Bishop Accused of Incitement to Hatred - File Sent to DPP

gawker

A HOMILY delivered at Knock shrine by the Bishop of Raphoe, Philip Boyce, is being investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions following a formal complaint by a leading humanist who claims the sermon was an incitement to hatred.

The gardai have confirmed to former Fine Gael election candidate John Colgan that they have prepared and forwarded a file to the DPP after he made allegations that the address by Dr Boyce was in breach of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989.

The homily, entitled: "To Trust in God" was delivered to worshippers during a novena at the Marian shrine in Co Mayo last August and subsequently reported in the media, including The Irish Times, under the headline: "'Godless culture' attacking church, says bishop."

Mr Colgan, a retired chartered engineer and economist from Leixlip, Co Kildare, referred in his formal complaint to two key passages in Dr Boyce's homily which he believes broke the law.

One of the passages referred to the Catholic Church in Ireland being "attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture".

A second passage, which was included in the complaint, stated: "For the distinguishing mark of Christian believers is the fact they have a future; it is not that they know all the details that await them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness."

Mr Colgan, who was a leader in the 'Campaign to Separate Church and State' in the late 1990s, said in his complaint: "I believe statements of this kind are an incitement to hatred of dissidents, outsiders, secularists, within the meaning of the [Incitement to Hatred] Act, who are perfectly good citizens within the meaning of the civil law. The statements exemplify the chronic antipathy towards secularists, humanists etc, which has manifested itself in the ostracising of otherwise perfectly good Irish citizens, who do not share the aims of the Vatican's Irish Mission Church."

More @ http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bishop-accused-of-incitement-to-hatred-in-homily-3003057.html

Surprised this has not popped up here yet. I think it's a stupid thing to do. It is a waste of taxpayers money having it "investigated" and frankly an embarrassment to the humanist community of Ireland. I mean, this plays into the exact stereotype those on the religious right would like to portray athiests as: people who try get in the way of their "faith" and how they practice it.

I agree the Bishop seems a bit of a headcase and what he said was wrong, but they are doing to do nothing other than make him surer of his convictions that Catholicism in Ireland is under attack.

Sometimes I wonder if there is room for a new religion called "common sense"...:(

What do you all think?

fisgon

Obviously there is no encitement to hatred here. The guy is wrong headed and overreacting.
There is, however, the usual incitement to ignorance, paranoia, victimhood, and the adoption of a persection complex by the cleric involved, but it's the Catholic church, so what does he expect? This guy Colgan's complaint is just silly, and he should keep his powder dry for some real battles that are worth fighting.

Lucy8080

i wouldnt even put the homily under" religious right". i doubt if anyone round these parts feels threatened.

i just get the smell of someone who is looking to be offended.

i would imagine that catholicism feels a bit of a siege mentalitiy in the last few years...so i would excuse on those grounds an alex ferguson team talk..

and as for a faith in the future....thats the right of all religions...no surprise there. you would hope they would give that at least to the flock.

o.t.t.

makes the bishop look good i.m.o.

maybe the complainer is a double agent!

Dades

Surely there's worse things said in sermons around the country that go unreported. Mountain out a molehill.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

makes the bishop look good i.m.o.

I doubt that.

irishben

I believe the incitement to hatred bill is the same as censorship. That is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, or other controlling body. Its a slippery slope we're on, if this Bishop is prosecuted.

MagicMarker

Well, if this can go to court, anything is possible!!

the_syco

Although I agree with him to a point, the fact that Mr Colgan was in a RC church in the first place says to me that he was looking for a fight...!

is this bishop accused then and not accusing? the title is a bit misleading

it would be pretty funny if a bishop were making those accusations


anyway i think it's a bit of a fuss about nothing, duno why the guy is complaining, the bishop was clearly saying "we believe in an afterlife so nyahh"

gawker

bluewolf wrote: »

is this bishop accused then and not accusing? the title is a bit misleading

Good spot, my mistake!

Dades

bluewolf wrote: »

is this bishop accused then and not accusing? the title is a bit misleading

Fixed!

