I was told that it's hard/impossible to post comments to my blog - I just checked there myself, to try to comment. As it transpires, I can comment once I set the page on "compatibility view", for pages designed for older web browsers... that appears to be the issue.
Hope that sorts it for anyone else :-D
Friday, January 29, 2010
So... Rage.
Sometimes, I think rage is good. Sometimes, this country I live in incites me to rage. There are certain aspects of it that piss me the hell off, so please bear with me while I outline one (or more) of these.
Right - just last week, a 63-year-old man was given a 4 year sentence when convicted on 189 counts of sexual assault and rape. On children. By luring them into his garden shed over a period of 20 years, by a combination of bribery and blackmail. Linkies:
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/sex-abuse-sentences-do-not-fit-crime-110770.html
One hundred and eighty nine counts. Four goddamn fucking years. According to the article, Judge Olive Buttimer said the offences constituted a "disastrous breach of trust" of children and that the "sexual abuse of children over a 20-year period is a most serious offence".
Yes, Olive Buttimer, clearly the sexual assault of children to you is so incredibly serious a crime that it warrants a sentence which in most nations would be considered more appropriate for serious traffic violations. Fucking marvellous. Well done, and it's nice to know that such worthy individuals are being selected for judicial service in this country. God almighty I want to break my keyboard over something to calm down. Is it bad that I find it even worse that a female judge is capable of such dumbassery? I don't know why I expect more understanding of the gravity of rape as a crime from women, but I do. Maybe that's just the idealist in me.
This rage is partly because this fiasco of a sentence is not even the exception, it's the rule. Here on the Isle of Saints and Scholars (fucking ironic), it is not unknown for judges to hand down suspended sentences to convicted rapists, allowing them to actually walk out of court that same day. It defies logic, it really does. As a woman of Ireland, it is so validating to know that the violation of my body and my dignity as a human being is of no value whatsoever in the legal system. I mean, I'm sure he didn't mean it. He couldn't help himself. I shouldn't have been walking around at night/ wearing a short skirt/ letting strangers fool me/ drinking alcohol (gasp!).
I would like to make it clear that I have, fortunately, never myself been a victim of this awful, vicious crime. I just consider this inherent lack of respect within the judiciary for women's rights an affront to half of the country's population.
Do you know what pisses me off the most? The fact that despite all of this, the government still has the front to lament the fact that less than 10% of all rapes are reported, or followed up to the point of achieving prosecution. Because - considering the psychological and physical trauma they have already undergone, the further trauma inflicted on them by the "justice" system in being cross-examined, and having to face their attacker in court, only to have him walk free that day because despite being found guilty, ruining your life is not considered serious enough to warrant jail time - it's hard to understand why women would be slow to report it. God yes, that's a real fucking headscratcher ain't it?
God if this country was a person, sometimes I'd love to string it up by the ankles. Most especially for continuously, inexplicably voting for Fianna Fáil, who have time and again proven themselves to be nothing more than a gamut of right-wing, corrupt, insincere gobshites no more capable of running a country than the badger named Stephen currently being touted for their replacement on FaceBook. Between allowing this kind of shit and the introduction of my beloved Blasphemy Law, it defies belief that they are still in power. I know that in Ireland I often feel like I'm voting for the best of a bad bunch, and honest, let alone inspiriational politicians are notoriously thin on the ground, but I think it's time for one hell of a shake-up within Irish governance. Fianna Fáil have become far too comfortable in the seat of power, it's time to put their collective fat asses out on the street where they belong.
Right - just last week, a 63-year-old man was given a 4 year sentence when convicted on 189 counts of sexual assault and rape. On children. By luring them into his garden shed over a period of 20 years, by a combination of bribery and blackmail. Linkies:
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/sex-abuse-sentences-do-not-fit-crime-110770.html
One hundred and eighty nine counts. Four goddamn fucking years. According to the article, Judge Olive Buttimer said the offences constituted a "disastrous breach of trust" of children and that the "sexual abuse of children over a 20-year period is a most serious offence".
