At this stage I'm beginning to think that the Catholic Church is having a laugh. They have to be. Yesterday's report that Cardinal Sean Brady had written to a number of GAA county boards appealing for them to consider moving the times of matches and training sessions so as to avoid clashing with local Masses sounded like a joke. Except it wasn't a joke. And when you think about it, given all that has been revealed about the Catholic Church in Ireland over the past few months, it isn't even all that funny.
Could it really be that despite all the controversy surrounding the church and paedophilia, a controversy that Sean Brady himself was personally embroiled in, the leadership has reached the utterly absurd conclusion that the primary cause of falling Mass attendances on the island should be put down to Gaelic football and hurling matches being scheduled for the same time as the weekly act of worship? If so they are even more detached from reality than I considered them to be. Indeed, on reading the report of this affair on the RTE website yesterday afternoon I had an image of the Primate of All Ireland holed up Hitler-style in a bunker somewhere beneath Armagh Cathedral dictating this bizarre letter to his equally deluded fellow bishops, all of them still convinced that they can turn around the decline in their beloved church.
Of course, as a very kind spokesperson for the GAA in Ulster pointed out, "we don't have Sunday morning games." In other words, matches never actually clash with Mass times. Even if there were Sunday morning games that still would not prevent any good Catholic GAA lad or lassie attending Saturday night Mass in their area – and if a match is being played on a Saturday evening then those supporters attending that are thereby freed to praise their lord on a Sunday. Simple, no? Mr Brady does not seem to have thought this one through.
What this whole pathetic episode proves is that the Catholic Church in Ireland is still not aware that the Irish people have moved on while it remains lagging behind. What its followers have moved on to is a 21st century secular Ireland; what it remains stuck in is an Ireland where it called the shots on everything from the constitution right down to the throw-in times for Gaelic games. Sadly for them, and thankfully for the rest of us, that era is well and truly over, though Brady and his bunch still appears to be in denial. That denial cannot persist for much longer. In recent days the organisation has been lambasted in the Dail by the Taoiseach. Its appeal to the Gaelic Athletic Association to move its fixtures has been rebuffed. The pews have never been emptier than they are at present. If I were one of the top dogs in the One True Church I would be taking a good long look at myself and asking whether the poor turnouts for Mass might possibly have something to do with the church and those bothersome paedophile scandals rather than the GAA.
I just hope Sean Brady hasn't given Rowan Williams an idea. With the English footie season kicking off next Saturday and the CofE getting less relevant by the hour perhaps now would be a good time for the Archbishop of Canterbury to blame Manchester United and Chelsea for those declining church attendances in Albion. Just a thought.
Scottish Labour's problems far from a Scottish problem
I don't particularly like Irn-Bru. I just thought I'd tell you that, though that fact is neither here nor there. So, what am I blathering on about?
A report in the Daily Record a couple of weeks back stated that, according to party insiders, Scottish Labour were planning on rebranding themselves as the Irn-Bru of modern politics and planning on putting forward more made in Scotland policies in order to make them distinct from the Labour Party as a UK-wide entity. The piece goes on to say that senior Labour figures have even studied how Scottish products like whisky and Irn-Bru retain a solid Caledonian identity while appealing to a wider market. I had a hunch the comrades in Albain would do something silly after their defeat in the Scottish Parliamentary election but this garbage really has surpassed anything I had imagined.
Clearly the leadership in Scotland feels that their drop in popularity has come around as a result of them being too closely tied a UK party. While this may well be a contributing factor for some ex-Labour voting Scots I do feel that it is not anywhere near being the whole story. STV's Political Editor Bernard Ponsonby was closer to the truth when he spoke of Iain Gray's "lack of narrative."
What he probably could have added is that this absence of a defining vision or goal is not just something which Labour in Scotland suffers from but that this is a criticism which at the present moment could well be levelled at virtually all of those parties aligned to the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International. There has been nothing which one could call a distinct democratic socialist response to the current crisis in capitalism. The sticking plaster approach to patching up the system in a hope that it recovers may make sense if you come from a conservative or liberal camp, but surely even the most moderate of social democrats aspires to something much greater than simply that, don't they?
