Proposed Blasphemy Law

Hivemind187

Zillah wrote: »

As a newly awakened Demotologist I am outraged by your comment. All we need is one more and we have an argument to prosecute him.

Wait, did you intend offense?

Not nessesscerily. How much do you weigh? You might be considered "substantial" enough on your own

Dades

Skrynesaver wrote: »

So describing the Trinity as a Sky fairy and equating belief in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour" to that of a lunatic won't cause sufficient offense.

Nope.

Skrynesaver wrote: »

How about my freedom to say that if you beief in the Trinity Jesus was a mother rapist?
Would that outrage a suffcient number of the faithful.

Or that the Angelus is at its root a celebration of the rape of a 12 year old girl and as such explains much about the nature of the Catholic church?

You've just said them. Do you hear the police kicking down your door?

Those comments would just make someone sound like an immature attention seeker, tbh. And we'd rather those sort of comments weren't made here - not because they're blasphemous - but because they simply lower the tone of the place.

I find the whole idea of testing the legislation daft. "What if I said this... no? Okay what about THIS? Still no? Okay how about if I came up with something really disgusting and said THIS?" Pul-ease.

Hivemind187

Dades wrote: »

Nope.

You've just said them. Do you hear the police kicking down your door?

In fairness the bills were only voted on yesterday. Give them time ... not even religious zealots are that quick

Dades wrote: »

Those comments would just make someone sound like an immature attention seeker, tbh. And we'd rather those sort of comments weren't made here - not because they're blasphemous - but because they simply lower the tone of the place.

I find the whole idea of testing the legislation daft. "What if I said this... no? Okay what about THIS? Still no? Okay how about if I came up with something really disgusting and said THIS?" Pul-ease.

Interesting, but is that because it is here on boards which is not as visible as say, the late late show?

If, for example, you sat in on the late late show and started to list all the heinous acts perpetrated by god, his followers and then had a go at Mohammad for being a pederest in an attempt to shock people out of their complacency could that not qualify as deliberate intent to offend/outrage?

The issue is that the daft legislation can be interpreted broadly (which the minister has shown he is liable to do). The DPP can be directed to take a particular line on something as well (Paintball, for example, is technically a criminal act as the guns qualify as firearms but the DPP is direct not to prosecute). It's pretty easy to outrage people who can use "outrage" as a means to silence you.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I find the whole idea of testing the legislation daft.

It's a time-honored legal tradition and there's nothing daft about it at all.

In the USA, test cases brought by Rosa Parks and Oliver Brown made much-needed changes to American society. I can't quite see Mike Nugent in the same boat as these, but the principal's the same.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

It's a time-honored legal tradition and there's nothing daft about it at all.

In the USA, test cases brought by Rosa Parks and Oliver Brown made much-needed changes to American society. I can't quite see Mike Nugent in the same boat as these, but the principal's the same.

Point taken. I guess it's this case I have an issue with.

This "test" case might be the only one ever - rather than with a law that is routinely applied to the detriment of society. Though now I am very curious as to how this pans out.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

If, for example, you sat in on the late late show and started to list all the heinous acts perpetrated by god, his followers and then had a go at Mohammad for being a pederest in an attempt to shock people out of their complacency could that not qualify as deliberate intent to offend/outrage?

I don't think a genuine description of heinous biblical acts could be blasphemous. And if, in discussion, you were to suggest that Mohammed, judged on today's Western standards would be considered a pederast - you wouldn't be in breach either imo. There's no intent other than to partake in a discussion in such cases.

kiffer

Dades wrote: »

I don't think a genuine description of heinous biblical acts could be blasphemous. And if, in discussion, you were to suggest that Mohammed, judged on today's Western standards would be considered a pederast - you wouldn't be in breach either imo. There's no intent other than to partake in a discussion in such cases.

I don't know ... It doesn't say it needs to be an untrue statement to be blasphemy in this law... (or am I wrong?). It just needs to be intended to offend/outrage and to cause outrage in a significat number of people.

Does knowing that a statement will offend before you say it and then saying any way count as intent to offend?

robindch

Dades wrote: »

This "test" case might be the only one ever

The intent is to bring it to court, then have the judge either declare the law unworkable so that the DPP will never take another case, or refer the case upwards in the direction of the Supreme Court for them to have a think about it.

