Atheist Ireland The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has released its report about the RTE comedy sketch on New Year’s Eve, in which the police arrest the Christian god for sexual harassment against Mary, and the courts find him guilty but release him.


The BAI Committee found that the sketch breached three principles of the Code of Programme Standards. In this article, we will address one of these, Principle 5, which is about Respect for Persons and Groups in Society.


Principle 5 requires that persons and groups in society are represented in a manner which is appropriate, justifiable, and does not prejudice respect for human dignity, which includes showing due respect for religious views, images, practices and beliefs. Under Principle 5:

The Committee noted the sketch effectively accused God of sexual violence and sexual crimes. The Committee concluded that this treatment of a religious figure did not show due respect for religious views and beliefs and did not constitute critical scrutiny of religion. The Committee decided that the programme did not comply with Principle 5 of the Code.

But the sketch was not about “persons and groups in society,” unless you take that to mean the police and the courts. The sketch was focused on a supernatural being called God, and Ireland has recently held a referendum to permit satire of such ideas.

Also, Principle 5 does not require unqualified respect for religious beliefs. It requires “respect for human dignity,” which includes “due respect” for religious beliefs. So what happens when respect for human dignity clashes with respect for an unethical religious belief?

In this case, the religious belief is that a supernatural entity impregnated a human girl in her early teens or younger, who obviously did not have the capacity to knowingly consent to being impregnated on the word of a stranger.

Today in Ireland, Catholic schools teach six year old infants that “Mary says Yes!” to God “working through her” by making her pregnant, despite Mary being afraid, confused and not understanding what was going on.

How much respect should be “due” to such an unethical and dangerous belief, particularly when it is being taught in Irish schools to impressionable infants?

The Committee did not address this nuance in its findings under Principle 5. Instead, it simply concluded that the sketch “effectively accused God of sexual violence and sexual crimes” and this “does not constitute critical scrutiny of religion.”

Sexual violence and sexual crimes

But this is an accurate portrayal of the God character portrayed in the Bible. This character not only condones sexual violence and sexual crimes, but sometimes actively orders them to happen. For example:

  • In Genesis 19, a mob wants to rape two angels who are staying in Lot’s house in Sodom. Lot tells them to rape his two virgin daughters instead.
  • In Genesis 38, Onan refuses to impregnate his dead brother’s wife, instead pulling out before he comes, so God kills him for not impregnating her.
  • In Exodus 4, God decides to kill Moses because his son is not circumcised, then lets him live when Moses’ wife Zipporah circumcises their son with a sharp stone.
  • In Numbers 31, God directs Moses’ army to defeat the Midianites, and Moses instructs them to kill every man, woman and child apart from virgin women, who they should keep alive for themselves.
  • In Deuteronomy 21, soldiers are told that if God delivers them captives, and they notice a beautiful woman among them captives, they can take her as their wife and shave her head and decide after a month if they want to keep her.
  • In Judges 19, a mob gang-rapes a woman who dies, then her master chops up her body into twelve pieces and sends them to the twelve tribes of Israel.
  • In 1 Samuel 18, David kills 200 Philistines and uses their foreskins to buy his wife Michal from Saul.
  • In 2 Samuel 12, God is angry with David so he gets David’s son Absolem to rape David’s wives.
  • In Mark 1, the Holy Ghost comes upon Mary and covers her with the power of God, so that she will become pregnant with the son of God.
  • In Revelation, God says he will kill the children of Jezebel for the sexual sins of their mother.

In this context, how could the Committee conclude that “effectively accusing God of sexual violence and sexual crimes” does not constitute “critical scrutiny of religion”?

Christians could of course be selective in their beliefs about what their god says, and could argue that they were not crimes in previous times. But this unethical argument is addressed in the sketch by the God character saying “That was 2,000 years ago” when he is arrested.

We will address elsewhere other aspects of the Broadcasting Authority’s decision. For now we want to highlight the error of concluding that “effectively accusing God of sexual violence and sexual crimes” does not constitute “critical scrutiny of religion.”

Atheist Ireland ➖ Promoting Atheism, Reason And An Ethical Secular State.

