Ireland's Blasphemy Law Goes Into Effect

stereoroid writes "As of January 1, it is a crime in Ireland to commit Blasphemy. The law was changed in July 2009 to fill a gap in the Irish Constitution, which states that it is a crime but does not define what it is, an omission highlighted in a Supreme Court decision in 1999. To mark the occasion, Atheist Ireland published a list of 25 blasphemous quotations on the blasphemy.ie website, from such controversial figures as Bjork, Frank Zappa, Richard Dawkins, Randy Newman, and Pope Benedict XVI. (The last-mentioned was quoting a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor, but that's no excuse.)"

Comments

yet

[ionix5891]

another nail in the coffin of the corrupt and incompetent Fianna Fail government (yes the leading party in Ireland has word fail in its name) who voted this in

never will forget what they have done to this country

This is one of occasions wher...

[mrphoton]

This is one of occasions where the French have it about right, they have separation of church and state. They do not even allow religion in schools in any form. I don't understand why people think it is ok to force their beliefs on me.

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[node 3]

But why should you not teach religion in schools?

For the same reason you don't teach astrology.

Belief systems are knowledge are they not?

Almost by definition, they are not.

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[Bigbutt]

There's a difference between teaching that God created everything in 4000 BC (or thereabouts) and including the historical aspect of religion and how it affected Europe.

[John]

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[bitrex]

.Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don't use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model.

You seem to have a quite simplistic view of religion. Religious beliefs arose out of one of the characteristics that makes us human - our seemingly innate desire to ask questions about reality and know chains of cause-and-effect. Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied. Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached." It won't happen, our natural desire to know which gave birth to the scientific method in the first place prevents that.

If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process. Or at least don’t make his life even worse. :)

Do you suppose this approach would work at say, the Harvard Divinity School? Do you feel that all religious people are a priori ignorant bumpkins, simply waiting for you to bring the blinding light of reason to raise them up?

Re:This is one of occasions wher...

[IICV]

Science has answered many of the questions that religion once was used for, but that doesn't mean there are many deep questions to which the scientific method cannot be applied. Some atheists appear to expect humans to throw up their hands in the face of these questions and say "Well! These are not scientific questions, therefore they cannot and will not be approached."

Please, feel free to provide examples. I frequently see statements like this, but there's rarely any actual substance to them.

Another step backwards

[fyngyrz]

...and Ireland joins other butt-ignorant countries like Saudi Arabia, while here in the USA, freedom of speech reigns paramount.

Well, except in theaters, and near funerals, and at political rallies (unless you're in a "free speech zone" some distance away)...

And some art, well, we just can't have people looking at (or even creating) that...

It'd be nice if congress fixed these things. But of course, we have to wait for them to finish their prayers before they can get started. Oh, and the blessing. By a preacher paid for with tax money.

No, it's a stupid idea...

[fyngyrz]

...because atheism isn't a religion. Being atheist is simply the state of being without a belief in a god or gods. There is no dogma, no canon, no "book of how to behave", no punishment, no reward. It's just a lack of belief. Atheism doesn't define a person's outlook, behavior, morals or ethics. Atheism is the condition of trundling forward in life without said beliefs. That's all it is. So you can, and you will, encounter atheists who despise theism, atheists who don't care about theism, and atheists that are very interested in it for any number of reasons. Each will have their own way of dealing with life, because, and I am really repeating myself here, atheism contains no instructions of "how to" anything.

As some (very clever) wag has said: If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[spottedkangaroo]

You can't have ethics without believing in a faerie?

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[Abreu]

As PakProtector said, its Terry Pratchett... and if you don't know pTerry, then I must say three things:

1 - The book quoted is comedy, although it is the kind of comedy that makes you think after making you laugh
2 - The atheist quoted is a Golem, made of clay, the fantasy equivalent of a robot (which is why his words all start with capital letters). As a general rule, atheists in the Discworld do not tend to live long, as they are frequently struck by lightning (even on a clear day) when they make their arguments. Dorfl the Golem, being made of clay, is immune to lightning, however.

3 - Please go and buy a book by Terry Pratchett, they are very good.

--

oh, and 4 - Pratchett most likely borrowed the argument of "the Atheist thinks of God constantly, albeit in terms of denial" from a very old Hindu story where a self-avowed atheist is sent directly in front of the face of God, as if he had spent his entire life praying. This was because, every time something good or something bad happened to him, the atheist would constantly remind himself that "gods don't exist" and therefore kept God in his mind constantly...

Re:No, it's a stupid idea...

[IICV]

A further subtlety: the golem exists on the Discworld, where gods do exist. Earthling atheism is a completely irrational position in a universe where one can go out and have a drink with the God of Booze, and end up in a gutter with the Oh God of Hangovers. However, the kind of religious atheism the golem is explaining makes perfect sense in such a universe - after all, if it takes faith to believe in a god when there is no evidence for it, it must also take faith to disbelieve in any god when there is plenty of evidence for them.