Yes, Olive Buttimer, clearly the sexual assault of children to you is so incredibly serious a crime that it warrants a sentence which in most nations would be considered more appropriate for serious traffic violations. Fucking marvellous. Well done, and it's nice to know that such worthy individuals are being selected for judicial service in this country. God almighty I want to break my keyboard over something to calm down. Is it bad that I find it even worse that a female judge is capable of such dumbassery? I don't know why I expect more understanding of the gravity of rape as a crime from women, but I do. Maybe that's just the idealist in me.
This rage is partly because this fiasco of a sentence is not even the exception, it's the rule. Here on the Isle of Saints and Scholars (fucking ironic), it is not unknown for judges to hand down suspended sentences to convicted rapists, allowing them to actually walk out of court that same day. It defies logic, it really does. As a woman of Ireland, it is so validating to know that the violation of my body and my dignity as a human being is of no value whatsoever in the legal system. I mean, I'm sure he didn't mean it. He couldn't help himself. I shouldn't have been walking around at night/ wearing a short skirt/ letting strangers fool me/ drinking alcohol (gasp!).
I would like to make it clear that I have, fortunately, never myself been a victim of this awful, vicious crime. I just consider this inherent lack of respect within the judiciary for women's rights an affront to half of the country's population.
Do you know what pisses me off the most? The fact that despite all of this, the government still has the front to lament the fact that less than 10% of all rapes are reported, or followed up to the point of achieving prosecution. Because - considering the psychological and physical trauma they have already undergone, the further trauma inflicted on them by the "justice" system in being cross-examined, and having to face their attacker in court, only to have him walk free that day because despite being found guilty, ruining your life is not considered serious enough to warrant jail time - it's hard to understand why women would be slow to report it. God yes, that's a real fucking headscratcher ain't it?
God if this country was a person, sometimes I'd love to string it up by the ankles. Most especially for continuously, inexplicably voting for Fianna Fáil, who have time and again proven themselves to be nothing more than a gamut of right-wing, corrupt, insincere gobshites no more capable of running a country than the badger named Stephen currently being touted for their replacement on FaceBook. Between allowing this kind of shit and the introduction of my beloved Blasphemy Law, it defies belief that they are still in power. I know that in Ireland I often feel like I'm voting for the best of a bad bunch, and honest, let alone inspiriational politicians are notoriously thin on the ground, but I think it's time for one hell of a shake-up within Irish governance. Fianna Fáil have become far too comfortable in the seat of power, it's time to put their collective fat asses out on the street where they belong.
Monday, January 25, 2010
A question of choice
Someone asked me recently if it was my time in Africa that made question my faith, and it got me thinking. I suppose that was a part of it, although I don’t know if it was the root cause of my questioning so much as a mere catalyst that kicked off a train of thought that would have taken place sooner or later anyway.
It’s relatively cliché, I think, to ask whether a loving, omnipotent god could really allow the amount of suffering we see in the world. I can understand people’s frustration in dealing with the seemingly boundless approaches that could be taken in answering that, but for me the issue goes deeper than simply querying whether god would allow it. It also raises the issue of free will, and choice.
Let me give you an example – Haiti has been in the news a lot over the past fortnight, what with the earthquake recovery effort and the enormous human suffering. But the people of Haiti were suffering long before the earthquake of almost a fortnight ago. I don’t say that to belittle the damage and pain that the earthquake has caused – but it is one of the world’s poorest countries, and like so many other developing nations, the people there struggle every single day with hunger, preventable disease, and crime. One of the documentaries I watched on Haiti talked about the issue of kidnapping, and how it has been such a problem in recent years. Largely, I would imagine, out of desperation, people turn to crime to make money – it’s not unique to developing countries, but in many cases it is more prevalent. Even in Malawi, I often found myself getting frustrated because as an obvious foreigner I felt constantly targeted by people who were after something, namely money., although luckily they were not so malicious as Haitian kidnappers.
Watching the documentary, I found myself so sickened by the levels of violence and brutality being employed by the kidnappers. I felt so angry, so disgusted with them, as I generally do when confronted with violence.
