I recently finished reading Jonathan Meades’ memoir of his early life An Encyclopaedia of Myself.  Some may find his style and vocabulary challenging, but he is always fascinating and often hilarious.  I felt I should share his views on religion, of which the following passage is a useful example.
The majority of Anglican clergy, certainly of Salisbury Cathedral’s clergy, were not susceptible to dilute modernism. The Close was a bastion of unchallenged dogma, ritual, philistinism, unquestioning belief. The manipulator of millions of minds Joseph Goebbels wrote: ‘It is almost immaterial what we believe in so long as we believe in something.’  Time and again, those with this promiscuous capacity for credulousness are shown to be those with the equal capacity to promote and sanction atrocities. We repeatedly witness the migration of believers — ‘spiritual persons’ — from one cult to the next; a religion is merely a heavily armed cult. Believing in something all too evidently means believing in anything. Why should Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims — especially Muslims — be treated with anything other than the contemptuous toleration that is visited on flat-earthers and ufologists? Believe in the existence of fairies at the bottom of garden and you are deemed fit for the bin, for the Old Manor. Believe in parthenogenesis and ascension and you are deemed fit to govern the country, run the BBC, command UK Landforces etc.  The notion that these people might be mentally ill is quite overlooked: quis custodiet and all that.

I see that the Austrian parliament has passed reforms to the country’s century-old ‘Law on Islam’.  Amongst other provisions, the new law bans foreign funding for Islamic organisations.  Muslim groups say the ban on foreign funding is unfair as international support is still permitted for the Christian and Jewish faiths.  They are right, but only up to a point.

I find it unacceptable that any religion should be allowed to accept funding from external sources, just as most countries prohibit political funding from outside the jurisdiction.  If such funding is going to be allowed, then at least it should be excluded from the general tax exemption from which most religions benefit.

But where I would absolutely draw the line is where religions or religious lobby groups obtain direct or indirect funding from foreign governments, or foreign-government-sponsored entities.  Clearly in these situations the line between religion and politics has been crossed.  And this is where the Austrians have got it right: Islam is noteworthy for the fact that states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar give generous financial support to Islam (or particular strains of Islam) across the globe.  And unfortunately the type of Islam they are promoting is one where there is no separation between Church and State, and where the dictates of the Koran and the hadiths are considered to be justification for horrific crimes.

I would like to see a law in Ireland which (a) prohibits religions and religious organisations from receiving funding from foreign governments and (b) removes tax-exempt status from funding received from all non-residents, private or governmental.  This would incidentally stop any funding of the Catholic Church or Catholic organisations by the Vatican, as the latter claims to be a State, but this is something with which I could live …..


We have heard a lot in Ireland recently about politicians and their consciences.  Famously, Lucinda Creighton broke with Fine Gael as she wouldn’t follow the party whip and support the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill last year.  She asserted the need to follow her conscience, which apparently was telling her that the Catholic Church’s hard-line position on abortion had to be followed.  Many people’s reaction to stances such as that of Lucinda is to say something like: “I don’t necessarily agree with the views of Mr/Ms X, but I admire him/her for taking a stand on a matter of conscience”.

But this is a superficial analysis.  Because the essence of Lucinda’s stance is to deny all Irish women the very thing she insists on having herself, namely freedom of conscience on the issue of abortion.  And abortion is a matter of conscience.  It’s not like murder or theft or arson, matters on which there is a consensus in all civilised societies, regardless of religious beliefs, and against which we properly (and indeed necessarily) legislate.

Lucinda obviously believes that her conscience must be given greater weight than those of hundreds of thousands of women in Ireland who believe that women should be allowed have an abortion in Ireland, whether because of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, because of a pregnancy arising from rape, or for any other reason that their conscience permits.

As Gene Kerrigan has so aptly written,

It’s possible to have a personal position against abortion – which means you will not have an abortion; you hold that abortion is wrong. And at the same time to have a political position – which is that every woman should have the right to make that choice based on her conscience. Not yours or mine.   Otherwise, you’re saying no one has a right to do anything except what my conscience allows….

…There are women who just don’t – for reasons that are not your business or mine – wish to go through with a pregnancy they never wanted.  We may disagree with them, but we do not have a right to speak for their conscience.

Imagine it was the other way around – that people who are in conscience opposed to abortion were required to undergo abortions, because – for instance – the state imposed a policy on the number of children allowable.

Lucinda exiled herself from Fine Gael as she wanted to retain the status quo for our ultra-punitive abortion laws instead of making the marginal relaxation which the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill involved.  Following your conscience cannot be a “get-out clause” for doing bad things or (and this is key) for refusing similar latitude to other people whose reasoned and informed consciences tell them something completely different.

