Faith-based censorship is an effective means of social control when a religion dominates a society, but in the West where religions have lost their political status it's just a waste of time. Apparently, though, it's a waste of time that makes at least some believers feel more important and respected because they won't stop. They still want to control the expression of ideas they disapprove of.
Case in point is the town of Aberystwyth where Monty Python's 1979 film Life of Brian is still banned. They weren't the only place to ban the film in a fit of Christian censorship, but they may be the last one left — and the local vicar thinks that's just grand. He seems to believe strongly in censoring material he personally finds blasphemous and offensive.
Reverend Canon Stuart Bell said Christians he spoke to in Ceredigion were still against it being shown. ..."There's been no change in attitude or response to the film amongst the Christians who have spoken to me in Aberystwyth," he explained. "The film at its root is poking fun at Christ and we don't want that to happen. I don't think that the film should be shown. Why should the ban be removed?"
Asked if he had ever seen the film, Mr Bell said he had "seen a small clip, that's all".
He said: "If someone was going to make fun of my wife in a film then I would oppose that. Making fun of Jesus Christ, whom I love more than my wife, in a film is going to offend me."
Source: BBC
Maybe the only Christians who have spoken to Stuart Bell support the continued ban because Christians sensible enough to see this censorship for what it is aren't interested in trying to talk to censorious, self-righteous priests? I suppose Aberystwyth may be filled with nothing but Christians who like censorship, but that would be a little surprising. What's not surprising is the fact that Bell hasn't seen the movie. I've yet to encounter a censor who believed it important to be familiar with material before censoring it. If it's bad for others to view, it must be bad for them, so they can't view it. How they come to the conclusion that it's bad for people to view is another matter and one which they seem reluctant to discuss.
It's worth noting that Stuart Bell never actually gives an explanation for why the film should be banned. He sort of explains why it offends him, though that explanation is weak since he hasn't seen it. How can something you are ignorant of truly offend you? Regardless, it's almost as if he think's it self-evident that anything which offends the local priest should of course be banned from public viewing. He doesn't seem to think it necessary to give any arguments as to why an offended priest is the least bit relevant. It's not obvious that even local Christians should care very much, never mind all the non-Christians who may live in the area.
The mayor of Aberystwyth happens to be Sue Jones-Davies, who played the role of Brian's girlfriend in the movie. It's ironic that she's moved from starring in a much-loved movie to running what may be the only town in Britain where the movie is banned. I say she should host a viewing of the movie in her home or even the town hall. Do you think the police would actually arrest her? Let priests like Bell stew and fume. This strikes me as being one time where we can measure the advancement of liberty by the degree of offense experienced by priests.
It's certainly one more example of how deliberate acts of blasphemy can be a necessary tactic in combatting ridiculous over-reactions to blasphemy. If a person is bothered by blasphemy, then they certainly shouldn't do what they think is blasphemous. I wish them well. They cannot and should not, however, force others to live according to their personal anti-blasphemy standards. Unfortunately, such standards can become so ingrained in society and so accepted by believers that they can no longer be countered through sober, intellectual arguments. Instead, the best and perhaps only way to strongly counter them is through blasphemy itself.
Blasphemy is one of those things where the very act of blasphemy can help people overcome their fear of it and make it a non-issue. Like the presence of gays and atheists who are out of the closet, once you see it often enough it stops being surprising, scary, or threatening. It becomes less important and the taboos against it become quaint at best — relics of an unenlightened and superstitious past that many would prefer to forget. So blaspheme away, as much and as often as you want, until people start thinking we're strange for bothering. When the general public is that unconcerned about it, we'll have accomplished something important.
“BLESSED BE THE CHEESEMAKERS!”
–
“What is myrrh, anyway?”
“It is a valuable balm.”
“A bomb? What are you giving him a bomb for, it might bite him.”
–
I LOVE THIS FLICK, SCREW THE RELIGIONISTS! Always look on the bright side of death.