Note that this does not apply to our universe.

Re:Not as bad as it sounds

[Brian Gordon]

what politician wants to seem like they support blasphemy

Hopefully all of them?

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[clarkkent09]

What I don't understand about the blasphemy laws in general is how do religious people get around committing blasphemy against other religions just by pretty much quoting from their holy books whenever they contradict other holy books. Every Muslim will tell you that Jesus is not really a son of God, hence the Bible is full of lies. Isn't that blasphemy against Christianity?

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[millennial]

Please outline the beliefs of atheism. Please outline atheistic morality. Please define the atheistic purpose for life. If you can't do these, you're spouting bullshit and really out to shut up and let the adults talk.

Only the view of a theist.

[fyngyrz]

I don't deny anything. I simply don't believe, because I've never seen anything that has even the slightest weight in favor of the various claims of theism. The only thing I object to is the imposition of religious behaviors upon me by the religious. For instance, if they don't want to drink beer on Sunday, then by George, I think that's just fabulous. However, if I wish to drink beer on Sunday, and they move to stop me - for instance by forcing stores not to sell beer to me - well, now we have a problem, and they have just become my enemy by stepping on my liberties. You'll note this opposition arises without any attempt by me to deny the religious their beliefs, or the truth of them, etc.

Religion, like any other highly personal set of choices, should remain between one's self and other consenting adults. As soon as you force it, or material consequences of it, upon someone else, you're pond scum. And that's being unkind to pond scum. Irish lawmakers have today joined this damp, respect-free group.

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[lgftsa]

From their point of view, you are denying them their beliefs. They believe that drinking beer on a Sunday is a sin. They have the moral responsibility, enforced on them by their religious hierarchy, all the way up to their Creator, who, by the way, created you too, to stop you drinking on Sunday. Responsibility, mind you, not right. Right just gives them the power, which they can choose not to wield, but responsibility forces them to act. They are bound to stop you, and any one assisting you in the consumption of beer along the chain of supply, otherwise they are allowing you all to sin in violation of your Creator's Will, and they themselves are entirely complicit in the sin.

This is why most people pay only lip service to their religions, and the ones who truly try to act faithfully are insane, in jail or dead.

This is also why it's useless to argue any points of religion. Any follower of a faith who is outspoken enough to debate will be impossible to reason with. Because they have faith. Faith trumps all. Logic, scientific evidence, physical the-tears-on-that-Madonna-statue-are-vegetable-oil evidence, common sense, anything. They know they are right, they have faith in their beliefs, and nothing you can say or do can change that.

Medicine men, shamans, priests, they have all had thousands of years to build on their predecessors techniques and psychology. They have an answer for everything, an excuse for anything. As society became more sophisticated and murdering someone to bring back Spring got a little dicey, they formed larger structures, took responsibility for reading and writing(handy, that), rewrote their holy books with more sophistication, and redefined and retranslated as necessary to keep up with progress.

The latest one I've heard is the Vatican suggesting that life on other planets in the universe may be possible. That's directly opposite what their holy book has said for a couple of thousand years, but a bit of "oh, it's always said that, you were just misinterpreting the meaning" and it's done.

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[lgftsa]

10 seconds on Google could have found the stories, but I'll do it for you. Behold the power of laziness!

vatican life other planets

The Vatican has constantly denied the existence of extraterrestrial life. Back when the Bible was written, planets were unknown. Earth is the center of creation, the sun and moon are "great lights" and stars were a calendar. When planets were discovered (and they finally admitted they existed), it suited the church to label them lifeless. They had to, as planets weren't mentioned in the Bible and any life out there puts a huge crimp is the "Earth is the center of creation" and "we are His children" self-serving egocentric shtick.

Of course, now that more and more exoplanets are being discovered, the probability of life being inferred on one or more of them through spectroscopy or other means is rising rapidly. So, they're revising their stance and going for a "it might be possible" position.

It's interesting to note that the church placed the Earth at the center of the solar system. There's nothing in the Bible about the orbits of the Sun, Moon and stars around the Earth, but they came up with a pretty good fit with their beliefs which took into account observable evidence. When the telescope and planets came along, they tried banning the new evidence, but eventually had to redefine the solar system with the Earth in it's proper place.

Similarly, the "no life on other planets" stance has had to be changed, but the church has learned from it's history. For quite a few years now, the hard line has been softening and various sections of the church have been pushing an uncommitted view. With no direction from the Bible about planets, though, they're got their job cut out from them. In this day and age, they can't just make stuff up, so they're going to have to do something pretty inventive to explain life on them.

