Proposed Blasphemy Law

Undergod

bluewolf wrote: »

Glad to see everyone agrees..
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/label-atheism-a-thought-crime-1726762.html

Is he for real?

eightyfish

bluewolf wrote: »

Glad to see everyone agrees..
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/label-atheism-a-thought-crime-1726762.html

This brilliant critique clearly demonstrates why a mere anti-blasphemy law is not sufficient. In the interests of rationality and common sense, the legislation should go further and label atheism a thought crime.

What a c*nt.

The big question is, though, what kind of ideology gets it kicks out of gratuitously offending the sincerely held views of others?

What kind of ideology gets its kicks out of genital mutilation, convicting women of a crime if they get raped, gay-bashing, picketing funerals, damning all non believers as sinners, helping to spread AIDS in Africa by teaching that using condoms is a sin?

sink

eightyfish wrote: »

From today's letters page:



"Supporting traditional marriage" = opposing gay people's right to also get married. This is homophobic, isn't it?

PS- Went to see Bohemians brilliantly hammer Dundalk 5-0 in Dailymount last night. The special guest for the evening? Dermot Ahern!

I really like the way the letter goes on to say.

Restricting a person’s right to express his or her religious views is quickly becoming the norm. We mustn’t be allowed to offend or impose our views on those of different religious faiths or none, must we?

Obviously his opposition to homosexual marriage does not qualify as him imposing his religious views upon others.

dvpower

Undergod wrote: »

Is he for real?

Eric Conway, Navan, Co Meath wrote:

In the interests of rationality and common sense, the legislation should go further and label atheism a thought crime

He must be a troll. Surely nobody would seriously hold this view?

Stercus Accidit

I imagine its sarcasm, by definition thought crime is supposed to be a no no, and to be aware of the term you would have to be smarter than to advocate it.

But I may be being idealistic.

Hivemind187

... I am so utterly utterly screwed its not even remotely funny.

But I'll still be chuckling my ass off (in a zombie costume) if they try to convict anyone with this horsehockey

Zillah

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I imagine its sarcasm, by definition thought crime is supposed to be a no no, and to be aware of the term you would have to be smarter than to advocate it.

But I may be being idealistic.

This is exactly what I was thinking. The thought-crime reference has to be a little signifier for anyone who's read 1984.

Then again, the rest of the article sounds quite sincere.

Stercus Accidit

Zillah wrote: »

This is exactly what I was thinking. The thought-crime reference has to be a little signifier for anyone who's read 1984.

Then again, the rest of the article sounds quite sincere.

Given some of the 'is it satire?' conversations that have been floating around this forum lately, I couldn't guess either way

pH

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Given some of the 'is it satire?' conversations that have been floating around this forum lately, I couldn't guess either way

We need a new thread called "Is it satire?", where videos like banana man and peanut butter man can be compared to things we think are satire like the Jesusophile.

adamd164

Article about Atheist Ireland in today's Guardian:

Atheists fight to keep God out of Irish law
Campaigners seek to block legislation carrying hefty fines for blasphemy

Henry McDonald, Ireland editor The Observer
Sunday 3 May 2009

A group that claims to represent the rights of atheists in Ireland has launched a campaign to expel God from the Irish constitution, starting with an attempt to block plans for a new blasphemy law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/03/atheist-ireland-blasphemy-legislation

Undergod

adamd164 wrote: »

Article about Atheist Ireland in today's Guardian:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/03/atheist-ireland-blasphemy-legislation

Seems nice and balanced.

A group that claims to represent the rights of atheists in Ireland has launched a campaign to expel God from the Irish constitution

Atheist Ireland, which is led by a Bono impersonator and the writer of a hit musical about Roy Keane's infamous World Cup tantrum,

Bougeoir

Hey all,

I've been following up on this Blasphemy thing a lot these days. If anyone is on Facebook, please join this group to show your support: Link and this one: Link 2.

Green Party minister Ciarán Cuffe has said that the only option himself and his party support is a public referendum: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6211741.ece. Support him by emailing him. the more who show support, the strongest chance we have at winning against this ridiculous Blasphemy Libel!

