Jesus was like today’s vampire movies

I was at the L&H’s god debate last night, where the motion put was “That this house believes it is rational to believe in god” (well, according to some of the speakers anyway). I got home to find an e-mail in my inbox (well, several, but one of particular interest). Evidently Herself had found a Boards.ie thread about Jesus, the man himself. So, without further delay, I give you a list of characters who appears before Christianity and the common characteristics –

Gautama Buddha: born of the virgin Maya around 600 BC

Dionysus: Greek god, born of a virgin in a stable, turned water into wine.

Quirrnus: An early Roman saviour, born of a virgin

Attis: born of a virgin Nama in Phrygia around 200 BC

Indra: born of a virgin in Tibet around 700 BC

Adonis: Babylonian god, born of the virgin Ishtar

Krishna: Hindu deity, born of a virgin Devaki in around 1200 BC

Zoroaster: born of a virgin 1500-1200 BC

Mithra: born of a virgin in a stable on the 25th of December around 600 BC. His resurrection was celebrated at Easter.

Y’know, if I were writing a story about a guy I knew and wanted to make him seem like a kick-ass super-deity, I reckon I’d steal loads of these characteristics too.

So, just like we’ve seen a stack of vampire movies aimed at teenagers since Twilight came out, we also see a copycat effect of all those “deities” that preceded the character of Jesus. Dude, what a cheat! I mean, if you’re going to copy stuff from your predecessors, at least a) Don’t get caught and b) Make it something deadly that you steal! I mean, he could’ve chosen to shoot fireballs out of his ears or throw lightening bolts… but a virgin birth? Ok, turning water into wine is a fantastic party trick, but not very good at getting you out of stick situations.

So, what I’m saying is, this Jesus guy (or the guys who made up a story about some poor shmuck, who just had a couple of good ideas about being nice to each other, then turned it into an all-controlling tyrannical organisation) really should’ve made some better career moves. Out with the virgin birth, in with the fireballs.

 

The EU’s ‘Culture of Death’ and more

As reported in yesterday’s Irish Times, a parish priest has denied claims that he spread a “vote no to Lisbon” leaflet (although he doesn’t deny that he wrote and signed it). The leaflet claimed that the EU has:

“embraced the ‘Culture of Death’. Yet again, Europe has become a slaughterhouse. Millions of its own children have been slaughtered”

This is in spite of the fact that only 17 out of 25 members of the European Union have access to safe and legal abortion on request (data accurate to 2007 – pdf). As an aside, far more have access to abortion to save the life of the mother (all except Malta); Ireland’s laws prohibit abortion except in the case of risk of death to the mother. Not, however, in the case of rape, incest, preservation of physical or mental health, fetal impairment or economic or social reasons.

The real gem, however, is the quote at the end of the article, from Cardinal Tarcision Bertone, the Vatican’s secretary of state.

“If Europe recognised homosexual couples as equal to marriage, for example, it would go against its own history. And it would be right to stand against it. The Church wants to encourage states in this.”

The age-old argument of “we’ve always done it this way, why should we change?” emerges. Never mind that polygamy was also the status quo at one point, the institution that tried to cover up systematic child sex abuse, that instigates the oppression of women’s rights and that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people in the Crusades also want you to live in a static age; one that never progresses or advances. The Vatican, apparently, feels the need to retain control over who you love, who you have sex with, who you marry, what contraception you use, what you do in the case of that contraception failing, what you do when you’re raped, whether you want to go through the trauma of a still-birth (in the full knowledge that this will occur). I think I would be more appalled if there weren’t people like CountMeOut.ie in this country, providing people with information on leaving the Catholic Church.

Ok, rant over.

On a separate note:

The UCD Secular Humanist Society is holding an event tomorrow evening in the Blue Room of the Student Centre. Michael Nugent, the chair of Atheist Ireland, will be speaking on the topic ‘Blasphemy is a Human Right’. All members are invited (if you’re not a member you can sign up there and then, for a mere €2). The event starts at 6pm. This is sure to be a great talk; I’ve heard Michael on the radio before and he’s got some great ideas. E-mail ucdhumanistsociety@gmail.com for more information, or follow them on Twitter.

Happy Wednesday

– Conor

 

Angry angry angry angry angry #nbd

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.

 

More on the Anti-Gay Marriage Campaign

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!

The Colbert Report	Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition’s Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

 

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’.

 

Ireland’s Non-Believers (and other stuff)

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).

 

“Why Marriage Matters”

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.

 

What I’m reading at the moment

 

The God Delusion

 

 

Yep, I’m an atheist. Funnily enough, it’s not something that I talk about all that much, because I’m still working it all out. One point that Dawkins makes in the book is that religious groups (in particular in the U.S.) have a huge sway in public opinion and politics (in spite of the supposed state/ religion separation) and that, given that there are many atheists in the world (in America some polls suggest that there are more atheists and agnostics than Jews), we should exert similar influence. Anyway, it’s just something I thought I’d throw out there.