Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Happened to Holy Ireland?
The New York Times and other organs of the mainstream media have offered only the most superficial and boringly predictable coverage of the referendum in which the Irish approved a constitutional amendment permitting gay marriage—according to the Times, the vote resulted from the march of enlightenment, the continuing dawning of modern consciousness, blah, blah, blah. So I’ve been looking around for commentary that truly attempted to explain how it happened.
How, that is, the nation that just a decade-and-a-half ago remained, with little Malta, one of the most Catholic nations in Europe; how the nation in which essentially the entire population turned out to greet the pontiff when John Paul II visited, how the nation that used to pride itself, that used to define itself, as faithful to the teachings of the Church even as Europe grew increasingly secular–how this nation could have changed so much, so quickly, as to reject the Church’s position on marriage by a margin of more than 3 to 2.
What have I found? “The Joyful Death of Catholic Ireland.” Although a long piece, it neatly sums up its entire argument in the concluding paragraph:
The reason the Irish—as Irish—are celebrating is that they have with this referendum delivered a decisive and final blow to their venerable image as a Catholic nation. They have taken their vengeance on the Church. They must relish the unshackling; they must love the taste of blood. But, finally, they take joy in becoming what, it seems, they were always meant to become. An unexceptional country floating somewhere in the waters off a continent that has long since entered into cultural decline, demographic winter, and the petty and perpetual discontents that come free of charge to every people that lives for nothing much in particular.
The Irish didn’t vote for gay marriage, in other words, as much as they voted against the Church–which the scandals of the last decade have caused them not merely to question but to hate.
To those among the Ricochetti who know Ireland–and I’m conscious that we have members in Eire itself–does that sound right? Does it ring true? Does it truly explain things?
Published in Culture, General, Marriage
Another non-rigorous thought: “In God we trust” as a slogan suggests that no man or government can demand all our trust, even for those who don’t believe in God. The slogan means there is always trust rightfully directed… elsewhere.
James, Frenchie? No. He’s so English that… well…
His Englishness could be mistaken for a non-standard orientation. But he’s a really charming chap!
Well, any joke that needs explaining needs burning.
Closer to that point for me is the origin of our rights. Here at Agnostic Jihad, we appreciate the subtle genius of removing the origin of rights to a place that you can’t edit, can’t own, and can’t find with a map and a flashlight, both hands, a week’s worth of pemmican and the entire 37-volume set of Philosophy for Internet Trolls from the back of Kook Magazine.
It is simply beyond our reach to delegitimize the rights of man.
Finally (for uh the immediate moment) MFR, a note on “calling you a libertarian troll”. If I ever did that, it would/must have been on that one thread where I thought you were coming form a whole different angle. I find it informative that we resolved that all despite my own leap to a conclusion, without any editor involvement. It takes two to have a conversation, and even combative me does not often get mired in stupid fights with ugly people.
You self-identify as something that I gently place on the Libertarian Disorder Spectrum, and you’re great people. So when I use a phrase like “libertarian troll”, I exactly do not mean you. In the interest of not re-opening old (or young) arguments, and at any rate from manners, I won’t name or re-hash some of my early Lib’n Troll correspondents/correspondence.
Viewed properly, (noun-as-)adjective + noun always requires both elements, as in Islamic terrorist, game theory, or conservative website, in order to retain meaning. When I talk about libertarian trolls, I am only aiming at the intersection of those two sets. I would wager that most trolls are not libertarian (put your wallet away, Sal!), and of course the complement is true.
Knowing that you know I know this, I interpreted your comment ex threadulo (or barbarically leapt to unstated conclusion!) about teasing you as an artful intercession and left it alone, as it seemed to work quite well.
Agreed.
Just so long as you also know that at this point, I consider the phrase an inside joke between us ;-)
Just for clarification, I am an American. I have English ancestry along with the American (and French) blood. Perhaps the English strain is a little more dominant (there’s some understatement in this sentence).
Also, it is my position that there is no incompatibility between having a non-standard orientation and being a charming chap. If the implication to the contrary was intended, I feel like we should have that discussion.
Likewise, for that matter, if it’s felt that my accent (which isn’t terribly American, embarrassingly) or other features arising from my growing up make it surprising that I might be socially acceptable, that seems like something I should be aware of.
Don’t worry. They render you a really charming chap ;-)
What did I just say?
I know, no inveigling… (Why do you think I’m doing it?)