Waters, Waters everywhere ...

MoominPapa

Scofflaw wrote:

Nah - he'd just have the next Messiah with her, and whinge for years about it afterwards...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thats blasphemy you sacrilegious heathen

SonOfPerdition

Scofflaw wrote:

Nah - he'd just have the next Messiah with her, and whinge for years about it afterwards...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Another immaculate conception perhaps?

Scofflaw

SonOfPerdition wrote:

Another immaculate conception perhaps?

Another immaculate misconception? He seems to have plenty...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

The Atheist wrote:

Ahem, DaveMcG, I hope JW doesn't drop by or there'd be issues with your post.

What are we not offering, exactly? We don't say "bless you" when someone sneezes?

Sorry boss, edited accordingly!

Myksyk

"Atheists may be likeable, interesting people, but they have nothing coherent to offer either society or posterity."

"I will go further: the "hope" Irish atheists claim to possess derives not from their own philosophical resting place but from the residual background radiation of a once intense, if flawed, cultural faith."

One of the frustrating things here is not just the cringe-inducing condescension of the sentiments expressed, but the psycho-babble analysis of why atheists hold one position or another. You can't help but get the impression that Waters is being deliberately mischievous in order to provoke.

Scofflaw

Myksyk wrote:

One of the frustrating things here is not just the cringe-inducing condescension of the sentiments expressed, but the psycho-babble analysis of why atheists hold one position or another. You can't help but get the impression that Waters is being deliberately mischievous in order to provoke.

Particularly if, like me, you come from an atheist family...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Myksyk

Scofflaw wrote:

Particularly if, like me, you come from an atheist family...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Or like me ... who had a perfectly healthy, positive catholic upbringing but who thinks now that it's simply and fundamentally wrong.

Dades

DaveMcG wrote:

Sorry boss, edited accordingly!

Better safe than sorry - appreciate it.

simu

John Waters wrote:

The answer: an intense and radical attraction to reality, combined with a profound sense that you have not yourself created one atom of it. That, he said, is religion.

This isn't religion at all imo. Bit of a straw man there.

aidan24326

simu wrote:

This isn't religion at all imo. Bit of a straw man there.

Have to agree Simu. A very odd definition of religion. Or maybe just completely pretentious bullsh*t. I'll go with the latter.

I have to say those two articles are just about the most condescending and pompous load of tripe I've read in some time.

If it was written by some ranter and raver in a lesser known publication one might be inclined to dismiss it offhand. But this guy is a journalist with The Times, and is someone who is afforded a pulpit both in well-known written publications and on tv to spout this kind of garbage. As someone who writes for a mainstream and supposedly high-brow publication like 'The Irish Times' he will be seen by some (and no doubt himself) as some sort of finger-on-the-pulse intellectual, even though his highly pretentious style of writing and utter pomposity reveals him as nothing more than a pseudo-intellect.

Just re-read some of the sentences from his articles (example: the two quoted by Myksyk) and they are almost devoid of any real meaning. Deliberately verbose language is a key tool of the pseudo-intellectual, and that's exactly what John Waters is.

MoominPapa

aidan24326 wrote:

Just re-read some of the sentences from his articles (example: the two quoted by Myksyk) and they are almost devoid of any real meaning. Deliberately verbose language is a key tool of the pseudo-intellectual, and that's exactly what John Waters is.

Quite right, it reads like a post-modernists under grad cultural studies thesis, I'm sure waters sees himself as an enemy of pm but he's drawing from the same well of b*llsh*t, once you sort out the syntax and decipher the Byzantine phraseology what you are left with is contradictory nonsense or banal revelations(every time waters leads with "Its interesting..." be prepared to be profoundly uninterested) that a child could see through, not sub editors if the IT though

Myksyk

Fintan O'Toole in today's Times:

