"Late Late Show" calls Islam a "wilfully ignorant religion"

by Chekov Sat Oct 04, 2003 14:13

The only (enormous) problem with the Late Late show was that not a single participant made the obvious point that christianity is also a bronze age, middle-eastern, desert superstition that is mysoginistic, profoundly undemocratic, homophobic and has no place in the 21st century.

And James, your defence of Sharia is blindly ignorant and full of wishful thinking. For example, the stonings in Northern Nigeria are not the remnants of a tribal custom. They have been explicitly introduced by the northern fulani emirs and high ranking army officers as a means of maintaining their rigid control over Hausa society as part of their political struggle with the current Yoruba-dominated administration of Obasanjo. Far from being spontaneous acts of popular feeling, the mob violence and ethnic wars in cities like Kaduna have been initiated by militias hired and controlled by the Northern emirs, under explicit orders from ex-high-ranking army officers. Certainly, amid the chaos of Nigerian society, the simplistic certainty of Sharia's "return to the golden age" has widespread appeal among the masses, but this has nevertheless been consciously created and used by the political elite. Far from 'actively trying to stamp out' such crimes, the emotional appeal of Sharia has wide resonance among Nigerian muslims.

As for your excuse for the public murder of Afghani women, the less said about that the better.

by Truthwatcher Sat Oct 04, 2003 14:46

1. The late late show did not say that islam was a willfully ignorant religion. ian o' doherty did.

2. O' doherty is not middle class, having been raised in tallaght and educated in the local state schools. (that doesn't mean he is not a dickhead though!)

3. There are 19,000 muslims living in ireland, according to the 2002 census. Not 30,000 as you claim.

4. According to human rights watch the taliban executed women for a variety of infringments of their codes, this included adultery, prostitution and incest.

I read and contribute to indymedia because I am interested in alternative, original news and events. I also like to read and debate with others along the spectrum of the left on our society.

Your piece is the same sort of inaccurate, healdine tabloidisation, selective justification crap that comes from the shitty writing that oozes out of the bowels of abbey street.

by expert @ these things. Sat Oct 04, 2003 15:16

O' doherty is not middle class, having been raised in tallaght and educated in the local state schools.


That means he is properly "formerly working class", and his social economic status is B2.

we have gone to great lengths to present the paradigm and it will help you all understand the class war so please try and use it, even if you don't like it @ first.

by Eoin Dubsky Sat Oct 04, 2003 15:42

I'm grateful to James for posting the article above, even if I agree to some extent with Chekov and 'Truthwatchers' comments too. I only picked up the end of the discussion on Pat Kenny's show last night, and didn't know the identity of the audience participant who James has quoted above ("It's [Islam] a willfully ignorant mysogynistic homophobic religion."). So thank you for bring that up here.

I'm grateful for Chekov's response above to James' explanation for the crimes committed in the name of Islam against women in Afghanistan and Northern Nigeria. The issue is far more complex (and I don't understand it!) than simply what James said.

Still Chekov, I think Nuria's arguments for Islam also have merit, and I wouldn't be so quick to decide what faiths belong in the 21st century and which ones should be dumped. She was by far the best speaker I think, but didn't get even the littlest clap from the audience when she spoke (unlike Ian O'Doherty's rant), until she said that muslims in Ireland condemn terrorism.

There will never be an honest discussion about "terrorism" and America though until we accept to use it as a term to discribe actions of a certain nature, instead of just actions by certain people (i.e. others). I have never heard Pat Kenny press an American guest on his show to condemn the US armed forces for their terrorism against people all over the world. Or any Irish person who supported the sanctions on Iraq, the attacks and most recently the invasion there.

On a lighter note... from THEONION.COM parody US newspaper:

Iran faces an Oct. 31 U.N. deadline to prove that it has no secret atomic-weapons program. What do you think?

Matt Donnelly:
"If armageddon devices of biblical proportion don't belong in the hands of fundamentalist religious extremists, where do they belong?"

by Lone Gunman Sat Oct 04, 2003 19:36

If you lobby Pat[smarmy patronising bollocks]Kenny
hard enough I am sure he will drag some American dupe on to be tormented and abused by a well planted anti American audience of yourselves & fellow munchkins. The Late late has been and always will be a moudule to get radical and current political favours and ideals over to the great unwashed Irish.

by pat c Sat Oct 04, 2003 19:58

So I was particularly annoyed to see Rowan Williams kneeling before old red sox and kissing his ring (er, the ring on his finger). While I scorn all religions at least the CoE has some semblance of democracy through its Synods.

