• Archives

  • Categories

  • Named one of the top Atheist / Agnostic Blogs by Unreasonable Faith
  • Recent Comments

    nancyabramsblogger's avatarnancyabramsblogger on World Blasphemy Day
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Shane's avatarShane on Respect for persons; no respec…
    Laura's avatarLaura on Constitutional Convention Dead…
    peterohara's avatarpeterohara on HAI’s EGM on 26 June 201…
  • Meta

  • Wikipedia Affiliate Button

Catholic Church on Civil Unions

Well, it would appear, based on the comments of the wonderfully verbose Cardinal (a fancy word for Mr.) Sean Brady in this Irish Times article, that allowing same-sex couples the legal right to marry or cohabitate and have that marriage/cohabitation recognised as a fully legal civil union, would result in Ireland turning into a country full of lawlessness, unemployment and drug abuse, since British and US studies, according to our wonderfully neutral clergyman, suggest that:

“children born outside of marriage are more likely to do worse at school, suffer poorer health and are more likely to face problems of unemployment, drugs and crime.”

…I’m sorry what?

Cardinal Brady is also quoted as saying that:

“one in four children of cohabiting parents experienced family breakdown before they started school, compared to just one in 10 children of married parents.”

If you actually analyse this statement, all it says is that the family is 25% likely to breakdown before the child starts school. Well, my parents have been seperated since I was 9 or 10, and I do not regularly inject myself with heroin, snort cocaine, steal cars, mug people or spend most of my late nights on the streets of Limerick hunting for food among my drunken peers, so it would appear that even though my family has broken down, I am not contributing to godless anarchy. (I am contributing to widespread godlessness, but that’s actually a good thing!)

It’s interesting that Cardinal Brady envisions that Ireland would be plummetted into some Catholic vision of godless anarchy based solely on the fact that we, the people of this republic, would wish to grant the same rights of marriage and cohabitation to all citizens regardless of gender or sexuality. Only a man tapped into the wondrous drug of religion would make the so clearly obvious connection between civil liberty and godless anarchy.

It makes me wonder whether Sodom and Gomorrah were simply guilty of promoting civil liberties, as opposed to being highly immoral rapists and sodomites. But, wait hang on…aren’t the Catholic priests the immoral rapists…? Oh, no, sorry, my mistake, they already paid for those crimes.

It’s also interesting to see that Cardinal Brady’s utterly rational and sane argument against universal civil union rights relies on the “fact” that

“[Catholic teaching] is linked to the complementarity of the sexes…and this was not something it was possible for any individual to change. It is part of the order of things since Creation.”

I’m sorry…Creation?

Don’t we have billions of years of highly substantiated and valid evidence that renders the Creation myth utterly null and void? – Yes, we do.
And don’t we also have millions of examples throughout biology, in both the macroscopic and microscopic realm, of creatures that do not, in fact, have “complimentarity of the sexes” as a matter of nature? – Yes, we do.

So, even if we accepted for a split-second the Creation Myth, if God created all the biological life on the planet (haha) he would have created those creatures without “complimentarity of the sexes” also, and as such that concept would no longer be unique to human relationships or useful in our discussion.

By the way “complimentarity of the sexes” is simply a highly convoluted phrase used by Mr. Brady to attempt to make those of us who are not paying attention assume that two sexes is all there is, was and ever can be.

So, please, Cardinal Brady, do not try and assert your bare-faced bigotry to anyone else in this country, because none of your objections against allowing men to marry men and women to marry women do not stand up to scrutiny. They merely serve to insult both your intelligence and that of the Irish people you claim to be acting in the best interest of.

If you wish to provide some form of substantial and verified evidence to back up your claims of godless anarchy resulting from the Civil Partnership Bill, we would all love to hear it, but all you have presented us with thus far is “suggestions” of propensities towards anti-social behaviour in children of cohabiting parents, which is really just a way of saying non-married parents have stroppy children, which still remains to seen in an actual study, my dear Cardinal.

The Civil Partnership Bill is set to become law some time next year, and it seems for Cardinal Brady that

“it is difficult to see how anything other than the introduction of de facto marriage for cohabiting and same-sex couples is envisaged”.

