European Lawyer journal debates blasphemy law

In the current edition of The European Lawyer magazine, I argue against the new Irish blasphemy law and Thomas Byrne TD of the Oireachtas Justice Committee argues in favour of it. I am publishing the text of both articles here, and I will analyse the arguments made by Thomas Byrne TD in a separate post.

(The European Lawyer is the leading monthly magazine for the legal profession across Europe. Its subscribers – predominately senior private practice and in-house lawyers – are based in jurisdictions across the European continent as well as the UK and North America.)

This is the argument for the law:

Necessary modernisation

Thomas Byrne TD is a solicitor and a member of the Oireachtas Justice Committee

Long awaited reform and modernisation of defamation law in Ireland has unfortunately been overshadowed by ill informed and somewhat hysterical campaigning over the arcane issue of blasphemy libel.

The Defamation Act 2009 came into operation at the beginning of this year and introduces a modern statutory framework, providing for:

• comprehensive reform;
• statutory expression to developments in the jurisprudence of Irish courts, and elsewhere, including the European Court of Human Rights;
• respect for the necessary balance between the competing rights of freedom of expression (article 40.6.1 of the Irish Constitution) and of respect for ones good name and reputation. (article 40.3).

In completing the reform and modernisation of defamation law, the Minister for Justice had to consider the provision on blasphemous libel contained in section 13 of the old Defamation Act 1961. That section provided for the offence to be punishable by monetary and prison penalties (a term of up to two years’ imprisonment was possible). The section gave expression to article 40.6.1.i. of the Constitution, which is its only criminal offence provision, stating: ‘The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.’

This issue has onlv come to prominence in the context of the reform of Ireland’s defamation legislation. The minister had previously explained in some detail, both before the Oireachtas (the parliament) and in the media, the position in relation to the constitutional obligation involved here.

The Irish government was required to respect the provision of our constitution. Successive attorneys general advised that until the constitution is amended, by referendum of the Irish people, it is necessary that blasphemous libel remain a crime and that legislation must make provision for sanctions for this crime. Thus, to proceed with the reform of defamation law, it was necessary to address this issue.

At the Dail (the lower house of parliament) committee stage examination of the Defamation Bill last May, Justice Minister Dermot Ahern made it clear that (we as legislators do not have the luxury of pursuing a do-nothing approach while we wait for an opportune moment to move a constitutional amendment’. He set out all the relevant elements involved and drew particular attention to the nature of the constitutional obligation imposed.

The government’s preference, which I believe was widely supported, was to proceed with reform of defamation legislation rather than postpone it to await a possible referendum on blasphemous libel. I have expressed the hope that sanctions in regard to blasphemous libel will be little, if ever, a point of issue in the future. This was the case in the past under the provisions of the previous Defamation Act of 1961.

It is important to understand, despite claims to the contrary, that the provisions in the Defamation Act 2009 are not designed for the protection or promotion of any particular religion. I received no representations from any particular religion in regard to the drafting of those provisions.

Despite the criticism directed towards Mr Ahern by some, as a minister he is not in a position to advise anyone as to any potential breach of the law nor to offer a view as to any possible prosecution. Prosecution of criminal offences in Ireland is a matter solely for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions.

I hope that we will not have to wait a long time before a suitable occasion arises to put a proposal to the Irish people to delete the reference to blasphemy from our constitution. This course of action was proposed by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in July 2008, which suggested that we might avail of any appropriate opportunity in the future.

However, I am not necessarily convinced that a referendum needs to be held as a matter of urgency, given the other serious challenges facing our country. I should also point out that one should not anticipate a positive result in a referendum.

And this is the argument against the law:

Blaspheme and be damned

Michael Nugent is an Irish writer and chairperson of the advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

Why has the Irish Government introduced a medieval canon law offence into the criminal law of a modern pluralist democratic republic? Officially, it is because blasphemy is an offence under the Irish Constitution. But in 1999, the Supreme Court had found that the existing law was unenforceable, as blasphemy was not defined. However, between 1996 and 2008, four Constitution Review Committees had called for the deletion of religious references, including blasphemy, from the Constitution.

And in 2008, the Venice Commission, the body that advises the Council of Europe on constitutional matters, recommended that incitement to hatred, including religious hatred, should be a crime; that insult to religious feelings should not be a crime; and that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished (which is already the case in most European States) and should not be reintroduced.

In this context, nobody in Ireland expected the offence of blasphemy to survive the recent updating of the Defamation Act which contained it. The Justice Minister had three options: to leave the law as it was, to seek a referendum to remove blasphemy from the Constitution, or to make the law enforceable by defining blasphemy. He chose the third option. And so, for the first time, Ireland now has an enforceable blasphemy law.

This new law is both dangerous and silly. It incentivises religious outrage by making it the first test of blasphemy, in a Europe where cartoons or novels can trigger such harmful behaviour. The new law also treats religious beliefs as more valuable than secular, scientific or political beliefs. But the criminal law should protect people from harm, not ideas from criticism. In any case, we should be removing 1930s religious references from our Constitution, not legislating to enforce them. For example, you cannot become President or a Judge in Ireland without taking a religious oath.

Even if the Minister felt obliged to bring in a blasphemy law, he was certainly not obliged to bring in this particular one. It is too vague to enable citizens to regulate their conduct, and is discriminatory in its ambiguities. For example, what is “a substantial number of adherents” of a religion? If it is an actual number, it discriminates against smaller religions. If it is a proportion, it discriminates against larger religions.

