The Hazards of Belief

TomSweeney

"liberals" and "feminists" want this in the West.
You could not write it.


https://twitter.com/Emmyjewel/status/1026969443971166211

oscarBravo

TomSweeney wrote: »

"liberals" and "feminists" want this in the West.
You could not write it.

And yet, strangely enough, you just did.

TomSweeney

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, strangely enough, you just did.

make it up so

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, strangely enough, you just did.

That's it, shoot the messenger.

oscarBravo

TomSweeney wrote: »

make it up so

You pretty much did that too. Unless you can find some examples of "liberals" and "feminists" in a vox pop explaining that women shouldn't be allowed to leave home and work.

ancapailldorcha

TomSweeney wrote: »

"liberals" and "feminists" want this in the West.=

Based on a tweet? I could find one depicting a Trump supporter as a Nazi and then claim that all Trump supporters are Nazis by that rock solid logic.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Based on a tweet? I could find one depicting a Trump supporter as a Nazi and then claim that all Trump supporters are Nazis by that rock solid logic.

That tweeds doesn't even go so far as to find one "liberal" or "feminist" who endorses the views expressed by the interviewees.

seamus

The basis of it is;

Liberuhls don't oppose immigration. Muslims immigrate. This terrible stuff is what some Muslims believe. Therefore liberuhls want their countries to be like this.

It's the kind of "reasoning" you find in places where people don't go to school.

ancapailldorcha

seamus wrote: »

The basis of it is;

Liberuhls don't oppose immigration. Muslims immigrate. This terrible stuff is what some Muslims believe. Therefore liberuhls want their countries to be like this.

It's the kind of "reasoning" you find in places where people don't go to school.

It's insane. For everything wrong with Ireland, I'm so glad that these alternative fact peddling snake oil salesmen have never caught on.

TomSweeney

seamus wrote: »

The basis of it is;

Liberuhls don't oppose immigration. Muslims immigrate. This terrible stuff is what some Muslims believe. Therefore liberuhls want their countries to be like this.

It's the kind of "reasoning" you find in places where people don't go to school.

You know full well they never complain about this yet they are all over a western male with even a fraction of the views, look at Louise O Neill/ Una Mullaly kicking up a fuss any time a western guy says anything even remotely sexist.


Yet they look the other way when an Irish girl is gang raped in Prague by the "wrong" type of perps ... this is just one example tho, it's rife with this hypocrisy.

TomSweeney

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's insane. For everything wrong with Ireland, I'm so glad that these alternative fact peddling snake oil salesmen have never caught on.

Get help

Peregrinus

TomSweeney wrote: »

You know full well they never complain about this yet they are all over a western male with even a fraction of the views, look at Louise O Neill/ Una Mullaly kicking up a fuss any time a western guy says anything even remotely sexist.


Yet they look the other way when an Irish girl is gang raped in Prague by the "wrong" type of perps ... this is just one example tho, it's rife with this hypocrisy.

Some people are generally more fussed about problems with their own community or society. They feel more responsible for them, and more affectred by them.

Other people focus on problems in other communities or societies. They are afraid.

seamus

Your problem here is that you assume that silence about something means that someone is looking the other way and tacitly approving of it.

If someone never writes an opinion piece about Myanmar, does that mean they're "looking the other way"? If none of their content at all addresses the Nazi Holocaust, does that mean they're really holocaust deniers?

No, of course not.

People who are paid to write their opinions, like LON and Úna Mullally, can only write what they know about. You're not going to see detailed pieces from them about the finer points of the Anglo-Saxon trade economies of the 1600s, nor special reports on the status of women in Jordanian society.

Because they don't know anything about these issues. Ask them directly what they think about the commentary on this video, and you'll no doubt get a blanket condemnation. Ask them how they feel about Islam and women's rights, and again you'll get a blanket condemnation, up to the limit of what they know about it.

Ask them about women's rights in Ireland and the UK, and western culture in general, and you'll get a large essay, priced per word. Because that's what they know about. Or rather what others want to hear them talk about.

What you're really engaging in is whataboutery. You're trying to prove that someone's opinion on one matter is rendered hypocritical by their lack of commentary on another unrelated one.

