Thursday, April 22, 2010

How I use my Facebook

Facebook is a funny tool. I use it to annoy people, place random thoughts and slag off my chosen profession of archaeology as well as all of those who are associated with said profession. How did life function without social networking sites?

Fun as the use of facebook is I have recently discovered that it has darker side. With one or two too many drinks on me one night I responded to a friend's post in a way that I would not have done if I were a hundred percent sober!! I didn't actually say anything completely inappropriate but I think that the intention may have been misread. I won't compound this mistake by relating exactly what the comment was but let me say that it didn't go down too well.

Anyway in uni the following morning I was suffering from a headache and decided to take a break from the books and do some social networking; when I saw the post it all came flooding back and, to make it worse I couldn't just delete it as there was all ready seven responses; most of them were as shocked as I was when I re-read it first!!! By the end of the day there was a total of twenty-six responses and I detected some stony glances. I put a post up blaming the demon drink and claiming that the sarcasm was lost in the written media but I'm not sure that it worked. I think a proper night on the piss is the only thing that is going to cure this!!

The title of this post is How I use my Facebook and, after this incident, I would have to reply I use my facebook in a way that alienates people and, for the record, sarcasm is lost on social networking sites and donkey-punching jokes to people's mothers rarely go down well!

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour

Now isn't that an interesting thought...but I wonder if that is physical banging or metaphorical. I have been reading people's comments in the general comments section on and all I can think is that if banging your head against a wall really burns 150 calories an hour these must be among the skinniest people on the planet because banging their metaphorical heads against a metaphorical stonewall is all that they seem to do. Between the false logic, misquoting and randomness of some of the comments I'm sure that quite a lot of people there have very sore heads indeed.

On a serious note I feel that the discussion on illustrates some of the problems caused by a variety of religious believes in society. That one writer is Muslim of very strong beliefs and a number of the other writers are atheists with equally strong beliefs seems to mean that they cannot agree on even the simple what exactly a law on blasphemy will allow and disallow people to say and indeed on whether blasphemy is necessary and only semi-offensive or whether it is a form of bullying with serious psychological effects. Attempts are made on both parts to be rational and civil but these attempts very quickly break down to become word games and name calling.

I think that here we have the basic problem with the position attested to religion in society. It is impossible for people with different beliefs to agree even on the simple things. For this reason I feel that religion had no place within the public sphere. The ability of a deeply held ideology to create children out of otherwise rational adults seems to have no bounds. The effect that this infantilism has on civil matters when it is allowed to interfere is devastating...just remember that only a short number of years ago a woman had to be married and have a letter from her doctor to have access to birth control in Ireland. The decision to partake in sex outside of marriage is a personal one that should belong to the owner of the body but this was not allowed under a religious leadership. Church should not equal state.

I would not argue that people should not be allowed to practice religious adherence within their private lives but that is were it should remain. State sponsored schools should not have a religious ideology, state laws should not be based on religious ideals and church should have no place in the governing of a country. The laws of a country should be based on the moral code of the people within the country and as much as is possible people should be given the freedom to lead an individual life of their own choosing.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

"Ireland my one, my only love, where Christ and Caesar are hand in glove" - James Joyce

Today I was reading the Irish Times letters on line all of which were about the Ryan report. The majority of the letters expressed a belief (shared I am sure by any sane person) that the abuse of children by the church, and allowed by the state, has no place in a civilised society and called for compensation to victims. However, a number of these letters also expressed the opinion that these abusers were only a handful and that the good work of the church within the schools and hospitals needs to be acknowledged. This is were I start to have a problem.

That emotional, physical and sexual abuse of children was carried out by a minority may be true but none of these abusers were working within a political or social vaccum. They were working alongside other religious and secular people who, while maybe not taking part in the abuse, were aware that it was going on. The very fact that these children were ALL to scared to tell someone and that nobody watching the abuse stepped forward to speak of it shows that the whole of Irish society is implicated in this scandal. One letter writer pointed out that the compensation to be given to victims will work out at €400 per taxpayer, and doesn't the Irish person get off lightly.

All I can hope is that the danger of allowing one ideological system to control a state will be remembered from this harsh lesson. That a huge number of children suffered, and still suffer today as adults, needs to be acknowledged but cannot be changed. These victims need to be given an opportunity to tell their stories and rather than becoming jaded Ireland needs to continue to be outraged from each new detail that is learned but what we then do with this new information and outrage will define us as a nation.

In my eyes there has never been a clearer argument for the separation of social services and the church. It is time or the state to take control of schooling, religious orders have proved that they have no place in education. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past we will never learn at all. How right was Joyce?

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Blasphemy or heresy

So...welcome all to my first blog post.

I was at a meeting last night and it got me to thinking that I had so many thoughts about this (and indeed other) matters that I should create a blog that would allow others access to my insane ramblings.

Basically for those of you who do not know...the minister Dermot Ahern so proposing a new blasphemy law to be introduced in the defamation bill as the old one cannot be used (something about the vague definition of blasphemy meaning that it cannot be used in court). The resulting discussion was very interesting and raised a few thoughts around the nature of blasphemy that I would like to share.

Basically what is blasphemy. It was suggested last night that the new law could be used by Christian extremists who wish to be martyred for their cause but how would a Christian go about blaspheming. To my way of thinking blasphemy would be using the name of God in vain, denying the existence of God or breaking an oath that had been sworn under God's name...what sort f Christian fundamentalist would be prepared to do any of these things. A really pretty bad one I would think.

On the other hand heresy is a different matter and one that every single believer and non-believer of religion is guilty of. Heresy is expressing a belief that is contrary to the dogma of a religion. If a Christian was to sat that Mohammad was not a prophet, that's heresy. If a Buddhist is to say that Jesus was not the son of God then that too is heresy.

Within the new bill blasphemy is described as “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.” This sounds more like heresy to me. If the minister suggested the intention to introduce a law against heresy people would be outraged but that is in essence what this law is. As well as being anti-freedom of speech this law would be a regression to the totalitarianism of the middle ages and a step away from enlightenment thinking.