Friday, June 17, 2011

Ireland:UCC-Blasphemous exhibit "Our Lady and Other Queer Santas"

The blasphemous art exhibit "Our Lady and Other Queer Santas", by  Alma Lopez, will be on display at the University College Cork (Ireland) and is open to the general public.

The digital photo collage 'Our Lady' shows Our Lady of Guadalupe in a floral bikini, hands on hips, held up by a bare breasted angel. Shocking!!!

On June 24th, the university is hosting the blasphemous art exhibit "Our Lady and Other Queer Santas" as part of a conference on Hispanic Studies.

At the same conference on Hispanic Studies, Alma Lopez will talk about "Our Lady and Other Queer Santas."
She will also sign copies of her blasphemous book called "Our Lady of Controversy: Alma Lopez's 'Irreverent' Apparition," which has that same blasphemous and impure collage of Our Lady of Guadalupe on its cover.
The authorities  at UCC must take a stand on this issue. It is time to withdraw permission for the exhibition.
Petition  University College Cork to CANCEL this blasphemy now!

Tell the University College Cork (Ireland) how shocked you are by this.
(Source: America Needs Fatima)

More information:

Head of Events, University College Cork

Dara O'Shea

Tel: 011- 353 21 490 3676

e-mail: d.oshea@ucc.ie

89 comments:

vicki said...

I am shocked and quite sad that there is such a display! It is true Catholic Irleand is gone, but has our repect gone too? Surely, people should know how to respest sacred ojects but especially the mother of the one founded the Christian Church. Historians cant deny that Jasus Christ never existed there is solid prove and he is all over Europe just look in any schools, hospitals etc. And many people would regard OUR LADY as an adopted mother. Now I cant see anyone who would approve of having there legitimate mother displayed in a binki...People who do this should be ashamed by their ignorance and their lack of respect!

John Barry said...

I agree with you wholeheartedly. This is shameful. UCC needs to remember that most of its funding comes from the taxpayers.

ciaran mac aoidh said...

I'm a tax payer and I hold the freedom of expression in higher regard than personal feelings, so it's moot where their money from. Why should your religious rules be applied to me and others who don't share your beliefs. Why should we be forced to respect your repugnant ideals especially as you don't respect the rights of others?

John Barry said...

Catholicism is a soft target. This type of attack on Catholicism is rampant in the US at present. It is a soft target from pseudo- liberals who want to eradicate religion in Western society. These same pseudo-liberals would not dare do it to Islam. They know the consequences of such actions.

You obviously think that it is in order to insult and mock the Mother of God. This is shocking. You have no problem insulting the religious beliefs of the majority in this country. The majority has rights also. This is blasphemy and should not be allowed at UCC. Most of the funding at UCC comes from the hard-pressed taxpayer. It is not intended for this.
In relation to freedom of expression as you terms it: There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE freedom of expression. Read the Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989.

ciaran mac aoidh said...

I think that religion is as fair a target for comment, criticism and mockery as politics or any other human occupation. As a campaigner for secularism I know the incitement laws and the blasphemy law. This exhibition falls under neither. I, of course, do not advocate limitless free speech. Just nearly limitless. I stop only at incitement to violence, fraud and the old "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" line. Like you, I am offended by other people's beliefs and expression of those beliefs. I don't ask for censorship or jail time.

There is something really important in what you said, that I have no problem insulting the religious beliefs of the majority of the country. Majority counts for nothing in a democracy; we all have a voice. If the minority must be silent it is not a democracy. As for insulting religious beliefs; this cannot be done. It may sound like semantics, but people are insulted, not god and not abstract beliefs. As you believe your church's laws and customs come from god, you think you get to raise your sense of indignation way above the levels accepted for things like politics, taste in art and other areas that people argue endlessly over. When an atheist criticises the practices of a faith it must seem near hubristic to a devout believer but it's not. It's just ideas and words. We should not try to dictate to one another what can be discussed and what must not be.

Finally, Catholicism is not just a soft target. It's level of control over education is near absolute, it has run a state within the state here for decades and it hasn't begun to accept the depths of depravity it keeps sinking to. But of course you'll most likely follow the line that it was "individuals within the church..."

John Barry said...

I stand by my opinion that this blasphemous art exhibit should be cancelled. It is a shameful attack on the Mother of God.
I note that you dodged my point in relation to Catholicism being a soft target.
Once more I repeat it: This type of attack on Catholicism and indeed Christianity in general is rampant in the US at present. It has now spread to Ireland. Catholicism is a soft target from pseudo- liberals who want to eradicate religion in Western society. These same pseudo-liberals would not dare do it to Islam. They know the consequences of such actions.
The pseudo liberals and secularists who attack Catholicism will not attack Islam or mock Mohammed. To do so would result in a fatwa and possible loss of life.
There is no fear of a fatwa when blasphemy is committed against Christianity.


You talk about depravity:
Take a good look at atheistic mass murderers such as Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. These people believed in no God. So they behaved like animals and butchered approx 60 million people between them.
Now take a good look at the "achievements" of liberalism, and secularism currently.
In the US alone 52 million babies have been butchered by abortionists since 1973. Now of course the liberal/secularist/atheist movement favours this depravity. Abortion is murder of the defenceless unborn child. That's what happens when people ignore God. They behave like animals. The number of unborn children murdered by abortionists (worldwide)is approximately 115,000daily. That makes roughly 80 unborn children slaughtered every minute.
We see the imprints of liberalism and secularism in the movement to introduce euthanasia. Old people are in the way so get rid of them.

Finally you should take a good look at the universe. Do you seriously believe that the universe with all its complexities came about by chance? Please do not trot out the Big Bang. Who created matter? If you believe in the Big Bang Who triggered it? It all leads back to a Superior Being. That Superior Being is God.

Getting back to this blasphemous exhibition: Read very carefully the Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989.

Secularists want to remove all symbols of Christianity from society. Roughly 3% of the population of Ireland wants to eradicate all symbols of Christianity. Think again. It is not going to happen. The majority will not tolerate it.

hmck said...

John, you're entirely entitled to your views, as is this lady.

However, with reference to Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the likes of Hitler. These people were all narcissistic dictators. Their depravity and evil deeds have nothing to do with lack of religion. Not at all. With each of their lives, their upbringing was key. Their ideals were wrapped, but it's very sad to say that because they were (unconfirmed) atheists this is the reason they were mass murderers. Psychologists will confirm each bore similar traits, seldom does this have anything to do with religion.

I don't think your point is being dodged. I think you should not blindly disrespect non-religious believers views. I'm an atheist, and yet you've just attributed mass murdering and numerous other evils to me, yet I've killed no one, aborted no fetuses, not blasphemed. Nothing, yet you're glossing over the fact that evil exists in this world, and exists even in people who are religious. Look at all the evils within the church that are widely documented. You basically want double standards. As soon as the Church are accused of evil deeds you wish to deflect the problems to being lack of faith and societal and moral decay. Yet most of the problems in the church are historical rather than recent issues.

People have been debating Religion vs Non-Religion for centuries, and this debate will continue.

However the fact you do not believe my views should be respected is indicative of why a lot of people have turned against their faith. I'm a citizen of Ireland, irrespective of my beliefs, I should have the same rights as you. The core belief of Catholicism is forgiveness, something I've found that a lot of so-called Christians find very hard to do.

Catholicism is a soft target, it is one of the oldest institutions yes. People have found like the rest of humanity it's deeply flawed and that in it's current form it doesn't work for them any. Mankind has encountered a lot of adversity and we have adapted in order to cope. It is up to the Church then to adapt itself in order to keeping with how society has progressed.

As for the 'Big Bang' argument. If we were to believe the Catholic Church, please then answer me this simple question. Do you still think the Earth is flat, in the center of the Universe, and that the Sun revolves around us? It's human nature to want to discover why we're here. Religion poses to do that spiritually. Science has benefited us in our understanding of the building blocks of the universe. Ridiculing science and what it has helped man achieve is unreal, I'm sure in your lifetime you have seen science benefit you and those close to you personally. You should delete this blog, and throw your laptop/pc away. Then give away your car, and any other possessions that show mans' ingenuity.

What you think is that without God we are all soulless creatures, animals. That is belittling animals, because like animals humans can show compassion for one another and this is not dependent on Religion.

John Barry said...

The point I was making about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao was that as they were atheists there was nothing to restrain them.
If they believed in God they certainly would know that they faced His judgement on their deaths.
The point in relation to Islam is being dodged.
If a blasphemy were perpetrated against Islam a fatwa would be issued against the perpetrator. This would result in almost certain death. This does not apply to Christianity so it is a soft target. The people who target Christianity would not dare target Islam.

