In celebration of International Blasphemy Day, an appropriately irreverent video from YouTube user DarkMatter 2525:
Dickey Betts died
3 hours ago
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Magdalene survivors seek compensation
Another shameful chapter in the sadly ongoing saga of the Magdalene Laundries looks set to begin, following confirmation from Minister for Education Batt O'Keeffe that women who were 'resident' in the country's Magdalene Laundries are not eligible for compensation from the Residential Institutions Redress Board. Naturally, the remaining surviors and those who support them are incensed and have held a protest march calling for compensation from the Government and the religious institutions in question. Campaigner Christine Buckley, who attended the march, noted that most of the survivors were children at the time and should be compensated in the same way as survivors of institutional abuse have been (Magdalene women were excluded from both the Residential Address Board and the Ryan report). She also rejected the use of the term 'employees' to describe the Magdalene women, pointing out that most had been sent to the institutions by the courts and other State bodies, in collusion with religious authorities. Facts that would seem self-evident given all we now know about the repugnant history of the Magdalene Laundries, but facts that must be stated time and again in the face of stubborn, damning refusals on the part of the Government and the religious authorities to take reponsibility for the systematic imprisonment, torture and even murder of innocent women that occured in this country. Compensation is one thing, but the fact that those in power have yet to even properly recognise the status of these women as survivors of institutional abuse is sickening.
Friday, September 25, 2009
'Does God Hate...?'
Just when you're ready to announce your blanket dismissal of all things RTÉ (and after the Tubridy/Dawkins debacle one's resolution to do so could only be strengthened) they blindside you with a diamond in the rough. The upcoming 4-episode debate show Does God Hate...?, if it lives up to its premise, should be an absolute corker! Though the title gives one the nagging urge to answer "Yes!" and be done with it.
'Creation' finds a home in the US
After a brief period of uncertainty, Creation has found a US distributor! The Darwin biopic, starring real-life couple Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, was picked up by indie distributor Newmarket, who, coincidentally, distributed The Passion of the Christ!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
English libel battle rages on
"For years, London has had the reputation of being the place to go to court if one wants to divorce, and fleece a partner while doing so. Less publicly, however, it has equally become a place to sue, or threaten to sue, scientists and those writing about scientists" writes Mark Hennessy in The Irish Times. Commented upon recently by Richard Dawkins in the Guardian, the worrying trend of scientists being sued by practitioners of pseudoscientific medicine and medical companies alike has gained increased media attention since the case of Simon Singh began over 18 months ago, and has drawn in individuals far beyond the borders of the city in question. Síle Lane, a native of Co. Cork who studied stem cell research at UCC, has joined the fray by heading the Keep Libel Out Of Science campaign on behalf of Sense About Science, a London-based lobby group backed by prominent scientists like Dr. Dawkins and other intellectuals, such as Stephen Fry. Set up in 2002, the group's intention is to combat what it calls "an anti-science" atmosphere in the UK, and it has received increased media attention since Singh's case began as well as support from, amongst others, the Liberal Democrats, who have, according to Mark Hennessy's article, "overwhelmingly backed reform", a move Lane calls "a great step forward" in challenging the "chilling, stultifying effect" of English libel laws. With libel cases in the UK costing four times as much as in Ireland, which is in turn ten times dearer than the next most expensive European country, Italy, scientists cannot afford to speak out for fear of legal action, the net result being that, as Sense About Science puts it, "a country that...once led the world in technological advances [is] now falling behind". Scientific, and, by proxy, societal advancement is dependent by its very nature on critical thinking, open questioning and debate, skepticism and the ability to voice concerns, hypotheses, misgivings and opinions without fear of oppression. One can only hope that as media attention continues to focus on the outrages in progress, such as the Singh case, real progress will be made in ensuring they can never be repeated.
What the...?
I’ve been debating recently that perhaps the best way to follow a religion is in private. The moment you begin preaching at someone you violate a lot of the rules you’re meant to be following.
People who are not the same faith as you, or without a faith, don’t want to hear that they are living their lives wrong and that they are going to roast like marshmallows.
Hell, as I said, I’m a Christian, and I don’t want to hear it.
I’ve been poking around the internet and I’m pretty sure what I’ve seen of fstdt alone has dented my faith in mankind and its ability to survive as a species.
To people who actually think like the insane fundie comments on that site:
What are you doing, you complete nutcases?
You are the very reason WHY people are turning away from their faiths.
Respect the fact that people have different views than you. Listen to them.
You might just learn something.
Do not, at any point, start waving a book around and declare it word per word fact.
It’s a belief system. You believe it or you don’t. If you do, fine and dandy. Huzzah for you. I hope it works out for you, honestly I do, but don’t shove it down a person's throat.
You wouldn’t like it if an atheist came along and totally disregarded everything you’ve said with the line ‘I don’t care. I KNOW I’m right.’ So don’t do the same thing.
“I know I’m right because I have the word of the lord.” is not a valid argument if you know exactly wheres the books come from and the fact that they are not unedited versions of original texts.
The Bible is basically like the first media spin.
As it stands, nobody can present solid evidence that God exists. That’s fine. God's existence is not a fact.
Let me just say that again for anyone who is still reeling from this.
God's existence is not a fact.
It’s a belief some people have. It is not a requirement for life.
I’m saying this as someone who does believe in God. There are a lot of people out there who just make that belief look so…stupid.
I believe it for personal reasons. My reasons. Nobody else has them. So why would I expect anyone else to believe the same thing? It’s not logical to expect that. It’s not rational.
No rational human being can expect someone else to believe what they believe without solid evidence.
If you really want to stand by your beliefs, be willing to debate them like rational human beings.
If you can’t prove it, be content with the fact it’s your own personal belief and stop shouting it at everyone else.
The more you rage, the less anyone gives a damn.
-K
People who are not the same faith as you, or without a faith, don’t want to hear that they are living their lives wrong and that they are going to roast like marshmallows.
Hell, as I said, I’m a Christian, and I don’t want to hear it.
I’ve been poking around the internet and I’m pretty sure what I’ve seen of fstdt alone has dented my faith in mankind and its ability to survive as a species.
To people who actually think like the insane fundie comments on that site:
What are you doing, you complete nutcases?
