The sentiments displayed in the following comment that I received on my post about Saint Paul’s bones seem fairly common and therefore worth addressing:
wow…it must be nice to be such a skeptic. Listen: if you and other atheists don’t believe in God, why are you constantly devoting your time and energy to disproving religion? It’s interesting too how atheists seem to focus solely on western religion and not eastern religion. I don’t remember seeing any atheists parading outside a Shinto temple…
Live and let live. If you don’t believe in anything, don’t worry about it. If you believe in something, go for it. End of story.–George Spencer
Let’s break this down into its component parts:
(1) if you and other atheists don’t believe in God, why are you constantly devoting your time and energy to disproving religion?
For whatever reason, it seems that some of my theist readers are under the impression that this is more or less all that I do. In fact, I probably spend around 5-10% of my time devoted “to disproving religion.” It is not a significant part of my life. Nevertheless, what George is really asking here is why an atheist should even bother to devote any time to critiquing religion. After all, if we do not believe in God then why do we care if others do?
I honestly find such a question to be terriblely naive. It is kind of like asking: If you and other pacifists don’t believe in war, then why are you constantly devoting your time and energy to discouraging war? Or how about this one: If you and other vegetarians don’t believe in eating meat, then why are you constantly devoting your time and energy to get others to stop eating meat? Such questions would only make sense in a world where the vast majority of people are already atheists, pacifists, or vegetarians. The fact of the matter is, we live in a world in which the vast majority of people, at least, are theists.
If beliefs did nothing more than stay inside a person’s head then it probably would not matter. On the contrary, beliefs frequently motivate behavior. Bad beliefs can potentially motivate bad behavior. One only has to look at the Middle East to see that conflicting beliefs about what God wants people to do with a strip of desert land has not made that part of the world more desirable in which to live.
I think that the Conversational Atheist makes a good case for why atheists should engage believers in religious debate in his essay on the subject here. He lists four main reasons:
A)If people are loudly proclaiming their false beliefs, they should not be encouraged or go unchallenged.
If you are convinced that a person’s beliefs are wrong or mistaken, then do you not have a moral imperative to explain to that person why you think so?
B) Faith-based religion wastes the time, money, and resources of well-meaning people.
Time and money spent devoted for religious purposes could better be spent elsewhere.
C) Religion teaches inappropriate responses to real world problems.
Whether it is praying for a solution or witholding valuable medical treatment for a child, religions promote magical and superstitious thinking that as a society we can do without.
D) Promoting faith as a virtue gives credence to religious leaders who have “authority” for terrible reasons
In more general terms, promoting faith as a virtue has serious consequences besides simply being an error in thinking. Would you rather have the US commit to a war because the President has faith that God is on his side or because there really is credible intelligence that a nation is harboring weapons of mass destruction? Making decisions or choosing beliefs without firm evidence or even despite evidence to the contrary is a recipe for disaster.
(2) It’s interesting too how atheists seem to focus solely on western religion and not eastern religion. I don’t remember seeing any atheists parading outside a Shinto temple…
This critique of Western-centricism is embodied in this other recent comment that I received:
have yet to see atheists laugh at Buddhist monks, or burn a copy of the Tao Te Ching, or fiercely debate with a Jainist. It seems hilarious, in fact, that so-called atheists only seem to focus on Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. If you are a real atheist, be an equal opportunity one. Focus your energy on all religions. Put your money where your mouth is; I see “ex-catholic” shirts and “flying spaghetti monster” shirts…but where is a shirt making fun of the Dalai Lama? Or why is there no shirt that has “ex-Jew” in bold letters? Where is a shirt mocking Sheeva or Vishnu? Why not have a shirt that says “Thor never existed”? I see no shirts mocking pagans or earth-based religions either…where are those? How about a shirt making fun of Jainists and their ethics of non-violence? Is there a shirt making fun of the aborigines of Australia and their beliefs? If not, then why not? If you are an actual atheist, then noth ing should be held as sacred. Or is it only a select few beliefs that you feel it is right to mock?
Think about it.–Jason
I have thought about it, Jason, and the answer should be fairly obvious. Certainly, I am against all nonsense no matter what the content or the context. I am not just skeptical of Western monotheistic religions but all religions, past and present. However, I happen to live in a society that is dominated by Christianity and with Islam frequently a subject of the news. This is why I focus most of my efforts on critiquing Christianity and the other monotheistic religions that have the most effect on my life and my culture. The government of the United States is dominated by Christians. Every president past and present has at least been nominally Christian. I am only aware of one congressman who has ever come out publically as a nonbeliever (Fortney “Pete” Stark).
If I lived in India then I would probably spend more time taking apart Shiva and Vishnu. Since I don’t, and neither do most of my readers, I don’t see much value in doing so.
(3) If you don’t believe in anything, don’t worry about it.
Atheists don’t believe in God, but we believe in many other things, as Proud Atheist recently pointed out. We believe in humanity and our potential for good and positive change. We believe in friendship and love. We believe in rationality and our capacity for reason. What about you? What do you believe in?
POSTSCRIPT: If you really want to see an atheist mock all religions, and not just Western ones, then you might want to check out the book Your Religion Is False by Joel Grus. Short description from Amazon: “Whether youʹre a Christian or a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu, a Rasta or a Jain, an Environmentalist or a Cheondoist, a Scientologist or a Giant Stone Head Worshipper, your religion is false. In this long-awaited book, Joel Grus reveals the details of not only how your religion is false but also how every other religion is false.”
