Pope condems blasphemy laws

Bottle_of_Smoke

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

if there were a referendum on this, Coir/Youth Defence, Patricia McKenna David Quinn and the Joe Duffy Fan Club would be shrilly and incoherently involved. :mad:

I think the pope condemning it would stop them from protesting to be honest. What did Quinn/McKenna have to say about it?

PeterIanStaker

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think the pope condemning it would stop them from protesting to be honest. What did Quinn/McKenna have to say about it?

I honestly don't know if either of those two looders said anything about it, but they are reactionaries, so I'd expect a reaction. And the pope condemning it might raise primitive pseudopatriotism in others. I just want to laugh at their bulls hit to be honest.

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

..and as you said already there are laws to deal with them.



So anti-semitism gets your green light does it? Can you honestly not appreciate the difference between having a differing of opinion and setting out to deliberately antagonize people? Some people carry their belief's close to heart by the way. Perhaps you can't grasp that at all but there you go. You can't decide your skin colour but you can decide your beliefs, why should one be protected and not the other which you have more of a say in as an individual?

Anti semitism, as in the persecution of jews is of course wrong, the criticism of or mockery of judaism, is entirely fine in my opinion, if the jewish faith is strong enough it will survive it, if it's not it won't, that's the way of the world, religions come and go, they are nothing more than extended fashions (for example what becomes of the millions of souls that diligently worshipped zeus and apollo and so on?)
I can of course realise the difference between having an opposing opinion and deliberately being an asshole and i am of course exagerating my points for effect, but the principle remains. Opinions and that's all a religion is, should not be legally protected, if people hadn't questioned religion we'd still be chopping peoples heads off to increase the harvest (actually i think the IFA still practice this in secret:))
Should we not, for example, criticise witch doctors who are mutilating kids in africa because of their honestly held religious beliefs?
People, all people of all creeds and colours, are worth protecting, and we have plenty of laws in place to protect them, beliefs are not, if they aren't strong enough to survive on their own, they should be left to die out.

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Anti semitism, as in the persecution of jews is of course wrong, the criticism of or mockery of judaism, is entirely fine in my opinion, if the jewish faith is strong enough it will survive it, if it's not it won't, that's the way of the world...

That line of argument has been used before. What do you consider persecution? Should we be allowed to dress up like orthodox Jews and make a mockery of them outside the synagogue? Maybe get a Torah and desecrate it in front of them after worship?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Opinions and that's all a religion is, should not be legally protected, if people hadn't questioned religion we'd still be chopping peoples heads off to increase the harvest (actually i think the IFA still practice this in secret:)).

So we can do away with the basic human right of freedom of religion then? Because well that's a legal protection. Why should religion be treated differently to all other 'opinions'? WHat if your opinion is white supremacy? Should you be entitled to spout that bile in public? What does the Incitement to Hatred Act say? After all prejudices and bigotry are nought but opinions, yet we legislate for the public airing of them in case they cause offence.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Should we not, for example, criticise witch doctors who are mutilating kids in africa because of their honestly held religious beliefs?

Of course you can. Just as you can criticise priests and rabbis and imams right here in Ireland.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

People, all people of all creeds and colours, are worth protecting, and we have plenty of laws in place to protect them, beliefs are not, if they aren't strong enough to survive on their own, they should be left to die out.

By "on their own" do you mean legally protected? Seems to be a contradiction here.

Seaneh

MitchKoobski wrote: »

Pope condems blasphemy laws after Pakistan use Ireland's blasphemy law as an example to the UN that defamation of religion should be part of international law.
http://newswhip.ie/national-2/pontiff-condemns-blasphemy-laws-and-calls-for-religious-freedom
Pope says something helpful...wait...what?

He says lots of helpful things in fairness, it just doesn't suit people to report it most the time.

Only it's being reported now is because they can use it as a stick to beat the government with.

Seaneh

Craebear wrote: »

is there a formal way to have your citizenship removed?

Take citizenship in another country.
Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

General Zod

2011abc wrote: »

Wasnt the painting of birthday boy , Brian Cowen depicting his genitals , much of the motivation behind this embarassing legislation?