Dr Ryan Walter, a lecturer in politics at the Australian National University, wrote a fascinating article (“Conscience votes corrupt our political system”) on the relationship between politics and public representatives’ consciences.  It was in the context of proposed same-sex-marriage legislation, but it is relevant in this debate.

“Many politicians appreciate the freedom for debate and personal reflection that comes with conscience votes, but this is exactly why they are so dangerous. For conscience votes have the potential to undermine one of the defining principles of secular liberal democracy: the separation of religion and politics….

…We know from empirical research that politicians will tend to hold a mix of these views [on how best to represent their constituents and to serve the public interest], but the point to underline is that all these visions of politics require the politician to fulfil their public office rather than pursue private interests. This includes personal moral and religious interests. We are perfectly comfortable calling politicians corrupt when they steal from the public purse, but we are inconsistent when we do not decry injecting personal religious belief into legislation that will govern the lives of all Australians, regardless of faith.

…. [Conscience] tells us only to look inside ourselves but not what we’ll find there, which could be all sorts of things: university-student ideologies, religious convictions, moral visions. It is the role of political parties and the ritual of parliamentary process to discipline these private enthusiasms by subjecting them to the duties invested in the public office of a politician.”

Ask your actual or potential public representatives this question: “Do you believe that Ireland should be a secular democracy and that we should separate religion and politics?”  If they say no, well at least you know where they stand, and you should commend their honesty.  If they say yes, then tell them that you expect them to act accordingly when performing their duties as a legislator, and not to vote according to their “conscience” where that conscience is informed by religious views that are not universally accepted.

As Bertrand Russell said, “…the infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell.”


Art vs religion

12 January, 2015

Clive James’s review of John Bayley’s collected book reviews , which was included in “The Revolt of the Pendulum”, has this:-

He just doesn’t think that art and religion make a good match, especially if the religion is an adopted one, as in the case of Waugh – and the case of Graham Greene, by whom he is enthralled even less.  Without precisely calling those two eminent Catholic converts perpetrators of a put-up job, he makes it clear that he thinks their religiosity detracts from their scope of vision rather than adding to it. …..

A work of art exists to occupy the whole space between tumultuous reality and the artist’s attempt to give it shape, with no supervening providence to nullify the order of what has been achieved. Bayley is at his very best when he is pushing his insistence that the mundane is sublime enough. (‘Boots and shoes’, ‘the detail and the dailiness’: the phrases keep on coming.) He is surely right. Art, by making bearable sense of the world, is out after religion’s job, which is probably why no religion in its fundamentalist phase has ever liked it. Art is its own ideal state, which is probably why Plato didn’t like it either.

Famously, Islam prohibits the depiction of human and animal forms in art.  The Taliban even went to the trouble of destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan.  But strict Protestantism used to be none too keen on depictions of God and the saints.  I heard a historian claim recently that 99% of all religious artworks were destroyed in England during the Reformation.

I’m just throwing out for your delectation a few links that caught my eye in recent weeks.  The common theme is that they challenge the views of our religious or superstitious (is that tautological?) brethren.

Kim Harris (link here) is entertaining (in a nicely grumpy way) on Astrology:

…when Frasier Crane introduced the aura-sensitive Daphne Moon to his crowd he did it with the following semi-gallantry: “This is Daphne, everybody. She’s psychic and we’ve decided to find it charming”  ……… Just as Philosophy begins where Religion ends, and Chemistry begins where Alchemy ends, so Astronomy begins where Astrology ends. Like Theology, astrology is a sovereign waste of time. It is the purest bobbins. Pants, drivel and mental vom just about sum it up. It is the Piers Morgan of pastimes.

A. Z. Myers and his Pharyngula blog has a Wikipedia entry:

Eventually, Myers summarized his stance by invoking “Blake’s Law“, which he named for the blogger who first codified it. Blake’s Law is an adage that frequent Pharyngula commentator Blake Stacey formulated in 2007, based in concept on Godwin’s Law. The law states:   In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one.    As has become the tradition with Godwin’s Law, the person who compares the atheist to a religious fundamentalist is considered to have lost the argument.

Myers also featured in the special New Statesman survey where Andrew Zak Williams, having earlier asked various public figures why they believe in God (see here) turned the floor over to well-known atheists to explain why they don’t (see here).   Myers didn’t pull his punches:

Religious beliefs are lazy jokes with bad punchlines. Why do you have to chop off the skin at the end of your penis? Because God says so. Why should you abstain from pork, or shrimp, or mixing meat and dairy, or your science classes? Because they might taint your relationship with God. Why do you have to revere a bit of dry biscuit? Because it magically turns into a God when a priest mutters over it. Why do I have to be good? Because if you aren’t, a God will set you on fire for all eternity.

