I thought that Atheists prided them selves on their logic and rational thought. So when Hitler decided to kill all Jews….this has no impact on Atheism…..or maybe Stalin’s 30 million…..anyone for Mao? Is it a coincidence that the three most evil men in history were Atheists? I am a little more concerned at the possible impact of 3 mass murderers than some deluded mystics in the back woods of Ireland or the 10,000 people who went long for the entertainment value.

If 10,000 people in the backwoods of Ireland send you screaming for the hills away from Theism….how rational is it to stay an Atheist with the millions of dead in the holocaust, Stalin’s purges and the ‘Great Leap Forward’. Face it…..you are grasping at straws to support a worldview for which you have no adequate rational basis and need as much faith as the most fundamentalist .

I think the swathe of “hate speech” laws being suggested around the world presents a great danger to the advancement of society. The problem with all these laws, including the Irish one, is that the terminology is necessarily ambiguous.

This blog would possibly fall foul of the blasphemy laws in Ireland, were it originating there (I’ve not checked). I don’t write posts to offend or inflame, but I’m certain (you should see some of the emails I get) that certain people see it that way. And therein lies the problem. To me, religion is impersonal and can be looked at rationally, logically, and is open to critique. To followers of religion, it’s deeply personal, and above criticism. They might consider the questioning of any of their beliefs grossly offensive. In a case where someone finds one of my posts grossly offensive (however that is defined and measured), how do you prove, or disprove, intent?

The two parties to this farce that I do take issue with are the so-called visionaries and the people who showed up to their non-event. Were you a Catholic, would you not be downright embarrassed that 10,000 people who share the same fundamental beliefs as you, were taken in by this? Would it make you question your beliefs (i.e. if these people also believe these visionaries, am I barking up the wrong tree?)? Were I a more cynical man, I might suggest that these are the motivations behind the Bishop’s reaction.

Again (whether intentionally or not) you have mislead readers by not stating the conditions for the penalties of the law. One comes under its censure when:

(a) he or she publishes or utters matter 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 (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(b) of course, is rather difficult to prove, but there are some writers who enjoy being abusive… I know you are not one of them, Atheist, because you have written a few posts now expressing your anger over abuse….

Mr Coleman said he had been asked by the Virgin Mary to recite the Rosary in the company of a priest in the Basilica and expressed disappointment that the Catholic Church [ie the priest in charge of the church] declined to make one available.

“It is not healthy, does not give glory to God and . . . is not good witness to the faith to be looking for extraordinary phenomena,” he said.

It may be helpful to read a statement by the same bishop on a separate case where some kind of supernatural event was alleged in his diocese. (Sorry I’m not sure how to include a link. Here is the document I am referring to
http://www.catholicplanet.com/apparitions/TuamArchdiocese.pdf)

This is, in fact, the typical way a bishop would handle this situation. Unlike the visionaries Atheist decries, who are obviously frauds, the Bishop clearly thought that although “no evidence has been presented which might prove beyond reasonable
doubt the occurrence of supernatural phenomena”, still, the “house of prayer” deserved a chance to prove itself. Note, however, the strict guidelines he insisted upon, to ensure that things do not get out of control by enthusiasts, whether well-meaning or not.

eg statues must be written up and approved by the bishop as to what activities and ends the group wished to set up.

eg two priests were appointed by the bishop to assist there, and no others allowed to minister without his permission.

In fact the Church (at an official level) always tends to be skeptical about alleged miracles etc… until there is sufficient evidence that it be declared not contrary to the faith of the Church. Note again, the way this happens: “not contrary” can hardly be called a ringing endorsement, and yet this is the strongest statement the Church makes on these matters, since she accepts no public revelation after the Bible. Thus, noone need believe in any miracle or apparition, even once given official “not contrary to faith” approval.

I have no doubt that there are gullible Catholics, as there are gullible atheists (eg Dawkins enthusiasts) but I also do not think that we, as a whole, are “those who are used to believing absurdities”. Of all the Christian churches, we maintain that faith and reason are “two wings” that work together and ought not be separated.