Off you go, tweet either of the two ladies above this video and ask them what they think. Do you think they're going to respond with, "Ah the Jordanians, a grand bunch of lads"?

TomSweeney

Seamus it's a fair point, but I would say quite optimistic - I hope you're right though.
Getting off point here but LON has been known to tweet how great Tupac Shakur was - who was convicted of sexual assault - but never mind that listen to his lyrics- but again, im derailing here.

LON and UM have long muted me anyway

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Some people are generally more fussed about problems with their own community or society. They feel more responsible for them, and more affectred by them.

Other people focus on problems in other communities or societies. They are afraid.

That is sometimes said of multi-culturalism, but the problem with that theory is that sometimes different communities do not maintain a strict segregation.
For example the Rotherham abuse scandal in which Pakistani muslim rape gangs specifically targeted very young white girls.


Therefore the point is very valid; if you are going to import a backward culture from abroad, be prepared to face consequences at home.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

That's it, shoot the messenger.

It might put an end to the stupid messages, in fairness.

robindch

Mod:

TomSweeney wrote: »

Get help

A+A is a discussion forum, not a forum for slinging uncivil assertions about the place. Please read the forum charter before posting again.

Thanking youze.

Hotblack Desiato

Wasn't sure whether to put this here, or in Funnies

Texas Back-to-School Prayer Rally Draws Literally 0 Participants

Hotblack Desiato

https://twitter.com/DrBSingleton/status/1031976273214693376

robindch

In 1956, a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses showed up in Clonlara, Co Clare with some literature in tow and a few hours to spare.

It did not end happily:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irelands-good-catholics-of-1956-37268607.html

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

In 1956, a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses showed up in Clonlara, Co Clare with some literature in tow and a few hours to spare.

It did not end happily:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irelands-good-catholics-of-1956-37268607.html

Can any of our resident historians confirm this happened? It's plausible but the source is the indo.

Hotblack Desiato

Yet we keep being told that nobody has ever been prosecuted successfully under our blasphemy law and the last unsuccessful attempt was in 1855 or something. Hmmm.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ireland-religion-blasphemy/ireland-to-vote-on-removal-of-blasphemy-law-last-used-in-1855-idUSKCN0HR1J420141002

“In practice, there have been no prosecutions under the 2009 Act and the last public prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland appears to have been brought in 1855,” Aodhan O Riordain, junior minister with responsibility for Equality, told parliament on Thursday in announcing the referendum.

recedite

Turtwig wrote: »

Can any of our resident historians confirm this happened? It's plausible but the source is the indo.

While not claiming to be a historian, I found this Irish Times article which seems to confirm.
Also mentions some other JWs causing a commotion in Wexford by getting assaulted.
The end result is similar. What starts out as a fairly "cut and dry" assault charge is twisted around, so that the victim of the original crime becomes the perpetrator of a different one, and is then encouraged to leave town ASAP under the threat of imprisonment.

It was a very delicate matter, said the Chief State Solicitor, "in which it will be difficult, as I see it, for the police to discriminate in favour of Father Doyle and, to a lesser extent, [in favour\] of Father Sinnott, on evidence on which they would normally institute proceedings".
A hand-written note in the Attorney General's file, dated May 10th, 1960, says: "Prosecute Father Doyle, Father Sinnott and Jas. Delaney for assault". Beside it is another note of the same date: "I spoke to the Taoiseach and he agreed to the course being adopted."
The final entry in the file, however, is a short letter to the Chief State Solicitor from the New Ross-based State solicitor, Mr James Coghlan, stamped July 29th. "My opinion is that it would be better to leave the matter rest, in the hope that these people will leave the town peacefully on the direction of their Principals. But should there by any further trouble by them in the town, then I think proceedings should be brought for the purpose of having them bound to be of good behaviour."

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

While not claiming to be a historian, I found this Irish Times article which seems to confirm . . .

It doesn't confirm the claim in the Indo article that the judge found the JWs to be "guilty of blasphemy". I'm guessing that bit is hyperbole.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It doesn't confirm the claim in the Indo article that the judge found the JWs to be "guilty of blasphemy". I'm guessing that bit is hyperbole.