In 2007, the English High Court held that it was the prevention of imminent public disorder that made the old English blasphemy law compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. But “causing outrage” is a far lower hurdle than the risk of public disorder. If the Irish Supreme Court were to use the same criteria as the English High Court, it could find this law unconstitutional.

The new law also discriminates against atheists. In 1999, the Irish Supreme Court said the old common law of blasphemy would have to be adapted to the circumstances of a modern State which guarantees freedom of conscience and of religion. The new law attempts to do this by redefining blasphemy as protection from outrage and extending such protection to citizens of any religion. However, it arbitrarily excludes such protection from citizens whose fundamental belief system is based on no religion.

Under political pressure, the Minister reduced the fine from €100,000 to €25,000 and introduced some safeguards that merely add more problems. The ‘genuine value’ defence shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in a criminal trial. And the exclusion of so-called ‘cults’ from being classified as religions is an arbitrary interference in the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and from discrimination.

The Minister just doesn’t get it. The problem with a blasphemy law in a modern republic is its existence, not its detail. On the day it became operational, Atheist Ireland published 25 blasphemous statements on our website. If we are prosecuted, we will challenge the constitutionality of the law. If we are not prosecuted, it strengthens the political case for the repeal of a law that serves no purpose.

Worryingly, this law is also harmful outside Ireland. In recent years, Islamic States have been trying to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level. Ireland has voted with our fellow EU States against this concept. Now Pakistan, on behalf of the Islamic States, has adopted the wording of the new Irish law to advance their agenda at UN level. This silly and dangerous Irish law will eventually be repealed. For everybody’s sake and for the reputation of Ireland, this should happen sooner rather than later.

As mentioned earlier, I will analyse the arguments made by Thomas Byrne TD in a separate post.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Hot Press tackles blasphemy law

Hot Press magazine has published a comprehensive feature on the new Irish blasphemy law. In it, Valerie Flynn argues that, in truth, Ireland’s ludicrous new blasphemy laws are no laughing matter and, what’s worse, there is now a move to get others to copy us!

2010: Yeah, it sounds like the future, but my hover skateboard and phaser gun seem to have gone missing! Instead, out here on the farthest, weirdest edge of Europe, we’re keeping things nice and retro in this sci-fi sounding year by reintroducing some Middle Ages-style blasphemy laws.

To quote: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000. He or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”

Hot Press asked Michael Nugent, of campaigning secularist group Atheist Ireland, what he thinks of this absurd new addition to the Irish statute book.

“Well, there are two categories of concern. One is that it’s a silly law,” says Nugent. “Blasphemy is a theological concept and it shouldn’t have any place in the criminal law of a pluralistic country. When there are a number of religions it doesn’t make sense – any one religion’s stated beliefs are blasphemous to another religion’s stated beliefs.”

For example: in 2006 Pope Benedict XVI quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor – and caused quite a bit of offence – when he said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.”

On January 1, Atheist Ireland marked the introduction of the new law by publishing this sentence on their website – one of 25 (arguably) ‘blasphemous’ quotations thus enshrined. Also on the list was “Actually, I’m a bit gay” – that one from ‘Jesus’ in Jerry Springer: The Opera. A law that criminalises that kind of joke sounds like a joke itself. But Irish Independent cartoonist Aongus Collins reckons there’s a real and serious dimension to the blasphemy law when it comes to freedom of speech.

Here’s why: the maximum fine for blaspheming is €25,000. The only possible defence, under the terms of the law, is that “a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.”

According to Collins: “The problem is that you have to defend yourself in court. A national broadcaster or a national newspaper will have a libel fund. But a small book publisher or a small magazine could be literally bankrupted because legal costs are so high in Ireland. What it does is that any small publisher of, say, [militant atheist] Richard Dawkins in Ireland would have to go to a barrister before publishing. It is intended to have a chilling effect on free speech.”

Collins believes that for non-mainstream publishers – bloggers, freelance journalists, left-field magazines, smaller or radical publishing houses – the new law, with its hefty fine, will be a meaningful and material inhibition to freedom of expression.

“I work for the Irish Independent, the Irish Times and the [Sunday] Tribune, but I got started working in smaller magazines like In Dublin. In the 1980s, I did a few cartoons that were a bit close to the bone in terms of the Catholic Church. I didn’t think twice in my 20s or 30s – but I would now. A small magazine would have to decide if it can afford to go to court.”

Another disturbing aspect of this law, and one that has been very much under-reported since the Bill was first announced last year, is the powers given to the Gardaí. Where a garda has reason to believe that copies of a “blasphemous statement” are to be found at a premises – including a dwelling – he or she is authorised, “if necessary by the use of reasonable force… to seize and remove any copies.”

“I’m a cartoonist and it’s very easy to offend, for example, Islam,” Aongus says. “The definition of blasphemy is so subjective. It’s carte blanche for some religious extremist to make a complaint to the guards. If they make a complaint, the guards can enter a business premises or even enter your house and grab all copies of this statement. So they could take your PC.”

For many Irish people, the blasphemy law seems like a depressingly familiar throwback to the days when Monty Python’s Life of Brian was banned. That’s not so far from living memory, kids – 1987 to be precise. But Michael Nugent believes we shouldn’t just look at this law just in the context of our own, fairly miserable, history of censorship and of the cultural dominance of the church. We should pay close attention to the international implications.

“At the UN for the last 10 years, the Islamic countries have been trying to make defamation of religion a crime and the western states, including Ireland, are opposing those attempts. But now they have the opportunity to say, ‘Here’s one of your own countries doing this’,” says Nugent.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – the collective body representing Muslim states – has already adopted the wording of Ireland’s blasphemy law for the purposes of lobbying the UN General Assembly to introduce an international treaty criminalising defamation of religion. Now there is a contribution to the campaign for Freedom of Ideas!