No, it had nothing to do with it.

The legislation only exists becasue there was a disparity between the constitution and legislation, which came to a head in a case brought against Independent Newspapers by a private individual in the 90's.

The court at the time said that while the constitution regards it as an offence, legislation had no prescribed penalty, and the court rejecte the case saying they were unable to arrive at a decision as there wasn't sufficient direction.

The DoJ sat on it for several years, and Ahern decided to deal with it. There was 2 options available, make unworkable and moot legislation, or a constitutional referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy.

Rather than go to the country, he made crap legislation that is unlikely to be enforced.

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

That line of argument has been used before. What do you consider persecution? Should we be allowed to dress up like orthodox Jews and make a mockery of them outside the synagogue? Maybe get a Torah and desecrate it in front of them after worship? .

Yes, if i want to dress up and make a show of myself i should be allowed.
If i want to tear up a book i should be allowed. Isn't there something in the bible about false idols. A book is just a book, paper and ink, it's nothing more. There is no difference in burning a copy of the quran or a bible or a copy of PS i love you. People should be thought tolerance and perspective, on both sides of the argument - Don't be a dick and burn the thing in the first place, but if someone does (and there's always an idiot out there), then just turn the other cheek, don't burn shops and shoot people, it's just a book, there are millions more of them. If your god is a real god, let him do the smiting himself, if you need to do it for him, he's not really a god!

prinz wrote: »

So we can do away with the basic human right of freedom of religion then? Because well that's a legal protection. Why should religion be treated differently to all other 'opinions'? WHat if your opinion is white supremacy? Should you be entitled to spout that bile in public? What does the Incitement to Hatred Act say? After all prejudices and bigotry are nought but opinions, yet we legislate for the public airing of them in case they cause offence..

Freedom of religion, surely means the freedom to practice a religion, or the freedom to reject it. People knock on my door all the time to try and convert me to whatever their particular shtick is. I should be equally entitled to knock on their door and tell them they are wasting their lives on a fairy tale. I should be 100% free to call for the total destruction of all religion and not be forced to show respect to any or all of them.
If my opinion is white supremacy (which it's not by the way) i should be allowed to preach that, provided i can back up what i claim, the same should be true of religion. If you ask me keeping the likes of white supremacists etc off the airwaves etc affords them a level of legitimacy that they just wouldn't have otherwise, just lilsten to their "jew media keeping us supressed" nonsense. Let them talk, when they can't back up any of their claims, people will see through them.

prinz wrote: »

Of course you can. Just as you can criticise priests and rabbis and imams right here in Ireland..

But i should be able to criticise their "gods" without the threat of legal action.

prinz wrote: »

By "on their own" do you mean legally protected? Seems to be a contradiction here.

No contradiction, if it was up to me i'd remove all legal protection.

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Yes, if i want to dress up and make a show of myself i should be allowed.
If i want to tear up a book i should be allowed. Isn't there something in the bible about false idols. A book is just a book, paper and ink, it's nothing more. There is no difference in burning a copy of the quran or a bible or a copy of PS i love you. People should be thought tolerance and perspective, on both sides of the argument - Don't be a dick and burn the thing in the first place, but if someone does (and there's always an idiot out there), then just turn the other cheek, don't burn shops and shoot people, it's just a book, there are millions more of them. If your god is a real god, let him do the smiting himself, if you need to do it for him, he's not really a god!.

Have I ever advocated burning shops or killing people? You want to tear up a book that's great, go do it in your own home. Happy days. You go do it outside a Mosque and you are just 'being a dick'. Personally I don't think the law should be protecting and allowing people to be dicks as some sort of civil right. I suppose you should be allowed stand outside the National Immigration Bureau and lynch mock-immigrants. Of course nothing about having an incitement to hatred/anti-blasphemy law precludes teaching tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Freedom of religion, surely means the freedom to practice a religion, or the freedom to reject it. People knock on my door all the time to try and convert me to whatever their particular shtick is. I should be equally entitled to knock on their door and tell them they are wasting their lives on a fairy tale. I should be 100% free to call for the total destruction of all religion....

