The Hobby Horses of Belief (and assorted hazards)

Odhinn wrote: »

According to the Christian opposition


They make it sound like a bit of craic.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/17/alabama-yoga-ban-public-schools-christian-groups?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3CQXHIcZXFMFUSDExU6oQTO0Wh6yBHzAlOGA-DZpZQIBfsGytdMzmrScg#Echobox=1618653905

A monk in Thailand chopped off his own head using a guillotine as an offering to Buddha in the hope he would be reincarnated as a 'higher spiritual being'.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What does he mean by "unnatural in the first instance and it's abominable in the second instance" when he is talking about gay people?

Online spaces which tend to be more popular with women, such as yoga, wellness and homeopathy communities, have become a hotbed of Covid misinformation, said Cécile Guerin, a researcher with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which works to counter online disinformation.

There is even a word for it: “conspirituality”, which Guerin, who is also a qualified yoga teacher, described as the “intersection of spirituality and conspiracy theories”.

“Conspiracy theorists in the yoga and wellness world have also become quite good at co-opting the language of feminism,” she said. “For instance one of the slogans that’s always used with reference to vaccines is ‘my body, my choice’.”

There is ample evidence of the prevalence of anti-vaccination sentiment in new-age groups in Ireland, although adherents who spoke to The Irish Times stressed it remains a minority position.

Earlier this week businesswoman Carina Harkin, who describes herself as a naturopath, an acupuncturist and a homeopath, stood in Eyre Square in Galway telling a small crowd that Covid deaths in India are being faked and that the country’s soaring death rate is a result of lockdowns. “Who cares about India, I want to be free,” she said.

Ms Harkin’s Galway-based business advertises consultation costing up to €250 and homeopathic kits for children costing €150 – the kit contains 18 ingredients which she claims will protect against polio, smallpox and dengue fever, among other ailments. A disclaimer at the bottom states the substances are not an alternative to vaccinations.

Their lives should serve as cautionary tales to anyone considering joining a cult, Ms Carlson's mother, Linda Haythorne, told the BBC.

In an interview outside the church after mass ended today, Fr Cummins said: “There hasn’t been one person who has got Covid from being in there.”

Asked how many Sundays he has celebrated mass during the current lockdown, he said: “The whole time.”

When asked was 50 the average attendance at his 11am mass on a Sunday, he replied: “There would often be some more.”

A charity in Opus Dei, the conservative Catholic organisation, is advancing plans to build hundreds of apartments in south Dublin in a project property industry figures believe has a potential value of €120 million.

Glenavy Educational Foundation, which supports Opus Dei activities, is preparing to seek fast-track planning approval to develop a 4.67-acre site at Nullamore House in Milltown.

The site, opposite the Dropping Well pub, is used as an educational centre for members of Opus Dei, a global movement of strict Catholics with a reputation for secrecy.

Opus Dei, which claims “circa 500” members in Ireland, had a university residence for its members at Nullamore House for many years.

An inspector’s report published by An Bord Pleanála shows that Glenavy has held pre-application talks about the site. It wants consent for 215 apartments in five blocks ranging in height from four to eight storeys, and consent for four apartments in Nullamore House itself and another 16 in proposed extensions. The plan includes car and bicycle parking, a gym, a function room, a screening room, lounge facilities and a creche.

Property industry figures said the project, if realised, would be highly lucrative with a likely value of €100 million or more. One senior estate agent said the site alone could command €25 million simply on the basis of planning approval being granted. The same person estimated that the gross development value, with all property sold, could be in the region of €120 million.

Barry O’Grady, a Glenavy director, had no comment on the financial side of the proposals. He said Glenavy supports charitable activities “inspired by” Opus Dei, including the provision of facilities for religious education.

“It is intended that funds arising from the project will be invested in an endowment fund to provide a stable income to support the organisation’s charitable projects into the future,” he said.

Mr O’Grady is a trustee also of Opus Dei Prelature Charitable Trust in Ireland and a director of University Hostels Ltd, the company that owns the Nullamore site and is donating it to Glenavy as part of the plan.

Asked whether the site might be sold on to a developer if planning approval was granted, he replied: “Neither Glenavy nor Opus Dei will be the developer.”

As a charity Glenavy does not pay tax but University Hostels, though it is a not-for-profit company, is liable. Asked if the donation of the site was tax-driven, Mr O’Grady said conducting the process via Glenavy reflected “prudential” financial management.

