I’d be furious, too, if someone called me a “fundamentalist Christian”. That’s just sinking too low.
A blogger who characterised anti-porn activist Melinda Tankard Reist as a ”fundamentalist Christian” says she has been asked to apologise – or be sued.
Tankard Reist – who briefed lawyers to warn off liberal blogger Jennifer Wilson – says it’s not being called Christian she objects to, but the claim that she is ”deceptive and duplicitous about her religious beliefs”.
Tankard Reist is apparently some fairly big-name anti-abortion, ant-porn activist in Australia, who is driven at least in part by her conservative religious background…a background she’d really rather nobody brought up. She also doesn’t want to discuss anything with her critics, she wants to use the legal system to silence them instead. Right there she loses all my sympathy.
Her rationale doesn’t hang together very well, either.
The two statements I made that offended Tankard Reist, according to her lawyer’s letter, are 1) I stated she is a Baptist, which he claims in the letter she is not, and 2) that I expressed my opinion that MTR is duplicitious and deceptive about her religion.
I would think that the easiest way to refute point 2 is by addressing point 1 thoroughly, explaining what her religious beliefs are. The fact that she can’t, and that her paper trail shows her to be rather evasive about her beliefs tends to confirm point 2. It’s very strange, too: you’d expect most Christians to be proudly Tebowing to get off the hook. At least, that’s what American Christians would do, maybe Australian Christians have a sense of shame.
Apparently Tankard Reist has been consorting with right-wing religious crusaders for some time. The association is suggestive, if nothing else: she’s been waddling and quacking, and now takes offense when someone says “It’s a duck!” by protesting, “No, I’m not, I’m a … how dare you claim I’m evasive about what I am!”
Daffy impersonator?
We’re certainly a lot less overtly Christian and religious a society. Fundamentelaists here are mostly mocked and regarded with disdain at least in my experience.
Didn’t Jesus say something about “those who would deny me before men….”? Looks like MTR is heading for the hot place ;-).
The right thing for her to do, by both secular and Christian standards, would be to say: “Yes, I’m a Baptist — but here’s some reasons for banning porn, abortion, etc, that are based strictly on this-world harms: {list reasons}”, and then let the arguments stand or fall on their own merits. But she can’t do that, can she?
Not true. The people defending MTR are arguing that pointing out that she is of religious affiliation X constitutes an attack against the person (ad hominem). In a society where religions are tax-exempt, where religious lobbyists are powerful and influential, and religious dignitaries considered honorable personalities, this is just a ridiculous argument.
Mind you, we do have our share of whackjobs too. There’s a bunch of hate preachers of the homophobic “fire’n’brimstone” variety that were – I think they got kicked out – regularly yowling away in my home city’s (Adelaide) mall.
Also even closer to home in my local electorate last election we had an anti-choice activist candidate putting up some horrible posters – and getting lots of criticism from everybody else.
So, sadly, nowhere is immune – but Australian culture is a lot more irreverant and less respectful of religion generally than the States.
Pay attention. This is about SLAPPing bloggers. And it happens in Australia too. And it’s obscene, and we need to raise awareness and draw a line in the sand. So people should look up Jennifer Wilson, as linked by PZ above, and support her as they see fit.
Ant porn? Rule 34.
Of course I’m not a fundamentalist Christian! Quack! I’m just a Christian who agrees 100% with the fundamentalists! Quack!
I have to side with the… well… plaintiff on this one. It’s nobody’s fucking business what her religion is. She’ll tell who ever the hell she feels like telling and no one else. Although, suing? Meh, seems a bit of an overreaction.
The stupid thing is, being called a Baptist does lower your standing in the eyes of some.
A bit?
People shouldn’t be able to ruin others with ridiculous suits like this.
From the link: She [MTR] tries to follow Jesus, she says, but she doesn’t want anybody focusing on her religion because that will distract from her work.
I’d like to by “Streisand effect” for $200, Alex.
@ pyrobrian:
Nobody’s business, really? Melinda Tankard Reid is an activist and speaks and writes on health, sexuality and family issues, including abortion and homosexuality. Of course that it’s in the public’s interest to know if her ethical choices are informed a particular religion.
It’s a point Jennifer Wilson made in her blog (as quoted in the Australian paper The Age):
You have to side with plaintiff, even though you don’t agree with her suing? When the plaintiff suing to silence someon for talking about what her religion is happens to be the entire point? The idea that delving into someone else’s religion is contrary to general rules of etiquette does not put you on Reist’s side. The idea that one is allowed to shut someone else up for delving into a public figure’s religion would. If you support the former but not the latter, you are not on Reist’s side. If you still think you are, you either don’t understand the matter at hand or don’t understand how sides work.
