Do you want to stop the Irish government from reviving the medieval crime of blasphemy? Do you want to promote a rational, ethical and secular society in Ireland?
- Please leave a comment, and we’ll pass it on to the Government.
- Please let us know if you want to help this campaign in any way.
It’s not just atheists who don’t want this law. I’m a Christian and think it’s ridiculous.
Comment by David Barrett — May 11, 2009 @ 12:22 am
I think that Ireland has progressed from the last century of catholic rule and this law would be a massive step backwards. Given past irish examples, censorship to name but one, it seems that church and state should remain seperate and independent. In this day and age a law that promotes otherwise is laughable.
Comment by lisa — May 11, 2009 @ 12:33 am
This would be a disgraceful law and it would be more offensive to have this as a law than it would be to have people saying anything offensive about religions.
Comment by Alan — May 11, 2009 @ 12:56 am
How powerful is any god that gets upset about what a mortal says?
Comment by Jams — May 11, 2009 @ 3:02 am
I fully support Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin, and Green Party spokesman on Justice, Ciarán Cuffe in their opposing of the proposed blasphemy legislation.
Micheál Martin: ‘We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.’
Ciarán Cuffe: ‘I do not believe that criminalising blasphemy is the correct approach to this issue.’ ‘I support the views of the Law Reform Commission and the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in calling for a Constitutional amendment to abolish references to blasphemy.’
I can’t see why Dermot Ahern is proposing this, but he doesn’t appear to even have support within his own party or partners in government. This is something which the campaign must focus on if it is to be successful.
Comment by Barry Grant — May 11, 2009 @ 5:16 am
Christians believe that there is one god who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. They also believe that humans are weak and limited lesser beings. If they are correct in both beliefs, blasphemy cannot exist because it would be impossible for these lesser beings to hurt this omnipotent being.
If they are wrong and there is no god or there is a god but so feeble that he, she or it is capable of being wounded by the words or deeds of humans, then why are they worshipping this god in the first place.
The short version of this is what Jams wrote: “How powerful is any god that gets upset about what a mortal says?”
It is a sign of weakness in any religion (or government for that matter) when it seeks to use secular law to ban freedom of speech and action.
Comment by Deirdre Shaw — May 11, 2009 @ 5:17 am
Blasphemy? Well, if that’s how you’re going to be, I demand that the re-introduction of all sorts of similar medieval crap such as dung for dinner, horrible skin diseases and death by stoning.
And importantly, I demand to be heard. Which is my right. Or so I thought.
Comment by Dwardo — May 11, 2009 @ 6:28 am
Apologies for medieval typo above – kindly ignore the phantom “that” in the second sentence. Consider me chastened and bowed. But not genuflecting.
Comment by Dwardo — May 11, 2009 @ 6:30 am
This makes me so angry, I don’t know where to begin. I read Ahern in one of the papers recently saying that the requirement for a law against blasphemy is required by our constitution (which is true), so he had a choice: implement the law, or hold a referendum. Considering this government’s happy propensitty hold referenda along with Europeana and local elections, I can’t see why the latter option wasn’t chosen.
Perhaps they need to concentrate on reaching justice for those that God (or his representatives here on earth) f***ed before trying to criminalise those who say “f*** God”.
Also, there is this recession going on. One would think they had more important things to do, like try to resusitate an ailing economy, rather than persecute the secular.
Comment by brendan strong — May 11, 2009 @ 8:44 am
I am strongly against this law. The Blasphemy Law would hamper debate and kill constructive skepticism that fosters the development of society and the well-being of humans.
Comment by Hubert — May 11, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Bad law made by dry hand washing creeping jesuses is a blasphemy on progressive thinking and democracy. Somebody please take the car keys away from this government before any more of their inept machinations
Comment by Morgan C.Jones — May 11, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Good to see this website up and running.
Should we start fund-raising to fight a referendum?
Can we get a campaign organisation together?
Comment by Feardorcha — May 11, 2009 @ 9:34 am
The Church and the State must be kept seperate, freedom of speech is a human right and as such a law such as this is an infringement on those human rights. Ireland has suffered enough from small minded superstition, if Islamic defamation of religion laws are (quite rightly) to be denied, then the same or similar law applying to Christianity must be treated the same way.
Comment by Michael Fredman — May 11, 2009 @ 9:36 am
As of said about similar tendancies in the United States, let’s not bring back Puritical Salem Massachusetts! Because that would suck too.
Comment by Patrick — May 11, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Okay, looking around this website I can see lots of articles and comments, reactions to the Ahern proposals in the Irish media, exapmles of the kind of thing (mostly comedy skits) that might lead to prosecutions if the DPP ever takes leave of his senses.
But where’s the call to action?
How about a searchable index so people can find their TDs email (or snailmail) addresses, suggestions for talking points to put in letters/emails to TDs, or to raise in the next few weeks when canvassers call. Or are we to be content with AI (unfortunate acronym BTW) forwarding the comments on its blogs to Dermot Ahern for his consideration?
Comment by Gerard Cunningham — May 11, 2009 @ 10:16 am
This law would be ridiculous. For one thing there is a little thing called freedom of speech. Another is that a persons faith and religion is personal and you can’t necessarily categorize. It is up to the person if they follow their religious rules, that is part of their faith and their responsibility. I agree with Michael Fredman, the church should stay out of how the state is run. There are too many ethnic groups now to have everybody get a fair say anyway.
Comment by Olwen — May 11, 2009 @ 10:18 am
This law offers special protection to people who choose to believe certain things. Such protection would, presumably, not be extended to me, as I do not see the world through the lens of any particular religion. This creates two kinds of ideas: secular ideas open to discussion, debate and attack; and religious ideas, out-of-bounds, beyond free discussion, “holy”.
I hope that the proposed legislation is based on a desire to protect those who may be marginalised in society, and not on a personal crusade of Minister Ahern. Either way, a law against “blasphemy” may have the effect of stifling real discussion & debate on questions of religion. This is not a step forward, but a great step back.
I point you to Rowan Atkinson’s stand on similar legislation which was proposed, and rejected, in the UK in 2004:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4073997.stm
Comment by Brian Walsh — May 11, 2009 @ 10:40 am
I would be strongly opposed to this Law – for all of the well worded reasons listed in the ‘Why Campaign’ section of the website.
The UK managed to bring their laws up to date – and even got the support of the Church of England for the abolition of their Blasphemy Law. I am sure that Ireland can recognise that the Constitution is outdated in this area and should be given the opportunity to vote on it.
The debate in the UK was thorough and wide ranging and the law now seeks to protect again encitement to religious hatred. I am by no means an expert but I think they even protect those of us in the most ignored minority – those with no religion!
Then perhaps we could move on to a non religious oath and adequate provision of non-denominational / multi-denominational primary and secondary education.
I am not an Irish citizen and unfortunately would not be permitted to vote in such a referendum if it came about(although I have lived here for 10 years, paid all my taxes, created and maintained jobs, have an Irish child whose interests I would like to protect etc…..don’t get me started on that one) but I would be happy to do what I can to help it happen.
Comment by Helen — May 11, 2009 @ 10:41 am
So would this ridiculous law, if introduced, offer protection to followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion or indeed those who professed to be Jedi knights in the last UK census? I doubt it. Such protection under law is only ever applied to silence critics of ‘mainstream religion’ Furthermore, a blasphemy law creates a type of cultural apartheid where only certain members of society are allowed to reply to criticism, this would allow the religions to preach and incite hatred about for example, homosexuals without fear of reprisal. A blasphemy law is a crude attempt to protect outdated ideas, and let’s be honest, religion is a pretty daft idea and a toy that should have been discarded early on in the infancy of the human race.
Comment by Angela Kingdom — May 11, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
We have just about moved on from draconian censorship laws that banned great literature, poetry and film, anything that posed a threat to Irish piety and now a Blasphemy law. This is more than a throw back to the 1930’s it is actually more serious than this. Censorship hurt our education system, our right to express ourselves artistically and our right to engage with international debate, experience and expertise. Artists and writers were seriously curtailed and forced to flee the country. Luminaries like Beckett were long appreciated internationally before recognition came here. We have now got to the point where we pride ourselves on the strength of our artistic and creative output and now the government decides to introduce a Blasphemy law thereby negating all progress made since the censorship laws were relaxed. Where does the Arts minister stand on all this?
A law like this would certainly give grounds for censorship mark two and I for one do not want to live in a country that embraces any form of censorship based on religious or any other grounds.
Comment by Mary — May 11, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
I pledge to fully support this bill just as soon as the government proves in a court of law a) the existence of any god and b) that this omnipotent entity gets upset when you call it names. Let me know how that goes for you, Dermot.
Comment by Dave — May 11, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Findamentaly words are sounds that we associate meaning with. A word means nothing without your own or other peoples reaction.
The people who are wasting their time campaigning for such farcical laws need to re-evaluate what is important in their lives. Maybe go for a walk in the countryside or hug your children. If sounds start to become outlawed then the tippy toe steps we are taking to an entirely Orwellian society will rapidly become Linford Christie bounds.
Comment by Tom Mooring — May 11, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Blasphemy Laws are nearly as anachronistic as the mental illnesses (thats the religions…) they are designed to reinforce. Ireland will be a laughing stock if this travesty passes, and Dave Allen will be spinning in his grave.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.
Comment by Greg Phillips — May 11, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Blasphemy laws imply that gods are powerless to defend themselves from the words of mere humans; this is essentially an atheistic position. Real gods, after all, hurl real lightening bolts at those who displease them.
Does the Irish government really wish to take this stance?
Comment by Don Martin — May 11, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Some modern day religions were founded on blasphemies and heresies of other established religions’ dogma. Do we outlaw those religions if this were to come to pass?
Some modern scientific truths were derived while being labled blasphemous and heretical.
Do we censor science if this were to come to pass?
Many religions have historically had bad management, and corrupt representatives.
Do we arrest people trying to expose criminal hypocrites?
Institutions, businesses and organizations are not people and often weild more power than any one person could have. To give them the same rights, or more rights than people is unfair.