But for me, the thing is, it’s very easy to take the moral high ground. I have a good home, enough to eat, a solid education, and good friends. I’m not starving or immediately dying. Can the people I observe, whose families and lives are crumbling around them, whose incomes are non-existent, really be considered as having the same level of choice as I do? Their actions can still be considered universally bad or wrong, I suppose, but what about them, as people? We can only be considered responsible for that which we can reasonably control, and while we can always control our behaviour, we cannot always control the factors which dictate and drive it.
I guess what I’m really querying is whether it’s fair to hold to the same moral – normally religious – standard, those whose circumstances are wildly different? I guess you could argue that an omniscient god would judge each person individually based on their circumstances, but really when I examine any religious doctrine, it is by its’ very nature universal. Take stealing, for example. Universally wrong, but does a person whose family is starving really have the same amount of choice and concurring responsibility for their actions as someone who robs cardigans from TK Maxx? I don’t think so.
What also makes me question the validity of a universal moral code is the fact that, without a higher order (i.e. god), what do we base this system on? Human opinion varies wildly, and is popular consensus really reliable for dictating our behaviour? It can be influenced by so many variables. Adolf Hitler was one the most influential leaders of the 20th century, as was Josef Stalin. Both of them, particularly Hitler, manipulated the political and economic atmosphere of their time. Post-Versailles treaty Germany was an economic disaster zone, and Hitler used this to his advantage, and to further his own political agenda – he had the backing of the electorate. Their desperation fuelled his popularity, and adversely influenced their priorities, and their perception of morals.
I think, at the end of the day, it really is a question of priorities. There are certain pivotal things which are central to our survival – security, food, etc – and when these priorities are jeopardised, everything else (including moral codes) tend to suffer. As such, can those whose primary needs are jeopardised be judged according to the same criteria as those whose aren’t?
It’s relatively cliché, I think, to ask whether a loving, omnipotent god could really allow the amount of suffering we see in the world. I can understand people’s frustration in dealing with the seemingly boundless approaches that could be taken in answering that, but for me the issue goes deeper than simply querying whether god would allow it. It also raises the issue of free will, and choice.
Let me give you an example – Haiti has been in the news a lot over the past fortnight, what with the earthquake recovery effort and the enormous human suffering. But the people of Haiti were suffering long before the earthquake of almost a fortnight ago. I don’t say that to belittle the damage and pain that the earthquake has caused – but it is one of the world’s poorest countries, and like so many other developing nations, the people there struggle every single day with hunger, preventable disease, and crime. One of the documentaries I watched on Haiti talked about the issue of kidnapping, and how it has been such a problem in recent years. Largely, I would imagine, out of desperation, people turn to crime to make money – it’s not unique to developing countries, but in many cases it is more prevalent. Even in Malawi, I often found myself getting frustrated because as an obvious foreigner I felt constantly targeted by people who were after something, namely money., although luckily they were not so malicious as Haitian kidnappers.
Watching the documentary, I found myself so sickened by the levels of violence and brutality being employed by the kidnappers. I felt so angry, so disgusted with them, as I generally do when confronted with violence.
But for me, the thing is, it’s very easy to take the moral high ground. I have a good home, enough to eat, a solid education, and good friends. I’m not starving or immediately dying. Can the people I observe, whose families and lives are crumbling around them, whose incomes are non-existent, really be considered as having the same level of choice as I do? Their actions can still be considered universally bad or wrong, I suppose, but what about them, as people? We can only be considered responsible for that which we can reasonably control, and while we can always control our behaviour, we cannot always control the factors which dictate and drive it.
I guess what I’m really querying is whether it’s fair to hold to the same moral – normally religious – standard, those whose circumstances are wildly different? I guess you could argue that an omniscient god would judge each person individually based on their circumstances, but really when I examine any religious doctrine, it is by its’ very nature universal. Take stealing, for example. Universally wrong, but does a person whose family is starving really have the same amount of choice and concurring responsibility for their actions as someone who robs cardigans from TK Maxx? I don’t think so.
