John Waters v Atheist Ireland

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

Have you seen his hair?

Ivana Bacik fudged a question on air brushing in the Seanad on the 28 May

Senator Ivana Bacik: Who is Senator O’Toole accusing of air brushing?

(Interruptions).

An Cathaoirleach: Senator O’Toole, without interruption, please.
Senator Joe O’Toole: In all fairness, people deserve to know that information. There should be a date and information on whether the picture has been air brushed and whether the hair is natural. People are entitled to those facts.

No one could accuse John Waters of covering up his hair unlike others I could mention.

Coriolanus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Statistically, it's highly probable that many people giving out about the blasphemy bill, voted no, but they are so entrenched in their almost OCD nature of giving out about religion at any possible opportunity they can't take a step back and see the big picture

Err, I can't find any polls or surveys linking the irreligious to the no vote. Linkage prz.

Tim Robbins

Nevore wrote: »

Err, I can't find any polls or surveys linking the irreligious to the no vote. Linkage prz.

I said: "Statistically, it's highly probable...".

This was based on the fact that the majority of people voted No to Lisbon. Therefore it's likely that many of the people in this blasphemy campaign also did.

Atheist Ireland, Michael Nugent et al, don't seem to grasp the reason why the government are doing this. When it seems pretty obvious...

Coriolanus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This was based on the fact that the majority of people voted No to Lisbon. Therefore it's likely that many of the people in this blasphemy campaign also did.

Wtf.
If you're going to do a straight extrapolation from the raw numbers like that then the exact same proportion of people who were pro-the blasphemy law also voted no in Lisbon.

Do I now get to proclaim the shock headline of "Statistically, it's highly probable that many people encouraging the blasphemy bill, voted no, but they are so entrenched in their almost OCD nature of giving out about religious persecution by Europe at any possible opportunity they can't take a step back and see the big picture."

Zomg!

CDfm

Nevore wrote: »

Wtf.
If you're going to do a straight extrapolation from the raw numbers like that then the exact same proportion of people who were pro-the blasphemy law also voted no in Lisbon.

Do I now get to proclaim the shock headline of "Statistically, it's highly probable that many people encouraging the blasphemy bill, voted no, but they are so entrenched in their almost OCD nature of giving out about religious persecution by Europe at any possible opportunity they can't take a step back and see the big picture."

I dont get this.

The clause as I understood it was a political and constitutional nesscessity and no other place could be found to put it in like anti-hatred legislation or whatever. So the Government had an obligation to legislate for it or have a referendum to change the contitution on this issue.

Controversial Defamation Bill passes by a single vote

Irish Times
Friday, July 10, 2009
JIMMY WALSH

SEANAD REPORT: THE DEFAMATION Bill was passed by a single vote after the Government nearly suffered a defeat on an amendment by Fine Gael’s Eugene Regan which would have deleted the offence of blasphemy from the Bill. The Opposition won one of the electronic votes on Senator Regan’s proposed amendment, but the amendment was defeated by one vote in the subsequent “walk-through” vote called by the Fianna Fáil whip. The cathaoirleach had to cast his vote in two other crucial divisions to ensure victory for the Government.

Seanad deputy leader Dan Boyle (Green Party) indicated his party’s preference for a constitutional referendum in “the mid-term” on the issue of blasphemy. However, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern said he would hazard a guess it was unlikely they would come back to this issue for some time. The Minister rejected Mr Regan’s contention that the matter of blasphemy could be adequately dealt with by an amendment to the Incitement to Hatred Act, saying what was blasphemous did not necessarily constitute incitement to hatred.

During exchanges with Ivana Bacik, the Minister said he had never in his political career received so many e-mails expressing outrage as he had on this issue. Ms Bacik said under the proposed legislation, Fr Willie Russell from Rathkeale, Co Limerick, a critic of those in his parish who appeared to be worshipping a tree with the appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, could be open to a charge of blasphemy because he had stated that no one could “worship a tree”.

Referring to his membership of the Green Party, Mr Boyle said: “Apparently I come from a party of tree worshippers.” While Mr Boyle would support the Bill, he said the measure on blasphemy was nothing but a legalistic repair job. Ronan Mullen (Ind) said the Minister was correct in not seeking to propose the deletion of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution.