Well, I am sympathetic to that project.
…At least that is what some people are thinking now that the pop superstar has passed away:
- Image via Wikipedia
World’s Leading Internet Evangelist Claims Michael Jackson is in Hell
ST. PETERSBURG, Florida, June 29 /Christian Newswire/ — Pastor Bill Keller, founder of LivePrayer.com, submits the following and is available for comment:In all of the intense media coverage after the death of pop superstar Michael Jackson, the one thing that has driven me crazy has been hearing over and over, often by high profile Christians, that Michael is now at peace in Heaven. Really? I hear this same thing whenever a famous person dies, regardless what they believed during their life, as well as from people when a family member or close friend dies, again, regardless what they believed during their life.
If this is true, than what is the use of the Gospel? If this is true, why should anyone waste their time and effort telling people about Jesus? If this is true, than the death of Jesus on the cross was a meaningless exercise, his resurrection didn’t need to occur, and people can believe whatever they want during this life and make it to Heaven. THAT MY FRIEND IS THE UNIVERSALISTIC LIE FROM HELL!!!
The fact is God made only ONE plan of salvation. There is only ONE way to everlasting life and that is faith in Jesus Christ, the Jesus Christ of the Bible. There are NOT many roads that lead to God, only one, the Jesus road!!! You can’t believe whatever you want and die and end up in Heaven. That is a lie from satan that is leading millions of souls to the flames of hell for all eternity. WHAT YOU BELIEVE DOES MATTER!!!
It is arguable that Michael Jackson was the most recognized person on the planet. Despite his vast fame and material possessions, Michael was bankrupt in the things that really matter in life, joy, peace, contentment, HOPE! Those things only comes through having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and living according to God’s Word.
After his child molestation trial concluded, on June 17, 2005 I wrote these words, “Even though he has been acquitted of the charges brought against him, the moment he dies he will stand before The Judge, God Himself. At that moment, if he dies without Christ he will be standing all alone. There will be no high priced defense attorney, no family, no fans, only God who will judge him for his sins and cast him into everlasting darkness. At that moment, if he has accepted Christ as his Savior by faith, he won’t be standing alone. Next to him will be the ultimate defense attorney, JESUS CHRIST, who will tell The Judge that his sins have been paid for and Michael Jackson will be ushered into God’s presence for all eternity.”
According to Christianity, it is not who you are or what you do that matters in the end. Rather, the most important thing in God’s invisible eyes is whether or not you held a certain right belief – the belief that a person named Jesus was magically resurrected in ancient Palestine in front of no witnesses nearly 2,000 years ago. All else deserve terrible punishment for all of eternity. God is so merciful that He will forgive your sins so long as you believe that His son’s death is sufficient punishment for whatever it is that you did and Jesus didn’t.
This is, quite simply, an immoral doctrine that is derived from the long standing Jewish tradition of the scapegoat (literally the sacrificial lamb) and the idea that the shedding of innocent blood somehow washes away the wrongdoings of the community that takes a part in the ceremony. In other words, it is just a silly and disgusting way to imaginatively sidestep taking any real personal responsibility. I don’t know what kind of person Michael Jackson really was behind the scenes. According to Christianity he could have been the best person to ever live and that wouldn’t matter if he wasn’t willing to suspend his intellect for a book of Iron age literature.
This is part of an ongoing series that will be posted each Monday. You can read the introduction to this series by clicking here.

- Image via Wikipedia
Monday.
Monday School.
STILL “The Rational Corrective To All That Nonsense They Tried To Teach You Yesterday” but by all means feel free to call it by its new nickname “The Rainbow After The Big Blow” whenever you’re pressed for time.
Today’s Lesson: What’s The Deal With Nazareth?
Nazareth, the Bible tells us, is where Jesus came from. That’s why you’ll sometimes hear people say “Jesus of Nazareth.”
In fact, the Bible mentions Nazareth about 29 times. Those references appear only in the four Gospels and Acts, however, and are pretty much evenly distributed among them.
The people who wrote the Old Testament apparently never heard of it.
Paul apparently never heard of it.
The rabbinic literature of the Jews never mentions it.
In fact, outside the authors of the four Gospels and Acts, virtually no one seems to have ever heard of a first century Nazareth.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, its alleged holy places aren’t mentioned until after Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 313 CE.
Odd, isn’t it?
At least two scholars say it’s not really odd at all once you realize that Nazareth didn’t exist at the time Jesus is alleged to have lived there.
According to William Harwood’s Mythology’s Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus, “The earlier writer, Mark, not having Matthew’s addiction to prophecy-fulfillment at any price, made no mention of Bethlehem. He declared instead that Ieous came from the dispersion (nazareth) of Galilaia (MARK 1:9)…. Mark’s declaration that Jesus came from the dispersion (nazareth), meaning the worldwide community of Jews outside Judaea (equivalent to diaspora), was misinterpreted by Matthew and Luke to mean that he came from a city called Nazareth. Matthew compounded his error by having Joseph and Mary settle in Nazareth to fulfill a prophecy that the messiah was to be called a nazirite (Greek: nazoraios; Hebrew: naziyr; MATT. 2:23). In fact the term nazirite, or nazoraios, had nothing to do with any city of Nazareth, since no such place existed until the fifth century CE when one was built by a Christian Emperor to whom the nonexistence of Jesus’ alleged hometown was an embarrassment.” (p. 258, 260).