What also makes me question the validity of a universal moral code is the fact that, without a higher order (i.e. god), what do we base this system on? Human opinion varies wildly, and is popular consensus really reliable for dictating our behaviour? It can be influenced by so many variables. Adolf Hitler was one the most influential leaders of the 20th century, as was Josef Stalin. Both of them, particularly Hitler, manipulated the political and economic atmosphere of their time. Post-Versailles treaty Germany was an economic disaster zone, and Hitler used this to his advantage, and to further his own political agenda – he had the backing of the electorate. Their desperation fuelled his popularity, and adversely influenced their priorities, and their perception of morals.
I think, at the end of the day, it really is a question of priorities. There are certain pivotal things which are central to our survival – security, food, etc – and when these priorities are jeopardised, everything else (including moral codes) tend to suffer. As such, can those whose primary needs are jeopardised be judged according to the same criteria as those whose aren’t?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Procrastination...
It's an art I have perfected.
I read one of those motivational posters once, that read: "Procrastination is like masturbating: it feels good at the time, but afterwards you realise you've just fucked yourself". It's so true. And you know what? I'm fucking myself right now, as I type. I have about 4,000 words in terms of essays and assignments to be done for tomorrow, and I'm blogging like the big hairy eejit that I am. Well, less of the hairy. And more of the eejit.
I just can't stop myself! My motivation is currently set to absolutely zero. Nada. Niet. "Faic", as we'd say in Irish.
Must. Start. Typing. Something. Productive...
I read one of those motivational posters once, that read: "Procrastination is like masturbating: it feels good at the time, but afterwards you realise you've just fucked yourself". It's so true. And you know what? I'm fucking myself right now, as I type. I have about 4,000 words in terms of essays and assignments to be done for tomorrow, and I'm blogging like the big hairy eejit that I am. Well, less of the hairy. And more of the eejit.
I just can't stop myself! My motivation is currently set to absolutely zero. Nada. Niet. "Faic", as we'd say in Irish.
Must. Start. Typing. Something. Productive...
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Less profound than my previous postings, but...
...but there you go! I have decided to make this blog a sort of theoretical landfill for all the things that go through my decidedly bizarre mind, so you can either bear with me or skip this one :-P
So... there's a boy. Well, not really "on the scene" per se, but in existence...Well may you pity him, he probably deserves it. But it got me thinking about the whole dynamics of relationships, flirting, the shitty politics that go with it, in a more general sense.
You see, I went out with my ex-fiancé for about 4 and a half years. At 22, that's a substantial proportion of my life, and it means that I haven't really ever been on the dating "scene" in my adult life - I was 17 when I met him. I'm taken aback at how new and strange it feels to me to be single, to see guys in a social context without automatically precluding them in a romantic sense because I'm already taken. It's all so new to me, and I find myself behaving a lot more like a giggly schoolgirl than is probably acceptable at my age. That makes me sound like a grandmother, I know, there you are.
This guy - I haven't seen him in years. And I mean years. We met as teenagers and got back into contact by pure coincidence through a mutual friend recently. There's nothing much going on to write home about, but I have to say I feel like an idiot. Some say they're envious of those butterflies you get with a new person on the horizon, but to be honest I just feel awkward and socially clumsy. Is possible to wear your heart on your sleeve without scaring the shite out of people? What if you completely build people up in your mind to be someone they're not, a figment of your nostalgia, your reminiscing?
As a nutty 15-year-old, this guy meant a lot to me. I think he was the first person I ever had feelings beyond "m'eh" for, and correspondingly when we fought and lost contact it was the first time I felt like I'd really lost something in letting go of it. Realistically, we were too young at the time for anything beyond lots of red faces and cringeworthy texts to happen, but still. For all I know, he's a completely different person now, and I'm chasing the wind. I do that, though, and it drives me nuts! Not just with this guy specifically, but in general. I have no patience when it comes to stuff like this. It's a constant struggle for me to contain my emotions and affection, and while that's arguably a good thing, it's difficult because I'm so bloody sensitive. Mmmmph.
