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.)"

63 of 845 comments (clear)

  1. I can't blaspheme?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    God damn it!

    1. Re:I can't blaspheme?! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:I can't blaspheme?! by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 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

      --
    3. Re:I can't blaspheme?! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

      Brahma is two-faced

      Actually, Brahma is four-faced.

  2. well god dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    jesus fucking christ you have got to be kidding me

    1. Re:well god dammit by dronkert · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. Also, a google image search for "jesus fucking christ" is instructive.

    2. Re:well god dammit by ppanon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    3. Re:well god dammit by ThePromenader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
  3. Atheists Unite... as a religion by devnullkac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by millennial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    3. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by decoy256 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to be argumentative, but communism was actually preached as a kind of religion with all the religious fervor trappings that go along with.

    4. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      Except atheists don't believe in heaven or hell, so how can you threaten them with going to hell? That's like threatening me with sending me to the Phantom Zone - since I don't believe it exists, why would I be afraid of you trying to send me there?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    5. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In terms of a strict reading of the text, that is exactly how a blasphemy law would work. Pretty much all religions are, at least to some degree, contradictory to all the others, and so to practice one is to blaspheme against the others. The only groups that could actually function under a strictly applied blasphemy law would be agnostics and the purely apathetic. Obviously the supporters of blasphemy laws(who tend either to be fanatically religious, or strongly of the "Aw, can't we all just get along and never say mean things about each other" camp) don't actually intend this outcome.

      In practice, though, that isn't how they are used. In practice, anything that enjoys the sanction of tradition and/or substantial popular support, even if formally blasphemous under the text of the law, will not be charged. Anything that is legally blasphemous and arouses public or state ire will be. Depending on the character of the state and the people, this can either involve fairly vicious crackdowns on minority religions and atheists, or the occasional takedown of fringe leaders within generally accepted religions.

    6. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by millennial · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    7. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Informative

      Atheism states that there is no higher power in the world. That there is no god, gods or any higher form of life. And such gods cannot exist based on a few arguments.

      That would be strong atheism - actually stating "there is no god". There exist other positions.

      One is weak atheism - "I don't believe in a god". This would mean that though a deity can conceivably exist, I don't currently believe in any.

      Another is agnosticism - "It's not possible to know if there is a god or not". I consider this to be a strange position to hold, as there are many things that are unknownable. For instance, unvisible pink unicorns as well as pretty much every deity. It seems to me that it'd be a colossal waste of time to think about the countless entities which can't be proven not to exist, when one can simply take the position of "I'll believe in it when it shows up".

      And yet another one is ignosticism - "I don't know what you mean when you say 'god'". This would be a variety of weak atheism in that it doesn't recognize a deity either.

      As such, its a natural conclusion based on scientific evidence that if there was no god, gods or higher forms of life other than man, that the existence of man is to benefit the species of man. To carry on the normal functions of life, to help others of the same species, to then die. Those are the logical conclusions.

      While strong atheism does have some of the characteristics of religious belief, it still prescribes nothing. Nowhere does it say that there's a purpose "to benefit the species of man".

      There exist nihilists, who probably wouldn't agree. For a stronger example, see the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, who believe that the planet would be better off without us, and choose not to breed. This would go rather counter to the "benefit man" idea, and I don't think there's any religion that accepts such a philosophy.

    8. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by millennial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    9. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by BlindRobin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by mog007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    12. Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.?

  4. Not as bad as it sounds by jtobin · · Score: 3, Informative

    The law was just brought in so that the law matches the constitution (and this was acknowledged by those that passed it). It's written in such a way no one will ever be prosecuted. The only alternative would be a referendum to change the constitution, and what politician wants to seem like they support blasphemy? As well as that, when the law was passed the next referendum was for the Lisbon treaty, and the government wouldn't have wanted to hold the two referendums together (as it'd make the Christian Right more likely to vote, and so possibly sink the Lisbon referendum).

    1. Re:Not as bad as it sounds by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what politician wants to seem like they support blasphemy

      Hopefully all of them?

  5. yet by ionix5891 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  6. It's all about efficiency by exley · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apparently the new "laws" actually just prescribe getting blasphemous sites Slashdotted instead of actively taking them down.

    Slashdot... A tool of the oppressor(?)

  7. Attention, religious folks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There is no god, and Mohammed is his prophet.

    (Awesome, my captcha is "opiate.")

  8. This is one of occasions wher... by mrphoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is one of occasions wher... by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:This is one of occasions wher... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    3. Re:This is one of occasions wher... by Bigbutt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    4. Re:This is one of occasions wher... by bitrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      .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?

    5. Re:This is one of occasions wher... by IICV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  9. Another step backwards by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  10. this will be fun by DMoylan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  11. No, it's a stupid idea... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by PakProtector · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'No it's not! said Constable Visit. 'Atheism is a denial of a god.'

      'Therefore It Is A Religious Position,' said Dorfl. 'Indeed, A True Atheist Thinks Of The Gods Constantly, Albeit In Terms of Denial. Therefore, Atheism Is A Form Of Belief. If The Atheist Truly Did Not Believe, He Or She Would Not Bother To Deny.'

