Hensher on Green

Philip Hensher has an amusing opinion piece in The Independent (unfortunately, a “portfolio” article – you have to pay for it) making fun of “the incorrigible self-publicist from Carmarthen”, Stephen Green.

Hensher expounds on the issue of “taking offence”, and concludes,

What we should be doing, and what Mr Green, the promoters of the Religious Hatred Bill, and all other forces now cheerfully threatening our liberty should be doing is not looking around for causes of offence, and deciding which of them cause us, personally, offence. We should just accept, as most of us have, that we live in a big complicated world; not everyone is like us, not everyone holds, or should hold, the same beliefs that we do; and from time to time we will prefer to avert our eyes or close our ears.

Fine words. Stephen Fry said the same thing rather more pithily in a debate about religious censorship at this year’s Hay-on-Wye festival: “You’re offended? So fucking what?”


66 Responses to “Hensher on Green”

  1. Christopher Shell says:

    The wit! The eloquence!

  2. Monitor says:

    Avoiding the question, Christopher?

  3. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    Dr. Shell.

    Why do you think that people’s right to free expression should be restricted just so you religious folk aren’t “offended” ?

    What about all the offence I am subject to, because of your stupid religious childish mumbo jumbo ?

    Respect ?

    Respect has to be earned, and religious folk, haven’t done anything whatosever to earn my respect. They are just a bunch of censorious control freaks.

  4. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Shaun-
    You’ll notice that I always say that offence is not the issue. Im not easily offended, and even if I were, my offence would be merely emotional and subjective. So what is the issue, then? The issue is not whether things are or are not offensive, but whether they participate in positive statistical trends or in neegative ones. In other words, facts not emotions.

    Hi Monitor-
    Far be it from me to avoid questions… Stephen Fry was speaking frivolously – even he would not claim to have been making any profound point – and therefore there is no question there to avoid.
    My rather dismissive comment was aimed only at Fry, not at the rest of the post – sorry if this was not clear.

  5. Christopher Shell says:

    On Hensher’s comment, I agree up to a point. There is a point which he fails to make: namely, that the issue is not what ‘views’ people hold but how informed or justified those views are.

  6. Monitor says:

    Fry’s question, though saltily phrased, is a serious one.

  7. Joe says:

    Certainly wittier than anything you’ve said so far, Christopher. You’re the first to complain about what you perceive as ad hominem attacks on those with whome you find common cause; why are you so quick to indulge in them against others?

    And you know, it occurs to me – you keep attempting to reduce *everything*, especially matters of individual morality, not merely to statistics, but to a boolean either/or approach – everything *must* be either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’, as measured against your rather opaque moral scale.

    Are you autistic?

  8. Tallen says:

    Oh dear. Accusing Stephen Fry of a lack of eloquence is a long walk off a short pier.

  9. Andrew Nixon says:

    Christopher’s obsession with statistics is especially strange when you consider that he himself considers statistics to be “rotten”.

    I have often noticed that Christopher only ever seems to see the world in black and white (good/bad or +ve/-ve), etc. There must be some sort of psychological thing going on here.

    I do think Stephen Fry is making a serious point in that quotation. And it’s a very good one. So what if you’re offended by something? I’m offended at religious programming on TV. Do I complain? No. I turn over. If something offends me, I ignore it.

  10. Christopher Shell says:

    Am I autistic? Im certainly male, and one view is that autism is extreme maleness. But some females are autistic too. It’s good to have a complementary balance of right- and left-brained approaches.
    Alas, the world doesnt divide neatly into logical and intuitive people. Some people are extremely gifted in both departments, e.g. one of my heroes CS Lewis. And some in neither.

    The ‘rotten’ point I have repeatedly explained. Statistics are very far from perfect, but they are clearly the best we have. It is statistics or nothing if one wants maximally objective unbiased evidence. They are ‘the least worst option’.

    Hi Tallen-
    SF is eloquent on other occasions, but no-one would say he was being eloquent or imaginative here. He was making a remark that any dunce down the pub could have made.

