Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
What happens if I have a religious belief that censorship offends god? Can I get those advocating censorship tried under this law?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to have the law - and I don't see how anyone else can say "this law is wrong!" without some basis for what is right or wrong.
Bullshit. Some things are just fucking wrong as they are inherent violations of human rights. Joe Atheist's right to talk smack about my (Christian) God is far more important than my right not to be offended by it.
I hate this moral relativism crap, and I'm kind of surprised that any self-described conservative would go along with it. Female mutilation in Sharia turf isn't OK just because "their culture allows it". Screw Godwin: the Holocaust wasn't OK just because "their culture allowed it". Well, religious censorship isn't OK just because "their culture allows it".
I was also a conservative Christian until I decided that having the power to prevent activity I disliked would suck if the tide ever turned against my beliefs. I'm now a libertarian Christian because I want the right to act, worship, and speak as I want even if it means that people I disagree with get to do the same. This is the case here. It's not that I'm keen on blasphemy, but if I want the right to say "Allah is a dork", then I have to let others say the same about Jehovah.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Agnosticism can mean either "I don't know whether there's a god or not" or "I believe it's unknowable whether there's a god or not".
I guess you're right, but not knowing whether or not there's a god doesn't necessarily make you agnostic. Nobody knows whether there is a god. Or many. Personally, I'm an atheist and am perfectly willing to admit that I don't know whether or not there's a god. I believe that there are no gods because I see no evidence of them and I see no useful reason to assume that there are any. It does no benefit to me, others, or my understanding of the universe to believe that they're there, so I assume that they're not. I don't understand some people's reasoning for doing otherwise, but am willing to accept that they do without judging or assuming that I'm somehow mentally superior because I reached a different conclusion.
That got longer than I'd intended, I'm just saying - Not knowing whether or not there are gods lurking about doesn't necessarily imply that you have to declare yourself "agnostic".
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Nobody knows whether there is a god ... I believe that there are no gods.
Zealots, of any sort, can't tell the difference between "knowing" and "believing". That's what you have to take into consideration.
As for myself, I'm an agnostic. I believe there's no way we can actually say whether there is or is not a god, but I feel there is none. People say that stance lacks conviction, but I feel I'm being more realistic on the matter.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Before Newton, if you wondered why the planets didn't crash into the sun, you have to say "I don't know." After Newton, you'd say "gravity." That period of time between question and answer is not a free-zone for introducing supernatural beings simply because we haven't figured out all the answers yet. In a million years, assuming science has failed to find the answers to the ultimate questions (Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?) it may be time to think seriously about a Creator as the last option, but let's give it some time first.
"I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
as you depart the plane here at Dublin international, remember to please set your watches back 6 centuries.
Good people go to bed earlier.
This puts the Atheist in the same boat as the theist: with a belief that lacks any evidence.
ahem.
a- = without
theism = belief in a deity
atheism = without belief in a deity
Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist (i.e. you don't believe in any god and you claim there is no way to know this for fact) or you can be a gnostic atheist (i.e. you don't believe any god and you claim to know this as fact). Most atheists are agnostic atheists.
1. Agnostics don't feel they're avoiding a position. Their position is clear: conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of evidence.
You're right, but you're not taking your own statement far enough. Conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of evidence, and evidence cannot be found for something that has no definition. The only thing about "God(s)" that people can agree on is that the word, when written in English, has three letters, four if plural. If we can't define something by consensus, then we can reach no conclusions regarding its existence.
(Inevitably, the reply to this is, "But my idea of God is the omnipresent Creator of all space and time. I don't believe in any of that Jesus stuff." To which my response is, "Then we're clearly not talking about the same thing. Most peoples' God seems to be a lot more specific in His likes and dislikes than yours, and that's a problem for the rest of us.")
Any claim merits cognitive consideration (also known as thinking about it). Dismissing claims entirely outright because of the claimant specifically or the "arbitrary" appearance of such a claim would violate the fundamental aspects of the scientific method.
Life's too short to take the idea of leprechauns and unicorns seriously. Treating all claims as equally worthy of consideration is just plain silliness. Only when we exhaust the possibilities of the natural, will there be time to consider the supernatural.