 |
|
In 1999, there was an attempt to prosecute a newspaper for a cartoon mocking the church, but the judge in that case noted that he could not prosecute, because there was no definition of what legally constituted blasphemy. Well now there is. And it concerns itself with what might or might not cause “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion” (note, not just Christianity, as was the case with English blasphemy law: this is, at least, equal opportunities idiocy).
As Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland has pointed out:
“The proposed law does not protect religious belief; it incentivises outrage and it criminalises free speech. Under this proposed law, if a person expresses one belief about gods, and other people think that this insults a different belief about gods, then these people can become outraged, and this outrage can make it illegal for the first person to express his or her beliefs.”
So Irish law has now enshrined the notion that the taking of offence is more important than free expression. If something might cause a motivated group to be “outraged”, rather than, say, cause them to live in fear, then it is illegal, with a fine of up to €25,000 payable.
Why would anyone need a blasphemy law?
So Jesus, walks into a gay bar, and see’s Mohammad french kissing Moses……
Nice pic … is that a Catholic light switch?
Sounds to Me rather like the old Roman law pertaining to tolerance.
This law is the one that Our fundamentalist crazies are always going off about,since the Christians were prosecuted(not persecuted)for being intolerant of other Peoples belief’s.
My Grandmother came to the US in 1883 from Ireland and let Me tell You,She hated Everybody.
Judging by that then,They are in for trouble.
Hell no!
Sounds like a typical American University.
Question is, does Ireland, need a blasphemy law? I can think of a lot of other things it needs, but not this.
#8 – Grow up. Athiests don’t want to stop anyone from saying anything, they just desire a world where you CAN say what you want (with the usual exceptions, inciting religious violence etc) without the risk of getting a fatwa on your head or getting sent to prison.
This is the exact opposite of what the nutballs want.
You need blasphemy laws against racism, flag burning, Holocaust denial, global warming denial, creationism, sexism, etc., right? Why not religion?
Damned if I know.
I’m with #6 on this. The Mohammed cartoon fiasco,
things like Mark Steyn being brought before a Canadian Human Rights Commission for daring to write something critical of Islam. (Though they did rule in his favor, they wrote something to the effect of “had he been a bit more extreme, he would’ve been censured”.) They’re signs of a regression away from freedom of speech and press, which are universal values, whether the laws of a country protect them or not.
People need to be mindful of the idea that once government starts controlling something, they’re unlikely to release the reins until they are forced to.
#9, Zybch,
Athiests (sic) don’t want to stop anyone from saying anything, they just desire a world where you CAN say what you want …
Maybe you do, but I don’t.
I don’t want people yelling fire in a crowded theater just because they can.
I don’t want a teacher telling my kid the world is only 6,000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur.
I don’t want to be before a Court where the Judge says God is bigger than the law.
I don’t want some asshole calling my neighbor a “porch monkey” because of his color.
I don’t want to hear some Liebertarian preaching treason against the government.
And I don’t want to see a swastika spray painted on the side of a synagogue.
But we have a nation where you can say most of those things anyway and I support that right.
A good reason to insult Muslims all I can here in THIS country.
Who does honestly need a blasphemy law? If God get’s offended by it, let him sort it out.
It was ironic when the Pope made a comment about Islam being violent. What happened – Muslims burned down churches, and killed nuns because they felt insulted. Could it be because he was RIGHT!
If Allah needs people to defend him, then he’s a big sissy girl.
Jesus rode a dinosaur?
The things you learn on Dvorak’s blog …
It could come to that here too if the cops run out of stuff to do.
>And I don’t want to see a swastika spray painted on the side of a synagogue.
How about on a temple? It is a Hindu symbol of peace.
Your making that statement may constitute blasphemy.
In certain countries dominated by Islam, religion and law are intertwined. Religion IS the law. Some Christian churches must be terribly envious of that.
If faith was really strong in the hearts of these screwballs, they wouldn’t give a damn what people think or say about their sacred beliefs. But since it’s so feeble, they crumble and get angry at the slightest sign of criticism. I am not a psychiatrist, but my bet is that deep down, subconsciously, they KNOW their religion is bullshit. That’s why they’re so touchy about it.