  11. Andrew Nixon says:

    If any dunce down the pub can make that remark, then you should find it pretty easy to answer it.

  12. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Andrew-
    The point that Im concerned to get across is that offence is irrelevant. What is relevant is association with positive or negative statistical patterns or nexuses.

    Those who see it all as a matter of people being offended – let it be said a million times (and then one person might hear?) – are misinterpreting. Christians will judge things on how they measure up to something firmer and more solid, rather than according to whether they produce some subjective emotional reaction.
    Of course,if they do produce an emotional reaction,that reaction will have a source.Sometimes that source will be the Christian’s psychology. Other times it will reside in the thing that proiduced the reaction. The emotional reaction is the symptom and byproduct: it’s not the main thing.

  13. Monitor says:

    Just to clarify things, Christopher, would you mind completing this sentence:

    Nobody should be permitted to perform or watch Jerry Springer: The Opera because…

    Thanks.

  14. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    I’d sooner believe the fantasy that’s in Jerry Springer than the absolute rubbish and blantant lies peddled by religious zealots…

    Sorry if some thing in the media shatter their fragile beliefs.. But hey, if they’ve got “faith” they should be able to rise above it all, and not to be so ridiculously over sensitive.

    To be honest it isn’t about being offended I think. It is about them wanting to impose THOUGHT CONTROL on the rest of us.

    I am getting quite sick of it to be honest.
    The world belongs to ALL of us. If we want “Jerry Springer, The Opera” we should be able to have it, regardless of what they think.

    That includes you Mr. Shell.

    I think religion is plain barmy. I wouldn’t want to prevent you going to church. Nor should you prevent me from watching Jerry Springer the Opera, if I want to.

  15. Joe says:

    one of my heroes CS Lewis

    You’d be familiar with his views on artistic censorship, then?

  16. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    If Dr Shell doesn’t remember , (or doesn’t know) the most appropriate of CS Lewis’s deliberations in regard to this issue, I am only to happy to refresh his memory:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    Do you still think CS Lewis is your hero Dr. Shell ? I think it is likely his musings here were directed specifically at people such as yourself!

  17. Christopher Shell says:

    Monitor’s question first: ‘because where no good [association with positive statistical patterns or nexuses] can result from something, whereas harm [association with negative s.p.o.n.] can result, it follows that there is reason to question the true motives of those behind the production. Stealthy negative social engineering can theoretically be just as harmful, or even more harmful, than up-front negative social engineering, and there is therefore just as much reason to make it illegal.’

    Re: CSL: Im sure he had well-thought-out opinions on millions of things. How could we agree on all of them? But we regularly do agree.

  18. tom p says:

    In all fairness to christopher, his position on offence has essentially been the same as Fry’s, but less pithily and less swearily put.

    Regardless of what one thinks of his true motives (and as a christian these will always be suspect on the subject of artistic freedom), he has at least consistently expressed an opinion even under quite rigorous questioning from other posters here (except when he was missing the point or trying to dodge the question by derailing the conversation).

    What he has failed to show is, specifically with regard to jsto, what possible real harm can have been done by it being performed, or even broadcast, especially given the manner in which it was broadcast, namely late at night and with many warnings and an explanatory documentary before it.

    The problem is that he frequently focusses on jsto, which is one of the most defensible broadcasts showing a disrespect of religious sensibilities and containing lots of swearing. It is, put simply, artistically justified.

    Christopher, you should focus your energies on those things which really do cause harm to society, instead of just following beyer and green’s leads, then everyone would have a lot more respect for you and your arguments would seem more coherent and valid.

  19. tom p says:

    Corrections:
    At the end of the 2nd para I should have said that his position is one of ‘does it do harm?’. His methods and his figures are often vague, misleading or non-existent, but that’s clearly the position he is expressing consistently.

    When I said ‘specifically’ at the top of the 3rd para, I should have said ‘particularly’.

