[Closed] Irish blasphemy law

Jesus!

I prefer the [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8437433.stm ]Dutch[/url] approach to the fools who get upset by a bit of blasphemy.

What's the Dutch got to do with happenings in Denmark? 😳

Hell, gonna have to lock my Venom, Behemoth etc. t-shirts away....

I can't wait for an articulate speaker to deliberately blaspheme in Ireland just so he can have his "day in court" and defend himself vigorously, by deconstructing all the nonsense.

well stroke the pope and f*ck a priest! who'd have ever thunk it?

What's the Dutch got to do with happenings in Denmark?

What a great own goal by the Irish government

In what way is it an "own goal" ?

I can see that some might argue that there should be no blasphemy laws, but surely if there [i]are[/i] blasphemy laws, then they should cover [i]all[/i] religions, including Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc, and not just Christianity ?

Who can argue that an anti-blasphemy law which covers all religions, is [i]worst[/i] than an anti-blasphemy law which covers only Christianity ? ....specially in a secular society.

Who can argue that an anti-blasphemy law which covers all religions, is worst than an anti-blasphemy law which covers only Christianity ? ....specially in a secular society.

All blasphemy laws are crap but if you happen to have a blasphemy law that only covers one religion then that's better than a blasphemy law that covers more than one religion.

a blasphemy law that only covers one religion then that's better than a blasphemy law that covers more than one religion.

I can't see the logic there, specially if you believe in a society where all are equal before the law. Nor why it represents an "own goal" by the Irish government.

I can't see the logic there, specially if you believe in a society where all are equal before the law.

[i]As Richard Dawkins said: 'I'm proud to be listed among the 'blasphemers'[/i]

What a sad, pathetic thing to boast about. Pretty much confirms my opinion of Dawkins as a silly little man desperate to try and be controversial.

publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage

I don't see why anyone would want to do such a thing.

I don't see why anyone would want to do such a thing.

It is not fair that we are not allowed to suggest that there unevidenced beliefs/inaccurate account of reality is nonsense and yet they can condemn our soul to eternal hell and call us sinners and worse, prevent abortions, condom use, abuse the rights of homosexuals, etc - Now that really is offensive.

Giving people who believe in crap special rights doesn't fit "in a society where all are equal before the law"

A rather weak argument if you don't mind me saying.

I reckon protecting/respecting people who "believe in crap" is the mark of an advanced civilised society.

A lot of the shopkeepers around my way have pictures of fat hairy gurus, and strange deities with many arms or elephant heads on display, I find it all rather peculiar. Yet I don't feel the need to be [i]"grossly abusive or insulting"[/i] to use the words in the new Irish law. And furthermore, I think those people should be protected under law, from those who are determined to, [i]"intentionally causing outrage".[/i]

But who defines 'intent'?

If the alleged 'victim' then surely a matter of opinion? No one has the right not to be offended.

neither do I ernie but they do not extend the same courtesy to us do they?
Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O'Connor

Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is infact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.”

This law does not stop religous people from being as offensive as they like towards those who do not share their personal view of the world.
In essence it is law that allows discrimination ....The human right to abuse others who do not share your faith.

I reckon protecting/respecting people who "believe in crap" is the mark of an advanced civilised society.

I agree with that but like Junkyard pointed out you shouldn't have a situation where religious groups have a law that protects them from genuinely offensive attacks, and things they might just choose to take offence at if it suits them, whilst leaving them free to spout whatever hatred they like against other non religious sections of society.

As Richard Dawkins said: 'I'm proud to be listed among the 'blasphemers'

If the alternative is a celibate man in a dress dictating the sex lives of millions as the head of a mystical organisation that doesn't seem able to deal with child abusers in its midst in any sensible way, then Dawkins strikes me as a shining light in the bullshit.

It's fairly predictable; you have a church desperate to be outraged, atheists keen to make a point, a poorly thought out law which will be tested in Ireland and then on in higher European courts. Result? nothing of any great import.

This law does not stop religous people from being as offensive as they like towards those who do not share their personal view of the world.

There's probably a strong case for the law to be extended to also cover atheists - yes, I won't deny that. But that doesn't mean that it is wrong to protect people from intentional abuse, insult, and outrage.

Who defines 'intent'? Well it is usually the courts which interpret the spirit of the law in such matters. Common-sense is expected to prevail - although of course militant atheist will go out of their way to suggest extreme and ludicrous examples. FFS, I can't believe that it's me, the Leninist on here, who has to argue the case for liberal tolerance and the right of people to "believe in crap" 😯

I find it ofensive when people say I will burn in hell for not thinking like them. Because I don't have an imaginary friend I don't have the cover it seems.

SSP

[i]FFS, I can't believe that it's me, the Leninist on here, who has to argue the case for liberal tolerance and the right of people to "believe in crap"[/i]

No one is suggesting that we shouldn't be tolerant, and no one is suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to believe in crap. As you have suggested, the problem lies in a law designed to protect [b]only[/b] religions/the religious from abuse; religions/the religious should be subject to the same constraints; ie, stop with the condemnation of unbelievers, stop with the abuse of homosexuals, and while they are at it, stop hiding the paedophiles...

