Ireland enacts blasphemy law.

[karl 12]

You realy can't make it up.

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/

Will they also fine people who don't mindlessly conform with Voodoo or Greek mythology?

[zoombie]

You realy can't make it up.

http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/

Will they also fine people who don't mindlessly conform with Voodoo or Greek mythology?

there's a difference between conforming and insulting/abusive.

Whats so bad about this law anyway? Its no different then an anti-hatred law.

Edited January 1, 2010 by zoombie

[GreyWeather]

there's a difference between conforming and insulting/abusive.

Whats so bad about this law anyway? Its no different then an anti-hatred law.

Well, apart from it being anti-free speech, it's bad because anything that is anti-religion / anti-(specific) religion. Is now punishable by fine.

"Jesus wasn't the son of god" / "Jesus is the son of god." / "jesus will return and convert to islam." Are cases of blasphemy. According to which ever abrahamic religion you find yourself swallowing.

And if you happen to be Richard Dawkins, you could be fined if you ever wrote a book in Ireland. .

Edit:

Some reason it made a duplicate of everything I said. And attached it to the bottom.

Edited January 1, 2010 by GreyWeather

[TheResearcher]

there's a difference between conforming and insulting/abusive.

Whats so bad about this law anyway? Its no different then an anti-hatred law.

It's completely different from anti-hatred laws. The blasphemy law is not protecting religious groups from hatred, but instead protecting the religion itself from criticism. It completely destroys the concept of free speech. You should be allowed to believe in whatever magical god fairy that you want, but you shouldn't expect the law to protect from people ridiculing the idea and having their own interpretations of it. No religion should have laws stopping people being able to criticise it.

[Siara]

It's completely different from anti-hatred laws. The blasphemy law is not protecting religious groups from hatred, but instead protecting the religion itself from criticism. It completely destroys the concept of free speech. You should be allowed to believe in whatever magical god fairy that you want, but you shouldn't expect the law to protect from people ridiculing the idea and having their own interpretations of it. No religion should have laws stopping people being able to criticise it.

TheResearcher's response was worth repeating. Questioning a religious belief is not an act of hatred. This law is a barbaric mistake. Sheez... it's like all of western civilization is regressing back to the Middle Ages.

[+Link of Hyrule]

From the link in the opening post:

The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion

Hmm, I read "any religion". There is no preferential treatment being given to any one or two religious views here (ie, this is not a "Christians only" worry-fund). From what I can tell, the law is aimed at any comment that is addressed towards ANY religion with the intent of ridicule or insult.

I wonder if people would complain so hard if they also made a homosexuality law in the same vein - which would make it illegal for any person to insult or ridicule homosexuals for their lifestyle. Dare I say, I can think of many people who would see it as a bonus. Would that also be a breach in the freedom of speech? Probably, but most would think it acceptable.

[+Link of Hyrule]

TheResearcher's response was worth repeating. Questioning a religious belief is not an act of hatred. This law is a barbaric mistake. Sheez... it's like all of western civilization is regressing back to the Middle Ages.

Fair point, but I don't think "questioning" a belief is being defined as blasphemy, at least according to the definition prescribed. It requires comments to be "grossly abusive or insulting" (as per the wording of the article) before it can be seen as an act of blasphemy.

Of course, how one defines a comment as abusive or insulting may very well change the intention of the law. But going solely by that definition, it requires a heck of a lot more than simply questioning a religious belief. It also broadens religion beyond that of simply Protestant or Catholic.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[Siara]

Hmm, I read "any religion". There is no preferential treatment being given to any one or two religious views here (ie, this is not a "Christians only" worry-fund).

Did it ever occur to the mega-geniuses who created this ridiculous law that religions contradict each other? What about "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" combined with Christianity's mandate to convert heretics?

And how are they going to determine whether something was said with the intent to insult? Is "the Christian God doesn't exist" an insult or a scientific opinion?

This law is a disaster. I can't believe they passed it. It's like an Inquisition of Political Correctness run amuck.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

I think that we need more laws like this just to show left-wingers how ridiculous their anti-freedom views are. I know that here in New Jersey many businesses have been brought to Court and punished simply because they do not agree with left-wing views that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.