“It allows for any proceeds arising to be handled transparently in accordance with the Charities regulatory authority’s governance code.”

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a distinction - actually, two distinctions - between the presidential/judicial oath on the one hand and the witness's oath on the other.

The first is that the presidential/judicial oath is enshrined in the Constitution; it can't be made non-religious without a referendum. And even people who have no liking for religious oaths might be a bit pissed off at having a referendum on this. So this might need to be dealt with as part of a larger package of constitutional reforms, I think, rather than in isolation. Whereas the witnesses' oath can be changed by ordinary legislation.

The second is that the presidential/religious oath is mandatory; there is no non-religious option. Witnesses are already free to make a religious oath or a secular affirmation, as they prefer. So there isn't the same imposition on their conscience as there is for presidents and judges.

Hotblack makes the point that some jurors might take a scunner against a witness who affirms (and I suppose others might against a witness who swears). Two thoughts in response to that: first, on the principle that policy should be evidence-based, I'd be inclined to wait for evidence that there actually is a problem of jurors reacting in this fashion before advocating legislation to address it. And, secondly, one of the characteristics of the jury system is that jurors can, in fact, act irrationally or perversely or in a bigoted fashion. The fact that we maintain the jury system at all means that we operate on the faith that, on the whole, they don't. Which provides another reason for not leaping to the conclusion that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed.

The purpose of the witness's oath/affirmation is not to impress anything on the jury, but rather to impress on the witness the solemnity, significance and responsibility of what he is doing. There is a view that the achievement of this purpose is assisted by given witnesses some ownership of the process; allowing them to choose the form of declaration they will make. This helps to secure their "buy-in", is the theory. But I suspect there is no more evidence for this than there is for the theory that jurors may evaluate testimony according to whether the witness has sworn or affirmed.

They seem to do just fine in France, where witnesses "swear to speak without hatred and without fear, to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth". This seems to me to steer a middle course. On the one hand, there's no explicit reference to God (and you're not allowed to introduce one; you have to stick to the formula laid down by law). On the other hand, the concept of an appeal to the supernatural or the sacred is implicit in the concept of swearing, and if you object to that implication there is no alternative of making a declaration or affirmation; again, you have to stick to the formula laid down by law.

"I swear by Almighty God (or whoever is relevant according to your religious belief) that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

"I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your contrasting responses illustrate the sensitivities here!

It's a fine point, but the word "swear", the Oxford English Dictionary assures me, imports an appeal to the supernatural or the sacred. The French text uses jurer, which, according to Larousse online, has exactly the same connotations (“...en engageant un être ou une chose que l'on tient pour sacré”).

So, on the one hand, “sacred” doesn’t have to mean religious or supernatural. (Sacred: dedicated, set apart, exclusively appropriated to some person or some special purpose. A tombstone can be "sacred to the memory of so-and-so", and a tombstone is a natural and material object.) On the other hand, we mostly use "sacred" in a religious context, and an atheist witness might think requiring him to swear requires him to imply that he has some religious faith, or at least requires him to risk creating the impression in others that he does. Plus, a, very, um, assertive atheist materialist might be uncomfortable with the notion that anything is sacred to him. And then you have members of religious traditions like the Quakers who do have a religious faith but have a conscientious objection to swearing anyway.

So, the declaration/affirmation formula that is used in Ireland (and many other countries) is intentionally crafted to avoid swearing and all the implications that that word may have.

I think the French would defend their formulation by saying that God may or may not exist but the Republic certainly does, and it has claims on you as a citizen that ought be sacred to you, so requiring you to swear is entirely appropriate.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well for me it demonstrates that the english translation you provided for the french "oath" is not accurate. I see no mention of "sacred" in the translation you provided.

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . en engageant un être ou une chose que l'on tient pour sacré" means ". . . by invoking a being or a thing that we hold sacred".

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You didnt include the original french in the post i responded to. I responded to the english translation you provided.

smacl wrote: »

Simply believing it to be a higher bar doesn't make it true though does it? The implication that Catholics act with a greater degree of integrity having sworn on a bible than atheists who make a solemn declaration is specious and somewhat insulting. Unless of course you can provide evidence that Catholics are less likely to perjure themselves after swearing on a bible than anyone else who makes an affirmation.