  20. Christopher Shell says:

    Thanks for that.
    Respect? Im not out to gain respect, nor to lose it. People should be totally honest, and be totally true to themselves and totally true to the best that they know, rather than saying things in a way deliberately calculated to gain respect. Im not a calculating guy, just an honest guy, and in the long run the latter is always better. And – incidentally – preferable in the sense that you always know where you are with honest guys, whereas with calculating guys you always have the feeling that they may have deliberately chosen their words, phrasing and style so as to gain a particular outcome/effect/response. Im definitely not a smoothie, and spin is out. Conclusively outgunned by straightforwardness.

    Funnily enough, there’s less point focussing one’s debating energies on things that cause more harm (e.g. terrorism), since by and large everyone already agrees that they cause harm, so that there is no debate to be had. What has surprised me is what I see as blindness (or unawareness of historical context, and naivety about human intentions) with regard to slippery slope issues. They are less important, but cumulatively (over a period of time) develop to become massive.

  21. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    There’s plenty of countries, discernably more religious than we are, (Spain for example) which do very well on very little censorship, and restriction of freedom of expression.

    This harm argument has been going on for far too long. Of course you cannot prove a negative. But those people like Dr. Shell who want to impose censorship on the rest of us, really ought to prove their case for it.
    As I have said often, I can find more justification for the censorship of the Bible, and the Q’oran, than censorship of so called “adult” material, and Jerry Springer operas. These beyer types should get on with their lives, and leave the rest of us alone.

    PLEASE.

  22. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    Oh, BTW are you still a CS Lewis fan Dr. Shell ?

  23. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    I missed this:

    “Re: CSL: Im sure he had well-thought-out opinions on millions of things. How could we agree on all of them? But we regularly do agree. ”

    I don’t think you’d have agreed with him on very much to be quite honest…

  24. Christopher Shell says:

    Shaun-
    I dont understand your stance on harm. You seem content with the fact that one cannot prove a negative. From what you say, anyone would think you meant:’because one can’t prove a negative,let’s everyone go ahead and do all sorts of negative things, because no-one will be able to prove taht they actually are negative.’ (Not even when they,or you or I,a re on the receiving end.) I guess this is the sort of thing that gave rise to the phrase ‘playing devil’s advocate’.

    CSL is the thinker to whom I am closest – not in ability, alas. If one concentrates on areas of censorship then I am not especially close to him, but on many of the vast multitude of other issues I am. He saw increasing explicitness in the 1950s (yes: the 1950s) as something negative – which makes me glad he died in 1963. Im surprised that you claim him for the libertarian cause, since in many things he fell squarely in the ‘old moralist’ camp – but at least he argued for his positions far more rationally than other old moralists, or than their opponents.

  25. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    I am certain that Mr. Lewis would have seen things for what they are today, had his life extended into these times.

    He would have examined the arguments and counter arguments, and arrived at the only logical conclusion it is possible to arrive at, once all the facts have been examined rationally, and calmly. Something that religious people never seem to do.

    Morality involves much more than sexual explicitness, nudity, or people going off having sexual relations with other people Dr. Shell. It is clearly immoral to impose any kind of restrictions on a free people, without the strictest of justification for doing it. Especially censorship, which really ought to be considered an evil thing in itself, something which is generally imposed by those evil regimes around the world.

    When I say you cannot prove a negative, I mean, in this case, that it is virtually impossible to show that something could NEVER have an effect on something else. Everything has some kind of effect, on everything else, and it is therefore a question of degree.

    However after 30+ years of debate, and less censorship in many parts of the world, it is quite clear that if the kind of censorship YOU want to see imposed upon ME (which I strongly resent, by the way) was truly necessary, then the evidence for the justification for it, would be held to be unequivocal by now, because of the experiences of those countries over many years.

    But that evidence clearly does not exist, and therefore you are wrong to want to see censorship imposed on me. Indeed there is plenty of empirical evidence which clearly indicates that their lack of censorship is, in fact a good thing.