For clarification title changed from "Bishop Accuses of Incitement to Hatred" to "Bishop Accused of Incitement to Hatred..."

expectationlost

its not that he said something directly hateful but if you suggest to people that they are being attacked, that could incite hate, I mean that is the classic way of doing it, anyway it won't go anywhere

here's the full speech,
http://www.donegaldaily.com/2012/01/29/bishop-boyces-knock-sermon-in-full/

what was that thing the pope said about sword

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/the-pope-and-islam/
http://onecatholicnews.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/pope-peace-is-not-built-by-the-sword-but-by-being-ready-to-suffer-rejection-and-persecution/

that was all the way back in 2006?

tricky D

Too much of both intolerance and taking offense in the world these days.

Otacon

the_syco wrote: »

Although I agree with him to a point, the fact that Mr Colgan was in a RC church in the first place says to me that he was looking for a fight...!

Is he an atheist? Only mentioned that he was involved in 'Campaign to Separate Church and State'. He could be a catholic.

robindch

tricky D wrote: »

Too much of both intolerance and taking offense in the world these days.

RichieC

We'd never be out of court if we were to react like this every time christians voiced their persecution complex.

recedite

gawker wrote: »

The gardai have confirmed to former Fine Gael election candidate John Colgan

This seems to be the relevant part. The guy seems to think that when someone running for public office is condemned (even indirectly) from the pulpit, he loses his chance. He's probably correct, but then that's democracy in action.

Doesn't seem to have got far in politics since 1982, but maybe that's what bothers him.

the_syco wrote: »

Although I agree with him to a point, the fact that Mr Colgan was in a RC church in the first place says to me that he was looking for a fight...!

Maybe he read the speech in a newspaper?

expectationlost

how succesful was the Colgan, lead in the 'Campaign to Separate Church and State' in the late 1990s, or how good was its try

Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd v Minister for Education [1998] 3 IR 321, [1998] 2 ILRM 81, in which a challenge to the constitutionality of the State funding of school chaplains was taken by an organisation opposed to State involvement with religion.

Galvasean

I really don't see any 'incitement to hatred' in the bishop's statements. Looks to me like Colgan was looking for something to complain about - a personal vendetta perhaps..

recedite

'Incitement to vote against' might be more accurate.

Sarky

Potentially dodgy reasons for doing it and the likelihood of the DPP throwing the case out aside, it's nice to see that it CAN be done. I wouldn't like to have been in Colgan's shoes if he'd said that about a bishop 50 years ago.

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

Potentially dodgy reasons for doing it and the likelihood of the DPP throwing the case out aside, it's nice to see that it CAN be done. I wouldn't like to have been in Colgan's shoes if he'd said that about a bishop 50 years ago.

Ironically if you did it 50 years ago you'd be hunted down by the 'moral' majority. How's that for insighting hatred?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

'Incitement to vote against' might be more accurate.

To be honest, I don’t think even that one stands up. There’s nothing in the sermon about voting, nothing about elections, nothing about politics. Colgan himself hasn’t been an election candidate in the last 30 years (and, when he was, he ran on the same ticket as Alice Glenn - there’s irony!). In any event neither Colgan nor his organisation are mentioned in the sermon.

Colgan’s complaint of “incitement to hatred” rests mainly on the fact that the bishop says that the church is being “attacked from the outside by a secular and godless culture”. But he mentions that as an illustration of his claim that the present time is “certainly a testing one for the church”, and he immediately offers a second illustration - the church is “rocked from the inside by the sins and crimes of priests and consecrated people”.

The notion that this amounts to “incitement to hatred” against people of a secular mindset is just bizarre. If anybody’s behaviour is likely to “incite hatred” against secularists, it’s Colgan’s. His posturing, his attempt to have the bishop prosecuted for this sermon, presents secularists as vindictive, hysterical, insecure, intolerant and oppressive. Though, frankly, Colgan’s actions here are likely to incite not so much hatred as ridicule and derision. Let’s hope that it’s ridicule and derision directed against Colgan in particular rather than against secularists and sceptics in general.