Williams is dishonouring the protestant spirit of freedom from rule by a celibate oligarch by humbling himself brfore that scandolous old bachelor on the banks of the Tiber. He should have kicked the senile old fool out of his throne instead of enduring an anti gay diatribe.

by pat c Sat Oct 04, 2003 19:59

here you will see Rowan Williams humbling himself before a senile olf fool. You'd more expect it from Rowan Atkinson.

by abu Sun Oct 05, 2003 00:35

This is not the whole of "Ireland" surely Checkov.

Had you not considered the rest of the island?

Would you convert if you were offered to be Emir of all Ireland? With your own mosque on the banks of Lough Sheelin.

Allahu akbar!

by Nighthawks Sun Oct 05, 2003 02:22

What an ignoramus this poster is.

Anyway, whatever about witches 500 years ago, well at leat we stopped that, so that point is not valid.

Islam is incompatible with democracy unfortunately, as the religion and the state are inseparable, there is no "render unto God/Caesar" division in the minds of Musselmen. People who want to be muslims should not live in a non-muslim country as it's impossible for them to fully live the Islamic way here. Just last week, there was an "honour killing" in London when some Kurdish assylum seeker stabbed his daoughter to death for having a Christian boyfriend.

Isalm is a raw deal for women, it's a bad religion nad it's in the hands of bad men. We should keep Muslims at arms length. Pity they're living on top of so much of the world's oil.

by Hilal Sun Oct 05, 2003 08:04

Ian O'Doherty made his remarks because he was "primed" by Pat Kenny. Pat never said "Oh, We can't have that now Ian, Muslims are our brothers and sisters and are not, en masse , don't you know , like that". No he didn't, he clenched his smug jaw and gave a little perk up like "there now, my little boy said just what I knew he would". He didn't stop the audience applause and neither has he or RTE retracted or distanced themselves from the sactarian, racist remarks of Mr O'Doherty.

You know Christians in the US are as repulsed at the depravity of the Catholic church and it's sexual perversions for decades. They would like to stamp it out by terminating the Roman Cult, as they see it. And if some thick gets on the Late Late show and says "Christianity is backward, paedophilic and manipulative", would Pat let it stand or would he quickly point out that that was just one segment of Christianity . Albeit a sick, dark and vampiric section.

by Sylvia Pankurst Sun Oct 05, 2003 12:59

"It's a willfully ignorant mysogynistic homophobic religion." (Islam)

This line drew applause from an audience that seemed to me to be wearing a lot of crucifixes. Handpicked from the files of Opus RTE Dei ?

--------errrrrrrr wouldn't Opus Dei be into "mysogynistic homophobic religion." - and that would be a compliment for them.

by Bricked-up nun Sun Oct 05, 2003 15:41

"Isalm is a raw deal for women, it's a bad religion nad it's in the hands of bad men."
"You know Christians in the US are as repulsed at the depravity of the Catholic church and it's sexual perversions for decades."
"...would Pat let it stand or would he quickly point out that that was just one segment of Christianity . Albeit a sick, dark and vampiric section."

At the root of all religions is a hatred for women, so obviously all religion is sick and depraved, and that includes all factions of xtianity. All religion is sick, dark and vampiric (parasitical).

by one of kali's brood Sun Oct 05, 2003 16:58

what about lesbian wicca?

by akbar Sun Oct 05, 2003 17:45

>At the root of all religions is a hatred for
>women, so obviously all religion is sick and
>depraved, and that includes all factions of
>xtianity. All religion is sick, dark and
>vampiric (parasitical).

Don't be daft. Granted many western "Book" religions (xtian,muslim,judaism) have deeply engrained issues with women, and to my mind most of these religions are beyond reform due to the basic duality of their theology where everything is good or bad.

But there are many faiths mostly tribal/shamanic in nature whose theology is not based around hierarchy or organisation but mental disciplines and spiritual practises. To tar these with the same brush as the political organistions that masquerade as sprituality is nonsense.

The problem with people placing their primary identity with a religion is that its allows them to be duped by their "brothers" into causes which are not in their interest.

