Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

The afterlife of Brian

Does a 30-year-old blasphemy row still have relevance today?

By Nelson Jones Published 16 August 2011 12:11

More than 30 years on, the controversy surrounding the release of Monty Python's Life of Brian seems more than a bit ridiculous -- a fit subject for a comedy. Certainly, the BBC thinks so: Holy Flying Circus, based on those events, will be broadcast on BBC4 in a few weeks. Taking centre stage is a recreation of a notorious TV debate in which the Pythons John Cleese and Michael Palin took on a fired-up Malcolm Muggeridge, who denounced the film as "squalid", and the slightly milder Bishop of Southwark, who predicted that the team would "get their 30 pieces of silver".

That event (you can watch extracts on YouTube) is indeed rich in comic potential. The bishop, all wild hair and purple cassock, waves around an enormous silver cross. Muggeridge (in his day a significant public figure, though few now remember him) just looks demented. Palin looks, at times, genuinely distressed. The show was parodied shortly afterwards on Not the Nine O'Clock News but the original is much funnier.

At the time, though, the debate was deadly serious. Life of Brian was banned in several US states and a number of countries (including Ireland, in those days still virtually a theocracy -- and we all know how well that turned out). There were protests, too, in Britain, co-ordinated by the Festival of Light, an evangelical group associated with Mary Whitehouse. After an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the BBFC to ban the film, the group masterminded a letter-writing campaign to local authorities. Thirty-nine responded by banning or reclassifying it.

There was even talk of bringing a private prosecution for blasphemy -- sufficiently serious for the team to take legal advice from John Mortimer QC, who had led the defence in Whitehouse's earlier, successful prosecution of Gay News.

It wasn't the Satanic Verses, nowhere near, but the principles at stake were the same. On one side, freedom of expression and the right to treat religion with not greater reverence than, say, politics or literature. On the other, the view that one shouldn't make fun of religion, either because it annoys God or, more pragmatically, because believers tend to get quite upset. The issues remain, sadly, as topical as ever.

Yet it can be hard, today, to see what all the fuss was about. Partly, that's because the film is such a classic. It has given immortal phrases to the English language: "Blessed are the cheesemakers"; "What have the Romans ever done for us?"; "He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy." After all these years, it's still extremely funny; but the religious satire has largely lost its power to shock. In some ways, it has almost become an object of veneration in its own right, as one of the greatest comic films ever made, a high point of British popular culture.

Blasphemy, too, has gone, at least as a crime in British law. After a last, failed attempt to revive it in the case of Jerry Springer: the Opera, the ancient law of blasphemous libel was quietly euthanised in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It was probably the campaign against Jerry Springer (led by Stephen Green of the small pressure group Christian Voice) that nudged the then government into repealing the law. There was a rearguard action in both the Lords and Commons to preserve it but the illogicality of the blasphemy law was well summed up by the late (and much missed) Earl of Onslow: "If God does not exist, nothing will happen; if he does exist, it is up to him to get hold of the chap who wrote it and make sure that he does time in the diabolical house of correction."

Stephen Green is a much more marginal figure than Mary Whitehouse and the Church of England is no longer much of a force in the land. The same government that repealed the blasphemy law, however, introduced a new crime of "religious hatred", replacing the fear of insulting God with that of insulting believers. The talk is of mutual respect and social cohesion. Where insult is perceived, it can be very difficult to distinguish between the believer and the belief.

Here, Life of Brian remains as subversive as ever. If not an overt attack on Christianity, the film is devastating in its satire of religious behaviour. Blasphemy is parodied in the famous stoning scene. Just as pointed, in its own way, is the depiction of a would-be disciple who thinks that Brian will heal his wife's headache because "her brother-in-law is the ex-mayor of Gath". The scene in which Brian flees from a crowd of would-be worshippers manages to encapsulate the whole history of religion in around three minutes.

Brian himself is something of a holy fool. Though naive, and far more interested in getting off with Judith than in either revolution or starting a religion, he sees with more clarity than any of the idiots, charlatans and human sheep that constitute the local population. In some ways, he may indeed be the Messiah:

Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me! You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!