Well, yes, Einstein, that’s kind of the point!

Ignoring for a moment the vacuous and baseless claims provided by the insightful Cardinal, what would actually be wrong with having de facto marriage for cohabiting and same-sex couples?

Oh, yes, that’s right, nothing.

Although he would never admit it publicly, I’m fairly confident (though I freely admit I have no evidence for this, unlike the Cardinal) that the charming Cardinal’s views are not far from those of the vitriolic Pastor Fred Phelps at GodHatesIreland.com

Patsy McGarry, the author of this Irish Times article mentions:

In his address to the Céifin conference on November 4th, Cardinal Brady indicated that the Government could face a legal challenge if the Civil Partnership Bill became law. “Those who are committed to the probity of the Constitution, to the moral integrity of the word of God and to the precious human value of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of society may have to pursue all avenues of legal and democratic challenge to the published legislation if this is the case,” he said.

Those who are committed to the probity of the Constitution have my support, however those who are committed to the “moral integrity” of the “word of God” need to watch out, as they have no place whatsoever in civil matters. Just as campaigners for the views of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be thrown out of any serious discussion on laws affecting the country, so too should the Catholic church and any other religious parties be thrown out of the discussion. If your opinion is solely informed by your religious sensibilities and/or beliefs, then your opinion has no place anywhere other than your home or your pulpit. It most certainly does not belong in the laws of our country. (Or any country for that matter!)

If the Catholic church is stupid enough to challenge this bill, I will be right behind them pulling their “arguments” out from under them, and I suggest you do the same should it come to it!

And as for those who are to committed to the “precious human value of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of society” let me say this once and once only. The quality of a child’s upbringing and their resulting contributions to (or detractions from) our society has got absolutely nothing to do with the fact of whether or not they grow up in a home with a female mother and male father. It has to do with the quality of the parents and their care for that child. I can almost guarantee you that a cohabiting gay couple committed to each other and the happiness of a child in their care would be much better parents than a large proportion of our married heterosexual population. And that is merely one possibility in a multi-faceted situation.

Man and woman as the foundation of society is a dead concept and is no longer relevant in our modern society, and while the religious types are stuck in an apopleptic fit about marriage being a thing of the past, we as a society are moving onwards to a society where uttering a phrase such as “complimentarity of the sexes” as support for a religiously informed opinion would earn you a swift smack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. (Not the Irish Times in this case!)

People are the foundation of society. Black people, white people, mocha people, sane people, crazy people, religious people, irreligious people, heterosexual people, homsexual people, bisexual people, transexual people, young people, old people, big people, small people, important people, regular people, disabled people, homeless people, they all play their part.

As do you. Peace.

Humanism and Proselytising

Each time that we have brought up the issue of actively working to increase membership (at the AGM and at our local November meeting) the response from some Humanist Association of Ireland members has been (to paraphrase) that the organisation would be happy to accept new members but humanism is not a religion and we do not proselytise. I understand this point of view but I can’t agree with it.

Humanism is a life stance and if we take this stance we must believe that it has value. I for one believe that if people take personal responsibility for their own lives and collective responsibility for the species, and base this responsibility on reason and ethics, the sum of human happiness will increase and the sum of suffering be reduced. So for three reasons we should actively seek new members:

1. Humanism has something to offer to the individual and to society.

2. People cannot choose humanism if they don’t know it exists so some form of active communication is necessary.

3. In practical terms a larger membership gives the organisation resources to draw on to get things done. It also demonstrates to society (and politicians) that there is a constituency of freethinkers that must be listened to.

For me the big issue is around knowledge of humanism and the sense community and shared experience it provides. I have been an agnostic since I was 16. However, I didn’t meet an acknowledged humanist/atheist until I was 50. In the intervening years I worried about my strange views, wondered how I would teach my children to be moral and dealt with a hundred other dilemmas on my own. I wasn’t able to acknowledge my atheism until I was in my 40’s. Finding out about humanism/freethinking and becoming involved with it lifted an enormous burden from me. I now believe that there are literally hundreds of thousands of others with the same dilemmas out there and we should be reaching out to them because humanism has something to offer.

