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

I can't blaspheme?!

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn it!

well god dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

jesus fucking christ you have got to be kidding me

Re:well god dammit

[dronkert]

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

Atheists Unite... as a religion

[devnullkac]

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.

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.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion

[vadim_t]

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.

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...

[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?

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?

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.

[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.

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'.