..I propose a Bill and Ted amendment to the law;

[center]"[b][u]Be excellent to one another[/u][/b]"[/center]

Intersting paradoy there the aethist defending them Ernie.
I agree ernie they have the right to believe and say as they like I just want the same ...they are the side lacking in liberal tolerance not the aethists. Treating us equally is hardly a radical viewpoint, except for the religous.

the problem lies in a law designed to protect only religions/the religious from abuse; religions/the religious should be subject to the same constraints; ie, stop with the condemnation of unbelievers

So the law doesn't go far enough then ? Fair enough ...........I'll leave at that.

EDIT : [i]"Intersting paradoy there the aethist defending them Ernie"[/i]

Who said that I'm an atheist ? I keep my personal beliefs well away from this forum, I might be/might not be - it's only my politics which I am prepared to freely express 😉 But please don't challenge my Leninist credentials 😯

they are the side lacking in liberal tolerance not the aethists. Treating us equally is hardly a radical viewpoint, except for the religous

As a brief aside: recently this, from an article on the historical influence of land ownership in "Prospect".

"Communist leaders were aware of the influence that land ownership could excercise on social values. Lenin knew that poorer Russian peasants wanted to emulate the richer by employing labour to help them work the land. So not only was private ownership abolished after the 1917 revolution, but Lenin also attacked any farmers who behaved as if it still existed. "Ruthless war must be waged on the kulaks! Death to them!" he ranted in 1918. To create the conditions for a socialist conciousness, he and Stalin [i]killed or starved to death some [u]20 million[/u] peasants in the 1920's and 1930's.[/i]"

I hope no similar number have been slaughtered to create your own socialist conciousness, ernie...

The Russian government starved to death the vast majoity of the 20 million. Mostly in the attempts to force collective farming on the peasants (sorry Ernie, fellow workers)

That's kind of what I just said. Isn't it?

Yup, but more down to being inept rather than neck-shooting the lot(which they did a bit of.)I think they call the same thing the common agricultural policy now....

Communism is indeed terrible Woppit. In terms of a political or economic ideal standing on the bones of those who died to achieve that ideal, I place it on a par with Democracy/capitalism.

As a Christian, this seems over the top but i must admit that i cant stand blasphemous language.

I really do find it offensive.

To the un initiated its kind of like if someone was dissing yo mamma. - It just gets to you.

So be offended then, if that's what you want. Nothing's going to happen... 🙄

PS: I doubt it's going to stop by you complaining about it either, so you'd better find a strategy to cope, if I were you. No offense. 8)

Mr Wop 🙄

None taken !

Um, is there any reason [i]why[/i] this law is?

I really do find it offensive.

To the un initiated its kind of like if someone was dissing yo mamma. - It just gets to you.

TBH lots of people have dissed my mamma and it has never got to me and she's real and everything. I guess that if you are a strong enought believer in the fact that you Mum is a great person it really does not matter what people say about her.

No bow down and worship my mum (she really can read your mind!)

SSP

she really can read your mind!

Yeah, she knows [i]exactly[/i] how I like it...

8)

she really can read your mind!

Yeah, she knows exactly how I like it...

Are you fat because every time you f*** her she gives you a biscuit?

Back at ya! 😉

See Yeti Guy, no need to get offended or start passing death sentances / fines / daft laws.

SSP

If only that was all she gave me!

Damn, they itch somewhat.

('kay, think we've made the point, I'll stop there before I fall foul of the LAW.)

I have walked on water.............it had been snowing and this disguised the fact that there was a swimming pool in this particular garden of a house I was visiting for the first time.
Fortunately the pool had a substantial cover and after a couple of moon walk paces I realised something was wrong and made hard ground before I got my feet wet.
Is that what Jesus did?
Did they have lake/swimming pool covers in those days?

Blasphemy??????

"To the un initiated its kind of like if someone was dissing yo mamma. - It just gets to you."

Not really. Yo mamma is at least tangible (unless you're adopted or some such). The other stuff is like saying you're fave pop star is shite. And as a life long Gary Numan fan, I speak from experience.

Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “[b]We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.[/b]” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

Bear with me here, just had a particularly fine bottle of Rioja.....

Surely if the followers of one religion takes offence at the utterences of another religion, we could just see a never ending cycle of litigation of one religion by another?

Maybe then the fear of litigation would shut these mofo's up and we could all live in peace. The Irish might just be on to something here.

Sadly this is yet another example of litigation run riot, like Kudzu. It just gives people the right to be rightously offended about anything they damned well want and be handsomely paid for the privilege. If I should say something out of line and someone gets all out of shape over it, fine, but they should have no opportunity to run screaming to the courts for money to sooth their injured feelings.

[i]As Richard Dawkins said: 'I'm proud to be listed among the 'blasphemers'

If the alternative is a celibate man in a dress dictating the sex lives of millions as the head of a mystical organisation that doesn't seem able to deal with child abusers in its midst in any sensible way, then Dawkins strikes me as a shining light in the bullshit.[/i]

spot on.

From the BBC article on this:

The government says it is needed because the republic's 1937 constitution only gives Christians legal protection of their beliefs.

If this is the case then I suppose they should change their constitution but that's a hard thing to do right? So in that case maybe this is quite a bold move for a Christian country.