In the same feature, Richard Dawkins has a go at Cherie Blair, who had contributed to the earlier article:

Equally unconvincing are those who believe because it comforts them (why should truth be consoling?) or because it “feels right”. Cherie Blair may stand for the “feels right” brigade. She bases her belief on “an understanding of something that my head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true”.  She aspires to be a judge.  M’lud, I cannot provide the evidence you require. My head cannot explain why, but my heart knows it to be true.  Why is religion immune from the critical standards that we apply not just in courts of law, but in every other sphere of life?

From Ambrose Bierce‘s Devil’s Dictionary:


Finally, (at least for now), Steven Weinberg addressing the Conference on Cosmic Design, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C. (April 1999):


Gerard O’Neill writes a very fine blog called “Turbulence Ahead” and his most recent piece dealt with attitudes to religion amongst Irish people of different ages.

His chart caught my eye, not because of the results it portrays, but because of the selection of categories into which the interviewee sample (and thus the overall population which it presumably represents) is divided.

Age bands are given for 15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54 and lastly “55 +”. To me, selection of bands for statistical analysis implies, not that each band necessarily contains an approximately equal number of members, but that the individual bands are a discrete and meaningful demographic in some way or another. 

The selected bands in this study are not uncommon, but it raises the question as to whether the “55+” band is just a bit large and varied to be a sensible component of the analysis.  For instance, is a 55 year old man or woman in any way comparable (in religious views, political preferences, spending habits etc.) to an 80 year old, who would be of an entirely different generation?

I may be of an age when I am starting to notice insidious age discrimination, but surely it would be more informative if the opinion poll had separate categories for (say) 55-64 and 65+?  Or are the views of older people generally of less import for social commentators and journalists?  (We already know that advertisers, or at least those who create their ads, have a weird and patronising attitude to anybody over 50 – see “Older people want to shop shock” and “The nightmare of selling things to old people”.) 

Incidentally, Central Statistics Office information for Irish population by age (see here for 2006 figures) suggest that the number of people in the 55+ age group is significantly larger than in any of the 15-24, 25-34, 35-44, or 45-54 age groups.  This will become even more true with the passage of time and the “greying” of our population.

My quote of the day comes from John McIntyre of the Baltimore Sun:

Mentioning Tennessee brings to mind that they have another moronic legislator attempting to smuggle creationism into the science curriculum under the guise of “teaching the controversy.” You’d think that after the Scopes trial the state would be a little more jealous of the tattered remnants of its reputation. But if they think “teaching the controversy” is such a fine idea, let them dictate that Marxism and Fascism be taught alongside capitalism and democracy.

Reminds me of the The Onion’s unbeatable version of this point:-


“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.   Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”     

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world’s leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

On the first anniversary of its appearance, I thought I would re-run what was one of the most startling and amusing letters published in the Irish Times.

Knock apparition gatherings

Madam, – I’m a little confused that the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Michael Neary, is discouraging people from gathering at Knock to witness apparitions which he believes “risk misleading God’s people and undermining faith”.

This is the same “faith” that believes that a cosmic Jew who was his own father by a virgin can enable you to live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from something invisible called your soul that is present because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree.

Yours, etc,

LIAM MEEHAN, La Vista Avenue, Killester, Dublin 5.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

 Can anybody tell me whether this is an original formulation by Mr Meehan, or is he quoting/paraphrasing somebody else?

This from last July: Facing Mecca Doesn’t Matter When You Pray, Says Islamic Leader

Muslims are supposed to face the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia during prayer and the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued an edict in March stipulating westward was the correct direction from the world’s most populous Muslim country.  “But it has been decided that actually the mosques are facing Somalia or Kenya, so we are now suggesting people shift the direction slightly to the north-west,” the head of the MUI, Cholil Ridwan, told Reuters. “There’s no need to knock down mosques, just shift your direction slightly during prayer.” 

﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿Ridwan said Muslims need not fear that their prayers have been wasted because they were facing the wrong way.  “Their prayers will still be heard by Allah,” he said

﻿Reminds me of the “it’s a mortal sin if you don’t go to Mass on Sundays” rule which applied when I was young.  Then, in Ireland, it became acceptable to go to Mass on Saturday night if your local bishop consented to this in his diocese (whoops, I almost wrote his or her diocese).  So mortal sin became a function of time and geography.  That daft logic was the beginning of the end for my tenuous grip on the Catholic faith.

