Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[Constitutional Convention][8][2 Nov 2013] The Offence Of Blasphemy

Options
  • 16-10-2013 1:27pm
    #1
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭


    Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate

    I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

    The Convention are meeting on 2nd and 3rd of November 2013 to discuss the eight issue put to us.

    The Removal Of The Offence Of Blasphemy From The Constitution

    The Irish Constitution URL="https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf"]PDF[/URL currently states
    Article 40.6.1 wrote:
    The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

    The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

    The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

    I welcome your comments. Discuss.


    ** Apologies for the late posting of this discussion. We only have just over two weeks to discuss.


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    The word "blasphemous" has to go - it has no place in the constitution of a modern secular country. "Indecent" is one that could probably go too, but I'm not for budging on blasphemy, it simply must be destroyed with fire.


  • Options
    #3
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    A stupid law that was brought back because of a Government too conservative or too apathetic to get rid of it. Made more farcical by declaring it "unworkable" as if passing unworkable law was somehow a legitimate alternative to getting rid of the need for it. Fear of it has already caused the closure of threads on this board.

    Likewise "seditious" has to go, and "indecent". It's not for the state (and in particular this state) to tell me whats decent or otherwise.


  • Options
    #4
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Nodin wrote: »
    Likewise "seditious" has to go, and "indecent". It's not for the state (and in particular this state) to tell me whats decent or otherwise.
    There's an argument to be had there. I have no problem with decency, but it's pretty much by definition the state's business to tell you what's seditious or otherwise.


  • Options
    #5
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    My point of view would be that religious utterances shouldn't be mentioned in the Good Book at all. There are a huge amount of references to Religious objects. The only utterance I could see would be to allow religious freedom, nothing else, which is already there under Article 44.

    To name but a few...
    The Opening Prayer wrote:
    In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom
    is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all
    actions both of men and States must be referred,

    We, the people of Éire,
    Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
    Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers
    through centuries of trial,

    Gratefully remembering their heroic and
    unremitting struggle to regain the rightful
    independence of our Nation,

    And seeking to promote the common good, with
    due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so
    that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be
    assured, true social order attained, the unity of our
    country restored, and concord established with other
    nations,

    Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this
    Constitution.

    Article 6.1 wrote:
    All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the ulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.
    Article 12.8 wrote:
    The President shall enter upon his office by taking and subscribing publicly, in the presence of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, and other public personages, the following declaration:

    “In the presence of Almighty God I , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me.”

    Article 31.4 wrote:
    Every member of the Council of State shall at the first meeting thereof which he attends as a member take and subscribe a declaration in the following form:

    “In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties as a member of the Council of State.”
    Article 34.5.1 wrote:
    Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration:

    “In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me.”


  • Options
    #6
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,719 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    RangeR wrote: »
    My point of view would be that religious utterances shouldn't be mentioned in the Good Book at all. There are a huge amount of references to Religious objects. The only utterance I could see would be to allow religious freedom, nothing else, which is already there under Article 44.

    To name but a few...

    Completely agree with this - any references to God, Divine or other such antiquities have no place in the (supposed) modern, diverse and multicultural Ireland.

    The only reference should be to acknowledge and secure one's freedom of belief AS LONG AS that belief is not favored or otherwise "forced" or imposed upon others.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Any attempt to remove religious references would be an attack on the cultural Christian identity of the State. As such it is a valid heritage entity, at least according to reasoning of the ECtHR from a recent attempt to remove religious symbols in Italian state buildings. It is a reminder of a past when Ireland that was part of the common European Res Publica Christiana and attempts to overturn this as part of a deliberate attempt to create a value free post-Modern society smacks of Utopian social engineering, or a pandering to the very base supporters of certain parties.

    Various other European countries have Hate Speech laws designed to prevent the lost of dignity by inflammatory speech. Given the rarity of protectionist of Blasphemy in those jurisdictions compared with the higher rates of conviction under Hate Speech legislation which could easily be brought in the former's place, it might be a case of be careful what you wish for.