I can't see any judge in his/her right mind accepting the law as imprecisely as it stands at the moment. And in the faintest of chances that a judgment will be recorded against whomever the DPP takes the case against, it will be appealed and the higher court will no doubt throw it out. The SC certainly will, since an earlier SC has ruled it improper.

However this pans out, I'd say the law is DOA.

Dades

Was about to post this in one of the stickies and then thought maybe this is in fact the right thread...

Burger King apology to Hindus for advert

Burger King wrote:

"We are apologising because it wasn't our intent to offend anyone," said spokeswoman Denise T Wilson.

Seems like a very odd choice of religion/deity to advertise a burger if the idea wasn't to cause a kerfuffle!

Wonder if the DPP would be looking at this had it been displayed here?

ChocolateSauce

Hivemind187 wrote: »

In fairness the bills were only voted on yesterday. Give them time ... not even religious zealots are that quick

I don't think the people who voted for this bill are religious zealots, just idiots, morons, half-wits, paternalistic jackasses who need to take freedom and democracy 101 and who are intellectual slaves to what they perceive to be their voting base.

ShooterSF

Dades wrote: »

Was about to post this in one of the stickies and then thought maybe this is in fact the right thread...

Burger King apology to Hindus for advert

Seems like a very odd choice of religion/deity to advertise a burger if the idea wasn't to cause a kerfuffle!

Wonder if the DPP would be looking at this had it been displayed here?

See I think this opens up a question. Burger King claim they had no intent to outrage and have pulled the ads so is that enough evidence to show that there was no intention?
What if they claimed they didn't intend it but didn't pull the ads? Now how does one decide if there was intent?

Dades

In my view they clearly had intent to cause outrage - they had to pull an ad seen as 'racist' towards Mexicans earlier this year.

Clearly they enjoyed the coverage they got from that and decided to go one further.

The Mad Hatter

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't think the people who voted for this bill are religious zealots, just idiots, morons, half-wits, paternalistic jackasses who need to take freedom and democracy 101 and who are intellectual slaves to what they perceive to be their voting base.

Gosh.

drkpower

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Sorry but the past history of these things says otherwise. Current behavior of the minister of justice and that of the department he runs suggests that it will be interpreted broadly.

Hive, the Minister and his Department have absolutely nothing to do with how the legislation will be interpreted. And criminal statutes have to be interpreted strictly.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Correction, minister Ahern doesnt care. Exactly when did you start believing the words of a man who has lied and contradicted himself repeatedly about this and every other piece of legislation he has tried to ram home?

I have little or no time for Dermo. But he does care about his political future. Frighteningly, he sees himself as Taoiseach material. A bunch of people being sent down for blasphemous libel would damage him hugely, and he knows it. That is why the Bill includes "outrage" and an intention to so do. There is no other similar offence on the books. He knows it wont be used.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Sorry but thats nothing more than apologetics. Its this kind of thinking that permits the erosion of peoples fundamental rights to free speach, free dessent, free assembly and the right to hold those in authority accountable.

If you take away peoples right to shout "Look look, the Emperor is bollock naked on Sackville Street!" then you are in serious trouble.

Being civil and "having restraint" is great for dinner parties but it does jack to progress civilisation.

I am not and have not stated that I am in favour of taking away anyone's right to offend. Try not to see threats where they do not exist.

My point, clearly made, was that exercising that right injudicously will only harm your (and my) cause.

Abusing the right of free expression by playing loud music all night every night results in people calling for laws curbing that freedom meaning that when you really want to play loud music, you will find that your right to do so has been curtailed. Poor enough analogy, admittedly, but I hope you see the point I am trying to make.

ShooterSF

Dades wrote: »

In my view they clearly had intent to cause outrage - they had to pull an ad seen as 'racist' towards Mexicans earlier this year.

Clearly they enjoyed the coverage they got from that and decided to go one further.

And this leads to a small problem. How do you prove intention? People keep saying unless you do something with the intent of outraging people you can't be prosecuted but what if you did it because you have a twisted sense of humour yet others accuse you of doing it to outrage people.
How can you know why someone does something?

fitz0

drkpower wrote: »

Hive, the Minister and his Department have absolutely nothing to do with how the legislation will be interpreted. And criminal statutes have to be interpreted strictly.