What, here in Ireland? – Say it ain’t so.

A little light-reading.

Skepchick applies some analsys and critical-thinking skills  to Sean Sugrue, a psychic medium based in Dublin (sigh!)

A bigot amongst us

Just a quick note to highlight just what we are up against as atheists in this country.  A recent piece in our very own Irish Independent can be seen here.  This article perfectly illustrates the ignorance and intolerance of the religious mind  – where truth is not a requirement, and all generalisations must be used to punctuate their fallacious argument.  The article is erroneous with the facts and is sloppy journalism at its worst.  I will be writing my own letter of disgust to the newspaper, just as was done already.  The UK’s freethinker website has also done a piece on it here.  You will also note the use of the egregious ‘militant atheist’!

Militant Atheism

For my first post I thought I would comment on our meeting last weekend.  At some point in the discussion the position of the HAI (who were visiting guests) was questioned, regarding the embryonic Atheist Ireland Association.  What followed made me question the motives of the HAI.  I was mystified at HAI’s seeming dismissal of any potential affiliation between the Humanist Association and Irish atheists.  It struck me that they were desperate to avoid the stigma of being labelled Atheists.  They had genuine reasons for this, and this is where the term ‘militant atheist’ entered the conversation and this is a where it rankled.  The term militant, when referencing atheists appears to have become a homonym.  The meaning of the word changing when referencing religion such as the Christian variety:

Or our friends in the ‘religion of peace’

For these militants, the word seems to have disturbing and dangerous connotations – rightly feared.  However, the second meaning of the word, when discussing atheism appears to involve those with the temerity to not sit in the corner and be silent.  I am sure I am not alone in my disdain for people using this method of assigning a pejorative to us, when none obviously exist.  The motives of militant religionists are clear, bizarre and well documented – those for atheism usually involve the writing of a book or criticism of dogmatic and irrational viewpoints.  To emphasise the point, in the Apologetics Press recently the following was written.

Dawkins, who is perhaps the most celebrated evolutionist alive today, was one of the most militant atheists at the conference. He stated: “I am utterly fed up with the respect we have been brainwashed into bestowing upon religion,” i.e., God (p. 9; cf. Ecclesiastes 12:12-13). Passive atheism apparently should not be tolerated. Dawkins is “ready to mobilize” his “big…enthusiastic choir” of evolutionary colleagues. He said: “There’s a certain sort of negativity you get from people who say ‘I don’t like religion but you can’t do anything about it.’ That’s a real counsel of defeatism. We should roll our sleeves up and get on with it” ( emp. added). Dawkins even compared evolutionary scientists’ position in the 21st century to that of homosexuals in the late 1960s: everyone needs to be “willing to stand up and be counted,” so that “they could change things” .

So the good professor expresses his clear militancy by ramming home just how ‘utterly fed-up‘ he is – shocking stuff!  ‘This is the most feared standard-bearer of ‘militant atheism’?

We should confront this whenever we can – it is a (rather successfull) attempt to denegrate our efforts before they get started.  As long as any Irish association of atheists limit their discourse to ‘raising the conciousness’ of the religious they will have my support and i believe they deserve the support of free-thinkers, regardless of their association with any other ‘free-thinkers’ group.

Something to make you smile… Feist on the Colbert Special

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Something to make you smile…“, posted with vodpod

I’m Sick of Being Polite About Religion

They were walking to school in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, a group of teenage girls discussing a test they had coming up, when two men on a motorcycle sprayed them with a strange liquid. Within seconds a painful tingling began, and there was an unusual smell as the skin of 16-year-old Atifa Biba began to burn.

Her friend rushed over to help her, struggling to wipe the liquid away, when she too was showered with acid. She covered her face, crying out for help as they sprayed her again, trying to aim the acid into her face. The weapon was a water bottle containing battery acid; the result was at least one girl blinded and two others permanently disfigured. Their only crime was attending school.

The next time someone uses the phrase “militant Atheist” remind them of this picture

Girl burned with acid

Girl burned with acid


This is what “militant Theists” do, today, in the 21st Century!

from The Guardian via Butterflies and Wheels.