  • Options
    #8
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Manach wrote: »
    Any attempt to remove religious references would be an attack on the cultural Christian identity of the State.
    Yes. That's the idea. I don't want my state to have a Christian identity (or a Muslim, or a Jain, or a FSM identity); I want my state to be firmly secular, with the only nod to religion being the right to practice it without state oppression.
    As such it is a valid heritage entity, at least according to reasoning of the ECtHR from a recent attempt to remove religious symbols in Italian state buildings. It is a reminder of a past when Ireland that was part of the common European Res Publica Christiana and attempts to overturn this as part of a deliberate attempt to create a value free post-Modern society smacks of Utopian social engineering, or a pandering to the very base supporters of certain parties.
    Secularism is not value-free, and it's as deliberately insulting to say so as if I were to argue that religion is intelligence-free.
    Various other European countries have Hate Speech laws designed to prevent the lost of dignity by inflammatory speech. Given the rarity of protectionist of Blasphemy in those jurisdictions compared with the higher rates of conviction under Hate Speech legislation which could easily be brought in the former's place, it might be a case of be careful what you wish for.
    I'm not at all clear what this means.


  • Options
    #9
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Manach wrote: »
    Any attempt to remove religious references would be an attack on the cultural Christian identity of the State..

    ....the state should have no religious identity.
    Manach wrote: »
    As such it is a valid heritage entity, at least according to reasoning of the ECtHR from a recent attempt to remove religious symbols in Italian state buildings.
    .


    ....there's rather a large difference between symbols in state buildings and religious references, the wording of a constitutional imperative to have a blasphemy law
    Manach wrote: »
    It is a reminder of a past when Ireland that was part of the common European Res Publica Christiana and attempts to overturn this as part of a deliberate attempt to create a value free post-Modern society smacks of Utopian social engineering, or a pandering to the very base supporters of certain parties..

    I don't see how you come to this "value free" notion.

    If "Christendom" ever existed, its long since gone.

    And if you're going to go on about "certain parties" please name them.
    Manach wrote: »
    Various other European countries have Hate Speech laws designed to prevent the lost of dignity by inflammatory speech. Given the rarity of protectionist of Blasphemy in those jurisdictions compared with the higher rates of conviction under Hate Speech legislation which could easily be brought in the former's place, it might be a case of be careful what you wish for.


    To paraphrase OB - ye wha?


  • Options
    #10
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not at all clear what this means.
    I think he's using the tried-and-tested-by-John-Waters method of making his point as convoluted as possible.
    Nodin wrote: »
    if you're going to go on about "certain parties" please name them.
    Anyone less socially conservative than Peter Matthews, I think.

    The simple fact of the matter is, no-one has ever been convicted of blasphemy since before Ireland became independent of Britain. Why should it still be in the constitution?


  • Options
    #11
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    It simply has to go IMO. As we know nobody has actually been convicted of it in the history of the state. All that it can possibly serve by having it in is to allow people to use religion to silence the opinions of others


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Manach wrote: »
    Any attempt to remove religious references would be an attack on the cultural Christian identity of the State. As such it is a valid heritage entity, at least according to reasoning of the ECtHR from a recent attempt to remove religious symbols in Italian state buildings. It is a reminder of a past when Ireland that was part of the common European Res Publica Christiana and attempts to overturn this as part of a deliberate attempt to create a value free post-Modern society smacks of Utopian social engineering, or a pandering to the very base supporters of certain parties.
    Couldn't agree with this more.

    So many people think 'religion' and say the first thing that comes into their heads, like a case of mental diarrhea.

    Do people understand how many 'liberal-friendly' constitutional cases have been won because the courts veered away from a literal, unforgiving, merciless interpretation of the constitution, to one where Christian charity and mercy were persuaded to the fore?

    In the Supreme Court judgement on Marie Fleming's right to die, the Chief Justice specifically earmarked the Christian ethos of the Irish Constitution as one of the components guaranteeing to the citizen (or in fact, the visitor from abroad, in most cases) "a range of personal freedoms or immunities as are necessary to ensure his dignity and freedom as an individual".

    It would be exhausting to try and list all of the occasions when the Supreme Court, in particular, has invoked the Christian ethos of the constitution in guaranteeing personal freedoms and rights. None stands out moreso than the words of Judge Henchy in David Norris's 1984 challenge. In one of the most significant judgements of modern times, and drawing the Christian nature of the constitution, Henchy recalled the Christian opposition to homosexuality and then, remarkably, said "With respect, I do not think that should be treated as a guiding consideration"

    He then expounded with memorable eloquence why the Christian ethos of the constitution (i.e. mercy and charity) would not permit an "inhumane" interference by the state, or "intolerance, harassment, blackmail and other forms of cruelty at the hands of those who would batten on the revulsion that such acts elicit in most heterosexuals".

