Sweden criticises Ireland

Nodin

Jumpy wrote:

Its just to stop people getting Ireland into ****e with the Muslim hardcores

Do they sound like Napalm Death? I like Napalm Death.

Confused-dazed wrote:

what i'm saying here is that if you go to any muslim country

...because thats so, so, so relevant......

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Muslin's are generally the only ones who get uppity about that kind of thing anyway.

So the various remarks made when McAleese took 'protestant' communion wouldn't be considered offensive and blasphemous at all, at all....And when Robert Eames said the various remarks passed by some members of the esteemed Catholic Church were "derogatory" sure he wasn't really flustered.

Not to mention the time big Ian did the 'holy biscuit' routine.....

ShooterSF

Jumpy wrote: »

If there was 100 million of you doing that, then yes.

Ah so you would be of the view that we criminalise gangs unless they become large gangs in which case we criminalise offending them?

Riskymove wrote: »

er..no..you make a law to stop you threatening in the first place...

and anyway...aren't all laws there "in case" somehting happens?

Eh kinda my point....

Riskymove

Nodin wrote: »

So the various remarks made when McAleese took 'protestant' communion wouldn't be considered offensive and blasphemous at all, at all....And when Robert Eames said the various remarks passed by some members of the esteemed Catholic Church were "derogatory" sure he wasn't really flustered.

Not to mention the time big Ian did the 'holy biscuit' routine.....

but are derogatory comments about the catholic chuch blasphemous?

is it not only comments about God/Allah or similar etc?

Long Onion

Why the fcuk do people get so het up abour religion? God probably doesn't exist so just have some fun.

Look at all the crap that has been carried out through the ages in the name of religion. Surely one should turn the other cheek. God i hate zealots - go whip yourselves and make yourselves miserable by another means, I'm going to carry on telling people that a low fat eucharist is called "I can't believe it's not Jesus" - if some one wants to lock me up for that, fine.

I'll have the last laugh when their God refuses them entry to heaven for being such a dryballs.

Adamcp898

So now as a people we have to rely on government officials from other countries to speak up about our unsensible and outlandish laws, that's how out of touch the shower we have at the minute are. Why havn't we revolted yet?

rossie1977

Sulmac wrote: »

Why not criticise the other European countries that have blasphemy laws as well?

I'm completely against the law, but why does he have to single out Ireland when countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and, closer to home (for him), Denmark and Finland have similar laws? Ireland doesn't enforce the law, but Finland sent someone to prison in May just past for blasphemy against Islam! :eek:

Criticism where it's due, please.

i don't care if denmark still burn people at the stake, its ireland we are talking about and its introduction of a stupid archaic law, all the while we the people have rolled over and let the lawmakers rub our bellies :mad:

topper75

Has this Swedish person chided the Saudi government alike for potential repression of expat Swedes based there? No? Sod off then mate. Gotta nerve, but got no balls.:mad:

Anyway, where does this perceived entitlement come from to wantonly direct abuse at something that other people hold sacred for no gain? A good law I say, which all civilised nations pursuing a peaceful society should adopt.

latenia

The monarch is the head of state of the Kingdom of Sweden. Sweden, being a constitutional monarchy with a representative democracy based on a parliamentary system has a largely ceremonial monarch, though officially he or she holds the highest public office in Sweden and the highest military rank. The Act of Succession of 1810 designates the House of Bernadotte as the Swedish royal house; it also states that the king (and thus implicitly any queen regnant) must be a Protestant Christian.

Ho hum

Nodin

Riskymove wrote: »

but are derogatory comments about the catholic chuch blasphemous?

is it not only comments about God/Allah or similar etc?

The Catholic chruch regards the communion bread as the body of christ, therefore.....

If you say that the Anglican church is 'not a true church' and that its ordinations have no validity, that denies their calling and is (fairly obviously, to them) offensive.

The whole things a can of worms, and odds are - based on the history of this country - it'll be a disgruntled member of a christian sect that says something about another first that will start it.

rossie1977

topper75 wrote: »

A good law I say, which all civilised nations pursuing a peaceful society should adopt.

you are kidding right, what next we introduce a law where if you criticise any member of the government you get jailed

Rebelheart

RonMexico wrote: »

Hopefully the Swedes will help banish this ridiculous law, and I thought they were only good for the pron :pac:

Having lived in Sweden, I have to say it is still a far more progressive state than Ireland. I was most particularly impressed with their attitude to the environment, recycling etc. At that time we had no recycling here.

