Paul Gill to finish 25-day blasphemy walk today

Today, Monday May 31st, Paul Gill of Atheist Ireland will finish his 25-day walk the length of Ireland to raise support for the promised blasphemy referendum. Please send him a text now to congratulate him at +35386 7325365.

Also, if you are in Ireland today, why not join Paul on the last leg of his epic walk? You can meet him at the Malin Hotel, Malin between 3:30-4:00pm on Monday 31st May. Malin to Malin Head is a 12km walk so should take about 2 & 1/2hrs to complete. If you can’t make it then he’ll see you at Sandino’s Bar, Derry at 8:30pm.

Throughout the length of Ireland from Cork to Donegal, Paul has failed to find a single person who supports the blasphemy law. On one occasion, he thought he had found one person who wanted blasphemy outlawed, but it turned out that person had got blasphemy mixed up with bigamy!

People all along the west coast have been incredibly supportive. Many people have refused to take payment for meals and staying at campsites. Comedian Tommy Tiernan met Paul to express his support. And you can give Paul a boost by joining him today, either on the final leg of the walk or later in Sandino’s bar, or else by texting him a message of congratulations to +35386 7325365.

Here’s Paul starting his walk in Cork on May 6th. The first few daily videos of his walk are also online on the Atheist Ireland YouTube channel. Tom Kennedy,who travelled with paul to video the walk, will gradually put the rest of the daily videos online over the coming weeks.

(If you can’t see this video, please go here to the original post.)

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

Moral without God? Video of debate

I recently debated with John Murray, director of the Iona Institute for Religion and Society, on the motion that one cannot be truly moral without God. The debate took place on 30 March 2010 in Maynooth University, and was organized by the Maynooth Christian Union and the Maynooth Literary and Debating Society.

(if you can’t see any of these videos, please go here to the original post.)

Here’s my opening contribution:

And here is a playlist of the full debate, which takes about an hour and forty minutes:

If you want to skip to any particular section, you can use the arrows on the right and left of the above playlist to view any of the following parts of the debate:

Opening speeches
1/12 – John Murray opening speech
2/12 – Michael Nugent opening speech
3/12 – Student speeches for motion
4/12 – Student speeches against motion

Questions and answers
5/12 – Relative morality in the Bible
6/12 – Can we live without God?
7/12 – Interpreting morality in the Bible
8/12 – Human rights and true morality
9/12 – Can we be moral with God?
10/12 – Science, morality and animals

Closing speeches
11/12 – John Murray summary
12/12 – Michael Nugent summary

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

New blasphemous art exhibition opens in Dublin

A new art exhibition titled Blasphemous opened on Good Friday in the Irish Museum of Contemporary Art (IMOCA) in Lad Lane, off Baggott Street, Dublin 2. It’s the second art exhibition to highlight and challenge the new Irish blasphemy law, which became active on 1st January 2010.

Since then, the Irish Justice Minister has responded to the campaign against the law by saying that he will propose a referendum, later this year, to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution, thus enabling the blasphemy law to be repealed.

This makes the new exhibition in IMOCA not just a challenge to the blasphemy law, but also a celebration of artistic freedom, and freedom of expression generally. The exhibition runs until 25 April and is open from 12 noon to 5 pm every Friday, Saturday and Sunday, or by appointment through contacting IMOCA.

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

Pope’s letter protects church, not its victims

The Pope’s letter on child sexual abuse holds lessons for civic society.

What he writes to Catholics about religion is a matter between him and them. But the Catholic church also operates within civic society, acts as a quasi-State at the United Nations, and sends ambassadors to real States.

And the Pope’s letter includes assertions about secular society that are factually wrong.

Having read the full letter, the following seems clear:

1. The Pope’s main priority is to protect the church, not its victims
2. The Pope wrongly blames secularism for priests raping children
3. The Pope’s apologies are incomplete and his appeals are self-serving
4. The Pope’s “concrete initiatives” are a distraction not a solution
5. The Pope is evading the church’s responsibilities to civic society

1. The Pope’s main priority is to protect the church, not its victims

In a letter of close to five thousand words, the phrase “sexual abuse” appears only three times, and nowhere is it used as an active verb describing an action that Catholic priests have done to children. Instead it is twice described abstractly as “the problem of child sexual abuse”, and once passively as “the victims of child sexual abuse.” By contrast, the word “church” appears more than fifty times. Needless to say, the words “rape” and “cover-up” do not appear anywhere in the letter.

