|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 2, 2018 21:17:54 GMT
When I was passing the gates of Leinster House last week I noticed a large gay demonstration involving the slogan "We Are Family" (which I subsequently found was the theme of this year's Dublin Pride parade) which was protesting at the Church's refusal to recognise same-sex relationships as "family". Call me suspicious, but it seems ominous to me that they were not protesting outside the Pro-Cathedral rather than the Dail. Protesting outside the Pro-Cathedral would have been bad enough, but at least it would acknowledge that it is for the church to proclaim its own doctrines. Holding the protest outside the Dail seems to me as if they were suggesting that the state should compel the church to change its doctrines.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 6, 2018 20:07:00 GMT
Simon Harris rants on Twitter about the pro-Humanae Vitae conference held in a Dublin hotel on Saturday. What business is it of his whether the Catholic Church tries to persuade its own members not to use contraceptives, any more than it is his business whether adult Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions? (For the record, I think the Witnesses' teaching on this is extremely harmful and wrong, but I'm saying this as a private citizen. Having a government minister lecture them on how it contravenes "state policy" would be an infringement of religious liberty IMHO.) www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/265638-religious-extremists-rally-dublin-22.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 31, 2018 21:31:46 GMT
In her column before the Papal visit, Una Mullaly suggested that sincere Catholics who wanted to protest against the misconduct of the "institution" as distinct from their personal faith, should skip the Papal Mass in the Phoenix Park and instead attend the anti-abuse demonstration at the Garden of Remembrance (involving a march to the old Magdalen Laundry in Sean McDermott Street). This strikes me as very disingenuous, given that (among other features) I see from the newspaper reports that the demo featured a performance of the song "Take Me To Church" by Hozier. This song was regularly promoted by the IRISH TIMES and was described as anti-religious, so I thought I would check it out on Youtube. Recording with lyrics below: www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0imaSCnSuAAs you will see if you check it out, the lyrics are an expression of what I call Nietzschosexuality - the view that the concept of original sin - and in particular sexual sin - is invented by the church in order to exert power over its dupes by instilling feelings of guilt ("I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies/ I'll tell you my sins so you can sharpen your knives") whereas guilt-free sexual ecstasy is the real source of human fulfilment. (Although many abusers and their enablers manipulated religion in exactly this way, the song is not merely protesting at this but denying that sexuality - at least consensual - is subject to moral judgment at all.) Two points from the Wikipedia entry are worth noting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Me_to_Church (1) Hozier explicitly states the song is inspired by the atheist writings of Christopher Hitchens. (2) Although the song is specifically related to Hozier's own feelings about his homosexuality, it is meant to apply to all forms of sexuality (I don't think the fact that the speaker describes his lover as "she" is meant to conceal the author's personal inclinations but to appeal to a broader audience; and of course it takes for granted the separation of sex from procreation, without which the song is completely incomprehensible). Recently I mentioned this to a number of pro-life and pro-family activists. Not only were they not familiar with the song, none of them had even heard of it. This is a sad reflection of how unfamiliar many of us are with the attitudes popular culture has taken for quite some time, which help to explain why younger voters supported repeal of the Pro-Life Amendment so overwhelmingly.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 31, 2018 21:39:53 GMT
Are you sure that's a Nietszchean attitude to sex? I think Nietzsche saw the "slave morality" of Christianity as an attempt of the weak to enslave the strong, rather than vice versa. He actually seemed to approve of the repression of sex and wrote: "The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, among the Brahmans)."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 22:01:40 GMT
No joke, I've always hated the Hozier song. It always struck me as a very dull, bland song. I didm't even realise it was anti-religious until long after it came out. But yeah, pretty terrible song, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 31, 2018 22:02:40 GMT
It's Nietzschean in that it presents the morality it opposes as a hypocritical mask for less exalted motives and exalts those who openly act in accordance with their desires without any pretence. The idea is that the weak enslave the strong by fooling them and blinding them to their own strength, just as Hozier claims to find liberation by embracing his own desires. (This BTW is a well-known Nietzschean self-contradiction, since if there is no such thing as morality but only power, it is meaningless to express moral outrage at the enslavement of the strong by the weak.) Freud is the added element - or at least the vulgar Freudian view that repression is always harmful (whereas Freud believed that while it could be overdone it is a tragic necessity, which is close to Nietzsche as you describe him). Hozier and Co have picked up the resistance to being repressed by others but not the necessity to control oneself.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 31, 2018 22:05:56 GMT
Actually, I think the tune is quite catchy. I wouldn't describe the lyrics as bland - there's a real venomous hatred in it. But the overall vision of human existence and meaning is as facile and sentimental as this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPfgGkyUzEk
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 1, 2018 7:41:10 GMT
