Pregnant pause

Speaking our mind is taking a break for the time being, as the contributors pursue some of the themes raised on the blog in more detail. For starters, see Josie Appleton’s Manifesto Club Think Piece: A New Deal for Public Debate. The fraught quality of contemporary debate – the widespread readiness to take offence rather than make an argument – has been one of the major themes highlighted on the blog, and this is a trend we hope to challenge in a bid to rejuvenate and raise the level of public debate.

Other recurring themes on Speaking our mind have included confusion about academic freedom (invariably leading to its erosion), race, religion and offence (again), and newly emerging etiquette and speech codes. These ideas will be further explored in a variety of forums by contributors to the blog and others. If you are concerned about the issues raised on the blog, and would like to get involved in our work around free speech, please get in touch, or better still join the Manifesto Club.

Virtual desecration and the fall of man

Fast on the heels on the UK banning of 'Manhunt 2' the censorious cry over 'violent' video games issues again. For religious reasons, the Dean of Manchester cathedral has voiced his dissent over the inclusion of Sony's Resistance: Fall of Man in the PC World gamers' awards shortlist. What exactly his problem is remains a mystery. The official line is that wily game-makers filmed the interior of Manchester Cathedral without permission (they have in fact already apologised). If they don't now remove a shoot-em-up scene set in the sacred space, the dean claims the producers will encourage further "virtual desecration", leaving other churches wide open to similar "exploitation".

The Dean further calls for "sacred digital guidelines" to advise games producers. Sorry, what? If angst over the Danish cartoons earlier this year seemed blown out of all proportion, this is palpably absurd: both incidents show a worrying trend towards religion becoming increasingly sacred ground in public discourse. Whilst Moses had only to take off his sandals to approach the burning bush, society has to bow in cowed 'respect' to the whims of anybody talking loudly about 'their faith', removing all possible objects of (often petty) offence without question. 'Desecration' means violation of the sacred, but 'sacred' today is a term that sleeps around: facts are sacred, Torahs are, freedom of expression is. The issue isn't what people think is sacred, but why they do.

In an increasingly timid culture that obsesses over respecting 'differences of belief' (read: 'religious' belief), it seems the religion card is the only trump in what is quickly becoming a boring game of snap loudly at anybody you don't agree with. If you've not got religion to back you up, you may as well shut up and go home, because nobody will listen. It would actually be nice to see somebody playing the censor for reasons other than 'my religious beliefs' for a change.

Sarah Boyes