One of the three uses of the phrase “sexual abuse” is: “Since the time when the gravity and extent of the problem of child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions first began to be fully grasped, the church has done an immense amount of work in many parts of the world in order to address and remedy it.” This assertion is simply untrue. The Catholic church has known for centuries that some priests have been raping children, and they have known for centuries that raping children is gravely wrong, both as a sin in their religion and a crime in civic society.

The Pope does not even acknowledge (never mind apologise for) the Catholic church policy of bishops covering up the repeated rape of children by priests. Instead he refers euphemistically to “mistakes” made by bishops in responding to allegations, and he does not even include the Vatican or himself as making any of these “mistakes”. In using this evasive language, he is actually moving the church backwards from last December, when the Irish bishops admitted that the Murphy report indicated a widespread culture in the church of covering up child sexual abuse by priests.

In a statement issued during their December 2009 meeting in Maynooth, the Irish bishops said: “We are deeply shocked by the scale and depravity of abuse as described in the report. We are shamed by the extent to which child sexual abuse was covered up in the archdiocese of Dublin and recognise that this indicates a culture that was widespread in the church. The avoidance of scandal, the preservation of the reputations of individuals and of the church, took precedence over the safety and welfare of children. This should never have happened and must never be allowed to happen again. We humbly ask for forgiveness.”

Despite this explicit admission last December by the Irish bishops, the Pope’s pastoral letter begins with some subliminal hints of what concerns him most about this issue. In Section 1, the Pope writes: “I have been deeply disturbed by the information which has come to light regarding the abuse of children…” How much stronger that opening sentence would be if it simply read: “I have been deeply disturbed by the abuse of children…” How much stronger it would have been if he had then used the same type of language as the Irish bishops did last December.

Instead, in Section 2, the Pope writes that: “In order to recover from this grievous wound, the church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children. Such an acknowledgement, accompanied by sincere sorrow for the damage caused to these victims and their families, must lead to a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children from similar crimes in the future.”

On the face if it, this looks commendable. But read it again for its nuances. The reason that sins against children must be acknowledged is to allow the church (not the victims) to recover from “this grievous wound”. It is only as a follow-up point that this must be accompanied by sorrow for the damage caused to the victims. If you parse the language throughout this letter, these same priorities are repeated again and again. The priority of this letter is to revitalise the Catholic church, not to pursue justice for or make reparation to its victims.

2. The Pope wrongly blames secularism for priests raping children

Section 3 is a brief potted history, from the Pope’s perspective, of Irish Catholicism and the impact of Irish Catholic missionaries on Europe and other continents. As an overview, he suggests that, for centuries, Irish clerics “dedicated their lives to Christ, sharing the gift of faith with others, and putting that faith into action in loving service of God and neighbour.”

In Section 4, the Pope asserts that this has all changed in recent decades, because of “new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularization of Irish society.” He writes that “fast-paced social change” has led to Irish Catholics going to confession less often and praying less often, and Irish priests “assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel.” This included “a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations.”

This, the Pope writes, is the “overall context” in which “we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the church and her teachings.” Look again at the nuances of this language. The pope is suggesting that secularization of society is the context in which we must understand priests raping children, which in turn weakens faith and respect for the church. This is self-serving nonsense. The reality is almost the exact opposite.

Catholic priests were raping children, and Catholic bishops and the Vatican were covering up these crimes, long before Irish society became more secular. What secularisation has done is empower the victims of these crimes to speak out about their experiences, and more importantly be heard and believed. And secularisation has helped to reveal the traditional methods used by the Catholic hierarchy to cover up these crimes, such as swearing children to secrecy and moving the criminals to another parish, diocese or country where they could rape more children.

The Pope then lists four specific factors that he says contributed to the problem. Three are within the control of the church: procedures for selecting priests; training in seminaries, and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties. Notably, he does not include as a factor the failure by bishops to report serious crimes to the police. And the Pope’s fourth contributory factor is “a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures”. But how could secularism possibly cause this tendency? In fact, it has done almost the exact opposite.

The Pope’s muddled and manifestly false claim about secularism is part of a pattern of the Catholic church denying responsibility for its own actions. Earlier this month the Vatican’s official exorcist (!) blamed “Satan at work in the Vatican” for priests raping children. And last September, the Vatican’s representative at the UN argued that child sexual abuse was common among Jews; that fewer than 5% of Catholic clergy were sex abusers; and that most of them are actually ephebophiles and not paedophiles, because they are attracted to adolescent males. This evasion has to stop. It is time the Catholic church stopped blaming others for its own crimes.