Nobody was convicted of blasphemy, but in both cases the victims of the assaults were told to get out of town on the understanding that they would be charged with some offence if they returned. My understanding (from reading both accounts) is that the offence in question would have been some kind of "blasphemy" charge, and I think that was also everyone's understanding at the time.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Nobody was convicted of blasphemy, but in both cases the victims of the assaults were told to get out of town on the understanding that they would be charged with some offence if they returned. My understanding (from reading both accounts) is that the offence in question would have been some kind of "blasphemy" charge, and I think that was also everyone's understanding at the time.

And yet they weren't charged with blasphemy, or anything else. On the contrary, it is the people who attacked them who were charged.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

And yet they weren't charged with blasphemy, or anything else. On the contrary, it is the people who attacked them who were charged.

That is one way of putting it. Equally you could say the attackers were not punished at all, but the victims were permanently banished from the towns in question. This banishment was based on the victims disturbing the peace with their blasphemy.

...as a preventative measure he bound both over to the peace on sureties of £200 each, a massive sum in 1956. If they were involved in any more incidents they'd spend three months in jail.

...hope that these people will leave the town peacefully on the direction of their Principals. But should there by any further trouble by them in the town, then I think proceedings should be brought for the purpose of having them bound to be of good behaviour.

From an ethical perspective, its the same as a woman going to the Gardai after being raped, and then finding herself accused of disturbing the peace by wearing a short skirt in public, and then having to pay cash to the court to avoid jail time, while promising never to return to the town. But of course that would not actually happen, because there is nothing in the Constitution about skirt length.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

And yet they weren't charged with blasphemy, or anything else. On the contrary, it is the people who attacked them who were charged.

I'm with Rec on this one, in that they were clearly severely punished for blasphemy by both the mob and the courts even if that's not what they were charged with. Assuming of course they weren't running around the streets naked, drunk and stoned as is apparently the case with some of today's JWs :pac:

Peregrinus

I accept the point you both make, and of course I'm not defending what was done to the JWs in question. But it seems to me that what victimised them was social attitudes, rather than the presence of a blasphemy offence on the statute book with which they were not charged (and which, despite the judge's views, never was charged). The underlying problem here was not the existence of the (even then, obsolete) blasphemy offence; it was the social and community attitudes. Do we imagine that if the blasphemy offence had not existed, the JWs would have gone unmolested? If we do, we are not being entirely realistic.

Changing the social attitudes is the key to getting rid of the blasphemy offence, not the other way around.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it seems to me that what victimised them was social attitudes, rather than the presence of a blasphemy offence on the statute book with which they were not charged (and which, despite the judge's views, never was charged).

They still would have been attacked, but the judge would have been obliged to prosecute the attackers.
In the aftermath, the result would have been no further attacks, and greater subsequent freedom for people professing a minority religion (and atheists)

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

They still would have been attacked, but the judge would have been obliged to prosecute the attackers.
In the aftermath, the result would have been no further attacks, and greater subsequent freedom for people professing a minority religion (and atheists)

the attackers WERE prosecuted.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the attackers WERE prosecuted.

Not my reading of it. The article says "Charges were dismissed under the probation act".

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Not my reading of it. The article says "Charges were dismissed under the probation act".

assuming we are both referring to the independent article the attackers were prosecuted

Two months after the Clonlara showdown, Limerick District Court was packed to the rafters for the rematch. Fr Ryan and ten others were charged with assault and malicious damage. It was reported that when the Bishop of Killaloe arrived, "the crowded courtroom rose to their feet". Counsel for the mob began by reading from a Jehovah's Witness text which stated that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was of pagan origin and authored by Satan himself. Miller told the court that this was so.

recedite

Meanwhile, in the idollic tropical islands of the Maldives, an art installation called the Coralarium has been "modified" by the authorities. Creepy figures loitering on top of it and inside it were destroyed for being "un-Islamic"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f43QkfFmxFs

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/authorities-destroy-sculptures-in-the-maldives

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

assuming we are both referring to the independent article the attackers were prosecuted

OK, well "not successfully prosecuted" then.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Changing the social attitudes is the key to getting rid of the blasphemy offence, not the other way around.