ShooterSF

First off I don't like "incitement to hatred" laws. With that said though I can see how he sees it as incitement to hatred. If you claim your group is being attacked by another group you are pushing your group members at best to be defensive and worst to launch a counter attack. And how can you not hate someone if you percieve them as attacking your way of life?
Still... meh.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

There’s nothing in the sermon about voting, nothing about elections, nothing about politics. Colgan himself hasn’t been an election candidate in the last 30 years

I'm guessing he's resentful of the fact that as an atheist he could never make it as a FG candidate, and maybe he didn't support the socialist policies of left wing parties, which two factors would have effectively locked him out of politics altogether.

Even today, you can see the tensions between Labour and FG.
To fully understand this, you have to look at where they came from;

A very strong labour movement developed in Dublin after the 1913 lockout. They were anti hierarchy, some members were pro communist. The RCC did not like them. One of the founding members of the Citizen Army was a declared atheist, and later went to Spain to fight against the Fascists in the civil war there. At the time, Fine Gael were effectively "the Blueshirts" who marched on Dublin to seize power, as RCC backed proto-fascists under their founder and leader Eoin O'Duffy. They were repelled by the Dubliners (not the band). O'Duffy also went to Spain, and fought for the Fascists.

magicbastarder

ShooterSF wrote: »

First off I don't like "incitement to hatred" laws.

in what sense?

Galvasean

recedite wrote: »

They were repelled by the Dubliners (not the band).

That'd have been awesome

Peregrinus

Galvasean wrote: »

That'd have been awesome

In the movie version, I vote that we depict the band doing the repelling.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I'm guessing he's resentful of the fact that as an atheist he could never make it as a FG candidate, and maybe he didn't support the socialist policies of left wing parties, which two factors would have effectively locked him out of politics altogether.

He was an FG candidate in 1982; we don't know that he was an atheist then. (And, if he was, he was the kind of atheist who would share a ticket with Alice Glenn.)

Given the kind of judgment and common sense he displays in the present episode, I think we can explain his failure to advance very far in his political career without reference to his religious beliefs, or lack of them.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

He was an FG candidate in 1982; we don't know that he was an atheist then.

And if he was, he would have been unwise to broadcast it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the movie version, I vote that we depict the band doing the repelling.

...and as the clean-cut Blueshirts approached Kilmainham, they were were met with the terrifying sight and sounds of a raucous band of bearded barbarians jumping up and down, and waving banjo's over their heads, at which the fascists broke ranks and fled back down the road westwards...

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

...and as the clean-cut Blueshirts approached Kilmainham, they were were met with the terrifying sight and sounds of a raucous band of bearded barbarians jumping up and down, and waving banjo's over their heads, at which the fascists broke ranks and fled back down the road westwards...

"I've got a beard, and I'm not afraid to use it!"

ShooterSF

magicbastarder wrote: »

in what sense?

In the sense that I'd prefer freedom of speech where ever possible and hold individuals responsible if they allowed themselves to be incited. I guess I just wish we didn't need them as people should realise when someone is saying something stupid and lose respect for them rather than say well he's in my tribe so I guess I agree.

recedite

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd prefer freedom of speech where ever possible and hold individuals responsible if they allowed themselves to be incited.

Fair point, but look at what happened in Germany in the 1930's; once enough people get incited they can change the law so that their subsequent actions are no longer illegal. Could WW2 have been prevented by adequate incitement to hatred laws?

magicbastarder

ShooterSF wrote: »

In the sense that I'd prefer freedom of speech where ever possible and hold individuals responsible if they allowed themselves to be incited. I guess I just wish we didn't need them as people should realise when someone is saying something stupid and lose respect for them rather than say well he's in my tribe so I guess I agree.

the reason i asked was i was wondering what your stance on incitement to hatred laws is; i'm not sure how thin the line between incitement to hatred laws and verbal assault is, but it'd be a problematic area, possibly.

personally, i have no real beef with the law saying you cannot publically call for the jewish race to be exterminated, for example.

expectationlost

magicbastarder wrote: »

the reason i asked was i was wondering what your stance on incitement to hatred laws is; i'm not sure how thin the line between incitement to hatred laws and verbal assault is, but it'd be a problematic area, possibly.

personally, i have no real beef with the law saying you cannot publically call for the jewish race to be exterminated, for example.

what if a jewish person says the muslims want to exterminate jews. what reaction would that incite.

is there such a thing as an 'incitement to fear' ( in irish law or just in general)

although catholic mistrust of atheists is pervasive its not high tensioned which is why this case would fail.