Comment by claw — May 11, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
The entire concept of blasphemy laws is archaic to begin with. Even if some people are taking their opinions on others a little too far, there is a word called “slander” that fits the bill much better. If someone is spreading lies about you, regardless of what aspect of your life they target with these lies, they are engaging in slander. End of story. To seek special protection on the basis of personal belief is to insinuate that you and your group are somehow more important than and superior to everyone else and their beliefs, which is reprehensible in a civilized society.
One should be emphasizing the values of education and social reform, not specialized treatment of a particularly sensitive and thin-skinned collective. Remember Galileo. Heresy is really nothing more than a secondary and fancier word for blasphemy, and nearly the whole of the scientific community would be found guilty of it and forced into silence. Allow blasphemy to become a crime, and watch society collapse upon itself. Surely we cannot allow such a thing to happen in this day and age?
Comment by Renae — May 11, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Blasphemy is not a crime. This is useless legislation that panders to religion while stripping citizens of their personal freedoms and right to free speech. Ireland is not a theocracy, nor should it become so. The rule of law is there to protect the citizens. Who or what does this legislation protect? Only the power-hungry institutions of religion. This law must be voted against before Ireland becomes as repressive as countries like Iran.
Comment by Erin Wiedemer — May 11, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Here’s a thought; if you were to implement blasphemy laws, you would need a governmental body to rule on what constitutes blasphemy, right? You know, like Imams or archbishops and popes. Wait a minute…
Comment by Ruth — May 11, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
I’ll help. Whats the plan?
Comment by Mark Sugrue — May 11, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
I support the introduction of a blasphemy law on the condition that (as with libel cases) any prosecution be initiated by the offended deity and not by third parties.
If I were to badmouth Bono I would expect to hear from his officialy appointed lawyers, not the U2 fan club.
Comment by twofer — May 11, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
PS… this law should also apply to all Supernatural entities, including Beelzebub and Satan. I’ve heard far too many insults and curses about that poor devil from the potty mouths of christians than I can stomach.
Comment by twofer — May 11, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
My advice is simple: I suggest not opposing the law. Rather I would work on having the form of the law amended to rule out third party filings. I.e. any deity who feels He/She has been blasphemed must show up in person to file charges and press them in court.
Comment by Reginald Selkirk — May 11, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.
The teaching of evolution is offensive to some religious groups.
So do we teach it anyway, thereby offending the religious?
Or do we ban the teaching of it, thereby offending the scientific community?
Some elements of catholicism are blasphemous to a protestant, and vice versa.
Do not stifle free speech. There is a huge difference between blasphemy and hate speech.
A law against blasphemy abdicates the responsibility of determining what speech is allowed and what speech is not, handing the decision over to religious groups with their own agendas.
No, the middle ages are over, we should not let religious groups drag us back into them.
Comment by dsmccoy — May 11, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Blasphemy Laws? What????!! Is this the Middle Ages again? Jesus Christ on a crutch, this is a tremendously stupid idea – no blasphemy laws please! And BTW, Allah, Zeus and Buddha can kiss my ass also.
Comment by Joseph Patrick Daly — May 11, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
Blasphemy? Does this mean that I will not be able to repeat the historical facts that St Paul had an overactive imagination or that Muhammad was a paedophile?
But I suppose it will still be OK for Catholics to practice theophagy and Muslims to refer to Jews as “pig-dogs” because it’s their religious right to do so.
That’s the problem with Blasphemy laws. They are a license to offend and to persecute.
Comment by Allen Dave — May 11, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
If necessary, we’ll sue the Irish government in the ECHR, and request specially that they censure the fascists who want to rob us of free speech. The ECHR seems to be on the side of Justice, so our chances are good.
Comment by Kimpatsu — May 11, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
It is blasphemous to Jews, Christians and Muslims to say there are many gods, not just Jehovah/Allah. Does this mean all Hindus be prosecuted? It is blasphemous to Hindus to say there is only one god and Krisna, Parvati, Gnesha, Brahma etc do not exist. Will Abrahamistsbe prosecuted? No, I think it is going to be used against Atheists who make jokes about the imaginary friends of the deluded.
Comment by Kate Star — May 11, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Just find a situation where the Qur’an can be interpreted in a way that is blasphemous to a catholicism and then take a case against any Islamic organisation operating within Ireland. See how quickly the government will back peddle then.
Comment by puzlar — May 11, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Freedom of speech trumps the right to not to be offended. There’s no need to bring back a medieval notion of punishing those who speak out against religious dogma.
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Comment by Matt — May 11, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
You want to demonstrate the idiocy of the blasphemy laws? Then host a heavy metal concert.
Comment by Hoonser — May 11, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
All Ireland needs in times like these is a great leap back in time to a time when theocracy reigned supreme over the hoards of people too afraid to speak their minds. This ridiculous blasphemy legislation will provide no additional rights, it will only grossly limit the existing right of free speech guaranteed by our Constitution.
I would be hopeful that this blasphemy clause will be struck out of the final defamation bill, but if it isn’t, then ‘god’ help the court service when Constitutional cases start flooding in the doors of the Supreme Court!
We, as a nation of rights and opportunities, not let this mockery slip passed us unnoticed.
Comment by Emmet — May 11, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
INSANE
RELIGON HAS CAUSED MORE PAIN AND SUFFERING THAN ANYTHING
THE FIRST DICTATORSHIP
FEAR KILLS MAN
FAITH IS COURAGE IN ACTION OF THE UNKNOWN
KEEP THE FAITH
Comment by ANDREW BAIRD — May 11, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Jesus Mary and Joseph my arse! And you can sod Mohammed too.
And that’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it and to share it. And it’s no more peurile or insulting than the stupid insistence that the world was created in a day along with a talking snake and a woman made from a rib bone.
Virgin birth my arse!
(getting my blaspheming in while it’s still legal)
Magical flying horses my arse!
Comment by Numpty — May 11, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Ridiculous desperation makes fools of the religiously inspired.
Is their god that vulnerable to comment?…if so then they prove they have very little faith…some glorious god…but the same nonsense!
Ireland will make a laughing stock of itself if this abomination of extreme religious insanity goes through.
Comment by Nik Walker — May 11, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
There is no need for this legislation; the church will always have its place in Irish life, it doesn’t need to cosy up to the government for protection. Surely we are well past that.
Comment by Michael Williams — May 11, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Let’s make it real simple…the government (small “g”) has NO business with religion; contrariwise, it’s about time organized religion quits trying to interfere with government. Render unto Caesar, and all that…cheers from the U.S.
Comment by Xenocrates — May 11, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
If it is true that the Irish constitution requires the existence of a blasphemy law (very sad, if so) and that it is excessively difficult to modify the constitution to make it appropriate for a modern society (very much sadder) then is it too much to expect that at least the maximum penalty imposed by that law is appropriate to the seriousness of the crime? That is to say, a maximum fine of one Euro?
Comment by Stephen — May 11, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
51 comments and no one’s noticed that there are elections on?
Here’s one way you kill this law: make it an issue at the local and European elections.
Canvass candidates in your area on their opinion about the law. If they’re for it, put them on an electoral boycott list – no votes for them. If they’re against it – good on them, put them on a sane politician list.
That’s one angle. You can also write to the members of the Oireachtas committee debating the Ahern amendment (and start calling it that, so that Dermot Ahern knows that he’ll take personal damage if the amendment passes) and tell them that if they support the amendment, you’ll vote against their party’s candidates in the elections.
Longer term – we should call Ahern’s bluff. If it’s either the Ahern amendment or the blasphemy clause in Article 40 of the Constitution, then let’s amend Article 40 – as has been recommended by a Constitutional reform committee.
Comment by Woesinger — May 11, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Following the splendid initiative of Ariane Sherine, we recently organized a public subscription to put an anti-religious slogan on London buses, and it raised so much money, mostly in hundreds of small donations, that we broadened it out to include many of the larger cities in England and Scotland.
See http://richarddawkins.net/article,3494,Atheists-launch-bus-ad-campaign,Ariane-Sherine
The campaign has gone into temporary abeyance, but we are reviving it in the autumn.
One of your commenters here has already mentioned “Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime”, which is one of my favourite slogans. It so pithily and wittily encapsulates the truth. It would be PERFECT on the side of Dublin buses, but you need to act quickly.
Comment by Richard Dawkins — May 11, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
I’ve thought of an entertainingly insane way of demonstrating how stupid this is if it comes to power – take a leaf out of the pages of Monty Python’s Knights Who Say Ni, and insist the word “it” is evil. Insist that using “it” instead “the lord our saviour’s magnificent creation” is trivialising the wonder of the Lord’s creation, and is therefore blasphemous.
On a more serious note, bitch and whine to the media, and repeatedly point out the stupidity of it – I reckon too few people realise the implications of such a law. In fact, you could try, if you can get in the media spotlight, to show how it would mean that it would become illegal to criticise the claimed motives of Ted Bundy – after all, you’d be questioning the deeply held religious beliefs of his, wouldn’t you?
Comment by Will Buxton — May 11, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
My family goes back many generations in County Cork. I have considered not only visiting but investing in, and retiring to Ireland. I have gone so far as to investigate dual citizenship.
If Ireland’s government elects to return to the irrationality of allowing clerical “thinking” to rule the lives of her citizens then I shall abondon my plans altogether. I should think that Ireland, above many countries, would and will value her freedom far more than this proposal would suggest.
Comment by Mark Thyme — May 11, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Comment by Sundae Shields — May 11, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
As an atheist, I think they SHOULD be allowed to “resurrect” the ancient and asinine blasphemy laws.
Here’s why: SO MANY people of ALL faiths could / would be prosecuted under such a law simply by making statements of their own faith, which by their very nature blaspheme against every other faith, that it would reveal the law as an ass and those who support it as fools.
I should like to see these religidiots have their way so that we can have our fun watching them tie each other up in the knots of these senseless laws. They shall be hoisted by their own petards and we should laugh heartily at their stupidity!
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 11, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Re Comment 59 by Richard :- Are you already linked up with The Humanist Association of Ireland and their Unbelievable campaign on the Dart. They already have a poster campaign launched for Dart trains in the capital against the practice of judges and presidents of Ireland being obliged to take a religious oath. I guess they would already have done the research into the most effective way of getting a poster campaign going and would save a lot of time. I previously queried with Arianne whether the ABC was coming to Ireland and she said the ad agencies had not come forward with any routes / options for buses over here. Buses would give more exposure but Darts would be a good start.