You are the very reason WHY people are turning away from their faiths.
Respect the fact that people have different views than you. Listen to them.
You might just learn something.
Do not, at any point, start waving a book around and declare it word per word fact.
It’s a belief system. You believe it or you don’t. If you do, fine and dandy. Huzzah for you. I hope it works out for you, honestly I do, but don’t shove it down a person's throat.
You wouldn’t like it if an atheist came along and totally disregarded everything you’ve said with the line ‘I don’t care. I KNOW I’m right.’ So don’t do the same thing.
“I know I’m right because I have the word of the lord.” is not a valid argument if you know exactly wheres the books come from and the fact that they are not unedited versions of original texts.
The Bible is basically like the first media spin.
As it stands, nobody can present solid evidence that God exists. That’s fine. God's existence is not a fact.
Let me just say that again for anyone who is still reeling from this.
God's existence is not a fact.
It’s a belief some people have. It is not a requirement for life.
I’m saying this as someone who does believe in God. There are a lot of people out there who just make that belief look so…stupid.
I believe it for personal reasons. My reasons. Nobody else has them. So why would I expect anyone else to believe the same thing? It’s not logical to expect that. It’s not rational.
No rational human being can expect someone else to believe what they believe without solid evidence.
If you really want to stand by your beliefs, be willing to debate them like rational human beings.
If you can’t prove it, be content with the fact it’s your own personal belief and stop shouting it at everyone else.
The more you rage, the less anyone gives a damn.
-K
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Is that appropriate for a Lama?
Buddhism gains more points as a contender for World's Best Religion as the Karmapa Lama Trinley Dorje, one of its senior leaders, has stated that not only does he play violent video games, he also thinks they are "as effective as meditation in freeing the mind of worldly passions". Quote:
'I view video games as something of an emotional therapy, a mundane level of emotional therapy for me. We all have emotions whether we're Buddhist practitioners or not, all of us have emotions, happy emotions, sad emotions, displeased emotions and we need to figure out a way to deal with them when they arise. So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards. The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skilful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head.'
In an interview with The Times of India he also talks about Indian/Chinese international relations, his approach to Buddhist teachings and, er, hip-hop.
'I view video games as something of an emotional therapy, a mundane level of emotional therapy for me. We all have emotions whether we're Buddhist practitioners or not, all of us have emotions, happy emotions, sad emotions, displeased emotions and we need to figure out a way to deal with them when they arise. So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards. The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skilful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head.'
In an interview with The Times of India he also talks about Indian/Chinese international relations, his approach to Buddhist teachings and, er, hip-hop.
Closer than you'd think
'[I]f you thought creationism was too farfetched to be taken seriously here in the UK, just take a day trip to Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm in Somerset' writes Caspar Melville in the latest issue of New Humanist. I particularly like the 'Creation Research' part - hard to believe this place is endorsed by many public bodies, including BIAZA: the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, South West Tourism, Destination Bristol, Tourism Attractions Alliance, the National Farmers Union, Country Land and Business Association, Nailsea Chamber of Trade, British Camelid Association, Avon Farming and the Wildlife Advisory Group. One can only assume that owners Anthony and Christina Bush are kinder to the animals they keep than they are to Darwin.
Deicide (No, not the band)
'Award-winning comedian Tommy Tiernan has been "floored by a belt of the crozier" for allegedly making offensive remarks about the Holocaust' writes John Cooney in today's edition of the Irish Independent. The criticism came in the form of an outburst by Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin at the end of Mass last night in Bray, where, without mentioning Tiernan by name, Archbishop Martin commented that remarks attributed to an Irish comedian were "offensive to the Jewish community and offensive to all who feel revulsion concerning the Holocaust, one of the most horrific events in human history". Tiernan was reported to have made the following remarks during an interview at Electric Picnic earlier this month: "F**king Christ-killing bastards... F**k six million? I would have got ten or twelve million out of that".
Now, leaving aside the massive irony of a senior member of the Catholic church trying to smear anyone's name in relation to the Holocaust (your predecessors weren't so vocal in 1941 your worship), let's have a closer look at what Tommy Tiernan, a comedian well-known for making outrageous and provocative statements both onstage and off, is actual saying here. Not that he'd kill twelve-million Jews for their inferior racial qualities, say, or because they are part of an international conspiracy to control the world's wealth, or any other ludicrous reason but this one - they 'killed Christ'. Sound familiar? That's right folks, seems that Tommy is actually making a very valid point about the stupidity (and hilariousness) of the charge of deicide. No wonder the Archbishop was upset - after all, it would be very bad for their image if people were being reminded that it took the Catholic church nineteen centuries to admit this claim was bogus.
Now, leaving aside the massive irony of a senior member of the Catholic church trying to smear anyone's name in relation to the Holocaust (your predecessors weren't so vocal in 1941 your worship), let's have a closer look at what Tommy Tiernan, a comedian well-known for making outrageous and provocative statements both onstage and off, is actual saying here. Not that he'd kill twelve-million Jews for their inferior racial qualities, say, or because they are part of an international conspiracy to control the world's wealth, or any other ludicrous reason but this one - they 'killed Christ'. Sound familiar? That's right folks, seems that Tommy is actually making a very valid point about the stupidity (and hilariousness) of the charge of deicide. No wonder the Archbishop was upset - after all, it would be very bad for their image if people were being reminded that it took the Catholic church nineteen centuries to admit this claim was bogus.
Cats and Dogs?
