91热爆

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

In post no 3, "Pope welcomes Anglicans into the fold - and a holocaust-denying bishop", you say at one point "a holocaust-denying bishop (pictured)", when the relating picture is obviously of the Holy Father. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume this was not a deliberate jibe, but ask that this be rectified promptly. Thanks

Goodness, what is wrong with thinking in Ireland if 25% of the population believe that Creationism is true and a defines the origins of life. That is a rather scary statistic.

The #1 Irish story of last year and in fact the past few hundred is the ongoing, systemic abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy. I simply cannot fathom how it is that anyone can so easily believe that gods, leprechauns, life after death or any aspects of magical enchantment that is the bases of religious belief is true other than in literary fiction. Any pope, priest or other clergy that claims to specific evidence of any of the above is lying. Reasonable, intelligent adults surely know better than to be emotionally bullied by such silly talk any longer.

Today is the day that the Irish Blasphemy Law comes into play. As if the cops don't have enough on their hands in dealing with serious crime now they have protect religious superstition from those who would shine the light of truth on the fantasies. Aren't people embarrassed by this? BTW it is impossible to blaspheme against something that doesn't exist.

Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes to counter the crazy new law.

Normally with petulant teenagers it's best to ignore them, but in Lucy's case I'll make an exception. Why do people who believe in nothing care so much what other people believe?

Except of course Lucy has her own little made up belief - "the ongoing, systemic abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy", for which of course there is precisely no evidence.

A brand new blasphemy law in the 21st Century! Laughable if it were not so tragic. What's next, public stoning in the centre of Dublin? Way to go Ireland. Cracking way to open the new decade.

"A brand new blasphemy law in the 21st Century! Laughable if it were not so tragic. What's next, public stoning in the centre of Dublin? Way to go Ireland. Cracking way to open the new decade."

Ramen to that, Friar. So say it all together with me now:

"HE'S NOT THE MESSIAH, HE'S A VERY NAUGHTY BOY!"

Happy new year to everyone here.:)

And talking of whether blasphemy should be allowed or not, a Somali guy with links to Al-Quaida doesn't seem to think so. He just tried to murder the Danish cartoonist who drew the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb-shaped turban.


danish-cartoonist-update1-.html

As with its fellow Abrahamic religion christianity, the message of islam is one of peace of course. And that message sure got off to a flying start in 2010.

People of all religions should be protected from incitement to violence against them - that is basic but Gods do not require legislative protection: blasphemy laws are pernicious absurdities.

I hope to hear Crawley tackle the Blasphemy Law and hold back nothing. This is beyond belief.

There are some pretty funny comments at the ever fabulous Guardian, Cif:


@ William Crawley - Why isn't the RDFRS ( on your favourite links list? It is a top source of information on philosophy, ethics and science.

There are now 9 comments. Mine was the first 2 days ago now but is still "referred to the moderators". In the meantime you published the patently ludicrous comment that there is "ongoing, systemic abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy."
That is the kind of attitude dealt with by Richard Webster in "The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch-Hunt" which was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in 2005. It is the kind of hysteria that enables people to conjure up child abuse conspiracies - and even use them to bring down a Government, as happened in Ireland in 1994.
Since the late Cardinal Daly figured in that conspiracy theory, this is a good time to consider how it could have happened.

Perhaps my original comment (no 1 above) was simply overlooked? If so here it is again:

The life and death of Cardinal Cahal Daly provide a link between your first and last stories of the year. In his article on child abuse panics "States of Fear, the Redress Board and Ireland's Folly" UK cultural historian Richard Webster also recognised the importance of the Cardinal's story. The following is an extract:


Another country which has developed a particularly intense and dangerous crusade against child abuse is the Republic of Ireland. Here, as in almost every modern instance, the collective fantasy which has been progressively developed has a core of reality. The beginnings of the story go back to 1994 when the authorities in Northern Ireland sought the extradition from the Republic of Father Brendan Smyth, a Catholic priest who was facing a number of counts of child sexual abuse to which he would eventually plead guilty. It would appear that he had previously been protected against allegations by his own Norbertine order, which had moved him from parish to parish as complaints arose, and failed to alert the police.

Perhaps because of the age of the allegations, which went back twenty years, there was a delay of several months during which the Irish attorney general took no action in relation to the extradition request. Unfounded reports began to circulate in Dublin that the process was being deliberately delayed in response to a request made at the highest level by the Catholic Church. An Irish opposition deputy, Pat Rabbitte, then referred in parliament to the possible existence of a document that would 鈥榬ock the foundations of this society to its very roots鈥�. He apparently had in mind the rumoured existence of a letter written by the Primate of All Ireland, Cardinal Cathal Daly, to the attorney general in Dublin. In this letter the Cardinal had supposedly interceded on behalf of Father Brendan Smyth and requested the delay in his extradition which had in fact taken place.