The more that left-wingers continue to try and push their favored anti-freedom laws then I will support laws that will upset them.

Edited January 1, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[TheResearcher]

Fair point, but I don't think "questioning" a belief is being defined as blasphemy, at least according to the definition prescribed. It requires comments to be "grossly abusive or insulting" (as per the wording of the article) before it can be seen as an act of blasphemy.

Of course, how one defines a comment as abusive or insulting may very well change the intention of the law. But going solely by that definition, it requires a heck of a lot more than simply questioning a religious belief. It also broadens religion beyond that of simply Protestant or Catholic.

Indeed - this law is very subjective. Obviously the religious guys in question wouldn't take it to court unless they feel their religion had been 'grossly insulted or abused', but to someone who follows their religion obsessively, anything really could be seen as grossly insulting to them. For example, I'm certain a fundamentalist Christian would find it insulting if I said Jesus didn't exist. But then, a more moderate Christian wouldn't have a problem with it - and would say that each person can have their own beliefs and it wouldn't trouble them. Which line should the court follow? Of course my example is fairly simplistic, but when it gets to more complex issues then this sort of thing could surely become a big issue.

I wonder if people would complain so hard if they also made a homosexuality law in the same vein - which would make it illegal for any person to insult or ridicule homosexuals for their lifestyle. Dare I say, I can think of many people who would see it as a bonus. Would that also be a breach in the freedom of speech? Probably, but most would think it acceptable.

On this front, I find it hard to compare the situations. With religion there are two themes to the Irish law: this new law prohibiting ridicule of the actual religion, and anti-discrimination and anti-hatred laws preventing discrimination and attacks on all the actual followers of a religion. It's a fine distinction but there is a difference.

With homosexuality it isn't as clear cut: there are laws protecting homosexuals themselves against attack - but they don't all share a common belief so it can't be legislated to prevent criticism of it. There already are laws preventing ridicule & insult to homosexuals - because it falls under anti-hatred; ridiculing a person is different from ridiculing an idea (e.g. a religion).

I'm afraid I'm not articulating my thoughts very well, but you should be able to see what I mean.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Indeed - this law is very subjective. Obviously the religious guys in question wouldn't take it to court unless they feel their religion had been 'grossly insulted or abused', but to someone who follows their religion obsessively, anything really could be seen as grossly insulting to them. For example, I'm certain a fundamentalist Christian would find it insulting if I said Jesus didn't exist. But then, a more moderate Christian wouldn't have a problem with it - and would say that each person can have their own beliefs and it wouldn't trouble them. Which line should the court follow? Of course my example is fairly simplistic, but when it gets to more complex issues then this sort of thing could surely become a big issue.

Understood. While there is a certain amount of flexibility, if I were to claim, "Christians are stupid and should be routinely executed for their beliefs", there is not a lot of ambiguity in terms of insulting or abusing them. *As you know, I'm a Christian so I would never say this, just using it as an example*

I'm guessing that whatever comment or article is seen to be abusive or insulting, if it ever went to court would be subject to the very argument of interpretation that we're discussing here. I don't know the Irish court system, and so can't really say for certain how they'll view it, but any precedents and such will be most interesting to view if/when such occur.

On this front, I find it hard to compare the situations. With religion there are two themes to the Irish law: this new law prohibiting ridicule of the actual religion, and anti-discrimination and anti-hatred laws preventing discrimination and attacks on all the actual followers of a religion. It's a fine distinction but there is a difference.

With homosexuality it isn't as clear cut: there are laws protecting homosexuals themselves against attack - but they don't all share a common belief so it can't be legislated to prevent criticism of it. There already are laws preventing ridicule & insult to homosexuals - because it falls under anti-hatred; ridiculing a person is different from ridiculing an idea (e.g. a religion).

I'm afraid I'm not articulating my thoughts very well, but you should be able to see what I mean.