A case in point is the whole Islamic fundamentalism thing. At the end of the day a sharia law muslim state provides no more benefit for the average joe (or abdul) that any other state. The reason he gets into it all is the usual story.

Middle class elites in the muslim world who want to rise to power get all their the ordinary blokes to go along with them by creating this fake notion of common bonds through religion. Ordinary joe goes along with it because the modern world hasn't given him much and he sees islamic fundamentalism as a return to a simpler traditional life. Then when they win, the middle class takes over, a few ordinary joes become the new middle class and the rest carry on as before, getting screwed( but in a simpler traditional way! ).

The problem with religious fraternity is that it masks the actual fraternity of economic circumstance, of class.

Alot of people don't realize this and brand Islam ic fundamentalists as almost facist. While this may be true in certain respects its important to see that it is in some ways like our own left wing movements in the minds of its working class adherents, a reaction against globalisation, capitalism and all the modern deparavities that have been visited upon the middle east by the west. While this isn't a excuse its at least an understanding.

by class jihad Sun Oct 05, 2003 20:32

"Islamic fundamenatlism" is the new bogeman used by the Western elites to galvanise public support for their new "crusade" in the arab and broader muslim world.

The phenomenon of the rise of "Islamic fundamentalism" is typically presented in such simplistic terms without any effort to look at the underlying causes - and sadly largely swallowed in this form by the mainstream-media-hypnotised masses of Western consumer societies .....

In fact, along the lines you have suggested, I suspect that much of "Islamic fundamentalism" can be traced back to the discontent of the "globalisation losers" in these societies towards their local Western-controlled ruling class (the "globalisation winners").....

This is not to say that such "fundamentalism" is necessarily a good thing or to ignore its dark side ...... just an an attempt to analyse and understand rather than to demonise as part of an imperialist agenda of aggression and conquest ........

by Mankind Sun Oct 05, 2003 21:10

The Magdalene laundries were named after a well known biblical prostitute. These were amongst the many institutions where tens of thousands of our citizens were interned for the transgressions of having children out of wedlock, being sexually attractive or indulging in any sort of pre-nuptial carnality (at the time the only permissable carnal activity outside of wedlock was that committed by a man in long black dress upon a minor).
However we've made progress, the last laundry shut down seven years ago and now our women folk are free to run around the place behaving as wantonly as they please.
You see, Christianity and the west are progressive. Another example: when women decided they wanted to vote a few decades ago all they had to do was fling themselves under the king's horse.
In short: there is hope for us all.
How did those two arseholes get along when they set up stall at Stephen's Green on Saturday? Does anyone know?
Will we ever be free of mad men in dresses? And I don't mean trannies whom I'm sure the aforementioned men in dresses would gladly throw on the bonfire to burn alongside the rest of us sinners.

by chekov Sun Oct 05, 2003 21:25

"Christianity and the west are progressive"

The west is progressive in so far as it has ditched christianity. It wasn't the church that shut down the laundries or exposed the history of abuse. Equally, when christianity manages to regain some of its lost ground, as in the US, it is far from progressive. Look into the eyes of Bush and you'll see that god is in the driving seat - a mean motherfucker of a god too.

In general I think christians attacking islam as backward is nothing more than thinly veiled racism. Otherwise surely they would pluck the plank from their own eye before looking for the splinter in the eyes of others.

by Mankind Sun Oct 05, 2003 21:47

That "progressive" comment was sarcastic. I thought it would be obvious from the horse comment. Oh well.

by Irish American Mon Oct 06, 2003 05:35

Now if we could ever get them to talk about sly stroking priests, well . . .

by finbar Mon Oct 06, 2003 09:58

could someone please post the article in the last edition of Red and Black on Islam i think its particularly relevant to this posting and the line of thought that"my enemies enemey is my friend" which runs through the original posting.

by kokomero Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:34

on antideluvianism, one need look no further than Bush and Blair to see how Christian fundamentalism has distorted world politics.

These "religiously inspired" policies are used as an excuse for wholesale deprivation of human rights as was evident in last night's Panorama programme about the Guantanamo concentration camp.

All of this is happening in a world which has obviously moved beyond organised religion as a moral arbiter.