So you’re probably wondering why in the name of god (oops – blasphemy?) this law was enacted? It’s a bit of a mystery. Before news of the blasphemy Bill came out last year, Foreign Affairs Minister Mícheál Martin had been actively opposing the OIC’s attempts to have blasphemy declared a crime. Surprisingly, there is no evidence to suggest that the Catholic Church lobbied for this new law. Neither did the Protestant churches, nor the Islamic community in Ireland – although the latter subsequently welcomed it.

The official line from Justice Minister Dermot Ahern (he wasn’t available for interview) seems to be that his hands were tied: previously, blasphemy was prohibited by the Constitution but there was no corresponding crime on the statute books.

Fianna Fáil TD Seán Connick, convenor of the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, told Hot Press the Government had a choice between a referendum on the blasphemy provision in the Constitution and reform of the existing law. It was the Minister’s choice, and he went down the road of ‘reform’. Too much is being “read into” this piece of legislation, he added.

Connick denies the blasphemy law will stifle free speech, using as a (slightly mystifying) example, last year’s pseudo-scandal, Portraitgate – when a nudey picture of the Taoiseach was hung on the wall of the National Gallery. But RTÉ was pressurised into issuing a full apology for reporting that story. “What one person finds humorous, another person might find offensive,” responds Connick.

Words of wisdom indeed – which underline very well the dangerous side to this blasphemy law.

By all accounts, Dermot Ahern is highly conservative. He (in)famously spoke against the de-criminalisation of homosexuality in the Dáil in 1993 (“We have a duty to legislate for the standards and norms which we regard as appropriate for the Irish people.”) In light of this, some observers have speculated that the influence of hardcore Catholic organisation Opus Dei within the public service might have been a factor behind the blasphemy law. We are unlikely to find out.

Whatever the impetus, it’s pretty clear that anyone publishing or broadcasting in Ireland on the topic of religion is going to have this law at the back of their mind. Michael Nugent says most media organisations have shied away from printing the exact words of Atheist Ireland’s 25 ‘blasphemous’ quotations. And Hot Press has already spoken to one frequent participant on RTÉ’s The Panel, who said he was reminded to be aware of the new law – even before it was enacted on January 1.

So far, one month and two weeks into 2010, no one has yet been prosecuted yet for ‘grossly offending’ Jesus, Allah, Yahweh or any other deity. As they say in the clearly aberrant and thoroughly blasphemous Life of Brian: “Always look on the bright side of life.”

This article appeared in the Feb 3-24 print edition of Hot Press magazine. It is is online, along with further analysis of the blasphemy law, on the Hot Press website.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Blasphemy art exhibition in Dublin

The blasphemy exhibition in the Oonagh Young Gallery is on until Saturday 27 February, and is open from 12 to 6pm every Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It’s a fascinating show, and well worth a visit.

This Wednesday at 7pm there is a special screening of Rocky Road to Dublin and The Making of Rocky Road to Dublin, which should be watched by anyone interested in secularism and censorship in Ireland.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheist Conference in Denmark in June

I look forward to speaking at an international atheist conference titled “Gods & Politics” in Copenhagen, Denmark, from June 18-20, 2010.

It is the first Atheist Alliance International conference to be held in Europe, and is co-hosted by AAI and the Danish Atheist Society.

The venue is the Royal Danish Library also known as “The Black Diamond”.

It would be great if as many atheist activists as possible from Europe and beyond can attend this conference, as atheism is a concept that crosses national boundaries and we can all learn from each other and support each other in our advocacy work in our respective countries.

The full list of speakers is:
AC Grayling (UK)
Aroup Chatterjee (UK)
Brian Arly Jacobsen (DK)
Christer Sturmark (SE)
Dan Barker (US)
Gregory Paul (US)
Ivana Bacik (IRE)
Jens Morten Hansen (DK)
Lone Frank (DK)
Michael Nugent (IRE)
Mikael Rothstein (DK)
PZ Myers (US)
Paula Kirby (UK)
Per Bilde (DK)
Rebecca Goldstein (US)
Rebecca Watson (UK)
Richard Wiseman (UK)
Robin Ince (UK)
Simon Bressendorff (DK)
Taslima Nasrin (US)
Victor Stenger (US)

You can get further information at http://www.godsandpolitics.eu

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

PZ Myers in Dublin promotes Atheist Ireland

PZ Myers, biology professor and author of the science blog Pharyngula, promotes Atheist Ireland (and Guinness!) during his visit to Dublin.

(If you can’t see the video, go to this page.)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

PZ Myers to speak at Atheist Ireland meeting

PZ Myers, author of the science blog Pharyngula and biology professor at the University of Minnesota, USA, will speak at an Atheist Ireland meeting at Buswells Hotel, Dublin, at 7.30 pm tomorrow, Monday 1st February.

Admission is free, and members of the public are welcome.

The theme will be the Atheist Ireland campaigns against the Irish blasphemy law, and for a secular constitution and a secular education system.

The following quote from PZ Myers about the desecration of communion hosts is among the 25 blasphemous quotes that Atheist published a month ago when the Irish blasphemy law became operational:

“You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

While in Ireland, PZ will also be speaking about science and creationism at UCD on Tuesday Feb 2nd, and at NUI Galway on Thursday February 4th, at meetings organised by the UCD Secular Humanist Society and the NUI Galway Skeptic Society and ZooSoc. You can get details on tickets for these events, subject to availability, by emailing ucdhumanistsociety@gmail.com or k.mcinerney3@nuigalway.ie

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheists in the Pub Dublin meetup

Atheists in the Pub will be hosted today, Thursday January 21st, at 7.30pm in the Mont Clare Hotel, junction of Clare St. and Merrion Square, Dublin. It’s an informal social gathering of members of Atheist Ireland and any members of the public who want to drop along and meet some like-minded people.