According to a lecture author Frank Zindler gave back in 1993 and which was reprinted in the Winter 1996-1997 issue of American Atheist magazine, Nazareth is not mentioned by any ancient historian or geographer until hundreds of years after Jesus is alleged to have lived there. The Talmud mentions 63 other Galilean towns, but not Nazareth. Josephus – who was intimately familiar with Galilee (a region about the size of Rhode Island) – mentions 45 towns and villages there but not Nazareth. One of those cities he mentions (Japha) is just a mile from present-day Nazareth.
According to Zindler, several other things make it very difficult to take the Gospels seriously when they discuss Nazareth. Luke 4:16-30
claims that Jesus preached in Nazareth and really pissed the people off. Indeed, they were so pissed off that they rushed to grab him and throw him off the cliff of the hill the town was built on. The town we know now as Nazareth, however, has only recently extended up to any hilltop. For much of its existence, it has pretty much been limited to a valley floor and the lower part of an adjacent hill. Archaeological excavations reveal the hilltop to have been devoid of buildings prior to the 20th century. No lofty cliff heights exist that might led to death or injury. The required penalty for the sort of blasphemy that had enraged the crowd was death by stoning, in any case – not being thrown from a cliff.
And what else do archaeological excavations reveal? Virtually no buildings anywhere in Nazareth older than the last half of the third century – and there is no reason to believe that the people who lived in those buildings called their community “Nazareth.” According to Zindler, “Before the second or third century C.E. … the site now occupied by Nazareth was a necropolis, a city of the dead [probably for the nearby settlement of Japha]. The hillside underlying part of the present city is riddled with tombs and natural caves which for over a thousand years were used for burials. Since Jewish law prohibited cemeteries from being in the midst of inhabited sites, we can be quite sure that there was no Jewish city at the present site in the days when a supposedly Jewish Jesus is supposed to have been running loose there.”
Might some other nearby locale harbor the “real” Nazareth? Not likely. Early Church Father Origen (circa 182-254 CE) lived just 30 miles away from present-day Nazareth but apparently never succeeded in finding it there or anywhere else despite his attempts to investigate and solve various Bible problems like this. He ended up arguing for a “mystical” interpretation of the Gospels rather than a literal one.
Despite all these problems, visitors today can book a trip to Nazareth and “see” Joseph’s carpenter shop, the room where Mary received the angel Gabriel, the kitchen she cooked in, and even her birthplace. When they’re done in Nazareth, they can go see her other birthplaces in Sepphoris and Jerusalem, too. It seems tourists really get a lot for their money in the Holy Land!
Like Harwood, Zindler argues that “Nazareth” really began as something else entirely but the ignorant authors of the Gospels mistook it for a place.
And for good measure, Zindler shows that Capernaum, Bethany, and several other New Testament places are about as real as Oz once you subject them to serious analysis.
Once again, it seems the more one examines the Bible, the less plausible all those old Sunday School stories about Jesus become….
Burried beneath the Basilica of Saint Paul is a marble sarcaphogus that many believe hold the actual bones of the Paul who is featured so prominently in the New Testament. A recent carbon dating of the bones inside the tomb reveal that they probably do, in fact, date to the 1st or 2nd century – old enough to be Paul’s bones.
Pope: Scientific analysis done on St. Paul’s bones
By NICOLE WINFIELD
The Associated Press
Sunday, June 28, 2009; 8:31 PMROME — The first-ever scientific test on what are believed to be the remains of the Apostle Paul “seems to confirm” that they do indeed belong to the Roman Catholic saint, Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday.
It was the second major discovery concerning St. Paul announced by the Vatican in as many days.
On Saturday, the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano announced the June 19 discovery of a fresco inside another tomb depicting St. Paul, which Vatican officials said represented the oldest known icon of the apostle.
Benedict said archaeologists recently unearthed and opened the white marble sarcophagus located under the Basilica of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls in Rome, which for some 2,000 years has been believed by the faithful to be the tomb of St. Paul.
Benedict said scientists had conducted carbon dating tests on bone fragments found inside the sarcophagus and confirmed that they date from the first or second century.
“This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul,” Benedict said, announcing the findings at a service in the basilica to mark the end of the Vatican’s Paoline year, in honor of the apostle.
So now the Vatican is announcing that these results “confirm” the belief that they have the actual bones of Paul of Tarsus. Certainly, the results do indeed support that idea, along with the long tradition that he was in fact buried there. But of course this doesn’t actually “confirm” that the bones are Paul’s. They could be anybody’s bones from the 1st or 2nd century that people later thought were the bones of Paul.
But then again, I am used to Christian’s and other religious believers making leaps in logic.
For Catholics, though, it doesn’t really matter whether or not the bones are actually those of Paul anymore than it seems to matter that the Shroud of Turin most definitely did not come from Jesus’ tomb. What is important is upholding the myths and legends for the power they hold in propping up the faith of the faithful.
Now, the Old Testament prophet Elisha’s bones had the magical power to bring back dead bodies that happened to touch them (2 Kings 13:21
):
As a man was being buried, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha; as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he came to life and stood on his feet.
If Elisha’s bones could do that, then I would expect the bones of freaking Saint Paul to at least be able to match that feat. Think the Vatican would be willing to put those old bones through that test?
