A 'No' Campaign in the Upcoming Blasphemy Referendum?

cgcsb

NewIrish01 wrote: »

Being a Christian myself, I personally feel that the current blasphemy laws allow fair and constructive criticism of religion and religious groups without giving justification to persecution or to slanderous and/or hateful statements that lack advantages or utility in our society. In my eyes, a repeal of the laws would only enable hateful and violent people to express themselves without repercussions.

Hateful statements against God like? If a being powerful enough to create the universe out of nothing in 7 days gets upset by the opinion of some ant like creature, we've got bigger problems.

Look God doesn't exist, it shouldn't be illegal to mock a non-human who never existed.

cgcsb

To answer the OP's question nobody wants to go on Primetime and be laughed at campaigning for a no, not even Iona have volunteered anyone.

troyzer

cgcsb wrote: »

Hateful statements against God like? If a being powerful enough to create the universe out of nothing in 7 days gets upset by the opinion of some ant like creature, we've got bigger problems.

Look God doesn't exist, it shouldn't be illegal to mock a non-human who never existed.

Six days, he took a nap on the seventh.

Oh no, I just committed blasphemy by being flippant towards god..................

Oh no, I just did it again by not capitalising god.......

Oh no, I did it again........

Doesn't belong in the constitution, get rid of it.

cgcsb

colmufc wrote: »

Its crazy it was introduced in the first place ,there is no need for any reference to any religion in the constitution of Ireland and questions should be asked of why it was put in in the first place I remember when it was introduced and can't help but feel it was simply used to drag attention away from the economic turndown

Blasphemy was prohibited by the constitution in the 1920s. I doubt you remember it.

Amirani

seamus wrote: »

Because there would be no binding mandate for the second referendum to be held.

I don't see the benefit on rushing in a deletion and taking the time to examine a new provision later. Why not take the time to make a full examination and then make the swap in one go?

Hastily deleting part of the constitution is just as bad as inserting something that's poorly thought out.

Because they're 2 very different questions. I support deletion of current article, I do not support a gender-neutral or carers amendment. I would vote against an expansion of the scope of the current article.

If you offer the choice of gender-neutral amendment or retention, you aren't allowing a vote on deletion.

If you allow a vote on deletion, and afterwards there's enough public demand for a new clause to be inserted then by all means have a new referendum on it. It's not "hastily deleting" when the people decide in a referendum that a certain clause should not be present.

seamus

Amirani wrote: »

If you allow a vote on deletion, and afterwards there's enough public demand for a new clause to be inserted then by all means have a new referendum on it. It's not "hastily deleting" when the people decide in a referendum that a certain clause should not be present.

And what if people decide that a clause shouldn't be deleted, but instead should be amended?

It's not for this thread, but I believe the spirit of that clause does belong in the constitution, though a like-for-like swap of "woman" with "parent" is probably not optimal. So I would vote against any proposal to remove it with a "promise" to insert "something else" at some vague point in the future. This is what I mean by "hastily" deleted - removing it without properly considering the impact of doing so nor the shape which a future insertion should take.

Amending it rather than removing it was the recommendation of the constitutional convention.

By comparison, the constitutional convention also recommended the straight deletion of the blasphemy provision.

James Brown

Any reference to made up stories and events have no place in the laws or constitution of any land. If we're to go down the road of, 'If I believe it, that's good enough' we are in a sorry state. The whole religion thing is backward and I've concerns for the mental health of anyone who believes in such things. They are free to believe it of course, but I don't want a palm reader deciding government policy or asking foreign delegates their star sign. It's time we consigned religion to the private/personal realm.

Captain Obvious

The lack of a No campaign will damage this referendum. There's only so much discussion you can have without being able to provide a balancing counter argument.

storker

troyzer wrote: »

Six days, he took a nap on the seventh.

Oh no, I just committed blasphemy by being flippant towards god..................

Oh no, I just did it again by not capitalising god.......

Oh no, I did it again........