Comment by Helen — May 11, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
I don’t know how much help I could be over here in Canada, but I’d like to pitch in if I can.
Comment by Dan — May 11, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
If you think what I say is blasphemy, stop listening.
Comment by Steve — May 11, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
With the thousands of religions in the world, the only way to satisfy every religion’s definition of blasphemy would be prosecuting any mention of any god and most of science, not to mention prosecuting wearing a combination of cloths or working on one of several “sacred” days as well as an encyclopedia of dietary prohibitions.
That is no life. Separation of church and state is the only principled stand.
I wish the best for you, Ireland.
Comment by David Byars — May 11, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
We should organize a day were all non-believers all at the same time claim that (1) all religions are superstition, (2) all superstition is nonsense, and (3) blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Since all religions claim that theirs is the “true” religion and everyone else’s religion is superstition. We may be able get the other 85% of the population to join in and make statements that all the other religions are superstitious nonsense.
No government can afford to put 15% (or 100%) of its population in jail and it will set a legal precedent that make any blasphemy law unenforceable.
Comment by gma — May 11, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
I think you could use the early Irish tradition of woman priesthood (e.g. St. Brigid) as a Trojan Horse so to speak to show how stupid the blasphemy laws are.
Today, the mere suggestion that women should be priests is blasphemous, so get in a very public row over this, and then appeal to Ireland’s historic pride.
Comment by flounder — May 11, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Freedom of speech must be cherished. Do not gag the words of peace.
Comment by Lyvvie — May 11, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
From the Irish Constitution:
“Freedom of speech: Guaranteed by Article 40.6.1. However, this may not be used to undermine “public order or morality or the authority of the State”. Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of “blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter” be a criminal offence (although in practice, this is widely ignored and unpunished).”
-So technically, this is already disregarded. Bring this fact up. Call it an outdated law, and point out a lack of legal precedent.
-Point out that blasphemy is the equivalent of slander or libel against a god. Insist that only the victim of the alleged slander/libel can file a complaint or lawsuit. “God” would have to represent itself unequivocally and file the grievance itself. No one should be able to claim offense on behalf of another.
-There is a difference between incitement to violence and merely saying something which could be considered offensive. The first is basically any statement which suggests or commands others to behave violently. The second is that which has the potential to hurt someone’s feelings to the point where they may become violent. There is a big difference.
-Blasphemy is subjective. You may consider a few cartoons about an alleged prophet to be offensive and damaging to your precious feelings. I certainly do not.
Good luck in opposing this silliness!
Comment by Andrew Bernhardtt — May 11, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
You cannot define blasphemy objectively because there is no agreement on what is sacred and what is not. A law forcing people to treat as sacred what is not sacred to them is ludicrous. You can legislate against killing, stealing or breaking contracts but not against a subjective impression that something one person holds sacred was treated otherwise by someone for whom it isn’t. The state can’t legislate against subjective impressions like that.
Comment by JARL — May 11, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
Would that law pass, that would be a terrible setback of western civilisation.
The Irish people must be protected from that law, believers and non believers alike.
On the plus side: make your own religion about whatever and become tyrannical with everybody else: no more mentioning the name of Dawkins in vain, ’cause he is your God!
Comment by Damien Cossart — May 11, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
If Ireland aspires to being like Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, then go for it. Blasphemy law has NO place in a democratic society. Keep Church and State separate, and don’t waste time defending a person’s desire to take offense in the name of an absent god.
Comment by Rob Schneider — May 11, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
24/7 Father Ted TV marathon.
Comment by Brian D — May 11, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
Well, this plastic paddy will be doing his best to get out the vote. I for one am becoming increasingly concerned about this drawing of parallels between homosexuals and other societal “deviants” as a reason to leave religion alone. A respected friend used it on me the other day and it had me stymied for about 5 minutes before I realised it was actually a fallacious argument. Self deception should never be a criteria for kid-gloves and pandering – stupid people can’t help being stupid, likewise for gay or otherwise inclined people (their orientation that is, not the stupid bit) but most religious zealots are perfectly capable of cognitive dissidence and their choice to believe in fairy-tales shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone, let alone by governments…
Comment by Chris Daley — May 11, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
I think Article 40 should be cut out of the constitution.
” while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”
Get rid of that fucking section start away.
Also get rid of the reference to god in the President’s oath.
Now that’s a referendum i’d vote in!
Comment by Irish Atheist — May 11, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
After blasphemy laws, what will follow? Laws against heresy?
Comment by thad peters — May 11, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Here are the emails of the members on the Select Committee that is discussing this matter:
thomas.byrne@oireachtas.ie,
niall.collins@oireachtas.ie,
sean.connick@oireachtas.ie,
jdeenihan@eircom.net,
bwk@eircom.net,
dinny.mcginley@oireachtas.ie,
michael.mulcahy@oireachtas.ie,
denis.naughten@oireachtas.ie,
darragh.obrien@oireachtas.ie,
boshea@eircom.net,
pat.rabbitte@oireachtas.ie,
noel.treacy@oireachtas.ie
You could try emailing them. In doing so, it will be important to address all three criteria Minister Ahern uses to define blasphemy.
(i) offensive to a religion, (ii) found offensive by a significant number of that religion, (iii) the statement or publication was made with the *intent* to cause outrage.
It is absurd and ridiculous for many reasons – not least because the terms are so poorly defined. But from the Ministers own writings, it seems likely he himself will disregard criticism that ignores the three criteria. So try to address them all in correspondence.
And explaining to Mujaahid why he is incorrect would be good sparring practice for discussions with other people – if we do manage to get this to a referendum, it’s an argument we’re all going to be having over and over again. People will tend to see it as fighting for the right to be obnoxious instead of fighting for a fundamental human right that should underpin any free society.
Religions do not need protection. People do. Religions do not have rights. People do.
Comment by thomas — May 11, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Free speech should not be neutered, especially in the name of a power that:
a) Should be able to stick up for itself
and
b) May not even exist
I mean, if you ARE actually insulting the creator of the universe, surely he/she/it doesn’t need some (incompetent) government run by we mere mortals to stick up for he/she/it.
If it turns out whatever religion you blaspheme is not the correct one, then what exactly have you done wrong? Called a bunch of lies a bunch of lies? That CERTAINLY warrants a fine of €1000 and having your house raided.
Comment by J Neary — May 11, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
God dammit. Can’t you people get anything right?
Comment by God — May 11, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Do not do this.
Comment by Piotr Geca — May 11, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Let me know where to join the campaign to call for a referendum.
The right to freedom of expression is what allows creativity, innovation, and discovery – all important for the resilience of any society.
It must be defended at any cost.
Oh, and Mujahid
Um, yes, it is.
And I insist on my right to be offended if that’s what it takes to defend the freedom of expression.
Comment by Scotlyn in Donegal — May 11, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
With this law, merely talking could become illegal. With all the weird things people believe, anything could be held as blasphemy.
Comment by Chris Shull — May 11, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
This is a disgrace. It’s 2009 and right-wing scumbags are still pushing to extinguish the basic right of free speech. Blasphemy is not a crime.
Comment by Jim — May 11, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
Absolutely ridiculous. It’s scary that a Western country in the 21st century is considering this, but, being from America myself, I can understand how this happens. Fundamentalism is thrashing in its death throes in the West. We have to make sure it doesn’t completely revive.
Comment by Maldoror — May 11, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
Let’s not legislate thought crime, shall we?
Comment by Cathal — May 11, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
NOBODY should be prohibited from criticizm, especially religion which is the main cause of strife in the world today. To speak ones mind is a fundamental right in a free society, it allows free discussion on controversial topics that may not be heard otherwise and challenge flawed idiosyncrasies that may be a harmful force otherwise.
Comment by Frank W. Gurliacci — May 11, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
Well, if the law passes, at least all of us here in the first world will still be able to make fun of you and yours!
Comment by Brendan O'Shea — May 11, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
I find myself shocked that a developed country such as modern day Ireland could even contemplate taking such a huge step backwards in terms of freedom of expression. A ridiculous law with zero chance of enforcement is pointless and a waste of time and money. Nobody should have their right to free speech curtailed and, correct me if I’m wrong, there is already a law preventing incitement to hatred, so why should criticism be banned so long as it doesn’t instruct people to attack others? Basically I’m worried that this law will lead to a country where religion has free rein to say anything offensive about what they believe, but are protected from any criticism under penalty of financial ruin.
What constitutes a religion? Are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jedi, Scientologists, Pastafarians, Sun Worshipers, Pagans, etc etc equally protected under this law? Who decides what is a religion? How do they decide it?
Comment by Shane — May 11, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
I think an 18th-century quote that meant a great deal to us Americans during the Bush years applies here:
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
If blasphemy is outlawed, surely sacrilege must be next? Will non-Muslim and non-Hindu citizens and residents of Ireland be forced to give up pork and beef? Or is this a step back toward a one-dimensional theocracy, with laws protecting only the fragile faith and self esteem of Christians in general or Catholics alone?
It is a self-evident truth that people in any modern society should have the right to protection from violence and social and economic discrimination based on their religion (or lack thereof), but no one has a right to protection from hurt feelings if that means infringing on the free speech of fellow citizens. If a religious idea is worth protecting, let the people who hold that idea stand up and defend it themselves instead of hiding behind the government’s skirts.
Comment by Jane — May 11, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
I’m an Irish Catholic, and I think this is utterly ridiculous. If they’re looking to spit on the idea of free speech, this is the way to do it.
Comment by Connie — May 11, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
This is absolutely ridiculous! There is absolutely no basis for such a backwards law. What kind of image of Ireland is this giving to the rest of Europe…that we evidently have not progressed from the god fearing days of yore. I could have sworn the Government had more to be concerning themselves with while Ireland is struggling to survive in this Recession but clearly I was wrong…
Comment by Edel — May 11, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
Blasphemy is not just a right – it is a *duty*.
The crushing irony here is that on the one hand we are trying to break down stereotypes, to see people as individuals, not as conglomerated “muslims”, “christians”, “atheists”, etc, yet we have a proposal that wishes *specifically* to conglomerate people, label them by some perceived – or *imposed* – identity, and have the state take umbrage on behalf of the most extreme members.
