Free at last!!

What a wonderful day. In addition to getting back into the swing of blogging, I got the second-best piece of mail all year. It is a response from the catholic church regarding my defection request. I said the second-best because when the final confirmation letter comes that will be better but for now I'm delighted. After all it only took six months for an organisation with over 400,000 employees to respond to one simple form. Anyone who would like to find out more information about the process can visit the site:  

Count Me Out - Take a stand for church/state separation

The stupidity of bigotry

While doing some research for my last post, I came across the website of the National Organization for Marriage. Thankfully, this comes from the US (we're not crazy enough for one of those yet). This is the new project of Brian Brown, the hopelessly misguided marriage campaigner who I discussed in the civil partnership post. It's full of the same tired crap about "the common good" and protecting "traditional" values. The one interesting part of the website is the "Marriage Talking Points". This aims to help people who want to oppose same-sex marriage to become better informed about the key debate issues. The problem is that anyone who seeks to use such a simplified information source as the basis of informed debate is seriously deluded. The page itself is too long to reproduce in its entirety so here is the link. I thought that I would share this little nugget of lunacy, though, just to keep you all amused.

1. Are you a bigot?   “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

The sentence in bold really caught my eye. It's so monumentally ridiculous that it's almost difficult to divine what kind of drugs the author was smoking when he thought it up. According to this asshole, we can't call people out over their homophobia because that would be the same as calling them racist and you can't do that since there are homophobic african-american people out there too. Anyone who defends their position using this kind of twisted logic deserves to be laughed at.

Victory: Reason - 1, Bigotry - 0

In the spirit of the recent World Cup, I thought that I would celebrate the passage of the Civil Partnership Bill in a way that's perhaps more familiar to the public at large. Sitting here, listening to yet another one-sided debate about the bill, however it seems that the fire that raged in advance of its passage through the Dail shows no signs of being extinguished anytime soon. I know that Ireland has had about as shameful a record of human rights abuses as it is possible to have but I had hoped that we were progressing as a society to become more tolerant and inclusive. Boy, was I wrong. The level of bigotry and hatred that streamed forth during the run-up to this bill was something which is normally only seen in countries which specialise in burning American flags. When you see teenagers standing outside Leinster House with posters of bible quotes and "Save Ireland from sodomy" you know you've got to be really worried.

 The thing that really burnt my waffles, as it were, was the flow of utterly baseless arguments that were trotted out by religious groups to support their thinly veiled homophobia. This bill in particular throws up some arguments so ridiculous that I feel compelled, if for nothing else than posterity, to analyse them and expose them to light.

Argument 1: Civil partnership destroys traditional marriage.

I suppose that in order to counter this argument, perhaps its best to first asking what is traditional? Marriage as a legal instrument predates reliable recorded history but the earliest mention of marriage comes from the Code of Hammurabi which was created in Mesopotamia in 1790 BCE. Same-sex marriages were well documented in ancient societies from Rome to China and it wasn't until the official adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire that a dissenting view on same-sex marriage was voiced and not until 342CE that christian opinion against same-sex marriage led to the Theodosian code which outlawed the practice. It would still be another 1300 years until 1601 when marriage was finally introduced into the catechism of the catholic church. So "traditional" catholic marriage has been around for 400 years, christian marriage for 1700 years and humans have been forming societal pair-bonds for at least 200,000 years. Gee, that's some tradition you've got there.

One of the funnier variants or rephrasings of this argument has been the "common good" argument or using the war-cry of Helen Lovejoy "won't somebody please think of the children". This argument states that "traditional" marriage is necessary for the good of society since a child being raised by a father and mother is infinitely prefrerrable to any other family form. Again, there are a number of problems with this argument. The first is, once again, the lesson that history teaches us. Once we expand the scope of our analysis beyond the history of the married couple to that of the family unit we see a model that has changed many times over the course of human history and for the most part is one that modern families would find distinctly alien.

Brian Brown, head of the family institute of Conneticut, tries to defend traditional marriage by saying that historically mothers nurse children and fathers provide for their children by hunting and gathering. Well yes, but no. In truth, hunter-gatherer societies functioned as two loosely amalgamated social groups. The men hunted, leaving the tribe for days at a time stalking some big game in competition with each other. The women on the other hand co-operated as a group and gathered firewood, berries and any other requirements of the tribe while caring for all the children of the tribe as a group. This form of family still exists today in indigenous peoples such as the Kombai in Ethiopia or the Sanema in Brazil.

Throughout history, as a result of a combination of social, economic and political factors the family unit has shifted from pair bond to polygyny to polyandry and in fact the most common form over the last 200,000 years has been a polygynous relationship of one man and many women.

