Systematic desensitisation
Protesters in Beirut have added their voices to demands for change in European law which would forbid depictions of Mohammed. The Muslim Action Committee have already demanded an amendment to the Race Relations Act which would do the same thing.
Obviously, such legislation is out of the question. If one religious taboo is given special protection by law, then why not others? Christians will insist the Blasphemy law be strengthened. Scientologist will want to make it illegal to disrespect L Ron Hubbard. Elvis fans might want Elvis impersonators outlawed.
Let’s be frank here. Say someone sketches a picture of a bearded bloke with a fuse in his turban. If he labels that sketch “Dave”, it’s unlikely to provoke much response in anyone. But if he labels it “Mohammed”, and looking at that sketch suddenly causes you inconsolable grief, or sends you into a murderous rage, it seems reasonable to conclude that you need help.
This help could take one of two forms. Either you are protected from seeing any such image again, or we work on changing your response to such images. The former is impossible, but fortunately there is a real possibility of implementing the latter.
There is a technique in cognitive-behavioural therapy called systematic desensitisation. Unlike other psychological therapies of the Freudian or Jungian schools, this technique is evidence-based, and actually seems to work.
From wikipedia:
To begin the process of systematic desensitization, one must first be taught relaxation skills in order to control fear and anxiety responses to specific phobias. Once the individual has been taught these skills, he or she must use them to react towards and overcome situations in an established hierarchy of fears.
So rather than go down the repressive and censorious legislation route, the European press should take the healthy option and help that small-but-vocal number of Muslims who are suffering from this disorder by publishing Mohammed cartoons every day of the week. Start with small and respectful depictions, and over the months work up to outrageous bomb-headed caricatures. By the end of the year, hey presto! The only murderous nut cases demanding the heads of cartoonists will be the ones who don’t read the papers.
Just a thought.
I agree. But I think the press are already going down that route!
Nice rational argument, it’s just a shame that the followers of organised religion are proud to be completely irrational and illogical. I mean, if we were all completely rational, there wouldn’t be any religion in the first place, so we wouldn’t even be having this conversation!
So as long as you are treading on someone else’s toes., it is Ok. If they complain, anaesthetise the toe insteading of finding a common ground. Hmmm…
Bea, it’s not a case of anaesthetising someone’s toe – more a case of curing their bunions.
The problem with scientists is that they think the world is sussed. Does systematic dessentisation work with war? Or rape? Or paedophilia?
Are we recommending it for those things which we fear?
When does a fear become rational or not?
I manage a car park, which quite frankly terrifies me. I hate cars, car parking, motorists in car parks and everything to do with it. The thought of someone taking me to a multi-storey car park and then training me to be a traffic warden may well help them feel better, but I consider my fear to be entirely rational, which will be well-founded in years to come when driving is put into the same category as smoking.
No they don’t. If any scientist says that they’ve got the world completely figured it out, then they ain’t a scientist!
It’s actually the religious who think they have the world figured out. Scientists try to figure the world out, and present evidence as to their ideas. The religous just hit you with a big book and ignore all the evidence.
Dear Monitor, I am in the favour of preventive treatment, ergo provide the right sized shoes first so that there won’t be any need to cure the bunions.
Me too, Bea. Me too 🙂
The ‘toon strikes me as an extremely small step toward muslims not taking themselves too seriously.
I think I am going to try to be more like Jesus. I am going to start hanging around more whores.
I have said this in public with no fear of causing a riot.
And I. Oust all religion and the problem goes away.
Then you have evil people doing evil things and good people doing good things – in the name of humanity.
There should be NO special case scenarios for ANY religions in law or anything else. Religious people who like to comfort themselves with the delusion of an almighty deity should just get on with it in the privacy of their own homes, and not bother the rest of us with their mental short comings. If anything needs amending, as I’ve stated before, it’s the mental health act. It should in some way or form at least acknowledge that religious people are suffering from a mental illness. If there was ever an extinction event that would benefit mankind, it would be the end of religion and misguided beliefs about god, gods prophets saviours etc. etc.
It always amuses me that if an individual says he believes in little green men he is usually considered a bit mad. Yet that person is doing nothing different to those who follow religion, yet we are expected to take religious people seriously??