Thats utter rubbish. Of course the Minister and his department have everything to do with how legislation will be interpreted, they're the ones drafting the legislation! If they draft it without clear definitions of what it entails, then they are the root cause of it being misinterpreted and abused.

Who would you think is responsible? The judges who have to enforce it? The people who see an opening to exploit? Yes they are responsible but if the minister and his department drafted the legislation without any loopholes, vague terms or silly offenses then there would be no way to interpret it incorrectly.

drkpower

fitz0 wrote: »

Thats utter rubbish. Of course the Minister and his department have everything to do with how legislation will be interpreted, they're the ones drafting the legislation! If they draft it without clear definitions of what it entails, then they are the root cause of it being misinterpreted and abused.

Who would you think is responsible? The judges who have to enforce it? The people who see an opening to exploit? Yes they are responsible but if the minister and his department drafted the legislation without any loopholes, vague terms or silly offenses then there would be no way to interpret it incorrectly.

Settle down Fitz. Deep breaths before you post....:rolleyes:

Sure, the Minister/Dept may be to blame if it is mis-interpreted, but once it has been drafted/enacted, the Minister/Dept have absolutely nothing to do with how it will be interpreted.

That is a different matter to who is responsible if it all goes pear-shaped.

Hivemind187

drkpower wrote: »

Settle down Fitz. Deep breaths before you post....:rolleyes:

Sure, the Minister/Dept may be to blame if it is mis-interpreted, but once it has been drafted/enacted, the Minister/Dept have absolutely nothing to do with how it will be interpreted.

That is a different matter to who is responsible if it all goes pear-shaped.

Again, you are wrong there. The DPP can be directed by the DoJ to prosecute or not prosecute. Judges are subject to the implementation of the law as it stands - they are not permitted the luxury of a la cartism, which means they either deal with it or shuffle it upstairs.

You seem to be avoiding the facts by saying "nah, it'll never happen" but the point is that it has happened. Legislation exists. We now have to deal with the ever present threat that publically stating there is no god and belief in the supernatural is nonsense will be scrutinised to the point of discrimination.

Moreover, the DoJ and the minister are capable of altering the law so as to make it more or less prosecutable as they see fit. Moreover, clarification can be asked for from the department with reference to specific circumstances. If this happens it will depened on the individual interpreting the law on the day.

col123

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwCxz0eCdWA

drkpower

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Again, you are wrong there. The DPP can be directed by the DoJ to prosecute or not prosecute. Judges are subject to the implementation of the law as it stands - they are not permitted the luxury of a la cartism, which means they either deal with it or shuffle it upstairs..

Hive, where do you get the idea that the DoJ can direct the DPP to prosecute this offence? Neither the DPP nor the DoJ think so...!!

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2009/03/10/story86276.asp

http://www.dppireland.ie/questions_and_answers/the_role_of_the_dpp/#10
Is the DPP independent?
Yes. The DPP is independent when carrying out his job. This means that the Government or the Gardaí can neither make the DPP prosecute a particular case nor stop him from doing so

In addition, the judges interpret the law as it currently stands. So what outrage means or what level of intent is required to meet the test of an intention to outrage will be determined by judges.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

You seem to be avoiding the facts by saying "nah, it'll never happen" but the point is that it has happened. Legislation exists. We now have to deal with the ever present threat that publically stating there is no god and belief in the supernatural is nonsense will be scrutinised to the point of discrimination...

Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying it will "never happen", but I think it is highly unlikely to happen for a number of reasons. Not impossible, just very unlikely. But the suggestion that "stating there is no god and belief in the supernatural is nonsense" could ever be sufficient to be blasphemous libel is, frankly, ridiculous.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Moreover, the DoJ and the minister are capable of altering the law so as to make it more or less prosecutable as they see fit. Moreover, clarification can be asked for from the department with reference to specific circumstances. If this happens it will depened on the individual interpreting the law on the day.

Sure, the Gov. can change the law when they want. But when you state that "clarification can be asked from the Department", if you mean that a judge can ask the Dept for clarification mid-case, then that is entirely untrue.