No evidence has been produced that any such letter ever existed. Yet, as a direct result of the rumours which now swept the country, confidence in the ruling establishment was undermined and the Fianna Fail government of Albert Reynolds fell, amidst talk of a dark conspiracy involving politicians, members of Opus Dei, the Knights of Columbus and others. This conspiracy was allegedly seeking to cover up the activities of paedophile priests.

Webster's essay is taken from his book "The Secret of Bryn Estyn" about a child abuse witch-hunt in North Wales in the 1990s. This was directed at LAY child care workers not religious. However Webster - who is probably an atheist - sees the connection with the anti-clerical hysteria that has torn this country apart since 1994 and of which the late Cardinal Daly was one of the first victims.

(Actually the consequences for Albert Reynolds and the then Attorney General Harry Whelehan were worse. In general the fact that someone could use false claims of a child abuse conspiracy to bring down a Government, set a ghastly precedent for our society).

LucyQ

Please!!!

"The ongoing sytematic abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy."

How dare you smear the good name of priests in this manner. You have absolutely no proof what so ever that the abuse is "ongoing." MCC and Kilbarry1 are absolutely correct to jump to the defence of poor, innocent clergy (in the exact same way that they didnt jump to the defence of victims of that abuse. In the same way that they didnt want fair play and a fair hearing for the abused.)

Please correct your statement to, "The ongoing systematic COVER UP of the abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy."

You have absolutely no way of providing proof that sexual abuse by clergy is either 'ongoing' or 'systematic.' No one has.

However, the cover up by the Bishops and the Vatican is much easier to prove. You'll find plenty if you just google any combination of - abuse, Vatican, cover up. MCC and Kilbarry1's moral indignation may then be tempered.

I know what was whispered at Deanery and Diocesan meetings over the gin and tonics 20 years ago, 10 years ago and five years ago. I know how many priests knew.... and, through fear, said nothing. I was there.

They do not need apologists or self perceived Knights in shining armour to jump to their defence. They need to confess to their people that they share the guilt, to admit that they were frightened and to ask forgiveness FROM THEIR PEOPLE.

Their people WILL forgive, and then the Church can begin to be healed.

As a devout Hindu I welcome this new inclusive blasphemy law.
I have been deeply offended by the blasphemous behaviour of Irish farmers, butchers and burger vendors and intend to have the law set on them.

Those 25 quotes are quite funny. Hilariously misinformed.

1. "Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God, in Matthew 26:64: 鈥淭hou 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.鈥� 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."

Yes, and the 21st Century Sanhedrin will be similarly offended.
Did anyone mention that Jesus may not have been guilty of the offence even under the Jewish law of the 1st Century? There's debate about this, but some scholars reckon that this statement was not technically blasphemous as YHWHs name was not used.

2. "Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44: 鈥淵e 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.鈥� This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism.""

Jesus called YHWH the Devil?!!
Or did he just use a semitic idiom to denigrate the Rabbi's spirituality? In verse "42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me..."
So gee, I guess it must be the latter.
Does John think that of all Rabbis? Did anyone read chapter 3?

13. "Bjork, 1995: 鈥淚 do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men鈥� I鈥檝e been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren鈥檛 lesser beings, they鈥檙e just like us. So I say **** the Buddhists.鈥�"

Well Buddhists wouldn't believe that *we* come back as anything, as *we* have no substantial existence. So maybe Bjork ought to read a little more about Buddhism.

24. "Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O鈥機onnor, 2009: 鈥淲hether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent鈥� we call it God鈥� I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.鈥� 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."

Beautifully reasoned.
And it is a fundamental belief of Atheism that there is no TRANSCENDENT?!! Many don't. But many include beauty or ethics as transcendent realities.

But why settle for the imbecilic when you can have the immature? So we have James Kirkup's tribute to necrophilia in Jesus' tomb, Monty Python鈥檚 'Life of Brian' (to keep the undergraduates of the 80's and 90's happy), lyrics from the guy who wrote the Theme Tune to 'Toy Story' and Frank Zappa (who may or may not have been having a converstaion with a Cloud Guy just after he dissed him. I'm just impressed that he was able to muster a coherent sentence in the 1980s).