Göteborg - where I was - was laid out back in the 18th century by German and Dutch engineers. Today, cycle lanes, trams, busses and, lastly, cars, travel through the city side-by-side, with the emphasis firmly on public transport and cycling. Would that the entire mentality of Irish voters would cop-on in this respect. We are still in the dark ages of mé féinerism. Sweden, in contrast, was termed a "post-industrial society" by political scientists decades ago.

On the downside, while I found the Swedes to be exceptionally polite, I found they lacked warmth and a general sense of divilment. And yes, the place is full of blondes and Volvos!

topper75

rossie1977 wrote: »

you are kidding right, what next we introduce a law where if you criticise any member of the government you get jailed

Eh no Rossie1977. Nothing next. Just this one thanks.

My point I suppose is - can you give me an example of a situation where you would need to insult somebody's religion? I can't think of any. If people hold something sacred, that is their business. You have no right to wilfully ridicule them - I mean what is there for you to gain from it? It's just incitement and the law has to step in.

The irony is - if the scandies had such a law back when - the cartoon issue wouldn't have got out of hand at all. Look in the mirror time for them.

Pygmalion

Article 40, section 6 of the Irish constitution wrote:

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offense which shall be punishable in accordance with law

So tell me, other than a law against blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter, how can this section of the constitution be upheld?
This isn't a matter of "LOL LET'S INTRODUCE RANDOM LAWS BECAUSE WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND WANT PEOPLE TO HATE US", it's a matter of upholding the constitution.
Blasphemy would still be illegal whether or not this law was passed, because the constitution says so and that trumps all laws, what they did was define blasphemy in a legal sense and set limits on the punishment, which can be considered making it HARDER to get punished for the offence.
The only difference now, other than the fact that it's no longer possible to get a super strict punishment and it's easier to dismiss cases as not qualifying as blasphemy is that people know are aware of it.

The solution to all of this would be a referendum to remove that paragraph from the constitution, which I would be in favour of, but unless that happens this law is needed.

An Fear Aniar

Pygmalion wrote: »

The solution to all of this would be a referendum to remove that paragraph from the constitution, which I would be in favour of, but unless that happens this law is needed.

That would be a risky strategy, it might not pass.

.

rossie1977

topper75 wrote: »

My point I suppose is - can you give me an example of a situation where you would need to insult somebody's religion? I can't think of any. If people hold something sacred, that is their business. You have no right to wilfully ridicule them - I mean what is there for you to gain from it? It's just incitement and the law has to step in.

The irony is - if the scandies had such a law back when - the cartoon issue wouldn't have got out of hand at all. Look in the mirror time for them.

you see this is the problem, where does "insulting somebodys religion" start or end, surely it means southpark MUST be banned in this country, thats insults every religion known, father ted insults catholicism, do we ban that too, personally i like free speech and the ability to speak my mind, if that means getting into an argument about religion and "insulting" someone, so be it, they have every right to insult me and my "non-religious" views if they like, they can insult my county, my home-town and i wouldn't expect someone to be fined or jailed over it

from what i gather saying something like "god is not real" is now considered blasphemous

Euro_Kraut

topper75 wrote: »

Has this Swedish person chided the Saudi government alike for potential repression of expat Swedes based there? No? Sod off then mate. Gotta nerve, but got no balls.:mad:

How do you know he hasn't critised Saudi Arbia? You know its possible to be oppossed to more than one thing. For example, I oppose the Taliban and this blasphany law.

ChocolateSauce

topper75 wrote: »

Has this Swedish person chided the Saudi government alike for potential repression of expat Swedes based there? No? Sod off then mate. Gotta nerve, but got no balls.:mad:

You're more likely to tell a family member that you disagree with them than you are a stranger.

My point I suppose is - can you give me an example of a situation where you would need to insult somebody's religion?

I spoke at a debate about 5 months ago about freedom of speech. I got up in front of 200 people and said that The Bible and the Koran were stupid and fabricated books of blood which should be treated with hatred and contempt. I needed to say that to make my point.

ScumLord

topper75 wrote: »

Eh no Rossie1977. Nothing next. Just this one thanks.

My point I suppose is - can you give me an example of a situation where you would need to insult somebody's religion? I can't think of any. If people hold something sacred, that is their business. You have no right to wilfully ridicule them - I mean what is there for you to gain from it? It's just incitement and the law has to step in.

It's kind of hard to talk about religion without insulting those that believe a 2000 year old book written by uneducated cave men that can explain everything in the world and we should look to these books to tell us what to do in life.

topper75

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I needed to say that to make my point.

