Ireland Criminalizes Blasphemy

An anonymous reader writes "Another European country clamps down on free speech. From the article: 'It does seem bizarre that, in 2009, a modern European nation would seek to shield religious belief from criticism — yet that is what is happening in Ireland right now. In repealing the 1961 Defamation Act, the Irish government sought to expunge the worst excesses of Ireland's draconian laws restricting free speech, but in the process it has ended up making offending religious belief a criminal offence. Aside from a 25,000 fine (reduced from the 100,000 originally sought by the government), the new Defamation Act gives the authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorising the police to enter, using "reasonable force," premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of "blasphemous statements."'"

Comments

It's so very odd.....

[allaunjsilverfox2]

It's like watching V for Vendetta in real life. 0.o

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, people often wonder why the ACLU gets its panties in a knot over seemingly trivial government involvement in religious matters. This kind of shit is why.

If you give the Bible-thumping idiots an inch, they will take the field.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Darkness404]

You place the blame at religious people, but on the other side, things like "hate speech" still follows this absurdity of lack of freedom of speech yet there is (comparatively) less uproar about it. We need freedom of speech for absolutely -everything- one thing banned from freedom of speech is one thing too many.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Man On Pink Corner]

If it helps, don't think of agnosticism as a middle ground between the states we call "religion" and "atheism." Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith." As you go through the business of living, you have to stand on one side of the line or the other.

It's simply not meaningful to hide behind "agnosticism" as a position. It doesn't make you sound diplomatic, it only makes you sound cowardly and irresolute. As an example, are you agnostic about Zeus, too? No? You're pretty sure that the possibility of Zeus's existence shouldn't inform your decisions and actions in everyday life? Then you must feel the same way about whatever God(s) the religious people are trying to sell you at the moment.

All it takes for thumpers to get away with this crap is for good "agnostics" to do nothing. It's not useful to natter endlessly about the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism. The debate is between plain old theism and plain old atheism. And it isn't being held in Internet forums, at lexicographers' conventions, or in comparative religion studies. It's being held in the legislatures, in the voting booths, and in our kids' science classes.

Seriously. It's time to pick a side and stand up for it.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[gestalt_n_pepper]

What a bunch of pompous whooey! (FYI, a strong agnostic position antagonizes just about everybody on the thiest and athiest side).
.
Agnosticism is a stand against arrogance and self-delusion and for rationality. Not only do we not know, but the question is simply not answerable in any rational way.
.
If you assume omniscient, omnipotent superbeings, all bets are off. They/It can make us believe anything. You can't know that any of your beliefs are certain and/or yours.
.
If there are no omniscient, omnipotent superbeings, you can't absolutely prove the negative, you can only accumulate increasing amounts of evidence.
.
I'm aware of non-rational experiences of "the divine" and how powerful they are (had some myself, actually), but the interpretation of being enlightened/born-again/etc. is all done though the mind. If it can be induced by chemicals or a powerful magnetic field pointed at the right spot on the skull, I'd have to question it's association with omniscient superbeings.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[greenbird]

I just want a country with laws that treats my beliefs with respect and dignity and not have to worry about people who label would me as a "Bible-Thumping idiot" attempting to take that right away from me.

I want a country that doesn't treat your beliefs in any way, period, much less with respect and dignity. What makes you think your beliefs deserve respect and dignity? You think all religions should be treated with respect and dignity? Does that includes ones that advocate killing others that don't believe? Religious belief should be irrelevant with regards to the law not treated in some special manner.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[JerkBoB]

I don't think you know either. So I call on you, stop pretending you're omniscient: admit you're not atheist, but rather agnostic.

Strictly speaking, I think you will be hard-pressed to find very many so-called atheists who truly believe (i.e. have faith) that there is no God (in the judeo-christian sense or otherwise) or gods. Throwing this out as an argument against calling oneself Atheist is an exercise in pedantry.

I am an Atheist. Do I pretend to have iron-clad proof of the non-existence of God or gods? No. I do live my life as though it is true, however. Practically speaking, it might as well be true. It does not trouble me to assume that there is no God any more than it does to assume that there is no invisible pink unicorn standing behind me, judging my soul as I type this. It is illogical to assume otherwise! Once one opens the door to the possibility of one supernatural being, the only logical progression is that ALL beliefs based on the supernatural must potentially be true. And that's an express train to crazytown.

I used to share your discomfort with the concept of atheism vs. agnosticism... As I grew older, though, I began to see that agnosticism was a much less useful state of being. If one is truly agnostic, then one ought to feel compelled to give equal weight to all systems of knowing. I believe that accepting a personal state of functional atheism requires more up-front intellectual honesty, but in the long run produces much less cognitive dissonance.

WTF is up with the commenting system lately? All my paragraphs are smushed together, even though each is correctly bracketed within <p>tags</p>...

Re:It's so very odd.....

[Ekdar]

One of my favorite philosophy professors once mentioned something like this: I propose that there are invisible dogs everywhere around us all the time. As we move around, the dogs move out of our way. The dogs are silent and possess numerous other qualities that prevent us from ever detecting them.

Now I may ask someone, "do you believe that these invisible dogs exist?"

If someone were to respond "no" would you conclude that this person holds a belief that lacks any evidence? Would you insist that they, instead, "withhold judgement" with regard to the invisible dog issue? There is a potential entire realm of "there exists an undetectable entity E" claims that could be made, invisible dogs and supernatural creatures being examples.