3. The Pope’s apologies are incomplete and his appeals are self-serving

In Section 5, the Pope writes that he has met with victims of sexual abuse, and is ready to do so again. He says that he has already asked the Irish bishops to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to prevent it from happening again, and to bring justice and healing to the victims of these crimes. He then introduces a series of paragraphs aimed directly at victims, their abusers, parents, children and young people, priests and religious, bishops and all the faithful in Ireland. None of these serves the purpose of bringing justice and healing to the victims of these crimes.

3(a) Victims and priests who abused them

In Section 6, the Pope finally addresses the victims of abuse and their families. He apologises for their suffering, but describes the abuse in the passive tense: “You have suffered… the wrong you have endured… your trust has been betrayed… your dignity has been violated…” He seems unable to bring himself to directly take responsibility for the church actively doing things. This would take the form of “We have caused you to suffer… we have betrayed your trust…” etc. The Pope then moves away from the real world by telling the victims that Jesus understands their pain because he too was a victim of injustice, but that the very wounds of Jesus broke the power of evil and people were reborn. He concludes that the victims can find peace “by drawing nearer to Christ and by participating in the life of his church.” Two points arise here: firstly, the Pope should have apologised to the victims at the start of the letter, not as point number 6. And secondly, the suggestion that they can best find peace, by participating in the church that is still covering up the crimes against them and other children around the world, is deeply offensive.

In Section 7, the Pope addresses priests and religious who have abused children. He says they have betrayed the trust placed in them by children, and “must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals.” He does not specify what the ambiguous phrase “properly constituted tribunals” means. He tells them they have done great damage to the church and the public perception of the priesthood. He says that Christ can forgive them for the gravest of sins, but that “God’s justice” demands they conceal nothing about their actions. He urges them to “openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice, but do not despair of God’s mercy.” Given that the preceding sentence refers to “God’s justice” it is unclear whether or not the “submitting yourselves to the demands of justice” means handing yourself in to the police and admitting your crimes.

3(b) Other Irish priests and Irish bishops

In Section 10, the Pope addresses the Irish priests and religious. He tells them that: “All of us are suffering as a result of the sins of our confreres who betrayed a sacred trust or failed to deal justly and responsibly with allegations of abuse.” Notably, the Pope does not include himself among those who “failed to deal justly and responsibly with allegations of abuse.” This is perhaps the most significant sentence in the letter, with a crucial point hidden away indirectly in the making of a different point. Because, until the Pope accepts that he bears ultimate responsibility for the cover-up of these crimes, both as Pope and in his former roles as Cardinal and Bishop, he will be unable to address this issue in the way that it needs to be addressed.

In Section 11, the Pope finally addresses his “brother bishops” in Ireland. This should really be Section 2, after the apology to the victims, which should be Section 1. In this Section, the Pope writes that some bishops “failed, at times grievously”, to apply canon law to the (presumably canon law) crime of child abuse. He adds that: “I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice.” This is complete nonsense. The “problem” was not at all complex. If you are aware that a man is repeatedly raping children, and you have even a minimally functioning moral compass, you know that this is a serious crime that you must report to the police.

The Pope then tells the Irish bishops: “Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.” We can note here the order of priority: canon law first, civil authorities second, and civil authorities is qualified by the condescending phrase “in their area of competence.” The priority of canon law appears again the next sentence: bishops are to ensure that child safety laws be applied fully and impartially “in conformity with canon law.’ There is no parallel reference to “in conformity with civic law.” The pope then asks for “decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency,” but the stated purpose of this decisive action is not to bring about justice or reparation, but to restore the reputation of the church.

The Pope does not repeat to the bishops the things that he said to the priests whose crimes the bishops covered up. He does not tell the bishops that they have betrayed the trust placed in them by children, and “must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals.” He does not tell the bishops that “God’s justice” demands they conceal nothing about their actions. He does not tell the bishops to “openly acknowledge your guilt [and] submit yourselves to the demands of justice.” This is because the Pope sees “the problem of child sexual abuse” as being caused by individual priests, and he clearly does not accept the findings of independent inquiries that the church, on an institutional level, covered up these horrific crimes.