It's Nietzschean in that it presents the morality it opposes as a hypocritical mask for less exalted motives and exalts those who openly act in accordance with their desires without any pretence. The idea is that the weak enslave the strong by fooling them and blinding them to their own strength, just as Hozier claims to find liberation by embracing his own desires. (This BTW is a well-known Nietzschean self-contradiction, since if there is no such thing as morality but only power, it is meaningless to express moral outrage at the enslavement of the strong by the weak.) Freud is the added element - or at least the vulgar Freudian view that repression is always harmful (whereas Freud believed that while it could be overdone it is a tragic necessity, which is close to Nietzsche as you describe him). Hozier and Co have picked up the resistance to being repressed by others but not the necessity to control oneself. A mildly amusing instance of that Nietzschean paradox is an interview I read with a Black Metal musician. He was complaining about his fellow Black Metal musicians criticizing Christian evangelists in their lyrics. His own view was that the evangelists were fleecing the gullible of their money, and that this was entirely admirable.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 1, 2018 22:27:38 GMT
That reminds me of when a son of the American atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair announced his conversion to Christianity and she issued a statement congratulating him and saying she was always glad to see an atheist getting some of the Christian scam money. (You might call this projection as she was a bit of a scam artist herself.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27HairPart of the impact of the Hozier song is that it resembles much soul music in applying the techniques and emotional tone of gospel music to earthly love. This need not be anti-religious, but in Hozier's case it certainly is.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 5, 2018 9:16:13 GMT
This is a (poor) picture of an exhibition in UCD right now, located just outside the library building. It highlights discrimination against various groups and demographics-- of course, the causes they choose are highly ideological. The religion panel highlights religious discrimination against a particular Muslim on one side, and gives this graphic on the other. Any mention of persecution or discrimination against Christians, particularly in the Muslim world, is notably absent. The "baptism barrier" in Irish Catholic schools, on the other hand, is defined as discrimination. There is also a panel about discrimination against women, but none about discrimination against men. I complained to the Vice-President for Equality and Diversity about this. He pointed out that it is organised by the Student's Union, but I countered that it is not in a SU area but in a public space. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 5, 2018 19:47:20 GMT
This is a (poor) picture of an exhibition in UCD right now, located just outside the library building. It highlights discrimination against various groups and demographics-- of course, the causes they choose are highly ideological. The religion panel highlights religious discrimination against a particular Muslim on one side, and gives this graphic on the other. Any mention of persecution or discrimination against Christians, particularly in the Muslim world, is notably absent. The "baptism barrier" in Irish Catholic schools, on the other hand, is defined as discrimination. There is also a panel about discrimination against women, but none about discrimination against men. I complained to the Vice-President for Equality and Diversity about this. He pointed out that it is organised by the Student's Union, but I countered that it is not in a SU area but in a public space. In fairness, it does include the repression of religion in Vietnam, albeit other religious groups are being persecuted there as well as Christians. The baptism barrier is not discriminatory in and of itself, but as currently applied it is still morally problematic because it essentially encourages simony (since the parents are being given preferential treatment for baptising their child) and sacrilege (since the parents in many cases have no intention of bringing their children up as Catholic, even though the baptismal promises specifically oblige them to). The solution I think is fewer but better quality and more orthodox schools which if not free are reasonably affordable. Also, given recent sexual abuse scandals (like those surrounding Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey et al) as well as the highly sexualised nature of our society which objectifies women, I'm inclined that sexism is still a big problem in our society that we should give cautious support to the MeToo movement, while distancing ourselves from its excesses.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 5, 2018 20:05:42 GMT
I have been in quite a correspondence about this, not only with the Vice-President for Equality and Diversity on campus, but with the "charity" responsible for the exhibition. She insisted they were simply trying to get people talking about such issues.
I suggested that, for their next exhibition (because this seems to be a yearly thing), they should highlight the conscience rights of pro-life nurses and doctors. No response to that...
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 5, 2018 21:56:40 GMT
"Religious discrimination in schools" is a dangerously vague way of putting it, which amounts to saying that the mere existence of denominational schools is unacceptable and that religious groups are not entitled to have their own organisations - a view which itself amounts to persecution IMHO, as the Uighurs in China are currently experiencing. The reference to "hate speech trial in the Netherlands" is also a bit muddled. Presumably it is about Geert Wilders' trial for anti-Muslim and anti-Moroccan statements, and they are objecting to the statements and not the trial. (I think Mr Wilders, from what I have heard of him, is beyond the pale because he is advocating a ban on the actual practice of Islam, but I have doubts about whether he should be prosecuted for anything short of direct incitement to violence.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 10, 2018 21:08:23 GMT
Incidentally, I wonder why the placard mentioned Vietnam but not China, which is certainly persecuting Muslim Uighurs and Tibetan Buddhists, not to mention Christians. Could it have something to do with China's wealth and policy of buying academic influence via Confucius Institutes and the like, and its use of its power to discourage foreign governments from meeting the Dalai Lama etc?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 11, 2018 21:28:00 GMT
I knew about the Confucius Institute - Tom Garvin wrote very critically about it sometime ago - but not about the campus in China.
|
|