…but it only seems to confirm its irrelevance. In the wake of Michael Jackson’s death, the Vatican’s daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano attempted a tribute to the pop music icon:
Vatican daily proclaims Michael Jackson immortal – for his fans
But will he really be dead? It wouldn’t be surprising if, in a few years, he was spotted in a gas station in Memphis, perhaps with his former father-in-law Elvis Presley, another of those myths – like Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix or John Lennon – that never die in the imagination of their fans. And Michael Jackson, who died yesterday at the age of fifty, is definitely a pop music legend.
I can think of many other more prevalent myths that never seem to die in the imagination of those who profess them. And, wouldn’t you know it, you can find plenty of those people filling up the Vatican!
I have been in loose contact with a few local Mormon Missionaries for several months now. I first met them while they were handing out free Book of Mormons on my college campus. I have several Bibles and a Koran, but not the Book of Mormon, so I wanted one. The catch, of course, is that you are required to follow up and meet with the missionaries. That was fine with me, indeed, I welcomed it. I have spoken with many Christians over the years and a few Muslims but never a Mormon. In fact, I really didn’t know much of the details of Mormon doctrines and beliefs. Needless to say, I accepted the book and agreed to talk with them.
Back in March I described how one of these missionaries, who used to be an atheist until the age of 16, came to the Mormon faith:
After searching out a few religions, he got a good feeling about Mormonism (I can’t imagine what about Mormonism made him feel good) – one that filled him from head to toe. Then he read the Book of Mormon and became convinced that it could not have possibly been made up byJoseph Smith (even though there is no independent external evidence for Hebrews living in the Americas). After much praying, he felt like God answered him in some indescribable manner and he is now 100% certain of the truth of his religious beliefs.
After my last encounter with the missionaries I wrote a post concluding that they are essentially self-deluded. As with the person quoted above, their reasons for belief essentially boil down to it feels right! When you ask them how you, too, can come to know that Mormonism is true their answer is you have to pray over the book of Mormon and wait for God to tell you that it is true. In other words, you have to fool yourself into believing that you are receiving divine signals from God. The more warm and fuzzy you feel, the more that is a sign that it is all true.
Let’s be clear here about something. The missionaries are young, usually late teens and early twenties. Based on my experience with several of them, they are not particuarly well versed in apologetics and deflect the most serious challenges to their faith. Rather, they seemed to be trained to simply introduce the faith and then facilitate in creating some sort of emotional connection. They do this by asking you to read out loud various verses from both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, to pray with them, and then by inviting you to a local worship service where you can experience the faith in action.
None of this was surprising to me, to say the least. After the last meeting it seemed to me that I had gone about as far as I could with them. They obviously thought otherwise by contacting me yet again to arrange another meeting with two new missionaries. Since I didn’t really give them the chance in prior meetings to fully explain the intricacies of their faith to me I decided that I would hear them out this time around.
After they arrived, I let them go through their entire explanation of the Mormon ‘plan of salvation’ with little interruption. In a nut shell, it goes something like this: You lived with God as a spirit body before you were born on Earth. During this pre-Earth life, you were already told all about the plan of salvation and about Jesus Christ. However, you won’t remember this after you are born because all of your memories of it are withheld from you (makes sense, right?). As with Christianity, once you come to Earth in a physical body you must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior and for atonement for the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. This is God’s masterful plan, mind you. After death, your spiritual body leaves your physical body and travels to the ’spirit world’ which is more or less like a holding place. In this case, your memories of Earth are not withheld from you. If you had accepted Jesus Christ during your life, you will end up in the better half of the spirit world (where you can just relax). Otherwise, you end up in a spirit prison. At some point in the future Jesus will return and reign on Earth for a thousand years. God will then physically ressurect everyone who has lived and died in order to be judged. From there you will proceed to one of three different kingdoms. Those who are sinful and do not repent go to the Telesial Kingdom. Those who did not accept Jesus but lived honorable lives go to the Terrestrial Kingdom. All others go the the great Celestial Kingdom of bountiless joy.
I was immediatley struck by how their doctrines allow you to get around some of the stickier aspects of plain Christianity. For example, what happens to all of those people who lived and died before Jesus or did not have an opportunity to hear the gospel after Jesus? According to the missionaries, everyone who dies will get another opportunity in the spirit world to learn about and accept the Gospel. That almost gets you there. Another requirement if you want to get into that coveted Celestial Kingdom is baptism into the Mormon Church on Earth. Well, shucks. How can you be physically baptised after death? No fear, however, they thought of a way around this problem, too. A Mormon priest on Earth can baptise anybody who has died by ‘proxy’ or after the fact.
Well, that’s just sweet. Unfortunately the consequences of these doctrines gives a person little incentive to do anything in this life if you can easily convert after death while in the spirit world. I pointed this out to them and asked what my incentive is to convert (especially if I am, ehem, highly skeptical of their claims anyway)? I don’t think that they had ever thought about this question before because they seemed to be a bit baffled by it. So I was like, OK, if I end up in a spirit prison after I die and spirit Mormons are there telling me that this was in fact all true, then that would be sufficient proof for me. Apparently I am good to go so long as I am baptized by proxy by a Mormon on Earth, which the missionaries claimed will be done for everyone anyway during the 1,000 years that Christ reigns on Earth!
In response, they said that it would be much better if you accepted the doctrines now because there would be less work in the after life for you to do. So – with Christianity I am risking eternal hellfire by not accepting their doctrines but with Mormonism I am only risking a little more work in the afterlife. That settles that for me!
Even if I were Blaise Pascal then I wouldn’t worry if Mormonism was true or not right now.
… to mess up whole societies as well as the lives of individuals such as Elizabeth Tevenan?