I spent yesterday evening, as many evenings, curled up with a good book, in this case The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory, a highly informative and eminently readable introduction to the current leading contender for a unified theory. I was struck however by one particular passage, as the author, George Musser, following on from an anecdote from his own life, digressed for a paragraph or two on the relationship between science and religion, describing them as cats and dogs that "in an obliging household...might even be found lounging around together". This seems more than a trifle generous on his part and I reproduce the paragraph that follows this statement in full as it raises a couple of interesting points:
'Does science oppose religion? It's true that science usurps what used to be a major goal of religion: providing explanations for natural phenomena. In so doing, it has made room in our culture for a secular worldview. But that is not the same as saying science proves a secular worldview. Science is agnostic. By its very nature, it is incapable of saying whether a transcendental reality exists or not. Nor can it provide a comprehensive moral code. Scientists who promote atheism are speaking not as scientists but as adherents of their own belief system'
There are a number of issues to be addressed in the above, though I would concede the statement that science is agnostic as essentially true. The first issue, indeed the elephant in the room that I cannot avoid is in the final sentence, something that, no matter how many times it is exposed as fallacious or a misconception, will not stop rearing its ugly head. Atheism is NOT a belief system, it does not have adherents - as a thousand motivational posters succinctly put it, atheism is to belief as bald is to hair colour. To attempt to drag atheism down to the level of religion with the tired canards of "You're just as fundamentalist about your beliefs!" and "Atheism/science/reason is your religion!" should be the preserve of desperate religious zealots lacking in cogent arguments, and Mr. Musser does himself a disservice doing the same, even accidentally. Secondly, while Mr. Musser notes that science has usurped religion's attempts to explain the natural world, he fails to point out the key difference between the old and new systems - that difference being the ascertainable truth of scientific explanations of the world, versus the religious or "made-up" version. But what I find most bizarre is his introduction of the idea of morality, in what I can only term a muddying of the waters or an attempt to appear to concede a point to religious readers. Yes, science does not provide a moral code, but nobody (I should sincerely hope) ever thought or suggested that it should. Science does not tell you how to live life, it tells you how life comes to be, reveals to you the mechanisms underlying the possibility of a morally-reasoning being to exist and function. Indeed, in evolutionary biology we clearly see the Darwinian advantages that lead, filtered through a myriad of external factors and extrapolated along a dizzyingly long timeline, to what we today might term 'morality', and, through the ever-growing disciplines of sociology and psychology, science explains these mechanisms with ever-greater clarity. What is most worrying about what Mr. Musser says though is that he seems to concede that, as science cannot provide a moral code, this honour must belong to religion. Could anything be further from the truth? Much time has been spent in recent years debunking the ludicrousness of claims that ANY religious dogma provides a decent moral compass, and in my own reading of the Holy Books of the three Abrahamic religions I find this point illustrated in abundance. Hell, aren't our everyday lives so often punctuated by instances of the bigotry, small-mindedness, hatred, wanton ignorance and oppression religion breeds as to make even the discussion of such a point moot?
Mr. Musser's book is a joy to read and I would recommend it to anybody, and the the author comes across as a warm, witty and knowledgeable individual. But everybody, even a man as intelligent as he, should be wary of this minefield of ideology where science meets faith, and when discussing it should choose their words very carefully indeed.
'Does science oppose religion? It's true that science usurps what used to be a major goal of religion: providing explanations for natural phenomena. In so doing, it has made room in our culture for a secular worldview. But that is not the same as saying science proves a secular worldview. Science is agnostic. By its very nature, it is incapable of saying whether a transcendental reality exists or not. Nor can it provide a comprehensive moral code. Scientists who promote atheism are speaking not as scientists but as adherents of their own belief system'
There are a number of issues to be addressed in the above, though I would concede the statement that science is agnostic as essentially true. The first issue, indeed the elephant in the room that I cannot avoid is in the final sentence, something that, no matter how many times it is exposed as fallacious or a misconception, will not stop rearing its ugly head. Atheism is NOT a belief system, it does not have adherents - as a thousand motivational posters succinctly put it, atheism is to belief as bald is to hair colour. To attempt to drag atheism down to the level of religion with the tired canards of "You're just as fundamentalist about your beliefs!" and "Atheism/science/reason is your religion!" should be the preserve of desperate religious zealots lacking in cogent arguments, and Mr. Musser does himself a disservice doing the same, even accidentally. Secondly, while Mr. Musser notes that science has usurped religion's attempts to explain the natural world, he fails to point out the key difference between the old and new systems - that difference being the ascertainable truth of scientific explanations of the world, versus the religious or "made-up" version. But what I find most bizarre is his introduction of the idea of morality, in what I can only term a muddying of the waters or an attempt to appear to concede a point to religious readers. Yes, science does not provide a moral code, but nobody (I should sincerely hope) ever thought or suggested that it should. Science does not tell you how to live life, it tells you how life comes to be, reveals to you the mechanisms underlying the possibility of a morally-reasoning being to exist and function. Indeed, in evolutionary biology we clearly see the Darwinian advantages that lead, filtered through a myriad of external factors and extrapolated along a dizzyingly long timeline, to what we today might term 'morality', and, through the ever-growing disciplines of sociology and psychology, science explains these mechanisms with ever-greater clarity. What is most worrying about what Mr. Musser says though is that he seems to concede that, as science cannot provide a moral code, this honour must belong to religion. Could anything be further from the truth? Much time has been spent in recent years debunking the ludicrousness of claims that ANY religious dogma provides a decent moral compass, and in my own reading of the Holy Books of the three Abrahamic religions I find this point illustrated in abundance. Hell, aren't our everyday lives so often punctuated by instances of the bigotry, small-mindedness, hatred, wanton ignorance and oppression religion breeds as to make even the discussion of such a point moot?
Mr. Musser's book is a joy to read and I would recommend it to anybody, and the the author comes across as a warm, witty and knowledgeable individual. But everybody, even a man as intelligent as he, should be wary of this minefield of ideology where science meets faith, and when discussing it should choose their words very carefully indeed.
Religiousil
YouTube user DarkMatter2525 offers salvation in handy pill form!
Also, The Cranberries! Up the Irish! :)
Also, The Cranberries! Up the Irish! :)
WTF?!
Admittedly, nobody goes to fstdt to see reasonable opinions and rational commentary but this took even me by surprise! The poster is referring to the British Prime Minister's recent posthumous apology to Alan Turing:
"Rightly or wrongly, the man was guilty of transgressing the law of the land at that time. Whether or not he was a giant in his field is totally immaterial. Had he been a paedophile, I wonder how many people would be looking for an apology?"
Let's ignore the insinuation of the supposed (ie: non-existant) link between homosexuality and paedophelia. Let's ignore the fact that the 'law of the land at that time' was biased and suffused with religious dogma. Let's ignore the fact that chemical castration of homosexuals was an unspeakable practice. THE MAN BROKE THE FUCKING ENIGMA CODE, WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?!