Life of Brian is about much more than just religion. All human life is there: at least, all human folly, which is to say much the same thing. It's a film about human vanity and stupidity, about pretension and wishful thinking, about people's almost irresistible tendency to think inside the box. The grammar-obsessed Roman centurion who forces Brian to write "Romans go home!" in huge letters all over the city wall as a punishment for getting his inflections muddled up is as caught up in his own self-referential universe as Reg, the all-too-recognisable leader of the People's Front of Judea, whose idea of defeating the might of Imperial Rome is to pass resolutions and inveigh against the "splitters" in the Judean People's Front.

Religion, in this wider context, is just another manifestation of human stupidity. Subversive indeed.

Tags: Religion

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

60 comments

Sat, 2012-06-16 16:51 — chiflatBygiettyPeere (not verified)

Ò»¼¼Ö®³¤
ÎÄÕÂÀ´Ô´£ºÎ´Öª ÎÄÕÂ×÷Õß£ºenread ·¢²¼Ê±¼ä£º2012-05-08 05:04 ×ÖÌå£º [´ó ÖÐ Ð¡]¡¡ ½øÈëÂÛÌ³
(µ¥´Ê·Òë:Ë«»÷»òÍÏÑ¡)

Gong sun Long , is a famous scholar lived in the State of Zhao during the Warring States Period (475-221BC). He had kept a circle skilled people around him. He often said, "A wise man should welcome anyone with a specialty."

One day, a man dressed in tattered£¨ÆÆÀÃµÄ£© and dirty clothes came to see him and said to him:" I have a special skill. "

Gong asked: "What is it?"

"I have a loud voice and I'm good at shouting."

Then Gong turned to his followers and asked," Who is good at shouting?" But none of them answered "Yes ". So the scholar took the man in.

Some days later, Gong and his followers went on a trip. They came to a wide river and found the ferryboat was on the other side of the river. All of them had no idea. Suddenly, Gong thought of the shouting expert and turned to him, "Can you have a try?" The man realized it was the chance to show his skill. He shouted to the ferryman as loud as he could, "Hey, ferryman, come here, we want to cross the river." As his voice ended, the ferryman came to fetch them. Gong was very satisfied with the new follower.

Later, people use it to describe anyone who has a special professional skill

Thu, 2012-06-07 05:36 — carolinaherera (not verified)

El bolso de tela se considera un objeto meramente funcional, adecuado para muchos tipos de ocasiones como ir a la playa o realizar algún viaje ocasional. bolsos Carolina Herrera
uelen ser bolsos cómodos y amplios en su mayoría, por lo que te permiten llevar en su interior todo tipo de objetos. Carolina Herrera bolsos
Además, la facilidad de su elaboración y las posibilidades que ofrece su diseño, en apariencia simple, lo han convertido en una pieza que nada tiene que envidiar a cualquier otro surgido de los catálogos más fashion. Carolina Herrera
Carolina Herrera online

Tue, 2012-05-29 11:56 — hogansitoBloreabrili (not verified)

http://www.hogansitoufficialehogan-it.com/ Nuovo blitz della polizia contro il calcioscommesse. Gli agenti di diverse squadre mobili e del Servizio centrale operativo hanno eseguito una serie di arresti e perquisizioni in Italia e all'estero nei confronti Hogan scarpe di soggetti appartenenti ad un'organizzazione transnazionale dedita alle combine degli incontri di calcio.I 19 provvedimenti restrittivi sono stati emessi dal Gip del tribunale di Cremona Guido Salvini nell'ambito dell'inchiesta 'Last Bet', coordinata dal procuratore Roberto Di Martino che nel giugno e Scarpe Hogan nel dicembre dell'anno scorso ha portato a diversi arresti. L'operazione di oggi è stata condotta dalle squadre mobili di Cremona, Brescia, Alessandria e Bologna, coordinate dagli uomini del Servizio centrale operativo.Anche gli indagati di questa nuova tranche dell'inchiesta devono rispondere dei reati di associazione a delinquere finalizzata alla truffa e alla frode sportiva. Tra i destinatari delle ordinanze di custodia cautelare ci sono anche calciatori di serie A. Complessivamente hogan sono stati emessi 19 provvedimenti, 10 dei quali riguardano ex giocatori e calciatori di A, B e Lega Pro. L’arresto di Mauri e Milanetto