Personally, I'm against a Blasphemy Law. But the 'Atheist Ireland' piece is so poor I now want *both* sides to lose.

GV

Slow business, round here these days ...

romejellybean wrote: I know what was whispered at Deanery and Diocesan meetings over the gin and tonics 20 years ago, 10 years ago and five years ago. I know how many priests knew.... and, through fear, said nothing. I was there.

I was there myself 40 years ago in a religious congregation of Brothers that ran industrial schools. (Diocesan priests would rarely be involved in that work.) It is true I was only there for 3 years and not involved in residential institutions. However I lived in a few different houses of the congregation, including one very large one, and I was with Brothers who had been teaching all their lives in every type of institution. I can asssure you that I never heard such conversations.

I have been out of touch with my former colleagues for a very long time now but I understand that the situation is similar to that of the Christian Brothers i.e. practically every Brother who ever worked in a residential institution was accused of child abuse. In Artane allegations were made against about 75 Brothers. After a 3 year investigation involving 10 Gardai, ONE prosecution was approved and one Brother was eventually convicted of indecent assault. (See article in Irish Independent on 4 September 2003
)

Assuming the proportions were similar in my own congregation, it is hardly surprising that we did not whisper the stories over our gin and tonics, or even Guinness.

I think it's important to remember that abusers wouldn't be uniformly distributed across the Church. That's like saying 3 in 100 people have Swine Flu, then assuming that there are 9 pupils in my School with Swine Flu as it has 300 pupils. Some groups of 100 will have more than the average, some less.
So Kilbarry and RJB's experiences are both noteworthy. But neither can extrapolate out to the whole Church from their own experience.
(It's also worth considering that abusers would be drawn to, and survive in, areas were their risks were low. That may mean that we are more likely to find them in certain diocese compared to others.)

GV

GV

I only ever heard rumours about one priest and that was about a month before it became public and obviously the complainant was in legal discussions at that stage. Perhaps there were loads of people who knew about these things but the great majority of priests I know weren't aware of them. And RJB I'm not saying you are a liar before you conclude that - I'm just agreeing with Graham that it wasn't my experience.

As for "they didnt want fair play and a fair hearing for the abused" - you have no basis for that statement. If the abused had simply got "fair play and a fair hearing" then we wouldn't have heard about most them because the normal judicial process would have excluded the vast majority of these cases. The normal fair approach is you go to the police with your complaint, they investigate, assess the evidence, present to the DPP who decides whether to bring a prosecution. The great majority of victims whether in the Ryan Report, Ferns or Murphy would never have had a day in court. If the Church had simply dug in its heels and stuck with the sue me approach most of these victims would never have been heard.

Mccamleyc wrote: "If the Church had simply dug in its heels and stuck with the sue me approach most of these victims would never have been heard."

So your view is: well done the priests for covering it up!? They were thinking of the victims and the cover-up was a master plan to let the abused have their day in court?

What a truly ludicrous thought. Exactly the kind of double-think that brings religion into disrepute.

Had the first disgusting cases of abuse and rape come to court 20 years ago, the abusers would have been jailed; the problem investigated thoroughly and systematic safeguards put in place (as has now been done - 20 years late).

The irony is that if the church and police had done that, the Catholic church would not be held in such contempt.

Friar Balsam

I think that's the opposite of what McCamley is saying.

However, the evidence does not support the contention that the Church Hierarchy dealt with the problems.
When British Judges failed to deal with sexual criminals in the 1980s/90s there was a public outcry - the "no great trauma" scandal etc. I don't see that Bishops should be treated with any less scepticism.

GV

Friar - you mistook me. I was making the point that the recent Murphy, Ryan and Ferns commissions went well beyond the normal judicial approaches and allowed more victims to be heard than would otherwise be the case. I wasn't suggesting that cover ups helped anyone. I was trying to make the point that only a small percentage of cases (irrespective of Church involvement) actually make it to court and end in conviction, even if there are no cover ups. That was the point I was trying to make.

Graham highlights how we got into this mess when he says "the evidence does not support the contention that the Church Hierarchy dealt with the problems". It should never have been their responsibility to deal with it in the first place. People with complaints and issues should have gone to the police. This doesn't get bishops off the hook, it just means others share the responsibility for putting them on the hook.

Let me put it this way. If I had concerns about the behaviour of a journalist, I suspect him of a crime - do I go to the police or his editor? Because that's the equivalent of what happened in most of these cases - people who should have gone to the police didn't. Now you can blame the respect they had, the prevailing model of church etc - but that's the excuse the bishops use - so if it's not regarded as an acceptable excuse for them why is it for others.