Providing a real republic
Fintan O’Toole
We love republicanism. We will stand up for it, applaud it, salute it, weep for it, shout for it, and some of us will kill and die for it. We will do anything, indeed, except understand it. Nowhere is the intellectual barrenness of Irish politics more obvious than in the absence of even a minimal understanding of the history and meaning of the republican ideal to which all of our largest political parties subscribe.
In the debate sparked by the Taoiseach’s recent attack on “aggressive secularism”, the one thing that is clear is that a lot of people, including the Taoiseach, don’t get one of the key concepts of republican democracy – what Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation between church and state”. What they don’t get is that the wall was built, not to keep religious people out of public life, but to protect the freedom of conscience of all citizens.
In his speech to the elegantly-titled Structured Dialogue with Churches, Faith Communities and Non-Confessional Bodies (the tortured language a reflection of the intellectual contortions surrounding it), the Taoiseach twice attacked the idea of secularism.
One was a typical exercise in empty rhetoric, setting up a straw man so he could knock it down again. “There is,” he warned, “a form of aggressive secularism which would have the State and State institutions ignore the importance of this religious dimension.
“They argue that the State and public policy should become intolerant of religious belief and preference, and confine it, at best, to the purely private and personal, without rights or a role within the public domain. Such illiberal voices would diminish our democracy. They would deny a crucial dimension of the dignity of every person and their rights to live out their spiritual code within a framework of lawful practice, which is respectful of the dignity and rights of all citizens.”
Language often gives the game away, and it is worth noting the linguistic sleight of hand at work here. In the first sentence, we are dealing with an abstract concept – aggressive secularism. In the subsequent sentence, this abstract concept is referred to as “they”. The bad grammar is good spinning. The “they” who are intent on persecuting religion and denying people’s rights to live according to their beliefs, are a free-floating, undefined entity. This is, of course, because they don’t exist. There is no one in Irish public life arguing for freedom of religion to be restricted. So Bertie Ahern’s “aggressive secularism” is a rhetorical invention designed to make secularism itself into an aggressive, repressive philosophy.
The Taoiseach’s other reference to secularism was: “It would be an irony of history if Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, having each experienced exclusion at some phase in our history, should now be bound together in a shared feeling of indifference from a secularised state.” The real irony is that, for centuries, the struggle of Catholics and Dissenters – of everyone who was not a member of the established church – was precisely for a state that would be indifferent to religious persuasion. The United Irishmen, of whom the Taoiseach may have vaguely heard, struggled for a republic in which citizenship, not religion, would be the basis of a person’s rights. This indifference is at the core of republican democracy.
It is not an abstract concept. I lived for much of last year in China, where the greatest desire of many religious people – Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim – is precisely for Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state. They would be delighted if the state became indifferent to their spiritual lives. They would recognise – as the Irish Catholic bishops of 19th century America did when they argued for secularism – Jefferson’s argument that “state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion”.
We should recognise it too. We know only too well that when Christ and Caesar are hand-in-glove, religion suffers almost as much as democracy does. If you want to see Jefferson’s “corruption within religion” at work, look no further than the Ireland from which we are only now emerging. For centuries, the Church of Ireland was thoroughly corrupted by its position as a state church, which turned it into an instrument for repression. Then the intertwining of church and State gave us a society in which women were incarcerated for life without trial in Magdalen homes, children were enslaved in industrial schools and church leaders lost the ability to put morality ahead of power. Irish Catholicism has paid a fearful price for the absence of a secular democracy.
Instead of attacking a non-existent campaign against religious freedom, the Taoiseach should be facing up to the real challenges of governing a pluralist democracy. Our church-based education and health systems are in crisis, partly because the State has used religious control as a way of avoiding its own responsibilities to provide essential public services to all citizens. With the churches unable to run those services and the State still scared of embracing secular democracy, we get the worst of both worlds. A republic might be a good idea.


Couldn't have said it better.

Zombrex

Yeah ... what he said ^^^

Dades

Thanks, Myksyk.

Maybe I'm just impartial but I think that is a tremendous article. An opinion based on research, backed up by historical reference - the polar opposite of the JW piece.

Great stuff.

5uspect

Nice to see there's someone with an ounce of sense left in Irish journalism.

Talliesin

Myksyk wrote:

Just wondering what people thought of John Waters' homily

His reaction against his former liberal views reminds me of a child rebelling against their parents in a "What are you rebelling against?" "What have you got!" kinda way.