Here’s a recent article that strongly suggests that the answer is yes:
—– Roots Of A Warped View Of Sexuality (Patsy McGarry/The Irish Times; June 20)
Why is it that child sex abuse was more prevalent in Irish Catholicism than elsewhere? To answer that question it is necessary to go back to the Famine and examine how sex became a taboo, writes PATSY McGARRY
YOU MIGHT have seen that report on the RTÉ TV news last Monday from Charlie Bird in Mendham, New Jersey. There, they erected the first monument in the world to victims of clerical child sex abuse.
It is a 180kg basalt stone, in the shape of a millstone, with a chain running through it. An inscription attached reads, in those unequivocal words of Jesus from Matthew’s gospel, concerning those who would harm the young: “It would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea”.
The monument was inspired by a suicide, in October 12th, 2003, of 37-year-old James Kelly, who had been sexually abused as a child by a priest in Mendham. His abuser was Fr James Hanley, who had served at St Joseph’s parish in Mendham.
It is not surprising that the first monument to clerical child sex abuse victims worldwide should have been made necessary by the crimes of a priest with an Irish name.
Irish names are prominent wherever in the English-speaking world clerical child sex abuse has been spoken of. Even allowing for the uniquely high number of Irish men among Catholic priests and religious worldwide, this phenomenon is striking.
Nowhere else in the Roman Catholic world has another nationality been as dominant among clerical child sex abusers. What was so different about Irish Catholicism that it gave rise to this?
In spring 2002, I was commissioned by the editor of an English publication to write about clerical child sex abuse from an Irish perspective. I pondered whether it was an Irish disease.
On receipt of the article the editor said he couldn’t print it. His publication had spent decades trying to escape an anti-Irish perception and were he to carry the article it would undo all their success in finally escaping that, he said. The article was published in The Irish Times on May 4th, 2002.
It noted all those Irish names among clerical child sex abusers. In Australia, they included Butler, Claffey, Cleary, Coffey, Connolly, Cox, Farrell, Fitzmaurice, Flynn, Gannon, Jordan, Keating, McGrath, McNamara, Murphy, Nestor, O’Brien, O’Donnell, O’Regan, O’Rourke, Riley, Ryan, Shea, Sullivan, Sweeney, Taylor, Treacy.
In Canada: Brown, Corrigan, Hickey, Kelley, O’Connor, Kenney, Maher.
In the US: Geoghan, Birmingham, Brown, Brett, Conway, Dunn, Hanley, Hughes, Lenehan, McEnany, O’Connor, O’Grady, O’Shea, Riley, Ryan, Shanley.
In the UK: Dooley, Flahive, Jordan, Murphy, O’Brien.
And, of course, all those in Ireland itself.
WHY IS CLERICAL child sex abuse more prevalent in Irish Catholicism? To answer that, it is necessary to go back. Until 1845 the Irish were a happily sexually active people. With an abundance of cheap food, the population grew. Patches of ground were subdivided with ever-decreasing acreage, producing a sufficient supply of potatoes.
In 1841, the island of Ireland had a population of 8.1 million. By 1961, the country having gone through the Famine and emigration, it was 4.2 million.
Another effect was an end to subdivision of holdings and diversification away from the potato to other crops, cattle and dairying. This wrench in land use had a defining effect on Irish sexuality. An economic imperative dictated vigorous sexual restraint as, regardless of family size, just one son would inherit. Others – sons and daughters – emigrated or entered the church. This late 19th-century pattern persisted into the 1960s.
Sex became taboo. Allied to prudery and a Catholic Church fixated on sex as sin, sensuality was pushed under. A celibate elite became the noblest caste. They had unparalleled influence through their dominance of an emerging middle class, the fact that they were educated when most were not, and the control they had over what there was of an education system and healthcare.
In tandem, Rome was experiencing one of its most dogmatic papacies under Pius IX. [For a taste of his extreme views, check out his infamous Syllabus of Errors.] The longest serving pope (1846-1878), he lost the Papal States and eventually Rome itself to Italian reunification. As his temporal power decreased, he increasingly emphasised the eternal, and compounded a trend – extant in Catholicism since the French revolution – of alienation from this vale of tears.
Life became a test, a preparation for death and eternal life under the eye of what Archbishop Diarmuid Martin described last weekend in another context as “a punitive, judgmental God; a God whose love was the love of harsh parents, where punishment became the primary instrument of love”.
Pius asserted himself in Ireland through the doughty Cardinal Paul Cullen of Dublin, the first Irish cardinal. He received the red hat from Pius in 1866. Cullen shaped the traditional Irish Catholicism with its emphasis on devotional practice, which dominated at home and abroad into the latter part of the 20th century.
As well as preaching absolute loyalty to Rome (Pius promulgated the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in 1870) the Vatican’s celibate foot soldiers preached chastity as the greatest virtue. Irish women were expected to emulate the Virgin Mary. In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception – that Mary was born without original sin – embedding still further in the popular Irish Catholic mind a profound association between sex and sin.
The clergy preached that celibate life was superior to married life; that sexual activity outside marriage was evil and even within where the intention was not procreation. Sexual pleasure was taboo, powerful evidence of an inferior animal nature that constantly threatened what was divine in the human.
The sermons of Irish Catholic clergy for most of the 120 years between 1850 and 1970 seemed dominated by sex. This railing, allied to a world view that saw the economic business of this earth as inferior activity in the eternal scheme of things, had inevitable consequences. Poverty and chastity saw to it that the marriage rate plummeted.
