Slashdot Mirror
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.)"
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, register with the government (or submit whatever paperwork is necessary to make their beliefs protected under this law), and then ask that the law be used against priests who advocate that those who do not believe will burn in Hell, since it's a pretty abusive thing to say about a person and surely shouldn't be allowed.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
they banned life of brian making it one of the most pirated films in the 80s in ireland. every body i knew had a copy.
banning something in ireland automatically encourages it.
we'll probably need a blasphemy per comment counting system.
the first person to try and prosecute somebody with this will be the laughing stock of this country for quite a while.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
It has nothing to do with “beliefs” that’s a straw-man word.
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. E.g. “God wants it to be that way, therefore it’s OK that I lost my house, and I don’t have to break down and shoot myself.”
In some way it is a useful mechanism, because it helps people who can’t cope with the actual real world, not to go crazy. We all do an even milder form of it, where we just twist reality a bit... which is basically repression, for the same reason.
The difference between what we do, and what is religion, is that at their level of mind-twisting, tryin to reason with them is a lost cause.
Because I now understand this, I do not have any hatred for religious people anymore. Everyone is just trying to cope with reality in his way. And tomorrow, you could fall in a pit where your only choices would be to go crazy, or to twist your mind just as badly.
Hell, half our behavior is based on wrong social condidioning, which basically also is a mind-twist that is not attached to reality anymore.
Yes, religious statements have no place in any debate. Not in school, not in government, not anywhere. But there is also no point in just calling them idiots and hating them. We, as a community, must face the roots of what caused people to fall back to religion to manage their lives. Because otherwise, we also are only repressing the problem.
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.
(Be warned though, as that reality bubble can span multiple generations, many people and many things. You may find that you’re simply unable to do anything about it, other than invent a time machine and prevent a couple of wars.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Dictionaries are not infallible, or the last word on a subject. Who wrote the dictionary definition - someone objective, you think?
(this is not a
What's your point? Christianity isn't a religion either, by your definition. Being christian is simply the state of believing in one Jesus Christ. There is no dogma, no canon, no "book of how to behave", no punishment, no reward. Just faith in one thing.
Of course there are many christian churches. Some of them do have some of those components. The only dogma shared by all of them really have is that 'God exists' and 'Jesus christ existed. Some have a 'canon' some don't. Some have 'book of how to behave', some don't. Some have punishment/reward (just faith alone VS faith+good works debate), some don't.
None of these things you mentioned define religion.
Ever hear of the 1st church of Atheism ?
Apparently Atheists do have some sacraments, such as marriage.
The possibility of congretations also cannot be ruled out.
The possibility of an atheist church existing, that has all the characteristics you describe as "religion" is very real.
Just because they're atheist, doesn't mean they can't have a church with a dogma and a book of how to behave (E.g. bylaws of the organization).
They can have punishment too -- break the rules, and you get sanctions laid upon you by the church.
Religion doesn't define a person's outlook, morals, or ethics either.
There are lots of good christians with very poor morals/ethics, by objective standards. There are lots of bad christians and even atheists with very good morals/ethics, by objective standards.
Your post is full of factual errors.
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.
The Vatican hasn't constantly denied the existence of extraterrestrial life. They started denying the existence of extraterrestrial life during the counter-reformation. (from about 1545). The Vatican itself existed for at least 400 years before that time (founding estimated 1210), and the Roman Catholic Church for much longer.
The most explicit offical denial came as part of the trial of Geordano Bruno in 1600. Bruno has often been described as a martyr to scientific thought, but it's worth noting that the church judges did not find Bruno's claims of a heliocentric cosmos or planets around other stars, or even life on such worlds, as grounds for his conviction and execution. The actual sentence cites Bruno's expression of pantheism as the only position actually, clearly heretical and worth execution.
The Vatican isn't just now revising its stance on extraterrestrial life due to exoplanet discoveries - It rejected the positions of the counter-reformation as early as 1648, presumably including the denial of the posibility of extra terrestrials along with the rest of the things it threw out. It officially specifically allowed blanket publication of opinions on the subject by priests to the general public before 1950, resulting in several popular books, for example by Ftr. A Zubak in 1954. LeMatre published arguments as early as 1927 in the same paper where he described the formation of the universe from a monobloc of infinite density (the earliest form of the Big Bang theory) although as a good Catholic he put some of his notes through church review first. By all accounts, it was a pro forma review, even with ideas as
spectacular as the Big Bang being proposed.
Note: I'm not a practicing Roman Catholic, nor was I raised as one.
Who is John Cabal?
How sure are you?
"It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted"."
It says ANY religion. So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland? How about Scientology? Is there are list somewhere?
There are a fair number of religions that have a high proportion of adherents who are easily outraged.