MrPudding

I have to say, I am a little conflicted on these types of cases.

On the one hand I find it amusing that a religious person has fallen foul of a law that was originally made to protect the religious and their very sensitive, easily offended simple minds.

On the other hand, I am fairly keen on freedom of expression...

This entire subject is getting a little bit silly with people on both sides claiming to be offended or persecuted and the authorities in the middle with the thankless task of trying to enforce stupid legislation and appease professional offence takers.

MrP

expectationlost

MrPudding wrote: »

I have to say, I am a little conflicted on these types of cases.

On the one hand I find it amusing that a religious person has fallen foul of a law that was originally made to protect the religious and their very sensitive, easily offended simple minds.

On the other hand, I am fairly keen on freedom of expression...

This entire subject is getting a little bit silly with people on both sides claiming to be offended or persecuted and the authorities in the middle with the thankless task of trying to enforce stupid legislation and appease professional offence takers.

MrP

you talking blasphemy law or incitment to hatred?

MrPudding

expectationlost wrote: »

you talking blasphemy law or incitment to hatred?

Incitement. I am not conflicted on blasphemy laws, we are hundreds of years too late for blasphemy laws; they are ridiculous and I can see no justification for them. I can, however, see justification for the incitement laws though they are badly written and poorly enforced.

MrP

Adamas

recedite wrote: »

Fair point, but look at what happened in Germany in the 1930's; once enough people get incited they can change the law so that their subsequent actions are no longer illegal. Could WW2 have been prevented by adequate incitement to hatred laws?

The problem with these clerical announcements about 'forces' supposedly 'attacking' them, is that they are not honest statements of fact, clearly identifying exactly who and by what means they are being 'attacked'.
If they have something to say about someone saying something that can be shown to be wrong or misguided, then so be it, and say it out, but don't stand up on a pulpit in front of hundreds of scared believers who can't figure out what is going on, as they are mainly working on unfounded fears that their pastors know full well are never explained.
It's fear being promoted for fear's sake, and is typical of these types who made pariahs out of thousands of right-minded citizens of this supposed Republic who dared to question the heavy handed authority of the priesthood, with obvious cover-ups and abuses continuing until they could no longer be hidden. That's not the right way to do things, as it's feeble-minded excuse to make themselves feel less inadequate. In fact, it might be seen as unchristian, if they bothered to follow their own rules.

beerbuddy

Adamas wrote: »

The problem with these clerical announcements about 'forces' supposedly 'attacking' them, is that they are not honest to follow their own rules.....

Can you tell me what he said that was so Inflamatory,His speech in Spain caused no controversy and i hadnt even heard of it until somebody on Boards brought it to my attention.

Adamas

beerbuddy wrote: »

Can you tell me what he said that was so Inflamatory,His speech in Spain caused no controversy and i hadnt even heard of it until somebody on Boards brought it to my attention.

I never said his comments were 'inflamatory, just that they were making unfounded and unverifiable allegations toward unnamed forces, as in being "attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture".

The Christian 9th Commandment says very clearly "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.", and as Jesus said that alll men are your neighbour, you should not go around saying that they are doing things to you that you can't be specific about. If they are, go to the Gardai and make a complaint.

What I am saying is that if a person in a position of influence, like a priest, makes such statements, then he should be aware that the unknowns in his words can cause his flock to imagine all sorts of things that he can't justify. The same goes for anyone, but in this case it was a man of God, who should bear witness to the truth, and not spread anxiety about somehow being mysteriously attacked by invisible enemies. That's how Jew baiting and boycotting was propagated in Limerick in the 19th century, by slanderous allegations by a priest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Limerick#Pogrom

It's not particularly a 'Catholic' problem, but people should think before they make emotive statements that contradict their own supposed beliefs.