But do we really lack evidence that these entities do not exist? Isn't lacking evidence that something exists evidence in itself that the thing doesn't exist? Maybe not empirical evidence, but that's another question.

Alternatively, perhaps in the invisible dog case the conclusion will be that it is not possible for there to be any evidence demonstrating either existence or lack of existence. It's still not completely clear to me that the rational course of action in that case is to "suspend judgement" rather than choosing to believe in the non-existence.

Re:It's so very odd.....

[jmpeax]

The point is that atheism is as much an act of faith as any theism.

No it isn't. Atheism is the default position. It is, simply, a case of not endorsing or subscribing to purported religious facts for which there is no evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. Your logic doesn't make sense.

Countries are making the kind of legislation this article talks about and you don't think some rational zealotry is in order?

Seriously, people like you need to pick a side. Religion has damaged society for too long. We're so close to killing it and the last thing we need is morons like you who, through cowardice or indecision or existential angst, end up validating those insane enough to actually believe the shit they're told by their religions. People make the mistake of thinking that this is harmless philosophical debate. It isn't. Religion in all its forms is holding humanity back.

Don't you see how your friend was being rational, and was probably shocked by your inability to follow his very simple logic that, applied in any other context, you would have agreed to be sound?

I'll put it another way, care of Doug Stanhope: being an intelligent, rational. educated person, but having never come into contact with any religion, would you afford any weight to <insert religious text here>, let alone wholeheartedly believe in it, despite evidence to the contrary? Can you see what I'm saying?

Incidentally, the Zeus argument is exactly the same thing. Someone has told you something for which you are required to categorise as fact or fiction. You suggest it absurd to think that Zeus would be real (presumably because an all-powerful being seems absurd to you), but you don't find the story of a Christian god (for whom there is no evidence and serious credibility issues surrounding the text that describes it) ridiculous.

You know the only difference? When your teachers/parents/priest taught you about the latter, they drilled it into you that it was true, and they did so from such an early age that it has created enough doubt to cause you this brain attack in adulthood. Either that or you're scared of dying/being alone, yada yada. Grow up. The world needs you to stick up for what's right, not what makes you feel warm at night at the expense of others.

god dammit

[malignant_minded]

No see its ok. It's with a lowercase g so it's my god and not the real God.

Blinded by Religion

[sanosuke001]

This is the biggest reason why I can't stand religion. If you are so frightened by others' opinions as to attack them if they disagree with you then you have no right to make any decisions. It's the same with censorship. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Can we outlaw thinking for ourselves while we're at it? (/s)

Re:Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice

[TheCarp]

Its true. They keep saying how religion is under attack... but whats so under attack?

It doesn't matter whether the issue is abortion, same sex marriage, prayer in school, its always the same broken record about how they need to "defend", and they are "under attack". Yet, are never able to actually articulate how other people having choices in life constitutes an attack on them and theirs.

Apparently its an attack on their youth because of their children were to grow up with choices, they might choose not to be boneheaded, zombie worshiping, fucktards, and THEN what would happen to the world?!?

I recently saw a facebook discussion between an old friend who went hardcore muslim and some of her friends about opening a dialog with other "people of the book" but how "we have to be sure they know we see them as wrong and they need to come to the light of allah" and all that bullshit.

All the same bullshit, all the same "we are the victim", "our way of life is under attack". All just sounding like somebody needs to grow the fuck up and realize that its a big world and not everyone is going to be duped into believing in some random set of myths about some god that you can't see, hear, touch, or taste, but assuredly, must exist.... and all the other mythological beings that you also can't see hear, touch, or taste must obviously not exist.

Yet their all powerful god can't protect them from a small number of people who aren't even organized, and couldn't care less what silly crap they waste their time with. Yes, they have a very powerful god indeed.

-Steve

Re:Ok, really?

[Darkness404]

You must have mistaken me for European. I'm American and I'm honestly sick and tired of the government destroying every single shred of freedom in the name of "safety". Sure, parts of Europe are even more messed up than the US, but the US doesn't have to emulate Europe and neither does Europe have to emulate the US. The US should give its citizens its freedom back, rather than keep destroying it.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it Ghandi who said, and I paraphrase:

"I like your Christ. It is your Christians that I do not like because they are so unlike Christ."

Re:Obligatory

[sonnejw0]

Aren't we all deterministic automotons governed by the laws of physics? How can free will exist? I think many religious followers are the first to try to claim that free will caused humanity's fall and the subsequent assholishness of people. As a neuroscientist, I don't believe in free will, but that doesn't negate the concepts of responsibility. David Hume, an early Anglo philosopher put it simply that the idea of cause-and-effect necessitates determinism, so free will (reacting to something according to your past experience) is actually determinism.

If you believe in a God and an afterlife, then what does it matter if God helps people now? The idea the God should do good things is just an excuse for Christians to be bad people.

Religion is simply a social construct that provides a community with a reason to be altruistic, altruism being the bond that makes society possible. The trouble arises when individuals turn that tool upside down and start to pervert it into an "us v them" mindset. That was the genius of Jesus and particularly Paul of Tarsus who founded a religion inclusive of all of humanity ... or Buddha ... or Krishna ... or any number of other loving religious iconoclasts or revolutionaries.