I've decided today to write a blog today about something which really winds me up. Not something that winds me up a bit like having French neighbours but something which I think is properly wrong.
I read an article written by Ann Widdecombe for the Telegraph (
read it here). This article had been written by her ahead of the BBC airing a documentary (
Watch it here) she had made about comedy and Christianity. It is an interesting topic, I won't deny that. And, even as an atheist who generally has no room for people taking offence, I do think it is important to stop and check every now and then that we haven't gone too far and strayed into the territory of attacking a minority group. We must never let that happen. We should always challenge ideas and principles with which we disagree and the things done in their name. But we should never stray into the territory of oppressing a minority needlessly.
So, yeah, the documentary should have been made but what I really question is why they got Anne Widdecombe to do it? If you don't know, Anne Widdecombe made her name by being one of the most ghastly Tories there has ever been. She opposed having legal abortions, she left Anglicanism as a response to the ordination of woman priests, she opposed gay rights at every possible opportunity, she is a climate change sceptic (once said: "There is no climate change, hasn't anybody looked out of their window recently?"), she supported the re-introduction of the death penalty, she supported a policy of shackling down pregnant prisoners. So yeah, she sort of stands against everything I support. Her only saving graces were that she claimed practically no expenses and was a bit funny on Strictly Come Dancing.
So why on earth, other than being a noted Christian, was she picked to make this documentary? She's a Christian but what does she know about comedy? An ideal person would have been Frank Skinner - a noted Catholic who also knows a bit about comedy!
But, actually I can tell you why she was picked - because she had a bee in her bonnet and that would make good telly!
Anyway (that was just the introduction - this is going to be quite a long blog I'm afraid), I know need to point out my gripes with the article before the documentary.
She starts with a claim that the relationship between Christianity and comedy has gone from "Gentle mockery or sharp satire aimed at Christians and their leaders" to "abuse of Christianity itself". Now, I don't claim that that isn't in some way true BUT I do not think that's necessarily a bad thing. You can mock the leaders all you want but the reason there's so much to mock is because they are all fuelled by one pretty horrific book. It's not wrong to point out the flaws in that.
The term "militant atheism" is used. I don't think I need to point out why I find this phrase deeply offensive and how it's just a shitty stick used by Christians to oppress free speech of the opposition.
She then goes on to explain that she has never soon The Life of Brian. That's ok, not everyone has seen every film - she'll watch it before she makes the documentary right?
"so I watched excerpts chosen for me by the producer."
WHAT?? One one of the most significant films ever in the relationship between comedy and Christianity and you aren't going to bloody watch it?!?! Disgraceful!
Well I suppose this means you can't make and criticisms of it, right?
WRONG. She goes on to tear it apart. She first becomes very snooty about the comedy of a film, which I personally regard as the funniest of all time, and then claims to be offended by the crucifixion scene.
"How could anybody not find that offensive, Christian or not?"
Well very easily actually, because there is nothing offensive in it!!
I want to rip apart the whole article but I more want to get onto the actual documentary and I'm sure you can work out my opinions on the rest of it!
So, on the the documentary! It starts by showing some relevant one liners by Jimmy Carr, Hugh Dennis and others with Christians sitting looking unamused. Thank you, this emotive device taught us a lot, didn't it?
Then she gets annoyed because Christianity is more acceptable in comedy than politics. Well, ignore the 27 bishops in the house of lords and the fact that the head of state is the head of the Church of England, and that might be true. But the reason for that is that if politics was run by Christianity it would be an oppression of the people in this country who are not Christians but in comedy it doesn't do that. Because, what people say in comedy doesn't affect what becomes the bloody law!
The phrase "what we choose to laugh at" is used. We don't "choose" to laugh at anything. It's natural and involuntary, it's a very deep and raw response.
That's twice now they've played the Jimmy Carr line "If we're all God's children, what's so special about Jesus?" which shows that:
a) They're quickly running out of relevant clips.
b) The threshold for offence is too low. That line is a simple peace of wordplay, I can't believe anyone would find that truly offensive.
"Has respect for my faith now disappeared " Yes, yes it has, along with about twenty million christians. That is sort of why.
Now, Marcus Brigstoke is on. He's a good comedian and he's talking a lot of sense.