You are free to do all of those things.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

...and not be forced to show respect to any or all of them.

Yet we are "forced" to show respect in a whole myriad of ways.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If my opinion is white supremacy (which it's not by the way) i should be allowed to preach that, provided i can back up what i claim, the same should be true of religion.

That's a very big proviso.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But i should be able to criticise their "gods" without the threat of legal action.

You can.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No contradiction, if it was up to me i'd remove all legal protection.

Good, so we can do away with the incitement to hatred act too. Nice world we'd live in.

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

Personally I don't think the law should be protecting and allowing people to be dicks as some sort of civil right. .

Yes you do, you just have a different definition of a dick than i do.

prinz wrote: »

Good, so we can do away with the incitement to hatred act too. Nice world we'd live in.

If we could do away with religion, would we need it?

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Yes you do, you just have a different definition of a dick than i do.

How so? Where have I said someone should be protected under law in being an arse to others?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If we could do away with religion, would we need it?

Many have tried. All have failed.

Logical Fallacy

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps it was something to do with certain folk in the world who were deliberately stirring up trouble resulting in deaths and large financial losses and he didn't fancy sitting back watching Irish citizens being murdered because some chancer back here decided to get smart? It's not ideal but I can see the reasoning behind it. It's a reminder that with a certain freedom of speech comes certain responsibilities.

LoL, you are way off. It was just a way to work in a Sedition law.

Dyr

General Zod wrote: »

The DoJ sat on it for several years, and Ahern decided to deal with it. There was 2 options available, make unworkable and moot legislation, or a constitutional referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy.

Rather than go to the country, he made crap legislation that is unlikely to be enforced.

A classic example of an irish solution to an irish problem :rolleyes:

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Have I ever advocated (.......) we'd live in.

You seem to be confusing incitement to religous hatred with blasphemy......

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

How so? Where have I said someone should be protected under law in being an arse to others?.

You're a supporter of the church. I would argue they have been and continue to be an arse to others. Semantics of course, i know you have never argued for the right of the church to abuse people, but i just refuse to seperate one from the other, (ie the church from the abuse) they have been intertwined for centuries, the church in my eyes has caused misery for countless millions of people all based on a concept that i find laughable. I have nothing but contempt for them, and in fact for religion itself and i completely reject any law that tries to tell me i can't express that contempt!

prinz wrote: »

Many have tried. All have failed.

I don't ever envisage a world without religion, but in my opinion it would be a much better one than the world we now have.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be confusing incitement to religous hatred with blasphemy......

No, I'm not, but don't let that stop you. The underlying similarity is just because something is your 'opinion' doesn't mean you should be allowed share it with the world without sanction. Your opinion could be racist bigotry..does that mean you should be allowed share it? When does an opinion veer into the area of stoking tensions?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're a supporter of the church. I would argue they have been and continue to be an arse to others. Semantics of course, i know you have never argued for the right of the church to abuse people, but i just refuse to seperate one from the other, (ie the church from the abuse) they have been intertwined for centuries, the church in my eyes has caused misery for countless millions of people all based on a concept that i find laughable. I have nothing but contempt for them, and in fact for religion itself and i completely reject any law that tries to tell me i can't express that contempt!

The law doesn't try anything of the sort. You are entitled to that opinion and I fully agree with your right to say it because I can see that you are sharing an opinion and not attempting to deliberately get an adverse reaction.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't ever envisage a world without religion, but in my opinion it would be a much better one than the world we now have.

Sounds good.

enda1

Its the government's duty to work in the remit of the constitution and the Dáil's to legislate for crimes which are anti-constitutional. So the fault for Blasphemy law's lies in the writers of the constitution and the Irish people who voted such a religious piece into being.

There desperately needs to be a referendum to remove once and for all any mention of God or religion from the constitution, and hence repeal this piece of legislation.

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

The underlying similarity is just because something is your 'opinion' doesn't mean you should be allowed share it with the world without sanction.

prinz wrote: »

The law doesn't try anything of the sort. You are entitled to that opinion and I fully agree with your right to say it because I can see that you are sharing an opinion and not attempting to deliberately get an adverse reaction..