I do not ridicule science. You misrepresented my remarks. However science is not God.
This was my comment in relation to science:
"Finally you should take a good look at the universe. Do you seriously believe that the universe with all its complexities came about by chance? Please do not trot out the Big Bang. Who created matter? If you believe in the Big Bang Who triggered it? It all leads back to a Superior Being. That Superior Being is God."
The point I was making was that if the Big Bang occurred it was triggered by a Superior Being (God).
There are so many complexities in the universe that science cannot explain. These all lead back to a God. Only a God could create these.
There is a major difference between humans and animals. Humans have a soul.

Atheists generally support abortion. This is a return to barbarism. Infanticide was one of the major reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire.
There is an interesting video here concerning André Frossard, converted atheist that became friends with John Paul II

hmck said...

If you assume that because these documented narcissistic megalomaniac dictators had no God that this is the sole reason for their atrocities. Hitler in fact was raised a Catholic. Characteristics like these exist in few people, unfortunately, the world has found out the hard way when these people get power.

Let us look at atrocities caused by religious believers, including the Catholic church. The people involved, despite having faith, cause unwanted pain to many. The witch hunts in Europe and America, anyone who went against the Christian faith were burned at the stake for heresy. You have conflicts between Israel and Palestine. There are many more examples of fighting between people based on religious prejudice, with each religion fighting in the name of his or her God, causing death and unwanted agony for millions if not billions of people. So where is the empathy and compassion for human life in these religious people? You have more recently heard of the many abuses perpetrated and subsequently covered up by high ranking members of the church.

In relation to Islam, it is a very strict religion, as was Catholicism. The Catholic Church has lost ground in its influence on society, where as Islam has a devout following. You keep saying that this artist wouldn't do this to a figure from the Islamic faith. Why should she? If she was raised a Catholic, this is her interpretation. The fact I have heard repeatedly about this exhibition, and references to the Islamic faith, all echoed by Catholics. What you're trying to do is deflect the attention to some other religion, as if she wouldn't get away with it if she was in another faith. This maybe true, but it is entirely besides the point. I get your point about the Church now being a soft target, and it is because throughout history, the Catholic Church have been guilty of so many atrocities. People have now hardened their views against this practice and thus the Church cannot get away with these actions any longer. The Islamic people who would take offence and would threaten her would be the fundalmentalist / extremist Islamic followers, not the general population. You cannot judge anothers faith, and entirely ignore your own faith's past.

You can continue to say I've misrepresented you, but you fail to realise you're misrepresenting quite a lot of faiths and non-believers in your own personal views and judgements.

Lastly, with reference to the idea of who created matter. Have you heard of the Large Hadron Collider, which is in the process of creating the conditions as they were when the big bang happened? It is a scientific experiment to create the Higgs Boson particle. However, you may not think it was an accident, but there is evidence we were not the first beings on this planet when it was formed and that we most likely evolved over time from early man. Why is it necessary for you to believe someone created the big bang, for years Religious men such as yourself denied it happened, like a lot of scientific discoveries were denied throughout the ages. Many of which are now accepted as being extremely accurate. You keep quoting yourself, as if repeating your own views will add weight, and validity to them. Please, if you respect others, learn about why people believe what they believe, and don't immediately dismiss people you seem to know little about. The fact you're mass generalising atheists as barbaric shows you understand little of why they've lost their faith. The fact of the matter is, evil exists, be it the temptation of the devil or other. The temptation to do bad things exists in everyone, and it is irrespective of beliefs. It is a choice people make.

John Barry said...

Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot murdered 60million people. All were atheists. Hitler gave up his religion and viciously persecuted Catholics. He banned all religious symbols in German schools within weeks of taking power. Catholic priests and nuns were murdered in concentration camps. The Nazis murdered Edith Stein, a Catholic nun in 1942. She has been canonised a saint. You are engaged in vague generalisations.
Incidentally I did not say that all atheists were mass murderers. I stated that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists. That made it easier for them to engage in mass murder. If they had believed in God they would know that they faced judgement on their deaths. Stalin, Mao viciously persecuted Christians and sent them to concentration camps. Thousands of priests/nuns/brothers have died in concentration camps.

You speak about burning at the stake. That happened centuries ago and occurred because perpetrators did not abide by the Ten Commandments. Your use of the term billions is ridiculous. You refer the Jews and Arabs. Israel is only nominally a religious state. It has legalised abortion. It is a secular state. Only a minority of its population is religious. (Incidentally I am arguing here from a Christian perspective.
I do not regard all religions as the same) The Catholic Church does not put opponents under a fatwa.


Benjamin Netanyahu has been married three times. Religion is not a major concern of his. The Arab/Israeli conflict is a conflict over land in the main. Some Arab leaders outside of the immediate area seek to introduce religion into it for political reasons.

I would not condone abuse from any quarter. It is a heinous crime.
There have been plenty of abuses perpetrated in atheistic communist countries and covered up.
Incidentally the biggest form of child abuse is abortion. It is the murder of the unborn child in the womb. In the US abortionists have butchered alone 52 million babies since 1973. Now of course the liberal/secularist/atheist movement favours this depravity. The number of unborn children murdered by abortionists (worldwide) is approximately 115,000 daily. That makes roughly 80 unborn children slaughtered every minute. Those spearheading the abortion cause in the US are in the main secularists, humanists and atheists and liberals. Similarly in Ireland we see well known secularists and atheists spearheading the attempt to introduce abortion in Ireland.

The universe with all of its complexities could not have evolved by chance. There had to be a guiding force behind it. That guiding force was God. When will scientists create a human eye from nothing? What scientist has managed to create the perfect human eye? When will scientists create a planet from nothing? When will scientists stop earthquakes?
Getting back to the blasphemous exhibition: We had atheists rushing onto national radio and of course supporting it. They were using this as another means to have a go at the Catholic Church. Atheists in Ireland want to eradicate all symbols of Christianity from schools. The EU courts at the behest of Italian atheists attempted this in Italy. However the Italian people rebelled. The same will happen here.

hmck said...

Like you manage to do quite often, I'll quote myself as it appears you missed the point in my last comment, as I said earlier "The fact of the matter is, evil exists, be it the temptation of the devil or other. The temptation to do bad things exists in everyone, and it is irrespective of beliefs. It is a choice people make."

I mentioned burning at the stake, so what it happened centuries ago. The fact is, it happened. So it goes to show, it's one rule for God-believers. But if an Atheist does it, they are murderous barbaric monsters. The fact is, in both cases people died, the people involved are monsters. Including the Christians. Who gives them the right to kill anyone? You said people were burned for not obeying the ten commandments. Isn't one of them 'Thou shalt not kill'. It's a great rule to live by. How then is it okay for Christians to ignore it and kill others. Weren't we taught that no one can judge us on this Earth, only God himself? How then do you find this acceptable to say that "occurred because perpetrators did not abide by the Ten Commandments". You're contradicting yourself. You wish to vilify non-believers. My use of the terms billions refers to death or agony. Your misreading of this does not make it ridiculous. Many people are effected by war and famine, perpetrated by those who do so in the name of their respective God. The true death toll of wars throughout history will never be known. But think of the billions of people who live in hardship and poverty because of the greed of others.

Israel a secular state? It's flag has the star of David, a Jewish symbol, and it's creation is opposed by the Muslim world. Check your facts. It is a Jewish state. So as much as you think it's about land, it's not. Israel established a Jewish state, fair enough. They do not afford the same privilege to Palestinians to establish their own state.

As for the eye argument, repeatedly trotted (quoting you) out by theologians. It's called evolution. There are various species who exhibit different eyes, each at various stages of the evolutionary process. Our eyes are at the further end of this spectrum of evolution, but are by far not the most advanced specimen. There are various mutations which exist which give everyone varying eyesight. If God created us all equal, there would be no blindness or need for glasses. These are defects, passed down through our genes from our parents. These are facts you cannot deny. You inherit many traits from your family, unfortunately some of these leave us more susceptible to disease etc. Each of us is unique in our physical make up.

You seem to tarnish everyone with the same brush, but when I attempt to apply your logic, when I make general sweeping statements about atrocities committed by Christians, they are apparently ridiculous. I'm just trying to show you that by assuming everyone thinks and acts the same is very narrow minded of you. I do not think every priest is the same, nor is every Catholic the same. Therefore, you should assume not every atheist is the same.

As a previous commenter pointed out, it is a democracy, and it's unfair to oppress the minority of people who just want their views accepted and listened to. We have a right to exist, and when we die and if we meet the maker and spend eternity in hell, then that will be our problem won't it?