By 1926, for instance, the percentage of unmarried females in each age cohort was 50 per cent higher than in England and Wales and nearly three times as great as in the US. By 1961 the population of the Republic had dropped to 2.8 million.
The bachelor had become as integral a part of Irish life as the husband. So too had the spinster, with her penchant for overwrought piety. The Irish mother was totally dependent on her husband economically. It ensured an appalling time for some Irish women, as the absolute power of the husband was liberally abused in many homes. It drove many Irish mothers to seek solace in a higher purpose.
This often translated into a son becoming a priest. Nothing could bring such consolation to the devout Irish Catholic mother – whether in Ireland or abroad – as seeing her son with a Roman collar around his neck. It was said of Ireland’s seminaries during the middle decades of the last century that they were full of young men whose mothers had vocations to the priesthood. It helped that becoming a priest brought with it great power and status.
In 1954, a book, The Vanishing Irish: The Enigma of the Modern World, by John A O’Brien, was published in London. It questioned Ireland’s dramatic depopulation. Simultaneously the number of Irish Catholic clergy reached its highest level ever. In 1956, there were 5,489 priests in Ireland (diocesan and members of religious orders) – one for every 593 Catholics. There were also 18,300 nuns and Christian Brothers. Vocations were so high that between a third and a half of clergy went on the missions.
The Vatican was suitably impressed. In 1961, Pope John XXIII said: “Any Christian country will produce a greater or lesser number of priests. But Ireland, that beloved country, is the most fruitful of mothers in this respect.”
BUT CLEARLY THERE was something deeply dysfunctional in that society.
The Ryan report has lifted a lid on what was going on behind the closed doors of the religious-run institutions. The 2005 Ferns report revealed more of its legacy in later decades. The forthcoming Dublin report and, most likely, the Cloyne report will disclose still more from those years.
The problem, however, is not just within “the cloth”. In April 2002 the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre published a report titled Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland . It found that 30 per cent of Irish women and 24 per cent of Irish men had been sexually abused as children. In the rest of Europe, corresponding figures are 17 per cent for women and 5 per cent for men. In the US, they are 29 per cent for women and 7 per cent for men.
It is clear that, due to massive repression, Irish male sexuality in particular became, for some, redirected into areas where its expression was least likely to be discovered. For many Irish men, it seems, the combined weight of mother and church ensured that women became a no-no.
Some then turned to children. They were accessible to clergy, particularly. With boys it was even easier. No one suspected anything untoward in seeing a man, especially a cleric, with a boy, not least in single-sex institutions.
As we learn more and more of our past it becomes clear we were a deeply dysfunctional people – particularly our men – at home and abroad. That this dysfunction persisted is all too painfully clear, as the 2002 Royal College of Surgeons research makes clear.
But, equally, it is as clear that our attitudes to sex have relaxed greatly in recent times. An indicator of this is that births outside marriage in Ireland today number one in three. Our population has grown to 4.42 million, immigrants included. It is probable that our younger generation is the most normal, sexually, in Ireland since 1845.
We must hope so.
For much more on the connection between religion and sexual abuse and dysfunction (including psychologist Richard Sipe’s excellent analysis of the connection between celibacy and abuse within the Catholic church), see the entry I posted on March 4.
(NOTE: Theists who read Patsy McGarry’s story might be tempted to blame the Irish Potato Famine as the “real” cause of Irish sexual repression and all the problems that repression entailed. Such theists might want to carefully ponder the role the deity they worship had in either sending that Famine or callously allowing it to happen despite omnisciently knowing all the terrible consequences that inevitably resulted from it.)
Ray Comfort – a Christian evangelist well known among non-believers for his silly and stupid arguments – has just committed what I would consider to be scientific sacrilege. He has taken what many consider to be one of the most important books in the history of science, Darwin’s Origin of Species, and ruined it. The result is Comforts’s Origin of Species containing the Gospel and Intelligent Design. Here is the description of this blashemous book from his website:
This special 280-page edition not only contains an abridged Origin of Species but also has a 50-page Introduction that reveals the dangerous fruit of evolution, Hitler’s undeniable connections to the theory, Darwin’s racism, and his distain for women. It counters the claim that creationists are “anti-science” by citing numerous scientists who believed that God created the universe—scientists such as Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Bacon, Faraday, Pasteur, and Kepler. It has many original graphics and (as it says on the back cover) is designed for use in schools, colleges, and prestigious learning institutions. The back cover lists the above information as well as saying the book contains “Information on Intelligent Design vs Evolution.” We want to get one million copies into the hands of students and professors in colleges and universities throughout the U.S. Let’s see if they try to ban Darwin’s Origin of Species. That would be interesting.
As PZ Myers recently stated, “It’s like a book with multiple personality disorder — two parts that absolutely hate each other, an intro that is the inane product of one of the most stupid minds of our century, and a science text that is the product of one of the greatest minds of the author’s century.”
This is in some sense like the forward that was published with Copernicus’s revolutionary book that assured the reader that Copernicus’s heliocentric solar system does not have to be believed in any physical sense (the forward was written by the Protestant theologian Andreas Osiander without Copernicus’s knowledge). At least Osiander didn’t abridge or cut out portions of the text, however. One can only imagine the excising that Comfort did.