Fundies really do say the darndest things...
"Rightly or wrongly, the man was guilty of transgressing the law of the land at that time. Whether or not he was a giant in his field is totally immaterial. Had he been a paedophile, I wonder how many people would be looking for an apology?"
Let's ignore the insinuation of the supposed (ie: non-existant) link between homosexuality and paedophelia. Let's ignore the fact that the 'law of the land at that time' was biased and suffused with religious dogma. Let's ignore the fact that chemical castration of homosexuals was an unspeakable practice. THE MAN BROKE THE FUCKING ENIGMA CODE, WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?!
Fundies really do say the darndest things...
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
I’m calling Shenanigans
Unlike my esteemed colleague, I am, you may be surprised to know, not an atheist.
I’m a Christian. Lapsed by many a definition, though not in the ways that truly matter.
I found something worthwhile in the idea of a man who stood his ground and promoted peace, harmony and tolerance.
It doesn’t matter if he had a supernatural force backing him or not (though maybe that’s what it takes in this world).
The point is the core belief of the religion is those very same things. That you should respect people, lend a hand and be tolerant of all people.
The core lessons are sound. If you take away the spiritual reward system element, which I’ve previously stated I don’t agree with (You do the right thing because it’s right. That’s the point), then the idea of one man who saw what was right and tried to tell others is pretty good, and not a bad story.
Not really all that different from some guy on a Blog urging you to do the right thing. Just with more Romans.
My issue here is that the church doesn’t practice what it preaches. It is one of the LEAST accepting organisations on the planet. Their outlook on gay relationships alone is absurd.
Being gay is an affront to god? I’m sure there are many gay people out there who are actually far more spiritual and religious than the heterosexual heathen writing this entry.
That one point alone shoots down any teachings of ‘tolerance’. Somewhere along the way, these good teachings of truth, love, honesty, forgiveness and tolerance were taken by this insane organisation and twisted.
It’s tolerance on their terms. Forgiveness on their terms. Love! On. Their. Terms.
It’s wrong. It’s amoral and highly hypocritical.
Being gay doesn’t make you a bad person. Having sex outside of marriage doesn’t make you a bad person (though do be responsible). Using contraception doesn’t make you a bad person. Getting a divorce, for whatever reason, doesn’t make you a bad person.
I knew a person who lived with an abusive husband for some time. She finally got away from him and managed to get a divorce. Years later she found the true love of her life. A good and noble man. When they attempted to get married, the church wouldn’t allow it. She’d apparently violated the sanctity of marriage by cutting ties with a lunatic.
Anyone else see an issue?
From what I see, it’s not a church, it’s a damned private club.
-K
I’m a Christian. Lapsed by many a definition, though not in the ways that truly matter.
I found something worthwhile in the idea of a man who stood his ground and promoted peace, harmony and tolerance.
It doesn’t matter if he had a supernatural force backing him or not (though maybe that’s what it takes in this world).
The point is the core belief of the religion is those very same things. That you should respect people, lend a hand and be tolerant of all people.
The core lessons are sound. If you take away the spiritual reward system element, which I’ve previously stated I don’t agree with (You do the right thing because it’s right. That’s the point), then the idea of one man who saw what was right and tried to tell others is pretty good, and not a bad story.
Not really all that different from some guy on a Blog urging you to do the right thing. Just with more Romans.
My issue here is that the church doesn’t practice what it preaches. It is one of the LEAST accepting organisations on the planet. Their outlook on gay relationships alone is absurd.
Being gay is an affront to god? I’m sure there are many gay people out there who are actually far more spiritual and religious than the heterosexual heathen writing this entry.
That one point alone shoots down any teachings of ‘tolerance’. Somewhere along the way, these good teachings of truth, love, honesty, forgiveness and tolerance were taken by this insane organisation and twisted.
It’s tolerance on their terms. Forgiveness on their terms. Love! On. Their. Terms.
It’s wrong. It’s amoral and highly hypocritical.
Being gay doesn’t make you a bad person. Having sex outside of marriage doesn’t make you a bad person (though do be responsible). Using contraception doesn’t make you a bad person. Getting a divorce, for whatever reason, doesn’t make you a bad person.
I knew a person who lived with an abusive husband for some time. She finally got away from him and managed to get a divorce. Years later she found the true love of her life. A good and noble man. When they attempted to get married, the church wouldn’t allow it. She’d apparently violated the sanctity of marriage by cutting ties with a lunatic.
Anyone else see an issue?
From what I see, it’s not a church, it’s a damned private club.
-K
Lib Dems call out Blair on torture
The UK's Liberal Democrats party has demanded that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (he of the Faith Foundation) should not be nominated to be the first President of the European Union Council - a post he has apparently expressed interest in - until a full and independent inquiry has been launched to ascertain his (and the British government in general's) involvement in and knowledge of torture and rendition cases since 9/11. According to The Irish Times, the Lib Dems insist it would be "wholly inappropriate for him to occupy such a position before an inquiry has established his role in the formulation of British policy on torture". Apparently the man often described as George Bush's lapdog (once, colourfully as a "yippy little Pekingese in Uncle Sam’s stars-and-stripy lap") only has time for the 'values of respect, justice and compassion' espoused in his pet-project's mission statement as long as you're not talking about innocent civilians subjected to illegal extraordinary rendition and torture with no hope of a fair trial.
Irish Priest calls for reform of Church attitudes
"An outspoken Irish priest has called for a radical rethink [of church policy] on relationships" writes reporter Andrea Byrne in the latest issue of the Sunday Independant. Fr. Tony Flannery, author of a new book 'Responding to the Ryan Report', has called on the church to "break the rigid connection between sexual activity and marriage, allowing for appropriate sexual relationships between people who are not married, when the quality of the relationship merits it". He offers the refreshingly honest admission that "church teaching has officially conceded now that sex has a purpose other than procreation, namely to nourish and develop a relationship of love between two people" and is scathing of the religious authorities' attitude to re-marriage, saying: "The failure of the church to respond to the many people who are getting married for the second time is scandalous. More often than not they are good, sincere people, and all we offer them is a blank refusal of any religious ceremony, even a blessing, coupled with a mostly unstated, but implied belief that they are living in sin and no longer pleasing God". He advocates a progressive approach to the relationship between church authorities and their parishioners, hoping that the "church leadership learns to trust the believing community, and develops its teachings in partnership with them, rather than handing it down to them in an authoritarian manner".