Scientists are not trying to create a planet from nothing, but it speaks volumes about how little knowledge you have in relation to how the world works and the purpose of the experiment involving the LHC.

hmck said...

Don't think I'm misrepresenting you. You have made it clear where you firmly stand. But please don't deny evil wrongdoing from all of mankind irrespective of Religious beliefs, it's no more acceptable just because it was committed in God's name. It is this fact you have glossed over from a number of my previous comments. My motivation for commenting initially, was that I felt you were not accepting that evil exists in all corners of our world, and a lot of people have done evil things, but you've chosen to only include examples of Atheists. My point is that evil exists across the board. Sometimes the motivation is power, greed, land, or sectarian motives. You don't seem to be appalled by attrocities committed against the Muslim world, or non-believers by the Christian world. Why do you think such tension exists? It's a sad world to be brought up in, and all we do is fight amongst ourselves. It will never stop.

John Barry said...

There is no Christian mass murderer to rate with Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler-60 million people slaughtered. You keep misrepresenting my argument.
Once more I will spell it out for you:
This is what I actually said:
"The point I was making about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao was that as they were atheists there was nothing to restrain them.
If they believed in God they certainly would know that they faced His judgement on their deaths."
You completely misrepresented my point in relation to burning at the stake.
Here exactly is what I said
"You speak about burning at the stake. That happened centuries ago and occurred because PERPRETATORS did not abide by the Ten Commandments. Your use of the term billions is ridiculous."
The perpetrators were those who carried out the burning at the stake. Atheists are masters of misrepresentation.
I note that you steered clear of the abortion issue. Atheists/liberals secularists are endeavouring to get abortion introduced in Ireland. They wish to kill the unborn child.

I note your tendency like all atheists to assume that those who disagree with them are ignorant.
Here is what YOU say:
"Scientists are not trying to create a planet from nothing, but it speaks volumes about how little knowledge you have in relation to how the world works and the purpose of the experiment involving the LHC.
Here is what I ACTUALLY said:
When will scientists create a planet from nothing? When will scientists stop earthquakes?
The point I am making is that scientists could not even create one planet from nothing. Scientists are not creating a planet because they are not capable of it.
Can scientists create a solar system? Of course not.
Atheists place great reliance on science for their arguments.
Scientists cannot not create anything without matter.
It all leads back to a Superior Being-God.

In relation to Israel:
The country is a secular state irrespective of what is on the flag. Abortion is legal. A minority practices religion. There are religious parties in the Knesset. They are minority parties that have never secured a majority.

Re the use of the word ridiculous:
I used the word in relation to your comment here:
There are many more examples of fighting between people based on religious prejudice, with each religion fighting in the name of his or her God, causing death and unwanted agony for millions if not billions of people"
You used billions which is indeed ridiculous. There is no evidence for that.

hmck said...

We agree on some points, we disagree on others.

As I said, with the billions we have on this planet (and the many billions who've died before us). Are you telling me everyone lives in harmony? Are you kidding? With all the suffering, and so much of the world population in complete poverty, you're telling me, there are not billions of people suffering, living in hardship? Really? Those in Africa, the Middle East, the many homeless, and poor in Western Society. The many poor people in India and the rest of Asia. This is a global problem. There is suffering all over this planet. I've said it twice already, evil exists. I'm trying to agree with you, I'm just saying it's human is the problem. Not a religious or lack thereof problem. I just think we need to put the issue of religion to one side, so that everyone can work together. Throughout history how many conflicts have involved Religious persecution. Catholics were definitely persecuted against, almost every Religion has been persecuted against by rival religions.

RE: Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot etc. It's not a competition to see who has killed more. You keep quoting figures regarding how many people have been killed, and you wholeheartedly believe their lack of faith in God prevented them showing mercy. I honestly agree with you, but megalomaniacs believe they are a God, all powerful. That is the problem, these people have severe psychological problems, not caused by them turning their back on their faith, instead, their upbringing and illness caused them to turn their back on their faith and thus against their own people.

We're not expecting scientists to create a planet out of nothing. They are creating matter and anti-matter, thus attempting to simulate the conditions of the big bang. The big bang, and what you attribute to being God's influence, is this large quantity of energy to create the bang, which is the driving force behind how the universe and life was created. That is all it's trying to do, it's trying to figure out how it all started. Science in the end, could very well be used to determine the existence of God. People look for the answers in different places. People devote their lives to Religion as they do Science, neither is the wrong path. Each of us has a choice how he or she wishes to live. So don't belittle another personal choice or beliefs.

The abortion issue, are you saying that with regards to Case X, if a woman is raped, she should be forced to have a baby she neither wants, nor can actually support physically, financially and emotionally? If this woman is a victim of a sadistic crime, does she not at least have the option? It is an extremely traumatising thing to have an abortion, and I believe it is a last resort. You obviously disagree? What is your opinion about Case X? What would you say to this young girl about what happened to her against her will? Her life was ruined by this.

About the 60m people killed by evil dictators, I don't think I have been defending them because they didn't believe in God, make no mistake. I have my own morals based largely on my Catholic upbringing. I recognise right from wrong. I do believe the core teachings of the church and how you should treat one another are extremely important for a society and laws. It is what is lacking in today's generation. Religion has helped so many people, but it hasn't helped some. It should be a choice however, you cannot force someone to be Religious. Do you agree?

henry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Barry said...

Re the X case: Rape is a heinous crime. Rape should merit a life sentence for the rapist.
If a child is conceived by a rape it exists. It is a human being. If you abort the child you kill it. This then makes two victims: The woman who has been raped and the unborn child who has been aborted.
I am well aware of the psychological trauma that the woman undergoes. She should have the child and if she does not wish to keep it, she should have it adopted. The unborn child is also innocent. It has committed no crime.
Read this interesting article:
Woman Conceived in Rape Thanks Quebec Cardinal for Abortion Statements
The woman was conceived by a rape. She is thankful that her 16-year- old mother did not abort her.
Here is a small part of the article:

"Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the archbishop of Quebec City and primate of Canada, has endured condemnation and vilification from the mainstream press, abortion advocates, and Quebec and federal politicians, after he explained Christian teaching on abortion at a pro-life conference hosted by Quebec Life Coalition this past Sunday.
The cardinal, when asked by reporters about abortion in the case of rape, said that rather than helping the victim of rape, an abortion actually adds a second victim – the unborn child. “The child is not responsible for how he was conceived, it is the aggressor who is responsible. We can see him (the child) as another victim.”
Morlani has responded to the backlash against the cardinal, relating how she was conceived when her mother was 16 years old and was sexually assaulted while on a date, and how grateful she is that her mother chose life.
"When she found out she was pregnant there was no doubt in her mind that I was her little baby and she was going to keep me and ensure that no one hurt me like she was hurt. She always felt very protective of my life while I was growing in her womb and throughout my childhood," Deborah explained.

Emma said...

Chloe Kerins (110323547@umail.ucc.ie) has nothing to do with this exhibition so please remove her personal details. she was the PRO for the students Hispanic Society and has no involvement in this exhibition whatsoever. Please research contacts more accurately as it would be unfair on her to receive any irate emails.

hmck said...

That is where the debate over abortion gets very sensitive. It's the argument whether after conception the fetus has full human rights or whether they have to be born outside of womb to have a human right to life. I agree, this is extremely difficult. I believe in a perfect world this issue wouldn't exist, as people who want children would have them, those who don't wouldn't. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. And this issue is a massive grey area. The quote from that 16 year old girl, it is a positive story. The fact remains that it's not always so clear cut, and there are arguments for both sides. Some people who have ended up being brought into this world and adopted, this sometimes ends up as having a negative impact on their future relationships and perceptions. Some fall through the cracks, and do not end up as well rounded as the girl in your example. If it's one thing, a child should always be brought into a safe loving world. This girl was lucky, she obviously grew up with a loving family. It's just unfortunate that this is not always the case.

You are right, there are 2 victims indeed, but is it then worth risking both of these lives further down the road? It is the unknown, how thing will turn out no one knows. If there is a possibility of saving the life of the mother? Does she not have a choice? By outlawing it (or preventing it's acceptance into law), you're removing her rights to make decisions that will affect her life. The last thing we need is more children brought in unstable loveless home where they cannot be properly cared for, or growing up in relative hardship and poverty. The end result is there are still 2 victims, two lives still ruined. I see the argument, you want equal rights for the child, the same rights as the mother. However, its unfair to force your opinion on someone else. You have a right to choice in all aspects of your life, why shouldn't the mother?