Normally I would agree with you, but when you start hanging around with right-wing fundamentalists and espousing positions that are pretty much exclusively confined to those with evangelical, or fundamentalist religious views[1], then a person’s religious beliefs become a legitimate issue to explore.
[1] I refer here to her views on abortion. Her views on pornography are shared by many non-religious people on non-religious grounds.
@anteprepro
Yea, I think taking it as far as a lawsuit is overreacting, but I don’t think it’s any of my, or your, or anyone else’s business what religion she practices if she doesn’t want to tell us. It kind of gets in a catch 22 sort of situation, though. If she’s going to sue for defamation or whatever, she needs to be able to prove that she’s not doing what they said. She can’t do that and keep her religion to herself. So she needs to decide what matters more to her; keeping her religion to herself or keeping others from talking about her religion.
@Irene Delse
First, let me say that from what I understand this person is an Australian activist and I don’t know how things work over there, so I’ll be looking at this from an American perspective.
I understand where you’re coming from, but look at it another way. Let’s say I was running around screaming about how blueberry pie was bad and needed to be outlawed. Am I claiming it because God said it was bad? Ok, that’s all you need to know. You can’t make laws in America based on “God said so”, it doesn’t matter which god I claim said it or how I claim he told me. On the other hand, did I present a valid secular case against blueberries? Does my case pass the Lemon test? Then it doesn’t matter what my religious views are.
All that being said, I do understand that if she is an activist, she does, to some degree, open herself up to scrutiny. Does it make sense that she would be an activist based on her religious views and want to keep those views a secret? No, but that doesn’t really matter, at least not in my opinion.
Yes she cares so much about it she’s forcing a law suit that would require one side or the other trying to put forth evidence to show what her religion is thus to prove/disprove the claim?
She says that watching porn leads boys and men think its ok to hold a woman down and forcibly have sex with her. Thats the most ridiculous thing ive heard in a while.
Didn’t the Kansas case at least hint that when it comes to questions like this the motivation, regardless of what the official reasons were, IS an important consideration.
School board presented ‘secular’ arguments for ID. Plaintiffs provided evidence the actual motivations were religious. Judge agreed the secular reasons were a smoke screen and smacked it down.
Ehhhhhhhh, I’m not anti-porn and dont’ agree with her literally but a similar argument probably is valid. It’s not the most ridiculous thing.
I would agree if she was just a private citizen keeping her yap shut. She is a semi-public figure, trying to sway public policy, which puts her into a different category. Then there is a need to understand where they are coming from with their stances, especially if they are trying to legislate said religion.
If she thinks that’s a problem, I guess she really isn’t that religious after all. Unless she somehow ignores the fact that the Bible has piss-poor rules against rape and rarely ever portrays rape as an inherently bad thing, as that would be necessary in order to hold these views about a modern-day social issue without noticing how it is inconsistent with her religion. But how often does that happen!? It just strikes me as not typical at all of believers. /snark
No-one loves ant porn more than Aussies! ;)
It doesn’t read as if she’s upset that someone is telling what her religion is, but that in her opinion what they’re saying about what she believes is wrong. The only way to bring that as a charge is to say what she does believe to prove that the other person is wrong about it.
Can we agree that, in a non-totalitarian/non-theocratic state, it is no one’s business what her religion, or denomination, or lack thereof is.
What would happen if someone accused another of a) being an atheist and b) being duplicitous and deceptive about it. Would that person then be called to simply declare his religion/denomination to settle that he’s not, in fact, an atheist?
Having said that, it would seem that the plaintiff would have to declare her religion/denomination in order to win a suit. To prove libel, you have to prove the statement was false, that it caused harm, that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. How can the statement “MRT is a Baptist” be disproved without MRT saying what she actually is?
Of course, the second test is more bizarre. How can the statement “MRT is a Baptist” be said to “cause harm”? Even the statement “MRT is deceptive about being a Baptist” cannot be said to be harmful unless the first statement is harmful. Isn’t this in the same category of saying “MRT owns a blue car” and “MRT hides her blue car in a garage.” Not harmful.
Curiously, if she had said “MRT is an atheist”– that would be libelous, if it were an untrue statement. “Unfair!” says the Christian. But, in our society, calling someone an atheist does cause harm. (Of course, this again, brings up the nauseating spectre of the plaintiff having to make a declaration of faith to win his libel suit.)
