Stuckinthemilli.eu

I have a headache. I’m pretty pissed off. I’ve been reading about the amendment to the Defamation Bill (2006). I’ll make this short, ’cause if I ramble I’ll just get more annoyed.

The background: According to the Constitution, it is illegal to blaspheme. Article 40

6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

However, there is no definition of the term “blasphemous”. This was realised by the Supreme Court in 1999, where it was recommended that this be removed from the Constitution. However, Dermot Ahern has proposed that instead we amend the Defamation Bill to include a definition of blasphemy, as well as a fine punishable by €100,000 (so as to have the case  automatically seen by the Supreme Court). Now, a spokesperson says that:

“The Minister has been told by the Attorney General that he has to have a law in relation to blasphemous libel, so he is amending the existing law to remove the jail term,” he said. “The alternative in not having the law is for the country to hold a referendum removing that article from the Constitution.”

Hang on, hang on, hang on. So instead of getting rid of a pathetic part of the Constitution, we’re gonna keep this awful idea?

However, I do appreciate the Minister’s position to a certain extent. A referendum on blasphemy? How silly.

I would suggest, instead,that we have a referendum to modernise the document that forms the basis for our State.

We could change such gems as (Article 41):

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

We could create a secular state, where religion does not interfere with the government and the government does not interfere with religion. There are hundreds of reasons why this should be, but I don’t want to get into that tonight. We could do any number of wonderfully progressive things, such as removing the mention of gods from the Constitution. 

Anyway, look, maybe you think the blasphemy definition should be there. Maybe you are a hardcore anti-secularist Catholic who feels massively offended whenever your faith is questioned. The best advice I have for you is to go and read this article by Michael Nugent (that’s not entirely true, I have more advice). Don’t skim through it, read the entire thing. Me, I’m gonna go watch The Life of Brian and try and calm down. Bah.

Overreacting to the outbreak of a new disease can, to a certain extent, be somewhat predicted. Then again, so can the news cycle of the story. At this point, we’ve had the initial panic, the over-reaching dooms-day forcasts and now we are moving to the realisation that it won’t really be that bad and that it is being quite well contained. The abrupt about-turn of various media sources will be done with their normal fluid penchant for “reporting the news”. See here for today’s headlines in the UK papers. Unfortunately they went to press before the American media started to pick up on the fact that swine flu isn’t actually as petrifying and deadly as it seemed at first (see here for a CNN headline)

As reported in that CNN story, approximately 36000 people die every year from seasonal influenza in the United States. So far this year there have been 13000 deaths. And swine has yet to kill a single person there. So why the panic?

I think it has something to do with who we expect to die. I’ve either read a book or watched a documentary that was talking about the difference between people’s reactions to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who die annually throughout the world compared for example with the 3,000 odd people who died in the 9/11. We’ve no problem with the soldiers dying, because they are expected to do so, but a normal day-to-day average Joe dies and they’re appalled and terrified. Here, we expect old people to die from the flu and from life in general, so when we hear that 13,000 people have died from flu this year we think “Well, they were old, it was their time”. Compare this to swine flu deaths, which appears to have a huge effect on young people. While roughly a hundred and fifty deaths are attributed to flu like symptoms in Mexico (and only seven confirmed deaths from swine flu at time of writing) when you take the young profile of victims and combine it with the rec ency of knowledge of the disease it can trigger mass outrage and panic. Young people are dying from a flu virus? That’s not supposed to happen!

So people overreact. I’m not saying that we should ignore any advised being given by the WHO and government organisations. Be safe. Just… Don’t Panic.

In other news, my friend Adrian (of Aide in France fame) has started a new blog for when he gets back to England after Erasmus. He intends it to be his opinion on the media in the UK, heaping praise on the righteous and condemning the hyperbolic wicked. I might have made that last bit up. Have a look at his blog, here’s one of his posts. It’s called the Daily Fail by the way. Nice name, that.

I was going to blog yesterday about how I wasn’t really enjoying my Erasmus year in France any more and that I was very much looking forward to getting back to Ireland in early June. Then I went out and ate dinner and hung out with my friends and played some poker. Which made me realise; If I am unhappy in France it’s primarily my own fault. I have the power to go out and enjoy myself, the friends to hang out with and a town to explore.