One of the problems with the leaders of the European centre-left at present is that they seem to be utterly incapable of thinking outside the box. Perhaps for them politics is not about policy but about image – get it right and you win, get it wrong and you lose. If so then it is easy to see why the top dogs at the Scottish Labour Party may feel that what they need now is a revamped political vehicle with a more nationalistic, made-in-Scotland tinge to it. After all, haven't they just been overtaken for the first time by the SNP? Well, yes, they have. However, while the Scottish Nationalists may have secured a majority in the Holyrood parliament, successive opinion polls have repeatedly shown overall support for independence to be in the minority. Just like votes for similar parties in Wales, Northern Ireland, Italy or the Basque Country, it would be foolish to interpret every single SNP vote in May as a vote to sever the link with London.
There are many factors behind the success of Alex Salmond's party. For some it is all about ending the union with England. For others an SNP vote is a vote for more powers for the Scottish Parliament, though not complete independence. Some may also consider their vote a protest vote; a way of giving a two-finger salute to both the coalition parties and the opposition at Westminster. There will also be a considerable left vote for the SNP. While it may be difficult to point to precise policies that set them apart from Labour in this regard, perception often counts for a lot and there is a feeling among many Scots that the Nats are now well to the left of Iain Gray's lot.
The important thing for Labour in Scotland is that they do not press the panic button just yet. Their vote in this year's Scottish election gave them 26.3% of the vote; their vote in the previous Holyrood poll gave them 29.2%. While a drop in your popularity is never a good thing this still does not represent a complete disaster for Labour. They remain a mass party, still able to fight back and regain their position as the leading party in Scotland. However, now is the time to make some choices. The answer to Labour's problems do not lie in hiring a PR company and deciding whether the word 'Scottish' should be in larger font than 'Labour' on their election literature. They do not lie in having Archie Gemmill's goal against Holland featured in a Party Election Broadcast in which Iain Gray's replacement watches the famed footage sipping some Irn-Bru and wrapped in the Cross of Saint Andrew.
If the Tories and the Lib Dems want to respond to their problems north of Hadrian's Wall by attempting to Caledonianise themselves then fair enough. Labour, however, should not feel compelled to follow their example. What the party needs to do now is take some time and think hard about the one thing that can truly set them apart from the rest of the field - policy. The decline cannot be reversed by a few quick fix tweaks and a rebranding suggested to them by a public relations guru. They must establish the unique narrative that Bernard Ponsonby spoke of, the thing which they so clearly lacked under the leadership of Iain Gray. To do so they must also appreciate that the decline is not confined only to Scotland but part of a wider downturn in the left of centre vote in the United Kingdom and across the European Union.
Clause IV of the Labour constitution states that the "Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." If they wish to rejuvenate the fortunes of the organisation, and by that I mean from the organisation from John o' Groats right down to Land's End, then they would be better advised to take their inspiration from democratic socialism than a carbonated soft drink from Cumbernauld.
A report in the Daily Record a couple of weeks back stated that, according to party insiders, Scottish Labour were planning on rebranding themselves as the Irn-Bru of modern politics and planning on putting forward more made in Scotland policies in order to make them distinct from the Labour Party as a UK-wide entity. The piece goes on to say that senior Labour figures have even studied how Scottish products like whisky and Irn-Bru retain a solid Caledonian identity while appealing to a wider market. I had a hunch the comrades in Albain would do something silly after their defeat in the Scottish Parliamentary election but this garbage really has surpassed anything I had imagined.
Clearly the leadership in Scotland feels that their drop in popularity has come around as a result of them being too closely tied a UK party. While this may well be a contributing factor for some ex-Labour voting Scots I do feel that it is not anywhere near being the whole story. STV's Political Editor Bernard Ponsonby was closer to the truth when he spoke of Iain Gray's "lack of narrative."