Redlimo

You don't have to look too far on the Internet to find any amount of sometimes pretty vile attacks on the Catholic church. I'm not saying they might not be deserved, but they are there. And as far as "emotive statements" go, surely you're making some yourself by accusing the bishop of breaking the ninth commandment and by juxtaposition of his comments with anti-Semitism in 19th century Limerick! Also, you seem to give remarkably little credit to his congregations intelligence. So he says the church is being attacked and they're all going to panic and do what exactly?!!

Pwpane

Redlimo wrote: »

You don't have to look too far on the Internet to find any amount of sometimes pretty vile attacks on the Catholic church. I'm not saying they might not be deserved, but they are there. And as far as "emotive statements" go, surely you're making some yourself by accusing the bishop of breaking the ninth commandment and by juxtaposition of his comments with anti-Semitism in 19th century Limerick! Also, you seem to give remarkably little credit to his congregations intelligence. So he says the church is being attacked and they're all going to panic and do what exactly?!!

Perhaps control (not influence) what people believe and how they behave: curriculum in schools, behaviour of teachers, ethics committees in hospitals, enactment of laws, constitution of public bodies, disbursement of public money....

And I'm talking about current practice.

Catholic opinion, directed and on occasion whipped up by church leaders, has done much damage in this country.

Adamas

Redlimo wrote: »

You don't have to look too far on the Internet to find any amount of sometimes pretty vile attacks on the Catholic church. I'm not saying they might not be deserved, but they are there. And as far as "emotive statements" go, surely you're making some yourself by accusing the bishop of breaking the ninth commandment and by juxtaposition of his comments with anti-Semitism in 19th century Limerick! Also, you seem to give remarkably little credit to his congregations intelligence. So he says the church is being attacked and they're all going to panic and do what exactly?!!

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I may be wrong, but you seem to be getting angry, no? In fact I was not, and am not, the slightest bit emotional when I post, as it's not necessary or mandatory. I can choose to control myself, and so can anyone else, but only if they consciously choose to do so and have the will to do it, no? [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
I'm not accusing him of anything, simply stating that if he uses a public platform to make non-specific statements about being his church being "attacked from outside by the arrows of a secular and godless culture", he should be wise enough to know of the possible consequences, as he speaks from a position of a man of a god that the people look up to.
If someone chooses to use words like 'attacked' it doesn't mean a pat on the head or a nod and a wink. It's suggestive of a violent action or attitude, is it not? Aggression, even imagined aggression, has a way of lending itself to reaction, and we all know where that can lead. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
I'd like to know if I was incorrect in stating what I said about the 9th Commandment, that it forbids as an act against the express will of God to bear false witness against one's neighbour? Who, as a Christian, is your neighbour supposed to be? Are 'godless' people not also human beings? [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
On the associated issue of what his congregation might or might not do, that's the whole point, he does not know, so the lesser of two evils for a man who uses a platform to make statements that might even possibly trigger off some reaction or unfounded fear in an attendee, is not to make any sort of suggestion at all, as the consequences are unknown but predictable if fear and anxiety is added. Fearful people have reacted on less and for less reason, as it only takes one to take it upon themselves to act out on what they see as approval from a figure of authority. A dripping tap wears the stone, and emotional dripping wears down the mind, and fearful minds are always fragile.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Finally, I made no comment on the intelligence level of his audience at all, as I don't actually know anything about them, and even intelligent people can feel fear, but if he insists on promoting a notion of fear and oppression, then it's his fault. That's all I'm saying, no more, no less. [/FONT]

Galvasean

Redlimo wrote: »

You don't have to look too far on the Internet to find any amount of sometimes pretty vile attacks on the Catholic church.

What 'vile' attacks are these nasty secularists conducting?

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

What 'vile' attacks are these nasty secularists conducting?

Reposting a link from a couple of days back:

http://newsthump.com/2012/02/14/baroness-warsi-condemns-rise-in-militant-clear-thought-and-logic/

Redlimo

Galvasean wrote: »

What 'vile' attacks are these nasty secularists conducting?