We’ll be discussing ideas for the campaign to have the blasphemy law repealed and how to widen the campaign to take in the whole area of removing faith from the Irish Constitution. We have a Constitution in which rather than us having the right to worship god, god has the right to be worshipped by us.

So bring pen and paper so we can leave with a list of ideas and hopefully volunteers to carry those ideas out!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Atheist Ireland’s 25 blasphemous quotes

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we in Atheist Ireland begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

Publication of 25 blasphemous quotes

In this context we now publish a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.

Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and we unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

Campaign begins to repeal the Irish blasphemy law

We ask Fianna Fail and the Green Party to repeal their anachronistic blasphemy law, as part of the revision of the Defamation Act that is included within the Act. We ask them to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution.

We also ask all TDs and Senators to support a referendum to remove references to God from the Irish Constitution, including the clauses that prevent atheists from being appointed as President of Ireland or as a Judge without swearing a religious oath asking God to direct them in their work.

If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish this statement and the list of quotes yourself, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.

List of 25 Blasphemous Quotes Published by Atheist Ireland

1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Muhammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Muhammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities – how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Bjork, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Talk tonight at TCD Theological Society

I will be speaking this evening, Monday 12 October, to the Trinity College Dublin Theological Society on the topic of Reading the Bible as an Argument for Atheism.

The talk starts at 7 pm in the Chamber, GMB. Hope to see you there.

I will do my best to live up to the image that the Theological Society are using to advertise the talk.

€2 gets you admission to the talk, a reception afterwards, plus all future Theological Society events this year, including talks by Senator Ivana Bacik on atheism in Ireland and Trevor Sargent TD on environmental ethics.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Campaign for a secular Irish constitution

Today is the first International Blasphemy Day, run by the Center For Inquiry as part of its Campaign for Free Expression. Atheist Ireland is an advocacy group for an ethical and secular Ireland: see details in these Irish Times articles on the Irish blasphemy law and our first AGM.

Atheist Ireland is seeking your help today to launch and shape a new long-term campaign with two important aims: to repeal the new Irish blasphemy law and to attain a secular Irish Constitution. Specifically, we are asking you to do three things: send us a message of support, get actively involved in shaping this project, and lobby to persuade Irish politicians to pursue these policies.

We will soon be holding public meetings around Ireland to launch this campaign. We want it to include religious and nonreligious people working together, within Ireland and with international support. The campaign has one common aim that transcends any other differences we may have: that all Irish citizens, of all beliefs and none, can live together in equality, with the State being neutral on matters of religion.

In recent decades, several independent and all-party committees (most whose members were Christians) have repeatedly called for an end to discrimination against nonreligious citizens in our Constitution. Not only has this not been done, but a new religious crime has now been created. The blasphemy law is the final straw. We need a secular Irish Constitution, and we need it now. Please help to make this happen.

Our Immediate Aim: Repeal the Blasphemy Law

The Defamation Act 2009 makes blasphemy a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine, after the Minister for Justice signs the commencement order in mid-October. Blasphemy is defined as “matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion” with safeguards to make it harder to prosecute.

Regardless of the detail, it is wrong in principle for a modern democratic republic to have any type of blasphemy law. Theological thought-crimes belong in the past. Religious and nonreligious people alike should be protected from harm and incitement to harm, but religious and nonreligious ideas alike should be open to any criticism. That is how human knowledge progresses. Blasphemy laws discriminate against nonreligious citizens, by protecting the fundamental beliefs of religious citizens only.

This law also has serious international impacts. Irish citizens could face blasphemy charges elsewhere under the European Arrest Warrant. Also, Islamic States are lobbying at the UN to make defamation of religion a crime internationally. Ireland has voted along with the other EU States against this, because Islamic States can use blasphemy laws to justify religious persecution. These Islamic States can now point to a modern pluralist Western State passing a new blasphemy law in the 21st century.

Our Overall Aim: A Secular Irish Constitution

We have a blasphemy law because the Irish Constitution of 1937 says we should have one. And our Constitution also discriminates against nonreligious citizens in many other ways. For example, you 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. Article 44 states that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God and that the State shall hold His Name in reverence. This is not merely an assertion of the right of citizens to worship this god. It is an assertion of the right of this god to be worshipped by citizens.

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. Under this guidance, they have legislated for many public policies that are heavily influenced by religion.

We should be removing these 1930s religious references from our Constitution, not creating new crimes to enforce them seventy years later. A modern secular Constitution would allow all citizens, whether religious or nonreligious, to live together as equals with the State being neutral on matters of religion.

Our Request to You: Please Help This Campaign

The blasphemy law is the final straw. We now need a secular Irish Constitution. We will soon be holding public meetings around the country to shape this campaign for equality for and by all Irish citizens, of any or no religious beliefs. But we will be much more likely to succeed if we have national and international support.

Here are three ways that you can help:

• One, please send us a message of support. Just a few lines will do. We want to be able to show that there is a wide support for these ideals.
• Two, please let us know if you would like to get actively involved in any way. You are more than welcome to help shape how this project evolves.
• Three, in whatever way you can, please help to lobby Irish politicians at national and international level to implement these policies.

This will be a lengthy campaign, but a very worthwhile one that you can be proud to have played your part in. We look forward to working alongside you to build an ethical and secular Ireland.