How is this not a contradiction?
Some people are very easily offended, for example it would appear to me that you can't sneeze these days without offending some muslim group or other. Where do you draw the line? If this law doesn't claim to stop me expressing a belief which might offend some group or other, what does it do?
Now i fully understand that this is Ireland, not Iran and i won't be beheaded or horse whipped or whatever for "blasphemy". But even if i'm fined a single cent that is too much, this law is morally reprehensible in a so called free society.
Actually, slightly off topic but i think in Saudi Arabia, apostasy (ie just changing your mind about religion, even if you don't express that view) is a crime. (i'm open to correction on this by the way, it's just something i heard)
There is simply no justifiable role for religion in the running of a modern state, none whatsoever.

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How is this not a contradiction?

Intent. Are you saying something which happens to offend some people, or are you saying something deliberately to offend a lot of people. Like I have said the legislation is basically redundant.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Some people are very easily offended, for example it would appear to me that you can't sneeze these days without offending some muslim group or other. Where do you draw the line? If this law doesn't claim to stop me expressing a belief which might offend some group or other, what does it do?

It might stop you deliberately setting out to seriously offend a majority of the adherents of a certain religion or other. It doesn't count if you offend Joe Bloggs down the street.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Now i fully understand that this is Ireland, not Iran and i won't be beheaded or horse whipped or whatever for "blasphemy". But even if i'm fined a single cent that is too much, this law is morally reprehensible in a so called free society.

So is it morally reprehensible to have laws against inciting hatred? There's a not a whole lot of difference, in one case you are deliberately trying to stir up hatred in one group, in the other you are deliberately trying to stir up 'outrage' in another.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There is simply no justifiable role for religion in the running of a modern state, none whatsoever.

Are laws guaranteeing freedom of religion giving it a role "in the running of a modern state"? Have you similar complaints about the Incitement to Hatred Act which also specifically mentions religion?

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

Intent. Are you saying something which happens to offend some people, or are you saying something deliberately to offend a lot of people. Like I have said the legislation is basically redundant.?

It's a bit of grey area, i have a lot of contempt for the very concept of religion, i try not to be an asshole about it (who wants to be having rows all the time). But i certainly wouldn't censor what i say so as NOT to offend. That in itself could be seen as intent TO offend.

prinz wrote: »

It might stop you deliberately setting out to seriously offend a majority of the adherents of a certain religion or other. It doesn't count if you offend Joe Bloggs down the street.?

What if they are just too easily offended?

prinz wrote: »

So is it morally reprehensible to have laws against inciting hatred? There's a not a whole lot of difference, in one case you are deliberately trying to stir up hatred in one group, in the other you are deliberately trying to stir up 'outrage' in another.?

Same as above. There is a lot of cross over/ deliberate blurring of the lines of race/religion/politics etc. Look at the conflict in the north for example, what had that got to do with religion? Nothing, it was just used as a propaganda tool. We need to call our "enemies" something, lets call them protestants, jews, muslims or whatever.

prinz wrote: »

Are laws guaranteeing freedom of religion giving it a role "in the running of a modern state"? Have you similar complaints about the Incitement to Hatred Act which also specifically mentions religion?

I have a problem with any piece of legislation that mentions religion. It should have no more bearing on the laws of the land than skin colour should. We don't legislate on the basis of being a white country, we shouldn't do on the basis of being a christian one either.

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What if they are just too easily offended?

Yeah a large proportion of every religion in the world are sitting around waiting to get offended by something you have to say.... I think you're safe.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I have a problem with any piece of legislation that mentions religion. It should have no more bearing on the laws of the land than skin colour should. We don't legislate on the basis of being a white country, we shouldn't do on the basis of being a christian one either.

Perhaps you should look up the Incitement to Hatred Act. Sorry, but you know things like skin colour, nationality, creed etc do come into it.

Neither does it or the blasphemy act refer to Christianity.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

No, I'm not, but (..........)of stoking tensions?
.

That little bit of babble doesn't change the fact that you are, in fact, confused on the issue.

