Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
This blasphemy law would have Father Ted spinning in his grave
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Oh, those pesky Aherns! Bertie Ahern was in charge when the Irish nation almost lost the run of itself over ever-escalating property prices.
Cecelia Ahern must have made penniless authors around the world despair as she shifted her ‘magical realism’ novels by the million. And now Dermot Ahern is allegedly trying to make blasphemy a crime in Ireland.
Quite clearly, the man is on a hiding to nothing. For every case that is taken against an outspoken atheist may well result in another case being taken against the religious person.
And so the whole thing will turn into a Father Ted-style slanging match that will make Ireland the laughing stock of the civilised world.
Can you imagine the scenes in courtrooms up and down the country? Academics, atheists and the faithful alike, all roaring and shouting about holy tree stumps? I predict an influx to Ireland of religious fanatics of all kinds.
This new law is so ridiculous that I suspect it’s all a bit of a joke. Or maybe it’s Dermot’s way of getting his name into the history books?
After all, there are some people who believe that Tony Blair only went to war in Iraq because |he could.
So perhaps history will record that Dermot Ahern tried to fine atheists just because he could? Or is it a desperate ploy to scrape together some much-needed funds for the government coffers?
The scary thing is that it may be possible to extradite offenders from across Europe to answer blasphemy charges in an Irish court. If this happens, I’d better watch myself.
Or maybe I’ll embrace the free publicity with open arms? After all, the fine being bandied about wouldn’t pay for an advert in Heat magazine.
So if I did ever end up in the dock for my secular views I’d be getting more publicity for my harmless romantic novels than my various publishers could ever dream of. It’s almost worth saying something deliberately provocative just to challenge this medieval idea.
Wise up, Dermot! It is not possible in this day and age to control what people think. You cannot prevent people from having independent ideas and thoughts.
You only serve to make organised religion appear frightened of secular ideas and nostalgic for the Bad Old Days of witch-burning, pond-ducking and torture chambers.
If God (and he may exist for I have no way of knowing whether God exists or not) had wanted us all to be the same, he would not have given us the ability to think and reason. He would not have given us individual personalities. He would not have given us the creators of Father Ted.
Oh Dermot Ahern, what were you thinking of? That poignant image of Mother Ireland as a downtrodden illustration from the Great Famine, begging at the roadside in a tassel-edged blanket, was almost wiped from the global consciousness. And now it will be back with a vengeance.
American companies will be scrambling to get out of the place. For how can they support America’s ‘War on Terror’ if Ireland turns out to be no better than the most devout Islamic nations when it comes to freedom of speech?
All I can say is, thank God I didn’t move across the border to dodge the auld tax bills when I first got a publishing deal in 2002. For I could now be stuck in a Dublin apartment with negative equity, and a court case for blasphemy pending.
Father Ted is one of my all-time favourite TV programmes: Father Ted Crilly has ambitions beyond his talents, Father Dougal is a bewildered young man, Father Jack is a deranged malcontent and Mrs Doyle is the miserable skivvy who looks after them.
Craggy Island is a bleak and wind-battered place full of unhappy locals. And the cultural highlight of the year is the Lovely Girl competition.
Who would have thought that the real Ireland could possibly turn out to be even more ridiculous than this daft-but-brilliant TV-show? The late Dermot Morgan (who starred as Father Ted) must be spinning in his grave.
I have only one thing to say to religious people of any denomination: if your faith is so sound and secure and such a comfort to you, then why would you even bother to give a moment’s attention to a poor, deluded dissenter like me?
And is there anybody I can sue for filling my formative years with nightmares about burning in hell for all eternity? For I’ve been battling with a chronic fear of failure ever since.
- Text Size
Comments
77 Comments
WH, I'd be careful what you say. You may end up re-enacting a Walter Matthau / Jack Lemon film.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 19.02.10, 18:08 GMT
Conor,
That's an interesting question. Are you wanting to share a house/flat or something? How much do you want, £250/300 a month? Does that include utilities?
I would actually pay good money to watch you and I living together. We could turn it into something akin to the 'Truman Show'.
Posted by WH | 19.02.10, 16:38 GMT
Conor your continued assault on all things outside your comfort zone leaves you with as much credibility as the Shroud of Turin.
I also hear that carbolic acid works wonders for itchy palms.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 19.02.10, 16:16 GMT
conor, for someone who doesn't care what WH thinks, you do a hell of a lot of replying to him.
