Blog for Phase 1 on Annie Besant

I only had time to read one of Annie Besant's articles, which was the one on whether the bible can be considered as an obscene book.

Besant wrote this pamphlet because the present Lord Chief Justice ruled that any literary work that evokes excitement in its reader can be persecuted. However, this rule was only used against authors of medical works in order to keep physiological information from reaching the hands of the general public. I think her specific purpose in writing this piece  was to show people that the same law used against medical writers could easily be used against such sacred texts as the bible. By showing how the bible could also be condemned by the current law, Besant aimed to gain the support of the large Christian population. Besant's pamphlet can be divided most easily into two parts. In the first half she sets the stage by explaining the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice and how it is used unfairly against medical writers to keep their work from circulating. In the latter half of her pamphlet, she claims that the bible can be seen as obscene because its sole purpose is to evoke excitement in its reader, and also because many of its passages possess the potential to corrupt a youth's morals. The last pages of her pamphlet are entirely dedicated to backing this claim by providing numerous passages from the bible that could be considered to be obscene. I think this text was meant to be used by medical writers as a means of protecting themselves against unfair persecution.  Besant's argument is particularly strong because it shows that anyone who wishes to condemn a medical work must also by default wish to condemn such beloved texts as Romeo and Juliet and the bible. 

Besant's article reveals that the Lord Chief Justice's ruling that all excitable literature is condemnable could be used against such sacred texts as the bible. This work also addresses unfair social restraints. For example, she demonstrates that an expensive text, even one dealing with the controversial topic of abortion, is not considered obscene because its price allows only the rich to have access. As a result, physiological information is prevented from reaching any poor person in need of instruction, while the wealthy are free to purchase any information they wish to obtain. Besant's main point, however, is that it is illogical to attack medical documents as obscene if the bible contains such excitable content. I think Besant's pamphlet raises a number of questions. First, it is difficult to decipher whether Besant truthfully considers the bible to be obscene, or if she brings the bible into focus only to show how absurd it is to attack literature works on the basis that a reader may be corrupted by its content regardless of the good intentions of the author. There has long been tension between the scientific communtiy and the religious community. I find it curious that this article addresses both science and Christianity. I wonder if Besant aimed to show that the two pursuits conflict with one another, or if she sees them as compatible.