Think as a member of the faith, who lives their life (as best they can) by the word of the creator of the universe. Which is worse, the Creator not knowing about alien life, or keeping it a secret from His chosen people?

What else might he not know about?

What else might he be keeping secret?

Re:Only the view of a theist.

[shutdown -p now]

Back when the bible was written, planets were most certainly not unknown. The Hebrews even at the time they wrote the Torah were well aware of the same planets the Greeks, Romans and before them the Egyptians and Sumerians recognized.

Planets were known as "stars that move fast in weird paths". They weren't recognized for planets - celestial bodies of magnitude comparable to that of Earth, something that a human can walk, and something that can (as a concept) sustain life.

This has to be...

[sconeu]

The most appropriate story for me to post in, if only for my sig.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[millennial]

"Atheism states that there is no higher power in the world."

Atheism states no such thing. It is the rejection of a claim, not a claim of its own.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[millennial]

You're not describing what is logical. You're describing what happened. It has nothing to do with logic - it's just what worked. There could be dozens of other ways that species could thrive. In fact, you've pretty much described OUR species and ignored that other species have survived just as well with vastly different social structures.

You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." You've committed a rather anthropocentric version of the naturalistic fallacy.

Whoosh

[copponex]

What? That's like saying if I truly didn't believe in Zeus, I wouldn't deny his existence and object to you demolishing my house to build him a temple.

If the people who believed in foolish things would keep their mouths shut and their hands out of public coffers, there'd be no reason for us to deny their silly fairy tales. They could ramble on in solitude like the people who are properly sent to a shrink when they claim to speak to invisible, imaginary beings.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[BlindRobin]

Your argument would be fine if it's premise, "that atheism is itself a form of religion", were not false.

I, being one of many, have grown particularly weary of this old canard which, while it may be applied (weakly) to social movements such as "Humanism", does not in the least apply to atheism. Strictly speaking atheism is simply the lack of belief in any or all deities and has none of the attributes of a religion most especially a statement of faith. There is indeed a total lack of dogma, there is no structure or singular impetus from which non-belief is sourced. The mere fact that there exist amalgamations of persons that promote rationality in opposition to ignorance and superstition does not make atheism a religion. In fact such organisations are relatively poorly attended and for the most part formed out of frustration at the need to on one hand defend against personal denigration by members of societies wherein admission of a lack of religious conviction makes one immediately suspect of moral turpitude and on the other hand hold back the growing tide of religious incursion into education and political discourse. Were these needs to dissolve so would the organisations as they do not exist as a means unto themselves as do religious institutions.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[mog007]

That's not a belief. It's a response to a proposition. Theism is not a religion, and it has just as many "beliefs", just one that is "There is at least one god". Atheism and theism are positions on an issue, not religions in and of themselves.

Buddhism is atheistic, Raelians are atheistic, Christians are theistic, Hindus are theistic.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[Lord Kano]

If atheists in Ireland really want to stir up trouble, a group of them should formally recognize that atheism is itself a form of religion

Except, of course, that it's not. Atheism is ATHEISM, not ATHEISM. There's a huge difference.

LK

Dumb, dumb, dumb

[FrozenGeek]

For the record, I am an evangelical Christian and this strikes me as something that can only end in tears. When will politicians (and, more importantly, voters) realize that trying to protect feelings only undermines free speech and, ultimately, democracy? We need our leaders to tell the cry-babies to grow up.

Re:I can't blaspheme?!

[PopeRatzo]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

Do we really want to live in a world where it's not legal for me to say that Allah is a punk, that Jevohah is a murdering psychopath, or that Yaweh is a sadistic monster? Siva is a blue cocksucker and Brahma is two-faced?

Buddah's a lazy son-of-a-whore and Odin liked to give Zeus reach-arounds. There, I said it.

Call me optimistic on this first day of 2010, but I believe that radical Islam and the Christian Right and the orgy of crackpot New Age beliefs is not the sign of a resurgence in religious belief, but rather the dying spasm of an evolutionary adaptation that's no longer necessary.

In my two score and ten, I've seen the end-times deadlines coming more and more fast and furious. But now, with longer lifespans and online archives, we can see the corpses of apocalyptic predictions piling up. They're already starting to hedge on the 2012 mishegaas, covering their pre-columbian asses to avoid looking stupid on Jan 1, 2013. When religions have to be protected by laws and social conventions and political correctness and electronic apologists by the hundreds and armies of millionaire megachurches have to hire public relations firms, it starts to seem like they're whistling past the graveyard.

Anyway, I don't go in for that silly god-stuff. I'm a devout taoist. Tell me my beliefs are a joke and I'll laugh along.