I wonder if Fr Willie Russell will now get charged - if Atheist Ireland really wants to challenge the legislation they could bring a private prosecution and Ivana Bacik could then test whether it is contitutional.After all she has brought other contitutional cases.

Surely someone will volunteer?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well I am only taking it that the discussion he chaired at the AGM where some participants called for a host to be desecrated. Now you must agree that a reasonable person would construe such a proposal as radical and he joined in.

It is the equivalent of calling on people to assemble in Dublin to burn the Union Jack on the Glorious 12th.

Now he chaired the meeting and if it was about advancing a secular society then that does not appear to have come accross in what was reported on the issue.

Well firstly, no one really went along with that guy's idea because he was a prick but the whole point of the blasphemous act was it had to be "grossly offensive to a significant number of the followers of a religion" so calling them poopy heads isn't going to cut it

And anyway, I wouldn't consider destroying a piece of bread radical tbh

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well firstly, no one really went along with that guy's idea because he was a prick but the whole point of the blasphemous act was it had to be "grossly offensive to a significant number of the followers of a religion" so calling them poopy heads isn't going to cut it

And anyway, I wouldn't consider destroying a piece of bread radical tbh

But given the whole issue was a mechanism to conform with a constitutional requirement in the short term and a pragmatic solution as per Dan Boyle -what is the big deal?

What did you think of the AGM yourself and what do you think of atheist ireland and its campaign?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Other than the puerile neo-atheist bit what did he say that was really offensive to atheists?

Offensive to atheists?

I was replying to your strange comment that Mr Waters is a "very deep thinker".

Now, he might very well be a deep thinker in religious terms; heavens, he might every be a very deep thinker, but frankly, with religion he's splashing around in the shallow end of the kiddies pool. That's not the only thing he's doing in the pool either, but that's another story.

Coriolanus

CDfm wrote: »

I dont get this.

The clause as I understood it was a political and constitutional nesscessity and no other place could be found to put it in like anti-hatred legislation or whatever. So the Government had an obligation to legislate for it or have a referendum to change the contitution on this issue.

It's just a basic statistical fallacy that I see repeated again and again. He's trying to link the atheist ireland movement to the Lisbon No vote on the basis of a small majority of the population voting no. Basically a correct extrapolation but we know several breakdowns of the numbers already, for example women tended to vote no, men tended to vote yes, urban yes, rural no and so forth.
My point is if we're going to accept the base extrapolation rather than seeking proper numbers, then it's as easy, and legitimate to link the pro-Blasphemy crowd to the no vote as it is the anti, which rather makes the whole excercise pointless.
Long story short, extrapolating numbers from the general population onto small or specialist sample groups without proper polling is a no no.

The constitutional necessity is also pretty much false since the previous law has been sitting on the books, ruled unconstitunal for years and years without anyone batting an eyelid.

They've had an obligation to legislate on dozens of more urgent things than this, which they happily ignore, like abortion etc, because they're not willing to expose their politics publically on the subject.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't consider destroying a piece of bread radical

Depends on your point of view. If PZ Myers' vicarious experience is anything to go by, trying to head home home from church with a biscuit in your pocket causes more anger amongst religious believers than, say, something like the Ryan Report. Myers and his kids, btw, were threatened with getting their "brains beat in" for this "beyond hate-crime".

That said, I think AI should be concentrating on getting religion out of schools. The blasphemy gig looks like a side-show to me.

Handsome Bob

drkpower wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0717/1224250844850.html

John Waters seems to be taking a pop at Atheist Ireland. What do people think about his criticisms? Here are my 2 cents, anyway...

Waters talks an awful load of sh!te but dont let the messenger blunt the thrust of the message which atheists/secularists really need to heed.
His opening line encapsulates the two problems I see about atheism (and have been rabitting on here about for ages): Delusions of intellectual superiority and unfunny mockery of religion show up the limitations of atheist ideology.