Surely we all deserve better than the devisive policies on offer from the Christian, Jewish and Islamic right wing which simply facilitate the status quo?

by fodhla Mon Oct 06, 2003 13:55

RTE and the media in general have a general anti-religion bias. Their idea of a good show for decades was to get some caricatures of Catholicism to debate with some image of modernity. It was substantially a reflection of internalised colonialism. Where Ireland was Catholic and the coloniser considerably less religious, modernisation required that Ireland no longer be Catholic. This is understandably no longer interesting for a few reasons: the Church hierachy’s hold on politics has been broken and the abuse perpetrated within religious institutions has taken the clergy off the pedestal they had put themselves on, but mostly its just because its old hat and noone’s interested any more.

But almost any religion will do (Judaism won’t do because we still remember what that game ended in Germany) , so you get a few caricatures of Islam, and you play the a new version of the same game. But this time you can play another game at the same time. It’s called those foreigners are backwards. You see we’re doing our best to copy the colonisers (UK/USA) but there are lots of other old colonies full of other people who are thankfully even more inferior than us. And better still some of them are here, threatening our modernity.

But there are some rules. One is you must have conflict and ideally abuse. Another is you must maintain a level of ignorance. At all costs if you are going to talk about Nigeria you avoid putting a Nigerian expert on the show, and if you are going to talk about Iran don’t have any Iranians. If you are going to talk about the position of women in Islam make sure you don’t get a Muslim woman to talk about it. And don’t get a calm reasoned person who has been involved in discussions between different religions, philosophies and cultures. No, find someone who’s got the same dualistic interpretation of things as our friend James above, who’s got to jump from one side to the other in a great metaphysical battle.

What’s most interesting about the first posting above is the idea of “Opus RTE Dei” – the concept of RTE as a hotbed of right-wing Catholic reaction. Obviously James is still playing the first game!

by . Mon Oct 06, 2003 15:30

Someone said forget about witch burnings 500 years ago. Suggesting the fact that as it was 500 years ago it is irrelevant. 1. The last Irish witch killing is recorded in the late 19th century, and in southern US states an average of 20 murders in the 1990's were attributed to the murderer believing the women were witches. So those murders aren't something that happened 500 years ago and then ended.
2. While I'm not sure of the exact time it originated but isn't Islam about 600 years younger than Christianity, so it has 600 years to evolve into the wonder that is modern day Christianity, no divorce, no abortion, no acceptance of homosexuality, no equal status for women.......I could go on.

by willy wonka Mon Oct 06, 2003 16:15

Can you name even one. This sounds like bollocks to me.

And what do you mean "an average of 20 murders". Is it twenty murders over the course of the 1990s, or an average of 20 murders per year for each year of the 1990s. Or do you not know what you're talking about, and are just making this up?

by muslim Mon Oct 06, 2003 16:22

a rant...

it's disturbing to see how people whom i respect deeply in the left and who've bravely taken on and raised awareness about american imperialism end up practicing their own brand of cultural imperialism... it's come to point that if a person is to express any spirituality they're deemed as suckers... aboriginal peoples, pagans, muslims what have you... anything other than secularism is held as misguided and inferior to yup european/western derived socialist/anarchist philosophies... so much for respecting diversity...

to be honest, as a muslim who's been so incredibly inspired by being a part of the left and in working towards a better and sustainable alternative world, the broad branding of islam as a belief system based on injustice smacks of racism.

there's no doubt that women are and have been abused in the name of islam in virtually every muslim country... but to many of us muslims it is evident that islam is being practiced wrongly here... what the Taliban did in afghanistan is not islamic... and certainly the onus lies on muslims around the world to stand up to and condemn these injustices... it is an incredible shame and pity that we have failed to do so... but while the way islam is practiced is increasingly dictated by corrupt so-called islamic governments and power hungry mullahs and also while the islamic tradition of healthy critical analysis/debates/discussions/challenges of interpretations of the Quran, Hadith, and Sunnah is increasingly repressed, this does not mean that islam, the religion itself is flawed. I'm sure the people who've posted here so far have read up somewhat on islam be it on the wsm website or elsewhere... for a slightly diff perspective a couple of books amongst many written and that are worth exploring are 'Beilieving Women in Islam' by Asma Barlas and then there's Edward Said's 'Covering Islam'... in the hopes to dispel some misconceptions about a religion named 'peace'.

by Andrew Mon Oct 06, 2003 16:25

Unfortunately people still get killed by christians today who are accused of being witches. In Auguist this year a man was stoned to death in Chiapas, Mexico, see http://www.zerotime.com/articles/stone.htm for an Ap report.