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    2. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    3. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by PakProtector · · Score: 4, Informative

      Terry Pratchett. It's from the novel "Feet of Clay."

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    4. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your chart depends on a model of belief that identifies belief with assertion. Lacking a belief in a God is not the same thing as asserting that he does not exist. I do not have a belief in the existence of a man wearing green underwear standing in Times Square on 2 am on February 21, 2008 - it isn't that I assert the impossibility of that man existing, nor that it is theoretically unknowable. I simply do not generate a certain mental state, "belief", that has the existence of that entity as its object. You could call this "Santa Claus" atheism, if you like - the position that YHWH has the same status as Santa Claus, or at least of the man wearing green underwear.

      The existence of God has no explanatory force for me. It does not exist in my constellation of things which I have grounds to believe exist. I feel this justifies the term "atheist," rather than "agnostic."

    5. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by stereoroid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dictionaries are not infallible, or the last word on a subject. Who wrote the dictionary definition - someone objective, you think?

      --
      (this is not a .sig)
    6. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by stereoroid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whoosh - someone doesn't get irony. Who else but Pratchett gives his characters names like "Visit", and has them talk that way (In Capitals)? I think we can say that that's not what PTerry himself thinks. Quite the contrary, I'd say, based on many interviews he's given.

      --
      (this is not a .sig)
    7. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by Abreu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    8. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 3, Funny

      You should add the irony of a being that definitely has a creator, denying the existence of such...

      So it was really an irony golem and not a clay one?

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    10. Re:No, it's a stupid idea... by IICV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  12. Only the view of a theist. by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Only the view of a theist. by lgftsa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Only the view of a theist. by lgftsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Only the view of a theist. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's a tip jim, red herrings like that don't work very well in an argument where all someone needs to do is scroll up to read the older posts.

      Whether or not the vatican writes the laws of christianity is utterly irrelevant to you getting called out by me for being an ass about someone referring to the vatican's recent public statements regarding alien life which was even featured on this very site just last november.

      Just accept that your attempt at being a living XKCD strip made you look like a lazy arrogant prick with the memory of a goldfish and a need to be spoonfed everything in the world and move on.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    4. Re:Only the view of a theist. by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?
    5. Re:Only the view of a theist. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  13. This has to be... by sconeu · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  14. Whoosh by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Dumb, dumb, dumb by FrozenGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    linquendum tondere
  16. Re:Catch me now! by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Funny

    They all breed enough as it is, you don't need to encourage them.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  17. Re:Catch me now! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Funny

    fuck catholics, fuck protestants, fuck jews, fuck muslims

    I already have! The protestants are the worst lays. They keep complaining.

  18. Re:Why not? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  19. Re:A more sobering idea by fractoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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'.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  20. Re:Blasphemy... by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
  21. It's all just proof... by okmijnuhb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  22. Re:Blasphemy... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    As the spokesman for Monosetians I want to voice our OUTRAGE caused by your demand for a list. Monosetians have few beliefs but asking for lists of things is shocking, abusive and insulting to our belief that all sets are of only one item. It's an obvious attempt to intentionally cause outrage amongst all of our members.

    I'll see you in court sir!

  23. This isn't what the Irish people want by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'd like to give a little background on whats going on over here. The governing party, Fianna Fáil (soldiers of destiny if you don't mind) have managed to run the country into one of the worst recessions in Europe by a fairly spectacular series of bad decisions, coasting through into a coalition with the greens mainly on inertia. The leader of that party, Bertie Ahern, was run out of office under a storm of corruption accustations, and his finance minister (the same one that ran the country into the ground) took over.

    This mandateless buffoon is one of the least popular leaders the country has ever seen, a morbidly obese fellow by the name of Brian Cowen. This stellar example of why sons shouldn't be allowed to run for office in the same constituency as their father was last seen jetting off to Rome to kow-tow to the Pope over the massive child abuse rings that were operated by Catholic priests in Catholic industrial schools in the 50s and 60s. Thats right, the Clowen apologised to a religious leader for abuse carried out by religious officials.

    I and the vast majority of Irish people feel sick to our cores at this new law, but the fact remains at this point that we have no real voice or means to overthrow the government - we can't force a general election so these yahoos have free reign to blacken the name of the nation internationally until 2012 at least. Its a monstrous situation and I sincerely ask that people hearing about this dont' use it to judge the Irish people as a whole. The government hasn't really represented us for quite some time.

    If you want to help out to fight this problem, there are some small groups struggling to get traction politicially, although the media doesn't really want to let them in. One of the most promising is Amhrán Nua, the new tune party, so send help if you can, well wishes, whatever to give these few the chance to be heard. The people of Ireland will thank you for it.

  24. Re:Blasphemy... by TheLink · · Score: 4, Funny

    > If you're and Ancient, how come you didn't ascend with the rest of them.

    Like other slashdotters, he's still staying with his Mummy in the basement.

    --