Blasphemy

[Whickerman]

Here in Ireland, our constitution makes Blasphemy an offence. However since the beginning of the state the highest courts has refused to define blasphemy as it's a notional concept and everyone was happy.
Now we have a 'Catholic commando' justice minister who decided that rather than having a constitutional referendum to remove the text from the constitution, as recommended by every advisory group, or leaving well alone, that he'd rather construct a bill to define blasphemy and it's just been signed into law.
Therefore it's now illegal (and punishable by a fine to the tune of �25000) to blaspheme.
"Blasphemous matter" is defined as matter "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."
So - dark ages anyone?

Also, i intend to form a religion consisting of 3 people. It will only take 2 of us to be outraged and someone's getting nicked.

What is your opinion of this?

[Whickerman]

Some links in case you're interested...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/ 2009/0429/1224245599892.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/20 09/0713/1224250543694.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/oppone nts-to-continue-fight-after-blasphemy-made-ill egal-1838252.html

[rojash]

I think there's overriding get-out clause there:

"and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."

If the highest courts have so far resisted defining blasphemy, presumably they'll be quite sympathetic to a defence along the lines that there was no intention to cause outrage.

[Whickerman]

agreed rojash. Unfortunately that will also mean that certain stand-up comedians, for example, will have to curtail their acts, which by their nature are designed to be OTT and close to the bone.

One guy - Tommy Tiernan - was being interviewed about this and jokingly asked if his name was listed in the act!

[mibn2cweus]

rojash, A note of caution might be warranted here. History is replete with injustice towards and atrocities against people/s who thought they could work within an irrational system and that "in this day and age surely reason will prevail".

Especially in cases where an imaginary creator of the universe is absurdly deemed to be on their side, I wouldn't count on it . . .

Hold up, someones beating on my door . . .

[naomi24]

^^ He's gonna be hit on the head by a thunderbolt one of these days - I just know he is. :o)

These silly people with their dangerous laws intended to silence not only freedom of speech, but often freedom of thought too, are going to meet themselves coming back eventually. What a tangled web they weave. They create disharmony, and do society no good at all. Blasphemy laws give the religious the legal right to take the moral high ground, but quite simply religion is not the moral high ground, and no one should be entitled to demand that it is. It's quite sickening.

Whicker, when I listen to the evil, devilish, drivel spoken over a tiny baby at an infant baptism, or watch a programme such as I watched a week or so back where a 7 year old Muslim child said she must cover her head because she doesn't want to go to the firey place, that outrages me. Can I join your new religion please?

[mibn2cweus]

Me three!

[jake-the-peg]

This is great news

Outrageous religious laws such as this provoke an overcorrection in public opinion.

In the UK we have only had two blashphemy cases in recent history.

The first was the Gay News publication of a poem depicting Jesus as gay. The result was that although they were found guilty there were minimal fines (although the costs broke them)

The second was the infamous Gerry Springer the Opera case - after this one blasphemy was finally repealled in the UK.

It's hard to oppose religions that are wishy washy and have a C of E, songs of praise image. People tend to think "What harm do they do?" etc.

They need reminding.

BTW my Irish in-laws tell me that there is a bit of a religious revival going on at the moment in Ireland, more bums on pews - would you agree with that?

[naomi24]

I think there may be a religious revival going on elsewhere too, Jake. Our church has certainly seen a large increase in numbers attending services recently, and similarly my friend says that her church, in a different area, has a growing congregation.

[jake-the-peg]

Amazing what a down-turn in the economy can do isn't it?

"Oh Lord - please don't let my Audi TT be repossesed...."

[ludwig]

I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who feel that religion...

"... is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by atheism (ie the truth), thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of atheism; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."

..why is it ok to offend atheists by publishing religious material, but not ok to offend the religious?

[naomi24]

Hello again Ludwig, It's not only the religious publications that many of us find offensive, it's the practices too, as highlighted in my earlier post. I find it absolutely appalling that the religious feel it's ok - no more than that - feel they are entitled and somehow duty bound to indoctrinate children with their superstitious, fear-filled, nonsense.

Why is not ok to offend the religious? Because we have to respect others beliefs, don't we? What a pity the religious aren't obliged to follow the same rules. Heaven(?) forbid that common sense be allowed to take a foothold. That would put a real spanner in the works!

[jake-the-peg]

Yes you often hear the idea that you shouldn't upset people's deeply held religious beliefs.

I think it may come down to us from all the religious fighting in this country over the last 400 years or so - the idea about letting sleeping dogs lie has gotten into the public conciousness.

I suspect also that it boils down to the simple fact that there are more votes in being supporting religion (esp. in Ireland) than in attacking it.

[naomi24]

Whilst a lot of people don't actively support religion, something in their upbringing (back to my main bone of contention) somehow makes it taboo to openly criticise it. Tell people you don't believe in God and just watch the look of abject horror appear on their faces - followed swiftly by a wordless splutter, an embarrassed cough, and the beating of a very hasty retreat!! Quite amusing really.

[Whickerman]

Yes, seems there's a bit of a religious revival all over, but the mad thing is it's not the 'mainstream' of any religion - it's the extremes that are picking up momentum, whether you mean evangelical Christians, or Islamic mullahs.

There's a funny side to all of this too though, if it wasn't so tragic.

Fr Ted anyone? Down with this sort of thing.

As for religion here in Ireland - this kinda sums it up...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0710/limerick.html

[naomi24]

I've seen that, Whicker. Unbelievable!

I think you're right in saying it's the extremes of religion that seem to be gathering momentum now, from the happy clappy born agains, to the fundamentalist Muslims. What a mad world!

[mibn2cweus]

Wonder what they wood make of this apparition?

[JockSporran]

Hooray!!! Good to see there's at least one country that is trying to do something about the decline of moral standards. Here in Britain morals have gone to the dogs, partly thanks to the likes of certain blasphemous stand-up comedians and their propaganda.

[naomi24]

Mibs, behave! Sperlatt!

Jock, but why do you assume the decline in moral standards is all about religion? How do you think those of us who aren't religious manage to lead respectable lives? It isn't about religion - it's about good standards, and they don't necessarily come from religion and all the baggage that carries with it.