The Love that Dares to Speak its Name is a controversial poem by James Kirkup.
It is written from the viewpoint of a Roman centurion who is graphically described having sex with dead Jesus after his crucifixion, and also claims that Jesus had had sex with numerous disciples, guards, and even Pontius Pilate.
It was at the centre of the Whitehouse v. Lemon trial for blasphemous libel, where the editor of Gay News was convicted and given a suspended prison sentence.
Ok, so I may be late to learn about it (it was written some time in 1970s) but I think as trolls go, this one is fucking brilliant. Ann Frank's furry fanfiction pales in comparison. :lol:
Link?
Here's wikipedia entry, with a link to the poem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Love_that_Dares_to_Speak_its_Name
I've seen worse poems (yeah I'm looking at you Ank).
But could he actually have loved all men? What about the Santa paradox? There just isn't enough time.
Quote from: The Brain on April 18, 2009, 03:46:12 AM
I've seen worse poems (yeah I'm looking at you Ank).
But could he actually have loved all men? What about the Santa paradox? There just isn't enough time.
Could an omnipotent, all-loving God fuck all men on the planet if he wanted? Who was the Languishite that attended a Bible study class? Now that's a question he should ask next time he goes there.
Edit: And it makes sense God would start fucking men - he knocked up one girl and people still can't stop talking about it 2000 years later.
I thought the Maccabees wiped the holy land clean of hellenistic epecurianism?
Why suspend his sentence?
It's better known in this country than a poem of its quality deserves to be because it's our last successful blasphemy prosecution.
What amused me about the author:
In the early 1990s Kirkup settled in Andorra. He continues to work and until recently was a frequent contributor to the obituary section of the British newspaper, The Independent. He also has several virtual books published on the internet by Brindin Press.
:lol:
I also love the fact that his rather extensive biopic on the website of the university of Leeds (which he apparently went to) contains no mention whatsoever of the poem or the court case. :lol:
Leeds made a film on him? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2009, 09:45:27 AM
It's better known in this country than a poem of its quality deserves to be because it's our last successful blasphemy prosecution.
You'll probably get some new ones soon, given the way the civilised world is going.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 18, 2009, 12:06:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2009, 09:45:27 AM
It's better known in this country than a poem of its quality deserves to be because it's our last successful blasphemy prosecution.
You'll probably get some new ones soon, given the way the civilised world is going.
Well blasphemy's still illegal in this country. That was one of the arguments for a law against incitement religious hatred. If the Church of England (and only the Church of England, though, by extension much of Christian belife) is protected why aren't other faiths?
Edit: Actually, apparently, blasphemy has been abolished because it was made largely redundant by the law against religious hatred.
This was better line-per-line, but Furry Anne Frank still comes out as the overall winner because of the sheer horribleness of it all.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2009, 03:03:35 PM
Edit: Actually, apparently, blasphemy has been abolished because it was made largely redundant by the law against religious hatred.
I would think that these usually cover completely different areas. :huh:
For example, I fail to see how this poem could be seen as inciting "religious hatred".
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2009, 04:50:09 PMI would think that these usually cover completely different areas. :huh:
For example, I fail to see how this poem could be seen as inciting "religious hatred".
Well that was the government's position. It was preposterous that the Christian church was protected from blasphemy (though this was beginning to be ignored, there was a public reading of it by Peter Tatchell in Trafalgar Square and he wasn't arrested or anything) while all other religions were fair game. I think the government decided that from a social position what's more worrying isn't people denigrating a faith (Jerry Springer: The Opera, for example) but people trying to whip up hatred against adherents to a faith.
So they instituted that law which gave all religions equal protection and then abolished the blasphemy laws.
None should have any protection.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2009, 05:24:30 PM
None should have any protection.
Well yeah that's a position that some people take that's as coherent as 'all should have protection'. I think what was offensive was the situation that had reading a poem about sucking Christ's cock banned but a book arguing that the blood libels real and that Jews should be killed was fine. And, I think of the two I'd rather the latter illegal.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2009, 05:18:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2009, 04:50:09 PMI would think that these usually cover completely different areas. :huh:
For example, I fail to see how this poem could be seen as inciting "religious hatred".
Well that was the government's position. It was preposterous that the Christian church was protected from blasphemy (though this was beginning to be ignored, there was a public reading of it by Peter Tatchell in Trafalgar Square and he wasn't arrested or anything) while all other religions were fair game. I think the government decided that from a social position what's more worrying isn't people denigrating a faith (Jerry Springer: The Opera, for example) but people trying to whip up hatred against adherents to a faith.
So they instituted that law which gave all religions equal protection and then abolished the blasphemy laws.
Ah gotcha. I misinterpreted your post as saying that blasphemy laws were made redundant because the poem would be banned under the new anti-hatred laws, and I found that worrying to see the law applied so broadly.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 18, 2009, 05:24:30 PM
None should have any protection.
Indeed. Besides, the law against inciting to hatred should be neutral in terms of ideology - it should not mention religion, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation etc. - it should just state that anyone calling to violence against human beings - whether by virtue of them belonging to some group, having a certain trait or being designated individually - should be prosecuted.
I too would like to see the AQ haters sent to jail. The hateful response of NYC after 911 made me physically sick.
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2009, 03:53:38 AM
Could an omnipotent, all-loving God fuck all men on the planet if he wanted? Who was the Languishite that attended a Bible study class? Now that's a question he should ask next time he goes there.
I think you might be thinking of me... I've never attended a Bible study class, but my mother in law goes to them and babbles on about the things she "learns" in them all the time.
And all this time I thought Jesus meant 'Love your neighbor as yourself' in a Platonic way.