’m afraid you’re on your own there SPQR.:-)

I’m simply going to remark, yet again, how interesting it is that certain people who loudly proclaim their atheism draw back from attacking Islam. More than that, they attack anyone who attacks Islam without ever being able to offer a coherent explanation for this anomaly.

Now why is that?

One reason I suspect is simple cowardice, especially the fear of “lawfare.”

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare

Once so-called anti-hate speech laws are on the books these can be used to bully people into silence. It doesn’t matter if the case against you has no merit. You still have to devote a lot of time and energy to defending yourself. Most people cannot afford that so they remain silent.*

But I suspect the main reason many people steer clear of attacking Islam is the tribal nature of politics. For what we may describe as the “self-righteous ABC crowd” attacking Islam is something that is “simply not done old chap”. And if you do it, “well I’m awf’ly sorry and all that but I’m afraid you’re no longer welcome in polite society.”

Deveny seems to depend on the self-righteous ABC crowd for a livelihood so I doubt she would do anything to offend their sensibilities.

To the self-righteous ABC crowd questioning why Islam is off-limits is the equivalent of an English gentleman questioning the way he is supposed to use a fork. If you ask the question you’re obviously a boor and are expelled from “Society” unless you are VERY rich.

*Increasingly wealthy individuals and corporation are engaging in a form of lawfare known as a SLAPP suit.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participatio

I guess your little homily deserves a response, stevenlmeyer.

>>...how interesting it is that certain people who loudly proclaim their atheism draw back from attacking Islam. More than that, they attack anyone who attacks Islam without ever being able to offer a coherent explanation for this anomaly.<<

The "anomaly" that you infer is no more than politeness.

I am certainly one of those on this Forum who "loudly proclaim their atheism". And it is also true that I tend not to "attack" Islam.

But you may also have noticed that nor do I "attack" Christianity.

To me, this is simply being polite.

Attacking someone's religion is, in my view, totally reprehensible.

As I have observed on a number of occasions, it is very apparent that religious people's beliefs obviously matter, in a way that is very important to them, while remaining entirely unfathomable to me. To "attack" anyone for having those beliefs is like beating up on a fluffy kitten, simply because it is smaller than you, and you can get away with it.

On the other hand, when I see the fear and loathing towards Muslims that is so frequently in evidence on this Forum, I tend to leap to their defence. Much as I would leap to the defence of that poor fluffy kitten.

If it should occur that a Muslim took aim at your Christian beliefs in the manner that you take aim at theirs, you would quickly find me defending your right to the religion of your choice, too.

You may call this attitude cowardice if you like, that's your prerogative. I simply call it being consistent.

Lexi, was that meant to be sarcasm? If so, it was a weak attempt.

Either you are too dense or you are deliberately missing the point. You certainly dodged it with your last post.

I'm surprised that you recognise logic, as you don't appear to indulge in it yourself.

Shorter stevenlmeyer: if you're not ridiculing Islam or offending Muslims, you must be "appeasing" them.

Pericles

I accept that you do not attack religions. That's fine. Until quite recently neither did I.

However Deveny proclaims her atheism to anyone who will listen. She attacks Christianity but, so far as I can tell, no other religion.This is what leads me to suspect she is appeasing non-Christian religions which includes Islam.

After all it's not as if there isn't a lot of really hilarious material there. When I first started rereading the koran and ahadith I concluded that Muhammad was really Muhammad Python, an earlier incarnation of Monty.

morganzola wrote:

>>Shorter stevenlmeyer: if you're not ridiculing Islam or offending Muslims, you must be "appeasing" them.>>

No

--If you procalaim your atheism to all and sundry

AND

--You publicly ridicule Christianity calling it a "croc of (expletive deleted)"

AND

--You refrain from attacking other major religions

THEN

It is reasonable to suspect that you are appeasing the religions you refrain from attacking.

At least it is worth asking the question.

Now Deveny takes quite a lot of her material from news about various Christian pastors. It's not as if there's a dearth of material about Imams.