I think this is a major problem that a lot of people have, that they don’t recognise that they hold the ability to change the situation when they are no longer enjoying what they are doing. They find themselves having a shit time and instead of dealing with it and making the change they potter on and are miserable. I have a little bit of that, but every now and again I read something or talk to someone or something else and get a wake-up call.

So, less moaning, more enjoying the last 6 weeks I have in Angers.

This is our one shot guys, better make it damn good 🙂

Photo owned by sofauxboho (cc)

Just a quick post to share two things. First up, Stephen Colbert’s support for the anti-gay marriage campaign that’s been running in the US. Oh Stephen, this is a step too far, even for you and your bigoted ways!

Second, I like this quote from Noam Chomsky:

“…if you ask me whether or not I’m an atheist, I wouldn’t even answer. I would first want an explanation of what it is that I’m supposed not to believe in, and I’ve never seen an explanation.”

Taken from ‘The Fifty Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time’.

Interesting fact: According to the Humanist Association of Ireland, there are 250,000 Irish citizens who classify themselves as non-believers. I’m not actually sure where they got this figure from. According to the Central Statistics Office, there were 175,000 people who stated “no religion” in the 2006 census, of which 105,000 stated nationality as Irish. Even adjusting for population growth and the gradual increase in people who deem themselves irreligious (starting at 1107 in 1961, see here) that seems a fair jump.

Anyway, I digress. Looking at the figure, it’s a fair whack of people. But breaking it down, that’s only 4.2% of the population. There also tend to be fewer non-religious Irish people (2.8%) than non-Irish non-religious people (16.3%) [All figures from here]. Compare that to the US (where the census cannot ask about religion, leaving us reliant on other surveys) where people without religion account for 15.2% of the population (here).

So why the difference? Well, Ireland is still quite a conservative and Catholic country. One theory I have however, is that even though many people are quite obviously irreligious in the more obvious aspects (Don’t regularly attend church or pray, don’t believe in a god etc) there is still a fear of not being Catholic. Maybe it’s that aul’ guilt springing up inside at the idea of turning away from the big RCC. So instead of accepting that they no longer believe, people conform to the “Big Two” (Christmas and Easter/Lent), thus appeasing themselves. Thus:

Wonder why people adhere to the no meat rule so religiously today when they ignore all the other rules of catholicism every other day…?

And the response:

Eath[sic] Hour syndrome

(Hmmm… don’t think I’ve ever been able to use [sic] before 🙂

So, just as people quell the guilt within them by turning their lights off for 60 out of the 525,600 minutes in a year (I feel like launching into song…) many Catholics do the Lent thing and have an aul’ pray. Thus, lapsed Catholicism is still Catholicism. Actually, if you want you can leave the church. You write to your Archbishop with a good enough reason and they stamp your birth cert with DEFECTED (or something like that). A little more publicity about the fact that it’s not actually so bad “admitting” you’re no longer a believer and no longer count yourself as Catholic is, therefore, welcomed by this atheist in particular.

Which is where the Humanist Association of Ireland come in. They have some interesting policy submissions, including one on “Domestic Partnership” (from April 2006) and one on circumcision (in terms of the ethics and dangers of it being carried out in a non-medical procedure). They also have this:

It’s on DARTs now, I saw it last week while I was home. Did you know that? I didn’t. One might suggest that this is a rather minor point and that it affects very few people (as there are so few judges and only one president anyway), but to me it’s part of a bigger picture. The church and the State have gone hand-in hand for far too long, from the ban on the sale of contraception, to the role played in primary schools, to parish politics (the latter of which I’m sure I’ll touch on in a future post).

Thinking about it, I would have a choice in that situation. Do I refuse to take the oath and risk not being able to take up the position (possibly even taking a case claiming discrimination on the grounds of religious belief) or do I take the oath, knowing full well that it means less than nothing to me and therefore does not have the desired effect (to put “the fear of god” into you, thus binding you to the faithful execution of your duties).

So, what to do, what to do? Well, a third option is to campaign against such an oath, as the HAI are doing. What, so instead of just complaining ’til you’re blue in the face you do something about it? Shocking, really.