    So in fact, you are immoral for wanting it to be imposed on me, for no good reason at all, other than your own distorted view of things.

    I suspect religion is the cause.

  26. Andy L says:

    I dont understand your stance on harm. You seem content with the fact that one cannot prove a negative. From what you say, anyone would think you meant:’because one can’t prove a negative,let’s everyone go ahead and do all sorts of negative things, because no-one will be able to prove taht they actually are negative.’ (Not even when they,or you or I,a re on the receiving end.) I guess this is the sort of thing that gave rise to the phrase ‘playing devil’s advocate’.

    No Christopher. That’s not what “prove a negative’ means. It means it is impossible to fundamentally disprove anything, even the most rediculous things. You cannot fundamentally disprove the existance of Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy. All that can be done is that any evidence in favour can be discredited and shown to be false, leaving the prospect of something’s existance extremely unlikely.

    Hence, nobody can disprove that material such as JS:TO is causing harm. Just as no one can disprove that Santa secretly kidnaps babies and turns them into meatballs even Christmas eve. But we can (and repeatedly have) demonstrated that there is no evidence that adult material does cause harm, and the attempts at evidence you’ve put forward have been so flawed as to be worse than useless.

    It follows, quite logically, that if there is no evidence of something it must be assumed to be false until any actual, rational evidence is presented.

    One would point out that it is your lack of understanding of rational and logical issues like these which is precisely the reason you tend to put forward so much complete tosh as evidence of harm – you lack a critical faculty where something fits in to your preset biblical agenda.

  27. Christopher Shell says:

    Hang on a minute!! You are saying that (a) it is desperately hard to find conclusive/probative evidence, because of the nature of ‘proof’; (b) because none has been found (highly dubious, this point) then people can just go ahead and do what they like.

    Are you not thereby admitting that the things in question may indeed be harmful,and the only reason that, in your view, no actual proof (albeit plenty of evidence) has emerged has to do merely with the nature of proof, rather than any actual lack of evidence or any lack of commonsense deduction, any lack of analysis of historical trends etc?

  28. Andy L says:

    Hang on a minute!! You are saying that (a) it is desperately hard to find conclusive/probative evidence, because of the nature of ‘proof’;

    There is no such thing as completely conclusive – merely sufficiently conclusive as to push the odds that you are incorrect into astronomical levels. However, it is quite easy to find evidence that is sufficient to make an informed assumption.

    (b) because none has been found (highly dubious, this point) then people can just go ahead and do what they like.

    Yes, I am. In exactly the same way I’m saying that people don’t have to stand on their roofs waving torches on Christmas Eve to keep away the baby eating Santa monster. Because the odds of either making a difference are pretty much the same. It is completely logical that we do not waste time on things that have no proof to back them up.

    I cannot conclusively prove that you are not responsible for causing all the deaths of cancer Christopher – but it would be extremely reckless of me to kill you in the hopes of stopping cancer, because there’s absolutely nothing to prove that you are the cause, and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

    Are you not thereby admitting that the things in question may indeed be harmful

    I am admitting that there is about the same likelihood such things are harmful as there is that David Icke is right and the world is run by a secret society of shape changing lizards. But that both are sufficiently unlikely without any proof whatsoever to back them up that they can be safely ignored.

    the only reason that, in your view, no actual proof (albeit plenty of evidence) has emerged has to do merely with the nature of proof, rather than any actual lack of evidence or any lack of commonsense deduction, any lack of analysis of historical trends etc?

    No, because no real evidence in favour of your position has emerged either. If there is no evidence in favour of something (at all) then it must logically be assumed to be false until evidence is presented.

    Until proper proof could be presented, your assumption that media causes negative trends must be assumed to be false. Our confidence in that assumption of fallacy can be weak or strong (and, given the completely lack of evidence you have, must be assumed to be very, very strong), but it will still ultimately be an assumption.

  29. Andy L says:

    Sorry… don’t know why some of my quote boxes went funny there. Must have mistyped the tags.

  30. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    The logic is simple.