Point taken. I see what you're saying. My comment was not as complex as how you have taken it (not to say you're wrong in doing so, I was simply using this as one example that has been at the forefront of UM for some time now). Laws stating "people who grossly abuse or insult homosexuals and/or homosexual behaviour will now be subject to $25,000 fines" are likely to be accepted far more readily than laws stating "people who grossly abuse or insult any religion will now by subject to $25,000 fines".

This is a very simplistic response, since there are far more details to consider than simply religion-vs-homosexual. It was just something to help people think about the issue. All the best, eh

~ PA

[Siara]

I think that we need more laws like this just to show left-wingers how ridiculous their anti-freedom views are. I know that here in New Jersey many businesses have been brought to Court and punished simply because they do not agree with left-wing views that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.

The more that left-wingers continue to try and push their favored anti-freedom laws then I will support laws that will upset them.

My problem is not with right-wingers who criticize belief systems, etc (I think they're wrong but it's their opinion). My problem is when expressing an opinion moves into the realm of penalizing people financially or taking away their human rights because of their personal beliefs, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, lack of religious beliefs, etc.

TRUE, you don't distinguish between (for example) your right to say, "homosexuality sucks" and your right to deny homosexuals the same legal and financial rights as others. You don't distinguish between having the right to disagree with other people and having the right to abuse them for disagreeing with you.

It doesn't surprise me that you would support this law.

[Space Commander Travis]

How medieval. Will the Inquisition be making a comeback too?

[Tiggs]

From the link in the opening post:

The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion

Hmm, I read "any religion". There is no preferential treatment being given to any one or two religious views here (ie, this is not a "Christians only" worry-fund). From what I can tell, the law is aimed at any comment that is addressed towards ANY religion with the intent of ridicule or insult.

As Atheism is not regarded as a Religion within Ireland, denying God's existence is technically seen as Blasphemy under this law.

As part of this law, Police with a search warrant will be able to enter private premises and use "reasonable force" to obtain incriminating evidence.

Whether or not it will actually be enforced is a much more interesting question.

[Siara]

As Atheism is not regarded as a Religion within Ireland, denying God's existence is technically seen as Blasphemy under this law.

As part of this law, Police with a search warrant will be able to enter private premises and use "reasonable force" to obtain incriminating evidence.

Whether or not it will actually be enforced is a much more interesting question.

They need to create a God of Pure Reason.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

My problem is not with right-wingers who criticize belief systems, etc (I think they're wrong but it's their opinion). My problem is when expressing an opinion moves into the realm of penalizing people financially or taking away their human rights because of their personal beliefs, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, lack of religious beliefs, etc.

TRUE, you don't distinguish between (for example) your right to say, "homosexuality sucks" and your right to deny homosexuals the same legal and financial rights as others. You don't distinguish between having the right to disagree with other people and having the right to abuse them for disagreeing with you.

It doesn't surprise me that you would support this law.

Well here in the United States (especially the tri-state area) it is only the left-wing who are penalizing people and taking their right to associate themselves accordingly to their beliefs.

There are events that mock religion through art or through media etc... These people suffer no consequences at all. Yet if E-Harmony dosen't want to have a gay dating section as a part of their business then they get financially punished in Court.

The left-wing is hypocrtical when it comes to freedom. They want to preach their values and morals on issues of sexuality but then they preach that we all need to have the right to ridicule and insult religion.

I would rather that all people have an EQUAL right to associate with whom they choose and that they all have an EQUAL right to representation on the issues.

But the left-wing do not accept these EQUAL rights and only want to enforce their own morality.

The ACLU and other left-wing groups go around trying to ban all religious exression in the public square. But then they goaround trying to protect all types of sexual expression in the public square. They are anti-freedom of speech except for the speech that they like.

I would gladly not support a law such as this being that it does have the possiblity to limit the free speech and right to association as one chooses. But if the left-wing wants to impose their morality on everyone else continually then I will gladly support it when it all gets turned around on them.

[ChloeB]

You realy can't make it up.

http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/

Will they also fine people who don't mindlessly conform with Voodoo or Greek mythology?

Yes, the reaction to this was Blasphemy Day.

I know that here in New Jersey many businesses have been brought to Court and punished simply because they do not agree with left-wing views that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.