“ant-porn activist”???
/@
…make up your mind, do you think her lawsuit is justified or not?
That’s about half-true, except for the most blockheadedly narrow definition of “religious.”
1) “valid” refers to whether an argument’s conclusions follow from its premises. It’s not the word you want.
2) there are some pervasive problems with the premises that tend to be trotted out for this sort of argument.
Azkyroth,
Thanks for that link. I am interested to digest.
It’s kind of sad that I first encountered it for a report I wrote in high school on the ridiculous “video games cause school shootings” meme and I still have to trot it out for all the different permutations of the “MEDIA I DON’T LIKE TURNS PEOPLE WHO AREN’T AS SMART AS ME INTO CRIMINAL ZOMBIES” stupidity. Yes, I get that they really appeal to people’s personal prejudices, but come on, we’re skeptics. Can’t we outgrow this?
I have encountered some of the arguments about pornography, but not having a card in the violent games arena I hadn’t looked into other similar arguments. Having a deconstruction is a useful balance to the rhetoric that floats around.
Passing a lemon test with blueberries? At the very least, I’d think that would somehow violate academic integrity.
“Are you, or are you not, an atheist? I remind you, you are under oath.”
“No.”
“No, you’re not an atheist; no, you are; or no, you won’t answer the question?”
“No.”
“Do you believe in god or gods?”
“No.”
“Your honour!”
Fundamentelaists here are mostly mocked and regarded with disdain at least in my experience.
explain why the Pope’s tourextravaganza in OZ had government funding.
explain why religious evengelicals have replaced actual trained school councilors in your schools.
I think OZ is asleep to the underlying religious current that runs through it.
If you live near the major cities, that’s one thing, but as soon as you get out of Syndney or Melbourne…
do recall that OZ is where Ham is from, and OZ STILL has the longest running creationist organization on the planet; AIG was a spinoff of it, and the only reason we hear more about AIG is Ken Ham’s court victory over CSM.
ant-porn activist
I thought EO Wilson was retired?
;)
I think taking it as far as a lawsuit is overreacting, but I don’t think it’s any of my, or your, or anyone else’s business what religion she practices if she doesn’t want to tell us.
that’s nice.
totally irrelevant to the lawsuit or anything in the OP, but whatever.
Tankard Reist is apparently some fairly big-name anti-abortion, ant-porn activist in Australia
It’s true, we do love our ant-porn!
It’s true, we do really love our ant porn!
Sic ’em, Rex!
I was not expecting that.
No I don’t think porn makes people rapists or violent. I am not unconvinced that some porn can’t confuse issues of date rape and consent.
No we can not. I can think of three examples where it might become relevant for entirely secular reasons just off the top of my head
Ing,
I think I am making sense of this statement, and if it means what I think it means, that you suspect that porn can contribute to people misunderstanding and or ignoring consent, I agree. I also see that as a problem with much of mainstream dramatic and comedic portrayals of intimate relationships.
*facepalm*
Azkyroth,
Can is not the same as does.
She says she is a “pro-life feminist.” Riiight.
It’s also intuitively appealing to people with certain preexisting biases, problematic otherwise, and poorly supported (particularly once you consider the Lime Green Jellybean Effect).
…okay, apparently I misremembered the lime.
this falls under “scientists discover that coffee is good/bad for you”. Exposure and association are indeed two ways in which we form positive attitudes towards things, but it’s just one small variable, and when it’s about some form of mass media, it affects all people within a culture, not just the individuals who actually go out and then commit the crimes. Meaning, media don’t “cause” people to become criminals; but it can, for lack of alternative exposures and associations, nudge an entire culture in a particular direction
Sorry, I know I shouldn’t, but I really wanna post this article here: http://www.facebook.com/MelindaTankardReist
Azkyroth,
Fair enough, a second reading has me seeing how I have still done a poor job of rewording the sentiment. Perceptions are mutable, one of the inputs that influences them is media, and consent as it exists now is most certainly a perception case. Not everyone agrees on what is and what is not consent, whereas everyone agrees on what is and what is not a shooting or stabbing. This indicates that some care can be taken to improve that perception towards one which does less harm.
Tankard Reist continues to have her lawyer send me threatening letters demanding money and reserving the right sue me for defamation. Twitter people have set up a petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mtrsues/
Please sign it if you care about a blogger’s right to free speech, and all the other issues this situation raises.
Don’t let the religious right fleece Sheep.
Jennifer Wilson.