While Fr. Flannery's personally progressive thinking is certainly admirable, I can't see mainstream Christianity following suit any time soon - after all, dogma and authoritarianism are what separates religion from mere spirituality and it seems suspiciously like the latter that Fr. Flannery is indeed espousing, a personal understanding of god or the divine that differs from believer to believer, which would negate the need for organised religion at all. Still, it's always good to hear a voice of reason cry out in the wilderness, and Fr. Flannery's matter of fact honesty about the beauty and validity of loving relationships that exist outside the constraints of religious marriage is very touching.
While Fr. Flannery's personally progressive thinking is certainly admirable, I can't see mainstream Christianity following suit any time soon - after all, dogma and authoritarianism are what separates religion from mere spirituality and it seems suspiciously like the latter that Fr. Flannery is indeed espousing, a personal understanding of god or the divine that differs from believer to believer, which would negate the need for organised religion at all. Still, it's always good to hear a voice of reason cry out in the wilderness, and Fr. Flannery's matter of fact honesty about the beauty and validity of loving relationships that exist outside the constraints of religious marriage is very touching.
For those of you who don't already know...
...some enterprising folks are putting the domain name catholic.ie to very good use.
Regrettably, irishcatholic.ie was already taken.
Regrettably, irishcatholic.ie was already taken.
zOMG! 'Alive' warns of societal breakdown!
An editor's piece in the latest issue of the always interesting Alive! "newspaper" has some rather bold statements to make regarding proposed legislation concerning same-sex marriage et al and how this will apparently contribute to the breakdown of society (really, that old canard again?). Full text of the article follows:
Tax-payer to be hit, Christian basis of society being undermined
Minister Dermot Ahern proposes to give legal standing to one-sex and non-marital relationships. This will set in motion a policy that will seriously undermine marriage and family life, and threaten religious freedom. Intended or not, it will also shift our society further from its Christian basis and its concern for the 'common good', towards a liberal individualist basis. The guiding principle will no longer be the good of the whole community, but a policy of giving each individual maximum space to pursue his or her own desires, choices, preferences, 'what I want'. So if two men want to 'marry' each other, let's allow it. And if a man wants three wives, or to marry his cat, let him have that too. Never mind the social cost.
The shift from a Christian to a liberal basis for society has been under way for some time in Ireland. It lies behind the introduction of divorce, mothers being pressured into the work force, the campaign for a 'right to choose', unreasonable pay demands and so on. It is a dangerous course for us to be taking. Of its nature, the liberal agenda cannot stop until it has disintegrated society, creating in the meantime untold suffering. So, campaigners may point out that the family based on marriage is, in general, by far the best environment in which to rear children. Study after study may confirm what common sense tells us about the value to a child of a mother and father united in marriage. Research may show that the most stable and stabilising unit of society is the family based on marriage. But the government is not interested.
It knows all this already. It also knows that, under EU law, its legal change will likely lead to homosexual adoptions. And it knows that this change will hit tax-payers hard. While all this may be regrettable, it will not be allowed to stand in the way of the new vision. But are we going to simply let this happen? Or do we care enough to oppose it?
Leaving aside the fact that I highly doubt Minister Ahern was proposing either polygamy or legalised bestiality, as the author suggests, there are a number of glaring errors here. First is the claim that this new legislation would somehow threaten religious freedom, an accusation the author clearly realises is false as he makes it at the beginning of his piece and never mentions, references or clarifies it thereafter. Second, the insinuation that increasing the freedom of the individual to pursue their own happiness in life is a bad thing is telling of the desire of the religious to maintain control over our temporal existence. Thirdly, the comment regarding "mothers being pressured into the work force" seems to me a thinly veiled criticism of the equal rights of women and clearly favours the 50's-housewife-nuclear-family model of things, a statement so outrageous in 21st-century society as to defy belief were it not issued from a source so renowned for their backwards view of life. This is an insult to feminists and indeed all people in favour of equal rights and should be taken as such (not to mention a smear against every brave suffragette who fought and perhaps even died so that future generations of women might finally be recognised in holding equal status in society). Finally there is the cheap shot of appealing to the tax-payer's wallet (okay, there was also the whole screed about the breakdown of family units and societal values etc. but that is such an old story and has been brilliantly refuted by people more eloquent than I time and again). Any attempt to change the fundamentals of a society and the laws that govern it comes at a price Mr. Editor, but to see the rights of those individuals previously excluded by mainstream society upheld in courts of law, to see the talons of religious dogma loosen still more their hold on the hearts and minds of the Irish people - for that I would pay the price many times over.
Tax-payer to be hit, Christian basis of society being undermined
Minister Dermot Ahern proposes to give legal standing to one-sex and non-marital relationships. This will set in motion a policy that will seriously undermine marriage and family life, and threaten religious freedom. Intended or not, it will also shift our society further from its Christian basis and its concern for the 'common good', towards a liberal individualist basis. The guiding principle will no longer be the good of the whole community, but a policy of giving each individual maximum space to pursue his or her own desires, choices, preferences, 'what I want'. So if two men want to 'marry' each other, let's allow it. And if a man wants three wives, or to marry his cat, let him have that too. Never mind the social cost.
The shift from a Christian to a liberal basis for society has been under way for some time in Ireland. It lies behind the introduction of divorce, mothers being pressured into the work force, the campaign for a 'right to choose', unreasonable pay demands and so on. It is a dangerous course for us to be taking. Of its nature, the liberal agenda cannot stop until it has disintegrated society, creating in the meantime untold suffering. So, campaigners may point out that the family based on marriage is, in general, by far the best environment in which to rear children. Study after study may confirm what common sense tells us about the value to a child of a mother and father united in marriage. Research may show that the most stable and stabilising unit of society is the family based on marriage. But the government is not interested.