I fucking hate politics. Why can't we all just be honest and straightforward in our communication with each other and be done with it? "Playing it cool" does not become me.
So... there's a boy. Well, not really "on the scene" per se, but in existence...Well may you pity him, he probably deserves it. But it got me thinking about the whole dynamics of relationships, flirting, the shitty politics that go with it, in a more general sense.
You see, I went out with my ex-fiancé for about 4 and a half years. At 22, that's a substantial proportion of my life, and it means that I haven't really ever been on the dating "scene" in my adult life - I was 17 when I met him. I'm taken aback at how new and strange it feels to me to be single, to see guys in a social context without automatically precluding them in a romantic sense because I'm already taken. It's all so new to me, and I find myself behaving a lot more like a giggly schoolgirl than is probably acceptable at my age. That makes me sound like a grandmother, I know, there you are.
This guy - I haven't seen him in years. And I mean years. We met as teenagers and got back into contact by pure coincidence through a mutual friend recently. There's nothing much going on to write home about, but I have to say I feel like an idiot. Some say they're envious of those butterflies you get with a new person on the horizon, but to be honest I just feel awkward and socially clumsy. Is possible to wear your heart on your sleeve without scaring the shite out of people? What if you completely build people up in your mind to be someone they're not, a figment of your nostalgia, your reminiscing?
As a nutty 15-year-old, this guy meant a lot to me. I think he was the first person I ever had feelings beyond "m'eh" for, and correspondingly when we fought and lost contact it was the first time I felt like I'd really lost something in letting go of it. Realistically, we were too young at the time for anything beyond lots of red faces and cringeworthy texts to happen, but still. For all I know, he's a completely different person now, and I'm chasing the wind. I do that, though, and it drives me nuts! Not just with this guy specifically, but in general. I have no patience when it comes to stuff like this. It's a constant struggle for me to contain my emotions and affection, and while that's arguably a good thing, it's difficult because I'm so bloody sensitive. Mmmmph.
I fucking hate politics. Why can't we all just be honest and straightforward in our communication with each other and be done with it? "Playing it cool" does not become me.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Blasphemy Law
I've said it before, to friends, but here I go again: it's a rare thing for me to find myself in perfect agreement with Richard Dawkins. Under normal circumstances I find him too abrasive and purposely antagonistic to take seriously - however, when it comes to the recent introduction of the law pertaining to blasphemy and blasphemous libel in Ireland, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Here's a link to the article I'm referring to:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0713/1224250543694.html
As of the 1st January 2010, it is illegal in Ireland to utter publicly, or publish, matter which is deemed to be blasphemous toward any religion. I'm really at a loss as to the reasoning behind the introduction of this legislation, it has me practically foaming at the mouth with rage. I'm all for respect and tolerance towards a wide range of diverse belief systems, but this is just stupid. The government itself has all but admitted that the legislation only works on paper and is unenforcable in practice. It's just... so ridiculous, on so many levels, that I don't even know where to begin.
Mr. Dawkins has deemed the new law "a return to the middle ages", and I agree with him. Not only is it contrary to my understanding of free speech (please understand, I see a clear distinction between incitement to hatred/sectarianism, and a personal disagreement with certain aspects of a religion), but to introduce such a law in Ireland, of all places, seems almost ironic. We have such a history of our government having an unhealthy deference towards the Catholic church in particular. The recent spate of reports and tribunals investigating clerical child sex abuse, including the Ryan report, have chronicled for us the miserable truth of what happens when the relationship between church and state is too close for comfort. The Irish government has a lot to answer for in terms of assisting the clerical hierarchy to cover up the pandemic of abuse that took place in this country - and unlike the church, I feel the government has never been held to account for its' role. Bearing this in mind, Dermot Ahern's move seems nothing short of brazen.
I have to wonder if this law could potentially be used to stem the tide of criticism and fury against the clergy in the future, possibly in the wake of further revelations of abuse and corruption. I mean, will some of the most vehement criticism of the Catholic church be deemed "blasphemy" and penalised accordingly? If so, was that the idea all along? I cannot be sure, but the possibility worries me.