It is unfair to solely accuse atheists of barbarism, when they only seek to look out for the well-being of the mother in this case (unfortunately at the expense of the fetus). I just don't think there is a definitive solution to this which will keep both sides happy. Even the words you use to describe the events aim to vilify a particular party. Instead of empathy, you're extremely judgemental and prejudiced on this issue towards Atheism. I think each case should be take as a one off case, as the mitigating circumstances will generally be unique in each case. You may find that some Catholic's as well as some Atheists are impartial on the issue, you may find also that some Catholic's support the choice, and some Atheists would actually be against abortion. Again, your attempt to single out one group of people and generalise that each supports the same acts is extremely narrow minded and bigoted of you.

John Barry said...

Thanks Emma

John Barry said...

@hmck.You refer to the foetus. Why are you afraid to call it the unborn child? Take a look at this 4D Ultrasound-Smiling Baby
Abortion is wrong because it is the killing of the innocent unborn child. It is wrong in all circumstances. Sanitised language used by the pro-abortion lobby does not alter this reality. The child is innocent irrespective of how it was conceived. The woman should give up the child for adoption rather than abort it. That way she has an easier mind. Once a child is aborted it is final. There is no come back. If a woman puts her child up for adoption and changes her mind afterwards she can always go and see the child. It is not for us to prejudge how any child will turn out. There is no grey area here.
It is not for us to play God.
Anybody who is pro-abortion and is a member of the Catholic Church is no longer a Catholic. Any Catholic politician who in any way aids the introduction of abortion is automatically excommunicated. A similar stricture applies to Catholics who vote for pro abortion politicians. You use the term choice. Pro-choice is sanitised language designed to hide the reality that a life is being violently extinguished in its mother's womb.
You are not dealing with two equals here. How can pro-killing (pro-abortion/pro-choice) be placed on a par with being pro-life?

hmck said...

Foetus is a medical term to describe an unborn child at the early stages of development. It is not sanitised language used purely by the pro-abortion contingent. I'm not afraid of using the term unborn child, but merely using the widely recognised term of an infant in the womb. Your use of language attempts to invoke a sense of guilt in people, that people should be ashamed of their choices. This tactic is one greatly used by Religious institutions. Again, I believe it is a choice one makes what term they use to describe an infant.

In reference to your use of the language of pro-killing. You continue to use un-sanitised terms in order to cause maximum impact to people. Are you afraid of the term pro choice? Again, you do believe God gave us the gift of freewill did he not? It's ironic then that some pro-life protests have turned violent and have resulted in the heinous murder of Doctors. These truly barbaric acts are hardly fitting of a group who represent the preservation of life. Who gives these people right to play God and take away this Doctor's life? It sort of defeats the purpose of your argument, when you carry out the same actions you seek to prevent on adults.

How do you know that some of a doctors patients were not having this procedure due to an underlying medical condition, that could pose health risks to both the child and mother. You are not even willing to accept there are unknowns. You wish to dictate to a woman what decisions she makes. We're both men, how can you tell a woman (or anyone for that matter) what (s)he can or cannot do. Your views belong in the dark ages, not in the developed world.

What I am saying in relation to adoption is, how do you expect a child to react when finding out they are adopted? Do don't accept that there can be deep psychological effects on the child. Some people find this hard to accept that someone could abandon them. As I said previously, this often results in abandonment issues and problems establishing and maintaining future relationships, as well as trust issues.

Your statements regarding excommunication, how do you even justify that statement? How do you know there is not more support from Catholics, such voting is private. How can you tell someone they are no longer a Catholic because of their opinion?

hmck said...

To you, it is either black or white, right or wrong. There is no acceptance that there is a grey area. This is most bigoted of you.

John Barry said...

@hmck
I think that you should read Bernard Nathanson
He was responsible for 75,000 abortions. He then became strongly anti-abortion and converted to Catholicism. Would you call him bigoted also?

Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe from Roe v. Wade) is now Prolife.
See video: Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe from Roe v. Wade) Becomes Prolife
As far as I am concerned life is sacred. That also means that I am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances.
It is pointless trying to find excuses for abortion. The right to life of the unborn child trumps the right to kill an unborn child.
The fact that abortion may be legalised does not make it moral. It just shows the moral bankruptcy of cowardly politicians.
Re excommunication:
If you vote for a pro-abortion politician you commit a serious sin. You have blood on your hands when that politician legalises abortion or improves access to it.
Similarly the politician who legalises or facilitates abortion in anyway has blood on his/her hands. He /she is automatically excommunicated by his/her actions.
The church does not have to formally excommunicate the politician. It is automatic.

hmck said...

I'm referring to you John, and you alone as being a bigot. You have many examples to support your arguments, and as many as you have there are many counter examples.

So you accept that blood is on the hands of the pro-life side if a woman proceeds with a pregnancy which results in both the death of her and her child, again 2 victims have died. You believe this is moral when one life could have been saved? Does the mother not have a right to life in this instance, or do you condemn her to death because she got pregnant?

You've also side-stepped the issue of the anti-abortion violence, and how deplorable it is. This has involved destruction of properties, assaults, kidnapping, attempted murder and murder.

John Barry said...

How do you know that you are not a bigot? I didn’t label you. Atheists love labelling and name-calling.
Re woman’s right to health. If there is a threat to the woman's PHYSICAL health she is entitled to all treatment necessary to save her life eventhough the child may INADVERTENTLY die as a result of the treatment.
This is not a deliberate attempt to kill the child.
You are endeavouring to corner me into saying that abortion can be justified. I say never. Abortion is carried out with the expressed intention of killing the child. The aim to get rid of an innocent human being by killing it.

You speak about violence of anti abortion supporters. I do not support violence from any quarter. Pro-aborts themselves are quite good at using violence.

John Barry said...

Re deaths of women resulting from legal abortions;
See There's Nothing Safe About Legal Abortion
The article names women who have died. It also deals with damage to women's health resulting from abortion

hmck said...

You have labeled me repeatedly with generalised statements regarding the apparent belief and practices of Atheists. That is why I (not as an Atheist), I myself have labeled you a bigot. "Atheists love labelling and name-calling."... you're missing the point, Atheists are not calling you a bigot. I am, and it's not because I am an Atheist. It is because you refuse to respect anyone else's opinion but your own.

Any surgical procedure, no matter how routine poses inherent health risks. By keeping abortion illegal, you then limit a woman's choice, which may result in desperately choosing an unqualified person to abort an unborn child. This causes even greater risk to the mother. Possibly even death, then another 2 victims dead. More blood on the hands of the pro-life group who are steadfast in their disapproval of the abortion process which forced a woman seek an abortion by alternative means, of which there are many examples. Even commonplace operations such removal of appendices have resulted in accidental death.

"You are endeavouring to corner me into saying that abortion can be justified. I say never." This quote is indicative of how we are failing to debate the issue. You're just flat out refusing to accept another human beings opinion. It's akin to sticking your finger in your ears whilst shouting aloud. You just ignore any points you don't like.

hmck said...

I'm sorry, with statements such as "Atheists generally support abortion. This is a return to barbarism." you are labeling and name-calling. This is another example of how you've undermined your own argument.

hmck said...

"If there is a threat to the woman's PHYSICAL health she is entitled to all treatment necessary to save her life even though the child may INADVERTENTLY die as a result of the treatment."

What if it's too late though John? The woman was not allowed have an abortion, she may have been advised it was not wise to proceed with the pregnancy due to health risks, but because of a lack of choice she has paid the ultimate price, with her life.

"Abortion is carried out with the expressed intention of killing the child"... Yes, but in the above scenario, it would be carried out with the expressed intention of preserving the life of the mother, and yes, this would be at the expense of the unborn child. Your argument seems to focus solely on the rights of the child, and not that of the mother.

John Barry said...

You are just nitpicking. What if the sky fell down? What if? What if? You seek to create a hard case scenario to justify the introduction of abortion? Abortion is wrong because it is the DELIBERATE killing of an
innocent child in the womb. Thts it. That’s the blunt truth. You don’t want to address the DELIBERATE killing of the child in the womb. You seek grounds to justify it? Well you can’t.
I have already said:

“If there is a threat to the woman's PHYSICAL health she is entitled to all treatment necessary to save her life even though the child may INADVERTENTLY die as a result of the treatment."
You have not addressed the physical and mental consequences of abortion for many women. Legal abortions can kill women. I have already dealt with that in my previous response.
Ireland without abortion has one of the lowest rates of maternal mortality in the world.
See Live Action
The following in NOT abortion:
If there is a threat to the woman's PHYSICAL health she is entitled to all treatment necessary to save her life even though the child may INADVERTENTLY die as a result of the treatment.