It is a ghastly assault. Religions do not have rights – PEOPLE do.
Comment by Shane McKee — May 11, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
This legislation is a slap in the face for freedom of expression. I will not vote for any politician or party supporting this nonsense law.
Comment by Will Nolan — May 11, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
This law will push Ireland onto that slippery slop that will dump them back into the Dark Ages. The Inquistions are proof of that. 700 years of blasphemy laws did nothing more then oppress people with physical and mental torture.
Also, please, let’s not forget Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afgahanstan, and all of the other middle eastern countries who’s laws are based on Islam. NOT PRETTY! It’s a perfect example of the Dark Ages.
Learn from our mistakes of the past people.
This law must not pass.
Comment by Heather — May 11, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
We all have the right to believe what we wish and the right to disagree with another’s belief. Disagreement and difference of opinion is at the heart of a functioning democracy- this legislation would outlaw debate and should be resisted for the good of Ireland’s democracy.
Comment by Morgan McBride — May 11, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
If this is declared law, just have many people set up their own religions. Start an inherently homosexual religion, that preaches the gays are God’s chosen people, and then have homophobes charged with blasphemy. Start another religion based around evolution, stating that it reveals God’s divine plan, then have the creationists charged with blasphemy. In fact, start a religion that holds free speech to be the most important, God-given law, then have the government charged with blasphemy for having a blasphemy law in the first place.
Comment by Shaun — May 11, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
“You could try emailing them. In doing so, it will be important to address all three criteria Minister Ahern uses to define blasphemy.”
I would try snail-mail as well if possible; I received a few replies, but I’m not sure if most of the emails were even read (didn’t get any read receipts anyway).
P.
Comment by Paul Moloney — May 11, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
This has got to be one of the scariest things I’ve heard about in a long time.
“Blasphemous matter” is defined as 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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”
This is insanity, what the hell type of government are these people pushing?
Comment by Nicholas — May 11, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
Super pious Catholistic T.D.s are atrocious.
How long is it since rape allegations by Catholic priests caused “outrage amongst a substantial number of the adherents of” Catholicism? This proposed legislation contains the warrant for the suppression of free speech, legitimate criticism of religion, and, worst of all, telling the truth about the misbehaviour of clerics.
The social progress that has been made in Ireland in my living memory has been made in the very teeth of “outrage amongst a substantial number” of craw-thumping Holy Joes who would ram their particular brand of Opus Dei cilice-wearing sexuality-denying mental illness and stupidity down the throat of every person in the country. If it were up to “them”, not only would there be no johnny machine in the jax in the local, but you couldn’t buy any form of contraceptives. People forget how recently it was that you needed a f**king prescription for a pack of rubbers.
On top of this is the fact that this staggering stupidity has not gone unnoticed internationally. It has done untold damage to Ireland’s image overseas to be seen as a backward theocratic shithole, rather than a modern progressive secular democracy. In the current economic situation, what was Dermot “Pious Gobshite” Ahern thinking? Way to paint Ireland as “the Silicon Valley of Europe” there, asshole, by introducing some nice medieval legislation!
Comment by Emmet Caulfield — May 11, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
Is this the 21st century or have I slipped into a timewarp?
Please, let reason trump the alleged “hurt feelings” of a few extremist christians.
Comment by Andrew — May 11, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
It wasn’t long ago that Ireland was feared for because of the prominence of religious zealotry. Let’s not awaken the zombies of the past.
Comment by Myron — May 12, 2009 @ 12:40 am
As an American of Irish descent I have always wanted to visit Ireland. I will want that less if that law passes. And I’ve almost finished school, so I’ll be able to afford it soon.
Comment by funkotron — May 12, 2009 @ 12:43 am
Stand on a street corner and yell “Zeus is a c*ck sucker!” and then have your buddy say, “Hey, I worship Zeus, that’s BLASPHEMY!”
Then stand in front of the government building and yell, “Cthullu is a NICE guy who NEVER devoured any other gods!” and your buddy next to you yells, “Cthullu can EAT your god! That’s BLASPHEMY! Where is my legal protection?!?!?”
Or start a business and put up a sign that says “We do not serve Jedi’s here because they suck.” Then your buddy, the Jedi, can SUE you for BLASPHEMY!!!
The way to show the ridiculousness of a blasphemy law is to be ridiculous.
Comment by Janus — May 12, 2009 @ 12:59 am
What’s all this now? I’m in America and my brother has assured me on a number of occasions that Ireland is cooler in a lot of ways than the US.
So what’s the goal Ireland are you trying to look bigoted now or what?
Comment by Zack — May 12, 2009 @ 1:15 am
Stand on a street corner and yell “Zeus is a c*ck sucker!” and then have your buddy say, “Hey, I worship Zeus, that’s BLASPHEMY!”
Actually, why not stand on a street corner and jump up and down saying “Jesus is a cock-sucker” and “bugger the so-called ‘virgin’ Mary up the well-fucked asshole”? When/if you get to court, just say that your intention was to illustrate the futility and stupidity of the law, not to cause offence, and, with the intentionality clause of the proposed legislation, it seem that they would simply have to acquit.
The proposed law is farcical, but not a harmless farce; rather one that severely damages the perception of Ireland abroad. Ahern is a dangerously oblivious fool not to have foreseen the damage that this could do to the national reputation overseas.
Comment by Emmet Caulfield — May 12, 2009 @ 1:17 am
Thanks for the comments so far. We will soon convey these, along with other comments and feedback, to the Irish government.
Thanks also for the suggestions so far. I will summarise these in another post later today and post that summary here for further discussion.
We are planning public meetings in Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway in the coming weeks. If you want to help organise or promote these please let us know.
Thanks again for the feedback and keep it coming. We will intensify this campaign in the coming weeks and together we will build an ethical, secular Ireland.
Comment by Michael Nugent — May 12, 2009 @ 1:42 am
There is nothing more backward about the United States than our Puritanical leanings and weak maintenance of church-state separation. Why, Ireland, would you want to sacrifice such a key element in the European sense of superiority to Americans?
Comment by Philip Tucker — May 12, 2009 @ 1:52 am
Punishing people for blasphemy puts the country back centuries, not to mention many kilometres, to the Spanish Inquisition. The time for persecuting people with different religious beliefs is over, and this will be viewed by the United Nations (and probably the EU) as a violation of human rights.
Comment by Sandy Hildebrandt — May 12, 2009 @ 3:29 am
Ridicule might help; perhaps someone adept at catchy doggerel could form a bludgeon out of:
Guffa cod, guffa cod
can’t be read on air.
blasphemy says churchman;
for god’s a special word
god must always stand alone,
without that damn suffix;
to put a fac in god is wrong
just ain’t no fac in god
Comment by George Atkinson — May 12, 2009 @ 3:32 am
I hope everyone there recognizes that Ireland is falling for the Islamic lies. I predict that in 15 to 20 years the Muslims will rule Ireland and England…bye bye boys. I also predict that this effort you are putting on will fail because the government really doesn’t care what the peons want, they just want to muzzle all dissent. As my grandpa would say; “you’re bloody well screwed mates”
Comment by Bill Galloway — May 12, 2009 @ 3:48 am
“Religious Freedom” is a meaningless word unless everyone has it — and that includes the freedom to dissent from it all and be a non-believer.
Comment by SourBlaze — May 12, 2009 @ 5:02 am
I don’t know what kind of rhetoric they are tossing about in Ireland, but it occurs to me that these are special rights they are trying to legislate – like how OUR (American) religious nutbags say gay marriage is a special right. It is the protectionism of religion from criticism which NO other group enjoys. If your Democracy is like ours (dog help you) then playing the favoritism card might have some legs unless your courts are stacked with right wing butt plugs too.
Comment by Eric Paulsen — May 12, 2009 @ 5:56 am
Short of burning down churches and shooting priests, you can mount an attack by pointing out how the catholic church is a haven for paedophilic priests. Then ask if you’d like child rapists to hide behide the protection of a sacrosanct religion.
Comment by Dougal Meaney — May 12, 2009 @ 7:45 am
The minute the law starts holding the rights and wellbeing of an abstract idea above the rights and wellbeing of people we’re all in big trouble. Contrary to the claims of the supporters of this law, no-one has (or should have) the right not to be challenged or offended. Everyone has a right to speak their opinion. The appropriate response even to harsh criticism is of course to criticize back, but this law will give a license to religious groups to respond with heavy punitive measures instead of defending their opinions with civility.
Good luck, Ireland. I dearly hope this works out for the best.
Comment by burann — May 12, 2009 @ 8:55 am
Dear Irish government, good luck with the bill. although I have said that I really rather you wouldn’t persecute and imprison people in my name. yours truely (SIC), the flying spaghetti monster.
Comment by Tony B - UK — May 12, 2009 @ 9:11 am
This is like an Irish joke playing out in real life, only far more tragic.
This makes Irish democracy laughable.
Comment by Thommo — May 12, 2009 @ 9:20 am
The very idea of blasphemy is blasphemous.
Comment by Helgi Briem — May 12, 2009 @ 9:41 am
God is a Cunt.
Christianity is a dangerous myth that promotes a psychopathic deity.
Islam is also a dangerous myth, Mohammed was a child molestor, and the Islamic God is the same psychopathic monster postulated by the Christians.
I make the same statement about every other religion on the planet, with the obvious exception of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Let us start a blasphemy campaign, and present an overwhelming potential floodgates scenario, and render the legislation impossible to enforce.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 12, 2009 @ 10:08 am
Surely is it not our right to go out of our way to offend, anybody or anything as long as it stays within the laws of libel/slander. “If God existed He would have given us A smaller mind to think with and a bigger ass to sit on” PJ O’Rourke – the right to offend should be guarded and even encouraged.
Comment by Seanie Dowling — May 12, 2009 @ 10:25 am
If this law is passed then the members of the Irish Government should wear court jester’s uniforms to signal their medieval attitudes.
Comment by Martin Dickinson — May 12, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Implement a blasphemy law or change the constitution?
I say CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.
If blasphemy is legislated against, anything becomes fair play for those who have no interest in freedom of thought or freedom of speech. I would like to think that we live in a society where our Government would defend someone like Salman Rushdie rather than criminalise him.