I'm aware of well over a dozen such killings in Chiapas since 1994

by j-jay Mon Oct 06, 2003 17:13

It is worth pointing out that the vast majority of witch hunting was carried out in protestant an puritan Germany and the States.

And before some idiot pipes up about the Spanish Inquistion, they might like to know that very few people were executed under the orders of that organistaion.

Witches have f~~~ all to do with modern day islam, what is important though is to note that the most "succesful" islamic states are viciously anti-islamic e.g. turkey

by Andrew Mon Oct 06, 2003 17:29

OK, I'll bite

Criticism of a religion is not 'racism' in particular when it is a religion that prides itself on being non-racial. Muslims do not belong to any so called 'race' and come in all colors. Sure in parts of the world criticism of Islam CAN be a code word for attacks on North Africans (for instance) but its intellectually dishonest to pretend this means that all such criticisms ARE racist. Who else pulls this particular trick? Why zionists of course who are always trying to claim that criticims of zionism are really anti-semitism.

I'm a pretty die hard athiest so I am inclined to see people who 'express any spirituality' as 'suckers'. Respecting diversity means that I say 'go ahead and be a sucker if you wish', not that I feel unable to criticise anything different from what I believe. I'm not however inclined to see animism (for instance) as being any more stupid that any of the religions of the book (christanity, islam, judaism).

And lets be honest, in terms of the religions held by 'aboriginal peoples' Islam or Christanity are virtually identical. From the outside the minor differences over the exact status of Jesus for instance are pretty irrelevant. Islam IS a western religion if you live in China or the Americas both geographically and historically.

But really there is something a little odd in a muslim jumping to the defence of paganism. The Quran allows (unequal) co-existance with Jews or Christians. But Pagans don't quite fit in, Qur'an-(9:5): "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ; but if they repent (accept Islam) and establish regular prayers and practices regular charity then open the way for them; for God is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (there are many similar quotes)

Nothing unusual here in terms of the 3 western monotheistic religions, if anything Islam in practise has had more tolerance until recent times towards pagans then christanity. But respect for diversity, I don't think so!

The excuse that variant X is not real 'insert your preferred brand of monotheism here' is as old as the witch trials and the conquest of the Americas. Well older, when one lot of Catholicis were busy killing the indigenous people to 'save their souls' or burning witches another lot (eg Bartholmew d'Casas) were decrying these actions. So it is with Islam. Thank god the majority of religious believers do not take their 'holy book' at face value or even when they do are reluctant to actually implement what it says. Other wise we would be permanently knee deep in blood.

So 'honor killings' for instance are found only in some regions where Islam is widespread. But Islam and specifically verses of the Quran like that below DO provide the justification for them. Qur'an 4.34. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart; and scourge (beat) them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great."

Incidentally in comparison with the christian bible women do a fair bit better under the Quran. The difference today is not the written word but rather that most christians no longer take the literal word of the bible seriously. Unfortuantly muslims are required to take the Quoran seriously (as god is meant to have dictated it to Mohammad in a similar way that the 10 commandmants where meant to have been dictated to Moses).

For further reading try out the 'Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society' web page put together by ex-Muslims (shich I guess means they can't be 'racists'). It's at http://www.isisforum.com/Default.htm

A long dead anarchist wrote "In talking to us of God they purpose, they desire, to elevate us, emancipate us, ennoble us, and, on the contrary, they crush and degrade us. With the name of God they imagine that they can establish fraternity among men, and, on the contrary, they create pride, contempt; they sow discord, hatred, war; they establish slavery".

Oh nd Islam is more usually translated as meaning 'submission'.

by ? Mon Oct 06, 2003 18:07

i heard they were pro 911 . Is that true? who are they? I heard they spoke in dublin the next day.

by imperialism...... Mon Oct 06, 2003 18:44

Often the west is accused of imperialism, both cultural and capitalist. People fail to see the middle east as part of the west. It is where most european culture can be traced to, thanks a lot. The middle east is not full of meek poor people living under the oppression of the west and in the past has been the centre of some of the most ambitious imperial projects. The idea of christian imposing cultural values on muslims as an east west dichotomy is ridiculous. The middle east has been involved in what can only be described as religious and cultural imperialism for millenia.