Now we hit something very interesting. There's an old sketch which is apparently so offensive that it was banned. In it a communion wafer is taken and a man puts chutney on it. This made me laugh. The reason it made me laugh is because, basically, communion is a bit silly. OK it represents something important in Christianity, but basically you're just eating a very thin wafer. It's a bit silly and this sketch is a bit silly. All practices should be questioned. This one simply points out that, if this ceremony was new to you as an adult, you'd probably think "hold on, it's just bloody wafer!" I don't consider this sketch to be VERY funny or VERY important but I am shocked that is has been treated as having been as offensive as it has when it clearly isn't. Not really anyway, not more than the standard Christo-poking.
Anne goes on to express much disgust at it. I don't get it. I don't know how it can be regarded as so offensive. If you believe that wafer is the body of Christ then fine, good on you. But that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with others doing a sketch which is the equivalent to someone saying "hold on, isn't it just a bit of wafer? Am I missing something?"
Now the producer of the show which featured the sketch comes on to defend the sketch. And, he does defend it very well. Better than I could. He explains that the butt of the joke is not communion but the characters involved. But then anyone could have seen that. And then Anne tries a response basically saying that communion cannot be featured in a sketch at all. Saying this essentially puts things on a pedastool never to be touched or challenged. Very dangerous.
Ann does then explain to Marcus Brigstoke that communion is like a bereavement for Christ and that she's "wounded". It gives Marcus pause for thought - and me too if I'm honest. But here's why I still think it's ok:
If there were a funeral and someone made a joke about the person being dead, that would be in bad taste. If someone made a joke about the way in which the funeral took place like "Wow, all these cut flowers. Wasn't one death enough without having to kill a ton of plants too?" then that would be fine because the mocking is about the weird ceremony around the bereavement. The same applies to communion.
The next bit is very exciting, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, explains that Life of Brian is not offensive and, in fact it is good to have a sense of humour about religion exactly. One's religion is stronger if the core has been joked about and the belief is held whilst laughing about it.
I do love Life of Brian because what it does so well is mock the way that beliefs are held and formed, particularly at the time of Jesus. It does not properly mock religion so I really don't get how anyone could take offence.
We now get a bit where the idea that Christianity is mocked and other religions are protected is addressed.
Oh god, they've brought out Baroness Warsi. Another despicable politician who has previously shown she does not even understand what terms like "secular society" even mean. Her appearance fills me with dread.
And now they remember that Citizen Kahn happened. So any religion can be mocked. Just basically comedy is about the things we know and we know Christianity well enough. I would happily joke about Islam if I were less ignorant of it. I make jokes about Christianity because I was raised Christian and I have a decent working knowledge of it.
The clip from Citizen Kahn shows a farce around Islamic prayer. The earlier clip showed farce around Holy Communion. They are equal on the offence scale. Widdecombe finds the Christian clip offensive and the Islamic clip not. Hypocrisy.
There's later a moan that people turned down the opportunity to be on the show. She speculates ludicrous reasons as to why. I expect that the main reason is that it's presented by someone as horrible and irrelevant as Ann Widdecombe. As I said earlier, if you had someone respected in fields of comedy and Christianity (because many Christians I know have no respect for Ann and the dispassionate views she holds) then I'm sure you could have got people on.
So to conclude. If I'm honest it wasn't as bad as it could have been. But, I'm sure anyone sensible - including many Christians - will realise that Ann Widdecombe took a really provocative and extreme view. Most Christians won't have been offended by any of the comic material included.
I believe that people have the right to believe anything they want - absolutely anything. But that right is a bit like your personal space - it exists entirely around you. You can't sit next to someone and then expect them to move on the grounds that they're invading you're personal space. You can't expect someone not to say something on the grounds that it pertains to something you hold sacred.
For example I could claim to believe in Russell's teapot (named after Bertrand Russell not me. If you don't know what it is
see here). I could believe in it sincerely and deeply. That would not mean I had the right to stop anyone else from making jokes about looking for teapots through telescopes.
Religion is not fixed and not permanent. Anyone can believe anything. Therefore we cannot ring-fence anything due to the vast numbers of people who believe it.
Oh and one other thing, I resent the snooty tone of the documentary. There was a sense that Ann thought that comedy was not worthy of talking about religion. That comedy was just silly and foolish and not important. Anyone who thinks this really doesn't get comedy. Comedy is important. Comedy is the way in which people deal with the things around them.
Thanks for reading. I know this was a bit long and preachy but I felt the need to put my thoughts on it together. The age of offence frightens me.
Here endeth the lesson.
P.S There's a chance I've spelt people's names wrong or not capitalised a word in somewhere that I should to show respect. I don't care.