Comment by Colm Ryan — May 12, 2009 @ 10:45 am
I think you could use the early Irish tradition of woman priesthood (e.g. St. Brigid) as a Trojan Horse so to speak to show how stupid the blasphemy laws are.
Today, the mere suggestion that women should be priests is blasphemous, so get in a very public row over this, and then appeal to Ireland’s historic pride.
Comment by flounder — May 11, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
BLASPHEMER!
Brigid was a Gaelic goddess and not a christian priest*!
*… wasn’t she?
Anyway, I’m offended by your comment. Prepare for a search and seizure by the Gardai and break open your piggy bank…
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 12, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Your religion insults me. Boot the Catholic church out of Ireland.
Comment by Stef — May 12, 2009 @ 10:55 am
This is a disgrace. It’s 2009 and right-wing scumbags are still pushing to extinguish the basic right of free speech. Blasphemy is not a crime.
Comment by Jim — May 11, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
Jim, the right wing have no monopoly on this kind of politically correct bullshit. You should note that the movement to “tolerate” and “respect” faiths is in fact a left-wing movement initially. It is part of the cultural relativist movement that destroyed intellectual rigour, university departments, and common sense over the last few decades.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 12, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Please do not do this, I like having some pride in where I come from.
Comment by Gordon — May 12, 2009 @ 11:03 am
The constitutional argument is nonsense. There is no precedent where the courts can order the legislature to pass a law. It would be a clear violation of separation of powers. The ruling stated that they could not convict unless they changed the law. But that does not compel the legislature to act so that it is otherwise
Comment by Garlandgreen — May 12, 2009 @ 11:24 am
WTF, blasphemy? Did i land in Riyadh? By the way, could you do something about the alcohol laws (Friday the 10th of April was my birthday and i couldn t get wine to go with my steak)?
Comment by Pedro, Athlone, 4th generation atheist — May 12, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Remind us again Mr Ahern, what crime was it that sent Jesus, Joan of Arc and Giordano Bruno to their deaths?
Comment by Sigmund — May 12, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
As an Irishman who has been living in the UK for a few years I have to say I’m shocked by this proposed new law, honestly when I first heard about it I thought it was a April fools joke that I’d come across a few days too late. I know the economy has gone downhill recently but that hardly justifies a full scale retreat to our church ridden past.
Please tell the TD’s to throw this law out if they want to retain any of their already threadbare credibility.
If they Dail does pass this I suggest that on the day it becomes law many of us as possible, perhaps with a few well known and well respected figures from the scientific and artistic communities, should publically break the law and dare the authorities to do something about it. Perhaps some T-shirts could be run up for the occasion, which a variety of slogans deriding different religeons and blasting their adherants as fools.
Comment by Paul Browne — May 12, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Minister Ahern – We’re not fooled. We know this is a cynical attempt to (a) distract us all from the awful job the government is doing, and (b) kill off the Defamation Bill. Please stop it, right now.
If God exists, he can punish me for cursing his name himself. Can’t he?
Comment by Alex Nesbitt — May 12, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
It’s the year 2009..
And the Irish government seeks to reinstate an ancient law.
A law in support of illogical delusions of imaginary friends.
A law in support of the millions worldwide, who are – this minute, murdering and martyr-ing over which of them has the better imaginary friend..
I sincerely fear the injustice this will bring to Irish children.
Irish children, who upon raising questions on the religious viewpoints of their parents, will no doubt be subjected to even more abuse and cruelty by their religious fundamentalist parents.
For should this blasphemy law come to fruition – the fundamentalist shall see it as their right; their law abiding obligation, to punish the child who blasphemes.
For from now on, anything done in Ireland “in the name of the lord” will become sanctimonious and unquestionable, not only the eyes of their “god”, but also in the eyes of the law.
It is a sad day in the shoes of those abused children and wives of religious fundamentalists.
It is a sad day in the shoes of seekers of science, truth, knowledge, and forward thinking.
It is a sad day in the shoes of all those who hold morals, free speech, intelligence, human integrity, and above all – humanity – dear to their hearts.
Today,
I am ashamed to call myself an Irish citizen.
Comment by Maria — May 12, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
The UK has just got rid of the medieval blasphemy law; why is the Emerald Isle so determined to go back into the Dark Ages?
Some favourite quotes below.
There once was a time when all people believed in god and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages – Richard Lederer
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest – Denis Diderot
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful – Edward Gibbon.
With all best wishes for a successful campaign.
Malcolm Dodd
Comment by Malcolm Dodd — May 12, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
I will help with this in anyway possible. Maybe the government might rethink things if parents begin refusing medicine for their innocent child based on ancient bronzed age beliefs, what must we do then? remain quiet and respect their beleifs? I think not.
Comment by Carl Keenan — May 12, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
I can only hope the Minister is introducing Blasphemy legislation in an attempt to highlight the stupidity of existing law and to galvanise opponents.
We don’t want to live in a radical religious state!
Comment by Fergal Breen — May 12, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
This is unbelievable, the dark ages all over again.
This opens the door for any unjustified, unverifiable belief or practice to do as they please. Even worse, the people who want to make justified choices facing the future of us all is going to have to take their arguments not even as equal to the unjustified ones (which is already an outrage), but will have to actually step back to give room to arbitrary practices and ideas that have no back up whatsoever in warranting that they’ll do any good for us.
Comment by Carlos Antonio Galeano Ríos — May 12, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Isn’t there a religion that teaches that laughter is a sin? Will that religion be protected as well? Surely a law that doesn’t respect all religions equally cannot be just, if the reasoning for the law is that not respecting a religion is so intolerable that punishment is needed. If insulting someones religion is so intolerable how can the law possibly give respect to one religion over another? I assume that there are religious beliefs that conflict, will the law be explicit regarding which belief shall be respected and which belief will be required to suffer an intolerable sin?
It would seem that only a theocracy could possibly have a legitimate blasphemy law.
Comment by Doug Jensen — May 12, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
What Minister Ahern is proposing is a mirror image of the Norwegian attempt, at he turn of the year, to introduce an expansion of Norway’s excitement-to-hatred legislation “so that the provision attends to the need for criminal protections against qualified attack on religions and life outlooks.”
Bloggers’ protests against this proposed attack on freedom of speech resulted in the withdrawal of the proposal. (See http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/02/norway-bloggers-and-blasphemy.html.)
Legislation has satisfied the requirement of our Constitution since the passing of the now unenforceable Defamation Act in 1961. We must persuade the minister that there is no urgent need to change the law in view of the removal recommendations of the Law Reform Commission and the Constitution Review Group; and to let sleeping gods (sic!) lie until we can afford a referendum.
Comment by Paddy Crean — May 12, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Indeed Paddy. Maybe some contact with other bodies would show how widespread opposition is. Perhaps if student unions and various faith groups (some of whom must surely be in opposition to this proposal) would be so good as to append their names to a petition, it could be of more use in swaying opinions in the Oireachtas.
Any ideas as to how to go about contacting such groups – and which groups would be worth contacting?
Comment by thomas — May 12, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
I would point out that blasphemy is a victimless crime if I thought the faithful could appreciate the logic.
A more sensible argument is to say it would be a totalitarian act to suppress anyone’s right to freely express a thought, any thought, no matter how offensive one might find another’s views. If there is any hell to pay for observing one’s freedom to blaspheme then it is not for man to decide. The appropriate punishment will surely be meted out by whichever vain god-of-the-day holds reign once said “offender” reaches the afterlife.
For me, the test of a moral law is that it makes good common sense for maintaining a civilized society. If it is only there to kowtow to religious dogma and nothing more then it is immoral and should not be a law.
Any institution that requires a law to to protect it from criticism either has something to hide or is plainly a coward. The proposed law needs to be ridiculed by calling it something like “The Religious Bullying Law”. Everyone knows bullies are cowards.
Comment by Vern — May 12, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
How about this: Enact a blasphemy law, but with the following provisions – when a defendant is charged with blasphemy, it shall be the plaintiff’s responisbility to ensure the appearance of the deity involved to affirm the degree to which she or he was offended by the defendant. Such testimony must be in person, not delivered by means of scripture, omens, oracles, auguries, prophets, priestesses, priests, poobahs or any other mortal agent. The plaintiff is likewise not allowed to speak for the deity.
In the absence of testimony from the deity, the plaintiff is responsible for all court costs plus a nuisance fee for wasting averyone’s time.
Comment by Jorjor — May 12, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
When the U.N. proposed it’s global blasphemy law I had hoped that the Irish government would have decried it outright. I was mistaken. It has now taken it upon itself to drive our nation back into the thirties. Freedom of speech is one of the pillars of a modern and just secular society. It comes with it’s limitations granted. Hate speech is prohibited and I do support that. But this bill were it brought into law would render religious ideas as free from criticism and more important than secular ones.
I’ll give you an example. The vitamin pill entrepreneur and criminal Matthias Rath has gained notoriety by asserting that anti-retro virals were poisonous and that they were a western conspiracy to kill patients and make money for big pharma.
“AIDS is the opposite of anecdote. Twenty-five million people have died from it already, three million in the last year alone, and 500,000 of those deaths were children. In South Africa it kills 300,000 people every year: that’s eight hundred people every day, or one every two minutes. This one country has 6.3 million people who are HIV positive, including 30 per cent of all pregnant women. There are 1.2 million AIDS orphans under the age of seventeen. Most chillingly of all, this disaster has appeared suddenly, and while we were watching: in 1990, just 1 per cent of adults in South Africa were HIV positive. Ten years
later, the figure had risen to 25 per cent.” – Ben Goldacre
This leads me to the pope. I wasn’t a big fan of the pope, but after I heard of his recent mission to Africa I positively loath the man. The pope said the condition was “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”. If I was to assert that I think the man should be arrested I would be too, under this new law. (He also suggests that people in the country give up superstitious beliefs which leads me to suspect that he was mining for irony on his trip but that’s another matter.)
Were this law to pass I would not be able to speak my mind in public for fear of being arrested and fined. I have talked to a good many people atheist and religious alike that oppose this law. Under this law even the most benign speech about human rights under Islam and sharia law would make me branded an Islamophobe and a racist. The more fundamentalist minds still would except under this law they would have the right to prosecute me. Sam Harris advocates a conversational intolerance where personal convictions are scaled against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded equally in religious views and non-religious views. He also argues for the need to counter inhibitions that prevent the open critique of religious ideas, beliefs, and practices under the auspices of “tolerance.” This is the my position.