Laughably, Comfort actually expects this edition to be used by “prestigious learning institutions.” But when these so-called presitgious insittutions “ban” Comfort’s edition Comfort believes that he will be having the last laugh. Oh, look! They are banning Darwin’s freaking Origin of Species! No – this is not in any sense Darwin’s Origin of Species. This is Comfort’s Origin of Species – an insult to everything that Darwin and that book stands for.
If you have the stomach and the patience, you can read the entire 50-page introduction here. Comfort pulls from his usual bag of woefully unconvincing tricks. At the end of the introduction he asks that you accept Jesus as your Lord and savior before you die and, of course, before you start reading the first chapter of Darwin’s book. If you actually become a Christian after reading that introduction, then you probably don’t need to read the rest anyway.
Here are a few more facts that might help us better understand the sad case of Elizabeth Tevenan:
—– Tragedy Of The Catholic Mother Who Suffocated Her Newborn Baby Out Of Shame (The Daily Mail; June 18)
A devout Roman Catholic who had not known she was pregnant killed her son within moments of giving birth alone.
Elizabeth Tevenan then bled to death after she was found by her mother in the bathroom of their home, an inquest heard yesterday.
The 30-year-old had been taking painkillers for acute back pain and had even looked on the NHS Direct website for information about ulcers and stomach cancer two days before she gave birth on November 13 last year.
Miss Tevenan’s mother Bridget discovered her haemorrhaging in the bathroom of their home in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, and called an ambulance.
The child’s body was discovered beneath towels and a dressing gown an hour later by police officers who were alerted by doctors who had examined Miss Tevenan.
The inquest was told that she stuffed toilet tissue into her baby’s mouth and pinched his nose to stop him breathing. Miss Tevenan’s mother told the inquest that she had raised her daughter strictly within the Roman Catholic faith.
‘She never spoke to me about sex. She was brought up with strict guidelines,’ her statement to the inquest said.
Work colleague Debbie Jones told the inquest that Miss Tevenan had said she could ‘never tell her father’ if she became pregnant.
Dr James Lucas, a paediatric pathologist at Warwick Hospital where the baby and his mother were taken, told the inquest that he had been delivered at 37 weeks or more into the pregnancy.
‘The baby was live born with expanded lungs but would only have taken a few breaths before death occurred,’ he said.
Miss Tevenan, an office worker, was confirmed dead on arrival at Warwick Hospital. She had died of blood loss as a result of haemorrhaging.
The baby, who was given the name Nicholas Patrick, had weighed 6lb 13oz. His father, Noel Bannister, who lives in Cambridgeshire, was traced by police through DNA samples.
Mrs Tevenan, 58, and her 70-year-old husband Patrick did not attend the inquest at Warwickshire Coroner’s Court in Leamington Spa.
In the statement, Mrs Tevenan said she knew her daughter had been seeing Mr Bannister on and off for three or four years, but she had never met him and had no idea her daughter was pregnant.
‘I would have hit the roof if I’d known she was pregnant but I’d have calmed down,’ she said. ‘I would have loved a grandson. He was a beautiful baby. We are grief-stricken, we doted on our daughter, we have lost a lovely girl.’
Mrs Tevenan said that the day before her death her daughter had taken painkillers which had been prescribed for back pain and had gone to bed early saying that she could not get comfortable.
She described her daughter as ‘a shy, bubbly and happy girl’. Mrs Tevenan assumed the back pain might be the onset of arthritis, a condition which could have developed from a displaced hip which Miss Tevenan had suffered as a seven-year-old.
Detective Inspector Nigel Jones of Warwickshire Police told the inquest how Miss Tevenan had attended a netball coaching session a few days before the birth.
‘It was clear that no one knew she was pregnant,’ he said. ‘And there are no facts to identify that Elizabeth knew she was pregnant.’
Coroner Sean McGovern recorded that Miss Tevenan had died of natural causes but said she had unlawfully killed her son.
‘I am entirely satisfied that Elizabeth was unaware of her pregnancy,’ he said. ‘If she had been aware of this when her waters broke, earlier medical intervention could have prevented her death.
‘I am satisfied that her baby was born alive but the deliberate pushing of tissue paper into his throat caused asphyxia.’
He concluded that Elizabeth unlawfully killed her baby ‘in a state of panic’.
Apparently being pregnant and not knowing it is much more common than one might think.
You can find other examples here and here.
You can find a list of 10 reasons why a woman might not know she’s pregnant here.
Here’s a news story about another case from last fall that seems particularly enlightening:
—– Woman Didn’t Know She Was Pregnant, Gives Birth – Now Hospital Is Sued (Colleen Jenkins/St. Petersburg Times; Oct 7, 2008 )
TAMPA: Robin Lumley, childless, overweight and unmarried at 46, arrived at an emergency room 2 1/2 years ago complaining of terrible abdominal pain.
Nurses documented her symptoms and a doctor ordered tests. When Lumley said she needed to use the restroom, they let her go.
A short while later, the medical staff at University Community Hospital in Carrollwood found that she had delivered a 6-pound baby girl into the toilet.
Lumley didn’t even know she was pregnant, an attorney says.
But Harold “Tripp” Sebring III claims the medical staff should have. Because it missed obvious signs of labor, he says, Lumley’s baby almost drowned.
Sebring sued the hospital last month, contending that baby Brianna Rose Lumley went into respiratory arrest and suffered brain damage due to treatment providers’ negligence. He wants the hospital to pay for Brianna’s lifelong medical care.
Sebring is suing on the child’s behalf, not the mother’s. If he succeeds, Robin Lumley won’t get a dime.