To be honest I had in mind readers comments I read on thejournal.ie. I would regard myself as a secularist- some of the awful drivel on that site was hardly written by people with any kind of a coherent agenda beyond spewing foul mouthed insults. You ever get the feeling reading a post that "Yes, I agree with you, but I cordially detest you"? Getting back to the point, if someone-anyone- genuinely feels under attack and expresses same, do we automatically dust down Incitement to Hatred Laws and call in the guards? Surely in a free society a certain tension and friction between opposing viewpoints is just a healthy sign that we can hold different views and still get along?

MrPudding

Redlimo wrote: »

Surely in a free society a certain tension and friction between opposing viewpoints is just a healthy sign that we can hold different views and still get along?

Well, this is exactly the problem. Some people see opposing views as attacks. Irrespective of the intention when the legislation was drafted, it has become a tool for the professional offense taker to threaten and try to silence critics. Very dangerous legislation in the wrong hands.

MrP

Adamas

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, this is exactly the problem. Some people see opposing views as attacks. Irrespective of the intention when the legislation was drafted, it has become a tool for the professional offense taker to threaten and try to silence critics. Very dangerous legislation in the wrong hands.

MrP

Well, maybe it shows that laws, no matter how well intentioned, are no remedy for stupidity, as it's a choice? Maybe one law was created to counteract another?

On the 'religious' side, can we really say that a religious law that says that it is permissible and laudable to not only accept being asaulted by others, but turn the other cheek and be hit again, and then complain about being 'attacked', not even physically but by words only, and even then by suggestion only, and not specifically? Are they not supposed to rise above it all? There appears to be a contradiction here, but I accept that I could possibly be wrong.

On the 'secular' side, which can be applied to any citizen equally, the laws relating to the Phohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act clearly give the accused the right to defend themselves against accusation if they can show that they did not intend to cause incitement, and so long as it is not done outside a private residence, as defined under the Act, as follows:

[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]Actions likely to stir up hatred.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](a) to publish or distribute written material,[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](b) to use words, behave or display written material—[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]or[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif](c) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri, sans-serif]if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.[/FONT]

The Act further defines what is meant by private residence, namely:

(3) In this section “private residence” means any structure (including a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or moveable structure) or part of such a structure used as a dwelling but does not include any part not so used or any part in which a public meeting is being held; and in this definition “public meeting” means a meeting at which the public are entitled to be present, on payment or otherwise and as of right or by virtue of an express or implied permission.

So you can say and do what you like once you do it inside your own home, and a public place like a church is not a private residence, just as a football field or the main street of a town is not a private residence. So the DPP will have to weigh up the pros and cons of whether an offence has in fact been comitted under the Act.
The same right to avail of the Act is also available to the priest, should he consider it as fact that an offence causing incitement to hatred might arise to himself or to others, so it's not a one way street.
Why not make use of both the weight of his religious convictions and his citizenary ones if he feels that they merit speaking out about it? it will be interesting to see what comes it, if anything at all, as we could do with a good look at all our 'laws' and see what thay are really about, as law without justice is called oppression.

expectationlost

robindch wrote: »

Reposting a link from a couple of days back:

http://newsthump.com/2012/02/14/baroness-warsi-condemns-rise-in-militant-clear-thought-and-logic/

vile? they called her a nutjob but.. vile?

Adamas

expectationlost wrote: »

vile? they called her a nutjob but.. vile?

I wonder if she is playing some sort of spoof to make it look like she is a nut-job. If she really does believe that praying fills potholes and empty bins, then she is actually insane by any reasoned and accepted meaning of the word. At the same time that website is a satirical one, as it clearly states.


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One thing where she was 100% accurate, was when she is quoted as saying that religion has brought mankind massive wars, terrorism, brutal totalitarian states, oppression, torture, divided communities and Aled Jones – however she also believes it gives people hope.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It did give massive wars and all the other things, no doubt, and it did indeed give people hope, and still does - except she doesn't clarify that it's false hope. False hope is based on beliefs, and as beliefs are based on lack of fact, then the vital factor to make them even possibly realisable, is absent. Religion can't give realistic hopes, as it's not based on anything real, but merely imagined to be real, under the guise of confusion and misdirection.[/FONT]