I would not want to live in this country for much longer if this law were brought to pass. A country where the scientologists that have taken root here are absolved from criticism or a country where children of Jehova’s Witnesses who are refused a blood transfusion by their parents are free from prosecution. What about a country where outrage is fostered and encouraged instead of healthy open debate? A country where creationism can worm its way into Irish classrooms and the minds of Irish children.
Lets not forget that religious people wont be absolved from this law either. Would not a muslim take offense at the christians assertion that the prophet muhammed is a false one? Or the jews at the christians assertion that they killed their lord? Or the Christians at the jews who think they have a special covenant with god? Or the jews at the muslims for proclaiming islam to be the final word of god?
“Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit.”
That sounds “reasonable”. It would be more reasonable still if the whole thing was scraped all together.
Dale O’Flaherty
Irish atheist, humanist, lover of freedom and free speach
Comment by Dale O'Flaherty — May 12, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Shocked and disgusted. I can’t believe what this Irish goverment has brought on it’s people. We have had teh scandals involving the Work houses and the priest sex abuse scandal and now they want to protect the religious people even more.
Hopefully they will see sense and not bring in this awful bill and will instead opt for a referendum to remove references of about god from the constitution
Comment by Paul Cullen — May 12, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
Has anyone started a petition to seek a referendum at the next election, with the aim of removing the requirement to make blasphemy illegal? If not, would you sign such a petition?
Comment by brendan strong — May 12, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Freedom of religion also means being free to not be religious.
Comment by Mary T — May 12, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
there was a time when the churches held sway over the people…it was called “THE DARK AGES”
if this bill is passed we need to organise a mass (excuse the pun) breaking of the law to force the issue
Comment by abbadd0n — May 12, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
How can you mock Xenu or describe mythologies without offending somebody’s invisible friend? Until you can show why it is not a superstition, you must allow citizens to treat religion as they would any other opinion, fanciful notion or heartfelt superstitious beliefs. All invisible undetectable entities should be subject to the same laws. After all, how can you distinguish such an entity from an imaginary entity? What comprehensible reason can there be for making an exception for one such “proposed entity”? If gods are real, than they can fight there own battles… I don’t think they need governmental reinforcement. And I think most believers want the freedom to criticize other wacky beliefs– so of course, they must expect that people will want the same freedom regarding the beliefs they hold dear. Freedom of speech isn’t just for those who agree with you.
Comment by articulett — May 13, 2009 @ 12:10 am
Here is a link to 100 ideas and arguments to stop the Irish blasphemy law from being passed, based on the many suggestions posted so far. The best of these ideas will form the basis of our campaign in the coming weeks. They are grouped into:
Campaign Slogans
Campaign Ideas
Political Lobbying
Religious Arguments
Social Arguments
Political Arguments
Legal Arguments
Matter that could be Illegal
Quotes about Blasphemy
Summary
Click here for the 100 ideas and arguments.
Please let us know what you think of them. Also, keep posting comments here, and we will pass them on to the Government.
Comment by Michael Nugent — May 13, 2009 @ 12:43 am
Blasphemy? You mean against natural selection? That’s the only truth anyone needs. If one is so insecure as to cling to fairy tales such as the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and God, perhaps it would be best if the government reminded the minions that no one is taking care of them, least of all the government, and that it is best to wake up and smell the coffee (or tea). It is not painful and the truth shall set you free.
Comment by Maureen O'Hara — May 13, 2009 @ 12:50 am
Another strategy: Play by their rules.
If blasphemy is back in, presumably because it’s in god’s Top 10, why not propose an amendment to the bill that ALSO makes it punishable by death to be found guilty of working on the sabbath?
See if THAT bill passes.
Comment by Vern — May 13, 2009 @ 5:26 am
I only want one thing, for people of religion to keep it to themselves. Believe in bronze-age fairytales if you really must, but don’t try to tell me that they should form the basis of law or public policy.
Comment by Telboy — May 13, 2009 @ 7:23 am
Well, Jesus fucking Mary blowing Peter… Another foolish attempt ban free speech?
Free speech is a supporting pillar to a free and open society; when that is taken away, no longer do you have a free and open society. So-called “blasphemy” is merely free speech that religious people don’t like. I might even say that free speech is sacred.
Good luck, Ireland.
Comment by ArchangelChuck — May 13, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
I think that the eyecatching aspect of “blasphemy” that is contained in this legislation is actually distracting from the fact that there is a more fundamental principle of freedom at stake here.
Simply put, outraging someone is not an offence to be punished by law. The courts have absolutely no business establishing if the feelings of a group of people have been sufficiently hurt in order to find someone else guilty of an offence. Whether the so-called offence arises with respect to religion, politics, sexual behaviour, etc. is merely a function of that basic premise.
Comment by Longman Oz — May 14, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Ok, some bumper sticker ideas:
1. A picture of a guy hitting his thumb with a hammer, with the words below: “Say ‘goddammit’ and GO TO JAIL!”
2. “WJGAD?” – Would Jesus give a damn?
3. “My god says your god IS blasphemous”
4. “Insult a Jedi and GO TO JAIL!”
5. “Your choice for EuroVison sucks” = OK!
“YOur choice of god sucks” = JAIL!
6. Got Blasphemy?
7. “If Blasphemy is so bad, why does it feel so good?”
-ok, nuff for now. Must…. stop…. procrastinating … at… work…..
Comment by Janus — May 15, 2009 @ 1:15 am
@Janus: Another favourite of mine:
“Blasphemy…Blasphe-you…Blasphe-everybody!”
;o)
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 15, 2009 @ 1:54 am
Sorry for the above
Comment by Jack Butler — May 15, 2009 @ 2:09 am
‘lo all!
I’m delighted to finally find a community of people in Ireland willing to stand up for reason and free speech. Horrified, I was when I found out about Dermot Ahern’s proposed legislation. It was only a matter of time I suppose before the dangerous nonsense of censorship disguised as tolerance turned up close to home. Anyhow, before I found you guys, I wrote to the minister myself – an act of uncharacteristic activism. If you knew me you’d know how positively meek I usually am. Some things are too important to be meek about though. I’m including the e-mail I sent for your perusal. Please contact me if I can help in any other ways.
Dear Mr. Ahern,
I’m writing to express my concern regarding your proposed anti-blasphemy legislation.
Naturally, I understand why you fell these measures are necessary. After so many years of what was basically a homogeneous society, Ireland is finally becoming more multicultural. This is a wonderful thing but of course it presents many challenges for the government. Now that our society includes people from such a variety of backgrounds, of course the views of racist and intolerant people will come to light. Discrimination is a terrible thing and every decent and enlightened person finds hate-speech abhorrent. We must all be respectful of each other’s differences and I agree that the government would be failing in its duty to the people if it did not protect the minorities in society.
That said, I must explain why I and a great many of my peers feel that these measures are both misguided and dangerous. The legislation you propose can only be described as censorship, plain and simple. There is a difference between hate-speech and criticism. No right-minded person would discriminate against someone for their religion or suggest that they not be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they choose. Anyone should be allowed to engage in any practice they wish provided it is legal and does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. The problem with religion is that too often it endorses intolerance, violence, hatred and persecution all under the guise of faith. This legislation aside, it is already strictly taboo to criticise someone’s actions when done in the name of faith, no matter how illogical or unpleasant. This practice should not be encouraged! Religion can be an extremely dangerous thing, not just in the hands of evil people but on the contrary, quite often in those of the devout. It’s been said before that in a secular world, good people would do good things and evil people would do evil things, but to make a good person do an evil thing; that takes religion. I myself do not hold any supernatural beliefs, I consider all faiths equally ridiculous, but I would never be rude or hateful to someone who did hold such beliefs. Despite this, I value my right to speak out, not against the people, but the religion itself.
I’m not objecting simply on the principle that censorship of any kind is wrong (which it is). I’m objecting to the fact that you will be giving free rein to any number of dangerous ideologies and criminalising those who wish to temper these notions with criticism and debate. I find many sentiments expressed by the religious absolutely disgusting but I maintain that they should be allowed to express them just as I should be allowed to criticise them. The Pope is entitled to say that though AIDS is terrible, condoms are worse. Muslims around the world are entitled to say that Salman Rushdie should die for writing a work of fiction in a free country, that a husband is entitled to rape his wife, that genital mutilation is a good thing, that all apostates must be stoned to death (although noone gave them the option of not becoming a muslim in the first place! Why is it that we think it’s fine to indoctrinate a child or label them with the religion of their parents?). I must in turn be allowed to say that these ideas are disgusting, that they offend me. Opinions are one thing but acting on them is quite another and protecting such opinions is tantamount to endorsing these terrible actions.
You proposals come, I imagine, from fear of us being labelled intolerant otherwise, or perhaps fear of the retribution that this perceived intolerance may bring. No! This is the time when we should stand up and say that people are not entitled to indulge in violence just because their feeling are hurt, not simply avoid saying what often needs to be said. It’s more difficult, yes, but it’s the right thing to do. To do otherwise would be cowardly. I consider a certain amount of conversational intolerance to be a healthy thing. Is religion so fragile that it cannot stand simply being questioned? People should be able to have a conversation about something as important as this. Why can’t we criticise religion? Just… because?! We cannot impose censorship on our free state because we fear people’s feelings will be hurt. Our opinions are insulted all the time! We don’t cry about it. We engage in debate, we defend our convictions. Why is it that religion is the only thing that is entitled to this luxury of protection? Criticism is not persecution. Why is it that the only opinions you propose protecting are the unjustified ones? That’s what faith is; belief without justification. Somehow we’ve made a virtue of this and now you propose persecuting anyone who questions it.
I apologise if the tone of this e-mail seems a little aggressive in places but I feel very strongly about this issue and if you are successful in passing this legislation I’ll not legally be able to express these feelings in the future. I’m very proud of being Irish. I will be less proud if these measures come to pass. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I dearly hope that you will take what I’ve said seriously.
