Julie Burchill forced to apologise for twitter comments , and pay out a fat wedge .

[andysays]

Kevin Costner indeed. More like Errol Flynn.

Nah, you've both got it wrong

 

[SheilaNaGig]

My mistake was in thinking that what the myth implied. I wasn’t trying to rewrite the myth.

I know you weren’t.

But I find it interesting that your internal version of the story is that she was raped. There’s an assumption there,

If we’re trying to un-pick and unravel the patriarchy it will include working on these little stitches in the lining of the entire mantle.

 

[Sue]

timebandit

Nah, you've both got it wrong

Oh andysays. Next you'll be telling me Maid Marian doesn't look like Olivia de Havilland.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Going after Muslims on social media gobbing off about Mohammed being a padeo is like marching down the falls road shouting "fuck the pope". Its got nothing to do with any sort of critique of religion and everything to do with bigoted, sectarian shit stirring. Which is exactly what Burchill was indulging in. And surely encouraging her twitter followers to pile in on Ash Sakar is pretty close to a criminal harassment ?

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes, no doubt.

Mary did give her consent. Right?

But (for whatever reasons, possibly including patriarchal assumptions, habit of thought) you said she was a rape victim.

I’m saying that to assume and then present her as a victim of rape doesn’t help women to feel empowered or to stand up against Xian misogyny.

It was my understanding that Mary found out after the fact. That’s why I said what I said.

I have said several times now that I was mistaken. I don’t intend to keep on repeating that every time someone wants to bring it up again. I’ve accepted the mistake now far more often than i made the mistaken assertion.

(It turns out that only two of the gospels mention the virgin birth and that Matthew talks about discovering she was pregnant after the fact ... but I have to agree that the book of Luke disputes that reading).

I was not trying to paint Mary in any way. I simply got the story wrong.

 

[hitmouse]

What about Robin Hood? Was he real?

If he wasn't, then who built that airport outside of Nottingham, eh?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I know you weren’t.

But I find it interesting that your internal version of the story is that she was raped. There’s an assumption there,

If we’re trying to un-pick and unravel the patriarchy it will include working on these little stitches in the lining of the entire mantle.

I think there might be a danger that you're making an assumption here, though, as well. If she didn't consent to being impregnated, then how should we characterise that? Is it not a pro-patriarchy assumption to say that it isn't rape?

What do we do with stories we think are deeply imbued with misogynistic assumptions, which I think stories from both the Bible and the Quran are? Do you try to reclaim them, or why not simply reject them?

 

[SheilaNaGig]

I don't know about that. I don't think we've had a long enough crack at it yet.

I think it’s pretty pretty well recognised that we store, process and share knowledge and information most readily in the form of story.

If we don’t have myth cycles (we always have done until very recently ) what will take their place?

Formal monotheistic religion took over from the kind of immersive cultural religious belief and practice that was extant for tens of thousands of years before that.

Soap operas and other telly stuff that almost every single person watched was a decent stand in for a while. We no longer watch telly in the same way. We don’t have the commonly held story anymore. I think that could be a problem.

 

[DaveCinzano]

That's really unfair, I've never heard of Rush Limbaugh defending Rod Liddle.

Even he drew the line somewhere

 

[hitmouse]

Going after Muslims on social media gobbing off about Mohammed being a padeo is like marching down the falls road shouting "fuck the pope". Its got nothing to do with any sort of critique of religion and everything to do with bigoted, sectarian shit stirring. Which is exactly what Burchill was indulging in. And surely encouraging her twitter followers to pile in on Ash Sakar is pretty close to a criminal harassment surely?

Yeah, it does feel odd that the discussion switched so quickly from "Burchill is obviously wrong and a dick for what she said" to "but let's imagine a different set of circumstances in which what Burchill said might be reasonable."

 

[danny la rouge]

I know you weren’t.

But I find it interesting that your internal version of the story is that she was raped. There’s an assumption there,

If we’re trying to un-pick and unravel the patriarchy it will include working on these little stitches in the lining of the entire mantle.

Oh, I’m with you now! You think it was a Freudian error. Well, who knows. I think it stemmed from my belief that the Abrahamic religions give little agency to women, and that in fact the Bible is full of rape, so my low opinion ended up imagining another instance.