Saying something usually IS making a point isn't it? LOL.

My question to you is that you know that Christians and Muslims hold those texts to be sacred. Why do you NEED to put them down like that in a disrespectful way. You certainly have the freedom to ignore the way of life prescribed in these texts. However, you have no moral right to belittle them and insult what others hold dear. There is never a need for blasphemy.

topper75

ScumLord wrote: »

It's kind of hard to talk about religion without insulting those that believe a 2000 year old book written by uneducated cave men that can explain everything in the world and we should look to these books to tell us what to do in life.

And an atheist like yourself needs to talk about religion why?

netwhizkid

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, the Swedes should take a look at how their own lasse faire attitude towards Islam has turned Malmo into a no go area and an embarrassment for their country.

ChocolateSauce

topper75 wrote: »

Saying something usually IS making a point isn't it? LOL.

My question to you is that you know that Christians and Muslims hold those texts to be sacred. Why do you NEED to put them down like that in a disrespectful way. You certainly have the freedom to ignore the way of life prescribed in these texts. However, you have no moral right to belittle them and insult what others hold dear. There is never a need for blasphemy.

My ultimate point was that restricting freedom of speech would also be restricting freedom of religion. I went on to say that the those books promote violence and hatred, and that to ban hate speech would amount to banning religion.

Ironic that I insulted religion to defend its right to exist, no?

I think you'll find I have every right to belittle whatever I want, and that there is a constant need for what some might consider blasphemy (others might of course consider the exact same thing sacred).

Long Onion

Why is it ok to slag off the 'book' that Amanda Brunker wrote but not the Bible ?

The issue is with the persons with the inexplicable and irrational sensitivity

ScumLord

topper75 wrote: »

And an atheist like yourself needs to talk about religion why?

I don't need to talk about it I suppose but religious folk keep calling to my house and stopping me in the street, there's the angelous on TV so if ye stop bringing it up I'll stop talking about it.

topper75

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't need to talk about it I suppose but religious folk keep calling to my house and stopping me in the street, there's the angelous on TV so if ye stop bringing it up I'll stop talking about it.

I agree with you here. I don't 'bring it up' myself. I am against some of the 'evangelical' atheism you see here on boards, but I question this forcing of religion on people alike. You are within your rights to dismiss housecallers or people in the street. I question their ethics and the ethics of all proselytizing. Religion should be something individuals pursue or reject for themselves.
The angelus? Be grateful. It's one minute. Most bad TV shows go on for much longer.

topper75

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think you'll find I have every right to belittle whatever I want

A right to question for yourself the validity of what others hold sacred and to reject their beliefs - Yes.
A right to belittle it - No.

No, you don't have that right ethically.

Euro_Kraut

netwhizkid wrote: »

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, the Swedes should take a look at how their own lasse faire attitude towards Islam has turned Malmo into a no go area and an embarrassment for their country.

True. Because all Swedes that are complaining about this after all. If it was just one guy fair enough. But its all of them.

... isn't it?

ScumLord

topper75 wrote: »

I agree with you here. I don't 'bring it up' myself. I am against some of the 'evangelical' atheism you see here on boards, but I question this forcing of religion on people alike. You are within your rights to dismiss housecallers or people in the street. I question their ethics and the ethics of all proselytizing. Religion should be something individuals pursue or reject for themselves.
The angelus? Be grateful. It's one minute. Most bad TV shows go on for much longer.

My TV was donated to another boardsie and I'm currently a pirate watching everything online.

I do actually enjoy talking about religion and not just criticisizing it. I'm open to the possibility of something like a god and that's based on what science has thought me. To me the search for god is just looking for answers to big questions. I think most of your average religious folks stopped looking for god 2000 years ago.

ShooterSF

topper75 wrote: »

A right to question for yourself the validity of what others hold sacred and to reject their beliefs - Yes.
A right to belittle it - No.

No, you don't have that right ethically.

So if tomorrow I decide that I have found god in the "Where's Wally" Books you would stand up for my right not to have my sacred beliefs questioned. What if god started telling me to walk around with nothing on but a red and white stripy hat all the time, is that still sacred and should not be belittled?

Bragadin

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

True. Because all Swedes that are complaining about this after all. If it was just one guy fair enough. But its all of them.

... isn't it?

we can only assume that it's every last one. Thats 9 million people off my christmas list

Moojuice

topper75 wrote: »

A right to question for yourself the validity of what others hold sacred and to reject their beliefs - Yes.
A right to belittle it - No.