Getting back to the present and using one of the most readily quantifiable societies as an example, here are some statistics from the USA regarding the makeup of the modern family:

• At some point in their childhood 50% of all children will live in a single parent home.
• 1 in 3 children are born to unmarried parents.
• There are 10 million single mothers.
• There are 10 million children living with LGBT parents
• There are 5 million co-habiting couples
• 1 in 25 children live with neither parent

As a result of various social factors such as divorce, death or economic pressures, more and more non-traditional families are living out their lives in happiness and yet society is not bursting at the seams.

Argument 2: Civil registrars should have the right to opt out.

Ah yes, the conscience clause. The argument holds that civil registrars should be allowed to refuse to participate in civil partnership ceremonies. This seemed almost reasonable to many people when it was first put forward but like so many of the other arguments here, it is merely a house of cards, prod it a little and it falls over.

The problem with the idea of conscience is that it is essentially legislating for a right to discriminate. Free speech is one of the corner stones of a civilized society and the acceptance of differing viewpoints in not only healthy for society but also necessary for progress. A lot of societies have realized however that public safety and free speech do not always meet in the middle and thus laws against hate speech and incitement to hatred were born. As a result, groups like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church are not groups that society pays attention to. Tolerance of differing opinions does not extend to giving equal time to such opinions. We don't listen to holocaust deniers or white supremacists or people who believe the earth is flat, so why should we listen to people who want to deny gay couples their civil rights on the basis that they are evil.

There is a deeper argument here also from Eoghan Harris who suggests that private conscience might be something worth considering if you could be sure that the conscience of the objector was their own and not being rented from the Catholic Church.

Of course the real irony of the situation was that of all the groups who rose to the surface in voicing their opposition to the bill, the one group which counted, the registrars themselves indicated to the government that they did not want or need a conscience clause in the new bill. Interesting, huh? 

Argument 3: The Civil Partnership Bill is an attempt to give moral sanction and legal recognition to something which God has forbidden.

Of course, the scriptural argument. It may not be the loudest argument against the bill but it sure is the funniest. The text of the argument above is taken directly from the "Campaign for Conscience" campaign website. It's full of irrelevant arguments about homosexual behaviour and redundant studies about gay genes in an attempt to throw a blanket of confusion over the real purpose of the campaign. The campaign is an attempt not to protect christian values but to force these supposed values on a population which is becoming increasingly pluralist and atheist.

The first problem with the biblical argument of course, is the constitution, the one thing that opponents of the civil partnership bill claimed to be defending. Article 44, Paragraph 2, Section 2 states: "The state guarantees not to endow any religion." I think that making laws based on Christian dogma fits that description quite nicely.

If we are going to take this argument as a serious one (and it isn't), then let's play along. The main thrust of the argument is the prohibition of homosexuality as laid out in Leviticus. Let's see what else Leviticus has to say about what's acceptable and what's not.


"It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood." Leviticus 3:17
I guess then that we should expect the campaign to outlaw the sale of black pudding and rashers to begin any day now.

"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given to her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free." Leviticus 19:20
Flogging women who cheat on their fiances, how good are you going to feel about enforcing that one?

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord." Leviticus 19:28
Damn it, there go tattoos!

"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." Leviticus 20:27
See I told you astrology was bad for you.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus25:44-46
Slavery is ok though, right?


I could continue in this fashion for some considerable time, especially if I were to expand my focus to other books of the bible such as Exodus and Judges but this post is long enough already.

There are two important points to be derived from all of this. Firstly, if you're going to live your life according to rules laid out in the bible then you can't pick and choose which ones you're going to obey and which ones you're not. Well you can, but what kind of christian would you be then? Secondly, if you make a choice to follow a particular moral code, that's fine. You can evangelize all you want and try to convince people that this is the better option but you can't force it on them.

The passage of this bill has had some wonderful consequences though. As well as being an indication that Ireland is progressing to become more civilised and tolerant, the rights of gay people in Ireland have been enhanced and the influence of the Catholic Church has been eroded some more. The best result though is that if the Supreme Court finds that there no obstacles to the constitutionality of the bill, then next time round when full marriage rights are on the cards, the religious wackos really won't have a leg to stand on. Then again, when has that ever stopped them.

Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life

Yes, I'm back. It's been quite a while since my last post so I thought I'd get back in the saddle with something truly important. The recent World Atheist Conference subtitled "God and Politics" concluded with the declaration below, which clarifies a number of points regarding the position of secular thought on key social and political issues. While not all of us might agree with all of these ideas, it is nevertheless a vital guide and framework for advancing the idea of a secular society. I don't doubt that the religious nutters out there will choose to see this declaration as a document of faith, since their limited view of the world only allows for differing religions but in the words of Scott Adams:

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

•  We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

•  We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

•  We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

•  We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

•  We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

•  We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

•  We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

•  We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

•  We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.

•  We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.

I can't stress enough the importance of this statement and I urge everyone who reads this to spread the word to anyone of a similar view, or even a differing view if proselytising is your thing.