Of course if she's interested I could supply her with a wealth of material about Judaism.

Now I mention Islam specifically because that is the religion that has been most aggressive about engaging in "lawfare" and in trying to get "defamation of religion" (blasphemy) laws on the statute books.

See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/26/us-religion-defamation-idUSTRE52P60220090326

So that's where I perceive the main religious threat to freedom of speech eminating. There are, of course, plenty of non-religious attacks on freedom of speech.

I've yet to have anyone give me a coherent reason why Islam should not be subject to the same kinds of critique, analysis, attack, contempt, satire and scorn that all other belief systems are subject to. Perhaps you can surprise me.

My apologies Is Mise. I wasn't referring to Mahamed or Mahammed. I was referring to this when you wrote....... "I just wondet if the lady has the intestinal fortitude to tell Allah or Mohammad jokes."

What the heck is "wondet." Really Is Mise. Just trying to help!

Now what were you saying about fools and illiterates?

Aime,

What do you call a person who can't recognise a typo when they see one?

(hint: the "r' is adjacent to the "t")

>>Aime,

What do you call a person who can't recognise a typo when they see one?

(hint: the "r' is adjacent to the "t")>>

Ah mon ami, the little gray cells, they do not always function in people. :-)

Well, nothing like a little friendly banter amongst friends. At times some of you really need to lighten up a bit :-)

Pericles wrote.....
"If not, please re-phrase, this time with less obvious less fear-and-loathing."

Oh, great grievous bodily harm Pericles. What makes you think I'm in the camp of the fearful and loathing fraternity? If only you knew me, you'd know I was of artistic quality with love and understanding of everyone........ except religious fruitcakes of all persuasion!

Pericles,

In your post of 21 March 2011 2:50:45 PM, you berate Aime for expressing what you call “fear and loathing”.

>>Ashiq Masih has the look of a hunted man - gaunt, anxious and exhausted.

Though he is guilty of nothing, this Pakistani labourer is on the run - with his five children.

His wife, Asia Bibi, has been sentenced to death for blaspheming against Islam. THAT IS ENOUGH TO MAKE THE ENTIRE FAMILY A TARGET*.>>

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11930849

>>Taseer, …, had turned his largely ceremonial post into a platform for a campaign to amend Pakistan's blasphemy laws. Bhatti, the only Christian in the Cabinet, … swore to battle intolerance. Both men supported clemency for Aasia Noreen, a Christian woman who had been accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death. Taseer's stance on the issue infuriated a large part of the population that, THANKS TO RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND SCHOOL CURRICULUMS, BELIEVES THAT BLASPHEMY IS A SIN DESERVING OF EXECUTION*. In the weeks leading up to his assassination, Taseer had been denounced at Friday prayers, excoriated in the media and largely abandoned by his Pakistan People's Party (PPP) for fears that his campaign would prove politically toxic. The witch hunt culminated in a bodyguard's pumping 27 rounds into his head and chest in the parking lot of a popular Islamabad shopping center.>>

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2058155,00.html#ixzz1HSPwTM3C

>>Within hours of Taseer's death, telephone text messages celebrating his assassination made the rounds. "Justice has been done," read one. "If you love the Prophet, pass this on." A Facebook fan page for assassin Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri garnered more than 2,000 members before site administrators shut it down. Even the leaders of state-funded mosques refused to say funeral prayers for the slain governor. When Qadri was transferred to a local jail, he was GARLANDED WITH ROSES BY HUNDREDS OF LAWYERS* — the vanguard of a movement that in 2008 helped unseat a military dictator — offering to take on his case for free.>>

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2058155,00.html#ixzz1HSQgnGv5

*Capitalisation added

At this point the bien pensant usualy make some comment about the thread having become a "hate fest" or that the "bigots are out in force" and decline to address the issues.

Sorry, Aime, which part of this contribution of yours did I misunderstand>?