Now, I wouldnt say that they show up atheisms "limitations" but they are two of its problems. And two of the reasons why atheism will struggle to get its message across. A message packaged in arrogance, mockery and divisiveness will never be palatable to the middle ground, which is the vast majority of this country, who have all but rejected religon but are not quite ready to move across to a sniping, sneering and jeering form of atheism. If you could tailor the message appropriately and not frame yourselves as what you are against (stupid fairy worshippers) but rather what you are for (pluralism, respect for all but above-all, the performance of Govermental functions free from religous or areligous influence), there is no reason why the atheist/secular movement cannot become a real player. But I fear that the "peurile reactionary" element within atheism will hold sway and will set your agenda back.

I hope this post is taken in the spirit intended. I am one of the middle ground. I believe in secularism. But until the prevalent attitude of Atheism Ireland and many vocal atheists is fundamentally changed, I cant see myself getting involved. I expect I am not atypical of the type of person whose support any secularist movement should be seeking to attract.

I think John Waters is a pompous wanker. That had to be said. Now that I've said it, I agree with your points.

Atheists, if they want to make a real change, have to play the "game" of politics. Attitudes must be tailored in a way that draws people to them, not away from them. If someone ever tried to run for power, and they were in the mould of Hitchens and Dawkins, I can tell you right now that in this country they would lose out on any vote. I've seen a few posters suggest that the future generations will be more open to change. Well, just look at how after decades, people still vote for Fianna Fail because "daddy" voted for them.

Hell, even taking examples of being the leader of an interest group, you still have to play the "game" of politics. If you want people to listen to you, and if you want to gain mass support for what you are lobbying for, atheists must stop alienating themselves.

Tim Robbins

Nevore wrote: »

Wtf.
If you're going to do a straight extrapolation from the raw numbers like that then the exact same proportion of people who were pro-the blasphemy law also voted no in Lisbon.

Correct.

Do I now get to proclaim the shock headline of "Statistically, it's highly probable that many people encouraging the blasphemy bill, voted no, but they are so entrenched in their almost OCD nature of giving out about religious persecution by Europe at any possible opportunity they can't take a step back and see the big picture."

No, because they aren't meeting in large numbers and failing to understand political realities of Lisbon two.

Zomg!

No. You haven't a clue of the point I was making and just effectvely made some arbitary point by attempting to derive an incorrect corallary from my argument which you didn't even understand in the first place.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Offensive to atheists?

I was replying to your strange comment that Mr Waters is a "very deep thinker".

I dont mean he is right but his stuff is hardly incendiary.

I mean I would look at Nugent and Baciks public pronouncements very similar to undergaraduate rants from my college years which I think is the point Waters makes. It sounded like a Student Union meeting which given that both of them were SU Presidents at their respective colleges is no surprise.

I mean - I am for the constitutional changes and a few more besides and Im not atheist and there are other parts of the constitution that needs change too.

As for Ivana Bacik -she is just as likely to come out against the Catholic Church as a patriarchal social construct and anti feminist as anything else.That way Bacik and Waters would have differing views on social issues with Bacik being the uber feminist and Waters being the Public Face of Mens & Fathers rights. So yes he will have a pop at her.

So whats the message and whats the constituency for the message? Was the meeting effective?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Depends on your point of view. If PZ Myers' vicarious experience is anything to go by, trying to head home home from church with a biscuit in your pocket causes more anger amongst religious believers than, say, something like the Ryan Report. Myers and his kids, btw, were threatened with getting their "brains beat in" for this "beyond hate-crime".

Well it will do that and thats no surprise taking a host to desecrate tends to annoy a lot of people.

That said, I think AI should be concentrating on getting religion out of schools. The blasphemy gig looks like a side-show to me.

Yup lots of mixed messages coming from AI.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

That said, I think AI should be concentrating on getting religion out of schools. The blasphemy gig looks like a side-show to me.

They should have hooked up with HAI or ET. There was no need for this organisation, unless you think there was a need for a hardline anti-religion group in which case atheist ireland is a evry disingenious name, as they are arguably mis -representing the majority of Irish atheists. "Anti-religion Ireland" would have been far better.