Aside from anything else, the premise of what the term "blasphemy" even comprises is ill-defined. For instance, what is to be done in the instance of certain religious doctrines being considered blaspemhous against the premise of another religion? If you interpret many religious texts and scriptures in a very literal manner you will find a myriad of passages that could be considered blasphemous, contradictory or offensive to those of other belief systems. Are these doctrines, then, to be outlawed under the new legislation? Does the government even know? I doubt it, it appears to be beyond the skill of the current government to consider bills with such foresight and scrutiny - and it drives me bloody nuts.
We are, now, being held up in foreign media as a sort of social and legal pariah, and deservedly so. Or at least, deservedly of the government. It really just disgusts me, even the way that it elevates religious convictions above personal ones. I mean - if I hold specific beliefs as an atheist or agnostic person, that are founded on personal observation or empirical evidence rather than a theistic system of belief, my views can be freely criticised or even vilified by those who take issue with them. Since they are not part of any formal religious structure and atheism is rarely recognised as a belief system, let alone a "religion", and agnosticism never is, they are not protected by the blasphemy legislation, and people can take the piss out of me all they like. On the other hand, my freedom to return the favour by criticising people's religious views is now limited. I'm not saying that I should go out and deliberately tick people off or make fun of them - but why should the views of some be protected from vilification under the law, and not those of others?
So in my opinion the new legislation is not only impractical, it's discriminatory.
Mnnnnnnnnnnfffffffffffhhhhhh. I think I need to go calm down now.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0713/1224250543694.html
As of the 1st January 2010, it is illegal in Ireland to utter publicly, or publish, matter which is deemed to be blasphemous toward any religion. I'm really at a loss as to the reasoning behind the introduction of this legislation, it has me practically foaming at the mouth with rage. I'm all for respect and tolerance towards a wide range of diverse belief systems, but this is just stupid. The government itself has all but admitted that the legislation only works on paper and is unenforcable in practice. It's just... so ridiculous, on so many levels, that I don't even know where to begin.
Mr. Dawkins has deemed the new law "a return to the middle ages", and I agree with him. Not only is it contrary to my understanding of free speech (please understand, I see a clear distinction between incitement to hatred/sectarianism, and a personal disagreement with certain aspects of a religion), but to introduce such a law in Ireland, of all places, seems almost ironic. We have such a history of our government having an unhealthy deference towards the Catholic church in particular. The recent spate of reports and tribunals investigating clerical child sex abuse, including the Ryan report, have chronicled for us the miserable truth of what happens when the relationship between church and state is too close for comfort. The Irish government has a lot to answer for in terms of assisting the clerical hierarchy to cover up the pandemic of abuse that took place in this country - and unlike the church, I feel the government has never been held to account for its' role. Bearing this in mind, Dermot Ahern's move seems nothing short of brazen.
I have to wonder if this law could potentially be used to stem the tide of criticism and fury against the clergy in the future, possibly in the wake of further revelations of abuse and corruption. I mean, will some of the most vehement criticism of the Catholic church be deemed "blasphemy" and penalised accordingly? If so, was that the idea all along? I cannot be sure, but the possibility worries me.
Aside from anything else, the premise of what the term "blasphemy" even comprises is ill-defined. For instance, what is to be done in the instance of certain religious doctrines being considered blaspemhous against the premise of another religion? If you interpret many religious texts and scriptures in a very literal manner you will find a myriad of passages that could be considered blasphemous, contradictory or offensive to those of other belief systems. Are these doctrines, then, to be outlawed under the new legislation? Does the government even know? I doubt it, it appears to be beyond the skill of the current government to consider bills with such foresight and scrutiny - and it drives me bloody nuts.
We are, now, being held up in foreign media as a sort of social and legal pariah, and deservedly so. Or at least, deservedly of the government. It really just disgusts me, even the way that it elevates religious convictions above personal ones. I mean - if I hold specific beliefs as an atheist or agnostic person, that are founded on personal observation or empirical evidence rather than a theistic system of belief, my views can be freely criticised or even vilified by those who take issue with them. Since they are not part of any formal religious structure and atheism is rarely recognised as a belief system, let alone a "religion", and agnosticism never is, they are not protected by the blasphemy legislation, and people can take the piss out of me all they like. On the other hand, my freedom to return the favour by criticising people's religious views is now limited. I'm not saying that I should go out and deliberately tick people off or make fun of them - but why should the views of some be protected from vilification under the law, and not those of others?