It knows all this already. It also knows that, under EU law, its legal change will likely lead to homosexual adoptions. And it knows that this change will hit tax-payers hard. While all this may be regrettable, it will not be allowed to stand in the way of the new vision. But are we going to simply let this happen? Or do we care enough to oppose it?
Leaving aside the fact that I highly doubt Minister Ahern was proposing either polygamy or legalised bestiality, as the author suggests, there are a number of glaring errors here. First is the claim that this new legislation would somehow threaten religious freedom, an accusation the author clearly realises is false as he makes it at the beginning of his piece and never mentions, references or clarifies it thereafter. Second, the insinuation that increasing the freedom of the individual to pursue their own happiness in life is a bad thing is telling of the desire of the religious to maintain control over our temporal existence. Thirdly, the comment regarding "mothers being pressured into the work force" seems to me a thinly veiled criticism of the equal rights of women and clearly favours the 50's-housewife-nuclear-family model of things, a statement so outrageous in 21st-century society as to defy belief were it not issued from a source so renowned for their backwards view of life. This is an insult to feminists and indeed all people in favour of equal rights and should be taken as such (not to mention a smear against every brave suffragette who fought and perhaps even died so that future generations of women might finally be recognised in holding equal status in society). Finally there is the cheap shot of appealing to the tax-payer's wallet (okay, there was also the whole screed about the breakdown of family units and societal values etc. but that is such an old story and has been brilliantly refuted by people more eloquent than I time and again). Any attempt to change the fundamentals of a society and the laws that govern it comes at a price Mr. Editor, but to see the rights of those individuals previously excluded by mainstream society upheld in courts of law, to see the talons of religious dogma loosen still more their hold on the hearts and minds of the Irish people - for that I would pay the price many times over.
Dawkins' Bulldogs
Following Richard Dawkins' appearance on last Friday's episode of The Late Late Show, a segment one could hardly call an "interview", given the complete lack of structure, pertinent questions and a bizarrely hostile attitude on the part of host Ryan Tubridy, I cynically expected to see the Irish blogosphere light up in support of that chinless wonder and his petty attempts to ambush his guest. Imagine my delight then in perusing boards.ie yesterday evening to find that quite the opposite had occurred and a healthy dose of outrage had been stirred up on behalf of Dr. Dawkins and his mistreatment at the hands of RTÉ. Some choice comments:
- "That'll teach me to stay in watching the Late Late Show on a Friday... Cringeworthy"
- "Creationism rules in Irish Society!"
- "What a useless interview. 90% of it was about his LAST book, for the sole purpose of stirring some ****!"
- "His attitude was condescending, but do you blame him? Tubridy questioned him about a topic that doesn't relate to his new book, he spent 90% of the interview talking about that topic; Dawkins was there to promote and talk about his new book, not his book of three years ago. If I were Richard, I'd have been annoyed too, and I'm sure that annoyance would have evinced itself as condescension"
- "Firstly, he did nothing but talk about the topic of "The God Delusion" and not [Dawkins'] new book. Secondly, he had done zero research, had clearly never read a word written by the man and as far as I could tell, all he knew was that 'some english bloke who didn't believe in God' was coming on the show. His questions were inept and lacking any substance. His posture was defensive and dismissive. He had a constant smirk on his face and not once did he attempt to actually dig deep into any of the questions instead asking retarded questions like 'have you thought about your funeral' and asking him to speculate what humans will look like millions of years from now. His linguistic repertoire was laughable forcing phrases into the chaps mouth like 'easter bunny' later using the term to mock the man's argument.
Then to top it off, he decided to ask for a show of hands of those who believe in God as if his pathetic audience of 100 people were some sort of credible source on theological matters... Oh look 95% of Irish retards say they believe in God ergo God exists!"
- "Aside from the whole "Irish people are very gullible" debate, it's Tubridy's interviewing technique that completely lacks any kind of finesse"
- "Dawkins was perfectly respectful. The priest was perfectly respectful. Tubridy hijacked the interview to try and kick up a storm (thankfully his plan failed miserably). The interview was not supposed to be about the God Delusion. The interview was supposed to be about Evolution and the book "The Greatest Show on Earth". It was an absolute joke"
- "Tubridy was unbelievably childish in his questioning and came across as deluded as the audience. What should have been an engaging debate on evolution, Darwin, religion and the beauty of the natural world turned into a village hall kerfuffle about the easter bunny"
- ""So whats the Vatican?? Toy Town?" Well if that's not a defensive believer talking I don't know what is. I really thought Tubridy was a bright, intelligent guy who would love the opportunity to have someone like Richard Dawkins on the show. Looks like he's just another ratings whore who knows how to play into the hands of his largely middle-aged Catholic television audience"
Lovely to see that the infidels of Ireland are speaking out on behalf of Dr. Dawkins and quite right too, but it's such a pity that we couldn't have been better represented in that studio audience. Come back soon Richard, we don't all hate you!
- "That'll teach me to stay in watching the Late Late Show on a Friday... Cringeworthy"
- "Creationism rules in Irish Society!"
- "What a useless interview. 90% of it was about his LAST book, for the sole purpose of stirring some ****!"
- "His attitude was condescending, but do you blame him? Tubridy questioned him about a topic that doesn't relate to his new book, he spent 90% of the interview talking about that topic; Dawkins was there to promote and talk about his new book, not his book of three years ago. If I were Richard, I'd have been annoyed too, and I'm sure that annoyance would have evinced itself as condescension"
- "Firstly, he did nothing but talk about the topic of "The God Delusion" and not [Dawkins'] new book. Secondly, he had done zero research, had clearly never read a word written by the man and as far as I could tell, all he knew was that 'some english bloke who didn't believe in God' was coming on the show. His questions were inept and lacking any substance. His posture was defensive and dismissive. He had a constant smirk on his face and not once did he attempt to actually dig deep into any of the questions instead asking retarded questions like 'have you thought about your funeral' and asking him to speculate what humans will look like millions of years from now. His linguistic repertoire was laughable forcing phrases into the chaps mouth like 'easter bunny' later using the term to mock the man's argument.
Then to top it off, he decided to ask for a show of hands of those who believe in God as if his pathetic audience of 100 people were some sort of credible source on theological matters... Oh look 95% of Irish retards say they believe in God ergo God exists!"