3(c) Parents, children and the faithful

In Sections 8 and 9, the Pope addresses parents and young people. He says that parents are in the first place responsible for bringing up their children, educating them in authentic moral values, and inspiring them with the truth of the Catholic faith. He says that parents should do this while the church “continues to implement the measures adopted in recent years to protect young people in parish and school environments.” And he tells children and young people to seek a personal relationship with Jesus within the church, because Jesus will never betray them. He concludes by asking young people to be faithful disciples in rebuilding and renewing the church.

In Section 12 and 13, the Pope addresses the Catholic faithful in Ireland. He again attacks “our increasingly secularised society, where even we Christians often find it difficult to speak of the transcendent dimension of our existence.” This is simply not true, and the Pope must know this. A secular society does not prevent people from speaking of any transcendent beliefs they may have. It simply prevents such beliefs from being the basis on which civic policy is formulated. The Pope then writes that, while “measures to deal justly with individual crimes are essential, on their own they are not enough.” as they must be augmented by a new vision based on following the commandments of the Gospel. The Pope concludes by saying that he is praying in solidarity with all of his brothers and sisters in Christ.

4. The Pope’s “concrete initiatives” are a distraction not a solution

In Section 14, by far the longest Section, the Pope proposes what he calls “some concrete initiatives to address the situation.” These initiatives turn out to be: asking all Irish Catholics to pray more often and go to confession more often for a period of one year; having an apostolic visitation of certain dioceses and seminaries in Ireland; having a Mission for Irish bishops and priests through the intercession of a 19th century French priest who preached total obedience to the hierarchy and who engaged in bodily mortification; and writing a new prayer for the church in Ireland. That is the sum total of the Pope’s “concrete initiatives”.

4(a) More prayer and more confession

The Pope’s first “concrete initiative” is to ask all Irish Catholics, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to devote their Friday penances to praying for “an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts and strength” upon the church in Ireland. He asks Irish Catholics to fast, pray, read scripture and do works of mercy for this specific purpose; to go to Confession more frequently; and to worship the Holy Eucharist outside of Mass. The Pope says that, by such intense prayer, all Irish Catholics “can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm”.

Let’s examine each aspect of this proposal. All Irish Catholics are asked to pray more often and intensely, not for the children who were raped by Catholic priests, but for a rebirth of the Catholic church in Ireland. They are asked to offer up works of mercy, not for the purpose of being merciful, but again for a rebirth of the Irish church. The Pope says that this, plus more Confession and more worship of the Eucharist, can “make reparation for the sins of abuse”. But why should all Irish Catholics be responsible for making reparation for priests raping children and bishops covering up those rapes?

This is not a concrete initiative at all, but an abstract appeal to all Irish Catholics to share the blame for the crimes of priests and the cover-ups of bishops. Scientific studies have shown that prayer does not impact on the natural world. The Pope’s proposed prayers have an arbitrary timetable of “a period of one year”, which coincidentally matches his arbitrary one-year offer of free plenary indulgences to Catholics who visited Lourdes during 2009. And the focus on worshiping the Holy Eucharist outside Mass highlights the most superstitious aspect of Catholic teaching.

4(b) An apostolic visitation and a mission

The Pope’s second “concrete initiative” is that Vatican officials will visit certain dioceses and seminaries and religious institutions in Ireland. The stated purpose is not to make reparation to children raped by priests, but “to assist the local church on her path to renewal.” The Pope’s third “concrete initiative” is that all Irish bishops, priests and religious should attend a nationwide Mission at which they could re-learn about their vocations and recent pontifical teachings. Here the Pope commends to Irish bishops and priests the example of Saint John Vianney, and says that the proposed Mission should operate through Vianney’s intercession.

So who is this model saint whose example the Pope commends to Irish bishops and priests? A Vatican encyclical by Pope John XXIII says that Vianney was “outstanding in the virtue of obedience… we are offering clerics this total obedience as a model… the effectiveness of any apostolate has constant and faithful obedience to the hierarchy as its solid foundation”. The same encyclical says that Vianney was “outstanding in a unique way in voluntary affliction of his body… this led him to abstain almost completely from food and from sleep [and] to carry out the harshest kinds of penances… he brought his body into subjection through voluntary mortification”. Is this type of fundamentalism really the foundation on which to revitalise the Irish Catholic church today?