The Broadcasting Authority Should Not Enforce Respect For Unethical Religious Beliefs

Atheist Ireland The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has released its report about the RTE comedy sketch on New Year’s Eve, in which the police arrest the Christian god for sexual harassment against Mary, and the courts find him guilty but release him.


The BAI Committee found that the sketch breached three principles of the Code of Programme Standards. In this article, we will address one of these, Principle 5, which is about Respect for Persons and Groups in Society.


Principle 5 requires that persons and groups in society are represented in a manner which is appropriate, justifiable, and does not prejudice respect for human dignity, which includes showing due respect for religious views, images, practices and beliefs. Under Principle 5:

The Committee noted the sketch effectively accused God of sexual violence and sexual crimes. The Committee concluded that this treatment of a religious figure did not show due respect for religious views and beliefs and did not constitute critical scrutiny of religion. The Committee decided that the programme did not comply with Principle 5 of the Code.

But the sketch was not about “persons and groups in society,” unless you take that to mean the police and the courts. The sketch was focused on a supernatural being called God, and Ireland has recently held a referendum to permit satire of such ideas.

Also, Principle 5 does not require unqualified respect for religious beliefs. It requires “respect for human dignity,” which includes “due respect” for religious beliefs. So what happens when respect for human dignity clashes with respect for an unethical religious belief?

In this case, the religious belief is that a supernatural entity impregnated a human girl in her early teens or younger, who obviously did not have the capacity to knowingly consent to being impregnated on the word of a stranger.

Today in Ireland, Catholic schools teach six year old infants that “Mary says Yes!” to God “working through her” by making her pregnant, despite Mary being afraid, confused and not understanding what was going on.

How much respect should be “due” to such an unethical and dangerous belief, particularly when it is being taught in Irish schools to impressionable infants?

The Committee did not address this nuance in its findings under Principle 5. Instead, it simply concluded that the sketch “effectively accused God of sexual violence and sexual crimes” and this “does not constitute critical scrutiny of religion.”

Sexual violence and sexual crimes

But this is an accurate portrayal of the God character portrayed in the Bible. This character not only condones sexual violence and sexual crimes, but sometimes actively orders them to happen. For example:

  • In Genesis 19, a mob wants to rape two angels who are staying in Lot’s house in Sodom. Lot tells them to rape his two virgin daughters instead.
  • In Genesis 38, Onan refuses to impregnate his dead brother’s wife, instead pulling out before he comes, so God kills him for not impregnating her.
  • In Exodus 4, God decides to kill Moses because his son is not circumcised, then lets him live when Moses’ wife Zipporah circumcises their son with a sharp stone.
  • In Numbers 31, God directs Moses’ army to defeat the Midianites, and Moses instructs them to kill every man, woman and child apart from virgin women, who they should keep alive for themselves.
  • In Deuteronomy 21, soldiers are told that if God delivers them captives, and they notice a beautiful woman among them captives, they can take her as their wife and shave her head and decide after a month if they want to keep her.
  • In Judges 19, a mob gang-rapes a woman who dies, then her master chops up her body into twelve pieces and sends them to the twelve tribes of Israel.
  • In 1 Samuel 18, David kills 200 Philistines and uses their foreskins to buy his wife Michal from Saul.
  • In 2 Samuel 12, God is angry with David so he gets David’s son Absolem to rape David’s wives.
  • In Mark 1, the Holy Ghost comes upon Mary and covers her with the power of God, so that she will become pregnant with the son of God.
  • In Revelation, God says he will kill the children of Jezebel for the sexual sins of their mother.

In this context, how could the Committee conclude that “effectively accusing God of sexual violence and sexual crimes” does not constitute “critical scrutiny of religion”?

Christians could of course be selective in their beliefs about what their god says, and could argue that they were not crimes in previous times. But this unethical argument is addressed in the sketch by the God character saying “That was 2,000 years ago” when he is arrested.

We will address elsewhere other aspects of the Broadcasting Authority’s decision. For now we want to highlight the error of concluding that “effectively accusing God of sexual violence and sexual crimes” does not constitute “critical scrutiny of religion.”