Perhaps us non religious people should form a group and start campaigning about how offensive religious people and their views are to us?
Let the process begin! Or am I not quite getting the hang of this?
The only problem I have with it Eric, is the Labour poster.
Without Tony “downright-fucking-liar” Blair and his wife at the helm we might not have been in this predicament. Other labour leaders have been atheist, but now we’ve got Holy Joe at the wheel he’s trying (and often succeeding) at driving the secular majority into hiding. Right now, it’s more the Tony party than the labour party; which may be why they just got their arses kicked in Scotland.
The man has knighted a Muslim extremist for pete’s sake. Icqbal Sacranie might not be a terrorist in the way Mustaffa Kamel is, but he’s just as right-wing and probably more dangerous in the long run.
The Islamist movement is because of Blair? While I think they make mistakes (inviting Islamists into government committees on addressing Muslim concerns) you take it too far. The Conservatives are just as guilty of ignoring the issue for years prior to 1997.
As for why they (we) got our arses kicked in Scotland, I remain to be convinced it was a vote for secularism (much as I would be pleased if that much of the population felt strongly about that subject). (Point of information: other Labour leaders have been believers too.)
Let the process begin! Or am I not quite getting the hang of this?
LOL
It’s about wearing the cross on your sleeve, Eric. No labour primeminister I can recall has ever done some much to kiss-arse the pious. Look at the mess Ruth Kelly is making of our education system for pete’s sake!
And of course the Tories are just as bad – they didn’t get in in Scotland either – so much for smiling boy Cameron!
Blair isn’t stopping the rise of Islam and he’s aligned (us) with Dubya; another religious nutter in a fight against Islamic extremists. It’s frightening.
In one breath, you’re taking the piss out of the mohammed debacle, but on the same page you’re flying the New Labour flag. The very same people that just weeks ago tried to deny you that very freedom to speak out against religion.
Marc,
If secularists joined political parties then what effect would that have on those parties?
Or are you suggesting we retreat from political parties, and then complain from the sidelines that they don’t have a secular view.
If secularists would stand up and be counted, we’d have less of a problem with Holy Tony.
So go and join a party to put your secular views forward. I’m forever telling people who have strong views on winning the war on terror to join any party, not just Labour, in order that they can exert any influence however small it maybe to keep them on the straight and narrow. Granted, the lib dems would be hard work on terror legislation, but they are currently the most secular party.
You seem to have the problem a lot of single issue people have, which is this purity of purpose which means you tar all those seeking the same thing within the parties as mindless automatons. Given the recent lost votes, that is the wrong assessment to make and makes people like me think you are a ranter, when we might like to agree with you.
Eric,
I was a voter in the Dunfermline by-election. Over the course of the campaign, I managed to ask all the candidates a series of questions regarding their attitudes towards the increasing influence of “supernaturalism” on public life – faith schools, freedom of expression, Bishops in the H.o.L., etc,etc. Only 2 candidates gave straight answers, and didn’t make claims to moral authority based on mythical deities – John McAllion (of the SSP), and Willie Rennie. Since the SSP are utopian idealists, my vote went to Mr. Rennie. I passed the info he sent me on to others, and so I can confidently assert that a commitment to secularism gained him at least 3 votes.
Ok, so that’s only 3, but every little helped to kick Catherine “I dress in red EVERY day, no really I do” Stihler’s backside.
I’ve got a letter from Mr. R. (and yeah, he DID write it..) which he’s said I can pass on to the National Secular Society, etc,etc – and when I saw him on Friday (during his photocall with Ming the McMerciless and Hughesy the Swinger), we had a good wee chat where he re-affirmed his views. Not bad for a man in the middle of a round of press interviews to take time out to talk to an annoying, scruffy, bearded secularist carrying his 3-year old son on his shoulders.. 🙂
Probably made a change for him to have questions that weren’t about the Forth Road Bridge!
Shame that the old Operation Christian Vote (now calling themselves the Scottish Christian Party), led by James Hargreaves, only got 411 votes (1.2%). His campaign literature stated quite clearly that he was looking for 5% as a “clear sign” that they should stand for the Scottish parliament next year. Maybe “Jeebus” doesn’t love him enough…? 🙂