Posted by McD | 19.02.10, 15:56 GMT
Conor, Iwould have thought that such an all-knowing being like yourself would have no problem in understanding the term "organised religion."
Organised Religion - A religion in which rules exist to govern the means by which adherents participate in the religion.
WOW! My education came in handy for looking up meanings in a dictionary!
Posted by Ulysses32 | 19.02.10, 15:25 GMT
WH, do you still live at home?
Posted by conor | 19.02.10, 11:16 GMT
Actually, WH, I see your point. Organised religion is the bane of a normal moral society.
There is no justification for any organised religion to hold up a man-written book and use it as an excuse for religious morality.
Iris' homophobia is one example.
The preaching of "limbo" by the catholic church is another.
And, of course, the preaching of freaks like Pat Robertson. I refuse to call him a reverend.
The list is endless - Zionism's promised land, Islamic extremists' martyrdom, Hinduism's caste system......etc
Posted by Ulysses32 | 17.02.10, 12:37 GMT
WH
I clearly do have an open mind as I have experienced both agnosticism and Christianity. You do not appear to know many Christians, at least on a personal level, as I have yet to meet one who can genuinely say it was out of fear that they believed in Jesus. It should be said that a large number of Christians were not brought up in Christian homes, but rather aetheistic or agnostic (as I was) and were therefore not brainwashed out of fear. I obviously agree the idea of hell is fearful, though you should not assume all Christians believe in an eternal conscious separation from God - although all will be judged, I suspect 'hell' will be the death of your spirit as well as your body, as Jesus alluded to.
Peter
Posted by Peter Culbert | 16.02.10, 15:50 GMT
Superman does not exist as we have the evidence that he is a fictional character created by Siegel & Shuster.
To say that a god does not exist and there is no intelligent design is completely different. Probability would fall in favour of intelligent design so stating any god is nonexistent without irrefutable proof is a circular argument.
Basing the existence of a god on beliefs and documents written by man is also a circular argument due to there being no irrefutable proof of a god's existence.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 16.02.10, 13:57 GMT
lads, as a tax payer I am concerned that I have to pay your wages/ benefits/pension (Ulysses uses "O" levels) while you post comments on this website. ALL your comments come between 9-5 Monday to Friday
WH, as before, this is a layman's website- no one cares what you think including politicians, The Pope, me etc etc etc
I just come on here to wind intellectual titans like you up
Ulysses, define "organised religion" for me please
WH has "studied" The Bible apparently.......hahahahaha
Posted by conor | 15.02.10, 22:08 GMT
Peter,
My statistics are not wrong. Most people do not carry on believing in bedtime monsters, the tooth fairy or Santa Claus past their teenage years. I do, however, agree that a lot of people do carry on believing in 'god'. Why is this? Could it have anything to do with them being threatened when they were children?
Christianity, as with most religions, operates via a doctrine of fear. If one does not believe in 'god', or if one misbehaves, then one will go to hell. For certain people this 'threat', and it is a threat, must focus their minds somewhat. If I told a group of children that if they did not believe in Santa Claus for the rest of their lives, they would end up in hell, then maybe, just maybe, a lot more people would still believe in Santa Claus. Especially if society reinforced my heinous doctrine. Society does help to reinforce certain heinous doctrines, but I am glad to say that Santa Claus is not one of them.
I do have an open mind, I hope you do too.
Posted by WH | 15.02.10, 14:05 GMT
Ulysses32,
I do not see how you can accuse me of employing circular reasoning.
I have never said that 'god' does not exist. All I have ever asked anyone to do, anyone who believes that 'god' does exist, is to prove it. If they cannot prove it, then 'god' should play as much of a part in our collective society as what Mickey Mouse or Harry Potter does.
I have no problem with a person, any person, holding individual beliefs. What I do have a problem with is when religious people, and organisations, try to interfere in my life, or the lives of others, because of their individual or collective beliefs. In that regard, I think it is more than reasonable to ask for evidence. If evidence cannot be provided, then there is no argument. Faith is just not good enough.
Religion, especially in Ireland, has had a massive influence upon society over the past few centuries. I am not going to argue that it has been all bad, but, in turn, it most certainly has not been all good.
Posted by WH | 15.02.10, 13:41 GMT
Conor,
You cannot be serious, surely?
"God's existence cannot be proved or disproved (I have stated this time and time again)" - I agree totally that 'god's' existence cannot be disproven, but, you are completely wrong about 'god's' existence not being able to be proven.