Atheist Ireland ➖ Promoting Atheism, Reason And An Ethical Secular State.

8 comments:

  1. Not being religious myself, in fact I question the validity of all religions. That said I understand many people are religious, of many different beliefs and faiths and, to a point should be respected. Accusing God of "sexual violence" like offending the prophet Mohammed is not affording respect for people of Christian and Islamic beliefs. Providing religions do not interfere in state affairs, like condeming from the pulpit those of us who advocate socialism and economic planning, tolerance of all religions should be the order of the day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin - many people are also right wing or racist and I can see no reason to respect their opinion. Why would it be any different for religious opinion? I think we should restrict ourselves to observing the right to hold a different opinion but we should be under no obligation to respect the opinion held.
      The biblical god in the view of the author encouraged rape. Why should it be free from the charge of sexual violence? In my view while the biblical god has of much chance of existing as the flying spaghetti monster, and is a fictional character, that character is a vile tyrant who advocated bashing babies heads off walls, genocide and countless other atrocities. There is no reason for artists not to satirise it.
      In a secular society there should be no such thing as a blasphemy law. It is a right to offend religious opinion just as it is a right of offend secular opinion. Tolerating a religion is different from respecting its tenets. If people want to believe in Mohammed splitting moons or Jesus raising people from the dead, they can, but it should not be expected of the rest of us that we believe it too or even respect the belief.

      Delete
  2. Caoimhin

    It is unconstitutional for any state body or legislation to be used to 'endow' any religion (article 44.1.2.2 "the state guarantees not to endow any religion." Suppressing, censoring or prohibiting the freedom of conscience of non-believers is to endow religions with superiority over the right to express non-religious thought that might not be flattering of religious preaching or scriptures.

    Religions are highly sexualised? These primitive belief systems are a major contributing factor in various human rights violations around the world, from atrocities, widespread sexual abuse or the sale and human trafficking of babies considered illegitimate. And it is not just christian religions, Islam is founded around the concept of a brothel, flowing with rivers of wine and unlimited virgins for sexual exploitation as reward to its male believers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Christy,

    '..Islam is founded around the concept of a brothel, flowing with rivers of wine and unlimited virgins for sexual exploitation as reward to its male believers.;

    It seems I have been following the wrong diety!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Christy/Robert,

    Didn't mention what sex the virgins were though!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anthony, yes you are correct I should have used the word tolerate, not respect. Though right wing fascist views should not be even tolerated, I and others spent many years battling such ideologies on the streets of London and Manchester.

    The so called biblical God is certainly a work of fiction, orchiestrated by various ruling classes throughout history to keep the masses in ignorance and fear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin - in respecting the right of people to hold a different opinion and the freedom to think whatever they want, I find myself taking the view that this must apply to fascist ideas as much as any other. Without a thought police (and even with one) how can people be stopped having thoughts of their choice? I suppose the challenge lies in working out the best ways of combatting any manifestation of those ideas. I think it is incumbent on progressives to oppose all systems of thought that lead to the camps.

      Delete
  6. Thats a fair point Anthony but groups like the National Front, as they were, are funded by big business, similar but not to the same extent by any stretch as the British Conservative party. The foot soldiers are dispossesed working class youth who use extreme violence against ethnic minorities, including the Irish. Alas many of these youths are of Irish desent and have London or Machester, Liverpool and Birmingham accents. If all else fails the only way to confront these people is by using their violence against them. I suggest these misguided people look at how Hitler dealt with the thugs who got him to power in the Night of the Long Knives. All is not negative though, there are a number of the misguided youth who, without being kicked into submission catch themselves on and move from fascist to anti-fascist. Fascism is an extention of capitalism and working class youths who are unemployed through the contradictions of capotalsim should, and some do, see this. Unemployment, for example, has nothing to do with immigration or emmigration. An example of a well known person, who was imprisoned for trade union activities in England, was once sympathetic to the NF. He read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, and was, as a younger man, converted to socialism. On the other side, saddly, there are those who never change like those who kicked to death young Stephen Lawrence, and the ploice of the day, with a couple of hounorable exceptions, had little interest in catching these people.

    ReplyDelete