Now for my pointless rant that discredits me: My advice is drinking fountains, air conditioning and regular meals to stop these recurring hallucinations that have repeatedly brought woe on the people of the middle east and all others who believe in their hallucinations. The more you examine it, it becomes as ridiculous as a Startrek vs starwars debate. Give us all some peace and keep the next lot of revelations to yourselves.

by reader Mon Oct 06, 2003 21:06

Andrew wrote: “Thank god the majority of religious believers do not take their 'holy book' at face value or even when they do are reluctant to actually implement what it says. Other wise we would be permanently knee deep in blood.”

“A teacher of the Law had been listening to this discussion and admired how Jesus answered them. So he came up and asked him: ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’

“Jesus answered ‘ The first is: Hear, Israel! The Lord, our God, is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. And after this comes another one: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these two.’”

by Badman Tue Oct 07, 2003 00:50

"If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 20:13)

Aside from proving andrew's point about taking the bible literately, counterposing this with the above quote just goes to show how ludicrous it is to put your blind faith in these books. Most people take from them whatever they want to justify whatever they want to do, but if you do try to take them literally, there's gonna be bodies about.

by ian o'doherty Mon Dec 15, 2003 14:08 iodoherty at unison dot independent dot ie

this latest piece of bilge about my apparent middle class catholic opposition shows how stuck in outmoded constructs the writer truly is.
for a start, i am an atheist, and a devout one at that and i view all religions with equal contempt. as dawkins himself rightly points out they are dangerous viruses.
the idea that somehow anyone can only be oppsed to the taliban or any other islamic (or any other superstition) regime because of catholic fear and ignorance is pathetic.
keep on moaning all you want, but it's a bit sad that a site which is meant to be about freeing people from certain shackles is still stuck in the past using phrases like middle class catholic.
me, catholic? man, that hurts

by Journo watch Mon Dec 15, 2003 14:16

"...but it's a bit sad that a site which is meant to be about freeing people from certain shackles is still stuck in the past using phrases like middle class catholic."

One person's comments does not make it the views of the whole site, muppet.
Sir Tony not teach you the basics then. And well done on replying to something over two months later - bit fast for a Indo journalist.

by David Mon Dec 15, 2003 14:33

I think all insular organised religions have too many skeletons in their closet. I think they are based on false beliefs and they have never been a force for good in the world

by ian o'doherty Tue Dec 16, 2003 09:35

call me a muppet all you want, if that's your best shot then that's your best shot, bring it on.
at least i'm prepared to put my name to what i write

by Big Cheese Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:24

We all know that you are a muppet we've seen your 'journalism'.

By the way this is my real name.

by sweet jesus Wed Dec 17, 2003 00:00

cheese rocks.. slating other peoples religions does not.

by Ronan - Indymedia Ireland Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:16

I have 'hidden' a comment which was posted at 8.03am today. The author name was given as 'ian o'doherty'. I hid it because it was abusive. Due to the terminology used I had doubts as to whether it was posted by the named person. I sincerely hope he would not use that phraseology.

by Question Wed Dec 17, 2003 13:48

I once knew but now I do not. Where can i find hidden comments?

by The Man - The Irish Association for Digital Chocolate Sun Apr 16, 2006 17:00

I think it sucks major asscrack that a despicable attention-whore like Ian O'Doherty is allowed to air his self-righteous views in the first place. Sometimes free speech needs a large burly prison guard standing right behind it ready to smack it across the head with a truncheon - just in case the protagonist in question starts spouting his trademark zombifying shite for the sake of a few headlines.

Look O'Doherty, you've already suckered one two-bit rag into employing you and your vast ego to vent it's spleen onto an ever more apathetic nation, but don't sully our already asinine national television channels with your tripe as well.

Have some fucking mercy.

by NoGodsOrMasters Sun Apr 16, 2006 21:52

I'd love to see how things would pan out if mankind stopped believing in an after life and actually took this one a little more seriously. In my opinion certain rights such as the right to religon should be secondary to other human rights. Humans dont need any religons to guide us. This simple rule on its own is enough: "treat others as you would like them to treat you".

Many great people through history have disliked religon
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Irreligious

Islam 101
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=884

Islam by people who should know
http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

not bad
http://www.nobeliefs.com/

blog with lotsa links to other atheist sites
http://www.gods4suckers.net/

a bit of fun for those of you tired of pandering meekly to religon
http://thewaronfaith.com/

by Dinny Fahey Mon Apr 17, 2006 03:54

"The only (enormous) problem with the Late Late show was that not a single participant made the obvious point that christianity is also a bronze age, middle-eastern, desert superstition that is mysoginistic, profoundly undemocratic, homophobic and has no place in the 21st century."