“How apt the poor are to be proud.”
Its fun looking down on religious idiots and political advocates of all stripes. Go to a Bar and talk to anyone long enough and you will find some subject to get violent about or to become totally dismissive of the other person.
What should a wise, self aware, self actualized non-hypocrite do?
Look inward. What crazy ideas do I happen to cling to myself? Its a private exercise we all should do from time to time. One, just one of many, of my own failings, is the continuous mindset that people think for themselves and therefore take responsibility for what they do and say. Turns out, all too often, people operate from a morass of emotions. Political/philosophical/religious/early trauma/lack of fatherly or motherly love. All too quickly, the mind closes and new information that would allow a healthier view/a more moderate view and happier life are taken as insults leading to laws to protect one’s own self from having to face the morass.
Ireland. One of the great fertilizers of the English Language moving to ban language.
Time for some self analysis.
I am sorry I must have stumbled across the “Atheist Central Trivial News Blog”. Can someone direct me to where the Dvorak Uncensored?
You cannot have a law against blasphemy unless you have a state religion. Then you are throwing out tolerance. Western civilization is based on religious tolerance. This law is ridiculous. It is not going to be used to protect Christians. It will be used to let Islam gain power and destroy Ireland.
#24, GetSmart,
Exactly!!!
A little blasphemy once in a while is a good thing.
s36. as noted, there’s plenty of opinion floating around, all of which seems far more extreme than the mild mannered people dealt with daily in our ordinary lives. Stop the protest, let’s get a proper handle on what this is all about…
I am writing from Ireland and I am a member of Atheist Ireland. My main reason for responding is to correct the comment #8.
GetSmart said that Irish atheists should get preemptive, and claim Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Buddhists, Hindus etc. etc. are an outrage to Atheists, and should no longer be allowed to voice their superstitious drivel as it is offensive to Atheists.
Unfortunately, this misinterprets the legislation. Only adherents of religions receive protection from “grossly abusive or insulting” publications.
This means that atheists who are, by definition, not adherents to any religion, cannot take action under this law. I belive that the correct term for this law is “sectarian”.
What this means is that, whilst anyone can indeed spout out religious drivel and fantasy based on superstition and unscientific supernaturalism, such as “there is a divine being (god, allah or whatever takes your fancy)”, “we have books that are the word of our god (see above)”, “we have prophets that you must revere as being perfect”, “you shall go to a place called hell and suffer for all eternity”, “the world is only 5,000 years old (or 6,000 years old or anything significantly less than four and a half billion years old)”, etc., etc., etc., I cannot make a statement such as:
There neither is now nor ever has been any god, creator or divine being. To think or say otherwise is only to parrot the superstitions and supernaturalism of deluded individuals who have somehow managed to pass on their delusions over many centuries and convince others that they are speaking the truth, which they are not.
Two major religions, Christianity and Islam, condone and revere individuals who, on any rational analysis, committed what would be considered as statutory rape in any civilised society. In Christianity, it is taught that the so-called “Holy Spirit” inseminated a virgin called Mary when she was between 12½ and fifteen years old. In Islam, the published history of Mohammed, according to the translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236, states that the prophet Mohammed’s first wife, Khadija, “died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old”.
Since there is not any god, then it is clearly impossible to hear him, her or it speak. This means that anyone purporting to have heard the word of god is clearly a delusional psychotic or manipulative fraud. It follows that there can be no word of god, either written or spoken and that all religious texts purporting to be so are dangerous works of fiction masquerading as fact.
What the legislation means is that, whilst I am not permitted to make a fully truthful and accurate statement like that above because people who believe in a mythical, imaginary deity might take offence, such people are allowed the protection of the law to continue to disseminate their delusional hocus-pocus completely unchallenged which I and, I am sure, a substantial number of other non-believers, find personally grossly offensive and insulting.
So much for human rights to freedom of speech and expression.