Heaven* forbid that he try the difficult task of reassessing his former liberalism to come up with fresh insight into either approaches to problems that my be wise, if counter to his former liberalism, or to accept that as a white, middle-classed man he perhaps should have foresaw said liberalism not always pushing his interests to the front and perhaps rightly so.

Instead he just jousts at whatever windmill his own personal biases make him perceive as a liberal sacred cow (wow, really mixing my religion-based metaphors today, must be a reaction or something ).

Scofflaw wrote:

A further point is that the word "secular" is being redefined to mean "atheistic", rather than the rather more correct "tolerant". This actually allows you to pretend that being tolerant of all faiths is nothing new, and that what is new is the attempt to remove religion from public life.

It doesn't help that some Atheists (especially those who aren't Secularists but wish to wrap themselves in the flag of Secularism) treat the word "secular" in this way, as if Atheism naturally leads to Secularism (try explaining that to a religious victim of Chinese government torture) when the sad fact is that no belief-system - including belief systems that reject religion - can offer any guarantee that its followers will not impose their views on others (even those which have a prohibition to do so as part of said beliefs - most religious genocide was committed by people whose beliefs prohibited murder after all)**. While many Atheist Secularists may argue from Atheism towards Secularism, the idea that any belief system will necessarily entail any other (no matter how logical the connection may appear to some) is nothing more than superstition or optimism warring against the evidence of history.

Of course Waters' article was an attack on both secularism and Atheism and naturally Atheist Secularists will argue both and may find it difficult to keep the clarity between the two throughout such arguments without concerted effort.

But it is also an attack on Secularists who are religious with the deliberate confusion of Secularism and Atheism intended to be a slur on the extent of our conviction in our beliefs.

Of course as Secularists we would reject the implication behind that slur, and not feel so much insulted as frustrated by the very idiocy of it; really, it's on an intellectual par with "I know you are, but what am I?".

It is interesting though to see this deliberate confusion of Secularism and Atheism being used both by those anti-secularists who wish to alienate the religious from Secularism and those Atheists who are actually bigots but who wish to pass themselves off as Secularists.

One can't help but feel sorry for Secularist Atheists who are getting it from both sides on this one.

Ultimately though an argument against Secularism is not an argument against Atheism or for religion. Should you agree with everything Waters says on what is good about religion it still doesn't follow that Secularism hurts any of that. The only thing Secularism hurts is the ability of the biggest kid in the playground to kick the others around. It does not hurt Catholicism and the larger churches in Ireland, it hurts only their ability to kick others around, just as it prevents them being kicked around elsewhere where others have more power.

If one were to take all that Waters has to say in religion's favour (it's twaddle, but I'll skip that for the sake of argument) what should we then do about it. Should we enforce acceptance of this doctrine? Is that really going to engender the profundity or give us meaning, freedom and hope?

Of course not. The logical approach to Waters' personal epiphany is to fight to allow others the freedom to approach these same questions and come up with their own answers and if some people answer those questions with Atheism and Waters doesn't like it or if some people answer them as Waters does and some Atheists don't like it, then tough.

Secularism isn't a force fighting Waters personal tendency towards the twee, it's an argument for governance that stops him being burnt on the stake if his tweeness upsets someone with power and an ample supply of kindling.

* Since he seems to have a new interest in such a place, I shall invoke it

Dave!

Excellent article from Fintan O Toole! I love this line......

"We know only too well that when Christ and Caesar are hand-in-glove, religion suffers almost as much as democracy does."

Good stuff Also glad to see someone with a voice is using it wisely!

Esmereldina

I just found this interesting thread (and read Water's article) today... I haven't checked the forum in a while as I have been doing lots of drugs, going on violent rampages, and buying loads of stuff like the immoral atheist that I am :rolleyes:

the Fintan O Toole article is a really welll written and well argued one though, and I basically agree with everything he says. I think that the distinction that Talliesin mkes between secularism and atheism is an important one though, as just as there are atheist states who do not allow freedom of belief (ie former Soviet Union, China), there are liberally minded religious people who have no probloems with a secular state. Equating atheism with secularism just discourages these kinds of people from supporting a secular agenda. Religious people need to be convinced instead that their beliefs would not be threatened in a more secular state, ie all we are asking is that religion be practised in private and that state funding is not used to support it, as in the case of the school system. This Church-state separation (particularly in education) has already been achieved in the majority of western european states and religious people still practise their beliefs quite freely. This is why the 'agressive secularism' straw man argument is so infuriating... More voices like that of O Toole are needed to convince religious people that they might benefit from a more secular state too.