But of course I was brought up in the Catholic faith and indeed was a child in the 60s and 70s, so I’d be surprised if I’d shaken off all hidden sexism and homophobia to be perfectly frank. It’s a work in progress.

 

[SheilaNaGig]

I think there might be a danger that you're making an assumption here, though, as well. If she didn't consent to being impregnated, then how should we characterise that? Is it not a pro-patriarchy assumption to say that it isn't rape?

What do we do with stories we think are deeply imbued with misogynistic assumptions, which I think stories from both the Bible and the Quran are? Do you try to reclaim them, or why not simply reject them?

Becasue then you’d have to impose some kind of cartel on how people feel about their gods and experience their religion.


I’m not a Christian apologist. I abhor formal religion, doctrine and dogma in all it’s forms. But I also think that it’s really important that - for those of us for whom these things hold meaning - stories such as this one about Mary giving birth to a god in human form are not sneered at and mocked by those who don’t feel the same way.

 

[SheilaNaGig]

Oh, I’m with you now! You think it was a Freudian error. Well, who knows. I think it stemmed from my belief that the Abrahamic religions give little agency to women, and that in fact the Bible is full of rape, so my low opinion ended up imagining another instance.

But of course I was brought up in the Catholic faith and indeed was a child in the 60s and 70s, so I’d be surprised if I’d shaken off all hidden sexism and homophobia to be perfectly frank. It’s a work in progress.

Freudian error! Well I hadn’t thought of it quite like that, but yeah.


Okay. I need to go and do something else now.
Interested to see where this goes next.

 

[Sue]

Oh, I’m with you now! You think it was a Freudian error. Well, who knows. I think it stemmed from my belief that the Abrahamic religions give little agency to women, and that in fact the Bible is full of rape, so my low opinion ended up imagining another instance.

But of course I was brought up in the Catholic faith and indeed was a child in the 60s and 70s, so I’d be surprised if I’d shaken off all hidden sexism and homophobia to be perfectly frank. It’s a work in progress.

I was certainly taught at my (Catholic) primary school that Mary had no idea she was pregnant (and therefore didn't consent) until the angel came and told her. (It being couched as her being blessed and all that). And because Joseph was a good man, he married her despite her pregnancy. I can't tell you which gospel that comes from or what the others say but that's certainly the version we were given....

 

[SheilaNaGig]

I think there might be a danger that you're making an assumption here, though, as well. If she didn't consent to being impregnated, then how should we characterise that? Is it not a pro-patriarchy assumption to say that it isn't rape?

What do we do with stories we think are deeply imbued with misogynistic assumptions, which I think stories from both the Bible and the Quran are? Do you try to reclaim them, or why not simply reject them?

I don’t disagree with you btw.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Myths are fine, if you like that sort of thing, but religious myths get treated by some as historical events, with both symbolic and actual meaning. That's OK for dead religions, the Norse gods, the Cathars, Druids and what have you. With living religions it matters that people treat these stories as 'gospel'. They should be free to do so, but why should we have to judge and react to their belief systems any differently to how we judge or react to climate change deniers, or the followers of David Icke. Sure, be nice to people, mostly, but feel free to take the piss as well.

 

[nogojones]

So it adds to the general atmosphere of misogyny.

How about reframing the women in these myth cycles as people with agency and autonomy.

As Danny says, it turns out that Mary didn’t give consent. Yet the received or perceived idea is that she was at the mercy of larger forces..

Jesus had less agency during the crucifixion, pleading before and during to freed from his fate. He's not seen as a victim.

The bible is almost certainly written totally by men and from a mans perspective. You'd have to be pretty creative to reconstruct the narrative yet retain the "meaning".

 

[danny la rouge]

not sneered at and mocked by those who don’t feel the same way.

I didn’t intend to do that. For example I think insisting on referring to deities as “sky pixies” is childish. My criticisms of religious philosophies is not that people hold them. It’s none of my business. What I do criticise is where religions perpetuate oppressions.

 

[danny la rouge]

I was certainly taught at my (Catholic) primary school that Mary had no idea she was pregnant (and therefore didn't consent) until the angel came and told her. (It being couched as her being blessed and all that). And because Joseph was a good man, he married her despite her pregnancy. I can't tell you which gospel that comes from or what the others say but that's certainly the version we were given....

