Dear Editor, According to Collin’s Dictionary to blaspheme is to “show contempt for God, especially, in speech”. One may add to Collin’s definition the personal and social implications of gratuitously insulting and offending our fellow citizens who conscientiously believe in God. Blasphemy, therefore, if not prohibited in the Constitution or by law, can be a serious source of disintegration in our society. Because of this many are surprised, if not perplexed, by the current proposal to remove its prohibition by referendum. I would hope that the people of Ireland will vote Nil/No on Friday, October 26.
For the metaphysical agnostic, it is difficult to appreciate the level of offence, hurt and anger a believer feels when her or his God is publically treated with contempt, as happens in the case of blasphemy. To the believer God is a person to be loved and adored. He is real and all life depends on Him. For instance, in the case in Christians, Jews and Muslims, God is a person with whom we can dialogue in prayer and deserves true respect. The Deity of other religions must also be respected in a true democracy.
Because of the recent immigrants welcomed into the Republic of Ireland, our country is in fact becoming a religiously pluralist society. This makes the prohibition of blasphemy in our Constitution even more relevant today. It also defends us against the scourge of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or any other prejudice against religious congregations in the years ahead.
I trust that my reasons to preserve blasphemy in article 40.6.1 are sufficient to encourage readers to consider voting Nil/No on October 26. The keeping of the status quo is especially important for young voters because they still have many years to enjoy the freedoms which our current Constitution has succeeded to preserve in good times and bad. Let us enable it to continue to do so in the future.
Yours etc.,
Micheal MacGreil, S.J.,
Westport,
Co. Mayo.
How can abortion be deemed as ‘healthcare’?
Dear Editor, How we use language can be either telling or misleading. What is abortion? What is healthcare? And is abortion healthcare?
The minister for health’s bill to legalise abortion defines termination of pregnancy as “a medical procedure which is intended to end the life of a foetus”. The death of the preborn child is not an unfortunate consequence of a necessary medical procedure: it is “intended”.
Healthcare is (in my mind at least) about saving and protecting people’s lives and health. Abortion does none of these: on the contrary, it is intended to end life, and also leaves many mothers mentally and emotionally scarred.
Abortion is not healthcare – but the minister for health not only counts it as such but prioritises it above the myriad of chronic health service problems he is paid to address.
Is it not problematic to try to force doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and others to assist against their will in intentionally ending the life of another human being? This is not even needed to make abortion available; instead, the government could establish an opt-in system where medical professionals who do wish to participate in abortions can be included.
These issues are still a problem if doctors are expected to refer women to other doctors for abortion, in spite of their professional judgement or ethical position that abortion is harmful and not necessary. (If a doctor had a patient who wanted a healthy hand removed due to mental illness, and refused to operate, but referred her to another doctor willing to do it, is the referring doctor not still partly responsible?)
The bill also creates resource issues: there is already a serious shortage of GPs, and of nursing staff in Irish hospitals, yet the Minister would force many out of healthcare and deter others from entering it, by insisting that they act against their conscience on abortion or face serious penalties.
This bill is not about healthcare: it is a grotesque distortion of it.
Yours etc.,
Dr Ruth Foley,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22
Organisation for papal visit fell short
Dear Editor, Greg Daly sets out some good reasons for the low turnout at the papal Mass, particularly the various pieces of “advice” from organs of the State (IC 4/10/2018). Two other reasons were the fact the tickets were free – a nominal €5 would have discouraged those disinterested from applying. Secondly there was too much duplication of tickets through individuals applying and then getting tickets through their parish. My parish couldn’t give them away in the end! Given the vast improvement in technology the overall organisation fell far short of that for the 1979 visit of John Paul II.
Yours etc.,
Pat Conneely,
Glasnevin,
Dublin 11.
After all the debate it’s still women who suffer
Dear Editor, Apart from all the other points that can be made for and against the recent budgetary announcement, do the proponents of the idea of free contraception not realise that it is pregnant women who bear the physical brunt not only of childbirth but also more so of abortion.
As to men, there are those who care for their wives and partners, who love and respect them. And there are those who knowing full well that the State will take over the cost of abortion, will not be bothered one way or the other and will use abortion as a cheap form of contraception. I do not see this as respect of any kind but doubtless there are those in the feminist lobby who will mistakenly see this as a signal of a woman’s equality. More fool them you might say but it is women who suffer.
Yours etc.,
Gerald Murphy,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
There’s far more to ‘yoga’ than eastern promise…
Dear Editor, From time to time articles appear in the media, which suggest that an aspect of what is often called the New Age is dangerous. Research suggests that all practices, whose origins are in Eastern religions, including those that have been ‘Christianised’ (given a Christian veneer and language), are inherently dangerous partly because they are practiced in isolation from their original base and don’t have the necessary protections.
They usually come under the heading ‘yoga’ and include particular exercises, breath control techniques, healing/energy movement in the body and meditation/mindfulness that works on closing down the faculties of the mind. Those practices often go together in the West and are available to everyone.
Historically, in the East this dangerous path towards self-realisation, or union with the cosmos, is not available to everyone. Dangers are minimised by a foundation involving years of purification in accordance with the religious and ethical practices of the tradition and the strict guidance of an advanced yogi or teacher in controlled slowly advancing stages.
Some leaders and scholars in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions have been very critical of the way meditation and mindfulness have been introduced in the West, using marketing strategy, without a base of asceticism, abandoning traditional concepts of suffering and potentially reinforcing harmful habits of practitioners.
In the East the relevant practices are not done to relax or relieve stress.
Yours etc.,
Eileen Gaughan,
Strandhill,
Co. Sligo
The royal family is as pro death as so much of British society
Dear Editor, The oohs and aahs over the news that Meghan Windsor is expecting does not negate the fact on her visit to Ireland earlier this year, she gave approval for the abortion referendum result according to the now notorious tweet of Senator Noonan.
In truth, the Royals are as pro death as the rest of British society, with Prince William recent advocating for smaller families in order to save the planet. But all is not doom and gloom given that their relative Lord Windsor, a Catholic convert, has consistently advocated for the unborn. But he is just the exception!
Yours etc.,
Fr John McCallion,
Clonoe,
Co. Tyrone