The Pope concludes his letter with a prayer for the church in Ireland. He wants Irish Catholics to make use of this prayer in their families, parishes and communities. The prayer asks God to renew Irish Catholics in faith hope and charity. It asks Jesus to help the Catholic church in Ireland to educate young people in the way truth and goodness. It asks the Holy Spirit to inspire a new springtime of holiness and apostolic zeal in Ireland. It asks that the sorrow and tears of Irish catholics as they attempt to address past wrongs, should cause grace that will deepen the Catholic faith in Ireland. And it ends by entrusting to the Triune God “ourselves, our children, and the needs of the church in Ireland.” Nowhere in this prayer do the words victim, sexual abuse, rape, crime, cover-up or apology appear. Unsurprisingly, in tune with the overall tone of the letter, the prayer concludes by focusing on “the needs of the church”.

5. The Pope is evading the church’s responsibilities to civic society

Having read the full pastoral letter, the following seems clear:

1. The Pope’s main priority is to protect the church, not its victims
2. The Pope wrongly blames secularism for priests raping children
3. The Pope’s apologies are incomplete and his appeals are self-serving
4. The Pope’s “concrete initiatives” are a distraction not a solution
5. The Pope is evading the church’s responsibilities to civic society

All of the Pope’s proposed initiatives are a distraction from the types of initiatives that could really make a difference. These could include voluntarily acknowledging that the church is subject to the same democratic civic laws as the rest of us; openly accepting the findings of the various Irish enquiries; voluntarily acknowledging that the Catholic church at an institutional level has covered up crimes by priests against children; voluntarily making public all church files that victims wish to have public about these crimes and about the cover-up of these crimes; voluntarily selling church property to voluntarily compensate victims; voluntarily reporting to the police all priests who have committed crimes and all bishops who have covered up these crimes, and voluntarily pleading guilty to whatever crimes were committed.

The Pope may conclude his letter with a prayer, but his church continues to switch between being a religion when it suits them to being a State it suits them. The mechanism for this is its quasi-State in the Vatican City, which has none of the attributes of a State such as citizenry, territory and economy, but nevertheless sends ambassadors to real States and is treated almost like a real State by the United Nations. What the Catholic church does as a religion is its own business. But it is clearly still in deep denial about the impact of its behaviour on wider society, so the rest of us should recognise that in our interactions with this church.

The Irish DPP and police should take steps now to ensure that bishops who covered up serious crimes against children are brought before the law. The Irish Government should take steps to remove the influence of the Catholic church on our health and education system. In particular, the human rights of nonreligious parents to have a secular education system should be vindicated in every area of the country. The Government should review its relations with the Catholic church’s quasi-State in the Vatican City. The Government should seek to have the United Nations treat the Catholic church like any other religion, by listening to it as a nongovernmental organisation, and not by treating it as a quasi-State.

If the Catholic church will not voluntarily face up to its responsibilities within civic society, then the institutions of State must ensure that it does so. And we the people should lobby our politicians to make this happen sooner rather than later.

Photo: Pope Benedict by Roblisameehan (cc)

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

The case for a secular education system

This is the second in a series of articles on secular education and human rights law. The first article is here.

Secular schools are neither religious nor atheist

There are two reasons why State schools should be run on a secular basis. But first, it is important to explain that a secular school is not the same thing as an atheist school.

A religious school teaches that a god exists, an atheist school would teach that no gods exist, and a secular school is neutral on the question of religion: it does not teach that gods either do or do not exist.

Instead, a secular school teaches children in a neutral, objective way about the different beliefs that different people have about gods, and leaves it up to parents and churches to teach specific religious beliefs outside of school hours.

As a symbolic example, a recent European court case ruled that Italian schools should not display crucifixes on classroom walls. But removing the crucifixes would not turn the school into an atheist school: that would require replacing the crucifixes with signs saying that there is no god. A classroom wall with no religious symbols of any type would symbolise a secular school.

Secular schools are good for society

That said, here are the two reasons why State schools should be run on a secular basis.

Firstly, it is good for society for children to be educated together. We in Ireland can see from the recent history of Northern Ireland how separate schooling contributed to the problems of children understanding and respecting each other across religious divides.

Secular schools bring children together. They teach them the normal subjects that have a basis in scientific fact, like mathematics and languages and history and critical thinking. They teach them about different religious beliefs and help them to understand other beliefs and respect other people.

And, outside of school hours, the children’s parents and churches can teach them more about their own specific beliefs about the nature of reality and personal morality.

Secular schools respect human rights

Secondly, in practical terms, secular schools are the only way to ensure that everybody has their human rights respected with regard to education.