Abortion is the DELIBERATE killing of an innocent child in the womb. It is carried out to kill the child. That is its aim. It is carried out to just get rid of the baby. It is deliberate killing. 28 children are aborted (murdered) every minute of the day throughout the world. There are examples of partial birth abortion from the US. A child who manages to survive an abortion is deprived of all medical help and left to die. Abortion is barbarism. Abortion clinics are the new concentration camps. The innocent unborn children are the new victims (instead of the Jews) who are tortured to death. That’s the reality of abortion.
We now have the abortion holocaust. That's my final comment on the issue.

veritas said...

Ireland still has a blasphemy law and everybody here should make a FORMAL complaint bothto the Garda and the university. Herewith the relevant email addresses:

michael.finn@garda.ie
mfarrell@sec.ucc.ie

veritas said...

Ireland still has a blasphemy law which should te called into play to stop this indecent display or whatever it's called! Everybody here should make a formal complaint to both the Garda and the university. Herewith the relevant email addresses:

michael.finn@garda.ie
mfarrell@sec.ucc.ie

Irene Roche.

John Barry said...

@Veritas
Thank you for this interesting comment

funkyderek said...

You know what's blasphemous? John Barry's statement that God has a mother. As well as being patently absurd it's deeply offensive to the majority of the world's religious people. The idea that God, the Almighty creator of the entire universe - this being who created all of space and time - has a mother is merely laughable to me but to some is the worst form of heresy. What's more, to assert that this "mother" was not herself some all-powerful timeless being but was a human, a teenage girl, a Jew, is - for some - so far beyond offensive that countless thousands of people have been murdered for believing it.
And yet, John, I stand by your right to believe it. As ridiculous as it is to me, and as offensive as it is to billions of other people, you have the absolute right to believe it, and to declare that you believe it. Draw pictures of her, build statues of her, pray to her for all I care. As sickeningly sacrilegious as some people find it, I will forever stand by your right to prostrate yourself before the ghost of a Palestinian carpenter's wife. Please, in turn, respect my right to see some Mexican art.

veritas said...

funkeyderek, don't be daft! God the Creator always was and always will be and, of course, HE didn't have a mother!! God is Triune and when He decided to come to earth to redeem us He became incarnate (as in the second person of the Trinity i.e. the Word) as Jesus, He did so by the medium of Mary. He, Jesus, was like us in all things except sin, so He was/is truly man and truly God. So, a little respect for his chosen mother, Mary, n'est ce que pas??

hmck said...

How am I nitpicking? I wish to get across the point it is not your, or the church's role to force their will upon someone else. These are not what if's John. They are complex real world examples, many of which occur every day, of which is none of your or the church's business to interfere as if you're some authority in the matter. "Case X was a 1992 Irish Supreme Court case which established the right of Irish women to an abortion if a pregnant woman's life was at risk because of pregnancy, including the risk of suicide." The law backs this judgement, it was the correct outcome. The young girl involved was at serious risk, yet you blindly ignore this. This is why you are by definition a bigot.

I have already dealt with the fact that ANY medical procedure poses potential risks, including both legal and illegal abortions. I believe the legal option would however be a lot safer. You wouldn't go to a back street hack dentist to have dental work done or a back street doctor to have your tonsils out would you? If you deny someone the choice you force people into desperation.

The argument is if a woman should have a choice. You seek to deny a woman this choice. You're not seeing the big picture, you're only seeing half of it, whilst staunchly denying the rights of the woman.

If this woman sins by terminating her unborn child and thus in the process commits a sin. It's up to her to suffer, repent and atone for this sin. It is not for you to judge that she has sinned. It is for God to judge her. This is what the church teaches, and if she repents, God will forgive her for what she has done. This is what Catholics believe, in forgiveness, repentance and atonement for ones sins. Yet you seek to remove the choice. Anyone involved in this heinous act knows the consequences. It's hardly an enjoyable job, or enjoyable for the woman. You seem to think people get a sick pleasure out of it, including supporters of the choice. Likening us to barbarism. The fact is, no one does. But likewise, anyone involved will repent their sins and suffer the consequences.

Look, lastly, you think I'm somehow inventing these scenarios to prove a point. I'm not.

You believe in the second coming of the saviour Jesus Christ. Of which you're entitled to that belief. It is called faith, you believe it, therefore it must be true. Is it not still a what if? Is it likely to happen in both of our lifetime? Didn't a Christian preacher predict the second coming and Rapture for May 21st and October 21st this year? Is this not a what if? Did it happen, no it did not. Will it happen on October 21st? Probably not, it is a what if?

I dare say you'll misread, dismiss and misinterpret the majority of this, which is again why you are so bigoted, you can't even see you are being a bigot.

Please look at the big picture. How about do some research on how it has helped people, as opposed to all the arguments against. You don't have to agree with the cases and stories, but just read some which will show you that there are two sides to every story.

EditorCT said...

A lawyer has contacted Catholic Truth to ask if as many people as possible would contact the Garda in the area of the University - all the details, email address etc are given on the Catholic Truth website. Once the police/garda receive a formal complaint with a request for a reference number and a reply they have to act. Already several people have received responses by email from the Chief Superintendent to say that an investigation is underway and they will be contacted. Obviously, the more people who complain, the more chance there is of this disgraceful insult to Our Lady being scuppered. We've all sung the Hymn to Our Lady promising that "When wicked men blaspheme thee, I'll love and bless thy name" so here's a chance to do that in a very practical way, which doesn't take more than a couple of minutes. There's even a template message provided to use or adapt. So, please visit www.catholictruthscotland.com as soon as possible. God bless.

hmck said...

@EditorCT @Veritas @John Barry, instead of organising a criminal case against this artist, and anyone who wishes to view this... why don't you pray for these people's souls? Why are you so quick to anger? Not very forgiving in my opinion.

MidlandLifeNetwork said...

There are a lot of distracting non arguments going on above.
The usual red heering about the Church because of the Galileo story being anti-science.Of course Galileo V the Church was really more about pride and stubborness on behalf of certain Cardinals and Galileo himself.As one of Galileos adversaries in the debate said years before the polemics and hardening of positions...''The bible teaches us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go''
It really is a non argument as Nicholas Copernicus almost 50 years before Galileo had actually determined that the Earth moved around the Sun from his astromomical work.He didn't seek noteriety and lived in a cultural backwater of Poland and was a Catholic religious brother if not a priest.Galileo was right too of course but in his csse he was right for the wrong reasons.He thought that the tides had something to do with the movement of the Earth;of course in this he was wrong.The number of Jesuit priest/astronomers working for the Pope in the Vatican observatory(still in operation out of Rome and the High Mesa of Arizona) not long after Galileo's era and the number of features on the Moon named after Jesuits(over 200) would tend to support the Church's engagement with science not the opposite.Of course the Big Bang was first propsoed by one Fr George Lemaitre in the 1920s.With the support of Einstein Fr Lemaitre worked out his theory which became the BigBang.He was viciously opposed all the way by Fred Hoyle the leading (atheist) astronomer of the establishment at the time who favoured the ''steady state theory'' (the universe has always been there)Fred Hoyle and other atheist astronomers thought the BigBang sounded too much like the Creation Story from Genesis when read as it should be read in a non-literal sense.
Oh yea...anyone who has read the story of Juan Diego the native Mexican Indian who in the 1500's
received the image that became known as Our Lady of Guadalupe would realise that this was a definitive moment in Latin culture,an affirmation of the dignity of the native peoples who were caught between the rampaging capitalist conquistadors and the mass(industrial quantity killing)death cults of the Astec Empire who killed millions of natives people before the Spanish arrived.
Freedom of expression should be open to all.If a group wanted to display an exhibition of Our Lady of Guadalupe in conjunction with higlighting the Unborn child within her womb(in the original she is pregnant) then they would not have a chance and they would be attacked by MOST (not all are ignorant and prejudiced)of the supporters of the present exhibition.Lets have real true freedom of expression and official support form the Intelectual establishment for true diversity.The powerful and well resourced establishment( in a time when people are dying while waiting for treatment in hosptials) is now forcing one view on the public and that is lacking in immagination and a misallocation of scarce resources and not what I am paying my taxes for.The modern images greatest fault in my view is that in comparision with the original it is brutal and crude in its artistic techniques (forget about the content).Even if you do not believe anything supernatural is possible you would need to be completely ante-deluvian in artistic appreciation not to find the rich tapestry and incedible detail of the multilayered narrative in the original Image fascinating.There is one story being told in the modern image while the original has many many layers and even if it was created by human hands then it is an image much more worthy of public display than the present one dimensional attempt at noteriety and selling books.

