Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In case you think it's only Muslims who want their feelings protected against religious criticism that might hurt their feelings, Christian groups in the UK are doing the same thing:
A Christian woman is taking an art centre to court over an exhibition which included a statue of Jesus that she believes is lewd and offensive. Civil rights advocates say that this is an attempt to reinstate blasphemy laws by the back door.The private prosecution, which has been postponed to 23 September over legal technicalities, is being backed by the Christian Legal Centre and campaigners, including Stephen Green - who unsuccessfully challenged Jerry Springer - The Opera.
The details:
They will say that the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art committed an "act of a lewd and a disgusting nature and outraged public decency contrary to Common Law" by displaying a statue of Jesus that shows an erect penis.They will also claim that visitors who saw it were likely to be "harassed, alarmed, or distressed".
Ms Mapfuwa says she believes in free speech, but that "this statue served no other purpose than to offend Christians and to denigrate Christ".
Translation: I believe in free speech, unless you say something that bothers me. The UK allows "private prosecutions" - it's literally a criminal trial but brought by a citizen rather than be prosecutors. In a famous 1976 case, Whitehouse v Lemon, a private prosecution was used to convict a gay publication of blasphemy for publishing a poem someone didn't like. It's hard to imagine a more oppressive law than one outlawing blasphemy.
Politics
Comments
Personally, I find religion very offensive, but I must admit it never occurred to me that I should SUE PEOPLE over it. I mean, WTF?
If I didn't disapprove of this kind of frivolous and ridiculous prosecution, I'd be suggesting that British atheists should take religious people to court.
I'm reminded of George Carlin's fabulous routine where he pointed out that radios have two knobs: one to change the channel and one to turn it off. If you're offended, just stop listening/looking/reading. Easy as that.
Posted by: Mara | September 8, 2008 9:50 AM
Ms Mapfuwa says she believes in free speech, but that "this statue served no other purpose than to offend Christians and to denigrate Christ".
What about the Mickey Mouse statue. Does that one "serve no other purpose" too? There are 73 other statues in the exhibition. Maybe she didn't notice the other ones because they were smaller or something like that.
Posted by: 386sx | September 8, 2008 9:54 AM
Somehow I don't get the sense that this is going to go anywhere.
I mean, I looked up countries that have blasphemy laws. It doesn't look like they are enforced all that often, even in Islamic countries. And in many cases such laws are superseded by later legislation -- in the EU in particular, as well as Massachusetts. (There is all sorts of stuff on the books in Massachusetts, mostly dating from the 17th and 18th centuries. Probably 90% of it would be unconstitutional today, but since no challenge has been issued and nobody has seen fit to try and enforce this kind of stuff it remains there).
There's a whole other argument along the lines of defamation of religion, which is something Ed has blogged about before. That's a whole other argument tho.
I don't see a huge threat to anyone from blasphemy laws, though they seem to be in the Western world at least, a nuisance more than anything else. Note that the Crown declined to prosecute several cases brought before it in the last few years. (the Whitehouse case is 31 years old);
Also, the Crown Prosecution Service can discontinue a proceeding if they think it isn't in the public interest. Translated, that means if you are a whacko and someone claims you are prosecuting them maliciously, the proceedings are probably going to get stopped. or if the CPS thinks you are going to screw up a case they might want to make later. (No double jeopardy in Britain either).
The private prosecutions system dates from when there was no police force, or equivalent of a district attorney. That all changed 150 years ago.
Posted by: Jesse | September 8, 2008 10:36 AM
Slightly OT:
Stewart Lee, who was involved in being sued for blasphemy following the Jerry Springer Opera, talks about blasphemy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn2NMzb0OXU
The High Court threw the case out because they said it was "not blasphemy", not, sadly, because the judges were able to challenge the law on blasphemy. (Not sure how that would happen in the UK.)
Posted by: Dan | September 8, 2008 11:02 AM
This prosecution is not being carried out under the blasphemy laws as they were repealed earlier this year.
Posted by: John Doe | September 8, 2008 11:27 AM
I can think of at least one other purpose than to denigrate Christ. How about raising the question of Christ's sexuality? A human being at the front of a new religious movement, can we not even examine that question?
And all the other statues; if we anthropomorphize a mouse, and that mouse has a girlfriend (Minnie)is there no legitimacy to even think about that part of their mythic humanity? (Make no mistake, they're trying to make it impossible to even think about certain things).
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | September 8, 2008 11:30 AM
It could be done by seeking a judicial review over whether such legislation was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
However the blasphemy laws were repealed earlier this year.
Posted by: John Doe | September 8, 2008 11:40 AM
I keep seeing this story pop up (sorry, had to do it). I just can't help wondering... how big is it? I mean did the living incarnation of God on earth see fit to endow himself with a schlong worthy of his power and glory or did he go something more modest? Perhaps with the foreknowledge that he would one day be nailed up for public display while wearing nothing but a loincloth he chose to give himself an itty bitty wee-wee so as not to embarrass the spectators. Then again, if worship is really what he was after, a moose cock might be helpful. Maybe I should ask a fundamentalist. Evidently they're much better than I am at divining God's mind.
Anyway, what do they want? It's not like he can hold a notebook in front of it with his hands nailed to a plank. Come on Fundies, think before you criticize.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 8, 2008 11:46 AM
A human gruesomely tortured and nailed to planks. Fine and Dandy
Said human with a penis. Hugely offensive
Maybe someone can charge her, since her attitude is clearly offensive. Maybe someone can use these laws to sue the Church of England, or some of the creationist whackaloons (hee hee) who have gone there.