Sincerely…
Comment by Maria Power — May 15, 2009 @ 3:24 am
Might be helpful if I made my email address known… bah, ’tis late and my brain, she is fuzzy.
maire(dot)de(dot)paor(at)gmail(dot)com
(dot)(dot)(dot)
Comment by Maria Power — May 15, 2009 @ 3:29 am
“Blasphemy is a victimless crime.” Always been my hot favourite for slogan choice.
Comment by Maria Power — May 15, 2009 @ 3:31 am
Just been doing a little research on Dermot Ahern, pretty scary that our minister for JUSTICE is a homophobe who considers gayness “to be an abnormality, some type of psycho-sexual problem that has defied explanation over the years”.
He goes on:
“I do not believe that the Irish people desire this normalisation of what is clearly an abnormality. Homosexuality is a departure from normality and while homosexuals deserve our compassion they do not deserve our tolerance.”
Someone’s got the crazies.
Comment by Maria Power — May 15, 2009 @ 4:12 am
Last comment for now, bedtime is nigh. Any talk of upcoming protests? Are people in the process of organising any? I fear if we don’t become more vocal in the public sphere we may be ignored.
Night night.
Comment by Maria Power — May 15, 2009 @ 4:36 am
It’s my understanding that the founders of the state intended it to be a republic with no established religion and no favour to one set of religious beliefs over any others. Maybe some members of Fianna Fail are familar with the words of the 1916 Proclamation: “The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens”.
The tragedy of Ireland in the 20th century was that it was allowed to be, in effect, ruled by the Catholic hierarchy. The fate of Noel Browne’s Mother-and-Child scheme is an infamous example. For several decades, abuses by the Catholic clergy (not just sexual abuse, but abuse of political power by unelected individuals) were allowed to go unchallenged. Women teachers in Catholic schools were dismissed from their jobs if they became pregnant outside marraige. The Magdalen laundries were effectively concentration camps, and police assisted in enforcing this form of imprisonent even though it had no legal basis. Open criticism of the Catholic church in Ireland only became at all widespread in vere recent decades.
Many freedoms that Irish people take for granted (divorce, contraception, legalisation of homosexuality) were fought for as recently as the 1970’s, 80’s and even 90’s. And they were fought for in the teeth of Catholic opposition. Free speech is another of these. The courage of some people to criticise the Catholic church was an essential factor in winning these freedoms. It was also an essential factor in bringing to light the Church’s appalling crimes against women and children, which for many decades were veiled by a conspiracy of silence. As Christy Moore’s still-chilling song “Middle of the Island” has it: “Everybody knew but no-one said.”
The Irish owe so much to those who spoke out against religion. Do not make them criminals.
Comment by Brian Garvey — May 15, 2009 @ 11:15 am
The bill is fatuous and should not enter Irish law. By all means believe in the tooth fairy or whatever but I should be under no obligation to humour your fantasies. The notion that religious thought should have a privileged position in public discourse is repugnant in a democratic republic.
Comment by Philip Quinlan — May 16, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
If somebody is a Christian, they would believe that God is all powerful and therefor what capability would a human being have to injure the majesty of an all powerful God, by seeking to insult that God by making written or verbal comments, basically none in my opinion. Furthermore, if the Christian God is all powerful and somebody is making written or verbal comments, which are insulting to the Christian God, God if he or she is so minded, can organize a thunderbolt or whatever to strike down the transgressor or wait till he or she passes away of old age and see they are sent to hell and roasted over hot coals for all eternity. The only people I can see that would be be genuinely enthusiastic about the proposed legislation, is the sort of people who were cheering when the planes smashed in to the World Trade Center NYC NY USA on 9/11 and hate and detest everything which is decent about Western civilization and a country like Ireland and want to shut down criticism of Islam in Ireland, so they can set Ireland on the path to becoming a Sharia state on the model of Saudi Arabia. So, if one sticks one’s head up and says, “I don’t think it is right for the Saudi religious establishment to advocate throwing homosexuals off mountains”, one will get slapped with a one hundred thousand Euro fine for criticizing judicial murder, engaged in by a religious ideology which would be more at home in the dark ages, than in the twenty first century.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 16, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Some ideas, for some more legislation for Mr Ahern. Wahhabis regards homosexuals and lesbians as offensive, why not introduce legislation to allow them state sanctioned rights for throwing homosexuals and lesbians off mountains and stoning them to death. A point to be taken in to consideration, is that if such legislation was introduced, it would then be possible to seek funding from the European Union for a national center for the throwing of homosexuals and lesbians off a mountain and stoning them to death. A great advantage of such a center of excellence, as opposed to ad hoc facilities, would be that facilities could be provided for mobility impaired individuals to participate in the throwing off the mountain and the stoning to death of the homosexuals and lesbians. For example a cable car up the mountain and wheelchair accessible pathways, could be provided. As for sight impaired persons who wished to take part in the stoning to death of the homosexuals and Lesbians, they could be provided with an assistant from the center to give them guidance on hitting the homosexual or lesbian with the stones with advice like, a bit to left and somewhat higher.
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/faith_and_spirituality/watch/v15811168JWdSd5sq
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 16, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Discussion is welcome on this website. I’ve moved some discussion-based comments to here:
General Discussion and Comments
to separate them from the specific themes of this post. Please feel free to continue any discussions there that don’t seem to fit in anywhere else.
Comment by Michael Nugent — May 16, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Looking at this issue from an Islamic perspective, Mr Ahern has got it completely wrong, the best country for Muslims is a land without injustice where truth prevails. And Mr Ahern’s law will make Ireland a land of injustice where untruth prevails.
After the conversion of Hamza, the companions of Muhammad began to offer prayers publicly. In turn, the Quraysh intensified their opposition by torturing the Muslims. Muhammad told his followers to leave for Ethiopia, where “a king rules without injustice, a land of truthfulness-until God leads us to a way out of our difficulty.”
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1725213
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 16, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
I dont know what to say, as i feel it must be obvious to anyone that this is a bad road to begin to walk down. I certainly hope that those in power will side with free speach rather than give religious fundementalists freedom from offense. It boggles the mind that this is actually a proposition.
Comment by Elijah — May 17, 2009 @ 12:31 am
As an Irish Citizen leaving in the US, I have been proud of Irelands relentless progress in its pursuit of a ‘more perfect’ and modern democracy. This I fear however, is the Ireland of old. Where fear and superstition dictate the course of our future. Where women will once again have to wear the shawl for fear of upsetting the righteous.
Our victories have been too hard won to allow these blinkered viewpoints to hold sway once again in our Country.
Comment by Sean Tobin — May 17, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
A law outlawing blasphemy would be blasphemous (presuming God exists)
Firstly an attempt to protect God from the utterances of a mere mortal is insulting to God.
Secondly it is an attempt to interfere in the relationship between God and His/Her creature which again is blasphemous since each one will be judged by God after a life of freedom granted by God.
Thirdly in the event that God does not exist this law is insane and will encourage outrage and unrest in delusional people and restrictions on freedom of expression.
Comment by Mary McQuinn — May 17, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Hi All,
Just a point that I think we should bear in mind.
I don’t think Mr. Ahern, (and we must presume the whole Government, as any furtherence of this project must have the agreement of cabinet)wants to protect “God” from blasphemy.
I think he wants to “protect” the faithful from having their “convictions” challanged effectively.
Remember he is part of a party overwhelmly supported by members of the catholic church.
We know that any God, in the most unlikely event that should he/she/it exist is well capable of looking after his/her/itself, but the faithfull are (by and large)not so capable.
Comment by Jack Butler — May 17, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
First of all I want to apologise for my poor english. I will try to do my best, but english is not my mother’s language. Having said that, lets say what I have to say.
There is no reason to consider blasphemy as a crime
1) Wether or not you believe in god, there is absolutely no proof of it’s (I say it instead of he on purpose) existance, it’s only something in what you believe or not, end of story. But law should not protect ideas, it should only protect the right of expression of those ideas. “If I want to say that the god descrbed in the bible looks to me like a dangerous psychopath criminal (I voluntary avoid saying fk’n bastard), I should be allowed to say it, as well as those who think that I am a very bad person (I voluntarily avoid saying fk’n asshole) who will burn eternally in hell for saying this should be allowed to say it.”
2) I do not believe that countries (specially in modern Europe) should be linked to religion in any way. And therefore law should make no reference to religion in any kind of way. Making “Blasphemy” a crime is like opening the doord to those who would like to go back to te dark ages of the holy inquisition.
3) I recenly saw on a TV show a debate about this law. One of the arguments of those who were going for it was that it would probably never be used. If it should not be used then why, have it? What I think is that yes it would probably not be used on a regular basis straight away, but it would be there dormant and ready to be used by the god fanatics when their time will come.
One last remark i will make is that I’m coming from a country which has refused to see any references to religion in the european institutions, up to the point to say that freedom of religion should not be mentioned because it was a restriction to the more general idea of “freedom of thinking”. And I genuinely think that this is the right thing to say.
Comment by Thierry Abat — May 17, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
The idea that we have a blasphemy law to keep us in check is laughable. This is a bad ideain the long history of bad ideas. Those people who follow no god are in limbo under this law and is unworkable.
Comment by Dez Lynch — May 17, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
Please, please, please stop being so absoloutely ridiculous. I will leave this country if this law is brought in.
The future must move towards a proper seperation of state and religion. The state must take control of the schools, Good Friday’s dry status must be lifted and no stupid blaphsemy law!!!
LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE AND STOP BEING SO PATHETIC, YOU USELESS POLITICIANS!!!
Comment by Marcus Davies — May 17, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
I am totally opposed to the introduction of this law. Any attempt to do so must be justified by proof that there is a god to be blasphemed against!
Comment by colin mccabe — May 17, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
One more bumper sticker for the Monty Python fans:
“All I said was ‘That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah’.”
Although anyone who would understand THAT reference would be on our side anyway….
Comment by Janus — May 18, 2009 @ 12:39 am
It is dissappointing to see this kind of thing happening in my own country in the 21st century. I am in full opposition of it.
Comment by Richard — May 18, 2009 @ 8:05 am
Presumably the Irish Government is seeking that Irish law should be compliant with the 1990 United Nations Cairo declaration on Human Rights.