    So you can see, it is important to underline how great a help the Christian ethos of the constitution has been to the values of liberal society. Suggesting we remove all references to our Christian ethos is reactionary and foolish.

    That said, I would be in favour of the removal of references to blasphemy, because I can think of no legitimate function for it, whereas it causes confusion and some deserved offence.


  • Options
    #13
    Palmach
    Registered Users Posts: 974 ✭✭✭Palmach


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Couldn't agree with this more.

    So many people think 'religion' and say the first thing that comes into their heads, like a case of mental diarrhea.

    Do people understand how many 'liberal-friendly' constitutional cases have been won because the courts veered away from a literal, unforgiving, merciless interpretation of the constitution, to one where Christian charity and mercy were persuaded to the fore?

    In the Supreme Court judgement on Marie Fleming's right to die, the Chief Justice specifically earmarked the Christian ethos of the Irish Constitution as one of the components guaranteeing to the citizen (or in fact, the visitor from abroad, in most cases) "a range of personal freedoms or immunities as are necessary to ensure his dignity and freedom as an individual".

    It would be exhausting to try and list all of the occasions when the Supreme Court, in particular, has invoked the Christian ethos of the constitution in guaranteeing personal freedoms and rights. None stands out moreso than the words of Judge Henchy in David Norris's 1984 challenge. In one of the most significant judgements of modern times, and drawing the Christian nature of the constitution, Henchy recalled the Christian opposition to homosexuality and then, remarkably, said "With respect, I do not think that should be treated as a guiding consideration"

    He then expounded with memorable eloquence why the Christian ethos of the constitution (i.e. mercy and charity) would not permit an "inhumane" interference by the state, or "intolerance, harassment, blackmail and other forms of cruelty at the hands of those who would batten on the revulsion that such acts elicit in most heterosexuals".

    So you can see, it is important to underline how great a help the Christian ethos of the constitution has been to the values of liberal society. Suggesting we remove all references to our Christian ethos is reactionary and foolish.

    That said, I would be in favour of the removal of references to blasphemy, because I can think of no legitimate function for it, whereas it causes confusion and some deserved offence.

    Good post. I am atheist but firmly believe that the Chrsitian references should stay. It is part of our heritage and indetity. It also gives a reference point to Judges when making decisions. I wonder what do the millitant secularists suggest we do with the most basic phrase in our language Dia dhuit. Should we just say dhuit. Chrsitianity is part of the Irsh identity.


  • Options
    #14
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Days 298


    Manachs response is like Fox New's war on Christmas. Any liberty given from this ethos can be replaced with a secular version. It should at least go to referendum. I'm not Christian and don't feel like my country's constitution should contain references to it for any cultural reasons. Maybe put it on the sheet next to the gay marriage vote. See how "culturally" catholic the people are.

    Blasphemy law should go. If a bit of bad mouthing your faith offends you, you should probably revalue your faith.

    The idea the status quo is grand is the conservative grasping at straws.

    I want the right to voice my opinion and I don't like the government endorsing any religion over another.


  • Options
    #15
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Couldn't agree with this more.

    So many people think 'religion' and say the first thing that comes into their heads, like a case of mental diarrhea.

    Do people understand how many 'liberal-friendly' constitutional cases have been won because the courts veered away from a literal, unforgiving, merciless interpretation of the constitution, to one where Christian charity and mercy were persuaded to the fore?

    ............

    ...its a bit of a nonsense, not to mention insulting, to maintain that charity and mercy have to be chained to religious belief.


  • Options
    #16
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Days 298


    Palmach wrote: »
    Good post. I am atheist but firmly believe that the Chrsitian references should stay. It is part of our heritage and indetity. It also gives a reference point to Judges when making decisions. I wonder what do the millitant secularists suggest we do with the most basic phrase in our language Dia dhuit. Should we just say dhuit. Chrsitianity is part of the Irsh identity.
    Haigh!

    Edit: I'm irish. Christianity is not a part of my identity or most people I know. The only place a lot come in contact with religion is in school but that's another thread. I refuse to believe Christianity is an essential part of the modern Irish identity.