“I’m pretty upset with the mother,” he said. But more so, he’s “pretty upset with the nurses and the hospital. It is a very basic component of care.”
The hospital would not comment on the pending litigation.
Any woman who has endured pregnancy and childbirth might find it hard to believe a fellow female could be unaware of her condition. But psychologists say some women hide their pregnancy to the point that they convince themselves they are not carrying a child.
The denial can have tragic outcomes.
In 1989, 18-year-old Claire Moritt’s baby boy drowned after she delivered him into a toilet in her dormitory room near the University of South Florida. Prosecutors tried her for murder, but jurors found her not guilty by reason of insanity after defense attorneys convinced them that she had lost touch with reality and did not know she was pregnant.
Dr. Alexander E. Obolsky, who specializes in psychiatric trauma in Chicago, said Lumley doesn’t fit the typical profile of young women who worry about their family’s reactions to an unplanned pregnancy.
Still, other factors could have played into Lumley’s disconnect with reality, he said. She might not have gained a lot of weight due to her already heavy frame. Though Sebring said she had not had a period in eight months and 24 days, she might have attributed the absence to something else. Lumley had traces of cocaine in her bloodstream when she gave birth, the lawyer said; substance abuse could have clouded her awareness.
“This appears to be, at least on the surface, that there was something going on with this lady psychologically that she was not in tune with her body,” Obolsky said. “We all know people who have poor self-observation. People who have bad breath. People who have body odor.”…
Sebring says the hospital failed the child by overlooking her mother’s symptoms. At 8:58 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2006, Lumley showed up at the hospital and reported sharp pain in her abdomen and vaginal bleeding. She thought she might have cancer.
A doctor ordered a pregnancy test – which wasn’t performed, the lawsuit states – but couldn’t conduct a full exam because Lumley was in too much pain, Sebring said.”…
Oddly enough, I had just started reading Hollywood director Preston Sturges’s autobiography about the same time I came across Elizabeth Tevenan’s story.
Here’s what I found on pages 18-19:
“According to my mother, positively no one, least of all herself, had even the faintest suspicion that she was heavy with child at the time of my birth. On the contrary, for the very first time in her life, those signs whose cessation normally indicates a case of galloping gravidity had been appearing with startling regularity. I was thought to be a tumor, and Mr. Biden [Preston's dad], who was fond of operations and given to snap judgments, was on the verge of taking us down to the hospital to have me removed when the Commodore [Preston's grandfather], standing sympathetically at the foot of Mother’s bed, is supposed to have noticed a thumping under the covers and to have roared, ‘Why goddamit! What the hell is the matter with you bunch of nitwits? This here girl is a’goin’ to have a goddam baby!’
“That was during the evening of August 29, 1898. On the following morning around five o’clock, the Commodore was proved to be one hundred percent goddam right!”
Finally, in reading news stories and background information about late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller and his recent murder, I learned that many of the women who fail to have an abortion performed early in pregnancy either don’t realize that they’re pregnant or are in deep denial about that pregnancy.
According to Wikipedia, “In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows: 71% – Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation….”
It’s hard to see how a religion that demonizes sex, opposes public sex education programs, opposes abortion in all circumstances, and generates huge amounts of guilt helped Elizabeth Tevenan.
As one noter on the Daily Mail story I quoted above put it: “Yet again religion and indoctrination influencing common sense! This woman must have been absolutely terrified and to have acted so desperately and tragically. It’s amazing how a persons mind can be literally turned inside out with the sheer pressure of ‘guilt’ and fear of whatever they feel threatens them. The idea that killing your own baby and then lie bleeding to death rather than turn to your parents tells me something was very wrong and she was obviously very brainwashed. ‘God Worriers’ need to tune into reality and preferabley somewhere this side of the millenium. What an awful and sad situation.” – Daz, Malaga, Spain (17/6/2009 18:25)
… for all those who are interested in squarely facing and examining the relationship between religion and the murder of a close relative:
—– Prosecutors In Chechnya Arrest Man Suspected Of Shooting His Sister To Death (The Canadian Press/The Associated Press; June 20)
ROSTOV-ON-DON, Russia: Prosecutors in Chechnya say they have detained a young man accused of shooting his sister to death in an honour killing.
Prosecutors say the young man has confessed to killing his sister with multiple gunshots because of her “immoral behaviour.”
They said in a statement Saturday that the murder was the latest in a string of killings and disappearances of women in the region. About 30 women aged 18 to 27 have been killed or gone missing since last fall.
Chechnya’s Kremlin-backed leader Ramzan Kadyrov said recently that some of the victims were rightfully shot by their male relatives for their “loose morals.”
Kadyrov has carried out a campaign to impose Islamic values and strengthen the traditional customs of predominantly Muslim Chechnya.

![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7a12474b-5ee7-422d-b0be-1352b9fd1409)

![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=67bec9f3-a304-4282-a133-460ca6fba402)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=99c4bc50-dce5-454e-ba10-7f60b424edf6)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f2c99eb9-e38e-4ccc-9658-f38b768701ea)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c8225f63-3288-42a3-8d7a-e6c3281319bf)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8d74b258-0fed-4e18-957e-dde435dd53dc)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fb42897c-a204-4988-97ac-713878867d34)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=da16a921-1e77-4836-8c73-c4b98ef430ef)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c7c46e57-758a-4331-949f-0b291c2dabd3)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=cd463789-150c-467b-a3ac-d03093e0196b)