ChocolateSauce

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Gosh.

I'm not normally that hyperbolic I swear:o

Hivemind187

drkpower wrote: »

Hive, where do you get the idea that the DoJ can direct the DPP to prosecute this offence? Neither the DPP nor the DoJ think so...!!

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2009/03/10/story86276.asp

http://www.dppireland.ie/questions_and_answers/the_role_of_the_dpp/#10
Is the DPP independent?
Yes. The DPP is independent when carrying out his job. This means that the Government or the Gardaí can neither make the DPP prosecute a particular case nor stop him from doing so

The DPP have been directed, by the DoJ not to prosecute paintballers for comiting what is technically an act of assault within the Republic of Ireland. This single fact alone seems to contradict your (and their) ascertion.

I'll explain this a little better since its doubtful you'll be able to find the specific notes.

Paintball guns operate at a muzzle energy of around 12-16joules. According to the law this makes them firearms (cjb2006). Prior to the 2006 ammendment defining a minimum muzzle energy for a firearm the act of using a paintball gun was still deemed an assault though the sport existed and indeed flourished. This is because the DPP was directed not to prosecute.

drkpower wrote: »

In addition, the judges interpret the law as it currently stands. So what outrage means or what level of intent is required to meet the test of an intention to outrage will be determined by judges.

You're ignoring a salient fact here. It is determined by judges (whom incidentally are obliged to take a religious oath) who are people. People are fallible. People and prone to manipulation. More importantly though, such things are decided by preceident. In the absence of a native precedent it is likely that the courts would seek a precedent outside of the country (happens regularly usually with reference to the UK). There are a number of precedents that could be taken such as the Mohammad cartoons. Alternatively a prosecutor may provide expert testimony from an Imam, a Rabbi, a priest etc etc and if I were a prosecutor I would certainly be looking for the single most dogged type I could find. Such "expert" testimony could be used to justify the "outrage" claim.

Intention is also a major point ... it is very difficult to prove that you didnt intend to do something deliberately is essentially trying to prove a negative. Notoriously difficult to do. And frankly, from experience and observation of our court systems any faith I had in "innocent until proven guilty" is long gone.

drkpower wrote: »

Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying it will "never happen", but I think it is highly unlikely to happen for a number of reasons. Not impossible, just very unlikely. But the suggestion that "stating there is no god and belief in the supernatural is nonsense" could ever be sufficient to be blasphemous libel is, frankly, ridiculous.

Again, I challenge you to show how and why a case could not be mounted by vested interests using this legislation.

drkpower wrote: »

Sure, the Gov. can change the law when they want. But when you state that "clarification can be asked from the Department", if you mean that a judge can ask the Dept for clarification mid-case, then that is entirely untrue.

No, not mid case, that would be a mis-trial (though I'm not sure that would stop them). What I meant was (and this is more down to my not paying attention when I was typing) that a prosecutor could easily phrase a question in a particular manner and submit it to the DoJ for clarification on the speicfics. Such a document is public and carries a pretty hefty weight with it when submitted as evidence before a judge. It ammounts to a directive of "this is what we intended for the law to do".

Judges uphold not just the letter but the spirit of the law as well.

drkpower

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The DPP have been directed, by the DoJ not to prosecute paintballers for comiting what is technically an act of assault within the Republic of Ireland. This single fact alone seems to contradict your (and their) ascertion........

I dont really know what offence you are referring to; I presume you are not taking issue with the DPP's own website which says he, and he alone, decides to initiate criminal prosecutions?
Perhaps the paintball offence is of a civil nature? (do you know the relevant law?)
In any case, for the purposes of blasphemous libel, criminal prosecutions are what is relevant.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

More importantly though, such things are decided by preceident. In the absence of a native precedent it is likely that the courts would seek a precedent outside of the country (happens regularly usually with reference to the UK). There are a number of precedents that could be taken such as the Mohammad cartoons. Alternatively a prosecutor may provide expert testimony from an Imam...... to justify the "outrage" claim.
Intention is also a major point ... it is very difficult to prove that you didnt intend to do something deliberately is essentially trying to prove a negative. Notoriously difficult to do. And frankly, from experience and observation of our court systems any faith I had in "innocent until proven guilty" is long gone.