Example from you wrote:

Should we be allowed to dress up like orthodox Jews and make a mockery of them outside the synagogue? Maybe get a Torah and desecrate it in front of them after worship?

Thats clearly targeting Jews with the intention of intimidation/provocation.

You even drage the incitement to hatred act in by name....

What does the Incitement to Hatred Act say?

Perhaps you should look up the Incitement to Hatred Act. Sorry, but you know things like skin colour, nationality, creed etc do come into it

...seem to think they're interchangable....

. Of course nothing about having an incitement to hatred/anti-blasphemy law precludes teaching tolerance

...when somebody states they'd do away with the blasphemy law you say ...

Good, so we can do away with the incitement to hatred act too

...which again assumes a direct relationship between the two.

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

Yeah a large proportion of every religion in the world are sitting around waiting to get offended by something you have to say.... I think you're safe..

They don't hear what i have to say, i'm just a random anonomous nobody on the internet. If i was famous and being interviewed on telly and whatnot, i'd probably be hiding under the cupboard with Salman Rushdie by now.

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you should look up the Incitement to Hatred Act. Sorry, but you know things like skin colour, nationality, creed etc do come into it.

Neither does it or the blasphemy act refer to Christianity.

I know they do, but the basic concept of the Incitement to Hatred act is that everybody be treated the same, surely a noble intent if less than perfect in application.
A blasphemy law, by it's very nature, demands that peope be treated differently because of how they think. What's noble about that?
Where someone to appear on tv straight after the angelus (and that's another days arguing!) and say listen up kiddies, here is my call to prayer for the one true god, satan! Joe duffy's phone would explode and they'd be up before the courts, no doubt for blasphemy? However i find both the angelus and the "demonus" to be equally ridiculous. If you aren't willing to afford equal protection to all religions, you shouldn't afford it to any. Where do you draw the line, wiccans? jedis? pastafarians? druids? scientologists? None of it is worth protecting!

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

That little bit of babble doesn't change the fact that you are, in fact, confused on the issue..

Nope.

Nodin wrote: »

Thats clearly targeting Jews with the intention of intimidation/provocation...

..almost like this even

he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and

Nodin wrote: »

You even drage the incitement to hatred act in by name......

For a very specific reason. The poster I was responding to feels that the word religion should be removed from all legislation. As it appears in the Incitement to Hatred Act it's a perfectly valid question.

Nodin wrote: »

...seem to think they're interchangable..........

As above.

Nodin wrote: »

...which again assumes a direct relationship between the two.

Not exactly, but it won't stop yoiu trying will it.

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

They don't hear what i have to say, i'm just a random anonomous nobody on the internet. If i was famous and being interviewed on telly and whatnot, i'd probably be hiding under the cupboard with Salman Rushdie by now.

Yet Atheist Ireland posted plenty of what could be deemed blasphemous stuff up on their site after the law came into effect and nobody batted an eyelid.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I know they do, but the basic concept of the Incitement to Hatred act is that everybody be treated the same, surely a noble intent if less than perfect in application.

But you just said references to religion should be removed from all legislation in the interests of a free society... so we could legally incite hatred against folk because of their faith. If we are not allowed incite hatred against a people because of how they think why should we be allowed incite widespread outrage within a people because of how they think?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If you aren't willing to afford equal protection to all religions, you shouldn't afford it to any. Where do you draw the line, wiccans? jedis? pastafarians? druids? scientologists? None of it is worth protecting!

Actually we are once they meet the criteria to be classed as religions.

Guill

Jeasus Christ! i have never seen such a load of bull in all my life.

mehfesto

People of religion can say whatever they want about unproven deities, take control of the educational system, commit atrocities in the past in the name of religion and their institutions are given tax breaks...

I say that's not right t's all potentially not real anyway and I'm a blasphemer.

Nice.

sbsquarepants

he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and

Priest stands up in church at a christening, says do you reject satan etc etc. A substantial number of, the admittedly few, satanists are outraged, and complain to police. Or a particularly devout group of hindus are apoplectic at casual disregard of some 10 thousand odd of their "gods" in favour of the catholic priests 1.