They’re my options and the odds are I’ll go with the latter. I’m becomming less of a say-er and more of a do-er (hopefully) and I’d rather not sit idly by and do nothing when I can get involved and (maybe, hopefully) make a small difference.

Anyway, that’s my thoughts on it. Thanks for reading by the way, I appreciate it. And thanks to all those who commented on yesterday’s post, it was great to see 🙂

Two things to end on:

1. On a similar note, rumour has it there’s a humanist society starting up in UCD next year. I’d love to get involved in that myself. (Thanks Laura for the heads-up!)
2. As part of the End the Lies campaign, the Human Rights Campaign have responded to the NOM’s anti-gay marriage campaign video. Check it out here, in particular the rebuttal at the bottom of the page. That’s an interesting read alright.

Wow, I’m knackered. I don’t know how all you full-time bloggers do it. This is my fifth post in as many days and it’s exhausting! Back Monday for a new one (unless inspiration hits before then).

It occurs to me that I never actually disclosed what I said was so exciting a little over a month ago… so here goes… 

On January 4th 2010 on a sandy beach (or in a bach, if the weather isn’t brilliant) of the beautiful island of Waiheke off the coast of Auckland in New Zealand, the wonderful Ann Pendergrast and ever-amazing Bernadette Manning (my delightful mothers, if you didn’t know that already) will be making honest women of each other and getting a civil union! After nearly 30 years together, they’ve decided to take a trip to Ann’s homeland to tie the knot. As might be expected, I am looking forward to it. Lots. We’re travelling there via Hong Kong, so I hope to pick up a new camera there (maybe a Canon Eos 40D, to upgrade my 350D). With a little luck I’ll be able to grab some snaps of the holiday there (although I cannot guarantee that I won’t be a weepy emotional mess… I get very teary at these kind of things). I’ll get to see my wonderful grandparents again (who will be turning 80 and 90 next year) and visit that most spectacular country.

Just thought y’all might like to know 🙂

 

Photo owned by Invisible Hour (cc)
 

Info point: Civil unions in New Zealand convey the same rights to couples as marriage (excluding the right to be considered to adopt children) and are available to both hetero- and homosexual couples.

 
Photo owned by shuttermonkey (cc)

Oh yes, I saw this a few weeks ago and forgot to mention it. Judge Judy talking about gay marriage. Lovely lady.

Following on from a long post yesterday, today’s is rather short (and might meander a bit).

I don’t like the word “tolerate”. In fact, I find that it can be rather offensive, depending on the context. I tolerate an itch on my leg that I can’t be bothered to get rid of. I tolerate a dull thud from next door that tells me my neighbour is bouncing a tennis ball off his wall. I tolerate exams as an annoying yet essential part of getting an education. Consider the first two definitions of “tolerate” from Dictionary.com:

1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with: I can tolerate laziness, but not incompetence.

Tolerance is shown to something that is irritating and in some aspects optional. However, I’ve also heard it being used in reference to various groups and members of society that some people would prefer not to exist (including the LGBT community).

Consider an excerpt from this post

America, and especially professing Christians, has tolerated sins such as various forms of birth control, lust of the flesh, dirty dancing, prostitution, communism, and much more

(Probably not the most representative example, but I came across it and thought it relevant)

Here, tolerance is shown to the parts of life that are considered evil and disgusting, with the author indicating that they  should be acted against and no longer ignored.

Is it a step forward for someone to go from thinking being gay is wrong to tolerating it? I don’t think so. If you tolerate something you still consider it to be morally reprehensible, but you decide to ignore it to concentrate on something else.

People don’t want tolerance, they want acceptance. Anything less is second-class.

Photo owned by Fikra (cc)

Without writing too much of an essay, I’d like to discuss a document I found by a group against extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples. I’ve decided not to link to it, to avoid giving them more air-time essentially. The document can be found here (pdf, 472kb). Obviously, you’ll find them fairly easily if you want to.

The first page of this document is essentially a “marriage is good and this is why”. According to this, marriage reduces the risk of poverty, protects mental and physical health and married people live longer and happier lives. 