Michael Nugent
Chairperson
Atheist Ireland

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New version of Angelus on RTE

RTE, Ireland’s public service broadcaster, schedules the Angelus at 6 pm every day before the main evening news. This week it has revised it to keep the bells, but to include less overtly Roman Catholic images.

However, this merely subsumes non-denominational or even secular images into a specifically Roman Catholic call to prayer. If they are going to do that, here’s an alternative version that I much prefer:

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Catholic magic tricks #2 – the Resurrection

Here’s another magic trick from The Catechist’s Magic Kit: 80 Simple Tricks for Teaching Catholicism to Kids. To repeat, this is not satire. It is from an actual book, published this year with the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Brooklyn, New York.

This week I am featuring some of my favourite tricks from this delightful book. Yesterday I showed you a card trick to encourage children to consider becoming Priests by lying to them. In today’s trick, you will learn how to persuade children that the Resurrection was real by showing them a faked illusion.

To perform this trick, you need a cutout of Jesus which is provided in the book, plus some crayons, an envelope and a pair of scissors. You start by asking a volunteer child to colour in the cutout picture of Jesus. You then put the cutout Jesus into the envelope, and cut the envelope in two with the scissors, before showing the children that Jesus has emerged unharmed from the cutting.

As before, you start by setting the scene: “When Jesus said that he would destroy the temple and, in three days, rebuild it, He wasn’t speaking about the actual temple in Jerusalem where the Jews would make sacrifices to God. Instead, Jesus was referring to His body, which would be crucified and then resurrected. let me show you an example of what Jesus meant.”

You now take the coloured-in cutout of Jesus, and slide it into the envelope. Or so the children think! Actually, you are sliding the cutout Jesus in and out of two slits that you have secretly cut in the back of the envelope. As the book warns: “Make sure that you don’t flash the back of the envelope or the illusion will be destroyed.” This is great advice, because who would want illusions about the Resurrection to be destroyed?

You continue: “When Jesus was killed, His body stayed in the tomb for three days,” and you illustrate the killing with the rather gruesome metaphor of cutting the envelope, inside which lies Jesus, in two with the scissors. Or so the children think! Instead, somewhat like Penn and Teller sawing a lady in two, you are actually cutting the envelope without harming the cutout of Jesus.

You then ask the children: “But do you know what happened after those three days?” And you show your delighted audience that the coloured-in cutout Jesus has not been destroyed. Lest they miss the theological significance of the parlour trick, you explain: “This is what Jesus meant. His body might have been destroyed, but He lives forever with us and the father.”

To convince any skeptical children that Jesus is really unharmed, you pass out the cutout for them to examine. But heed the final warning in the book: “And rip up the envelope to destroy any evidence of the trick.” Again, this is great advice, because if people have evidence that something is not true they are much less likely to believe it.

It’s a good trick, albeit with some practical and theological flaws. Based on the illustration, nobody would believe that the cutout Jesus has been put into the envelope. It is protruding from two ends where the envelope is sealed. And cutting Jesus in two is not really the same as crucifying him. But at least the book makes clear that, when Jesus talked of the temple, the temple that he referred to had nothing to do with those pesky Jews.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Catholic magic tricks #1 – Holy Orders

Warning: this is not satire. This is from an actual book, published this year, called The Catechist’s Magic Kit: 80 Simple Tricks for Teaching Catholicism to Kids. The book is written by Angelo Stagnaro, and has the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Brooklyn, New York.

The blurb reads: “Simple magic tricks for teaching spiritual truths to children are explained in precise detail in this distinctive compendium. The lessons faithfully follow the catechism of the Catholic Church… The strongest element of this book is the explanation of the theology and spiritual truths that underlie each trick in a simple and inspiring way.”

This week I will feature some of my favourite tricks from this delightful book, starting today with a simple mathematical card trick to encourage children to consider becoming Priests by lying to them.

To perform this trick, you need six profession cards, which are included in the book. Though the book does not refer to this, I assume there is no significance in the fact that the doctor looks slightly like Bono and the priest looks like a black Larry David. You also need an envelope, a black magic marker, and a photo of a small boy with a priest image glued on the back.

You start by setting the scene: “It is through the Sacraments that we principally experience God,” you tell the children. “Our Priests, our Bishops and the Pope get their authority from the Apostles, and they got it from Christ Himself. It is God that sustains our leaders.”

Now that you have set the mood, you place the six cards in a row, face down, on the table, placing the Priest card third from the left. You then ask a volunteer from among the children to pick a number between one and six.

If they pick three, you count out the number starting from the left, and turn over the Priest card. If they pick four, you count out the number starting from the right, and turn over the Priest card. If they pick one, two or six, you spell out the number starting from the left, and turn over the Priest card. If they pick five, you spell out the number starting from the right, and turn over the Priest card.

You then turn over the other cards and tell the child: “You have chosen the Priest card. You could have chosen any of these others…” (technically, of course, this is a lie, but that’s not important and the children will hopefully trust that you are telling them the truth).

You then say: “let’s look at my prediction,” and you open the envelope. The children are surprised to see a picture of a small boy. Has the catholic magician got it wrong? You then say: “Ah, this is a photo of a Priest long before he was ordained…” and turn it over to reveal the image of the Priest glued to the back.

Then comes the lesson of the trick. You say to the children: “Does anyone here know a Priest? Who here wants to be a Priest? Being a Priest is an important job in the Church. WIthout them we wouldn’t be able to experience the Sacraments. The Church community needs Priests. Always keep Priests in your prayers.”