    If Mr Shell wants to see us censored, then Mr Shell, should provide the overwhelming justification that it is necessary. I accept there is a case for limiting what might be seen in places where one has no choice but to enter. This however excludes a theatre, showing a particular type of show, and it CERTAINLY excludes my living room.

    If the case for such censorship was truly proportionate, then Mr Shell would have no problem whatsoever providing the justification would he ? That is logic that even Mr Shell cannot overcome I am sure.

  31. Christopher Shell says:

    If we really want to be unbiased, there are 2 rules:
    (1) No assumption of guilt;
    (2) No assumption of innocence.
    In other worlds: open-mindedness.

    That is why Andy is right that we should forget the proof thing and concentrate on the weight/balance of evidence.
    Are areas where risque shows show generally above-average in crime rates?
    Or are they below-average?
    We all know the answer already.
    But this is not the main point. I have never said JSTO simply ’causes’ harm, but rather that it is intrinsically harmful in itself. Of course, whatever is harmful will also cause harm: that is its nature. But let’s first understand my main point. It is not ‘JSTO’s portrayal of Jesus will have bad effects’ (although it is scarcely calculated to have good effects). It is ‘JSTO’s portrayal of Jesus is intrinsically negative, and cannot possibly stem from any good motive, which leaves only bad motives.’.

  32. Andy L says:

    Are areas where risque shows show generally above-average in crime rates?
    Or are they below-average?
    We all know the answer already.

    That answer being ‘they’re below average’ – granted, that’s because they don’t tend to build theatres in high crime areas and there’s nothing like enough venues to have any stasticially effective sample (nor would that be proof of causation). But you are presumably infering that the areas are somehow worse off, which isn’t true…

    It is ‘JSTO’s portrayal of Jesus is intrinsically negative, and cannot possibly stem from any good motive, which leaves only bad motives.’.

    JSTO portrayal of Jesus is supposed to be imaginary, even within the context of the play – it is an hallucination. The portrayial is made with the good motives of entertaining the audience and having them ask questions about the nature of theology and the combatative nature of some talk shows. Even if it did have bad motives, that does not mean it has bad effects. I can attempt to put a nasty curse on you buy kicking a wall, but it does not mean anything bad will happen to you.

  33. Andrew Nixon says:

    I have never said JSTO simply ’causes’ harm, but rather that it is intrinsically harmful in itself.

    errr…… how?

  34. Marc says:

    Fuck me! Why do we even bother replying to Dr (non-scientific doctor at that) Shell? He’s obviously on a different planet where adults maturate at different rates according to his own ruleset. Don’t talk to him, talk around him… maybe then he’ll get the message that he’s in a tiny (if rathe rvocal) minority that operate under the illusion that the majority of us even give a shit what they think.

  35. Andy L says:

    That’s what the Americans used to think. No, we have to crush evangellicals now.

  36. Marc says:

    Damn right Andy. But engaging them in conversation on a blog only gives them a breath of life. I’m for ignoring them and talking as if they’re not here: i.e send them to blogging Coventry. No point arguing with them because they’re obviously so pious, they can’t see beyond their own twisted logic that went out of date thousands of years back. Religions only exist to serve the people that work for them – just like big corporations. Microsoft Campus or Vatican City… it’s all the same to me. Perhaps the only difference is MS actually sell something we can use (even if you don’t like it).

  37. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Marc-
    How can logic go ‘out of date’? Is logic determined by fashion?

    Hi Andrew-
    Because the best people I know have at least 2 things in common: they love Jesus and they love truth: historical truth rather than cleverly ‘spun’ fantasy.
    Imagine any of the holiest people who have ever lived, whom you admire for their goodness. What would their relationship be to a play like this. Would they write it? Would they commend it? You already know the answer.

  38. Andrew Nixon says:

    Hi Andrew-
    Because the best people I know have at least 2 things in common: they love Jesus and they love truth: historical truth rather than cleverly ’spun’ fantasy.
    Imagine any of the holiest people who have ever lived, whom you admire for their goodness. What would their relationship be to a play like this. Would they write it? Would they commend it? You already know the answer.