>>Put simply, Islamists don't live and let live. The slightest hint of an insult against their religion and they are forced by their own religion to kill you.<<

Which prompted me to ask, "What, all of them, Aime?". I construe your silence on this to be confirmation that you do, indeed, believe them all to be of this mind.

>>What makes you think I'm in the camp of the fearful and loathing fraternity?<<

Well, for a start, the fact that you claim that all followers of Islam must kill people for the slightest hint of an insult, can only be construed as a form of loathing. And what could possibly prompt you to categorize an entire religion as gratuitous murderers, if not fear?

stevenlmeyer clearly is of a like mind, citing an assassination carried out by "the organization of al-Qaeda and the Punjabi Taliban" as supporting evidence. As the article he refers to points out, "Using religion to shore up political support is nothing new in Pakistan", but this is ignored in the crusade to paint religious extremists as somehow mainstream.

Also ignored is the following:

"To further appease Muslim religious leaders, Zia-ul-Haq strengthened the colonial-era blasphemy laws, mandating that breaches should be answered by the death penalty. Since then, more than 1,274 cases have been lodged. As repeating blasphemous words could be considered to be perpetuating the crime, many cases are accepted without evidence, a system well primed for the pursuit of vendettas. That nobody has yet been executed by court order is hardly reassuring: 37 of the accused have been killed by vigilantes."

The maths is interesting. 1,274 cases lodged, nobody executed. But thirtyseven have been killed extra-judicially, by religious fanatics.

But back to Deveny for a moment.

If her trade-mark jokes were about fat people, instead of Christians, would you expect her to make an equal number about thin people?

After many evasions and attempts to change the subject Richard Dawkins finally extracts an admission from an Imam on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQzuFrMRA3M

It happens in the last few seconds of the clip but it's worth watching the whole clip to see how everybody including the moderator attempts to derail Dawkins.

This is part of the reality that dare not speak its name.

Ok Pericles. Let me try to put my deeply held beliefs on the record. Oh and my silence wasn't anything to do with avoiding the issue. I'm a night shift worker and sometimes I'm not in the mood to reply to adverse reactions!

I've studied many different religions back when I was seeking the "truth" and found all of them severely wanting, although there is a positive message to be found in most of them and that's to live and let live, do no harm and to treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself. I found Buddhism to be the strongest in this deeply held inner belief, but even they can be found to have committed atrocities throughout history. Even a mouse will fight back if cornered (and they have sharp teeth).

When I mentioned AK 47's and such, I was of course referring to that section of Islam that has followers who have perverted the words of the Koran to suit their own agenda and there are many millions of them. This makes people who don't understand them scared of the consequences of jokes made against the Islamic faith and why people like Catherine Deveny would think twice before making a joke towards Islam. I have no doubt that there are people in Christian organisations who would kill you in defence of their god too, but such intolerance appears to be less visible than in Moslem quarters.

Notice Pericles, that I said "appears to be less visible." Am I wrong to suggest that a joke pertaining to Christians will get a limited response, but a joke about Islam will see demonstration and death threats by Islamic fundamentals all around the world?

Pericles

To reinforce Aime's previous post.

You know and I know what the consequences would be if a Melbourne comedian were to give a show in which they stated that parts of the koran were a croc of you-know-what. Compared to Deveny's scathing and often scatological denunciations of Christianity the Muhammad cartoons are tame.

What would happen if someone were to produce a "Life of Abdul" parodying the life of Muhammad in the same way that "A Life of Brian" parodies the life of Jesus?

Again, we both know the answer.

So what do you propose? Blasphemy laws to avoid offending Muslims? The quiet surrender of self-censorship? Banning “The God Delusion” or “God is not Great”?

I cannot read Deveny’s mind so I do not know why she refrains from subjecting Islam to the same contempt, satire and scorn that she heaps on Christianity. I guess it’s a combination of political correctness and fear but I don’t know.

However it does not smell right. And I think deep down you know that.