Sat, 2012-05-26 09:01 — scarpehoganFepweerrara (not verified)

http://www.hogansitoufficialehogan-it.com/ L’operazione, convenzionalmente denominata hogan Shoes, nasce da un corposo sequestro di Hogan scarpe effettuato all’interno di una nota attività commerciale nel centro storico di Frascati, che, agli acquirenti, proponeva calzature del tutto simili a quelle realizzate dalla maison anconetana, compresa la caratteristica H.Ricostruendone la complessa filiera di produzione, distribuzione e commercializzazione, i finanzieri di Scarpe Hogan Frascati sono, quindi, arrivati, all’individuazione di una fabbrica

Fri, 2012-05-25 07:16 — hoganConeescotsbet (not verified)

http://www.hogansitoufficialehogan-it.com/ Esce per Mondadori il romanzo di Chuck Hogan e Guillermo Del Toro, La progenie.
Un giallo avventuroso con una spruzzatina di fantasy, come sarebbe opportuno definirlo. Perché questo curioso libro racchiude al suo interno elementi provenienti da tutti questi generi.
La trama narra di un aereo, un Un Boeing 777 hogan partito da Berlino, che atterra all’aeroporto JFK di New York. Durante l’intera manovra dall’apparecchio non arriva alcun segnale umano. L’inquietante silenzio spinge le autorità a creare un cordone di sicurezza intorno ai velivolo e inviare forze speciali in ricognizione, nel timore di un attacco terroristico.
Ciò che scoprono ha dell’incredibile.
L’intero equipaggio e i passeggeri, a eccezione di quattro, sono morti per cause misteriose.
Una misteriosa malattia comincia a Hogan scarpe diffondersi in tutta Manhattan e sarà l’epidemiologo Eph Goodweather, incaricato delle indagini, a dover fare luce sulla vicenda, arrivando a scoprire che la minaccia con cui hanno a che fare non è un morbo, ma una battaglia combattuta da esseri soprannaturali, nel quale l’unico ruolo assegnato agli esseri umani è quello di cibo.
Una storia affascinante ed inquietante al tempo stesso, che spinge il lettore a riflettere, cimentandosi nei panni dei protagonisti e provando in prima persona l’adrenalina delle intriganti situazioni Scarpe Hogan narrate.

Mon, 2011-08-22 16:56 — Andyb (not verified)

Keir, here we go again!

"it is not even possible to provide evidence that the existence of a deity is unlikely" - so what!

It is the shear lack of evidence for the existence of a deity that convinces me and most people like me that religious claims are bogus. There is nothing religious about this at all, it is simply based on observation and evidence. For me to change my mind on this topic would require genuine evidence of a god or gods.

But you know this of course. But like most religious fanatics, rather than answer the real questions, you play with semantics(atheist/agnostic) and faulty logic.

Tue, 2011-08-16 18:22 — Language Game (not verified)

@Bratiaith

I didn't say that the interview was anti personal faith - I was pointing out that the article was. If all the article is saying is that people like Stephen Green and the Bishop of Southwark are stupid then it is the most pointless banal piece of journalism I have read. Well done, yes they are. But the article is really a swipe at the religious by caricaturing them.

Mon, 2011-08-22 17:20 — Keir

'It is the shear lack of evidence for the existence of a deity that convinces me'

Sentences that contain a personal pronoun are not worth reading.

Start again.

Thu, 2011-08-18 15:58 — Sir Michael (not verified)

@Bratiaith

"The States you call "Aetheist" were not rational and Humanist. They were power crazed. They elevated Ideology to replace Theology. In their own ways they all offered a form of religion"

Yes indeed. Even though the head of those states hated religion, suppressed religion, had massive propaganda campaigns to turn the religious atheist, and attempted to institute dialectical materialism they still, somehow, managed to be religious.

Just like how all those white rioters managed to, somehow, be black, even though they were not black. And just like the people who didn't riot, if you shut your eyes, turn out to be white!

I can see you follow David Sarkeys particular brand of, for want of a better word, logic.

Mr Divine: I am an atheist because I *believe* there is no god. I wouldn't ever make the claim to "know" that there isn't one, much like no reasonable religious person would claim to "know" that there is is. It is a matter of personal judgement based upon our own life experiences and ways of looking at the world.

Tue, 2011-08-16 18:38 — sandwiches

@Bratiaith
"They elevated Ideology to replace Theology. In their own ways they all offered a form of religion"

No, they attempted to replace religion with their own ideology of which atheism was an essential part. Some people need to learn to think for themselves instead of espousing cliches from "new atheism" or the Life of Brian.