CDfm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They should have hooked up with HAI or ET. There was no need for this organisation, unless you think there was a need for a hardline anti-religion group in which case atheist ireland is a evry disingenious name, as they are arguably mis -representing the majority of Irish atheists. "Anti-religion Ireland" would have been far better.

And should affiliate too OCD Ireland.

dvpower

robindch wrote: »

That said, I think AI should be concentrating on getting religion out of schools. The blasphemy gig looks like a side-show to me.

Any campaign against the blasphemy law is doomed to failure. At best, AI can squeeze a bit of profile out of it or highlight its stupidity. But I can't see the law being overturned or any hope for a constitutional referendum any time soon.

At worst, AI can try to push it by organising a serious act of blasphemy. That would be likely to backfire; the majority of people may feel that the law is stupid and that blasphemy shouldn't be illegal, but I suspect that they also think that blasphemy is bad form.

robindch

dvpower wrote: »

At best, AI can squeeze a bit of profile out of it or highlight its stupidity. But I can't see the law being overturned or any hope for a constitutional referendum any time soon.

The law will be overturned if they take a test case and the judge throws it out, as they almost certainly will, bearing in mind the 1992 (?) Supreme Court decision. The problem is that AI have to do something that's seen as offensive by a lot of people first, and only then can the DPP take a case. If AI do it, and the DPP doesn't take a case, then the DPP's unlikely to pursue future cases, as they'll be seen to be applying the law unevenly (a fact which the defense lawyers will use in the future), and the future case will probably be rejected or thrown out. In which case, the law will be see to be unworkable by default.

With this stupid law, you're damned if you do object and you're damned if you don't, but AI have chosen to be damned if they do. Everybody else seems to have chosen to be be damned if they don't, and that's fair enough. It would have been better if Ahern had left it so nobody had to waste their time with this kind of silliness, but he didn't.

And if AI do get the law overturned, then the next law up for challenge is the church control of access to schools and the church's "right" to discriminate based upon the religious views of the parents.

If AI succeed in getting the blasphemy law overturned, they'll certainly be unpopular with certain sections of the population, but they'll also have one success under their belt and be seen as a more serious player on account of that.

If they fail, well, there's always the HAI.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But given the whole issue was a mechanism to conform with a constitutional requirement in the short term and a pragmatic solution as per Dan Boyle -what is the big deal?

To see the big deal you can read the various threads on why its a big deal on this forum

CDfm wrote: »

What did you think of the AGM yourself and what do you think of atheist ireland and its campaign?

I was only at the agm for about an hour but I thought everyone there except for the loud obnoxious guy was eloquent and reasonable and I approve of them challenging this law and hopefully moving onto the discrimination still allowed in 90% of state funded schools

Sam Vimes

I hadn't bothered to read Waters article up to now but on his last part: "Irish style atheism seems as yet unable to define itself other than in contradictions to versions of reality it declares to be false"

Is that not the definition of atheism

My impression of the whole article is that he wrote most of it before going to the agm and just went so he could get a few quotes

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

If they fail, well, there's always the HAI.

Who are lagging quite far behind in terms of media publicity right now...

The Mad Hatter

A letter in the times, Defending Atheism, seems more like an atheist defending Waters.

More about these horrible 'New Atheists' and their wicked ways.

A chara, – John Waters’s article (Opinion, July 17th) raises some interesting and challenging questions for the Irish atheist. Before taking up his challenge to speak on the topic without reference to the Catholic church, some preliminary comments are necessary.

As Mr Waters notes himself, the rejection of Catholicism is a necessary step on the path towards consciously adopting the position of atheism in this country.

We live in a state where Catholicism is the vernacular of spiritual articulation, any attempt to break away from this requires the (non)believer to engage in a “hermeneutics of suspicion”. That is to adopt the Habermasian rather than Gadamerian approach to interpreting the past, to ask awkward questions about the relationship of truth to power, the legitimacy of those in authority and ultimately the question of what foundations such claims are based upon.

Unfortunately, as Mr Waters rightly notes, many atheists appear to get stuck in this stage – a state of arrested development if you will. The recent spate of “new atheism” sits in this category as does, at least from Mr Waters’ reportage, Atheist Ireland. Essentially what this “new atheism” amounts to is the unruly rebellion of teenagers poking at an authority, the church, they both deride and fear.