As a Catholic, I'm going to play the religious persecution card.

Chekov, you demonstrate that the "political correctness" espoused by some people here is merely a facade concealing a minority who hold violent Jacobin views, who would, if it threatened their Utopian vision, re-open the gulag for "superstitionists".

Religion HAS a place in the 21st Century - simply because the more religion is abandoned, the more anti-human and robotic society becomes. And while the "droids" on Indymedia mock and deride faith - particularly the Christian faith - they cling to a "real world" which is, frankly, unreal in its capacity for cruelty.

Only in an atheistic society like China can a government willingly permit the mass murder off innocent new-born children. I know most of you here probably regard Bush's America as an evangelical theocracy - but the Prez and is entourage are about as Christian as Mao Tse Tung. Money and power are the surrogate gods in America, and the results, as you have all seen, are devastating.

So please, everybody, stuff the "opiate of the masses" dogma, because in today's world, to be devoutly religious is to be a true revolutionary.

by .:. Mon Apr 17, 2006 16:24

more than 15 years ago, I facilitated an interview with the journalist mentioned in the article above, (when he was still starting out) and the then secretary of the grand lodge of freemasons in Ireland, Mr Walker which subsequently formed the "factual gloss" of a paranoid conspiracy rant across the cover and 2 inside pages of the magazine "In Dublin". It was my first experience of sensationalist "journalism", misquotation", and pure "hackery" & since then I've nurtured a profound distrust of "professional" journalists. There are I believe suppose to be 3 types of "journalist" ; those who report facts objectively, those who write features articles in which objectivity is reduced, and those who work their way up through the dismal ranks to sit either in audiences at TV chat shows or on the stage next to a mediocre pretty face and promote "opinion" as columnists. Thankfully the increased availability and use of technology and the internet, and the popularity of blogs and sites such as the generally typical global indymedia organisation have undermined the former "authority" of columnists and opinion makers. - = Anyone can have an opinion .

To those who try to offer opinions on religion and scriptures, be they Christian, Gnostic, Judaic, Islamic or even Mormon, I would suggest at the very least undertaking a course of study in the languages those scriptures were written in, and the historical & social cultural contexts attendent to same. If you don't know your eros from your caritas or your adonai from your elohim not to mention the worth of a lepton from a talent then all you are left with is the scope offered to the willingly ignorant to pass comment on religiosity and contempory western cultural hegomonic values . Values best expressed by the full page adverts in today's continental european newspapers of Roman Catholic majority states which depict a little girl in her first communion dress expressing the wish to fulfil her dream & get brought by her devoted parents (&/or) others to Disneyland.

To my lasting shame, before that article in "In Dublin" appeared on freemasonry, i also collaborated with said hack, on an article on witchcraft and the western occult and hermetic traditions, and with another hack of Irish Independent group on "homelessness" in the Dublin of that period. The only benefits i accrued were the offer of a column over 15 years ago in "Hot Press" to express my views on "this and that" the first suggestion to try my intellect being :- why tossers liked to buy Corona bear in the Pink Elephant? I declined to debase my self so.
I lost my faith in commercial journalism at the point, as well as any hope of watching serious discussion of any topic on TV, and resolved to even lose my faith in ortography, and thence on peppered all my sentances with typographic errors, till finally on June 18th 1998 indymedia began.

by ribbidgurggleSPLAT Mon Apr 17, 2006 17:13

Dinny, believing the tenets of some religon is not revolutionary.
its easy to believe in a fairy story. Whats revolutionary is when you get up off your ass and actually help change whats bad in society for the better. If believing in a fairy story is whats needed to motivate this behaviour then I would say its a bit indirect and why not just do it because its the right thing to do to protect the weak in society, but hell whatever gets you out there.

Im inclined to think that doing the right thing for the right reason trumps doing the right thing in the hope of reward in the afterlife. But as long as you get up off your ass and join the struggle for a fair and just society with your activist brothers then I guess we can always argue about motivations afterwards.

Much Respect for the catholic workers (p2p) cos they actually get out there and do good stuff.