Mon, 2011-08-22 17:33 — andyg (not verified)

Andyb, there are two ways that you can view this world. The first is to see it as though everything is a miracle; the second is to see it as though nothing is.

Mon, 2011-08-22 17:36 — andyg (not verified)

andyb.
"it is simply based on observation and evidence".
You are blind and deaf andyb.

Fri, 2011-08-19 16:58 — Robert (not verified)

@Language Game & Mr. Divine:

Atheism is lack of belief in God(s).

It is no more a faith than not believing in unicorns is a faith.

Fri, 2011-08-19 17:35 — Peter Roman (not verified)

The film was banned in Norway so the neighbouring Swedes who look on the Norwegians as a backward folk of fishermen and pesants advertised "Life of Brian" as "The film that is so funny it is banned in Norway"....
If parents refrained from ingraining fear and fairy tales into their children,s minds this whole discussion would be over in a generation...

Fri, 2011-08-19 18:14 — David, Chicago IL USA (not verified)

There was uproar here, too, with priests and ministers who hadn't even seen the film condemning it. I never took the film to be a send-up of Jesus or Christianity. In fact, the character of Jesus has a bit part in the film and Brian is not Jesus. I understand the film first of all as a satire of biblical movies, not so much of the Bible. I'm a practicing Christian, and I like The Life of Brian. Satire plays an important role in getting at the heart of matters of meaning, of understanding, accepting, and growing beyond our human limitations.

Sun, 2011-08-21 11:47 — andyg (not verified)

To state that you are an atheist is in fact to make a religious statement.

Sun, 2011-08-21 12:05 — John Dale (not verified)

Are you sure you're not religious Sir Michael? You have an archetypical religious superciliousness about you - the very sort of nonsense that the film sought to expose.

Sun, 2011-08-21 12:17 — Keir

'The one and only valid thread that runs through all religion is a code of ethics'

Religions invariably take morality as a given. Moreover, they suppose that a moral cosmos is the work of a creator. In the materialistic West today, it may seem strange to suppose that morality can cause a bad conscience. But the nagging conscience is what religions have always claimed to address, seemingly since pre-historical times.

Fri, 2011-09-02 13:33 — Keir

'consider Descartes'

Or Voltaire, perhaps. Descartes was a Catholic, or thought himself one, so not too readily associated with freedom of expression.

'in India the Hindu's are the most tolerant people when it comes to other peoples beliefs'

Unless those people claim to be Christians.

'Ancient Greece was like that'

Like Europe and the British Commonwealth, after John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Protestantism. Like that overgrown and neurotic child of Europe, the USA. Like parts of Africa, where Islam has not invaded.

But not much like India, these days.

'it was all thrashed out in the village square'

An idea they called 'ekklesia'. Maybe they got it from pre-monarchy Israel, perhaps the first democracy.

'So what did the monotheocratic states like Judea have to offer??????'

The Golden Rule? Law against offering children to deities by burning them alive? And many other detailed principles that helped form European law and democracy. Have some respect. :)

'these primitives even give us Brian!!!!'

They can't be all that primitive, then. 'Always look on the bright side of life' can be said to the summary of the biblical message.

'I am a panthiest I think the universe is God.'

Now who's primitive? :)

Sun, 2011-08-21 13:19 — andyg (not verified)

The problem that you may find Keir is that the "nagging conscience" in the West is more to do with wants as opposed to needs.
Ethics and morals can quite often bring about the differences of those wants and needs which is why religion often falls apart when there is scrutiny of the subject matter in its intricate but necessary teachings of which it index's.

Tue, 2011-08-16 23:42 — Peter (not verified)

Over here in the US, "Life Of Brian" would probably still offend the vocally religious fundamentalists. This is unfortunately still the country with the pro-creationism theme park, morons who doubt the wisdom of separating church and state, and idiots who think teaching gay and lesbian history in the schools somehow constitutes homosexual recruitment.

Wed, 2011-08-17 05:42 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Language Game: when you say you are an atheist are you saying you know there isn't a God or are you saying you think there isn't one?

Sun, 2011-08-21 14:52 — Keir

A phenomenon of contemporary Western society is attempt to persuade a minority who have concern about conscience to ignore their consciences, to busy themselves in hedonism and pursuits that do not disturb the consciences of those set on hedonism. This in itself is interference (and of the most basic kind, no matter what one's worldview), and therefore irrational; it therefore serves only to highlight the bad consciences of those who attempt to persuade. This is confirmed because the means used for persuasion tend to be rhetorical and fanciful, unworthy of serious attention.