Finally, and again I stress that this is not satire, the explanation ends with following advice: ”TIP: When looking for volunteers for this trick, it’s best to ask a boy to assist you rather than a girl as only males are allowed to become Priests in the Catholic Church”.

One threat that the book does not mention is that you have to make absolutely sure that you get this trick right. If you mistakenly turn over the wrong card, a child might end up wanting to become a doctor or a fireman or a teacher or an artist or a chef, which would of course be a disaster for society.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New Hitchens Vs D’Souza debate

This is Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza debating in Orlando last week. In part one, they debate God, Christianity, and Science and Reason. In part two, they respond to questions from each other and the audience.

(If you can’t see the videos, go to this page.)

Part One: Topics

On God, Hitchens argues that the idea of God, unlike philosophy and science, provides only guesses and undeliverable promises based on faith. D’Souza responds that science answers the question of how, and God answers the question of why. Hitchens responds that these are linguistic superimpositions on things we don’t understand. D’Souza says he is arguing on reason alone, not on Biblical revelation, for intelligent design.

On Christianity, D’Souza argues that Islam is unusual among religions in creating suicide bombers. Hitchens responds by citing Christianity’s links with European fascism, and says there is no link between virgin births or resurrections, and preaching the truth. D’Souza argues that freedom is at the heart of Christianity.

On Science and Reason, Hitchens argues that scientists throughout history could be great scientists while also mistakenly believing in gods. D’Souza argues that we can infer that the play Hamlet was designed, even though we do not see Shakespeare today, and we can also infer that the universe was designed.

Part Two: Questions

Hitchens asks D’Souza would he rather that Hitchens stayed as an atheist, or became a non-Christian religious person. D’Souza responds that he feels safer debating him as an atheist.

D’Souza asks Hitchens if he has ever had any doubt about his atheism, and if so, what caused it. Hitchens responds that Pascal’s Wager is immoral, and that if he is honestly mistaken he is proud of that mistake.

In audience questions, Hitchens is asked about Stalin’s murders. He responds that Stalin was connected with the Russian orthodox Church, and that a fair comparison would be with a society that followed values from greek philosophy to Thomas Paine. D’Souza replies that if the Muslims are blamed for Bin Laden, and Christians for the Inquisition, then Atheists should be blamed for Stalin. Hitchens responds that Stalin did not act in the name of atheism.

D’Souza is asked whether god was not invented because of fear of the unknown. He responds that religions do not provide wish fulfillment, because Hell is the ultimate fear. Hitchens responds that not all of our wishes are benign, and that some people fear being free.

D’Souza is asked why God won’t heal amputees. He responds that amputees still have life, and that paraplegics and lottery winners are both as happy a year later as they were before their changes. Hitchens responds that D’Souza missed the point of the question, which was that miracle healers make untestable claims, not testable ones. D’Souza responds that miracles are spiritual ministry, not physical healing.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Richard Dawkins on Late Late Show

Richard Dawkins was interviewed on RTE’s Late Late Show this Friday about his new book The Greatest Show on Earth.

Strangely, RTE invited a Catholic priest to make the only audience contribution. I am not suggesting that Father Brendan Purcell should not have made a contribution, but when RTE next interview a Catholic author, will they invite an atheist to make the only audience contribution?

Here is a YouTube video of the interview in two parts, with each part followed by a transcript.

Why did Dawkins write this book?

Ryan Tubridy: My next guest is a man known for his controversial views. He says for example that if you believe in God you may as well believe in fairies. His latest book is about evolution, which he calls not only the only show in town but also the Greatest Show on Earth…. Richard Dawkins, welcome to the Late Late Show. Another book, another day, another chat show. Why did you write this one?

Richard Dawkins: It’s about just about the most important thing you could imagine a book being about. It’s about why we are all here, why we exist, why animals and plants, just about everything we see, exists. That’s the most rivetingly exciting subject. It could have been written at any time. I take it, though, that you mean why write it now?

Tubridy: Why now?

Dawkins: Less interesting question.

Tubridy: Well I’ll take the answer, and if you can make it interesting I’d appreciate it.

Dawkins: Well, it is true that there is poll information which suggests that in the United States, somewhat more than 40% of the population thinks that the entire world is less than 10,000 years old. Now that is a bizarre circumstance, that 40% of the population of the major industrial nation in the world should have a view which is so incredibly out of tune with reality. And that is one reason I felt it was necessary to write the book.

Tubridy: What would they feel about your writing? Do they think its just that you’re being unfair to them, that you have it wrong?

Dawkins: They think that everything in the book of Genesis is literally true, if science contradicts the book of Genesis, science must be wrong and Genesis must be right.

When did humans arrive on earth?

Tubridy: What’s your take on what happened vis-a-vis humans arriving on the scene in the state that we’re in? When did that happen?

Dawkins: When did humans arrive on Earth? Well, it was a gradual process. It’s a bit like saying when does a child become an adult? You know, by convention we say that happens on the stroke of midnight on the 18th birthday, but we know that it’s actually a gradual process. So there never was a moment when the first human was born. The first human looked exactly like the last ape, so to speak. But if you put a figure of about 100,000 years, by about then you would be getting humans that looked exactly like us, as far as their anatomy was concerned, but probably not as far as their culture was concerned. They didn’t have painting and things like that.

Tubridy: And how different are we from other animals then, broadly?

Dawkins: We are hugely different from other animals in that we have language, we have art, we have mathematics, philosophy. We have all sorts of emotions that other animals probably don’t have.

Where does God fit into all of this?

Tubridy: And what about the notion of God? where does God fit into all of this?