“How did this auction of hyperbole and credulity get started?”

Not many claims made by the Irish clergy are widely or uncritically accepted. Even in Ireland. But the Saintliness of an Albanian nun named Agnes Bojaxhiu, is a proposition that’s accepted by many that are not even believers.

-Christopher Hitchens

Over the weekend I was at my aunt’s house, helping her out with some basic computer-networking stuff, when I noticed that she had a framed picture of Mother Theresa at the end of her hall.

When I saw it, Christopher Hitchens’ documentary ‘Hell’s Angel’ instantly sprang to mind, and for a fleeting instance I wanted to regurgitate the points made in this documentary, challenging the rationale behind her decision to adorn her wall with a picture of a wrinkly hag whose reputation was ill-founded.

Since the documentary was on my mind, I figured “why not share it with the good readers of the MWH blog?”. Rather than attempting to distil it down, butchering the message in the process, I’d rather point you towards the seemingly infinite fountain of contrarian enlightenment that is Christopher Hitchens, so that you may drink deep from the teet of critical-analsyis! [Okay, I’m pushing this a bit, I’ll tone it down now]

Since I’ve yet to fully-figure out WordPress’ embedding of video playlists, click here to watch all three parts, (each eight-minutes long) in a new window.

Pretty thought-provoking stuff, no? But does it matter? Is it any harm to stick up a picture of a woman who is widely revered as a selfless beacon of hope for so many suffering? Should I not promulgate propaganda designed to subvert the widely-held concept of Mother Theresa, lest I deprive a young woman of a potential role model?

This documentary was broadcast in 1994, and has evidently done nothing to her reputation among religious folk since, so I doubt dissemination amongst the doubters will do much damage.

I never did mention anything about Mother Theresa whilst politely supping tea with my aunt – judging by the way MT’s saintly visage was mostly covered by the coat-stand, I doubted she would take much interest in the conversation either way.

Lapsed Catholicism FTW.

Critical Analysis of Catholic Claims

It seems that this week is a good one for sceptical podcasts overlapping with our interests, as I’d like to point you towards another exceptional podcast worthy of your attention:

The Skeptoid Logo

Skeptoid is a podcast that runs for around ten minutes on average, critically examining claims from purveyors of pseudoscience in a clear-cut, informative, and thoroughly enjoyable fashion. This week’s episode is called “The Incorruptibles”, and deals with the assertions of the Catholic Church (an organisation we’re all familiar with) that the remains of their saints don’t atrophy after death.

While the results of his findings are unlikely to surprise you, it’s quite enlightening to listen to someone discuss their findings on a matter most people would disregard without requiring further investigation.

The eleven and a half minutes of essential listening is here!

On a personal note, I got interested in the sceptical movement by listenting to Richard Dawkins’ appearance on Skepticality around the time that Expelled was released, and given the massive overlap of interests between these groups, (and the fact that ‘debunking’ religious claims can be such a tirelessly monotonous and futile exercise) I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see more people sympathetic to our cause developing an interest in the broader rationalist community.

Our Meetings

Our next meeting is on 23rd November 2008 at 11:00 in the Castletroy Park Hotel.

The last meeting was, I think successful. I would appreciate feedback from attendees about the format for our meetings.

The opening round where people spoke of their own experiences and what motivated them to become freethinkers was particularly interesting and I think we should retain it or some version of it.  There may be time constraints but I think we should try to hear from newcomers and anyone with a particular urge/need to speak.  It is a key way of offering support to each other and a very valuable outlet for people who have not have had like minded people to express themselves to before now.

Another section I think we should include is discussion of some current topic/controversy.  This could be led by someone with strong views on or an interest in the topic concerned.  For example we could discuss the church’s role in education.  This would have the added benefit of rehearsing our arguments so that if asked to explain our position in the media we would be able to do so with the fluency that practice brings.

The format for our meetings might be:

  • Opening Round
  • Speaker or Presentation + Discussion
  • Current Topic/Controversy
  • Open Forum (AKA Any Other Business)

I look forward to your comments.