So, why not extend this advantage to gay people? If these are the benefits to society (happier, healthier people; less risk of poverty; protection of mental and physical health) then surely we should avail of this for all members of society, not just straight people.

For those that argue that this might not stand true for same-sex families, let’s look at some evidence from the American Psychological Association  (as opposed to from a research body that acts as a front for conservative groups).

research indicates that, despite the somewhat hostile social climate within which same-sex relationships develop, many lesbians and gay men have formed durable relationships

Interesting eh? And how about:

Researchers… have also speculated that the stability of same-sex couples would be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of social support and public recognition of their relationships as partners from heterosexual couples do.

And finally:

research has found that the factors that predict relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and relationship stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples

For more information on this, take a look at their policy resolution (pdf, 194kb).

So now I turn to the second page, which includes the gem:

“Here are answers to help you defend the family”

From what? Please, tell me what I need to defend my family against? I think this point is often overlooked: We’re not talking about banning families. We’re not talking about abolishing heterosexual marriage. We’re talking about extending the opportunity and the option of marriage to more people.

“But this is what every same-sex home does — and for no other reason but to satisfy adult desire.”

That’s rubbish, utter rubbish. My own “same-sex home” was started with the intent of raising a family in a loving atmosphere. Saying that a home is started to “satisfy adult desire” makes it sound like a brothel, as opposed to the truth; that my family and that of other same-sex families are rarely different to opposite-sex families in terms of the love shared and the reasons they were started. 

“Marriage is about bringing male and female together, so that children have mothers and fathers, and so that women aren’t stuck with the enormous, unfair burdens of parenting alone— and that is good.”

In a same-sex relationship, the couple tend to distribute household tasks in a more equal way, as opposed to in heterosexual relationships, whereby the male and female tend to conform to their gender stereotypes. Marriage isn’t about bringing male and female together, it’s about joining two individuals in a committed and long-term relationship.

“Once you rip a ship off its mooring who knows where it will drift next?”

This kind of disgraceful scare-mongering is what is fuelling the anti-gay marriage movement. I can already hear someone scream “Won’t someone please think of the children?”. I am not looking for polygamy, I am not looking for marriage for brothers and sisters, I’m not looking for people to be able to marry their horses. The analogy used here implies that enabling  more members of society to marry their loved ones will lead to a breakdown in society’s family values and seems to be spoken of in the same tones as the apocolypse.  I’ll put this as clearly as possible: I want my parents to have the option to mark their relationship (24 years going this year) in a socially and legally recognised manner. This will not degrade anyone else’s relationship or marriage. If anything, it will strengthen the position that marriage will have, by ensuring that it is an institution open to all members of society, regardless of sexuality.

Legal scholars warn that the tax exempt status and accreditation of Catholic organizations could be at risk.

Sorry for needing to ask, but why exactly should Catholic organisations get tax exempt status? The Catholic Church has an unestimatable worth, hidden from view with loopholes and veils of secrecy. Check out this more a little more information (but very little to be honest). If anyone can shed some light on the financial goings-on of this Vatican-based powerhouse I would be very grateful.

But I digress. Why should any institution that teaches that people are not equal, that some people are evil by default, that reason and logic should be condemned at all opportunities and that their ideas are the only ideas that should be accepted ever be given funding and tax breaks by a state? Religion is ultimately harmful, as suggested by Voltaire:

Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities

Anyway, there’s plenty more there for people to look at and discuss. Feel free to leave a comment (especially if you disagree, I like a good chat 🙂 ) and keep the debate going about this.

I found two new campaigns this evening I felt compelled to blog about.

1. Amazon’s move to classify all LGBT material as “adult” (regardless of whether it contains or does not contain nudity, sexual references etc. and additionally exclude it from some searches and best seller lists. They are also excluded from the sales rank feature. Check out the Twitter hype on it (I’m getting about 30 new results a minute for it) and sign the petition. Then make some noise about it, to a friend, on your blog, via Facebook, in your next tutorial, wherever. But tell at least one person…

2. This video is incredible, in the “that can’t be real” sense. Ridiculous. How can bringing in marriage for a group of people force a different group to change their lifestyle? Utter rubbish as usual. Check out the counter-campaign here, from the Human Rights Campaign.