And more daftness here, this time Jewish daftness:    ﻿http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_mode 

These examples, and there are legions of further examples, are beyond parody.  Is all religion destined to end in farce?  If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be funny.

Ireland is a country which professes to respect citizens of all religions, and those of no religion, and conversely insists that such citizens are fully loyal to the State.  It is therefore surely time we took a hard look at the wording of the preamble to our Constitution. 


We, the people of Éire,


Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation ………..

The wording is so specifically Christian that it raises a doubt in my mind as to the allegiance non-Christians might as a result feel to the Constitution: if its preamble, which presumably sets out the very foundation for the clauses which follow, is offensive to their beliefs, can they really identify with, and subscribe fully to, Irish law and legal principles?

You see, I have converted to the one true religion of Meshugism and I sincerely believe it is my duty to adhere to every written precept of this great movement, and to fight with every fibre of my body any unbeliever who seeks to roll back or interfere with the inevitable completion of our victory over other unworthy religions and over people of no religion. 

For it is written in our Holy Book, revealed to our holy prophet Al-Dawkinsii, that men shall keep women in their appointed place and shall not fail to curtail their corrupting tendencies by appropriate instruments of restraint.  And verse 37 of tract 13 of the Holy Book, as interpreted by our beloved seventeenth century high priest Wuddi-alaan, instructs us to fashion a rope from the finest hemp, and to attach this rope to the neck of a woman before allowing her to be present in a public place, the better to ensure her safety and to enforce on her the standards of decorous behaviour prescribed by our holy religion.

I insist on my right to practice my religion freely, and to treat my woman as the Holy Book prescribes.  I reject all oppression by so-called “liberals” who scandalise our faith by promoting equal standing for women.  I tell you that our women are happy to be subject to the norms of our one true religion, and rejoice in the safety and certainty that it brings to their troubled existence.  I give this warning: non-believers interfere in our right to exercise our religious beliefs at their peril.  Your objections on supposed grounds of “equality” and “civilization” are an offense to all of us who are prepared to make any sacrifice, even the ultimate sacrifice, to secure our religious rights and to ensure the ultimate victory of Meshugism throughout the world.

I see that the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Seán Brady, who is facing calls to resign over revelations that he did not report complaints against a paedophile priest to police, has said that he will only step down if told to by the Pope.  He has also defended his role at a 1975 meeting where children abused by sex offender Father Brendan Smyth were asked to take a vow of silence.

I’m not sure where on the Pope’s agenda the possible resignation of Cardinal Brady sits.  Perhaps he has more pressing matters to attend to, and he isn’t bothering about dealing with members of his team who failed to deal appropriately with criminal priests engaged in child sex abuse.

Indeed, I’m sure we all take comfort from His Holiness instead taking time out to play a leading role in the battle against another major threat to human civilisation: full-body scanners. 

Read the rest of this entry »

I see in an article in today’s Irish Times that, according to the Archbishop of Cashel Most Rev Dermot Clifford, Ireland’s Catholic bishops are “totally opposed” to the redevelopment of the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria, west England,

… and would also oppose any plans to build a nuclear reactor in Ireland.    He was speaking in the context of this week’s announcement by the British government that it had identified 10 sites for the next generation of nuclear power plants in the UK, including at Sellafield.    The archbishop said that while the matter had not yet been discussed by the Irish Bishops Conference, “95 per cent of the bishops are against nuclear reactors”……. He spoke of the threat of Sellafield to people in west England and on the east coast of Ireland, as evidenced in 1957 when fallout from the then-named Windscale covered substantial areas in both countries.

Rather than nuclear power the emphasis should be on developing alternative energies such as wind, wave and solar power, he said.   …… Referring to the UN Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen next month, he said it was to be hoped “despite the economic recession that the representatives of 170 governments of the world will agree to meaningful targets to cut carbon emissions over the next 10 years”. The ecological crisis was “becoming more urgent by the day” with “not nearly enough” being done about it “at world, national or at local level”.   The Irish bishops were “seeking to raise awareness of the importance and the urgency of taking steps to reverse global warming”, he said.

Fantastic!  This is beyond parody.  I hardly know where to begin. 

Since when is the Government’s policy on nuclear power (or lack of same) an appropriate matter for the clergy to pontificate on?

Read the rest of this entry »

Anybody who grew up witnessing the years of struggle against apartheid in South Africa, as I did, would surely have been impressed by the cumulative effect of international sanctions against the former regime there.  Institutionalised discrimination against people on grounds of skin colour was ultimately defeated and South Africa became a respectable member of the world community.

For many years now, a related question has been preying on my mind.  Why is there no equivalent international agitation against regimes that have institutionalised discrimination against people on grounds of their genderRead the rest of this entry »