Burned Retinas, Hallelujah!

Thanks to Dublin-based 'clairvoyant' Joe Coleman, Ireland has managed to make a tit of itself on the international scene once more as thousands of rapturous mooks descended yesterday on the Knock Shrine, Co. Mayo, in anticipation of an appariton of Our Lady herself. Following several hours of staring at the sun observers noted shimmering coloured patterns in their eyes and proclaimed it a miracle, evidently taking a phenomenon observed by EVERYBODY ON A SUNNY DAY, EVER as a sort of spiritual IOU, in lieu of an actual appearance from the Holy Mother. Here's the Irish Times' take on the whole sorry business, while over at Pharyngula PZ is having second thoughts about his upcoming trip to Irish shores.

Secular Ireland - The Dream

Thanks to, amongst others, Hemant at Friendly Atheist and PZ at Pharyngula, the folks over at blasphemy.ie received a great many messages of support and solidarity from all over the globe as they took the opportunity on International Blasphemy Day to reiterate their protest of the new Irish blasphemy law and raise awareness of their ultimate goal of a secular Irish constitution. As they rightly put it, "Theological thought-crimes belong in the past...We need a secular Irish Constitution, and we need it now", conveying a very real sense of urgency in the face of a political situation that would be laughable in any fiction, but is, unfortunately, a reality. A reality symptomatic of more than just the hopelessly outdated nature of the Irish constitution, or of the lingering legacy of the dark years of Catholic oppression in this country, or even of the bizarre excesses of 'political correctness' and deferential treatment religions in Europe have been granted, particularly since the Danish cartoons incident - a reality grounded in no small way in the continued ostracisation of the non-religious in Western society. One need only take a look at Glenn Beck's latest spate of verbal diarrhoea, or listen to John Lennox snidely suggest that atheism makes life meaningless and therefore leads to an 'anything goes' approach to life to know how real this phenomenon is. Which is not to say that we have not come a very long way in the West (Inquisition, Witch-trials et al), but merely to indicate that in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds religious dogma continues to exert an unwarranted amount of influence over public attitudes, political trends and, as illustrated so damningly here, laws. blasphemy.ie outlines just how deeply entrenched these Bronze Age beliefs are in our constitution: '[Y]ou cannot become President or a Judge unless you take a religious oath asking God to direct and sustain your work. So up to a quarter of a million Irish people cannot hold these offices without swearing a lie. This is contrary to Ireland’s obligations under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights...The Preamble states that all authority of the State comes from, and all actions of the State must be referred to, the Most Holy Trinity...The Constitution also contains many other references to this god and to religion generally. Our national parliament reflects this by starting each day’s business with a prayer explicitly asking the Christian God to direct all of their actions'. Some may protest that such references to religion are harmless and effect no real-world consequences, but I, as I imagine the people at blasphemy.ie would, strongly disagree. Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, makes the point when he is interviewed by Brian Flemming, in the documentary The God Who Wasn't There, that religious moderates provide the climate of acceptance of dogma that allows fundamentalists to flourish, and by the same token continued references to and reverence for the religious in our constitution gives carte blanche to anybody with an axe to grind or a political agenda to achieve to do so by jumping on the god-botherer bandwagon. Worse still, it legitimises religion where it should be criticised and contributes to the culture our political-correctness-gone-mad has bred, in which we are discouraged from asking the hard questions of religion, from loosening the choke-hold it has had on political power and opinion in Europe since the Dark Ages and wherein people without religious affiliations continue to be at best marginalised, if not demonised - this despite the inconvenient truth that, historically, it is religious fanatics and not secular humanists who have been responsible time and again for many of the worst atrocities and injustices the Western (and indeed, Eastern) world has seen. Most of all though, the continued presence of religion in our constitution, as in our collective cultural consciousness, retards our moral and societal growth - a notion I've talked about before, with regard to individuals, but which applies to societies in general just the same. As long as the middle-man of religion is involved in how we think and act as societies we are avoiding responsibility for our actions, our laws, our opinions and prejudices, every facet of the myriad moral, ethical and philosophical questions that we as individuals impose on society by way of majority opinion or minority dissent. I have no problem with religion in its capacity to exist as the personal opinion of an individual and their preferred answer to questions they have about the universe around them (provided of course that this does not lead them to attempt to infringe upon the freedoms of others, engage in hate speech, deny proper education to their children, and a host of other caveats), but I have a MASSIVE problem with religion as it continues to exist today, as an influencing force that bullies and cajoles its way into spheres it has nothing to do with and nothing to add to but superstitious, closed-minded baggage (Sharia courts in the UK, anyone?), weighing down our culture, our politics and lives for no better reason than the fact that it has done so for centuries, unquestioned. One can only hope that the folks at blasphemy.ie see their dream realised sooner rather than later - we need a secular Ireland, a secular Europe, a secular World - and we need it now.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.