This reaction is an unwitting vote for the ancients, whose burial practices, sacrifices and other rituals were based on belief in the numinous, if not the certainty of divinity that seems to have taken hold of modern minds.

Wed, 2011-08-17 07:06 — Nixon is Lord (not verified)

Peter, you and the Fundiegelicals deserve each other; you'd both miss having someone to feel superior too. And the Brits would have to get some other English-speaking place to feel superior to.
Albania was ruled by Enver Hoxha as an officially atheist state; Romania was under the Ceausescus, who had the Romanian Orthodox Church as their state sponsored church.
How about disestablishing the now-pitiful C of E? Rowan can stop making people cry at meetings and Sentamu can stop holding power meetings in men's rooms.
All this fuss over a movie.....

Sun, 2011-08-21 15:54 — Sir Michael (not verified)

@John Dale:-

My point was about the lack of any inherent superiority in any belief system. To accuse me of "superciliousness" for that shows you fundamentally misunderstood me.

The value of a human being and who and what they are is far more than where they stand on the is-there-or-isn't-there-a-god debate. While religious nutcases like John Hagee or antireligious nutters like Richard Dawkins may not think that way, any reasonable person puts another persons religious beliefs (or indeed the lack thereof) in the context of the rest of their character.

I am sure, as a reasonable person, you are going to agree with that.

Wed, 2011-08-24 10:36 — Andyb (not verified)

Keir, Andyg, I'm not going to waste more replying to your ill-concieved and illogical questions and comments. It's a waste of my time. Pretty much all of your contributions fall into the following categories of religious babble.

Here I have devised a near exhaustive list of common defences of religion that you will encounter on any comment thread like this. These arguments are revealing because they demonstrate just how poor the arguments put forward by believers are. I think I have
covered most of them, but if I am missing any arguments please let me know. I'll ammend the list accordingly.

Argument 1) Because the bible says so: Need I say more?

Argument 2) The world is so beautiful: "... therefore it must have been created". Err no! And no it isn't beautiful, most wild animals end up eaten alive, there are worms that eat into peoples eyeballs, millions of humans starve to death, are murdered, tortured, die of disease etc etc.

Argument 3) Universal Order: Life is organised and designed, how could order and design appear from random chaos? Well modern phsyics explains very well how chaotic processes can lead to order and apparent design (emphasis on "apparent").

Argument 4) God of the Gaps: "Science can't explain the appearance of life". Not yet it can't, besides even if it never could (unlikely) this in itself wouldn't validate religion. This is a clear logical fallacy but it is encountered over and over again.

Argument 5) Religion is good: "people do good things in the name of religion", "religion brings them peace and happiness", "they live longer" etc etc... So what? This doesn't prove the veracity of religion, only that humans are complicated and will believe almost anything! Besides, this claim is highly questionable.

Argument 6) Slandering the opposition: "atheists are mean, hate filled, religious bashing", "hitler was an atheist" etc etc. False. And so what anyway?

Argument 7) Pooling atheism together with religion: "atheism is just another belief system [therefore no more valid than religion]". This is a more subtle variant of 6). It is also frequently accompanied by worthless argumentsover semantics such as the distinction between agnostics and atheists. It's totally wrong (although believers will never accept this), and so what anyway? Again this doesn't shed any light on the truth of religious claims.

Argument 8) Questioning the oppositions' intellectual credentials: this argument normally goes along the lines of "You know nothing about theology" (how dare you comment on religion) or "Have you read from the more sophisticated
religious thinkers?". This argument would have some merit if the topic was string theory or clinical psychology, but even a 5 year old child can spot the stupidity behind many religious beliefs! Besides, this argument fails to recognise that alot of us atheists were inducted into one religion or another during our childhoods. So we do know something about it and are just as entitled to discuss it as is any believer.

Argument 9) Hiding behind "logic" (note logic is never applied the other way around!) and shifting the burden of proof: "it is not possible to prove god doesn't exist" presumably "so he does exist"), "prove we are wrong". There are many questions that can't be formally answered by science in a closed, logical proof (unlike mathematics). Another example of this is "prove that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist". But science gets around this by accumulating observations and data, in effect scientists look for the Loch Ness Monster. The longer you look for Nessie without finding her, the more certain you are she doesn't exist. And God has had thousands of years to demonstrate his existence! It is interesting to note how the non-religious are held to a higher standard of intellectual rigour than the faith heads who strangely don't have to prove or jsutify anything.