What happens?

This law is too idiotic for words!

prinz

mehfesto wrote: »

I say that's not right t's all potentially not real anyway and I'm a blasphemer..

No you're not.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What happens?

In the first instance nothing. The priest isn't setting out to deliberately cause offence. Not that satanism is a recognised religion in this country anyway.

In the second....I don't get it. Why are the Hindus apoplectic?

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

Yet Atheist Ireland posted plenty of what could be deemed blasphemous stuff up on their site after the law came into effect and nobody batted an eyelid..

So we should have the law in place, just not use it? Makes about as much sense as religion itself!

prinz wrote: »

But you just said references to religion should be removed from all legislation in the interests of a free society... so we could legally incite hatred against folk because of their faith. If we are not allowed incite hatred against a people because of how they think why should we be allowed incite widespread outrage within a people because of how they think?..

Inciting hatred for any reason is wrong. Why even mention religion?

prinz wrote: »

Actually we are once they meet the criteria to be classed as religions.

Hillarious.
We regret to inform you that the department of fairy tales has assesed your claim to be an approved religion, however as we could find no evidence, your application has been rejected!:)

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

So we should have the law in place, just not use it? Makes about as much sense as religion itself!

No, it's useful to have it in the event it actually needs to be used even once in a lifetime. Contrary to all the nonsense on here about everybody and their neighbour being fined for blasphemy I'd say it's highly unlikely to be successfully used. It doesn't stop it being useful if it is needed though. If you pay insurance all your life and never need to make a claim is it still useful?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Inciting hatred for any reason is wrong. Why even mention religion?

Why even mention skin colour, nationality, sexuality, etc. Laws need to be as clear as possible with the legal system we have.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Hillarious.
We regret to inform you that the department of fairy tales has assesed your claim to be an approved religion, however as we could find no evidence, your application has been rejected!:)

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

No you're not.



In the first instance nothing. The priest isn't setting out to deliberately cause offence. Not that satanism is a recognised religion in this country anyway.

In the second....I don't get it. Why are the Hindus apoplectic?

Firstly the priest has set out to deliberately cause offence to both satan and his loyal followers, who are remember, under both the blasphemy law and the incitement to hatred act, aforded protection for their beliefs.

Secondly the hindus are apoplectic because the priest has just called for all their thousands of gods to be rejected in favour of his own, he has in fact called them false gods, surely this is the very definition of blasphemy, and sure now that they have this new law, why shouldn't they use it?

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

Why even mention skin colour, nationality, sexuality, etc. Laws need to be as clear as possible with the legal system we have.

Skin colour, nationality, sexuality are all real tangible things, you can't change or choose any of them. You can change or choose a religion. It's like following a football team, get relegated and you'll loose fans. The catholic church in particular and religiion in general are in the relegation zone for a lot of people!

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Firstly the priest has set out to deliberately cause offence to both satan and his loyal followers, who are remember, under both the blasphemy law and the incitement to hatred act, aforded protection for their beliefs.

(a) No he hasn't, he merely restated a central teaching in his own faith. No reasonable person will accept that such offence was the intended purpose.

(b) Causing offence to Satan - eh no. There's nothing about causing offence to any deity.

(c) Satanists aren't as I have pointed out, because satanism isn't a recognised religion in this State.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Secondly the hindus are apoplectic because the priest has just called for all their thousands of gods to be rejected in favour of his own, he has in fact called them false gods, surely this is the very definition of blasphemy, and sure now that they have this new law, why shouldn't they use it?

In a ceremony of his own religion where he could be reasonably safe to assume that a substantial numbers of Hindus are not going to get upset about it. We have managed up to now with Hindus and Jews and Muslims and a lot more in this country. They aren't all going to start being fined now I am afraid.

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Skin colour, nationality, sexuality are all real tangible things, you can't change or choose any of them.

Not really. Nationality in particular is a fluid notion. Anywho, what's tangible about sexuality? Is it something immediately obvious?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You can change or choose a religion.