And of course, here you go with this again..... If you don't agree with homosexuality, don't be homosexual, but it's none of your business what other people are or choose to be. Get over it. It seems like you look for any opportunity to bring this up.

[The Silver Thong]

It doesn't surprise me that you would support this law.

Yup not a shocker there !

Well, one giant leap for religion and one giant step back to the middle ages for man. This is why religion is so damn dangerous. I won't be going to Irland anytime soon LOL funny really.

Edited January 1, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[+Link of Hyrule]

As Atheism is not regarded as a Religion within Ireland, denying God's existence is technically seen as Blasphemy under this law.

I'm not sure such would be the case. As the article noted, "blasphemy" is defined as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.

Unless such a law is completely abused, I cannot see how this can be used to stigmatise someone who simply says, "I don't believe that God exists".

As you say, it is a far more interesting question to see how this will actually be enforced. But for the time being, this is simply a hypothetical

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Yes, the reaction to this was Blasphemy Day.

And of course, here you go with this again..... If you don't agree with homosexuality, don't be homosexual, but it's none of your business what other people are or choose to be. Get over it. It seems like you look for any opportunity to bring this up.

If it is no one's business then the government should not be stepping in and trying to force people to treat homosexuality in any way at all except for how they choose to. E-Harmony and other companies shoud not be punished for not accepting the left-wing morality on this issue.

[Space Commander Travis]

... I know that here in New Jersey many businesses have been brought to Court and punished simply because they do not agree with left-wing views that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.

Oh, so what's this? Do you disagree then? On what grounds?

I know, don't tell me. It's a "lifestyle choice". Yes?

[The Silver Thong]

Well here in the United States (especially the tri-state area) it is only the left-wing who are penalizing people and taking their right to associate themselves accordingly to their beliefs.

There are events that mock religion through art or through media etc... These people suffer no consequences at all. Yet if E-Harmony dosen't want to have a gay dating section as a part of their business then they get financially punished in Court.

The left-wing is hypocrtical when it comes to freedom. They want to preach their values and morals on issues of sexuality but then they preach that we all need to have the right to ridicule and insult religion.

I would rather that all people have an EQUAL right to associate with whom they choose and that they all have an EQUAL right to representation on the issues.

But the left-wing do not accept these EQUAL rights and only want to enforce their own morality.

The ACLU and other left-wing groups go around trying to ban all religious exression in the public square. But then they goaround trying to protect all types of sexual expression in the public square. They are anti-freedom of speech except for the speech that they like.

I would gladly not support a law such as this being that it does have the possiblity to limit the free speech and right to association as one chooses. But if the left-wing wants to impose their morality on everyone else continually then I will gladly support it when it all gets turned around on them.

This is complete rubish all of it. EQUAL rights, I do not think you know what that means.

Religion and the right want to control rights and who gets them plain and simple. It's not even a question of debate on how wrong you are. Oh and don't worry your not religious at all

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Oh, so what's this? Do you disagree then? On what grounds?

I know, don't tell me. It's a "lifestyle choice". Yes?

There has never been any doctor or medical scientist who can predict the future behavior of a new born child. It is absolutely within the realm of choice. If you want to believe that you are not responsible for the choices that you make then that is your morality. Do not try to force your morality upon others by using anti-freedom laws.

[ChloeB]

If it is no one's business then the government should not be stepping in and trying to force people to treat homosexuality in any way at all except for how they choose to. E-Harmony and other companies shoud not be punished for not accepting the left-wing morality on this issue.

BECAUSE it's discrimination just like anything else. I don't know why you can't get that through your head.

[ChloeB]

There has never been any doctor or medical scientist who can predict the future behavior of a new born child. It is absolutely within the realm of choice. If you want to believe that you are not responsible for the choices that you make then that is your morality. Do not try to force your morality upon others by using anti-freedom laws.

POT MEET KETTLE! Forcing your morality on others?? YOU are the one always saying it's morally wrong, and truth is you have nothing, NOTHING to support that it's just a choice other than your own dislike of it. If they came up with a medical explanation tomorrow, you'd be arguing it to the death.