Excuses for absenteeism etc

A few weeks ago you kindly helped me with ideas for an ‘excuses for absenteeism’ cartoon. Well, here is the cartoon. It appeared in the Church Times on the 11th of January. Thanks again for all your help.

Sorry to not bring you more today. I have a heavy cold and am trying to do my paperwork. I really must not look at the computer again until this evening.

I was distracted this morning by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent speech about Religious Offence and who should be allowed to cause it. I haven’t decided what I think yet. He says some good things, but I’m not sure I agree with all his conclusions. All I can say is that it needs more thought than has been given by some prominent bloggers, who don’t bother to look up the original speech and just hurl abuse. This seems to be a more well thought out critique. I’d be interested to read comments by those who agree with the Archbishop.

This is a single Cartoon Blog entry, posted by Dave on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 at 11:41 am.

If you enjoyed this post you might also enjoy these (possibly) related articles:

Excuses for absenteeism
Five short posts
A Facebook Communion?
The weight of the world
All the posts in these categories: Cartooning, Current events, Religion
The main Cartoon Blog page containing all of the latest entries

Know someone else who might enjoy this post? Click here to send this to a friend. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

The technologically advanced may like to trackback from another site, follow responses to this post via the RSS 2.0 feed, or bookmark this post on del.icio.us or digg.

8 Responses to “Excuses for absenteeism etc”

joe says:

Well, at first reading I agree with the archbish. The level of offence that someone feels is a really bad way to make law, because in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country someone is always going to be offended at something. Some people seem to root out things to be offended by.

As he then said:

“If I can say what I like, that is because I have the power and status to do so. But that ought to impose the clear duty of considering, when I engage in any kind of debate, the relative position of my opponent or target in terms of their access to this dominant means and style of communication”

As a member of a plural society, I also hold responsibilities, maybe even responsibilities outwith the law. Just because I am able to make fun, put down and laugh at ‘the other’ - whoever that may be - does not mean that I should do those things. Civility does not imply enforced protection of the sensibilities of people, but a culture of debate and respect where I don’t just do things for effect.

If that is what the AB of C is saying (I need to go and read it and the criticisms you’ve listed here more carefully) then I think that makes total sense.

January 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Matt W says:

I think this one needs an exceedlingly vigourous defence of the ABC against the vitriol (wtf is this particular matter to do with Americans anyway?), combined with a thoughtful engagement with his lecture.

I’m trying to come up with a suitable response to for tomorrow.

Regrettably, I think that Ruth G has somewhat misreported this.

January 30th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Justin Lewis-Anthony says:

The significance of the Archbishop’s speech for the blogosphere is that he has pushed the 1st Amendment button. There are plenty of free-speech absolutists out there, people who parrot the dictum ascribed to Voltaire (”I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”), but actually hold something else to be more fundamental (”I disagree with what you say and will defend to the death my right to be offensive about it.”)

Even the blog you wrote was a more thought out critique was only able to say “An appalling proposal”, which isn’t an argument, just an assertion.

The Archbishop’s point is a simple one. Social discourse, at least a healthy social discourse, requires the possibility of criticising the positions and beliefs of others. However, there are some forms of criticism which are so destructive, so wholly negative that they poison the whole social interactions. The question is: what do we do with poisonous assertions?

An interesting setting-out of this question, and incidentally, the reactions to the Archbishop exemplify the problem, was in an article written by Madeleine Bunting for the Guardian this week: From buses to blogs, a pathological individualism is poisoning public life. Much more worthy of attention and serious thought.

January 30th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

ellen says:

get better soon. xxx

January 30th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Tiffer says:

When I first saw your cartoon I assumed you meant absenteeism from work! Not only did it not make sense, but I wonder what that says about me!

I haven’t had time to read all of what the Archbish says, but at first glance I think he’s on to something. The law in question is meeting a need we have as a pluralist society, but I don’t think it meets that need, and is so subjective that it can be used for all sorts of things. (the elderly couple who were arrested for distributing religious tracts that labelled homosexual practice a sin being one example of an interesting application of a law). Whether or not the ABC has the solution is debateable, but at least he is facing the issue rather than just opposing the law.

I would really like to be old fashioned and see less blasphemy on the telly. I recognise that it is now commonplace to explete the name of The Almighty, and as such it is sometimes appropriate in drama and suchlike to have characters using blasphemy. Where I find it most offensive is in comedy or talk shows, where a simple swear word would suffice. I think swearing is great when appropriate, and Eddie Izzard wouldn’t be the same without the odd f here and there, but blasphemy is never a good idea. How long will it be before Muslim religious terms are used as expletives? Oh well, I guess I could just save money on the TV license and be a boring old fart listening to R4.

January 31st, 2008 at 9:45 am

David Keen says:

It’s frustrating that the Times has given almost as much space to the National Secular Society (membership 7,000 - will they be asking the Zoroastrians for comments next time?) as they do to the ABofC. What made me laugh was the NSS spokesman calling it a ‘blatant pitch’ for preferential treatment. Blatant? Our Rowan? Have you read the lecture?

My thoughts (abbreviated version of what I’ve blogged on my own site):
- ++Rowan has accepted that we are no longer a Christian society, and therefore the old justification for a blasphemy law (we want to honour God) no longer applies
- therefore, what if any justification is there for such a law in a liberal secular society, which is what we are becoming? Frustratingly, Williams at no point offers a specifically Christian account of how law and morality works. He seems to be positioning himself as a spokesman for faith in general, and arguing that some kind of protection is needed, but not one that closes down my right to say ‘Jesus was right and Mohammed was wrong’ and survive the experience.

Christians in the UK are in a difficult place: as society moves out of ‘Christendom’ to a liberal secular outlook, we have to pick which battles to fight - which bits of legislation and institutions are worth hanging on to, and which need a decent burial so we can engage with society at large rather than just fight our corner. The danger of picking battles is that we just look like joyless puritan protesters, the danger of accepting change is that we look defeatist and limp.

January 31st, 2008 at 9:49 am

Chris Clark says:

Well said David. I find interpreting Christian values in term that a post-modern culture understands very difficult.

Hope you are better soon Dave. If I could draw I would do one on excuses that cartoonists make for not blogging or drawing