What he probably could have added is that this absence of a defining vision or goal is not just something which Labour in Scotland suffers from but that this is a criticism which at the present moment could well be levelled at virtually all of those parties aligned to the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International. There has been nothing which one could call a distinct democratic socialist response to the current crisis in capitalism. The sticking plaster approach to patching up the system in a hope that it recovers may make sense if you come from a conservative or liberal camp, but surely even the most moderate of social democrats aspires to something much greater than simply that, don't they?
One of the problems with the leaders of the European centre-left at present is that they seem to be utterly incapable of thinking outside the box. Perhaps for them politics is not about policy but about image – get it right and you win, get it wrong and you lose. If so then it is easy to see why the top dogs at the Scottish Labour Party may feel that what they need now is a revamped political vehicle with a more nationalistic, made-in-Scotland tinge to it. After all, haven't they just been overtaken for the first time by the SNP? Well, yes, they have. However, while the Scottish Nationalists may have secured a majority in the Holyrood parliament, successive opinion polls have repeatedly shown overall support for independence to be in the minority. Just like votes for similar parties in Wales, Northern Ireland, Italy or the Basque Country, it would be foolish to interpret every single SNP vote in May as a vote to sever the link with London.
There are many factors behind the success of Alex Salmond's party. For some it is all about ending the union with England. For others an SNP vote is a vote for more powers for the Scottish Parliament, though not complete independence. Some may also consider their vote a protest vote; a way of giving a two-finger salute to both the coalition parties and the opposition at Westminster. There will also be a considerable left vote for the SNP. While it may be difficult to point to precise policies that set them apart from Labour in this regard, perception often counts for a lot and there is a feeling among many Scots that the Nats are now well to the left of Iain Gray's lot.
The important thing for Labour in Scotland is that they do not press the panic button just yet. Their vote in this year's Scottish election gave them 26.3% of the vote; their vote in the previous Holyrood poll gave them 29.2%. While a drop in your popularity is never a good thing this still does not represent a complete disaster for Labour. They remain a mass party, still able to fight back and regain their position as the leading party in Scotland. However, now is the time to make some choices. The answer to Labour's problems do not lie in hiring a PR company and deciding whether the word 'Scottish' should be in larger font than 'Labour' on their election literature. They do not lie in having Archie Gemmill's goal against Holland featured in a Party Election Broadcast in which Iain Gray's replacement watches the famed footage sipping some Irn-Bru and wrapped in the Cross of Saint Andrew.
If the Tories and the Lib Dems want to respond to their problems north of Hadrian's Wall by attempting to Caledonianise themselves then fair enough. Labour, however, should not feel compelled to follow their example. What the party needs to do now is take some time and think hard about the one thing that can truly set them apart from the rest of the field - policy. The decline cannot be reversed by a few quick fix tweaks and a rebranding suggested to them by a public relations guru. They must establish the unique narrative that Bernard Ponsonby spoke of, the thing which they so clearly lacked under the leadership of Iain Gray. To do so they must also appreciate that the decline is not confined only to Scotland but part of a wider downturn in the left of centre vote in the United Kingdom and across the European Union.
Clause IV of the Labour constitution states that the "Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." If they wish to rejuvenate the fortunes of the organisation, and by that I mean from the organisation from John o' Groats right down to Land's End, then they would be better advised to take their inspiration from democratic socialism than a carbonated soft drink from Cumbernauld.
We can't handle the truth
I sincerely hope that this does not sound too insensitive but is this really headline news? I was always under the impression that everyone, nationalist and unionist, accepted that the Provisional IRA were responsible for the atrocity at Kingsmill in 1976 and that the South Armagh Republican Action Force was a piece of fiction. Will the HET's next revelation be that the INLA were responsible for the massacre at Darkley rather than the equally fictitious Catholic Reaction Force? Overall the report from the HET into the murders of these ten Protestant workers will have no tangible effect. It will not tell us anything we did not already know. It will not bring anyone to justice for the crime. Unionists will be angry. Republicans will point to the need to investigate similar killings of Catholics. And when it's all over we'll still be at the point where we started. Closure? You must be joking.