No, you don't have that right ethically.

If I express an opinion about a religion that I see as a legitimate opinion but those in the religion see it as belittling, who is right? What you may term belittling may simply be a point of view. Are you saying one should not make an opinion in case it is seen as belittling? People should be free to express their points of view and if some people find it belittling they can express this. But they have no right to stop some one expressing themselves because they see it as belittling. I think the Bible belittles evolution, humanity and our sum total of scientific achievements. Should the book be banned because it is belittling or because people who believe in it are belittling? Comedians would have no right to make religious jokes under your point of view, as it would be deemed belittling, but often that is what humour is and consists of. Why should religion be protected from being belittled? Should politicians also have the same right? Should any arbritrary group (tv repair men, plumbers etc) have the same right of protection from being belittled? There go plumper jokes ("fix your pipes missus?" "oh err"). Religious people are free to belittle my points of view, as I am theirs. Its freedom of speech and its the same principal that allows them freedom of religious expression. They are free to make their points in an argument, as am I or anyone else, its too bad if they find my points belittling. No religion or belief system should ever have a right to stop its self being criticised under the pretence or belief that they are being belittled.

Have I got a right to express my opinions?-yes
Have others got the right to form the opinion that they are belittling?-yes
Do they have the right to prevent me from expressing myself?-No

I do not share the same beliefs as someone who would be considered religious but I would certainly defend their right to have these beliefs. I am sure many religious people find Dawkins book and Hitchens book to be belittling, but they are published and have a right to be, regardless of whether they are seen as belittling religion. Semantic defintions and subjective terms like belittling are no basis for forming a protective law.

Religion needs a law to protect it, to act as a crutch, as it cannot stand on its own two feet, unlike logic, reason and rational scientific enquiry.

Dartz

RonMexico wrote: »

Swede's telling us what to do

I'd say this is a turnip for the books.

It doesn't address the root of the problem however.

Changing the constitution to remove all repferences to blasphemy would require a referendum. Which because Irish people are a bunch of ****ing morons, they would vote against for the sake of shafting the government and making them look like morons.

So instead, the government sharted out a piece of legislation which they never intend to enforce, just to cover it's own constitutional arse.

Legislation which will be abused by Scientologists towards anyone who calls LRon a braindead hack.

Bragadin

Religeon doesn't require laws to stand on it's own, but in this case it's givin them anyway. Like an able bodied person racing around on a wheel chair, it doesn't help the rider stand on his own and can be dangerous to pedestrians.

respect shouldn't have to be legislated or enforced, it should be expected.

ShooterSF

Dartz wrote: »

I'd say this is a turnip for the books.

It doesn't address the root of the problem however.

Changing the constitution to remove all repferences to blasphemy would require a referendum. Which because Irish people are a bunch of ****ing morons, they would vote against for the sake of shafting the government and making them look like morons.

So instead, the government sharted out a piece of legislation which they never intend to enforce, just to cover it's own constitutional arse.

Legislation which will be abused by Scientologists towards anyone who calls LRon a braindead hack.

I think right now a referendum would pass. I wouldn't be certain but I think it would be worth a shot. Hell it's better than a re-run of one from a year ago. Run it on the same day. FF could even stay out if it, stay neutral, and just give the people the chance to prove we're more forward thinking than they are afraid we are.

Moojuice

Bragadin wrote: »

Religeon doesn't require laws to stand on it's own, but in this case it's givin them anyway. Like an able bodied person racing around on a wheel chair, it doesn't help the rider stand on his own and can be dangerous to pedestrians.

respect shouldn't have to be legislated or enforced, it should be expected.

You are right, it shouldnt be enforced or legislated. However it is no surprise a lot of people have no respct for the Catholic Church in this country, considering the severe lack of 'respect' they have shown to thousands of children throughout the years. Regardless of whether the law will be enforced or not, what gets peoples ire is that the 18 religious organisations have not paid any extra money in compensation, have not brought perpetrators forward for prosecution and yet the governament wastes time and money enacting a backwards pro-religious law? The hipocrisy is rank.

Dartz

ShooterSF wrote: »

I think right now a referendum would pass. I wouldn't be certain but I think it would be worth a shot. Hell it's better than a re-run of one from a year ago. Run it on the same day. FF could even stay out if it, stay neutral, and just give the people the chance to prove we're more forward thinking than they are afraid we are.

Forgive me for not sharing your faith in humanity and the Irish people, but some of the posts/stories i see around here have made me think a little different.