The bible, the so-called "word of God", clearly details 'god's' physical attributes (back, nostrils, etc). The bible mentions that humans were created in "god's own image". Therefore, if the bible is true (as opposed to being a collection of superstitious nonsense), and if 'god' is made of something, then surely that 'something' can be scientifically tested for. To say that 'god's' existence cannot be proven or disproven is illogical and irrational, however, the words religion, illogical and irrational usually go hand-in-hand anyway.
Do you now agree that you are wrong, 'god's' existence can be proven? Can you now see that you have been brainwashed with religious dogma?
More personal attacks? Tut tut.
Posted by WH | 15.02.10, 12:28 GMT
Oooh, I see. Now we throw insults, Conor. How very "Christian" of you.
Maybe vanity is a word that should be directed at you.
Anyway, my previous two previous comments still stand as fact, not supposition or theory.
God cannot be disproved or proved in any religion, therefore, any god should play a fundamental role in society along with morality free from the influence of organised religion.
But you would obviously disagree considering your own superiority complex. I bow to your sage like wisdom.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 15.02.10, 10:31 GMT
Ulysses, you obviously dont understand what I am getting at but then again I dont expect a NICS employee to understand.
God's existence cannot be proved or disproved (I have stated this time and time again) but cosmology, theology etc can illustrate that theism is rational. As the existence of God CANNOT be disproved then religion should play a fundamental role in society. Secularism doesnt mean utopia, just look at UK.
WH conveniently forgets about the likes of Trocaire, SVP and The Salvation Army. As a "humanist," should he be giving a hand in Haiti?
WH spends too much time on this website and not enough on his studies.....if any of his lecturers are reading, I'd put his work through a plagarism software package if I was you
Posted by conor | 14.02.10, 20:34 GMT
Ulysses32,
I don't really see how you can say that I am employing circular reasoning. All I am asking Conor and Peter to do is to prove what they are saying by providing evidence. I have never said that 'god' does not exist, however, I have said that it is, in my opinion, very unlikely.
People who believe in a 'god' obviously say and believe that 'god' does exist, is it therefore unreasonable to ask for evidence? Especially due to the fact that religion has had a huge influence on society in the past, and still to a certain extent today.
Can you point out exactly where I have used circular reasoning in my comments below?
Posted by WH | 12.02.10, 18:20 GMT
WH- im afraid your statistics are wrong. If 'most' people leave their beliefs behind in childhood, why does the majority of the world's population believe in God or some sort of spirituality (approx 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion muslims etc)? I was not brought up a Christian so I had nothing to leave behind as a child. If you have an open mind, could I suggest you read a couple of books - 'The Day Death Died' by Michael Green and 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. I would be interested to hear your views.
Peter
Posted by Peter Culbert | 12.02.10, 15:54 GMT
In both cases you are providing "an argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove." Hence the unwinnable circular argument.
The debate will never be won due to the consistent stalemate that this debate leads to.
Without substantive evidence you are both stuck on the Broadway Roundabout not knowing who is driving in the wrong direction.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 12.02.10, 10:22 GMT
Ulysses32,
All of Conor's comments are littered with logical fallacies, I am fed up pointing them out to him. Well, when I say fed up, I don't really mean that; I actually quite enjoy it.
Conor is a prime example of someone totally taken in by religion; I may even go so far as to call him a 'poster boy'. He will not accept reasoned arguments that challenge his world view. He just insults and denigrates anyone who he does not agree with.
He seems to have a pathological hatred for Richard Dawkins, I don't know if you have noticed. He never attempts to challenge anything that Dawkins says, he just claims that Dawkins' views are irrelevant because he is not an academic from one of these three subjects, "theology, philosphy and cosmology". In other words, we should only listen to theologists, philosophers and cosmologists. Why would anyone in their right mind want to exclude all other subjects from having a view on the existence of 'god'? I find it absolutely amazing.
Posted by WH | 11.02.10, 13:57 GMT
"WH, were you spoonfed atheism or are you just rebelling against Gospel Hallism?"
"What does an animal expert (Dawkins) and someone doing a two bit part time degree (because they didnt get into university at 18) know about theology, philosphy and cosmology?"
You wouldn't need an "O" level to see the contradiction with these two comments.
So one can be conditioned into being an atheist and a follower of a god.
One does not need to reside in academe to recognise an unwinnable circular argument.
Vanity on both parts.
Posted by Ulysses32 | 10.02.10, 15:55 GMT
77 Comments