In the years since the ceasefires and the Good Friday Agreement we have been exceedingly inept here in Northern Ireland at our attempts to investigate our recent troubles. Perhaps the reason for this lies in the very fact that they are so recent. Whether it is the Historical Enquiries Team or the Consultative Group on the Past or the never-ending flow of inquiries into various paramilitary and state killings, the end result has usually been a report that pleases one side of the sectarian fence and leaves the other side indulging in that favourite pastime of ours, whataboutery.
There was a time when I would have supported something along the lines of a South Africa-style truth commission but not now. The one piece of truth that has been uncovered over the past decade or so is that we are incapable of dealing with our past, at least not at the moment. Two and a half years ago I wrote a short post on this website regarding the Consultative Group on the past where I suggested it was time, in a political sense, to start concentrating on the future. I stated:
Someday we will be able to deal with our past, but do not expect it to come anytime soon. Until then I suggest we, to use a horrible cliché, draw a line in the sand and just get on with things. Spanish people have only in recent times found themselves able to discuss their civil war which ended more than seventy years ago. The unwritten 'pacto de olvido' is probably the best template available when it comes to the way in which we in Northern Ireland confront our past. Sad? Indeed, very sad. But also true.
In the years since the ceasefires and the Good Friday Agreement we have been exceedingly inept here in Northern Ireland at our attempts to investigate our recent troubles. Perhaps the reason for this lies in the very fact that they are so recent. Whether it is the Historical Enquiries Team or the Consultative Group on the Past or the never-ending flow of inquiries into various paramilitary and state killings, the end result has usually been a report that pleases one side of the sectarian fence and leaves the other side indulging in that favourite pastime of ours, whataboutery.
There was a time when I would have supported something along the lines of a South Africa-style truth commission but not now. The one piece of truth that has been uncovered over the past decade or so is that we are incapable of dealing with our past, at least not at the moment. Two and a half years ago I wrote a short post on this website regarding the Consultative Group on the past where I suggested it was time, in a political sense, to start concentrating on the future. I stated:
The best way to "deal with the legacy of the past" (as the CGP claims it is doing) is to stop dwelling on it and move on. I don't mean this to sound cold. I am not for one moment suggesting that the past be swept under the carpet or simply forgotten about, not that there would ever be any chance of that happening. We live in a society addicted to graveside orations and the commemoration of past battles so no one need worry about a sudden bout of mass amnesia hitting the province. However, the endless stream of costly committees and inquiries dealing with controversial elements of our past are achieving nothing other than keeping old wounds open.
Someday we will be able to deal with our past, but do not expect it to come anytime soon. Until then I suggest we, to use a horrible cliché, draw a line in the sand and just get on with things. Spanish people have only in recent times found themselves able to discuss their civil war which ended more than seventy years ago. The unwritten 'pacto de olvido' is probably the best template available when it comes to the way in which we in Northern Ireland confront our past. Sad? Indeed, very sad. But also true.
I don't mean to preach
I didn't go to the World Atheist Convention in Dublin last weekend, though I doubt my failure to attend is considered a sin in such circles. However, Anthony McIntyre did and was kind enough to scribble up a short report afterwards on the day's goings on. Like Anthony I am not an "atheist activist" either. Indeed, the very notion of 'organised' atheism or some form of evangelical non-believer is enough to make me cringe. Thankfully I have never come across such a person. What I have come across though are members of the religious community complaining about "proselytising atheists."
That was the phrase a workmate of mine used the other day. "If you don't believe in anything," he said, "why would you feel the need to go on about it?" I didn't get drawn into a lengthy debate (people of faith tend not to enjoy such things) but I did say that if his statement is accurate then would it not be equally true to say that if you do believe in a god why do you feel the need to "go on about it?" Or, to put it another way, why would you feel the need to have that god put in your country's constitution? Or, for another example, why would you feel the need for your church to control the schools our children are educated in? I could go on but you get the gist of what I'm saying.