Argument 10) Non-overlapping magisteria: "God is not part of our physical world and therefore science can't make claims about god" (and therefore believers are right!). This is a weird argument. If god is invisible because he resides
outside our physical realm, then how can believers be 100% certain of his existence? Aren't they part of the
same physical realm as those pesky atheists and scientists? Besides, if you believe in the Christian or Muslim implementation of God, he answers personal prayers and tinkers around in our physical realm. That would make him detectable to science. To be totally invisible he would need to be extremely unconcerned by us mortals. Not impossible, but that's a very different god from the Christian or Muslim "loving" one.

Argument 11) Recruiting the opposition: "Newton was religious", "Einstein was religious"... Well, even scientists
make mistakes!

Argument 12) Pure intellectual dishonesty: there are many forms of dishonesty displayed by the most ardent faith heads. These include cherry picking scientific knowledge (and ignoring what doesn't fit), misrepresenting the opposition (ask poor Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss about this), revisionist history (the worst 20th century massacres were the fault of us atheists) and so-on.

Argument 13) Just repeat and repeat arguments 1-12 until the opposition bashes its head on the desk and gives up!

Thu, 2011-08-25 13:10 — Andyb (not verified)

Andyg.

Yes. I was more reacting to Keir than yourself. He has a habit of expecting everyone to defend their position with impeccable logic, but never applies the same rigourous standard to himself.

I agree that there are different shades of religiosity and that people interpret scripture in different ways, pick what they like and ignore what they don't. But I think that ultimately all interpretations are misguided in some way or another. They all tend to handle questions about the world around us in the same way, by making unsubstantiated claims and asserting that this is the absolute truth. Then these claims are turned into beliefs that should not be questioned (i.e. faith).

How did I become an Atheist? I guess I have always been one. I remember sitting in Church on Sundays when I was a kid listening to the vicar telling stories from the book and realising those stories didn't make alot of rational sense and were just nice stories. I never understood why others seemed to take them literaly, they seemed very stupid to me.

When I went to Uni, I studied physics (and lots of maths). This taught me the importance of evidence, logic, proof and clear thinking. It also taught me to challenge beliefs and assumptions. After that any residual religious feelings I may have had were gone for good.

There is alot about us and the universe that we don't understand. But making unsubstantiated claims from authority is not really the way to answer these questions. In fact they are not answers at all.

Sun, 2011-08-21 18:11 — Barny

'To state that you are an atheist is in fact to make a religious statement.'

Oh really? Perhaps in as much as saying I have minus 5 pounds when I'm skint is a statement of mathemetics...

Wed, 2011-08-17 11:19 — Language Game (not verified)

@Mr. Divine

I don't say I am an atheist I am an agnostic. A very annoying comment to have to respond to - of all the things I say what is the point in commenting on that (even if I had said it). I am well aware that atheism is a faith in the same way as religion as there is no way of proving that God does not exist.

Thu, 2011-08-18 08:25 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Language Game: I thought you liked language games

Sun, 2011-08-21 20:57 — andyg (not verified)

@ Barmy
Yes, absolutely. You show that you have knowledge between the difference of 5 pounds and nothing. Why not Euros or Lira?

Tue, 2011-08-23 09:17 — Andyb (not verified)

@andyg. I could say the same about you.

@keir. I will not start again, I don't feel I need to. The burden of proof is on you religious guys. You are making the wacky claims, not me.

Logic is not your forte by the way.

Wed, 2011-08-24 12:22 — Keir

Just look what you started, Richard.

After you've rubbed your eyes.

Tue, 2011-08-23 10:04 — Keir

Seven.

Wed, 2011-08-17 12:45 — Smile (not verified)

I think its hilarious that this movie was ever banned. It was a favourite of my church group :)

Wed, 2011-08-17 13:02 — Caroline Farrow (not verified)

As a practicing Catholic I thoroughly enjoyed both the film and the article, sharing it with an RC priest friend of mine who is particularly fond of the Life of Brian.

I thoroughly enjoy Nelson's analysis of religious issues. Whilst I don't always agree, I am incredulous and amused in equal measure by the accusation of hate-speech, although appreciative of your defence of those with religious views. You are right, we are often written off as being stupid which invokes the sins of pride and anger.