To be fair, i think those changes have by and large taken place and the Ireland in that article is no more than history. Religìous belief does not need special legal protection beyond what we have in terms of incitement to hatred. The legal position of blasphemy clearly also needs to be consigned to the past. We also have the issue that in a multicultural society on person's god given truth might be blasphemous to the next. Let the law protect the citizens and the gods look after themselves

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

To be fair, i think those changes have by and large taken place and the Ireland in that article is no more than history. Religìous belief does not need special legal protection beyond what we have in terms of incitement to hatred. The legal position of blasphemy clearly also needs to be consigned to the past. We also have the issue that in a multicultural society on person's god given truth might be blasphemous to the next. Let the law protect the citizens and the gods look after themselves

I agree, and I heartily approve of the deletion of the constitutional provision about blasphemy, and the repeal of the criminal offence.

I guess what I'm really driving at here is the nature of the injury done by having an offence in the first place, if no-one is ever prosecuted? You might suggest that it's injurious because some time in the 1950s somebody expressed the view that somebody else ought to be prosecuted, even though they never were. But I'd have to say that, seventy years after the event, that's a pretty weak kind of injury. It seems to me that the real injury here, and the one we should be most concerned about, is not the theoretical possiblity of injury to individuals who might have been prosecuted either in the 1950s or today; it's the injury to the character of the Republic from having such a provision in place at all. Even if nobody is ever prosecuted this provision is offensive and degrading in ways that don't depend at all on arguing that the risk of prosecution is or ever was greater than is claimed.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I'd have to say that, seventy years after the event, that's a pretty weak kind of injury. It seems to me that the real injury here, and the one we should be most concerned about, is not the theoretical possiblity of injury to individuals who might have been prosecuted either in the 1950s or today; it's the injury to the character of the Republic from having such a provision in place at all.

That too. But I'm surprised at you effectively belittling the events described above, which actually happened to real people. Towns run by priests were allowed by the law to silence religious opposition and in some cases to organise mobs to beat up the blasphemers and run them out of town. That could only happen lawfully because blasphemy was an offence and was unconstitutional.
High minded notions of "the republic" are more pertinent nowadays, because these laws are no longer used against individual people in the same way. Though the laws are still hanging around, like a lingering bad smell.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if nobody is ever prosecuted this provision is offensive and degrading in ways that don't depend at all on arguing that the risk of prosecution is or ever was greater than is claimed.

There is also a chilling effect of rules like this. How many editors looked at an article or a cartoon over the years and wondered if it was pushing the boundary, and decided to spike a story or a joke?

How much did this provision influence editorial policy at the likes of RTÉ? This is a bit like the 8th amendment - the law and enforcement of it is only a part of its influence, the 8th also influenced written policies in hospitals, the HSE etc. where no-one could write or enact an official policy which is unconstitutional.

We will never really know the extent of this influence, but it is worth ending it.

Case in point: The Life Of Brian was banned for 7 years in the 80s.

Hotblack Desiato

There's also the fact that some pretty vile regimes around the world can use it to claim that their blasphemy laws (which actually get used) aren't that unusual or harmful when a country like ours has one too.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's also the fact that some pretty vile regimes around the world can use it to claim that their blasphemy laws (which actually get used) aren't that unusual or harmful when a country like ours has one too.

Agreed, though as per Peregrinus' post, I'd be more concerned with the dubious reverse optic that Ireland has something in common with these theocracies. It no doubt did in the past, but I don't believe this is the case any more and we need to promote an image internationally that is an accurate reflection of Ireland today. The clandestine power of the church in this country is a rather pale shadow of what it once was.

Hotblack Desiato

Mostly yes - but the school patronage thread is proof that the pale shadow still has rather a lot more power than it should.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That too. But I'm surprised at you effectively belittling the events described above, which actually happened to real people . . .

I don't mean to belittle the events; just the role played by the existence of a blasphemy offence. A prosecution for blasphemy was never likely - the actions of the authorities make that clear - and, if there had been no blasphemy offence, I don't think these events would have unfolded differently.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is also a chilling effect of rules like this. How many editors looked at an article or a cartoon over the years and wondered if it was pushing the boundary, and decided to spike a story or a joke?