As Christopher Hitchens put it so succinctly, "our belief is not a belief." In other words we atheists do not gather together in temples to shriek and celebrate our lack of faith. Nor is there a modern equivalent of the League of the Militant Godless going around attempting to enforce a brand of state atheism on society. If either of these two things ever occur I'll be the first to oppose them. Two things are currently in vogue though.
The first is the spontaneous reigniting of a philosophical debate on whether a god (or gods) exists or not. Bestsellers such as The God Delusion, god is not Great and Letters to a Christian Nation all appeared at around the same time. They were not coordinated. Their impact was not planned by a Machiavellian group of atheists. They are not part of any organised movement seeking recruits for its cause. That some in the faith-based community mistake contributions to a debate as proselytising speaks volumes. For me it is a sign that they fear reason. Evidence of this can be seen from the frankly idiotic retort of one the respondents to Anthony McIntyre's piece who made the comment "qui nimis probat, nihil probat" ("he who proves too much, proves nothing"). I don't know about you but I think I'll stick with the side that "proves too much."
The second thing that we have been seeing a lot of recently and is often mistaken for 'evangelical atheism' is actually little more than good old fashioned secularism. True, groups like the National Secular Society in the UK might well be chock-a-block with those horrible godless types, but their goals remain purely political. They are not attempting to 'save' anyone. They are not looking for converts. They merely strive to achieve that age old objective of the separation of church and state. I once came across one enlightened chap at university, a north Antrim Protestant no less, who described himself as a 'secular Christian'. If only the almighty could send us a few more of those in future.
So there you have it. I just thought I should get those couple of things straight. I'll stop blathering now and be on my merry way. I certainly wouldn't want to make it look like I was proselytising or anything.
That was the phrase a workmate of mine used the other day. "If you don't believe in anything," he said, "why would you feel the need to go on about it?" I didn't get drawn into a lengthy debate (people of faith tend not to enjoy such things) but I did say that if his statement is accurate then would it not be equally true to say that if you do believe in a god why do you feel the need to "go on about it?" Or, to put it another way, why would you feel the need to have that god put in your country's constitution? Or, for another example, why would you feel the need for your church to control the schools our children are educated in? I could go on but you get the gist of what I'm saying.
As Christopher Hitchens put it so succinctly, "our belief is not a belief." In other words we atheists do not gather together in temples to shriek and celebrate our lack of faith. Nor is there a modern equivalent of the League of the Militant Godless going around attempting to enforce a brand of state atheism on society. If either of these two things ever occur I'll be the first to oppose them. Two things are currently in vogue though.
The first is the spontaneous reigniting of a philosophical debate on whether a god (or gods) exists or not. Bestsellers such as The God Delusion, god is not Great and Letters to a Christian Nation all appeared at around the same time. They were not coordinated. Their impact was not planned by a Machiavellian group of atheists. They are not part of any organised movement seeking recruits for its cause. That some in the faith-based community mistake contributions to a debate as proselytising speaks volumes. For me it is a sign that they fear reason. Evidence of this can be seen from the frankly idiotic retort of one the respondents to Anthony McIntyre's piece who made the comment "qui nimis probat, nihil probat" ("he who proves too much, proves nothing"). I don't know about you but I think I'll stick with the side that "proves too much."
The second thing that we have been seeing a lot of recently and is often mistaken for 'evangelical atheism' is actually little more than good old fashioned secularism. True, groups like the National Secular Society in the UK might well be chock-a-block with those horrible godless types, but their goals remain purely political. They are not attempting to 'save' anyone. They are not looking for converts. They merely strive to achieve that age old objective of the separation of church and state. I once came across one enlightened chap at university, a north Antrim Protestant no less, who described himself as a 'secular Christian'. If only the almighty could send us a few more of those in future.
So there you have it. I just thought I should get those couple of things straight. I'll stop blathering now and be on my merry way. I certainly wouldn't want to make it look like I was proselytising or anything.
Enda who?
No, I don't know who Enda Kelly is either. But apparently sending him a fax might help free Gerry McGeough. Maybe it's because this Kelly guy shares an office with the Fine Gael leader:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