Perhaps the desire to create organisations reflects the inherent allure of the sacral, the tradition, the ritual that organised religion thrives upon.

Uncomfortable with the vacuum they find themselves in, the new atheist seeks refuge with like-minded souls.

The challenge, however, is for the atheist to move beyond this puerile religion-baiting and engage with the questions of existence, creation and human nature at a deeper level. This is where we can move to what the underlying challenge of being an atheist actually consists. That is to engage with Mr Waters’ physicist friend on the concept of nothingness or his Spanish friend on human desire.

To actually consider the nature of eternity, the infinite scope of existence and still to assert the non-existence of a creator, a God.

Ultimately, these speculations can never lead to a definitive answer. The non-existence of God cannot be proven. Therefore the decision to not believe is a decision based on something approximating faith.

This is, perhaps, why many atheists of youth are the agnostics of old age. Indeed this is an appealing solution to this paradox of non-belief, to acknowledge the possibility of God but to defer the moment of casting your lot for one side or the other indefinitely.

My atheism is based on my willingness to cast my lot now, to accept that the human mind is limited in its ability to comprehend the nature of being, that an understanding of the infinite, of nothingness, and the shift that brings one from the other, is possibly beyond the scope of our consciousness but to resist the allure of the closure that belief in a creator God gives to this conundrum.

At the heart of my atheism, then, is a willingness to embrace the mystery of being without a safety net, to leap into the abyss of infinity that is existence without a bungee cord, to live with the existential anxiety of being a mere speck of matter in an infinite universe but to be no less human for that. – Is mise,

KEN McDONAGH,

Bayside Park,

Bayside,

Dublin 13

Excelsior

lostexpectation wrote: »

somewhat yes, especially when i don't see any believers organising against blasphemy or for secularism.

In the first week after the suggested legislation I wrote publicly about how the blasphemy law has no support from the actual Christian communities in Ireland and if I remember correctly, the Saturday morning that I was published in the Times, a fellow Presbyterian (a minister in fact) was also in the letters page.

I know the atheist.ie crowd would have to legitimise Christians as somewhat sensible, but you could kill this blasphemy bill in a week if you organised alongside the Evangelical Alliance and some easy to find prominent Catholic theologians would would agree with you.

drkpower

robindch wrote: »

The law will be overturned if they take a test case and the judge throws it out, as they almost certainly will, bearing in mind the 1992 (?) Supreme Court decision. The problem is that AI have to do something that's seen as offensive by a lot of people first, and only then can the DPP take a case. If AI do it, and the DPP doesn't take a case, then the DPP's unlikely to pursue future cases, as they'll be seen to be applying the law unevenly (a fact which the defense lawyers will use in the future), and the future case will probably be rejected or thrown out. In which case, the law will be see to be unworkable by default.

What 1992 decision are you referring to?

There is very very little chance of this law being unconstitutional; the SC basically told the Government to put in place a blasphemy law, the Law Reform Commission (while calling for removal of blasphemy from the constitution - which obviously would have been preferable - advised that as Plan B, a blasphemy law (similar to this one) should be enacted). I dont see the basis for the law being unconstitutional; in any case perhaps the Pres. might refer the whole bill to the SC soon and then we will know. But I wouldnt hold your breath.

Even if AI stage a blasphemous outrage, it will be entirely obvious that the outrage is politically motivated. This is one of the explicit Defences in the Bill and the DPP could very easily decide not to take the prosecution on ther basis that it is very unlikely to be succesful. Such a decision would not prejudice any future potential prosecutions. Many people think, for some reason, that the Defences cannot be considered until the trial is underway and therefore cannot be considered by the DPP; however this is incorrect - for instance, self-defence is a Defence to a murder charge; the DPP can choose not to pursue someone for murder if it is obvious that it was in self-defence.

