The trouble with Salman

I'm not so sure if you all caught this so I thought I'd summarise and share.

Salman Rushdie was due to appear at the Jaipur Literature Festival in India. Word got out that Rushdie would be appearing at the Festival (despite visiting India on a regular basis) and word went around that he would be the target of violence. further threats were made and some called for Rushdie to be prevented from entering the country.

Read "Why Salman Rushdie's voice was silenced in Jaipur" for more info.

Some of the many writer's who did attend chose to quote from his books, in particular the Satanic Verses. Here is a great article from Hari Kunzru on "Why I quoted from The Satanic Versus" and the subsequent nervousness and chaos that ensued. Some excerpts:

We decided that we would use our afternoon session, in which Amitava was due to interview me about my novel Gods Without Men to highlight the situation. We decided (without consulting the festival organisers, or anyone else) that I would make a statement, and then we would quote from The Satanic Verses. We knew this little-read and much-burned book was banned in India, but it was our understanding that this meant it was a crime to publish, sell or possess a copy. We knew it would be considered provocative to quote from it, but did not believe it was illegal. A pirated text exists on the internet, and we downloaded two passages, 179 and 208 words in length respectively.

...

News of the readings travelled fast. Sanjoy Roy was soon taking calls from clerics and politicians, including one from the chief minister of Rajasthan. The Jaipur police commissioner arrived, interviewed us briefly, and went away, apparently reassured that no law had in fact been broken. 

A lawyer appeared who closeted himself with the festival organisers. He drafted a statement, which we were asked to sign, making clear that the festival was not responsible for our actions. It was left to my friend Sara Chamberlain to find someone to provide legal advice to me. This advice was blunt: I should leave India immediately, as otherwise I risked arrest and might well find myself unable to return home to New York until any resulting cases had been resolved.

Botton is a nutter

I'm not so sure it's a coincidence the release date of Alain de Botton's new book "Religion for Atheists" came not long after the death of Christopher Hitchens.

If I wrote a book as crazy as the one Alain de Botton has just done, I'd also wait until Hitchens wasn't around before releasing it too. 

If Hitchens was here to read Botton's ideas on building an atheist temple and going up against 'destructive' atheists such as Dawkins, he'd knock him off his perch with one swift sentence. Perhaps two, if he could summon the energy.

Now I haven't read the book, but his ideas in the Botton TED video were bizarre and his comments about changing the university system to building temples makes me want to buy it in case we run out of toilet paper.

Here are a list of links if you want to read more:

• The Guardian's review of Religion for Atheists.
• Botton's plans to build a temple for atheists.
• And a great rebuttal of the stupid temple plan. Love this one.
• Dawkins' response to the bollocks.

Religion for atheists

"The Glorious" drew my attention to the Alain de Botton interview in the SMH over the weekend as he is in the country giving a few lectures.

I know the name Alain de Botton from books that popularise the popular philosophy sections of book stores. I've even seen them in people's homes that I wouldn't expect to see philosphy books.

He has a new book out called "Religion for Atheists: A non-believer's guide to the uses of religion".

I don't want to say anymore for the moment but I'd like to hear what you think of Alain de Botton's TED talk on the very aspects he mentions in the book (20minute video below). Ok, it's a time investment but I'm really keen to hear what you think on this one.

Anti-porn activist sues blogger

Here is something that could be worth keeping an eye on. Apparently, anti-porn activist Melinda Tankard Reist is suing blogger Jennifer Wilson for deformation.

The blogger usually goes by the name No Place For Sheep and has claimed to merely exposed MTR's religious belief's which would surely be behind the her anti-porn stance. According to the blog, MTR is allegedly back by "seriously wealthy Christian fundamentalist lawyers, and that money may not be a problem for her as it is for most of us."

This post from the always great Catherine Deveny was an interesting point too.

Institute Of Public Affairs supported Andrew Bolt's right to free speech and set up a fighting fund. Why not the same for @NoPlaceforSheep?

— Catherine Deveny(@CatherineDeveny)

January 16, 2012

As someone once said, trying to ban porn is like trying to ban oxygen but this case may be a good test of facts v defamation. As I understand it, our defamation laws aren't quite as bad as in the UK, but like the chiro's v Simon Singh case, this may end up being an argument over whether merely stating the facts are defamatory.

Here is some more reading about MTR.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3776500.html

http://noplaceforsheep.com/2011/03/03/the-conservative-sexual-crusader-wants-kilos-of-mcfaddens-flesh/

Why am I the ignoramus?

Some thoughts form the Horned God:

I have a friend who claims to be a catholic and a well scriptured and church going catholic at that. After a bit of good fortune descended upon my wife and I our friend blithely pronounced that my wife’s grandmother (who’s life story may have helped secure us the windfall) was ‘looking down’ on us.

When I pointed out that my wife’s grandmother was Jewish and would certainly be in some catholic hell and therefore be more likely (in my friends worldview) to be screaming up at us rather than gazing lovingly down at my bald patch she dismissed me as a Christmas Grinch and told me ‘it didn’t work that way’. My indignant spluttering of; inconsistent, basic tenant, rubbish, small boys, how, what, where.... was dismissed with a polite smile and a glazed eye as the drooling mumblings of a beer sodden argumentative ignoramus.

How do you argue against a fairy story that is allowed to be amended and adapted on a whim. A fable that is, with utter conviction, described as a core belief but the only bits that count are the ones that fit immediate need? Why am I the ignoramus? Red riding hood and the three little pigs have less contradictions. Is it too much to ask for consistency of yarbles?

Priest fight!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16347418?

Praise be to Woody Allen Jesus

Tim Minchin was asked to perform on The Jonathan Ross Show. He performed this piece but it was deemed too offensive to go to air, so they pulled it.

Here it is.