  • Options
    #17
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Palmach wrote: »
    Good post. I am atheist but firmly believe that the Chrsitian references should stay. It is part of our heritage and indetity. It also gives a reference point to Judges when making decisions. ........

    ...given theres various branches of Christianity, and the differing levels of faith and beliefs within those branches, that's not much of a reference.


  • Options
    #18
    Palmach
    Registered Users Posts: 974 ✭✭✭Palmach


    Days 298 wrote: »
    Haigh!

    Edit: I'm irish. Christianity is not a part of my identity or most people I know. The only place a lot come in contact with religion is in school but that's another thread. I refuse to believe Christianity is an essential part of the modern Irish identity.

    It is. It is has been part and parcel of this nation for 1600 years and has shaped us. What's wrong with living in a Christian pluralist society?
    Nodin wrote: »
    ...given theres various branches of Christianity, and the differing levels of faith and beliefs within those branches, that's not much of a reference.

    It is a big reference and avoids the obvious Catholic Protestant argument.


  • Options
    #19
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...its a bit of a nonsense, not to mention insulting, to maintain that charity and mercy have to be chained to religious belief.

    Sorry Nodin, I note that we share many of the same opinions of a liberal slant, but "charity" and "mercy" are meaningless words without their proper context. There is no clear and unambiguous meaning attached to such words, taken out of their Christian meaning. Thatcher's individualism could be said to be an endorsement of 'charity derived from the community', so as to exclude the charitable mandate of the State.

    Taken in their Christian context, especially in the letters of Saint Paul, charity, agape, takes on a very particular meaning which we might associate with The Good Samaritan, a case where practical, humane love of the common man trumped pious aspiration.

    I am no Christian, but I am a person shaped by the Christian tradition of human liberty, as are most of us. To thinklessly remove references to Christianity from the constitution would be to deprive the courts of an important, practical reference point for the values of LIBERAL Irish society.


  • Options
    #20
    Days 298
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Days 298


    Palmach wrote: »
    It is. It is has been part and parcel of this nation for 1600 years and has shaped us. What's wrong with living in a Christian pluralist society?
    I don't. There are remnants of a gone era. What's wrong with an actual separation of church and state? Would it devalue the church's standing? I'm not Catholic. A lot of people are cultural Catholics. Lovely word isn't it.. cultural. The state is not even a century old. I have no interest in the it's always been like this attitude. Ireland has changed. I've no interest in Christianity. I don't like my constitution supporting it. The idea that the state must anchor it to the pillar of our democracy for ever basically is a farce. I'm irish 100% Christianity may be part of my ancestors but it in no way makes up a part of my identity.

    Modern Ireland is a lot different to Ireland 25 years ago never mind the time the constitution was written. The constitution must adapt or be rewritten.

    I ask you what's wrong with a secular society where everyone can believe what they want without the States interference.


  • Options
    #21
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    ..."charity" and "mercy" are meaningless words without their proper context.
    It's shockingly arrogant to claim that charity and mercy can't exist outside of a Christian (or any religious) context.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's shockingly arrogant to claim that charity and mercy can't exist outside of a Christian (or any religious) context.

    If I responded to this in any material way, I would be repeating the subsequent words I used in post #19, which, un-helpfully you either did not read nor quote. Therefore, there can be no meaningful response.


  • Options
    #23
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    If I responded to this in any material way, I would be repeating the subsequent words I used in post #19, which, un-helpfully you either did not read nor quote. Therefore, there can be no meaningful response.
    I read it. You're claiming that Christian charity and mercy are the only useful benchmarks that a secular court could or should apply, or that a secular court would somehow lose the ability to apply those benchmarks if it felt they were the appropriate ones.

    The idea that Irish society would undergo a sudden and wrenching shift in values on the removal of some magic formulas from one specific religion is one that is utterly baffling to me.


  • Options
    #24
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Fine. I would rather you be baffled than the superior courts.

    The meaning of words must be unambiguous.


  • Options
    #25
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Palmach wrote: »
    It is. It is has been part and parcel of this nation for 1600 years and has shaped us. What's wrong with living in a Christian pluralist society?.

    .....because nobody can really agree what defines "Christian", for a start.
    Palmach wrote: »
    It is a big reference and avoids the obvious Catholic Protestant argument.