Though I am a passionate Catholic apologist, I am also a passionate defender of free speech and glad that we live in a society where films like these can be made. There is nothing in the Life of Brian that, in my opinion, disproves the truth of Chrstianity, it is just, another opinion. It should be essential viewing.

Now. Begone with you, young wapscallion!

Wed, 2011-08-17 13:04 — Drakula

Nelson ; Yes I liked the article and I really enjoyed the film and I couldn't find one jot of blasphemy in it. WHY?

Simple it wasn't about Jesus it was about Brian, you know the naughty boy who was seen departing from a UFO after a harrowing joy ride and space war adventures. Brian got a bit unnerved so the alliens kindly dropped him off at his doorstep. He was spotted by his mates and naturaly he was proclaimed the messiah!

Now here is the metaphysical question: If you lived in Jerusalem 2000 years ago and you saw one of your mates departing a UFO wouldn't you assume him/her to be a messiah?

It makes perfect sense.

I also read Salmon Rushdie's Satanic verses taking particular note on how he could have offended Khoumenie and his mullahs. I honestly couldn't find anything offensive. There was one part where there was this holy woman who walked across India shrouded in live butterflies as she walked into the sea towards Mecca. She had a large following who did likewise.

Could any Muslim please explain to me how that could be offensive?

After all; in the real world we do have suicide bombers availing themselves to their masters of 'religion' but how could innocent followers in a parallel universe who disappear in the sea not intending to hurt anyone, be offensive????

I thought that scene was a stroke of creative genius.

Wed, 2012-02-01 07:30 — Dakota

Thu, 2011-09-01 12:39 — Drakula

Sir Michael and co I consider philosophy above religion: consider Descartes and I quote "I very much disagree with you my friend but I will fight to the death for your right to have your opinion"

I have read that in India the Hindu's are the most tolerant people when it comes to other peoples beliefs because their 'religion' is open ended; one village sect believes that god lookes like an elephant the other thinks a snake god is rather dandy, so they are all added to the collection and they are all tolerated.

Ancient Greece was like that, everyone had their own unique ideas about the universe, right or wrong it was all thrashed out in the village square.

And what did ancient Greece give to the world? Democretus theorized about atoms, they knew the world was round and measured it, they had ideas about democracy and science art and architecture etc.etc..

All 500 years before Christ! So what did the monotheocratic states like Judea have to offer??????

Granted they had the 10 commandments and a few very large artless temples and these primitives even give us Brian!!!!

As for me I am a panthiest I think the universe is God. and there will be many who dis agree.

Who cares???

Thu, 2011-09-29 16:51 — priscillalane

Religion has gone mad. Killing and stoning seem to be the way of today. Dark ages back now.
Please sign the following petition to stop the death penalty ,please.
http://www.change.org/petitions/american-congress-stop-the-death-penalty...

Sat, 2011-08-20 11:42 — Drakula

The trouble with orthodox religions is that they can be dominated by fanatics!

Fanatics are rather stupid people who don't have a sense of humour but they always seem to manauvre themselves into positions of power and consequently pose serious threats to the world security.

They tend to politicise religions and religions that have power are dangerous they develop a system of closed logic that is considered immutable and not to be challenged.

Once people are in a religion they are expected to accept the tenets of that faith and cannot speculate on the teleological or metaphysical possibilities.

The one and only valid thread that runs through all religion is a code of ethics. But ethics can be taught to our children by reasoned argument rather than all this voodoo!!!

That's what Ponty Python so successfuly reveals with it's wit and irony.

I wish there were another generation of Ponty Pythoners.

WHERE ARE THEY?????

NB: my post sum is 11 - 5 which is 6
That's a very evil number I don't know about posting this!

Mon, 2011-08-22 12:11 — Drakula

I would prefer the humanist construct that promotes ethics and what is right from wrong. Most of us know right from wrong (except the banksters)

Religions had constructed a mythology to instill and enforce those social mores. Hence devils and angels etc.

The humanist would appeal to our powers of reasoning in terms of cause and effect. Like if the banksters and the politicians practice theft then other peaple will think it's OK do likewise: Therefore what kind of society would we be creating?

I believe that reasoning should always get the upper hand and the teliological arguments (existence of God etc.)are completely irrelevent in todays world.