In addition, Defence lawyers cannot use the asssertion that the DPP is "applying the law unevenly" to bolster their case in other specific cases. For a start, it is entirley irrelevant to any other case that may be in front oif the court but in addition, the DPP does not give decisions as to why he prosecuted/didnt prosecute a case, and thus, asserting that the DPP was applying the law unevenly would be pure opinion evidence and would be entirely prejudicial.

So there are one or two errors in your view above; for those and many other reasons, AI's proposed blasphemous outrage is both likely to do it as an organisation harm and is unlikely even to suceed in attracting a prosecution.

Sam Vimes

The challenge, however, is for the atheist to move beyond this puerile religion-baiting and engage with the questions of existence, creation and human nature at a deeper level. This is where we can move to what the underlying challenge of being an atheist actually consists.

To actually consider the nature of eternity, the infinite scope of existence and still to assert the non-existence of a creator, a God.

Ummmmm, we do that all the time on this forum.

That is to engage with Mr Waters’ physicist friend on the concept of nothingness or his Spanish friend on human desire.

Without mentioning religion in response to the physicist to explain why he's wrong of course because that leaves us in a state of "arrested development"

Ultimately, these speculations can never lead to a definitive answer. The non-existence of God cannot be proven. Therefore the decision to not believe is a decision based on something approximating faith.

This sounds like a letter written by someone who has never spoken to another atheist or is most likely not an atheist themselves because they are using the standard theist's attack on atheism by called it faith when it is not

togster

He did say approximating :pac:

d'Oracle

Every web thread, blog entry, letter of complaint, conversation over a pint and vocalised desire to see his funeral serves only to justify this charlatans employment and existance.

This one included.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

Now, he might very well be a deep thinker in religious terms; heavens, he might every be a very deep thinker, but frankly, with religion he's splashing around in the shallow end of the kiddies pool. That's not the only thing he's doing in the pool either, but that's another story.

Indeedy. From the article in question

Waterboy wrote:

How I wished that I had brought along my Italian friend Marco, a nuclear physicist, who might have, from the perspective of a profound belief in a creative God, brought the room to silence with a few reflections on nothingness. I believe he would have halved the membership of Atheist Ireland in half an hour.
And if I could have also brought my Spanish friend Julian to follow this by speaking about the infinite nature of human desire, I fancy he might have made a sizeable dent in the other half, perhaps in the end leaving Nugent and Bacik sitting lonesome at the top table.

'My mates are real clever - cleverer than youse - and they say YOU'RE WRONG.'
Not exactly shaking the earth with his profundity there. Maybe he better stick to the composing.

O..............wait......

Akrasia

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I said, an atheist is no more likely to be arrogant than any other proponent of any other opinion. We are just perceived as being so because people are so touchy about their beliefs and don't like it being pointed out that they're based on a fairy tale. If religious people could respond rationally in debates, not only would there be no need to brand us as arrogant to dismiss us but there would be no need to ridicule them because their beliefs would not be ridiculous.

I think it's quite ironic that people call Athiests arrogant on a thread about John Waters' article in which he basically says "Atheism can't possibly be correct because I tried it once and have 'moved on'"
It's self importance, putting onself at the centre of a debate, which is pretty much the definition of arrogance.

Religous people do it all the time. "God must be real because he communicated directly to me"
They are putting themselves in the centre of the debate.

Atheists say "I don't believe in god because the evidence I have seen is not convincing". The evidence is the centre of that debate, it's possible to have a debate with an atheist because he/she doesn't retreat into his own 'personal relationship' that atheists can never possibly understand because presumably, there is something spiritually wrong with us.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To see the big deal you can read the various threads on why its a big deal on this forum

I will trust you on that one Sam.So you think its unreasonable so it probably is.

I was only at the agm for about an hour but I thought everyone there except for the loud obnoxious guy was eloquent and reasonable and I approve of them challenging this law and hopefully moving onto the discrimination still allowed in 90% of state funded schools

Typical journo stuff picking up on the lowest common denominator. The reason I asked was that I couldn't really imagine an of the regulars here making that suggestion.

My feeling now and after others comments is that it was Waters having a pop at Bacik on the back of their normal tv and radio debates. she says black and he says white.

Maybe I am being a bit unfair to the Atheist Ireland AGM.