    A 'reference point' is a precise thing. "Christian" is not. Neither is "protestant". Despite what some would have you believe, neither is "catholic". Once could have three church attending catholics and three rather different views.
    Cody Pomeray wrote:
    Sorry Nodin, I note that we share many of the same opinions of a liberal slant,
    but "charity" and "mercy" are meaningless words without their proper context.
    There is no clear and unambiguous meaning attached to such words, taken out of
    their Christian meaning. Thatcher's individualism could be said to be an
    endorsement of 'charity derived from the community', so as to exclude the
    charitable mandate of the State.

    Thatcher was a "Christian". COE, if I recall.

    This is supposedly a secular state. While peoples beliefs and actions may be informed by their faith, I think it inappropriate to have one referenced in the constitution.


  • Options
    #26
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,473 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    The meaning of words must be unambiguous.
    And Christianity and Religion in general are unambigiuous are they?

    The very basic concept of religion is abstract and ambigious (and that's being generous and polite about it) so anything based on it is hardly going to be much more substancial in the real world. The definitions attached to the words given them a very clear meaning; all religion does is add a particular slant to them to suit the agenda of the particular church.


    All references to god or religion need to be removed from the constitution and the operation of the state.


  • Options
    #27
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    And Christianity and Religion in general are unambigiuous are they?

    The very basic concept of religion is abstract and ambigious
    You're potentially correct, but only correct when taking an objective and historical view of Christianity, from the ante Nicene theologians to Pope Francis! Mercifully, the courts, along with all right minded adults, reject such approaches.

    We live in the year 2013 (rare truth!).

    The current moral paradigm (liberalism? Irishism? European socialism? secularism?) is itself a secondary paradigm to the relatively fundamental Christian tradition regarding the dignity and liberty of the individual in the Irish constitution, drawn from our preamble, without which there is scarce clarity.

    As bad as moral relativism might be, at least we are not stuck with vague, secular predicates.


  • Options
    #28
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »



    The current moral paradigm (liberalism? Irishism? European socialism? secularism?) is itself a secondary paradigm to the relatively fundamental Christian tradition regarding the dignity and liberty of the individual in the Irish constitution, drawn from our preamble, without which there is scarce clarity.

    As bad as moral relativism might be, at least we are not stuck with vague, secular predicates.

    "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom
    is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all
    actions both of men and States must be referred,

    We, the people of Éire,
    Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
    Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers
    through centuries of trial,

    Gratefully remembering their heroic and
    unremitting struggle to regain the rightful
    independence of our Nation,

    And seeking to promote the common good, with
    due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so
    that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be
    assured, true social order attained, the unity of our
    country restored, and concord established with other
    nations,

    Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this
    Constitution."
    http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf

    The above is the preamble. Tbh, your notion strikes me as wishful thinking at best. The French survive well without such references, the German has only passing reference to religion.....


  • Options
    #29
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,158 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    I think people should debate the wider issue of Christian heritage or words like mercy and charity if they ever get proposed for removal or amendment.

    In this case, the question posed is specifically about the removal of the offense of blasphemy. An 'offense' that has never been prosecuted in the history of the state eventhough it is committed on a daily basis by strict definition. It cannot be considered a "valid heritage entry" when it has never been enacted or respected during the history of the state. That seems a fairly clear and straightforwad reason for its removal.


  • Options
    #30
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Nodin wrote: »
    The above is the preamble.
    I'm really not sure why you felt the need to regurgitate the preamble; surely we already know about the references to Christianity, which is what was being discussed:confused:

    The preamble is declaratory and is not justiciable, it serves as the prism through which the constitution is to be viewed. Whether you like it or not, liberal western values are constructed from the Christian tradition. Nobody would suggest any supernatural genesis, nor is it necessary to endorse Christian dogma; noting the approximate location of Irish values on the spectrum of morality seems like a legitimate undertaking, and has tended to work in liberals' favour. That is a fact.

    Anyway this is off topic, I'm sure everyone agrees on blasphemy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Palmach
    Registered Users Posts: 974 ✭✭✭Palmach


    Nodin wrote: »
    The above is the preamble. Tbh, your notion strikes me as wishful thinking at best. The French survive well without such references, the German has only passing reference to religion.....

    Most of the succesful coun tries in the world are majority Christian and have some references to Christianity in their constitution or have established religions.


Advertisement