John Barry said...

@MidlandsLifeNetwork. Thanks for that. It is very educational.
The best way forward in my view is intensive lobbying of the UCC authorities now to cancel this. I am not in agreement with going down the legal route even though I can understand why some people are pursuing this approach.
If enough people petition the UCC authorities they will be forced to act.

Conor Scolard said...

HAHAHAA best read i've had all week.
Freedom that does not impose on another persons rights should be allowed.

Your beliefes that this is blasphemy have nothing to do with this.

It does not affect your rights so bugger off. I think we should all complain about the people complaining!!

Long live free speech and expression.

John Barry said...

@Conor Scolord The overwhelming majority of Irish people are Catholics. This exhibition is designed to shock people and mock the Mother of God and the Catholic religion. Scarce taxpayers money is being pumped into UCC. It certainly is not being pumped in to facilitate this outrageous exhibition. UCC fundraises from private individuals as well. When the private sector supports UCC financially the money is given to improve facilities. It is not given to insult the Mother of God. UCC should remember this. So should you.

MidlandLifeNetwork said...

I think the public outcry at public funds being wasted on niche political advocacy campaigns in the guise of technically bad artwork should merit a rethink by the UCC authorities.They shoul dcut their losses now and donate the money to the nearest Children's hospital for priority operations.The post-modern take on the 16th Century masterpiece is simply sub standard and lacking completely in artistic merit.it wouldn't gain a second look if it wasn't shamelessly piggybacking on a true original masterpiece ala any corporate multinational advertising campaign who exploit well known imagery for profit.the artist here should alsodonate some of her proceeds to an irish charity as she takes down her work of bad art.I would report her to the Society for exposure of bogus Artists before any other protest.
That is her biggest fault.

funkyderek said...

veritas: It's a little rich to call me daft when your explanation is that one-third of your god impregnated a human with another third of himself using the remaining third. But you're right in your call for respect. I respect your right to hold and express that opinion, as ludicrous as it seems to me. I would fight and perhaps even die to ensure that your right is recognised and protected. In turn you need to show the same respect to others.

LexAequitas said...

I'm confused why it's blasphemous. Bikinis aren't blasphemous, right? And neither would be an assertion that "Our Lady" had a physical body? If you mean the title of the exhibit is blasphemous, why the attention to this one innocuous painting?

To me, this looks an awful lot like the hysteria Moslems had over the cartoons of Mohammed -- thankfully without the violence.

"I cant see anyone who would approve of having there legitimate mother displayed in a binki"

????

Really? You think bikinis are inherently disrespectful? Isn't Eve often depicted with just leaves covering her?

Destroid said...

You're seriously dipping into the territory of those reactionary Muslims people complain about that demand the media never show anything that offends them.

While the right to be religious is something that should be respected, so too is the right to criticise or even parody it.

Stuff this shit. I can guarantee there's plenty of things about me you don't respect so let's not go down that road.

You'd have a hard time pushing this as incitement to hatred too.

Why not get offended about something worth while, such as the fact that the EU has been sending Ireland angry letters about how we have no legal recognition for transsexuals, unlike the rest of western europe, and we've been ignoring them?

John Barry said...

@funkyderek @LexAeqitis @Destroid
Taxpayers money funding UCC is for the provision of education not for this disgraceful attack on the Mother of God and the Catholic Church. Similarly when private individuals donate to UCC they do so to provide educational facilities.
@Destroid You will note that she has no exhibit attacking Islam. If she had, a fatwa would be declared. Catholicism is a soft target.

funkyderek said...

John, why do you think that this art exhibition is not educational? At the very least, it has people thinking and talking about the issues of freedom of speech, blasphemy, the role of religious iconography and so on. Isn't that the purpose of education? If you visit the exhibition and you hate every single exhibit you are still likely to benefit from the experience. Why are you so opposed to someone else expressing a viewpoint different to your own?

As to why Alma Lopez chose Catholic iconography, and specifically Hispanic Catholic iconography, that may have more to do with her cultural heritage than with any fear of being murdered by fanatical Islamists. Also, an exhibition incorporating aspects of Muslim tradition and questioning Muslim taboos might not have such an impact in Cork.

hmck said...

@John Barry,

"You will note that she has no exhibit attacking Islam. If she had, a fatwa would be declared. Catholicism is a soft target."

Seriously again. Bringing in another Religion that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this context of this exhibition. What if John, all a big what if. Perhaps this is the artists attempt to modernise the imagery of the church. Who knows? There is no denying that the classical paintings depicting Our Lady as well as many other scenes from the Bible are truly stunning (funded by the Church, they had some truly amazing artists at their disposal), but again even the classical versions are only representations of what Mary would have looked like. To be quiet fair, this exhibition does not interest me in the slightest. It's the Religious debate surrounding it however, freedom of expression etc. That is what seems to be arching the backs of many.

The thing is, had there not been such uproar and media attention about this exhibit it probably would have faded quietly unnoticed into the background, making few waves. Would half as many people know it was on? It's the public disquiet that has raised it's profile nationwide.

FunkyDerek has raised a good point. No one, either those who've commented here, or even the people in charge of the exhibit ( either the artist or UCC) are telling you that you have to like or agree with this subject of the exhibition. In fact you are free to ridicule and despise it all you want, it is your right. So why don't you respect someone else's right to view it and form their own opinions?

NalPad said...

Just because you do not believe in, or condone abortion, does not mean you can refer to the practice of it as barbarism. Speaking in a historical context, its quite ludicrous to suggest that the Roman Empire fell due to Abortion. If you are going to use the Bible to prove a point, you may also want to read the sections were slavery is condoned. What are these so-called pseudo-liberals? And why are they only indigenous to the United States? Their views are different to yours, so you chose to portray them as somehow fake, which is not in keeping with the Christian ethos. If the Catholic Church is to remain prominent in Irish society(which I genuinely hope it does not) it should refrain from its everyone-is-against-us approach. I personally hold no religious beliefs, yet I fully expect peoples rights to have them. Unfortunately some in the Catholic community feel they have a monopoly on religious beliefs, believing theirs to be above all else. Representing Islam repeatedly as an oppressive religion is not in keeping with the fact that it is not the only one which has a history of oppressing beliefs and opinions of its followers. Many Catholic countries, such as Ireland had blanket bans on certain books and films upmuntil the eighties, due to them being deemed immoral, and not in keeping with Catholic traditions. Not everyone subscribes to the Catholic point of view on every matter, and many Catholics engage in what you call "pseudo-liberal" behaviour. Take for example the Church' opposition to Civil Partnerships. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin told all Catholics in Ireland that they should join him in condemning this immoral act. Just because those at the top believe it to be immoral, does not give them the right to dictate what people should and should not agree with.

If you do not like this exhibition, then quite simply you should not attend it. It may not be in keeping with as you call it traditional Catholic values, yet in a free society we must respect a persons right to have a different opinion on a subject. Otherwise we will return to a not to distant era where the Catholic church had a say in every aspect of our lives. Just look at the impact their power had. We give out about Ireland becoming more secularised as if it is a bad thing. The fact that it has happened is indeed a representation of the will of the people. Should we be expected to hark back to a time where child abuse on a staggering scale occured and was covered up, when the victims were made to feel as if they had done something wrong. You have a right to dislike something, but your religious beliefs as a practicing Catholic does not give you the right to claim superiority and restrict the freedoms of expression of others.

SeánMcK said...

John, I commend you for your extensive knowledge and command of the copy and paste function. It must save time when denouncing us "pseudo-liberals".

SeánMcK said...

Does anyone else thinking that the 52 million aborted babies coming back to "life" to take revenge on those Barbarian Doctors would make an awesome Horror film? They could show it in mass on Sunday mornings and in the Schools to highlight the dangers in controlling ones own body

John Barry said...

@SeánMcK
Is that the best you can do? You laugh at the murder of 52 million unborn children. You certainly have a peculiar sense of humour.
Your post is highly irresponsible.
A word of advice for you: Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

John Barry said...

@SeánMcK
Young man you have a lot to learn.

Brian said...

4 Years in Art School - 10,000 Euros
1 Copy of Photoshop - 500 Euros
Loads of narrow minded nuts getting upset over nothing - Priceless

MidlandLifeNetwork said...