Posted by: Badger3k | September 8, 2008 11:53 AM
I wonder if certain Papua New Guineans who converted to Christianity could sue traditional European churches for portraying Jesus as NOT having an enormous penis. I mean certain tribes wear elaborate 'penis shields' to accentuate their penis size (and potency). -DJ
PS Also it is interesting (but OT) to note that humans have the largest male genitalia, relative to body size, of all primates. Was Jesus micro phallic? Is that why he got into religion in the first place? (that and a nagging mother, he was a nice Jewish boy after all).
Posted by: DingoJack | September 8, 2008 11:59 AM
That reminds me... Mickey Mouse is talking to his lawyer and his lawyer says, "I can't believe after all these years you want to divorce Minnie just because she's a little odd."
"I didn't say she was a little odd," replies Mickey, "I said she's fucking Goofy!"
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 8, 2008 12:05 PM
Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated out of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing--with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for second and third place.
- Robert Heinlein, "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" from Time Enough for Love
Posted by: Taz | September 8, 2008 12:23 PM
We UK secularists aren't taking it all lying down.
http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk/
Posted by: David Durant | September 8, 2008 1:07 PM
I think the problem religious whackjobs have with sexuality of any form - but especially an erect phallus - is that they are generally Micro-cephallic
:D
Posted by: tony | September 8, 2008 1:18 PM
I suppose the outraged individuals believe that god is impotent. That's something that I can agree with them on.
BTW, I was at a Catholic church recently, and I noticed the crucifixion idolatry had no nipples. I suppose Jesus never defecated either.
Posted by: Genuinely Doug | September 8, 2008 1:56 PM
@ DingoJack: Fairly sure that's inaccurate - isn't it bonobos? The explanation I heard (from Matt Ridley's book "Red Queen") is that sperm production is proportional to a species' level of promiscuity. It's all about the amount of competition the sperm will face.
So our fellow chimps, which tend to have sex in situations where humans would go with a polite handshake, have huge sperm factories. At the other end of the spectrum are gorillas, whose females have no opportunity for promiscuity due to their harem lifestyle. Humans are kinda in the middle - draw your own conclusions.
In completely unrelated news, blood tests suggest that about 10% of kids were produced via adultery. This figure seems to be fairly constant, with the only exception being the Amish. (Again, draw your own conclusions.)
Posted by: Corkscrew | September 8, 2008 2:38 PM
@ DingoJack: Fairly sure that's inaccurate - isn't it bonobos? The explanation I heard (from Matt Ridley's book "Red Queen") is that sperm production is proportional to a species' level of promiscuity. It's all about the amount of competition the sperm will face.
So our fellow chimps, which tend to have sex in situations where humans would go with a polite handshake, have huge sperm factories. At the other end of the spectrum are gorillas, whose females have no opportunity for promiscuity due to their harem lifestyle. Humans are kinda in the middle - draw your own conclusions.
In completely unrelated news, blood tests suggest that about 10% of kids were produced via adultery. This figure seems to be fairly constant, with the only exception being the Amish. (Again, draw your own conclusions.)
Posted by: Corkscrew | September 8, 2008 2:43 PM
Gah, sorry, stuttering intarweb connection.
Posted by: Corkscrew | September 8, 2008 2:45 PM
"If I didn't disapprove of this kind of frivolous and ridiculous prosecution, I'd be suggesting that British atheists should take religious people to court."
Oh, and we would. BUT: 1) Religious organisations - except the benign tumour that is the Chuch of England - have no power and are not taken as seriously as in the US by such large numbers and 2) there are very few groups to give funding for the legal fees. So it would be pretty useless, there is no equivalent of the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the UK and there isn't any money for it.
Blasphemy law has finally been abolished. In 2008. *smacks head*
Posted by: Al West | September 8, 2008 4:22 PM
Huh, I recently read it was 20%. Still very interesting.
Posted by: JimC | September 8, 2008 4:35 PM
JimC, your 20% number includes the Amish, while Corkscrew specifically omitted them. To borrow his or her phrase, draw your own conclusions. ;-)
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 8, 2008 5:58 PM
Abby: Well what else do the Amish have to do at night?
Posted by: James K | September 9, 2008 12:52 AM
Corkscrew - You may be right, but somewhere I'm sure I read Humans are the male genitalia kings* (in Primates).
BTW If you think when you meet chimps they are gonna screw you, think again. Chimps have been known to hunt and tear apart monkeys, alive, before eating them. Not to mention the homicidal chimp mother who systematically killed other chimp's offspring with the help of her daughter. Don't confuse chimps with bonobos (a 'gentler' Forrest species), they similar but different. In any case remember these animals are not 'nice' or 'civilised', they are wild animals. -DJ
*At least that's what we tell the ladies :D
Posted by: DingoJack | September 9, 2008 6:04 AM
The UK allows "private prosecutions" - it's literally a criminal trial but brought by a citizen rather than be prosecutors. In a famous 1976 case, Whitehouse v Lemon, a private prosecution was used to convict a gay publication of blasphemy for publishing a poem someone didn't like. It's hard to imagine a more oppressive law than one outlawing blasphemy.
1: as many have stated we no longer have the blasphemy law - and almost never used it anyway. Whitehouse v Lemon is notorious for its rarity.
2: Yes, a private citizen can bring a criminal prosecution. Useful in the event of the authorities being corrupt. But you had better have a watertight case if you want to try. (Seriously, almost all such cases end up with the person bringing the prosecution having to pay costs* for the defence - the de facto British defence against nuisance lawsuits).
* Within reason.
Posted by: Francis | September 9, 2008 12:36 PM
Really?!?!?!?!?!?! Do they want to make this argument?? I'm a non-theist and I'm offended by every representation of 'god'. I can kill everything they do by claiming that that offend my sensibilities. Just shut up and worship your own god. Others can do the same. I'll sit over here chuckling.
Posted by: blurdo | September 10, 2008 1:00 AM