People will use the referenda to take a dig at the Government, as if loosing a referendum will magically cause the Government to topple from power. That's how people in this country will think... they won't vote for the issue, they'll vote against whatever they think the Government wants.

ShooterSF

Dartz wrote: »

Forgive me for not sharing your faith in humanity and the Irish people, but some of the posts/stories i see around here have made me think a little different.

People will use the referenda to take a dig at the Government, as if loosing a referendum will magically cause the Government to topple from power. That's how people in this country will think... they won't vote for the issue, they'll vote against whatever they think the Government wants.

Well then as I said let the government run it as an "acid test" (I think that's the correct phrase). They will stay out of it and make no suggestion for or against a yes vote. Leave it to the people to decide. The main opposition to such a referendum would be the church and I'm sure they would know they would be likely to feel the backlash if they got involved with their current reputation.

ChocolateSauce

topper75 wrote: »

A right to question for yourself the validity of what others hold sacred and to reject their beliefs - Yes.
A right to belittle it - No.

No, you don't have that right ethically.

Yes, I do. As a matter of taste I don't go for the belittlement angle often, but I do regularly attack religion itself. Regardless, I reserve the right to call someone a stupid doo doo head or whatever else I like for their beliefs, just as they have the right to do it to me and mine.

You (like so many others) are guilty of thinking a person's religion deserves some special protection merely for being a religion. The same logic isn't applied to a political philosophy. I'll call someone a twit if they like the wrong football team, a moron if they think the sun revolves around the earth, a buffoon if they believe that the Virgin Mary appeared to them in a tree, and mentally ill if they claim god talks to them on a regular basis.

Euro_Kraut

Why does an all powerful God need laws to stop Him being insulted? Can he not just smite people and send locus like He did in the old days?

andrew

Lux23 wrote: »

Then why waste money introducing it? Why does it need to be on the books as a legal formality?

I dunno. Something about having legislation be consistent with the constitution. All I know is I never heard a politician justify this law by saying that it was needed in anything but a formal sense. If anyone ever gets convicted of blasphemy I'll bump this thread with a picture of me in a revealing dress.

MikeC101

Dartz wrote: »

Legislation which will be abused by Scientologists towards anyone who calls LRon a braindead hack.

That's a good point. They'd be one group I'd be very afraid of taking advantage of a law like that, given their past behaviour.

Of course I don't think Scientology is recognised as a religion here, but who's to say what could happen in the future with the right amount of legal pressure.

Dudess

Mr.Obvious wrote: »

hahaha.

He should look at his own country.

Sweden cares less about freedom than Ireland.

What's this? Isn't Sweden supposed to be really liberal etc...?

Fine, you've got the reaction you were looking for so go on, spit it out. How does Sweden care less about freedom than Ireland?

AckwelFoley

How DARE sweden critisise Ireland!!.

Do they have a great social conscious government?
Do they make great cars with perfect safety records?
Are they one of the most liberal countries in the world?
Do they have hot wimmins?
Do they have famous bands?
Do they have proactive environmental lifestyles?
Do they have somone like U2Bono?


oh...wait...

never mind.

Salvelinus

snyper wrote: »

How DARE sweden critisise Ireland!!.

Do they have a great social conscious government?
Do they make great cars with perfect safety records?
Are they one of the most liberal countries in the world?
Do they have hot wimmins?
Do they have famous bands?
Do they have proactive environmental lifestyles?



oh...wait...

never mind.

But Ireland's different.

ChocolateSauce

Salvelinus wrote: »

But Ireland's different.

Yeah, we haven't got most of those.

We've got U2.

bleg

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yeah, we haven't got most of those.

We've got U2.

Another plus for Sweden!

AckwelFoley

bleg wrote: »

Another plus for Sweden!

Added to list

An Fear Aniar

topper75 wrote: »

A right to question for yourself the validity of what others hold sacred and to reject their beliefs - Yes.
A right to belittle it - No.

No, you don't have that right ethically.

I totally disagree. That's a hideous situation.

People have a duty ethically to deal with some perceived insult to their beliefs and not place the burden on others who don't care about such things.

.

getz

Lux23 wrote: »

Then why waste money introducing it? Why does it need to be on the books as a legal formality?

because the catholic church TOLD the irish goverment they had to stop the irish people saying what they think,in public,[if we shut them up our crimes soon my be history]

Clanket

First they send in Ikea. Then they start to critisise us. Are they trying to destabilise us before a full invasion