Quote
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,Aug. 5, 1990, U.N. GAOR,
World Conf. on Hum. Rts., 4th Sess., Agenda Item 5, U.N. Doc.
A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.18 (1993) [English translation].
ARTICLE 10:
Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.
Unquote
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html
Presumably, once the blasphemy law has been placed on the statute books, it will then be possible to then amend it, to increase the penalty to death.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 18, 2009 @ 9:15 am
I don’t like to see an over-reaction to this type of issue from the secular side.
Its like putting a red rag to a bull, you would have to wonder if this is really being put forward seriously and with any degree of support, or if it is just a political stunt.
Ireland has come a long ways and even now in rural areas I’m seeing a much less fervent attitude to religion than in the past. People are becoming much more sophisticated and even in their middle-ages you can see a much broader perspective from most people as they are now wealthier, better-travelled and better informed by international media.
Let’s not get carried away with this inflammatory issue and let us stick to the mundane task of making the Irish state a secular republic. The whole point of being atheist is surely not to be a fundamentalist (I’m right, everybody else is wrong) or to preach.
Comment by Macdara Butler — May 18, 2009 @ 11:09 am
I fully support this law.
As a peace-loving Amalekite, for too long I’ve had to put up with much nasty, hate filled books which can be found everywhere and are frequently read aloud.
Amazing as it sounds, their is still a (minority) group of people who teach their children that they should worship a supernatural being who gives them orders such as the following:
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants,
ox and sheep, camels and donkeys.
( taken from The Bible, Samuel Book 1, Chapter 15, Verse 3)
With the new blasphemy law, we will at last be able to ban books that contain such orders.
For more information see: http://reformed-pastafarianism.org/2009/02/amalekites.html
Comment by pnelnik — May 18, 2009 @ 11:51 am
quote
I don’t like to see an over-reaction to this type of issue from the secular side.
Its like putting a red rag to a bull, you would have to wonder if this is really being put forward seriously and with any degree of support, or if it is just a political stunt.
Ireland has come a long ways and even now in rural areas I’m seeing a much less fervent attitude to religion than in the past. People are becoming much more sophisticated and even in their middle-ages you can see a much broader perspective from most people as they are now wealthier, better-travelled and better informed by international media.
Let’s not get carried away with this inflammatory issue and let us stick to the mundane task of making the Irish state a secular republic. The whole point of being atheist is surely not to be a fundamentalist (I’m right, everybody else is wrong) or to preach.
Comment by Macdara Butler — May 18, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Unquote
I completely disagree on this with you, when you write;”I don’t like to see an over-reaction to this type of issue from the secular side.
Its like putting a red rag to a bull, you would have to wonder if this is really being put forward seriously and with any degree of support, or if it is just a political stunt.”, either several senior members of the present Irish Government are quite stupid beyond belief, or this is a pathetic attempt to curry favor with Saudi Arabia, by bringing Irish Law in to to partial compliance with the 1990 United Nations Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, specificallly Article 10,
Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.
presumably the law will be modified at a later date, to add the death sentence as punishment for those who insult Islam, to ensure full compliance with article 10.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 18, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
The freedom to criticise and yes,ridicule and satirise ideas is one of the fundamental freedoms of our society,surely?
Who has agitated for this? And why now?
Best regards,
Jimmy Smyth
Comment by Jimmy Smyth — May 20, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Hello,
Like many, I don’t even know where to begin criticizing this proposal. However, I will say that the proposal, if implemented and however limited, would give more of something to religion of which it has far to much already: power. Any entity which is free to act in whatever way it wishes safe in the knowledge that it will never be fervently criticized and ridiculed has too much power. And we are all aware of the dangers which can arise from such status.
Furthermore, the seemingly innocuous religious practices in Ireland are, in my view, once again paving the way for the fundamentalists. If we include blasphemy in Irish law (and don’t get me started on the term ‘blasphemy’ in itself), we are saying that it is ok to have laws against blasphemy. Sure, we are not necessarily saying that it is ok to stone people to death for it, but my point is that we should, to my mind, be regarding such barbaric laws as those in some Muslim countries relating to ‘blaspehmy’ as outright depraved – not partly so. How can we properly condemn such practices when our own law contains matter which is similar in nature?
Kind regards,
Bridget.
Comment by Bridget MacDonnell — May 24, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
edit: *too much
Comment by Bridget MacDonnell — May 24, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
I thought this was actually a joke when i heard it on the radio first.
I felt quite grim after i found out this law is in the woodwork’s! Something called freedom of speech usually comes in handy these days. Taking a slice of that away isn’t going to make anyone happy. Each person is entitled to their own opinion and this stunt seems as though our government are forcing the wrath of religion (i.e. God) down upon everyone. Impose other religious beliefs and send everyone to “blasphemy” sensitivity training why not! This is a rubbish law and i for one will not stand for it!
This law = waste of time! The last time I heard someone openly abuse or blaspheme another religion was…hmmm I can’t even think of one such incident so excuse my outrage on the matter.
How about implement a law which states “Who ever wears a white t-shirt can be fined up to 500k Euro”, because that’s how dumb this law sounds to me.
Regards,
Shane
Comment by shane o moore — May 25, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Having a heritage that spanned several hundred years in Irish history I understand full well the problem that Ireland is having. Too much time spent in the tavern and not in church. Charles (Longshanks) the 1st ran itnto this kind of mentality in the early 1100’s and made quick work of it. And later the Queen was heard to say crazily from the tower window, “Off wit thar heads, off wit thar heads.” And so as the islamic wave settles upon the world the noachide and Sharia law is pressed upon the world, death will riegn and history will reveal its hand. I think however, that the sky will open and this is all going to end abruptly when the Truth of the ages steps in. Barberism and hate is the outcome of laws to contain thought, heart, and Truth. We are told, but we choose not to hear.
Comment by erleclaire — May 26, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
The barbarity of the behaviour of members of religious orders in the state’s industrial schools was facilitated by a supine, slavish attitude towards the Church by the state and society in general. It existed in an environment where it was almost impossible to criticise religious authority. The new blasphemy law will create a situation where religion will again be, this time, legally protected from what any crackpot can interpret as insult or offense. The law will help in giving all religions the carte blanche that Catholicism enjoyed for decades here, and will undoubtedly contribute to some form of abuse in the future by creating an atmosphere of exaggerated respect form religious positions and beliefs. Religion undiluted, protected from criticism or offense, will always, always, always abuse this privileged position. The blasphemy law will make the institutional abuse more likely to be repeated, not less.
Comment by Lorcan McNamee — May 30, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
Considering the events of the last 18 months and the revelations of the Ryan report it is scandalous to think that the Irish Government (if they can truly be defined as such) would introduce a law to protect religions and religious institutions from criticism and open debate. Having only just crawled out from under the oppressive yoke of the Catholic Church in this country, this legislation strikes me as nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt by right wing politicians to afford the Church a legal loophole through which to defend themselves and attack those who would criticise them and debate their policies. William o. Douglas stated that ‘Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance’. The Government would do well to consider the repercussions of their actions and consider how they are spitting in the faces of those citizens who they failed to protect in religious institutions as children. All they are doing with this legislation is compounding this betrayal
Comment by Michelle Kennedy — July 8, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
I am absolutely opposed to the blasphemy law.
It is a preposterous, backwards idea that suppresses free speech.
So nonsensical is the idea that it fails even at its own goal: while on the one hand it gives undue respect to religious belief above all else, on the other it treats the religious as being weak and frail, incapable of defending their own opinions.
It is a law that makes Ireland and its people look idiotic on a global scale. It is a law which, contrary to its goal, supports and endorses bigotry and hatred.
If the revelations about the Catholic church have taught us anything, it is that we need to be prepared to question and criticise all institutions, even or perhaps especially the religious, no matter how much this might slight the feelings of its adherents.
Comment by David McKay — July 14, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Sorry folks I gave it my best shot in posting on Facebook but they have suspended my account. It seems to me that Facebook supports Freespeech as long as it is Islamonazis doing the speeching, try to argue with them and you will be booted off Facebook.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — July 17, 2009 @ 12:38 am
This new “LAW”, is an infrigment of our human right. This LAW was passed without the expressed consent of Irelands people. There was no VOTE, the government have no money for a referandum, but the have the money for the Treaty.
God wanted us to question all. I was baptised a catholic but refuse to have anything to do with the Church. I went about to get out of the church but several priests said once baptised “WE” belong to the church.
I have my bible and i study it, i believe in God, but i like to be questioned on god.
Now, saying all this we have to look at what the government are going to get out of this. Who gets the money?
We all have a right to freedom of expression.
We as Irish blood peopl should take a stand for this and also for the way the government has run “OUR” country.
We need a protest outside government buildings and every Catholic church in Ireland.
We are IRELAND. Lets be Irish. Lets take control of our Lives, and where we want OUR country to go.
Comment by Lorraine Sheehan — July 23, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
What is the Church and vatacan afraid of? Humans are inquisitive and therefore question.
We have the right to ask people about their religions in good honour. God asked us to question even on the vatican website Fr.Robert Pollock assures us that it is right for us to ask God questions.
When we ask a question we expect an answer. In the course of our lives, we ask, and we must ask, many questions. We ask questions for different reasons in different contexts. We ask for directions when we are not sure where we are. We ask when we do not know something, and we want to learn and understand. To understand something well, we have to ask many questions.
If we wish to learn, at a deep and important level, we ask deep and important questions. Knowing about God means knowing things at a very deep level, so many deep and important questions have to be asked. In the course of our Christian lives we encounter many things, about which we might want to ask questions
In the Gospels, the disciples frequently questioned Jesus. They wanted to know more, to understand more deeply what he said and did. Jesus answered their questions. Sometimes their question was answered by another question, which invited further questions, thus making it possible to reach a deeper level of knowledge and understanding.
So now tell me how they managed to pass this LAW? ?
Check the website for the above passage http://www.vaticans.org/index.php?/archives/398-Asking-and-Being-Asked.html
Comment by lorrsi — July 23, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
this laws infringed on free speech. ireland is a secular country and as there is no proof for any religion,it does not deserve any special treatment
Comment by andrew — July 25, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Hi there ! Thank for posting.
Comment by antireligious t shirts — January 12, 2010 @ 1:26 am