The evidence of an Immam could be used to show that outrage occurred; however, what needs to be shown is that 'you' intended to cause such outrage. That is an incredibly diffciult hurdle to cross. And, the onus is on the prosecution to show that you did intend something, not the reverse. Of course, in practice, you will probably give evidence yourslef but if you can convince the judge/jury that all you intended was to offend, or to be abusive, but not to cause outrage, then you are not guilty.

I am not sure how the Danish cartoons form any precedent. In what sense? And bear in mind that our system almost never uses precedent from Civil Law legal systems (ie Denmark).

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Again, I challenge you to show how and why a case could not be mounted by vested interests using this legislation.

Vested interests cannot take a case; a case can only be taken by the DPP.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

What I meant was (and this is more down to my not paying attention when I was typing) that a prosecutor could easily phrase a question in a particular manner and submit it to the DoJ for clarification on the speicfics. Such a document is public and carries a pretty hefty weight with it when submitted as evidence before a judge. It ammounts to a directive of "this is what we intended for the law to do".

Im afraid this is incorrect; there is no provision of the law (of which I am aware) that allows for the prosecutor in a case to do any such thing. You might link to your source on this.

Dades

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Again, I challenge you to show how and why a case could not be mounted by vested interests using this legislation.

Vested interests? What is it with the paranoia people have about this... While I agree in principle this bill is bollocks, it represents less of threat to our freedom than the anti-gang laws mooted recently.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Judges uphold not just the letter but the spirit of the law as well.

The "spirit" of this law is clearly to never invoke it. Okay it's wrong to have blasphemy legislation - but it will never be successfully used. So be all means protest on principle, but don't anyone suggest that our freedom of speech is going to be stomped on.

Sorry Hive - I'm not picking on you - just having a rant!

Hivemind187

Dades wrote: »

Vested interests? What is it with the paranoia people have about this... While I agree in principle this bill is bollocks, it represents less of threat to our freedom than the anti-gang laws mooted recently.

Vested interests would be anyone who has an emotional or religious stake in the issue and the power to influence the proceedings. The civil servant with the rosary beads. The DPP prosecutor with a WWJD wrist band. The Judge who sends his monged out auntie to Lourdes. Each of these people is a vested interest.

Moreover, the vested interests of any religious group who have plenty of points to score by choosing to be offended by something and then kicking up enough of a fuss that their hysterics are taken seriously by the DPP. While this is not specifical the individuals initiating proceedings the result is pretty much the same. "We're pissed off and there is more than one of us".

Frankly its not paranoia, we have seen the lengths that the religious will go to in order to pus their agenda. Making some noise on the radio and writing letters to politicians and the DPP is a little easier than bombing a passenger jet no?

I agree that the anti-gang laws are far worse (and I have similar reservations about pretty much everything the minister has enacted in fact) but there is absolutely no reason to have brought this legislation in unless there was an intent for it to be used. the fact that it is poorly written is not an indication of anything other than the thourough ineptitude with which legislation with his name on it displays. His recent firearms ammendments for example are a goldmine for the solicitors industry.

Dades wrote: »

The "spirit" of this law is clearly to never invoke it. Okay it's wrong to have blasphemy legislation - but it will never be successfully used. So be all means protest on principle, but don't anyone suggest that our freedom of speech is going to be stomped on.

Um ... isnt that completely the point of this legislation? If not to actually prosecute (but I have no doubts that there are those out there who are already rubbing their preayer books with glee) but to threaten people with the possibility of prosecution? Be nice to the freak with the sandals or we'll hit you for 25k?

The spirit of the law is the intended effect that it is to have. The intent for this legislation is to protect the religious from having their feelings hurt. No one gave two figs about my feelings when Firefly was cancelled and I'm pretty certain the emotional investment I had in that show was on a par with that of any Mujahideen.

The fact is that you can not know that it wouldnt be sucessfully used. On that front you must remain objectively "agnostic"

Dades wrote: »

Sorry Hive - I'm not picking on you - just having a rant!

Ditto.

drkpower

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Assault is a criminal offense. I'm sorry, i dont know how to make this clearer other than to say that the DPP can say whatever the hell it likes, it was instructed by the department of Jusitce not to prosecute for the ownership and operation of paintball guns.