What people believe in is their own business and open speculation is desired. And that is what organised religion (especially monothiesm)does not want.

They don't want opposition!!!!

As for myself I would like to see six billion religions and non religions.

But a universal concensus on moral ethics needs to be an absolute priority.

Tue, 2011-08-16 13:51 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Disclaimer before I start this: I am an atheist. In fact it is because of my atheism I find this kind of thing so distasteful. I hate the impression this kind of crap gives the majority of the world (who are not atheists) about the silent majority of atheists among us who are reasonable, considered, and are quite capable of admitting we are not any more intelligent than the religious and we don't have any more of a monopoly on truth than they do. On with the show!

You know they have actually outlawed religion in several places in the world in order to help the Great Utopia(TM) along. The French Cult of Atheism (and its subsequent Reign of Terror) was the first of many. Stalins USSR, Maos China, Chaucheskus Albania, Jong-Ils North Korea, or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge to name but a few.

Not that those places are typical of atheism, in much the same way Saudi Arabia is not typical of religion.

But all such places do have one thing in common. They demonize and denigrate people who believe differently. They take people, whether it's a racial difference, an ideological difference, or in this case a religious difference and then hold that particular group up to be less worthy than people in their own group. To be a primitive impediment to their vision of a better world.

This article for example, is dripping in anti-religious fury. That religion is said to be "another manifestation of human stupidity" is not only empirically inaccurate (many intelligent people were and are religious), but is actually bordering on a hate speech. If Anne Coulter was to say that "socialism is a manifestation of human stupidity" or if Rush Limbaugh were to say "environmentalism is a manifestation of human stupidity" you would (rightly) say that they were not using reason, but just ranting in hatred due to their own very firmly entrenched ideologies which leave no wiggle room for any sort of discussion or reasoning. People who think differently are "the enemy". Yet you are doing the same.

So congratulations, Mr Jones, on becoming a falsetto equivalent of a Fox News pundit, only inverted to spew hatred from the opposite side of the trench.

Tue, 2011-08-16 13:57 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Sir Michael when you say you are an atheist are you saying you know there isn't a God or are you saying you think there isn't one?

Tue, 2011-08-16 14:11 — Andyb (not verified)

Sir Michael, I can only assume you are being sarcastic or smoking something. If you aren't you have a major problem!

I really love this movie. I have it in my collection of classics and I watch it frequently. It still makes me laugh and it is still very relevant to the world today with its religious madness.

As for the old blasphemy law, dropping it was the right move. However its replacement, the new offence of "religious hatred", is an absolute disaster. It is vaguely worded, highly punitive, and has serious implications for free speech and anybody who would dare to criticise religion. It is a typical product of Tony Blair's authoritarian regime. What happened to Cameron's great Freedom Bill?

Tue, 2011-08-16 14:31 — lowerarchy (not verified)

In a similar vein to Life of Brian, the new satirical novel DOG Sharon: The Future is Female! plays with religion and the Messiah myth in particular, and features an ordinary middle-aged woman in the role of the Chosen One.

DOG is an acronym for Daughter Of God: she is also known as the Ms.siah.

The action is set in England in 2012 - when a woman becomes the first female president of the US. The heroine realises humanity's problems are mostly man-made and reluctantly sets about making the future feamle.

As debates around gender often polarise views, this book could well prove to be highly controversial.

Tue, 2011-08-16 14:41 — crabstix (not verified)

Sir Michael, the context is thus-
"Religion, in this wider context, is just another manifestation of human stupidity. Subversive indeed." Hardly "dripping in anti-religous fury" is it? Really? I think not.

You probably meant Chaucheskus (sic) Romania? As well.

Fri, 2011-08-19 13:30 — Drakula

Thank you Mr. Woogy; am I to know what Motoons is? Not in my dictionary.

For those who want to know what the Shiite's in Iran are really about read 'The Dawn Breakers' by Namil

It's about a reform movement that tried to bring that society to the 19th century but they were rejected.

Thu, 2011-08-25 18:25 — Graham Veale (not verified)

Yes, very successful in it's day, and still has undergraduates chuckling. (You must want to be really clever to enjoy Monty Python).

And what has all this cheerful nihilism left us with? Nothing shocks, disturbs or unsettles us. We do not have a set position to be moved from.
So we're left watching shows about nothing, that can only try to make us feel clever.