Calm down, Britney...

expectationlost

eezipc wrote: »

Ha. One thing you are guaranteed on boards is people who have no idea what they are talking about...

well one could take it that we talk about what we are familiar with

expectationlost

cgcsb wrote: »

To answer the OP's question nobody wants to go on Primetime and be laughed at campaigning for a no, not even Iona have volunteered anyone.

enter john waters https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/john-waters-launches-campaign-to-keep-blasphemy-in-constitution-5rg0nzbt7

The high horse brigade

expectationlost wrote: »

enter john waters https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/john-waters-launches-campaign-to-keep-blasphemy-in-constitution-5rg0nzbt7

All you can expect from an ass is a kick.....

Roanmore

expectationlost wrote: »

enter john waters https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/john-waters-launches-campaign-to-keep-blasphemy-in-constitution-5rg0nzbt7

"Tim Jackson, an anti-abortion campaigner who went on a hunger strike last year to demand that politicans view a video of how a baby is aborted."

Is he still on it?

Was wondering where Kathy Sinnott disappeared to?

I think if everybody was in favour of keeping blasphemy in the constitution Waters would want it removed.

BonnieSituation

expectationlost wrote: »

enter john waters https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/john-waters-launches-campaign-to-keep-blasphemy-in-constitution-5rg0nzbt7

As sure as night follows day, here comes the contrarian...

alaimacerc

cgcsb wrote: »

To answer the OP's question nobody wants to go on Primetime and be laughed at campaigning for a no, not even Iona have volunteered anyone.

I'm sure Móllán would be merely delighted to go on and whatabout, at least. That's precisely what he did when interviewed on some news programme's piece on this, certainly.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

expectationlost wrote:

enter john waters

That man sure does love to lose

Rhineshark

While I get they don't want to lose yet again, it does seem a bit off that the religious squadron will go to the wall against gay marriage but won't go to bat for the Second Commandment.

By the way, there was someone doing an "oh my god oops I just blasphemed" earlier - you didn't, "God" is a title, not a name. It is "Yahweh" or possibly "Yehovah" that is the Name not to be taken in vain. Although presumably making an oath on "God" or "in God's name" with no intention of keeping it might count.*

Even then, I highly doubt one would get prosecuted for it.

(Anyone know offhand if using Mohammad lightly or insulting the Prophet counts as blasphemy or is it just highly disapproved of? And is the "graven images" rule blasphemy-related or completely different? As presumably it is based on the internal laws of any given religion.)

*Mind you, the *intention* to blaspheme might make it so. This sort of thing is why religious laws shouldn't be around in a secular society! You need priests to interpret the damn thing and that's a bad idea.

skooterblue2

blanch152 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see will any Islamic groups in Ireland join with the extreme elements of the Catholic Church in opposing this referendum.

Islam tiptoes around in Ireland but carries a big stick. Ever notice how the Taoiseach goes over to Clonskeagh for tea and buns at the Eid festival?

skooterblue2

NIMAN wrote: »

Could anyone give an example of something you might say or do that would get you prosecuted under the existing law.

Look ahead at the demographics when you will have a religious Government in Ireland in the future. In two generations you can have a serious swing in the population demographics if you do it right. See Germany, Italy and Spain. The nationl Birth rates of the natives are all at 1.3 and 1.4. What do you think that will look like after 2 generations?

Rhineshark

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Look ahead at the demographics when you will have a religious Government in Ireland in the future. In two generations you can have a serious swing in the population demographics if you do it right. See Germany, Italy and Spain. The nationl Birth rates of the natives are all at 1.3 and 1.4. What do you think that will look like after 2 generations?

That spectacularly fails to be an answer though.

For Forks Sake

expectationlost wrote: »

enter john waters https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/john-waters-launches-campaign-to-keep-blasphemy-in-constitution-5rg0nzbt7

Waters, Kathy Sinnott and Tim "hunger strike" Jackson? It's like Ireland's worst dinner party guest list.

alaimacerc

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Tim "hunger strike" Jackson?

ITYM Tim "Fast to the Point of Mild Peckishness" Jackson.

alaimacerc

Rhineshark wrote: »

While I get they don't want to lose yet again, it does seem a bit off that the religious squadron will go to the wall against gay marriage but won't go to bat for the Second Commandment.

It would indeed, if we hadn't priced "quite a bit off" into their share-price already.

To be realistic, though, they wouldn't just lose, they'd look utterly ridiculous in the process. And have to pay for the privilege.

"Look, lads. I know ye blaspheme yizzerselves three dozen times a day. But this isn't about that. This is about the really, really, bad stuff. Y'know, the sort of stuff the Arabs and what's worse the Prods might say. Put manners on 'em!"