So in my opinion the new legislation is not only impractical, it's discriminatory.
Mnnnnnnnnnnfffffffffffhhhhhh. I think I need to go calm down now.
Friday, January 8, 2010
I'm feeling rather sheepish now.
I'm fairly sure absolutely no-one is interested in what I have to say to myself on here thus far, but I still get embarassed when I start things like this and I invariably get distracted and forget about them. So, for once, I would actually like to stick at something if only for my personal satisfaction. You never know, I may eventually come up with something of value... at some point in time.
I'm desperately poor at getting my train of thought across coherently, so apologies if anyone eventually reads this and has no clue what I'm on about. I find I think in very abstract terms, and what goes on in my head moves a lot faster than my fingers can to type it all out :-)
At the moment - apart from exams and my final year thesis - the main thing on my mind is religion and the concept of spirituality. It's such a pivotal aspect of human society in general, and it's played such a huge role in my life so far. Also, my convictions have been evolving (excuse the pun) so rapidly lately I can hardly keep up with them.
Basically, I am from a Catholic background, as are the vast majority of Irish people. When I was 15, I started attending a sort of charismatic, evangelical-type group a friend brought me along to, and I was a fervent attendee up until this year, more or less. I bought into the whole shebang - praying and reading the Bible every night, listening to Christian music, reading mainly Christian literature, abstaining from premarital sex, etc., etc. You get the picture. There were always, always a few issues I really struggled with. I have always valued sincerity of belief and a primary dedication to altruism over the adherence to an unquestionable set of beliefs, despite my strong convictions - I still questioned my faith, it's just that for a long time I felt I could reconcile my understanding of the world with my interpretation of Christianity and my faith. Now, though, I'm not so sure.
Most of the issues I have struggled with centred around the patriarchal history of religion and many of its (even contemporary) structures, the subjugation of women in the Bible, and its treatment of homosexuals and those who engage in sex before marriage. I think I largely suppressed my questions on these topics during my religious period, or felt them to be in some way "disloyal" to God. Now, though, I think life is too short not to listen to your heart on these subjects. I have retained my love and respect for Jesus and his teachings despite my newfound religious quandry, and as I see it he was never afraid to tackle the difficult questions, ergo I should not be either. So if you don't agree with what I have to say, well - you're perfectly entitled not to! I will value anything you wish to say in response, and I acknowledge the limitations of my own knowledge. I am open to correction on anything.
I believe that God values sincerity and integrity even more than I do. I do still believe in the existence of a God, it's my beliefs around their nature and requirements I'm not so sure of.
However, presuming the existence of God for a moment, I do think that an honest, searching heart trying to do and believe the right thing is more important to them than merely doing or believing the right thing in itself. This is not simply because this is how I feel myself, but I believe that the existence of human cogniscence and free will is evidence in support of my assertion. This is an issue I take with a lot of organised religion - if strict adherence to a set of regulations alone were God's requirement, that could easily be forced by an omnipotent deity. If all God cared about was that we did what they wanted, they need not - and I argue, would not - have made humankind capable of doing otherwise, or making conscious choices. This tells me that obedience, or behaviour, is not necessarily God's priority so much as the attitudes and choices that provoke it. It tells me that we are supposed to make choices, and really contemplate our behaviour. So, that's what I am setting out to do. Re-evaluate my entire system of belief, before re-constructing it accordingly.
You have probably noticed already that I am referring to God as "they" or "them", rather than using the traditionally masculine pronouns. This is because issues of gender are some of my most central concerns in terms of re-evaluating what I have previously accepted to be true. Firstly, I earnestly believe that any existing monotheistic God would by their very nature transcend gender, since their omnipotence removes the need for sexual procreation. Sex is a biological function we require to perpetuate our species since we are neither omnipotent (and able to furnish ourselves with offspring by magic), or immortal (removing the need for offspring altogether). As a deity transcendent of the ravages of time and with the capacity to create contrary to the law of conservation of matter, God does not need a sex, or corresponding gender.