- "Aside from the whole "Irish people are very gullible" debate, it's Tubridy's interviewing technique that completely lacks any kind of finesse"
- "Dawkins was perfectly respectful. The priest was perfectly respectful. Tubridy hijacked the interview to try and kick up a storm (thankfully his plan failed miserably). The interview was not supposed to be about the God Delusion. The interview was supposed to be about Evolution and the book "The Greatest Show on Earth". It was an absolute joke"
- "Tubridy was unbelievably childish in his questioning and came across as deluded as the audience. What should have been an engaging debate on evolution, Darwin, religion and the beauty of the natural world turned into a village hall kerfuffle about the easter bunny"
- ""So whats the Vatican?? Toy Town?" Well if that's not a defensive believer talking I don't know what is. I really thought Tubridy was a bright, intelligent guy who would love the opportunity to have someone like Richard Dawkins on the show. Looks like he's just another ratings whore who knows how to play into the hands of his largely middle-aged Catholic television audience"
Lovely to see that the infidels of Ireland are speaking out on behalf of Dr. Dawkins and quite right too, but it's such a pity that we couldn't have been better represented in that studio audience. Come back soon Richard, we don't all hate you!
The Magic Stick
Back in the days of cave drawings and living in trees we were animals.
We followed instinct and necessity and nobody spoke of a ‘magical sky daddy’ and his promises of life everlasting.
And you know what? We did ok. We developed a thing called ‘higher thought’ somewhere along the way. Some of you out there may be aware of it. It’s what separates us from our primate relatives. We are only above animals so long as we act that way.
With this higher thought process we came down from our trees and we used it to make tools.
We climbed the ladder as the dominant species.
We did pretty damn well for ourselves.
Then, something wondrous happened! With this astounding new thought process we expanded on our instincts that told us to look after our own, to occasionally lending a hand to others, just because it was the right thing to do.
We were all pretty happy with that. We had a basic moral code.
Common decency towards your fellow land ape sprang forth. Huzzah!
Then somebody came along, for whatever reason, with a magical stick and said if we didn’t do the right thing we’d burn in toasty fire pits.
……………
Somehow, somewhere along the way. someone thought it was a good idea to take common decency and wrap it up in lights and rituals.
They made being a nice person out to be some divine mission. It’s like a savers club: You collect enough good deed stamps and they’ll let you into the VIP area.
Why?
We don’t need this.
Being a nice person and doing the right thing shouldn’t be some sort of fantastical otherworldly merit system.
You do the right thing because it IS the right thing. You shouldn’t need to add bells and whistles to it just to make it happen.
If people really do need all the hocus pocus just to be a good person, then they aren’t good people to begin with.
If it takes a man with a magic stick and a pointy hat making threats on your immortal soul just to be decent to the people around you, then don’t worry too much about going to hell. It’s closer than you think.
-K
We followed instinct and necessity and nobody spoke of a ‘magical sky daddy’ and his promises of life everlasting.
And you know what? We did ok. We developed a thing called ‘higher thought’ somewhere along the way. Some of you out there may be aware of it. It’s what separates us from our primate relatives. We are only above animals so long as we act that way.
With this higher thought process we came down from our trees and we used it to make tools.
We climbed the ladder as the dominant species.
We did pretty damn well for ourselves.
Then, something wondrous happened! With this astounding new thought process we expanded on our instincts that told us to look after our own, to occasionally lending a hand to others, just because it was the right thing to do.
We were all pretty happy with that. We had a basic moral code.
Common decency towards your fellow land ape sprang forth. Huzzah!
Then somebody came along, for whatever reason, with a magical stick and said if we didn’t do the right thing we’d burn in toasty fire pits.
……………
Somehow, somewhere along the way. someone thought it was a good idea to take common decency and wrap it up in lights and rituals.
They made being a nice person out to be some divine mission. It’s like a savers club: You collect enough good deed stamps and they’ll let you into the VIP area.
Why?
We don’t need this.
Being a nice person and doing the right thing shouldn’t be some sort of fantastical otherworldly merit system.
You do the right thing because it IS the right thing. You shouldn’t need to add bells and whistles to it just to make it happen.
If people really do need all the hocus pocus just to be a good person, then they aren’t good people to begin with.
If it takes a man with a magic stick and a pointy hat making threats on your immortal soul just to be decent to the people around you, then don’t worry too much about going to hell. It’s closer than you think.
-K
Wait a minute...
...wasn't the world supposed to end yesterday?
http://home.flash.net/~evt/rapture.htm
The sad thing is, somebody somewhere is pissed off that it didn't...
http://home.flash.net/~evt/rapture.htm
The sad thing is, somebody somewhere is pissed off that it didn't...
First Post and a rant about First Confession
The trials and travails of the United States' education system are many and well-documented and my friends across the Atlantic will surely forgive me if I admit to, on more than one occasion in the past, smugly surveying the statistics that placed Ireland, as with many European nations, firmly ahead of the world's only remaining superpower in the key areas of mathematical, scientific and reading literacy. But be that as it may, one area in which the US can claim to be far and away ahead of the education system of our humble Emerald Isle, and a point over which I envy them immensely, is in the commitment to separation of church and state enshrined in their constitution, keeping the influence of religion safely out of public schools. Here in Ireland, as far as we would like to imagine we have come in the past few decades, the reality is that in this area we have barely progressed since the birth of the Free State and it is a problem to which no easy solution can yet be seen, so ingrained has this state of affairs become in the fabric of our society. I raise the point because a recent conversation with a friend illustrated to me in stark terms how the educational life of Ireland's young people in the 21st century remains shrouded in the dogma of religion (in this case Catholicism) and punctuated with its unnecessary, frequently ugly, rituals.