    So how is JS:TO harmful then, as that is what I asked.

  39. Christopher Shell says:

    It reinforces incorrect and ill-informed stereotypes. This would be bad enough if you or I were on the receiving end. But the person on the receiving end is the one who countless thousands will tell you (rightly or wrongly) is the one who taught them what true love really is.

    What sort of motive (or compulsion?) persuades people to give good people like that bad treatment like that?

  40. Andrew Nixon says:

    Christopher. You do realise that JS:TO is quite clear that the story is entirely fictional right? That it bears no resemblence to any person, real or historical (bar Jerry Springer) except in a DREAM sequence.

    You have repeatedly failed to show that JS:TO is harmful, or present any coherent argument as to why anybody should be prevented from seeing it.

    And what makes you say the stereotypes are incorrect? How do you know?

  41. Christopher Shell says:

    Well, if you think the real Jesus bore a close resemblance to the one in Jerry’s dream, we’re eagerly awaiting the publication of your research.

  42. Andrew Nixon says:

    Well, if you think the real Jesus bore a close resemblance to the one in Jerry’s dream, we’re eagerly awaiting the publication of your research.

    eh? I wasn’t claiming to say that the Jesus in JS:TO is a resemblence to the real Jesus. The meaning was that it does portray a “real” person. Yes it is not an accurate portrayal.

    I’m glad you finally accept that it is not an accurate portrayal of Jesus, as you were earlier saying that people may mistake it for an accurate portrayal.

    Now, if you can show how JS:TO is harmful, I would be grateful. What you describe in comment #39 is offence, not harm. And you have said in comment #12 that offence is irrelevant.

  43. Christopher Shell says:

    I was referring to your comment that the stereotypes (including the stereotype ppl have of Jesus) may be correct. If you think so, then let’s have the evidence on the table.

    As you’re probably aware, I never held that JSTO was an accurate portrayal of Jesus. Several years of NT study would not lead anyone to that particular conclusion. What it is is an accurate representation of an already-existing slightly boorish, unthinking stereotype of Jesus.

    I would think that anyone who treats in such a way a person synonymous (in the experience of many) with self-sacrificial love must clearly be ‘harmed’ in the sense of ‘damaged’.

  44. Andrew Nixon says:

    I was referring to your comment that the stereotypes (including the stereotype ppl have of Jesus) may be correct. If you think so, then let’s have the evidence on the table.

    I said:

    And what makes you say the stereotypes are incorrect? How do you know?

    Please indicate where I said the stereotypes are correct. I simply asked how you knew they were incorrect. You say elsewhere that you can not judge what Jesus did from a distance of 2000 years, so how do you know that JS:TO does not contain some accurate traits of Jesus within it’s caricture. How do you know that he wasn’t a “bit gay”?

    I would think that anyone who treats in such a way a person synonymous (in the experience of many) with self-sacrificial love must clearly be ‘harmed’ in the sense of ‘damaged’.

    Again, this is your opinion. You still have not demonstrated how JS:TO is in any way harmful.

    I’d consider that anyone who is gullible enough to believe some of the crap in the Bible (Old and New Testament) is emotionally damaged, especially someone who claims to want rational debate on topics when proclaiming the truth of the resurection myth.

    However, I freely admit that I can not demonstrate this harm.

    If you wish to make the blanket statement that JS:TO is harmful, you must either demonstrate this harm or at least tell us that you can’t do this.

  45. Christopher Shell says:

    I doubt it is a stereotype of Jesus that he was gay. It is a stereotype that he was meek and mild (a largely inaccuarate stereotype, though he certainly and rightly wasnt macho). The gay thing is another example of the News of the World tendency – deliberately placing holy and scandalous words in juxtaposition, for maximum sensation. ‘Gay Jesus’ is similar to ‘naughty vicar’ here. The juxtapositions that journalists would die for – never mind the truth content.