So there. :-P God is a "they".
I have more thoughts on sex and gender, but I'm going to write them later... I've had too much coffee and I need to pee now.
I'm desperately poor at getting my train of thought across coherently, so apologies if anyone eventually reads this and has no clue what I'm on about. I find I think in very abstract terms, and what goes on in my head moves a lot faster than my fingers can to type it all out :-)
At the moment - apart from exams and my final year thesis - the main thing on my mind is religion and the concept of spirituality. It's such a pivotal aspect of human society in general, and it's played such a huge role in my life so far. Also, my convictions have been evolving (excuse the pun) so rapidly lately I can hardly keep up with them.
Basically, I am from a Catholic background, as are the vast majority of Irish people. When I was 15, I started attending a sort of charismatic, evangelical-type group a friend brought me along to, and I was a fervent attendee up until this year, more or less. I bought into the whole shebang - praying and reading the Bible every night, listening to Christian music, reading mainly Christian literature, abstaining from premarital sex, etc., etc. You get the picture. There were always, always a few issues I really struggled with. I have always valued sincerity of belief and a primary dedication to altruism over the adherence to an unquestionable set of beliefs, despite my strong convictions - I still questioned my faith, it's just that for a long time I felt I could reconcile my understanding of the world with my interpretation of Christianity and my faith. Now, though, I'm not so sure.
Most of the issues I have struggled with centred around the patriarchal history of religion and many of its (even contemporary) structures, the subjugation of women in the Bible, and its treatment of homosexuals and those who engage in sex before marriage. I think I largely suppressed my questions on these topics during my religious period, or felt them to be in some way "disloyal" to God. Now, though, I think life is too short not to listen to your heart on these subjects. I have retained my love and respect for Jesus and his teachings despite my newfound religious quandry, and as I see it he was never afraid to tackle the difficult questions, ergo I should not be either. So if you don't agree with what I have to say, well - you're perfectly entitled not to! I will value anything you wish to say in response, and I acknowledge the limitations of my own knowledge. I am open to correction on anything.
I believe that God values sincerity and integrity even more than I do. I do still believe in the existence of a God, it's my beliefs around their nature and requirements I'm not so sure of.
However, presuming the existence of God for a moment, I do think that an honest, searching heart trying to do and believe the right thing is more important to them than merely doing or believing the right thing in itself. This is not simply because this is how I feel myself, but I believe that the existence of human cogniscence and free will is evidence in support of my assertion. This is an issue I take with a lot of organised religion - if strict adherence to a set of regulations alone were God's requirement, that could easily be forced by an omnipotent deity. If all God cared about was that we did what they wanted, they need not - and I argue, would not - have made humankind capable of doing otherwise, or making conscious choices. This tells me that obedience, or behaviour, is not necessarily God's priority so much as the attitudes and choices that provoke it. It tells me that we are supposed to make choices, and really contemplate our behaviour. So, that's what I am setting out to do. Re-evaluate my entire system of belief, before re-constructing it accordingly.
You have probably noticed already that I am referring to God as "they" or "them", rather than using the traditionally masculine pronouns. This is because issues of gender are some of my most central concerns in terms of re-evaluating what I have previously accepted to be true. Firstly, I earnestly believe that any existing monotheistic God would by their very nature transcend gender, since their omnipotence removes the need for sexual procreation. Sex is a biological function we require to perpetuate our species since we are neither omnipotent (and able to furnish ourselves with offspring by magic), or immortal (removing the need for offspring altogether). As a deity transcendent of the ravages of time and with the capacity to create contrary to the law of conservation of matter, God does not need a sex, or corresponding gender.
So there. :-P God is a "they".
I have more thoughts on sex and gender, but I'm going to write them later... I've had too much coffee and I need to pee now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)