Dawkins: Well, God as I see it has very little to do any more. There was a time when God had a lot to do in people’s minds. He made to the world, he made a life, he made humans. That’s all out now. We don’t need God any more to explain anything. And I think that pretty much means we don’t need God at all.

Tubridy: Yes, but who are ‘we’? Because pretty much everyone watching the, well, many people watching  the tv, watching us tonight would say I don’t belong to that ‘we’. That God is very much in their thesis.

Dawkins: No doubt it is. And no doubt there are people who get plenty of consolation from the idea of God, and there are people who think they talk to God, and who think God talks to them, but that doesn’t mean he’s really there.

Tubridy: So where is he?

Dawkins: He doesn’t exist.

Tubridy: Not in the slightest?

Dawkins: I would have thought not. There’s certainly no evidence that any sort of god exists, no.

Tubridy: So what is the Vatican then? Toy Town?

Dawkins: Yes. A gigantic and very expensive and very rich waste of time.

Tubridy: There will be many people watching tonight who will say that much of their lives have been lived based on a belief system that involves God very much being in existence, and that this is what they’ve lived their life based on. What do you say to them?

Dawkins: But that of course is true. There are many people who think exactly that. It doesn’t mean that they are right.

Tubridy: And your thoughts on their beliefs?

Dawkins: Well, they are misguided. Mistaken.

Tubridy: Do you feel sorry for them?

Dawkins: Yes.

Tubridy: Why?

Dawkins: Well, because if people have really sincerely lived their lives under a delusion, and feel that they needed it for support and for living a full life, if you suddenly pull it out from under them they are naturally going to feel somewhat bereft.

Tubridy: Where does the notion of God come from them?

Dawkins: Oh, well, I think it goes back a very long way. I think it partly comes from the desire to understand. We look around the world and we see what an incredibly elaborate and complicated place that it is. We’re used to the idea that complicated things must be made by something or someone. So it’s very easy to see why the idea of God should have grown up. And it took a very long time, it took until the middle of the 19th century, until people realised that there was another, better, more economical explanation for all that.

Tubridy: Do you see God as believable as the Easter Bunny?

Dawkins: Pretty much, yes.

Tubridy: Would you equate them?

Dawkins: Yes, pretty much. That sounds facetious, because of course nobody believes in the Easter Bunny, and lots of people believe in God, but if you actually examine the amount of evidence there is for either, it’s equally sparse.

Tubridy: God fills a space for a lot of people in their lives, as you probably know from talking to people who believe in God. I mean spiritual, soul and so on. And people who have religion and believe in God might believe that the road you travel is a very lonely one.

Dawkins: Not at all lonely. I have great friends and I have a wonderful life with human companionship. That’s real. Warm human companionship, it’s really there. That’s not imaginary. That’s really there. By the way, this has nothing to do with the new book. You’re asking me questions about the previous book, the God Delusion.

What happens when we die?

Tubridy: I’m also asking questions that are interesting to us. I’m not being smart about it, I’m just telling the truth. So what happens, as you see it, when we die?

Dawkins: Well, some of us get buried, and some of us get cremated.

Tubridy: And where do we go, as you see it? If that is? Game over?

Dawkins: Game over, but the game while it lasts is pretty wonderful. I mean, what happens when we die is the same as before we were born. We didn’t know anything about it when Henry VIII was alive, and we won’t know anything about it in 500 years time.

Tubridy: Do you fear death?

Dawkins: No. I fear dying.

Tubridy: Why?

Dawkins: Because I’m not, unlike my dog, allowed to go to the vet and be painlessly put to sleep. Because I belong to this privileged species, Homo Sapiens, which is the only one that is not allowed to be painlessly put out of its misery. I would like to die under a general anaesthetic, just as I would like to have my appendix out under a general anaesthetic.

Tubridy: Have you thought about, at the risk of being morbid about you, have you thought about your own funeral?

Dawkins: Yeah, I have. I thought I might like to ask for the music from the, you know, the Elephant March from Aida… do do do do, di di di do do do, di di di do do do… very triumphant trumpet music to see me out.

Tubridy: Why?

Dawkins: A triumphant exit?

Tubridy: But why do you want a ceremony to see you off?

Dawkins: Well, I have organised ceremonies for deeply loved colleagues, funeral ceremonies. I have organised readings of their favourite poetry, their favourite music, eulogies from friends who have known and loved them. I think it is important. I think that humans do need rituals, they do need rites of that sort, and when somebody dies I think it’s right to give them a proper sendoff, some sort of a wake which remembers them, and which makes you feel that you’ve somehow fulfilled something.

Audience contribution from Father Brendan Purcell

Tubridy: I want to talk to a member of the audience here, Father Brendan Purcell, a man of the cloth. Brendan, the Vatican is Toy Town, God is the Easter Bunny, and you as a priest have been wasting your time.

Father Purcell: Well, I wouldn’t exactly put it like that. I would go back to the things that Richard was saying earlier. I have no problem with science. I mean my mother left school at 16, and she read the origin of species at breakfast time. It was the only time she had free in the morning. And she followed that by reading the Bible, things she had never done in her life. I think in Ireland we don’t have the problem that you mentioned in the States. In my first year at university we did a book I’m sure you’re familiar with, All John Maynard Smith’s theory of evolution. That was taught by a priest. in other words, it isn’t a problem in Ireland, the reason that you wrote that book. I mean we never thought, I never thought there was any conflict between science and evolution and my belief at all. But I do feel, I’ve read a lot of your work and I have to say that my favourite book of yours is The Ancestor’s Tale. I think it’s totally brilliant.

Tubridy: Do you like what he writes?

Father Purcell: I like some of what he writes more than others.