I too have no insight into Deveny's mind, stevenlmeyer.

>>I cannot read Deveny’s mind so I do not know why she refrains from subjecting Islam to the same contempt, satire and scorn that she heaps on Christianity. I guess it’s a combination of political correctness and fear but I don’t know.<<

Nor am I particularly inclined to "guess", as you do.

If I take you and Aime at face value, you are both genuine people without a bone of hatred in your bodies. You get upset when a comedienne uses Christianity as the trampoline for her schtick, fair enough. Not everyone finds it amusing.

But humour is two-way. If the audience doesn't laugh, the gag gets dropped for the next show. So when putting material together for a show, she probably thinks "which would get a bigger laugh, this, or that?".

Which is the one and only reason why I suspected that this had nothing to do with humour, and everything to do with your desire to take every opportunity to bag Muslims.

If you really want to disprove your own theory about people being too scared to make fun of Islam, here's your chance.

Have a look through the lyrics of one really smart Australian dude, Tim Minchin. He has made it big - really, O2 stadium big - in the UK, with such lyrics as you find in, say, his song "Ten foot cock and a few hundred virgins"

"So if you
Cover the bodies of your women
Everybody is grinnin'
Because black is so slimmin'
Though it's not great for swimmin'
But it gives you an erection
With the increased sexual tension
What with the UV protection
That is second to none
You'll find it all in the Koran
Just next to the bit that justifies guns"

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/t/tim_minchin

He also does a neat line on religion in general, but I'll let you find that out for yourself.

If you happen to be in Sydney, he's at the Opera House for the next few days. Treat yourself.

Pericles

Am I a “genuine” person?

I genuinely loathe Islam. Is “loathing” equivalent to hatred? If so I must confess to having a few bones of hatred in my body.

I also genuinely fear the consequences of appeasing any religion. Right now it is Islam that is being appeased.

I don’t get upset when a comedian “uses Christianity as the trampoline for her schtick”.

Why would I?

I find Deveny unfunny because her jokes are old and tired. They are heavy-handed and lack wit. They are the equivalent of slapstick.

Do I take every opportunity to bag Muslims?

Well, no, my main target is people who appease or try to make excuses for Islam. I like rubbing their noses in the nature of the belief system they are trying to excuse and whose vile nature they try so hard to ignore or minimize or explain away.

Just for the record, of all the world’s major religions the one I despise most is Hinduism with its vicious caste system the effects of which I have seen at first hand. However Hinduism is not an imperial religion like Islam or Christianity. It is not trying to stifle free expression in non-Hindu countries. And while the world’s major Hindu country, India, often falls short of the secular ideals it proclaims it does at least have those ideals and the government does try to help the lower castes. Muslim nations do not even pretend to treat all religions equally and some of them are brutal towards minorities.

I’m not in Sydney but I’ll keep an eye out for Tim Minchin. He sounds like my kind of guy.

Is he any relation to Nick

"If I take you and Aime at face value, you are both genuine people without a bone of hatred in your bodies. You get upset when a comedienne uses Christianity as the trampoline for her schtick, fair enough. Not everyone finds it amusing."

Pericles, I don't get upset by anyone bagging christianity, muslim or any other religion. I just think it's sad that people "bag" anyone at all. Why the heck can't we all get along? Why have you taken a set against me? I really think you're nothing but a bully who likes to hurt the feelings of people you believe are beneath your dignity. If I'm wrong, then I apologise.

By now it should be plain to you that I do not believe in god or gods of any persuasion. I realise that you can't reason with people who have decided to, or who have been brainwashed into believing that they need to talk to imaginary spirits or people in order to be able to face life on earth.

I believe that we're just big brained mammals but with a few extra emotions thrown in for good measure. Humans think they're smart, but to disprove this we only have to look at how humans go about trashing the planet, how they invent bigger and better methods of killing each other and how they are so cock sure of themselves, they can't see that there really is a limit to how much they can plunder natural resources until they run of of things to plunder.