Esmereldina

2Scoops wrote:

A response from John Waters to the fall-out from his ill-informed article of last week. Those expecting an apology will be disappointed - but at least atheists are no longer "less than human.":) Now it's just that they are too ignorant to differentiate between genuine denial of God's existence and their own negative experiences with religion and the Church. See, we all believe in God really!

Oh yeah, and they have "nothing coherent to offer either society or posterity." :rolleyes: There's even a passing reference to the Scofflaw hypothesis! Something for everyone, to be sure.

[url] http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2007/0312/1173443049962.html[/url]

Just read the Waters' 'response'... how this kind of s**** manages to get into a national broadsheet is beyond me

aidan24326

Esmereldina wrote:

Just read the Waters' 'response'... how this kind of s**** manages to get into a national broadsheet is beyond me

Perhaps said national broadsheet isn't always that far ahead of the tabloids it would mock and sneer from it's lofty perch.

Good article from Fintan O'Toole though. Thankfully there's one journalist around who can see through the fog.

As for Bertie, I would have thought he'd have more important things to be doing, but apparently not. The fact he's arse-kissing the church in an election year is no surprise, and perhaps it's evidence that the catholic mafia still (depressingly) hold far too much sway with our senior politicians.

2Scoops

aidan24326 wrote:

Perhaps said national broadsheet isn't always that far ahead of the tabloids it would mock and sneer from it's lofty perch.

Agreed - the insidious rise of trash journalism in the Irish Times is clearly evident. Probably best exemplified by their not-so-subtle campaign against Bertie. Waters' piece praising his speech that mentioned 'aggressive secularism' is the first positive thing written about Bertie in a long time outside of the letters page. Too bad it was written by a crank hack:)

Myksyk

Today's Times ... Nice one Robin!!!!

The role of religion

Madam, – I would like to thank John Waters (Opinion, March 12th) for conceding that people like me, who reject religious dogma, can live full and meaningful lives without it.


I would hope that he can now extend this conclusion to note that societies which are largely free of organised religion, such as Sweden, Finland, Japan and Holland, have consistently lower indexes of social disorder (STDs, murder, teenage pregnancies, etc) than those which are not, such as the US or South Africa.


History shows that, far from courting the disaster which Mr. Waters sees, societies improve when they abandon the unquestioned dogmas and institutions which constrain them.


And that is hopeful for society, isn’t it?— Yours, etc, ROBIN HILLIARD, Dublin

Dades

Great stuff Robindch.
But would a plug for boards.ie been too much to ask for?

robindch

> But would a plug for boards.ie been too much to ask for?

Can't click on a paper URL

Esmereldina

robindch wrote:

> But would a plug for boards.ie been too much to ask for?

Can't click on a paper URL

Well done on the Irish Times letter Robindch, it's nice that some sane voices are making themselves heard in said 'broadsheet' of questionable editorial integrity

Dades

Watching that travesty that was the Eurovision result on Saturday, I thought of this thread and allowed myself a smile; every cloud does have a silver lining.

As least his songwriting is consistant with his newspaper stuff.

5uspect

I'd forgotten about this. Well remembered!

monkeyfudge

monkeyfudge wrote:

Yeah... John.. and you've given us lots of hope with that crappy Eurovision entry haven't you?

If that sh*te manages to win then there probably is a god.

Yep.. It came last.. conclusive proof that there is no god.

aidan24326

Damn those Albanians for giving us 5 points. Would have like to see Waters get a big fat 0 . Nothing against poor old Dervish though.

As 'The Atheist' said, his songwriting is on a par with his journalism. Total sh1te.

Schuhart

aidan24326 wrote:

Damn those Albanians for giving us 5 points. Would have like to see Waters get a big fat 0

But does this mean his only supporters were damn communistic atheists?