Re:well god dammit

[ppanon]

Throughout my university days, I had this idyllic picture of a Maldives beach hanging on my wall. I used to feel bad that the islands would likely get flooded by rising waters due to global warming. Now I only feel sorry for the non-human inhabitants.

Re:I can't blaspheme?!

[TheLink]

> but rather the dying spasm of an evolutionary adaptation that's no longer necessary.

Evolution is less about removing "no longer necessary", and more about removing "kills you", and keeping "if it works well enough", or "gives an advantage".

As for "dying spasm" and evolution, I'll ask this:

Does Atheism really give the atheist group more/greater evolutionary advantages and fewer disadvantages than groups belonging to the major religious beliefs?

Atheists have fewer ways to take advantage of the very powerful placebo effect[1] ( they also don't have the convenience of "invisible omnipresent person"- unless they somehow really believe in the FSM ;) ).

And they aren't that much less likely to get killed by some religious nutcase.

So it seems to me that the religious bunch might be around for quite a while yet. Why do you think they would be more likely to die out than the atheists?

[1] Which appears to be getting stronger in some cases! http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[nabsltd]

I think the best way to get this overturned is to have people who aren't atheists to bring suit over every possible "blasphemy", because they realize that this law infringes on everyone's freedom of speech and religion. This law basically makes it criminal to have two religions that have opposing beliefs.

For example, any religion that believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God and speaks about it will be "blasphemous" to any religion that does not believe the same thing.

Or, if your religion doesn't believe Mohammed was a prophet of God, it can't say that any more. Likewise, one that does believe it can't say it.

Or, if your religion doesn't believe that 75 million years ago, Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs, you can't say that, either.

It also would appear to outlaw any printing of the Bible, Koran, or any other religious publication.

The question is, how "grossly abusive" does the "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion" have to be? Are restaurants that serve pork/beef/whatever guilty? How about stores that are open on Saturday/Sunday/etc.? What about people who work on Saturday/Sunday/etc.?

Re:Why not?

[Bigjeff5]

If a set can be the empty set, then anything is a religion. But that'd be silly. But atheism is the empty set. It is a lack of beliefs in god(s). That is not a belief, but a lack of belief. And to call atheism a religion is silly.

It's not wrong to specifically not include something in a definition - the definition of the primes specifically says 1 is not a prime.

It's actually not a lack of belief. A belief is essentially a strong conviction about something you cannot prove. Obviously there is no proof there is no god, but you certainly believe there is no God. Make your sentance active instead of active while maintaining the same meaning and your argument fails.

The Agnostic has a lack of belief, an Athiest believes in a negative. Frankly, Athiesm is far more of a religion than Agnosticism is. At least they are brave enough to admit that they just plain don't know, and tend to not really care either.

In reality, Athiests commit the inverse of the exact same logical fallacy that believers in a god must commit. You cannot hold either position without commiting the negative proof fallacy. The version that believers in a god commit is that if a premis cannot be proven false, it must be true. The version Athiests commit is that if a premise cannot be proven true then it must be false.

Both lines of reasoning are fallacious. They are also both grounded in a firm belief that a premis must be true or false with no proof to back up either side. Both sides will use the exact same evidence to prove their point, but neither side has any actual proof. The Athiests are in a particular bind on this one, because it is impossible to prove a negative. The only ones who could ever even potentially prove their case are those who believe in a god. Some might even say that takes a bit of extra faith on the part of the Athiest, given that fact. It also tends to breed a lot of zealotry in Atheists, I believe. Most Athiests I know of seem to be pretty evangelical about it anyway.

Only the Agnostics take a logical stance when it comes to god, and simply state "I dunno" and go on with their lives.

For the record, I believe in a god, the Christian God to be exact. "But wait!" you say, "you just argued that your belief system is based on a logical fallacy!" Well of course it is, that's what makes it a belief. I'm also careful not to commit the fallicist's fallacy - that is, just because an argument is fallacious does not mean the conclusion itself is false.

Re:A more sobering idea

[fractoid]

That's actually very close to the view of David Attenborough:

My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.

It's all just proof...

[okmijnuhb]

It's all just proof to me that religion is a form of insanity, or mental impairment, inability for objective free thought, or rational analysis, or failure and inability to reach logical conclusions.
How far of a leap is it really, from believing, without proof, of a magic being in the sky, to believing that the dismembered body parts of albinos in Africa possess magic powers? Or that suicide bombing will land you in paradise? Or that getting on your knees and begging a supposed omnipotent being for help, would yield results? The same being, mind you, who impotently, or indifferently observed the extermination of 12,000,000,000 humans in the concentration camps of Europe.

Re:well god dammit

[ThePromenader]

Well, as one of millions of athiests out there, I am grossly offended by religious pronunciations in public, and consider the same to be blasphemy to reason. There, fixed that.