    If you think there’s evidence, let’s have it on the table.

    JSTO is just one manifestation of a harmful (ie negative) overall tendency in society: namely, to rubbish those who deserve our honour or love.

    I can understand why people would do the opposite: love or honour those who didnt deserve it. In fact, that is the Christian ethic.

    But to do the opposite is barmy, no?

  46. Christopher Shell says:

    Last line read: ‘to do the former is barmy, no?’.

    Rather than JSTO doing harm, the point is that it is itself an example of something harmful. This being the case, it will also do harm, but that is not the main point. The main point is that it is an example of something negative or harmful, namely the contrary tendency to give bad treatment to those who deserve good treatment.

  47. Andrew Nixon says:

    Please indicate:

    1) What harm it causes
    2) How it causes this harm
    3) What effect this harm has

    In addition

    I doubt it is a stereotype of Jesus that he was gay. It is a stereotype that he was meek and mild (a largely inaccuarate stereotype, though he certainly and rightly wasnt macho). The gay thing is another example of the News of the World tendency – deliberately placing holy and scandalous words in juxtaposition, for maximum sensation. ‘Gay Jesus’ is similar to ‘naughty vicar’ here. The juxtapositions that journalists would die for – never mind the truth content.

    If you think there’s evidence, let’s have it on the table.

    I don’t think there is any evidence that Jesus was gay. I never said there was. But do you have evidence that he wasn’t?

    JSTO is just one manifestation of a harmful (ie negative) overall tendency in society: namely, to rubbish those who deserve our honour or love.

    Again, your opinion. No facts contained in that paragraph. Why does Jesus deserve my honour/love?

    Apart from being long dead (if we assume he actually existed), the man described in the Gospels was clearly dilusional and I class him in the same group as Charles Manson, David Koresh, and any other cult leader you care to name.

  48. Andrew Nixon says:

    By the way, by harm I mean actual harm (physical or psycological), not offence or anything on the lines of re-enforcing stereotypes. Those two things are not harm at all.

  49. Christopher Shell says:

    Physical harm? I doubt it – unless they start punching the demonstrators outside the theatre.
    Psychological harm? That is such a vague phrase that the answer has to be ‘Almost certainly’. Cynicism; finding swearwords intrinsically funny; having some inner compulsion to collude with ridiculing the person who would top many polls for ‘Best who ever lived’? No sign of psychological health there. But probably any psychological ill-health will have already been present, otherwise they would not have bought the ticket in the first place.

    In addition, reinforcement of lazy stereotypes is not helpful nor neutral: therefore it is harmful.

  50. Andrew Nixon says:

    Psychological harm? That is such a vague phrase that the answer has to be ‘Almost certainly’. Cynicism; finding swearwords intrinsically funny; having some inner compulsion to collude with ridiculing the person who would top many polls for ‘Best who ever lived’? No sign of psychological health there. But probably any psychological ill-health will have already been present, otherwise they would not have bought the ticket in the first place.

    In addition, reinforcement of lazy stereotypes is not helpful nor neutral: therefore it is harmful.

    Well I had my doubts but this confirmed it.

    Christopher Shell is clearly a comic creation of some sort. No-one could actually believe this classifies as psycological harm could they?

    If you do, you’re certainly not very aware of what constitutes psychological health are you?

    Just had a quick phone call with my mum, who has a degree in psychology. She describes cynicism and the willingness to make fun of anyone as signs of great psychological health!

    If you want to talk about psychogical health, I wonder aobut the psychological health of someone who claims to be the son of god. Such a man is clearly mentally ill.

    I also wonder about the psychogical health of a man who claims to want rational debate whilst claiming that the resurrection is a true story!

    But probably any psychological ill-health will have already been present, otherwise they would not have bought the ticket in the first place.

    This comment really reveals your true self. Anyone who bought a ticket for JS:TO is psychologically damaged?

    You’ve said some pretty crazy things on this site, but that just makes you look like a complete dickhead.