It's always interesting when people will argue one way one day and the opposite the next. It gets to the point where I feel I can't keep up.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Nope.


..almost like this even....

.

Yet, funny enough, the constitutional imperative to have a blasphemy law was not satisfied by the existence of incitement to hatred legislation...odd that. Evidently the legal minds employed by the state aren't of a mind with yourself. Feel free to work yourself up into a "sex and the city" frenzy though...

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

(a) No he hasn't, he merely restated a central teaching in his own faith. No reasonable person will accept that such offence was the intended purpose.

(b) Causing offence to Satan - eh no. There's nothing about causing offence to any deity.

(c) Satanists aren't as I have pointed out, because satanism isn't a recognised religion in this State.


In a ceremony of his own religion where he could be reasonably safe to assume that a substantial numbers of Hindus are not going to get upset about it. We have managed up to now with Hindus and Jews and Muslims and a lot more in this country. They aren't all going to start being fined now I am afraid.

No reasonable person, you say, which brings us back to the point that some people, when it comes to their religion, are not in any way reasonable. (A cartoon being used as an excuse for riots and murders for example, or honour killings, adulterers being stoned to death and so on) Religion and reason are mutually exclusive as far as i can tell. No one has ever offered me anything that approaches a reasoned explanation for religious thinking.

Recognised? Does a god require an act of parliament? Who decides which religion to recognise and which not too?

No i don't imagine that there will be a rush of fines for blasphemy, if any at all. But doesn't that kind of beg the question, why do we have to bring in such a stupid practicaly unenforceable law in the first place? It's not like this is a left over nonsense law from way back, this is brand spanking shiny new.

RELIGION... bringing people together for centuries..

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Yet, funny enough, the constitutional imperative to have a blasphemy law was not satisfied by the existence of incitement to hatred legislation...odd that. Evidently the legal minds employed by the state aren't of a mind with yourself....

It's not odd at all seeing as how one relates to inciting hatred of a group, and relates to inciting outrage in a group. Both however feature the word religion which squarepants there thinks should be left out. Basic stuff there, might take a day or two for others to grasp though.

Nodin wrote: »

Feel free to work yourself up into a "sex and the city" frenzy though...

...one of these days you'll actually make a point relevant to the thread and leave it at that. As for frenzy...:pac: good one.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No reasonable person, you say, which brings us back to the point that some people, when it comes to their religion, are not in any way reasonable. (A cartoon being used as an excuse for riots and murders for example, or honour killings, adulterers being stoned to death and so on)..

Which, as Nodin would no doubt be foaming at the mouth to point out in another thead (I can do it too), is the kind of act perpetrated by a minority. Care to point out any recognised religion in Ireland where a substantial part of the adherents are not reasonable people? Interesting that all examples used point to Islam though.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Religion and reason are mutually exclusive as far as i can tell. No one has ever offered me anything that approaches a reasoned explanation for religious thinking...

You can't tell very far, but then again that's a debate for another day. You are welcome to that opinion.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Recognised? Does a god require an act of parliament? Who decides which religion to recognise and which not too?...

Our state does. The politicians you vote for do. Bring it up with the next candidate on your doorstep and ask them to review it.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No i don't imagine that there will be a rush of fines for blasphemy, if any at all. But doesn't that kind of beg the question, why do we have to bring in such a stupid practicaly unenforceable law in the first place? It's not like this is a left over nonsense law from way back, this is brand spanking shiny new.

...and we're back to square one. It's been interesting.

sbsquarepants

Ha, it certainly has!

Just as a matter of interest does anyone know what criteria is used to decide whether a religion is officially recognised or not? What government dept. is responsible etc? If someone was to set up a new religion how would they go about getting it rubber stamped?

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Ha, it certainly has!
Just as a matter of interest does anyone know what criteria is used to decide whether a religion is officially recognised or not? What government dept. is responsible etc? If someone was to set up a new religion how would they go about getting it rubber stamped?

AFAIK it's mostly caselaw so it's not really a matter for any government department. I think the primary legislation used are the Charities Acts. You have to take a court case to show how your new belief system should be classed as a religion as opposed to a cult/sect.