By the way, there was someone doing an "oh my god oops I just blasphemed" earlier - you didn't, "God" is a title, not a name. It is "Yahweh" or possibly "Yehovah" that is the Name not to be taken in vain. Although presumably making an oath on "God" or "in God's name" with no intention of keeping it might count.*

Nice line of argument, counselor, but that's a much narrower definition than the Western Church would have used in practice. You'd definitely have got a tariff of Hail Mary's for "oh my god". Hence the fine range of "minced oaths" that have arisen in different places and times.

(Anyone know offhand if using Mohammad lightly or insulting the Prophet counts as blasphemy or is it just highly disapproved of? And is the "graven images" rule blasphemy-related or completely different? As presumably it is based on the internal laws of any given religion.)

That last is just it. My understanding is that the Abrahamic religions all regard blasphemy, idolatry, and indeed desecration as separate things, though all prohibited. (I think they all fall under the more general "sacrilege", but I'm even less sure of my definitions there.) Note, for bonus Wars of Religion (ancient and modern) points that what's rejection of idolatry to one may be desecration to another, and vice versa.

But! The Irish law doesn't just invoke any given religion's notions of what might be "blasphemy", it has its own definition. To wit: "he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion". So what happens is that representatives of "a substantial number of the adherents of that religion" report them to be "outraged", attempts to argue intent, and bish-bosh you have the elements of the offence, regardless of any theological distinction concerning the divinity of whomever, which commandment it might fall under, etc.

alaimacerc

"This Week" actually doing a debate on the BlasRef! ... of sorts. Didn't catch the name of the "no" person, but his main talking point thus far is not making "a bags of the constitution" (sic).

alaimacerc

Apparently it was one Séamas de Barra, of the "Alliance for the Defence of the Family and Marriage". Don't think they're directly associated with Iona or the anti-abortion "specialists", but rather are the current vehicle of Richard Greene, ex-CSP, ex-Muintir na hÉireann, ex-Green (!) Party, etc.

I'd say it was quite the deep barrel the programme's producers were scraping the bottom of.

Eric Cartman

like we all know most of these people only do this because they're making money from foreign bodies and a US evangelical agenda , but do you ever wonder if the likes of waters get an email saying "here you have to be against blasphemy , heres 10 grand" and he just wonders how he's even going to sell the idea, drawing whiteboards full of nonsense that he's not even sure bible bashing yanks would believe.

alaimacerc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

like we all know most of these people only do this because they're making money from foreign bodies and a US evangelical agenda , but do you ever wonder if the likes of waters get an email saying "here you have to be against blasphemy , heres 10 grand" and he just wonders how he's even going to sell the idea, drawing whiteboards full of nonsense that he's not even sure bible bashing yanks would believe.

*chortle*

I think the monetisation of the nonsense is a little more subtle than that. And I doubt Waters has actually planned anything that well in his entire life.

Plus "selling" the idea doesn't actually entail winning any given vote. Just getting a quota in your tiny NUI election turnout. Or keeping the controversialist newspaper column and radio appearance gigs coming in.

expectationlost

Seamus de Barra from the Alliance for the Defence of Families and Marriage - who is advocating a no vote in the referendum, and Liam Herrick from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties - who is calling for a yes vote - debate the upcoming Blasphemy Referendum

via RTÉ - This Week Podcast https://ift.tt/2Cg0JrI part 1

Seamus de Barra from the Alliance for the Defence of Families and Marriage - who is advocating a no vote in the referendum, and Liam Herrick from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties - who is calling for a yes vote - debate the upcoming Blasphemy Referendum

via RTÉ - This Week Podcast https://ift.tt/2CJr3LT part 2

Franz Von Peppercorn

It should go of course, to be replaced by far more potent hate crimes legislation that protects religions and other groups so yez all can be locked up.

expectationlost

John Hamill
‏ @JohnHamill151
8h8 hours ago

On Niall Delaney's @OceanNWT show at @OceanFmIreland, John Hamill from @atheistie debates @TimJacksonInd from Believe In Respect about the Blasphemy Referendum. #BlasphemyRef
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
youtube link https://twitter.com/JohnHamill151/status/1051755194646765568