To be honest, hardly at all. Editor were well aware that the blasphemy offence was obsolete, and never prosecuted. I think if they spiked articles or cartoons it was because of concern about public reaction, the response of advertisers, etc, and not at all out of a fear that they might be charged.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's also the fact that some pretty vile regimes around the world can use it to claim that their blasphemy laws (which actually get used) aren't that unusual or harmful when a country like ours has one too.

Yes. I agree with this point. I doubt that many of these regimes have or apply their blasphemy laws because[/i\] we do, or that they would repeal theirs if we repealed ours, but I am still unhappy at ours being cited by them in an attempt at justification.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

if there had been no blasphemy offence, I don't think these events would have unfolded differently.

I have to disagree. The attackers would have been punished by the law. The existence of the blasphemy offence allowed them to "get off" almost as if it was a case of self defence (and in their minds they were defending the town).
The JWs could have stayed in the town, and maybe even set up shop. Other religions might then have done the same. Atheists might have been able to speak their minds.
The whole social history of Ireland might have been altered. Who knows what would have transpired in this (hypothetical) alternative historical timeline.

Hotblack Desiato

Cultural catholic IT correspondent Conor Pope who baptised his infant daughter for the lols, gets catholic nastygram from Oop North, via Alive! magazine

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/apparently-i-m-going-to-hell-for-baptising-my-daughter-that-s-a-bit-harsh-1.3647743

I read everything with interest and – to be honest – confusion. I’ve no real issue with people of any faith as long as they don’t seek to impose their views on those who don’t choose to share them and I was at a loss as to why I had been selected for damnation. Could they not find an address for Roisin Ingle, Fintan O’Toole or Patsy McGarry?

The key to the puzzle was staring me in the face. The envelope was addressed to “Mr Conor Pope, c/o Alive”. It included a request that the publishers of the freesheet which is delivered to some homes in Ireland and deposited in some Catholic churches redirect it straight to me.

It dawned on me that I was being warned about my fiery eternity because I baptised my daughter earlier this year. Now this was an act so abhorrent to an anonymous author at Alive – What’s with this reluctance to put a name to a view lads? – that they put me on the cover of a recent edition of their “news” paper under the compelling, if entirely false, headline: “Conor Pope mock’s his own child’s baptism”. The front page blurb directed readers to a piece inside which called me “smart”. It said some other stuff too but I like to dwell on positives.

Earlier article: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/my-little-girl-became-a-catholic-it-was-the-right-decision-for-us-1.3528984

Zubeneschamali

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Cultural catholic IT correspondent Conor Pope who baptised his infant daughter for the lols

I think every parent has a right to raise their children in the religion of their choice, so I sent my children to Catholic schools to become atheists like me.

recedite

Its kinda funny. From their respective positions, both Mr. Pope and his anonymous tormentor seem like trolls.
From the other's point of view.

recedite

Angry Priest refuses to officiate at a wedding after finding his church has been landscaped with cherry trees, lanterns and two thrones (for the bride and groom).
https://www.thevow.ie/the-final-say/wedding-talk/carnage-as-wicklow-wedding-is-delayed-when-priest-refuses-to-say-mass-until-church-decor-is-removed-37385003.html


I guess that puts the kybosh on my idea for a dream Lord of The Rings themed church wedding, with bride's family dressed as orcs, animatronic fire-breathing dragons circling above in the rafters, and bride and groom arriving mounted on wargs.

robindch

Things are bad in Waterford and Lismore. Very bad indeed. What with Reiki and Satan doing the rounds. But cometh the hour, cometh the man. In the form of Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan - "We're finding our feet in this area", he explained in a radio interview:

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/bishop-is-setting-up-team-of-exorcists-warns-against-evil-spirits-in-reiki-and-other-healing-methods-874665.html

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Things are bad in Waterford and Lismore. Very bad indeed. What with Reiki and Satan doing the rounds. But cometh the hour, cometh the man. In the form of Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan - "We're finding our feet in this area", he explained in a radio interview:

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/bishop-is-setting-up-team-of-exorcists-warns-against-evil-spirits-in-reiki-and-other-healing-methods-874665.html

Where do they even find these nutters? We seriously need to replace mandatory religious education classes in our schools with mandatory critical thinking classes.