I'm fast running out of years. I was born into a golden age where I really didn't have to worry about wars or upheaval of life as some have know it in the past and I give thanks to nobody in particular each and every day for that fact. I could almost be accused of being religious in that I despise abortion. I believe that people should be responsible enough to keep their legs together. What the heck ever happened to romance, marriage and children in that order?

Gays? Mildly amused, but if they're nice and don't bother me I really couldn't give the proverbial! Procreation? Well, that what animals are good at in times of plenty and humans are nothing more than animals, but times of plenty are fast coming to an end! And when I finally die? Then the lights go out for the last time and that's the end of the game.

And if I'm wrong and god really does exist? Then I hope he/she will say that I lived my life to the best of my ability without hurting anyone and without judging anybody. Sometime I fail badly in that area, but I always try to make amends.

Pericles, I am not your enemy, nor are you a fool. You have your opinions as I have mine and that's what this place is for, but please, be careful what you say and who you try to wound with words.

A beer at the local Pericles?

If my reaction upset you, Aime, I apologise.

It is just that when I see all-encompassing, blanket condemnation of a religion - any religion - I tend to look for ulterior motives. Mostly, I find them in Christians taking free potshots at Muslims. And as there are few Muslims on this Forum to defend themselves, my inclination is not to defend Islam, but to pick apart the rationale that their attackers use.

Hence my question to you, "do you mean that all of them are murderers", intended to point out that, unwittingly or not, you had labelled an entire religion as such.

>>A beer at the local Pericles?<<

Any time.

This is also why I respnded in the fashion I did to your OP, stevenlmeyer. While it is reasonable to express dislike of someone's anti-Christian comedy, I thought it entirely unnecessary to ask why the material was not targetting Islam.

Intriguingly, you now tell us that:

>>of all the world’s major religions the one I despise most is Hinduism<<

In which case why did you not question why Deveney does not target Hindus in her comedy?

The answer is obvious, and is the same for Islam, Scientology (possibly an exception there, they're hilarious), Mormons, Buddhists and so on.

The audience.

If she looked at her likely audience of an evening, and thought "what would be a bigger laugh", the decision on material tends to make itself.

The other variable is the capability of the comic. Deveney couldn't pull it off, where someone with Tim Minchin's genius, can.

And no, no relation to Nick.

Pericles

Interesting you should mention scientology. One of my objections to "hate speech" laws is that they would protect scientology.

Scientology is also an example of what happens when religions are granted special privileges. L. Ron Hubbard made scientology into a “church” because of the tax benefits.

Once you grant religions any sort of immunity from critique, analysis, attack, contempt, satire and scorn enterprising demagogues will simply add some religious trappings to whatever spiel they are peddling and use the law to silence their critics.

BTW scientologists are among the most aggressive practitioners of lawfare

Interestingly as I'm sitting here reading through the threads (I'm a newbie to OLO) Tim Minchin has just come on Rage on the TV in the background…

stevenImeyer I don't share your reservations about blasphemy laws.

Properly implemented, they may just benefit all of us. A legal system where an aggrieved party can seek impartially-judged redress is an important part of most modern societies.

To simplify the application of the blasphemy law and prevent its misuse there would be one pre-requisite… The blasphemed deity has to both initiate the action and must appear in court providing a victim impact statement.

Tim Minchin's final Sydney show was live on ABC2 last evening, so it is possible that at least half a dozen more folk have been exposed to his talent.

I doubt he will be back for a while, given that his recognition-factor in the UK is a full order of magnitude greater than here. Which is interesting, given the juxtaposition of a) his material and b) the sensitivity that the Poms are supposed to have about religion-related stuff.

I suspect that they may be more receptive to religion-related humour than we have led ourselves to believe. Either that, or the "danger" we in Australia associate with it is massively exaggerated.

On balance, I'd go with the latter, given that the Sydney audience laughed in exactly the same places as the O2 Arena audience did...