Christopher Hitchens has observed that the literal mind cannot abide the ironic mind. Methinks Hitchens may be on to something here…
I consider myself a Christian, but I also have a sense of humor – I love this movie.
I hate it when people criticize things they haven’t seen!
I love “Life of Brian”.
but it’s a good thing he didn’t see it, otherwise he’d realize it really wasn’t making fun of Jesus at all, but rather religion at it’s Pharasitic root.
Strain out the gnat, gulp down the camel.
Mr. Bell is only proving what being a Pharisee really means (and Jesus wouldn’t approve of that at all).
I’d like to ban the speech of people who ban things, but then I’d be a hypocrite.
I guess one of my only regrets about raising my children without religion is that they won’t get half the jokes here.
My 8-year old is still trying to understand the whole Eucharist thing, he keeps asking, “Dad, isn’t it worse to eat something if you think it’s a God?” and “Dad, can you tell me more weird rules?” I once made the mistake of seeing LOB with a bunch of Jewish friends; they didn’t find it funny. Weirdos.
That raises a very interesting issue that I’ve not thought about in all the times I’ve written about blasphemy: is comic blasphemy really only funny to those who are (or have been) insiders? Is blasphemy the ultimate example of an insider joke?
Imagine a Hindu version of the Life of Brian: skeptics and atheists who grew up in a Hindu culture would presumably find it funny. Devout, conservative Hindus would be outraged. You and I would probably just sit there with confused looks on our faces… even if we were knowledgeable of Hinduism and had the jokes explained to us, wouldn’t it still fail to be funny?
I once made the mistake of seeing LOB with a bunch of Jewish friends; they didn’t find it funny. Weirdos.
Were they the Judean People’s Front, or the the People’s Front of Judea? Maybe the Judean Popular People’s Front?
You and I would probably just sit there with confused looks on our faces… even if we were knowledgeable of Hinduism and had the jokes explained to us, wouldn’t it still fail to be funny?
Although Christianity inspired LOB, I think much if not most of the humor would still carry through using a different religion.
I think, for example, the tendency to confidently assert the meaning of others’ words when they’ve only just been spoken (the sermon on the mount), jump at the opportunity to profess allegiance to someone who shortly before was unknown to them (”Follow the gourd!”), or for political or social groups to either engage in ridiculous infighting (PFoJ or JPF?) or find martyrdom to be a desirable outcome (leaving Brian to die rather than just rescuing him), would hold up as funny regardless of which religion provided the backdrop.
The only people i hate more than the Romans is the JPF!
i thought the movie showed Jesus as a nice guy with some good ideas. It made fun of religion and people’s reaction to it.
“We’re all individuals!”
“I’m not”
Brilliant flick!
tamar says I’d like to ban the speech of people who ban things, but then I’d be a hypocrite.
Therefore, we should ban the banning of banners of things! We could all be followers of Hypocrises!
“You must think for yourselves!”
“Yes, we must think for ourselves!” the crowd answers in unison.
Isn’t that the heart of all faith?
I’ve had Jewish friends who thought the movie unfairly targeted them, not Christianity. I agree with Barbara K, but maybe if it had been done in a sci-fi context so it did not give the appearance of targeting one specific group of people it might have stung less and provoked more thought. Just a thought. It’s still my favorite Python.
If Blasphemy means exposing bigots ,then it was very Blasphemous.But it wasn’t just about religious bigots.It was about bigotry as a whole.The anti-roman groups were based on European Leninist-Trotskyist groups who saw the texts of those two as being as unchallengeable as religious bigots regard their texts to be-and who fragmented in the same way as religious groups have.to be fair to those left-wing groups,I never heard one of them saying the film should be banned because it insulted their beliefs.Ironically,the town is not a backwater.It has a wonderful,live-and let -live liberal feel to it.The ban,I think must have lasted because no one realised it was in force.I don’t think the Rev will have much support in his oppostion to the film.
The reverend’s comments remind me of Nietzsche’s quip in Human All Too Human (129):
“There is not enough love and kindness in the world to permit us to give any of it away to imaginary beings.”