Under international human rights law, parents have a right to have their children educated in a way that is consistent with their religious or philosophical beliefs. I will outline in a later article the reasons why this is so.

At a minimum, this means that schools should not indoctrinate children with religious beliefs that conflict with those of their parents.

In theory, this could be done by having schools based on every religious view and atheism, and to have enough of these schools spread around the country so that, in practice, each child can attend one suitable to their circumstances.

In practice, this impossible to do. There is simply not enough money to provide so many schools, and even if there was it would be an administrative nightmare.

So that leaves the other option: have secular schools that are neutral with regard to religious beliefs, as I have described above. This option respects the human rights of all children equally. That is what a fair and just society would do.

The case for secular education

Combine both reasons, and the argument is clear. Secular schools are good for society, because they help children to understand differences and respect other people; and secular schools are the only way in practice to respect the human rights of all of our parents and children.

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!

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!

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!

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!

The false flow of the Biblical Jesus stories

Imagine you have never heard of the Bible, and you are given the 27 books of the New Testament and asked to put them in order.

You would probably come close to the order they appear in today: the four Gospels that tell the story of Jesus, then the Book of Acts that tells how the early church developed, then various letters by Paul and others, then the Book of Revelation that tells how the world will end.

If you did this, you would have created a continuous narrative, each book being a chapter, each building on the previous one, to create one grand story. You would also have created a false impression of how and why these books were written. And you would have obscured the sequence in which different writers gradually introduced the various elements of the Jesus legend.

Written in a Different Sequence

Firstly, these books were written in a very different sequence. Paul wrote his letters first, about 48-62 CE, and he wrote almost nothing about the earthly life of Jesus. Starting maybe in the 50s CE, someone compiled sayings attributed to Jesus into a text called Q, which probably became one source of two of the later Gospels. The book of Revelation, with its violent avenging Jesus, was written in stages between about 60-95 CE.

The Gospel called Mark was written about 65-70 CE, and it has no virgin birth and no detail of the resurrection. These stories first appear in the Gospels called Matthew and Luke, which were written about 80-85 CE, as was the Book of Acts, some of which contradicts what Paul earlier wrote about himself.

The Gospel called John was written about 90-95 CE, and it is the first book that suggests that Jesus was actually God, as distinct from a human being who had a special relationship with God.

Written as Standalone Books

Secondly, these books were not written as part of a grand meta-story. They were never intended to be read as continuous chapters of the same book. Their writers wrote them as standalone books, at different places and times, to convey different political and theological beliefs, for different audiences and reasons. This is one reason for the many contradictions in the New Testament.

And so, over a period of fifty or more years, these different individual writers separately created the apocalyptic apparitions of Paul, the eloquent quotations of Q, the raging ruler of Revelation, the marginalized messiah of Mark, the Moses-like messiah of Matthew, the all-inclusive leader of Luke, and the Jehovah-like Jesus of John.

The writers of those contradictory stories did not foresee that their texts would become part of a book centuries later. Indeed, many of them believed that the earthly world would have ended within their own lifetimes.

Written Alongside Rival Books

Thirdly, these books were only some among many rival Gospels that early Christians wrote and read. As well as political and practical differences, there were many theological arguments among early Christians about the nature of Jesus.

The Ebionites believed Jesus was totally human and not divine, and that the Jewish God had adopted him at his baptism. The Marcionites believed Jesus was totally divine and not human, and had come to save people from the Jewish God. The Gnostics believed that one of many Gods had used Jesus to convey special knowledge to save human souls from the material world. And the faction that eventually won out argued that Jesus was both totally human and totally divine.

This policy of Jesus being “both totally human and totally divine” enabled this faction (which evolved into today’s Christianity) to include contradictory versions of Jesus into what has become the New Testament.

How Jesus Gradually Became God

To help understand the New Testament stories better, read them in the sequence in which they were written, instead of the sequence in which they appear in the Bible. Doing this may change your beliefs about not only the Jesus of history, but also the Jesus of theology.

You will see how a human Jewish preacher gradually evolved into being part of a newly-invented Christian God, and how his relationship with this God gradually started earlier and earlier as time went on: from his resurrection in the letters of Paul, to his baptism in the Gospel called Mark, to his conception in the Gospels called Matthew and Luke, to the start of time in the Gospel called John.

For a comprehensive analysis of these and similar themes, read the work of Bart Ehrman and other academic textual critics of the New Testament.

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

Next Page »