Without the 16th Century imgage on the link below there would be no controversary possible or income stream from post modern interpretations promoted by the Irish tax payer(while we cut support for special needs assistants aomg other savage cuts)

http://www.sancta.org/cgi/display.nor?image=imagen_pic_300w.jpg

Typically when one protests about a controversial book or ''art work'' one is asked has one ''read the book or viewed the art work'' .Well its simply not possible to understand the modern image without viewing and trying to understand the multilayered imagery involved in the original.Note the Lady in the original is with child,a fact conveniently ignored by the new artist.So apart from anything else we have selctive historical editing involved here to cut out a reference to the unborn child.Even if one completely discounts any possibility of a supernatural origin for the original image it has to be a source of artistic wonder how an image of this rich quality and technical difficulty could be produced in a rough and ready context like 16th century ''New Spain'' aka post Aztec Mexico.That is the real wonder of the story of Our Lady of Guadalupe.If our non believing friends would like to seek some common ground and vice versa; and mutually lay aside the vitriolic rhetoric for a ceasefire period them perhaps we can all learn something new from this extensive exchange of ''views''.

hmck said...

@MidlandLifeNetwork: The artist is again entitled to her rights and the image is open for interpretation, just as you have your interpretation of the original.

"I am not the first Chicana to reinterpret the image with a feminist perspective, and I’m positive I won’t be the last."

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/our-lady-image-stirs-controversy-at-university-158688.html

On viewing both images they both contain the same basic elements. Even Lopez's version contains flowers which feature in the story of the vision.

I'm still not focused on the actual image at the center of the controversy.

Hypothetically speaking, if I were to believe strongly that something is true. So strongly I've devoted my life to this belief, and perhaps the Catholic Church mocks my beliefs by the iconic use of a cross, and perhaps the use of the cross is blasphemous in respect to what I believe. So am I then within my right to demand the Catholic Church stops it use of the cross? And should they? No, it's an absurd hypothesis, of course it is. Even if the number believing what I believed far outnumbered the members of the Catholic Church. Why should you stop using the cross? You're entitled to believe what you believe, and so am I.

MidlandLifeNetwork said...

@ hmck..if that comment was a first stumbling attempt at civility and an acknowledgement of Christian sensitivities then I would be a stubborn and narrow minded fool not to acknowledgement it as such.I am happy that at least you appear to have engaged with the original masterpiece from the 16th century without which the post modern work would still be obscurely filed away in some digital achieve in cyberspace after winning a pat on the back to the artist in a transition year ''art'' competition.
Yes I see where you are coming from too so perhaps I am learning soemthing as well.

hmck said...

@MidlandLifeNetwork While some of my comments have come across strained at times I served only to show that there are two entirely different sides to each story, both of equal importance. I respect the a Catholic's belief. Even though I do not believe myself, I also appreciate some of the magnificent artwork and the architecture of the many churches that exist world wide, and I have visited many around the world. I appreciate the history behind them, and the clear love and devotion in which they were built. If anything it shows man endless creative abilities.

SeánMcK said...

@John Barry
What do I have a lot to learn about? I was not ridiculing the death of 52 million unborn babies, more just ridiculing your belief that it constitutes an act of barbarism, especially when many such actions occurred due to the need to protect the life of the mother.
I notice that you have only responded to my "sarcasm". You have responded as to why you could simply just not go to the exhibition if you not like it. We all have a lot to learn, so please do not talk down to me because I do not share your beliefs, or your moral indignation. If I did, the world I live in would become rather tiresome, as there are many other examples of immoral activities which I could choose to look down upon if I were hold the same beliefs as what you call the "majority" of Irish Catholics. Is it not truly irresponsible to ignore every argument that does not fit into our established world view? If so, then you John Barry also have a lot to learn.

John Barry said...

@NalPad
Several atheists posting here are using multiple identities. You form 3% of the population. The majority has rights also. Don’t ever forget it.
You misquoted me in relation to the Roam Empire. I DID NOT say abortion was the ONLY reason for the decline of the Roman Empire. I said ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS for the decline was infanticide.
Re abortion:
"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980.
Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.
Abortion is wrong because it is the killing of the innocent unborn child in the womb. Never forget it.

SeánMcK said...

The majority has the right to rule with the consent of the minority, so do not ever forget that. You have a differing view on abortion and that is fine, but it gives you no right to pontificate to the "minority". Quoting Ronald Reagan is a risky move, given that his complete refusal to acknowledge the growing AIDS crisis has left a damning legacy on both the United States and Africa in particular.
Your belief in your stable majority is akin to Catholic Hierarchies belief that their power enabled them to cover up whatever scandal emerged. I believe that the forcing single mothers to give up their children is wrong. How many of the majority you speak of are actually practicing Catholics? It is a significantly lower percentage these days. You should learn to accept te passing of time as a good thing, instead of being rooted in a time of fear and authoritarianism. You snear at Atheists, but only because they dare to challenge Catholic Orthodoxy. Try and engage in a proper debate on the issues rather than just denouncing your foes. As we have seen in the past three decades, the Catholic Church has fallen quite dramatically of its perch of moral superiority. We need debate, not status-quo Catholic righteousness. Also you still have not answered why you are going to this exhibit, when it would be a lot easier to let people make up their own minds about how they feel.

funkyderek said...

John:

You say several atheists posting here are using multiple identities. I can see that Sean McK and NalPad are the same person as they use the same icon and link to the same profile, but I don't think this is an attempt at subterfuge. Do you believe there are really other people here using multiple identities? If so, please name the offenders.

John Barry said...

@NalPad
Where on this blog did I state that I was going to this outrageous exhibit?
If you are in favour of abortion you favour the destruction of an innocent unborn life in the womb. Sanitised language does not alter the reality. People like you wish to dodge the reality. Take a look at any ultrasound on youtube. Of course everybody in favour of abortion has been born. The unborn child has a right to life.

People like you wish to eradicate all vestiges of Christianity from Ireland.
Remember the European courts endeavoured to remove crosses from all classrooms in Italy at the behest of Italian atheists. The Italian people rebelled against the court decision and just continued to place crosses in classrooms. The Italian majority put atheists in their place.

SeánMcK said...

@John Barry "The Italian majority put atheists in their place."

Are atheists supposed to be subservient to Catholics in Ireland? Is that what you are actually saying?

John Barry said...

@SeánMcK
Atheists are not entitled to eradicate all symbols of Christianity in Ireland. The majority as in Italy will not allow it. And rightly so.

SeánMcK said...

@John Barry

I'm sure that is an answer to some question, unfortunately not to the one I asked. So can I have an answer to my above question?

Plus, regardless of my beliefs, I have never tried to ban something on the grounds that I do not like it. People who do such things need not to complain that they are not being listened to, when by the same token they do not listen to anyone else.

So, are you saying that Atheists should be subservient to Catholics in Ireland. If you read my previous comment, then you will realise that this is the second time I have asked this question. I would dearly love an answer not laced with bigotry and generalisations to back up your answer on this question.

marcas said...

John, I invite you to step back from who-killed-how-many card sharking - I see your witch burning and raise you Pol Pot's killing fields.

If every human being were atheist, there would still be murder in the world. If every human being were religious, and further, if every human being were Roman Catholic, there'd still be murder in the world. There would still be murder for all the usual and unusual human reasons - greed, lust, power, zeal, righteousness.

To argue otherwise is undignified.

hmck said...

@marcas Thank you, I have stated this point a few times. It is just human nature. It has fallen on deaf ears, and usually been wrapped but in some retort assuming that each of the previously named murderers would not have carried out these acts if they feared God. To state that insults the memory of the people who died. It is of little comfort now. They were evil men plain and simple. Pol Pot and Mao most likely wouldn't have had a Christian upbringing anyways. I have been to the Killing Fields, and it is the most harrowing site, to not feel sad or upset at what happened here is not to be human.

hmck said...

@John: we've run into this issue of you rehashing old arguments.

I have also noticed your lack of direct engagement with my previous comments, and acknowledgement that you have at least learned there are two sides to every coin.

With regards to this apparent dual identity on your comments, it is actually more plausible that the user first posted under the name NalPad, and has since decided to change his username. Your ability to ignore and deflect from uneasy direct questions is truly remarkable.

hmck said...

@John - your repeated snide comments regarding a groups attempts to remove articles from classrooms which cause them offence. You support the majority outcome, which is quiet sad as you show little respect for an Atheists beliefs.

As people have also raised the point, 3% Atheists, and you believe we should have no voice. Your figures do not take into consideration the number of non-practicing Catholics, the number who have not renounced their faith. But you ignore the many other faiths in our society and the fact their beliefs should be respected or represented.

henry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MidlandLifeNetwork said...