Tubridy: What is your contention with what he writes?

Father Purcell: The contention I would have is, I have two or three of them, but the first and most obvious one would be science. I think, I’m not trying to annoy you, Richard, but I think he believes in science, in the sense that he thinks that science explains everything. But I mean the one thing that science doesn’t explain is science itself. I’m talking about the natural sciences, including biology. So I think there really is a problem here because the word science comes from the Latin word meaning knowledge, and I think there are other forms of knowledge that are just as well grounded as the knowledge from the natural sciences. There are questions that are not asked by the natural sciences. So I’ve always felt, in a certain sense, that you shouldn’t give answers to questions you haven’t asked.

Tubridy: Richard Dawkins, you might argue that with your theory and evolution and so on, there’s evidence to look at, to point to. Brendan, what do you point to when it comes to God?

Father Purcell: I would say that one of the good things when it comes to his book, I’ve read the reviews but they haven’t had time to read it yet, but one of the good things is that part of it is written like a detective story, and there’s clues, and you’re spotting the clues. And I would say one of the obvious clues to the existence of God, remember we’re not talking about the God of Christianity, of the Old Testament, we’re talking about a God at the level of pure reason. Effectively, the fact that you have a reality, namely the big bang, you have a question there that cannot be answered by physics or astronomy. And if you read the big guys, like Stephen Hawking, the famous guy, you’ve seen him in his wheelchair, a book that he wrote with another guy way back in the 70s, George Ellis, it’s quite clear, he said we have come to a singularity here, a singularity is a thing that we can’t repeat again and again. It’s the start of everything, which we cannot explain by physics or astronomy. and is not to jump in and say now we have a challenge. I think the classic question to ask here, which I’m sure Richard has been asked many times, is why have we something rather than nothing? And biology isn’t meant, my equivalent of biology is something like, if I can make a parallel between a farmer and a supermarket, a farmer produces the stuff, the supermarkets are selling it, the biologist deals with the stuff as its presented, it doesn’t explain where the blinking fruit came from.

Who in the audience believes in God?

Tubridy: Anyone else want to come in here on what Richard Dawkins is saying? because I would be curious to know, just looking at the audience here, hands up everyone here in the audience who believes in God. Okay, Richard what would you call that, about 50, 60, 70%?

Dawkins: I would say more, if anything.

Tubridy: 75%?

Dawkins: Let’s see those who don’t.

Tubridy: Hands up those who do not believe in God? it’s just a sprinkling. Which is quite interesting. I mean what you think of that?

Dawkins: Oh yeah, I mean that’s the kind of result I would have expected.

Tubridy: So are all the hands who went up the first time deluded?

Dawkins responds to Father Brendan Purcell

Dawkins: Look, why don’t I just come back and answer that? (referring to Father Purcell’s comments) First, I’m glad you brought the subject back in a way to the topic of this book, rather than the previous book, which was the God Delusion. Now, when you say that I believe in science, and, you know, why do I believe in science, it’s really because it works. I mean, the evidence is there. It’s a kind of self validating process, because as a result of science, these television cameras work. Planes fly. Cars go. Day after day we see that the evidence of our eyes is that science works. Now when you are asked about the evidence for God, you used my analogy of the detective coming on the scene of the crime, and you infer it from all the clues that are lying around. That’s what I use to say how we know how evolution happened, because we can’t see it, because it happened mostly before we were born. But I don’t actually think it’s right to say that the world is littered with evidence for God. I think when you look at it carefully, it turns out that this particular detective has got it wrong. You think that the evidence is there, but I think if you look is really carefully… I mean, before Darwin came along, you would, as any intelligent theologian would, believe in evolution, but, before Darwin came along, most people didn’t. Now, Darwin changed our mind on that. And I suspect that we will find that other people are going to come along and change our minds about the other clues that you think you’ve seen.

What is the future of humans?

Tubridy: Okay. Let’s talk about, another element of the book that I would like to ask you about, is the future of evolution. Where do we go from here? What is the future for humans as you see it?

Dawkins: In evolution?

Tubridy: Yes, where do you see it?

Dawkins: Well, remember that when we’re thinking about the future, we are used to thinking in a historical timescale, which is centuries. You’re not going to see much evolution in centuries. So we’ve got to look forward, say, a couple of million years in order to give that question an interesting answer. In a couple of million years, the chances are we’ll be extinct, because most species do go extinct. But, on the other hand, there is something rather special about the human species. If any species could protect itself against going extinct, the way that the dinosaurs did, it might be ours, because we do have the technology to do that. So let’s suppose that we do manage to survive through 10 million years, what are we going to look like then? Nobody has the faintest idea. But in order for any particular hypothesis to be true, like you might say perhaps the brain will go on getting bigger. The dominant trend in the last 3 million years of our evolution is that the brain has swollen up from the size of a chimpanzee’s brain about 3 million years ago, Lucy’s brain was about the size of chimpanzees brain, to now, is it going to be much bigger again In 10 million years time? Well, only if it is true that the cleverest or the brainiest, or the individuals with the biggest brains, are the ones who have the most children. So is there any evidence that the people have the most children are the brightest or the cleverest or the ones with the biggest brains? I don’t think so. But it would have to be so in order for natural selection to favour the enlargement of the brain. It must have been so during the last 3 million years, otherwise brain size would not have increased the way that it has since the time of Lucy 3 million years ago.

Tubridy: Okay, well, thank you for coming to see us this evening.

Dawkins: Thank you very much.

Tubridy: The book, by the way is there. It’s The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Nice to talk you. Richard Dawkins, ladies and gentlemen.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »