01/01/2010 Blasphmey Law in Effect.

philologos

Antbert wrote: »

Alright, so the blasphemy law can basically do nothing... So why on earth was it introduced? As far as I can see it's only pissing everybody off. It's just like a symbol... A symbol of Ireland's ridiculous backwards attitude. With no actual power to do anything. It annoys atheists, for obvious reasons, then it annoys religious people because Atheism Ireland is becoming so popular...

Atheist Ireland doesn't "annoy" me in the slightest. I just openly disagree with what they advocate, like I openly disagree with many of you. I don't think the organisation is really that popular either. It certainly will be showing influence over the next while, and it provides atheists a voice. Likewise the current denominations of Christianity provide their adherents a voice.

The only reason the law exists is to cover up a constitutional loophole, that shouldn't be in the constitution at all.

Antbert

What's the loophole?

philologos

I should make it obvious that I don't agree with the law firstly:

However, the Constitution says that blasphemy must be punished by law, there are two possibilities then:
1) Remove the passage from the Constitution via referendum.
2) Create a law punishing blasphemy to some extent.

The Minister decided to go with option 2, I would have decided to go with option 1.

Antbert

Oh! I honestly didn't know that up until now. Thanks.

Hmmm I seem to be even more pissed off now...

lostexpectation

Dades wrote: »

The blasphemy law isn't like any other slander/libel type law that can be wielded like a stick as, iirc, a charge can only be brought by the DPP or the AG - so this fear is unfounded.

i.e. Joe Religious can't just threaten legal action when it suits him, and instead he'd have to persuade a very reluctant state to get involved.

isn't there an intermediary step of the police getting involved

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

philologos

donegalfella: Socially unacceptable, and illegal are two different things to me. I don't think this law is necessary, just as I don't think it is necessary to blaspheme. I personally would consider blasphemy to be socially unacceptable, but this doesn't mean that it should be illegal. Promoting etiquette and common courtesy isn't the role of the State but rather the role of individuals in society.

Opposing this law doesn't necessarily mean that you find blasphemy acceptable.

Antbert

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have my doubts about this... Could be worth asking on the Christianity forum?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

However, the Constitution says that blasphemy must be punished by law, there are two possibilities then:
1) Remove the passage from the Constitution via referendum.
2) Create a law punishing blasphemy to some extent.

(1) is the permanent solution, but for (2), he could have specified, say, a fine of one euro for a successful conviction, with all proceeds donated to Amnesty International. He did not.

Regardless of that, and remembering the visions in Knock, the Limerick tree-stump, the Ryan Report, the Murphy Report and now this, it seems Ireland is really going to have to try a lot harder this year and stop presenting itself as some weird religiously-inclined freak-show.

lostexpectation

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

what about secularists?

We need to remember that atheists are a small minority in society as a whole. Many in the remainder believe that "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" is the literal word of God.

seems some endorse the law

philologos

It would be an irony to donate the funds from a blasphemy law to Amnesty International. But yes, I see your point, and I'm clearly not here to defend Dermot Ahern.

I don't think that blasphemy should be illegal, but I don't think it should be encouraged for people to blaspheme just for the sake of it on a social level.

axer

robindch wrote: »

(1) is the permanent solution, but for (2), he could have specified, say, a fine of one euro for a successful conviction, with all proceeds donated to Amnesty International. He did not.

Exactly. They could have made it illegal with no punishment listed or a minimal fine. They chose instead to have real punishment listed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Antbert

robindch wrote: »

Regardless of that, and remembering the visions in Knock, the Limerick tree-stump, the Ryan Report, the Murphy Report and now this, it seems Ireland is really going to have to try a lot harder this year and stop presenting itself as some weird religiously-inclined freak-show.

It would seem if anything, this law does absolutely no favours for religion in Ireland.

I like the Amnesty International idea.

lostexpectation

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't you get it? The law is written especially so it will be impossible to be convicted of blasphemy. It's actually a good thing for atheists, despite what Atheism Ireland seem to think.

impossible, i don't think so, you accuse others of over stating the case and then you go and do the same

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

(1) is the permanent solution, but for (2), he could have specified, say, a fine of one euro for a successful conviction, with all proceeds donated to Amnesty International. He did not.

Regardless of that, and remembering the visions in Knock, the Limerick tree-stump, the Ryan Report, the Murphy Report and now this, it seems Ireland is really going to have to try a lot harder this year and stop presenting itself as some weird religiously-inclined freak-show.

Might be worth another thread, but I wonder which makes Ireland look worse in the eyes of people in other countries, the visions/stump fiascos or the reports?

philologos

Indeed, I'm aware of that donegalfella. If the current government had any foresight this should have happened at the last Lisbon II referendum. I mentioned this a few posts ago in fact.

Galvasean

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't have much confidence in such a referendum being passed. In addition to the loopers we se at Knock etc. there are a whole lot of people who are not zany religious, but still probably would vote against taking the blasphemy bit out of the constitution.

philologos

Why don't you think such a referendum has a chance of passing when the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland amongst others have openly condemned the blasphemy law.

There was no consultation between the State and any of the churches before this was brought to pass:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0501/1224245756970.html

Antbert

I'm in agreement with Jakkass here. I don't think it'd be an overwhelming majority but I'd quite surprised if it were passed.

If Fianna Fail got behind removing it, that'd do a lot of good. And I'd again be surprised (lots of surprise) if they didn't.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, I'm aware of that donegalfella. If the current government had any foresight this should have happened at the last Lisbon II referendum. I mentioned this a few posts ago in fact.

Afaik they didn't want people voting no to Lisbon because they associated it with the blasphemy bill.

adamd164

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0102/breaking22.html

Atheists campaign against blasphemy law

by ELAINE EDWARDS

Atheists have begun a campaign against the Government’s new blasphemy law, which came into force on January 1st as part of the Defamation Act.

The group Atheist Ireland has published 25 quotes it says are blasphemous, attributed to people from Jesus Christ to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern.

Under the new blasphemy law, which Atheist Ireland is campaigning to have repealed blasphemy is now punishable by a €25,000 fine.

It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

Chair of Atheist Ireland Michael Nugent said in a posting on the blasphemy.ie website that the new law was “both silly and dangerous”.

...

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Afaik they didn't want people voting no to Lisbon because they associated it with the blasphemy bill.

They're two separate votes. I don't see how that is a reasonable argument.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

They're two separate votes. I don't see how that is a reasonable argument.

It's not a reasonable argument, but we're not talking about reasonable people here. People voted against Nice and Lisbon because they were under the impression that it had something to do with abortion. Never underestimate the ill informed voting public's ability to mix things up.

Daftendirekt

Jakkass wrote: »

They're two separate votes. I don't see how that is a reasonable argument.

It's not, but none of the arguments against Lisbon were reasonable.

LookingFor

As much as I'd love to have seen an amendment tacked on to Lisbon in theory, I've little doubt people would have voted yes to lisbon but voted no to the amendment as a way of getting at the government without pissing off the EU (again). A blasphemy referendum would have been the sacrificial lamb this time, so to speak.

The current government should have sat on this until the time was right for a referendum.

4Xcut

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, I'm aware of that donegalfella. If the current government had any foresight this should have happened at the last Lisbon II referendum. I mentioned this a few posts ago in fact.

They may have deemed it risky to have a religious referendum tied to the Lisbon one. They got a land slide victory in the end but there was people who were voting against it for religious reasons, or even had small fears about religion being impacted. It could have been a case of don't risk giving the No side a chance to undermine this.

Petrovia

Off topic, but:

Galvasean wrote: »

Might be worth another thread, but I wonder which makes Ireland look worse in the eyes of people in other countries, the visions/stump fiascos or the reports?

being from another country myself, until just now I hadn't heard of the visions and tree stump thing (quite, um... interesting though), whereas I have heard about the reports. I'm quite sure some people I know have too, whether or not indirectly ('you know, that stuff with the priests in Ireland').

Xluna

Great. We have a mafia for a government, an economy in ruins,a bunch of paedophiles and paedophile enablers amongst the clergy, one of the highest levels of suicide,mental illness, alcoholism and drug abuse in Europe and now we have this stupid law. I wonder are the U.K. interested in readopting former colonies.:pac:

axer

Xluna wrote: »

I wonder are the U.K. interested in readopting former colonies.:pac:

Now that is just blasphemous!

eblistic

Galvasean wrote: »

I wouldn't have much confidence in such a referendum being passed. In addition to the loopers we se at Knock etc. there are a whole lot of people who are not zany religious, but still probably would vote against taking the blasphemy bit out of the constitution.

You don't think there'd be enough support for a general constitutional reform referendum that would ensure it would finally be totally neutral on matters religious? I'd like to see some proper polls on that. Have there been any in the wake of the year we've just had?

Rubberbandits

Hey guys,
I am sure ye have heard of the Government’s new blasphemy law, which came into force on January 1st as part of the Defamation Act. It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.
Anyway, this law troubles me. I am a comedian by the way. We performed our Christmas Show in the academy, Dublin on December 17 2009, before the Blasphemy law was passed. During this show we nailed Santa Claus to a crucifix, under the new blasphemy law this is considered illegal. We Nailed Santa to a crucifix as a comedic statement and the audience interpreted it as such. This law is wrong and absurd. What do ye think about this?

Here is some youtube footage of our show, go to 2:10 to see the Santa Crucifixion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJo4Jr3DMzA

Dades

Mod note: I've merged your new thread with the existing Blasphemy Thread that was on page 1 of the forum.

Rubberbandits wrote: »

During this show we nailed Santa Claus to a crucifix, under the new blasphemy law this is considered illegal.

That is a huge assumption. Just because something is a bit "controversial" and involves religion doesn't mean it's blasphemous. Also, as an artist you should have noted that the legislation makes exceptions for materials etc that are deemed to have artistic merit.

So, no, I doubt the Attorney General will be taking a case against you.

Antbert

Rubberbandits wrote: »

Hey guys,
I am sure ye have heard of the Government’s new blasphemy law, which came into force on January 1st as part of the Defamation Act. It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.
Anyway, as an artist this law troubles me in particular. I am a comedian by the way. We performed our Christmas Show in the academy, Dublin on December 17 2009, before the Blasphemy law was passed. During this show we nailed Santa Claus to a crucifix, under the new blasphemy law this is considered illegal. We Nailed Santa to a crucifix as a comedic statement and the audience interpreted it as such. This law is wrong and absurd. What do ye think about this?

Here is some youtube footage of our show, go to 2:10 to see the Santa Crucifixion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJo4Jr3DMzA

Edit: Oops I didn't realise this had been merged. Makes more sense now. Carry on!

Galvasean

Comedians have nothing to worry about. (Thank you 'artistic meerit' )
I visit a lot of comedy clubs frequently, and I must say it's getting a bit pathetic how nearly every comedian these days tries to be edgy by saying things like, "Oh look there's a new blasphemy law..." then make jokes about religion. If they knew more about the law they would realise it's only making them look ignorant.
Now, I have nothing against blasphemous comedy material. In fact, a lot of it is bloody well hilarious. It's just when they try to invoke the blasphemey laws in an attempt to make their material seem more daring, that's annoying.

drkpower

Galvasean wrote: »

Now, I have nothing against blasphemous comedy material. In fact, a lot of it is bloody well hilarious. It's just when they try to invoke the blasphemey laws in an attempt to make their material seem more daring, that's annoying.

+1

I dont know which is worse - the 'look at me, Im rebellious and mad' vibe or the failure to even read a law that you are so excited about.

pH

As an atheist, I consider blasphemy a victimless crime.

Undergod

pH wrote: »

As an atheist, I consider blasphemy a victimless crime.

Baby Jesus disagrees.

Sam Vimes

pH wrote: »

As an atheist, I consider blasphemy a victimless crime.

I'm of the opinion that if god was really offended he'd tell me himself. Nothing yet...

Galvasean

Undergod wrote: »

Baby Jesus disagrees.

Baby Jesus needs to grow up. It's been what, 2,000 years?

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Baby Jesus needs to grow up. It's been what, 2,000 years?

Baby Jesus grew up. Baby Jesus died. Long time ago. No news since then.

Time for the world to get over it, really.

axer

Ye're all going to hell! :pac:

Dave!

axer wrote: »

Ye're all going to hell jail ! :pac:

FYP :pac:

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Comedians have nothing to worry about. (Thank you 'artistic meerit' )
I visit a lot of comedy clubs frequently, and I must say it's getting a bit pathetic how nearly every comedian these days tries to be edgy by saying things like, "Oh look there's a new blasphemy law..." then make jokes about religion. If they knew more about the law they would realise it's only making them look ignorant.
Now, I have nothing against blasphemous comedy material. In fact, a lot of it is bloody well hilarious. It's just when they try to invoke the blasphemey laws in an attempt to make their material seem more daring, that's annoying.

If they really want to be daring, then they should challenge the blasphemy law by cracking jokes about Mohammed, then post the video on youtube. Now, that would be edgy!

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

If they really want to be daring, then they should challenge the blasphemy law by cracking jokes about Mohammed, then post the video on youtube. Now, that would be edgy!

It'd probably lead to me to wanting to get off this depressing planet. I might be surprised, but given the ridiculously stupid over reaction to the Danish cartoons, I'd say that if Muslims declared Ireland an "Enemy of Islam" over such similar nonsense then that would really be it. Humans would no longer deserve their existence and I'd pray to every single divine entity there is to ensure we don't go out there and contaminate a universe.
In short, it would probably be the one thing that would return to me faith because I don't think I could handle reality anymore.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

given the ridiculously stupid over reaction to the Danish cartoons,

You mean when the Islamic countries decided to boycott Danish exports such as porno mags, beer and bacon?

cavedave

We need a cutting edge economy where science Phd's investigate the cutting edge of new technology and push back the darkness of ignorance, one where you can be charged 25k for libelling someones imaginary friend.


-Moe: Down with science! *beats Mammoth model w/ a stick & tusk drops on him* Oh no, I'm papralyzed! I only hope modern science can save me!

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

You mean when the Islamic countries decided to boycott Danish exports such as porno mags, beer and bacon?

That, and the death threats,riots,setting fire to embassies, bounties for beheading, distributions of false cartoons to incite anger and praying for and praising the "poor chap" who tried to murder someone in their own home etc etc

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

You mean when the Islamic countries decided to boycott Danish exports such as porno mags, beer and bacon?

Probably... )

Anyhoo! Whether we are talking about one of the Jesus', his prostitute mother and lies that were made up about him/them, or the epileptic sheister politician that came 500 years after him/them. It's irrelivent, there's way too much rational discussion going on here folks. We need some real and ORIGINAL blasphemy, I want to see some folks offended here...

Another thing while I'm at it, why has the Religious Humor thread title been changed?