The relevant law would be the firearms acts, its not all that complicated to follow surely? .

No offence Hive, but Ive posted authoritative documents from the DoJ and the DPP stating unambiguously that the DPP alone decides to initiate a prosecution; you have told me anecdotally that the DoJ instructed the DPP in some case you are aware of. I'm not going to disbelieve the DPP website and the DoJ on your word without some kind of evidence....!!

Hivemind187 wrote: »

If someone decides to parody or lampoon any faith it can be construed that it constitutes a desire to cause offense for the puspoes of garnering chuckles or making a point. Thats all you need in order to make a decent enough case that offense was intended..

Im afriad that is simply incorrect; an intention to offend or abuse is not sufficient; it requires an intention to cause outrage (in a substantial number of adherents of a religon). I have tried on a number of occasions to explain the very obvious distinction. You dont seem to appreciate it.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

"vested interests" ...
But more importantly, any faith based group who feels as if it has been "unfairly" insulted can report any other individual or group to the DPP. Where the hell do you think the DPP prosecutions come from? People go to the authorites or people are caught by the authorities. If such a group were to make enough noise about any one particular incident they could easily portray themselves as a "significant number". .

Sure; anyone can report someone to the Gardai who can take a file to the DPP. Just like I can report you to the Gardai and say that you are ....eh.....a paedophile....but that doesnt mean that you will be prosecuted. The DPP doesnt just go taking cases because some religous group get annoyed.

By way of example and analogy: The Incitememt to Hatred Act has been on the books for 2 decades; it requires an intention to "stir up hatred" or actions that are "likely to stir up hatred". It has been succesfullly used quite rarely (one case between 1989-2004) precisely because showijng an intention to stir up hatred is so difficult and the succesful cases ave been on the basis of the (easier to prove) likelihood of stirring up hatred. Showing an intention to outrage is just as difficult as an intention to stir up hatred (and the blasphemous libel offence has no such similar lesser proof of "likely to cause outrage - you actually have to show the intention).

Zillah

col123 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwCxz0eCdWA

What the hell is with the baby in the background?

Dades

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The spirit of the law is the intended effect that it is to have. The intent for this legislation is to protect the religious from having their feelings hurt.

I thought the express intent of this legislation was to plug a hole that the constitution dug. That makes the spirit kinda 'weak'. Do people think blasphemy would have been addressed were it not for the constitution?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

No one gave two figs about my feelings when Firefly was cancelled and I'm pretty certain the emotional investment I had in that show was on a par with that of any Mujahideen.

I was spared that emotion coming late to the firefly party. In fact, being Saturday morning I'm watching an episode right now with the baba who insists on waking up early so I'll put one on.

5uspect

Zillah wrote: »

What the hell is with the baby in the background?

Lunch?

col123

sorry , posted wrong video, here.

Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime

see 7:00 minutes in.

whats your opinion of 'the European arrest warrant' and the crime of blasphemy.

Sam Vimes

So did anyone go to the meeting in Wynn's hotel?

There was a very loud guy saying that we should desecrate a consecrated host every day until the law is repealed. Seems a bit much for me. There was a very good suggestion that a big list of beliefs from a variety of religions should be compiled and have the words "is a load of nonsense" after each of them so that pretty much every religious person will agree with the vast majority of it but get offended by their own one being called nonsense.

A scary prospect of the law was mentioned. An Austrian guy published a book that contained cartoons of Jesus as "a binge-drinking friend of Jimi Hendrix and naked surfer high on cannabis" and the Greek authorities issued a European arrest warrant for him, which they were allowed do because blasphemy is a crime in Greece and there is still an old blasphemy law on the Austrian books. One of the constraints on issuing a warrant like that is that the crime has to be a crime in both jurisdictions so by having this law we leave ourselves open to the Greek authorities interpretation of blasphemy and if Turkey is let into the EU, we're open to their interpretation too. Luckily that guy's case was overturned by the Greek supreme court but he was facing jail time for it. Some more info on it here: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/03/23/303/40109


A good point made by Michael Nugent is that the vast majority of catholics don't actually believe that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of christ and a lot don't really believe that Mary was a virgin etc. Basically he said that a lot of catholics are actually protestants