Atrocity Poker should be avoided at all costs.It tends to polarise the debate,hardens positions,raises blood pressure and closes down communication.I would be lacking in humility (a sin btw for our brothers in faith) if I didn't admit that our non-theistic/atheistic brothers (not so many sisters join in these debtes for some reason)could not teach us something with their challenging perspectives.However everyone appears to have missed the obvious manipulation of sections of the irish public over the ''controversial'' exhibit.Mexican studies in Cork is with all due respect an obscure and aquired taste.With their budget blown on first class air fares for the artist and her entourgaqe the UCC authorities had no funds left to publicise the event.But then some crusty acedemic remembered the Pavlovian response and combined it Benetton's philosophy for Marketing(there is no such thing a as Bad publicity).So the day before the exhibit was due to open with no press coverage on the horizon a few carefully planted provocative photo releases acheived the Pavlovian reaction that was hoped for.On cue the usual suspects arrived to protest maybe even with a few stage managed out of work actors from Cork's fringe theatre community for effect.For three days running the Examiner newspaper has had half page soft focus stories on the brave UCC authorities and the cutting edge Chicana artiste with her digital work.The agitated protesters were portrayed as fools and has beens.It couldn't have worked out better.Hundreds of curious folks who otherwise would never have been in the UCC acedemic loop have queued up to see an art work made using 21st century digital photoshop made by a Corporate Multinational intent on digital hegemony and making billions of dollars for elite geeks; meanwhile the original masterpiece from the 16th century wild frontier of Aztec Mexico which defies scientific or rational explanation as to its origin and techniques used to ''paint'' it;is completely ignored.The native Indian Juan Diego and the indiginous Native peoples of Aztec Mexico are portrayed by the artist of the modern work as having been brutally colinised by the rapacious Spanish conquistedors meanwhile the Iconic role of Our Lady of Guadalupe and Native people's voluntary conversion in their millions to Christianity in a period of 50 years(impossible to be forced to do so by approx 400 surviving Spanish conquistedors)is also ignored.It will not insult our Atheist friends to remark on the bloodthirsty brutal hegemony of the Aztec Empire in pre-Spanish Mexico.Millions of subjegated Indian tribes were slaughtered on the bloody alters atop the great Pyramids to the Sun god and other Aztec dieities in the centre of Mexico city.The rapacious Spanish and the Christian missionaries who followed in their wake came as a welcome relief to the now Saint Juan Diego and millions of his fellow Indians.I think we can all agree;atheist of believer that the Aztec interrpretation of Religion was particularly barbaric and unfortunately the millions of innocents slaughtered by them would by current criteria be lodged on the Faith ledger in the game of Atrocity Poker.

funkyderek said...

MidlandLifeNetwork:

I won't get into "Atrocity Poker" as we could argue for hours about whether the indigenous religion of South America or that forced on them by the technologically more advanced Spanish invaders was more barbaric. I think we can all agree that both had pretty good hands.
What I'm more interested in is your rather perplexing claim that the painting "defies scientific or rational explanation as to its origin and techniques". As a piece of art, there's nothing notable about it. It's derivative and insignificant, painted by a competent artist but hardly a master. I dread to think that you share the delusion of your cohort in Mariolatry who babbled on RTE radio that the painting had been examined by NASA and Microsoft and found on extreme magnification to contain the reflection of the bishop in the eyes of Mary. That is obviously and crudely made up. It's embarrassingly ludicrous and you should distance yourself from such nonsense. You have some hope of convincing people to respect your belief on religious grounds but once you get into art appreciation or, worse still, science, you're dealing with reality, and there, you haven't got a prayer.

Laurence said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hmck said...

I liked Laurence's comment, but it appears to have been removed by the administrator. Ah censorship, just like the Catholic Church of old.

MidlandLifeNetwork said...

@ funnyderek It is a pleasure to enage in a reasoned debate I have to say.I think the Aztecs took ''faith'' inspired genocide to an unprecedented level and anyone trying to deny that or compare what a handful of Spanish adventurers did to the peoples of Central America really needs to drink from the cup of rationality a tad more often.As regards the origin of the original image of our Lady of Guadalupe as relayed by one native Indian Juan Diego in 1550;it is not what I am saying or implying or denying; its what millions upon millions of Mexicans,Central Americans and Latin Americans in their homelands and around the world are saying about it.I'm willing to go with the objective evidence one way or the other.Leaving the supernatural element to one side the manual techniques,skill and intricate detail involved in the original is truly a masterpiece.Apart from the fact that every single element in the original is highly symbolic with either Christian,Aztec or Native references.The detail involved in the original image is remarkable for a ''wild west'' environment like ''New Spain'' in the 16th Century.For example the Star pattern on the garment that the figure in the image is wearing reflects the exact configuration and positions that could be seen in the sky of Mexico on the day the alledged ''miracle'' happened.
Another example is that under high powered microscopic examination in recent years(not NASA) the eyes of the figure reveals tiny images of human figures which is repeated in each eye from a slightly different perspective(the babbeler on the radio had his facts arseways I will agree,but the facts are the facts and there are images in the eyes).All I am saying is that the technical skill and the immagination involved in the production of the original image is worthy of more attention that a completely unoriginal,derivative and digitally produced modern image that does more for the ego and reputation of the artiste than it does for the indigenous peoples of Central America.In fact as a tribute to your own skill in articulating Art Appreciation I'll delegate my final word on the post modern pastiche mish mash to your good self's own words which I think you really meant to attach to the modern work...''It's derivative and insignificant, painted (digitally produced with a 2 click mouse) by a competent artist (lacking in immagination and manual skills on an ego trip funded by yours and my Tax Euros but hardly a master (certainly not a worthy of all the free publicity).

funkyderek said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
funkyderek said...

MidlandLifeNetwork:

You should really have taken my advice to keep the argument about your supposed right to never be offended. Instead, you've made testable scientific claims - and those claims are quite simply nonsense. There is nothing supernatural about the painting. It is made from widely available materials, it's in the style of the time and it shows evidence of under-drawing and considerable revision. That it incorporates Christian and native symbology is hardly miraculous, but only what would be expected.
You claim that "the Star pattern on the garment that the figure in the image is wearing reflects the exact configuration and positions that could be seen in the sky of Mexico on the day the alledged ''miracle'' happened". This claim can be refuted just by looking at the painting. If you do so, you will see that the stars are in a straightforward repeating pattern and bear no resemblance to any constellations. Go on, have a look. I have to ask why you made that claim when clearly you had no supporting evidence for it. Did you make it up yourself or did you just take someone's word for it without doing a modicum of research?
Your claim that "the eyes of the figure reveals tiny images of human figures which is repeated in each eye from a slightly different perspective" is less obviously false, but it appears to be entirely and quite deliberately made up (though I concede it could be a case of pareidolia) and certainly has no basis in fact.
As to whether the original is better than the "pastiche", that is surely a matter of opinion. Neither does much for me but then I'm not really the target audience for either.

MidlandLifeNetwork said...

@ funnyderek,Like I said ''leaving the supernatural element aside'' maybe I should have said ''leaving the alledged supernatural element aside''.I actually have a high resolution copy of the original image given to me as a present by a Mexican girlfriend I had once upon a time hence my interest in the whole affair.I had no idea what it was all about at the time and but she did say that it would be a slow burner...Pareidolia! So that's what you call that phenomenon;you're obviously a educated man.That's a new term for me,it will come in useful.Anyway like I said ''leaving the alledged supernatural element aside'' the question must be asked as to why an uneducated middle aged Mexican Indian in the 16th century would bother with such detail;there is a pattern ''painted'' inside the eyes what exactly that pattern represents is a matter of interrpretation I will agree.I will also agree with the ''target market'' language.This whole deliberately provoked controversary has been one big low budget-high return guerilla marketing exercise.In fact it is a text book example.

hmck said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hmck said...

Not a fan of one expressing ones opinion then John?

So did this event go ahead as expected?

henry said...

Thanks for taking this opportunity to discuss this, I feel fervently about this and I like learning about this subject.mba college in punjab

funkyderek said...

MidlandLifeNetwork:

You said: "there is a pattern ''painted'' inside the eyes what exactly that pattern represents is a matter of interrpretation I will agree"

No, I'm saying there is no such pattern. The term I mentioned, pariedolia, refers to the human tendency to see patterns where there are none
There's really nothing about this painting that requires an explanation except the issue of why so many people are so desperate to believe that a pedestrian piece of art is really a miraculous gift from heaven.

hmck said...

@funkyderek & MidlandLifeNetwork, another prime example of this would be the perception of a figure having appearing in a tree stump in Limerick a couple of years ago.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0710/limerick.html

hmck said...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0710/limerick.html

amiyawilliams said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
amiyawilliams said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
amiyawilliams said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.