My friend, a teacher at a local Primary School, is currently in the process of preparing their group of 26 kids, aged 7-8, to receive First Communion in the latter half of the school year (March, I think), one of the first steps towards which is the dreaded First Confession (apparently the current euphemism is "First Penance", which probably sounds less scary when you're too young to understand the word penance but does nothing to make it sound any more appealing to me). It was telling that even my friend, a lapsed Catholic but still perfectly happy to perpetuate the dogma as long as its in the job description, seemed to balk as they described having the introduce the concept of sin to the children, many of whom had never encountered the term, and then go on to explain to them the supposed necessity of confessing one's sins to a complete stranger so that they might be "cleansed". I remember very little of my own days as a Catholic schoolboy but it isn't hard to imagine what the introduction of these concepts changes within the psyche of an impressionable child, affecting a very real loss of innocence and the implanting of a sense of paranoia and fear that, for many, will stay with them into adulthood, if not for the remainder of their lives. While on the subject, my friend also digressed on their own memories of First Confession, recalling with some emotion the sense of guilt and shame in the run-up to the event, leading to sleepless nights and tearful outbursts at the thought of being shunned by the priest or, worse, by god.
All this troubles me for a myriad of reasons. The inherent immorality of infusing young children with this very real sense of guilt, fear and paranoia speaks for itself, and the fact that this is occurring not only in private, religious-run institutions but PUBLIC schools seems to me nothing short of shameful, as it should be for any civilised 21st-century society. But there are subtler issues here too. For one, there is the issue of accountability, which many critics of religion have commented on but will do us no harm to revisit here. For confession is, by its very nature, an act which robs people of their accountability, lessening the burden of having to confront and deal with one's actions by inserting god, divine middle-man that he is. To teach anybody, especially a child, that they are not accountable for their actions by virtue of the fact that their invisible sky-daddy, through the un-asked for proxy of vicarious atonement, has authority to issue blanket forgiveness and give them a clean slate is to retard the moral and intellectual growth of that individual as a reasoning and discerning mind, capable of distinguishing RIGHT and WRONG as they exist in real societal terms, not RIGHT and SIN. For when you call a wrong "SIN" you are masking the reality of your action by transposing it to some metaphysical plane, where the affront is not to another person or even to your own sensibilities as a creature of reason but to god, who will conveniently issue forgiveness at your token signs of repentance.
Finally, there exists the problem faced by my friend, a person who has little time for the mores of religious life on a day-to-day basis but who is REQUIRED BY LAW to spread this diseased dogma in the classroom, a moral dilemma I shudder to imagine myself in the teeth of. Even if we weren't in the grip of an economic crisis, wherein nobody will dare challenge the status quo for fear of ending up unemployed, it is unlikely we would see this state of affairs challenged, at least not from within the establishment. And in the meantime how many more generations will have to undergo this same system of brainwashing, a throwback to the dark days of our nation's traumatic birth, when religion and state were inseparable? We have done a lot of growing up in this country in the last couple of decades, but there is much still to be done. For despite our newly cosmopolitan way of thinking (especially about ourselves), unparallelled access to knowledge from all around the world, the revelation of abuses too numerous to catalogue and the inherent ludicrousness of the whole sorry enterprise, in a time when information can cross the globe in a microsecond, bronze-age religion remains a sacred cow in Irish society.
My friend, a teacher at a local Primary School, is currently in the process of preparing their group of 26 kids, aged 7-8, to receive First Communion in the latter half of the school year (March, I think), one of the first steps towards which is the dreaded First Confession (apparently the current euphemism is "First Penance", which probably sounds less scary when you're too young to understand the word penance but does nothing to make it sound any more appealing to me). It was telling that even my friend, a lapsed Catholic but still perfectly happy to perpetuate the dogma as long as its in the job description, seemed to balk as they described having the introduce the concept of sin to the children, many of whom had never encountered the term, and then go on to explain to them the supposed necessity of confessing one's sins to a complete stranger so that they might be "cleansed". I remember very little of my own days as a Catholic schoolboy but it isn't hard to imagine what the introduction of these concepts changes within the psyche of an impressionable child, affecting a very real loss of innocence and the implanting of a sense of paranoia and fear that, for many, will stay with them into adulthood, if not for the remainder of their lives. While on the subject, my friend also digressed on their own memories of First Confession, recalling with some emotion the sense of guilt and shame in the run-up to the event, leading to sleepless nights and tearful outbursts at the thought of being shunned by the priest or, worse, by god.
All this troubles me for a myriad of reasons. The inherent immorality of infusing young children with this very real sense of guilt, fear and paranoia speaks for itself, and the fact that this is occurring not only in private, religious-run institutions but PUBLIC schools seems to me nothing short of shameful, as it should be for any civilised 21st-century society. But there are subtler issues here too. For one, there is the issue of accountability, which many critics of religion have commented on but will do us no harm to revisit here. For confession is, by its very nature, an act which robs people of their accountability, lessening the burden of having to confront and deal with one's actions by inserting god, divine middle-man that he is. To teach anybody, especially a child, that they are not accountable for their actions by virtue of the fact that their invisible sky-daddy, through the un-asked for proxy of vicarious atonement, has authority to issue blanket forgiveness and give them a clean slate is to retard the moral and intellectual growth of that individual as a reasoning and discerning mind, capable of distinguishing RIGHT and WRONG as they exist in real societal terms, not RIGHT and SIN. For when you call a wrong "SIN" you are masking the reality of your action by transposing it to some metaphysical plane, where the affront is not to another person or even to your own sensibilities as a creature of reason but to god, who will conveniently issue forgiveness at your token signs of repentance.
Finally, there exists the problem faced by my friend, a person who has little time for the mores of religious life on a day-to-day basis but who is REQUIRED BY LAW to spread this diseased dogma in the classroom, a moral dilemma I shudder to imagine myself in the teeth of. Even if we weren't in the grip of an economic crisis, wherein nobody will dare challenge the status quo for fear of ending up unemployed, it is unlikely we would see this state of affairs challenged, at least not from within the establishment. And in the meantime how many more generations will have to undergo this same system of brainwashing, a throwback to the dark days of our nation's traumatic birth, when religion and state were inseparable? We have done a lot of growing up in this country in the last couple of decades, but there is much still to be done. For despite our newly cosmopolitan way of thinking (especially about ourselves), unparallelled access to knowledge from all around the world, the revelation of abuses too numerous to catalogue and the inherent ludicrousness of the whole sorry enterprise, in a time when information can cross the globe in a microsecond, bronze-age religion remains a sacred cow in Irish society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