Matthew, it turns out. Yes, that was what I remembered being taught too. But it’s been correctly pointed out that Luke contradicts this.

 

[danny la rouge]

Anyway, I’m done with this rabbit hole now. Burchill was being bigoted and made a personal attack. I have no time for her or that behaviour.

All I was responding to was the idea that one shouldn’t ever be allowed to criticise religious figures. It’s not necessarily bigoted or racist to do so.

 

[petee]

The bible is almost certainly written totally by men and from a mans perspective.

which, i've thought, makes Gen 3:12 ironical.
i can see them both flustering around looking for someone else to point at.

 

[Edie]

Anyway, I’m done with this rabbit hole now. Burchill was being bigoted and made a personal attack. I have no time for her or that behaviour.

All I was responding to was the idea that one shouldn’t ever be allowed to criticise religious figures. It’s not necessarily bigoted or racist to do so.

What a fucking cop out.

 

[danny la rouge]

What a fucking cop out.

Tell me why.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Anyway, I’m done with this rabbit hole now. Burchill was being bigoted and made a personal attack. I have no time for her or that behaviour.

All I was responding to was the idea that one shouldn’t ever be allowed to criticise religious figures. It’s not necessarily bigoted or racist to do so.

It's not religious figures, but idealised, romanticised, mythical representations of people about whom we know next to nothing. You might offend some believers by being critical of Jesus and Mo, and others, but plenty of religious folks offend me on a regular basis without giving it a second thought.

 

[Knotted]

Acts is generally thought to be the earliest though.

I thought it was thought to be the same author as Luke. I thought Mark was thought to be the first gospel and Pauls letters the first Christian writings. (With the gnostic gospels Thomas and Judas etc. being much later).

 

[nogojones]

which, i've thought, makes Gen 3:12 ironical.
i can see them both flustering around looking for someone else to point at.

Get the blame in early and don't back down is the message I've taken

 

[Edie]

Tell me why.

You are so arrogant you think you can make childish and derogatory remarks about other peoples beliefs, and not even be bothered to defend them other than that you having the ‘right’ to do so. Well fuck you.

 

[danny la rouge]

Edie Here’s a Bible story (I’ve checked the references this time).

In Genesis 19, two angels arrive in Sodom, and Lot puts them up. The men of the city beseige Lot's house and demand that he give them the two guests so they could “know them”. (Shag them). [Genesis 19:4-5] Lot is horrified so to appease the mob, offers them his two daughters instead, with the added selling point that they are virgins. [19:8] The mob turn down Lot's offer, and so the angels strike them down with blindness, and then warn Lot to leave the city before it is destroyed.

I think it’s fine for me to say that displays a pretty misogynistic and patriarchal attitude in the Bible, in its first book, and that those attitudes are not OK.

What I wouldn’t do is to use that as an argument to a Christian that they should stop believing in god. It’s perfectly possible to accept the Bible as an allegorical work of its time and culture and still believe in god.

 

[planetgeli]

So yeah, if anyone actually wants to remind themselves what this is all about, Julie Burchill moving beyond the controversialist into nasty, vicious racist cunt, here's a link which contains a lot of what she said (it's from her solicitors and talks about the judgement and apology)

Julie Burchill to pay substantial damages & public apology to Ash Sarkar in defamation/harassment case

Blog Page - News Section

www.rllaw.co.uk

Or carry on talking about giving consent to angels, whatever.

 

[Edie]

Edie Here’s a Bible story (I’ve checked the references this time).

In Genesis 19, two angels arrive in Sodom, and Lot puts them up. The men of the city beseige Lot's house and demand that he give them the two guests so they could “know them”. (Shag them). [Genesis 19:4-5] Lot is horrified so to appease the mob, offers them his two daughters instead, with the added selling point that they are virgins. [19:8] The mob turn down Lot's offer, and so the angels strike them down with blindness, and then warn Lot to leave the city before it is destroyed.

I think it’s fine for me to say that displays a pretty misogynistic and patriarchal attitude in the Bible, in its first book, and that those attitudes are not OK.

What I wouldn’t do is to use that as an argument to a Christian that they should stop believing in god. It’s perfectly possible to accept the Bible as an allegorical work of its time and culture and still believe in god.

Nope, you’re still not getting it.