Support free speech for a democratic Ireland.

adamd164

I'm on the fence about the greens politically at the minute, but I've emailed Cuffe in solidarity as he's the only one to come out publically calling for a referendum.

His email address is: Ciaran@CiaranCuffe.com

Bougeoir

adamd164 wrote: »

I'm on the fence about the greens politically at the minute, but I've emailed Cuffe in solidarity as he's the only one to come out publically calling for a referendum.

His email address is: Ciaran@CiaranCuffe.com

Yeah me too but at least he came out in solidarity perhaps it may persuade others to join him? Thanx for postin the email address - I forgot!

Mickeroo

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I imagine its sarcasm, by definition thought crime is supposed to be a no no, and to be aware of the term you would have to be smarter than to advocate it.

But I may be being idealistic.

I think you're underestimating how stupid some people are.

5uspect

bluewolf wrote: »

Glad to see everyone agrees..
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/label-atheism-a-thought-crime-1726762.html

A wee bit of internet stalking brought up these (among others):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article877464.ece
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0321/1224243197497.html
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Q93K-dJfvxYJ:https://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2008/may/04/letters-to-the-editor/+%22Eric+Conway%22+Balreask&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

I'm afraid it's a case of "I can't believe it's not sarcasm".

Bougeoir

Oh Eric Conway just is one of those backwards, conservative Catholic types who hypes up everything and bases things on his own biased approach. There are a few out there like him to whom I wouldn't take much notice of. He's always writing into various newspapers about how gays, feminists, secularists, liberals, atheists are more fundamentalist than religious ppl and how society is ruined for rejecting catholicism etc. Ah well! :P

Zillah

5uspect wrote: »

A wee bit of internet stalking brought up these (among others):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article877464.ece
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0321/1224243197497.html
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Q93K-dJfvxYJ:https://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2008/may/04/letters-to-the-editor/+%22Eric+Conway%22+Balreask&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

I'm afraid it's a case of "I can't believe it's not sarcasm".

Well I'll be damned.

(Heh, see what I did there?)

eightyfish

5uspect wrote: »

A wee bit of internet stalking brought up these (among others):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article877464.ece

"given atheism’s contribution to the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, etc)"

*yawn*

adamd164

Possibly just feeding the troll, but my response to him is in today's Indo:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/i-believe-in-your-right-to-believe-1727857.html

5uspect

Nice letter.

fitz0

adamd164 wrote: »

Possibly just feeding the troll, but my response to him is in today's Indo:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/i-believe-in-your-right-to-believe-1727857.html

Nice response.

As for Mr. Conway himself, I find it ironic that he sees the church being hounded by "inquisitionists."

I really have to wonder if he is serious or not. To even contemplate labelling atheism a "thought-crime" is preposterous but to air such a view and get it published is a bit scary. As someone noted over on AH, to know what thought-crime is implies an intellect that should know not to propose such a thing. I really wonder.

Stephen

What an asshole.

lostexpectation

is there a copy online of the letter he had in the sunday indo the week before last of him having a go at gaybo. ranting on it for debasing the nation.

gaybo having column in the paper, replied below it asking 'where did that come from'.

Otaku Girl

Everyday I become a little more disillusioned with this country.At this stage I expect stupidity to be the norm' rather than the exception.

marti8

As others have said such a proposal is crazy, it's an attack on the freedom of expression. Religion should be afforded no more rights than my skinny latte, imho. It could also have a reverse effect, if that means that folks are no longer able to verbally attack religion then will Christians still be able to say that Satanists are "evil"? I'd like to see it being enforced.....the 6'one headlines: "Parish Priest Arrested After Verbal Attack on Satanism", lol :pac:

But it is seriously retrograde, unbelievable. If it ever came into effect I'd ignore it, let them lock me up!

Flamed Diving

I'm surprised Kevin Myers hasn't leaped on this one.

Goduznt Xzst

Can someone explain to me why so many people are adamantly against Aherns proposals?

Lets say we hold a referendum, and it fails. Without Aherns amendments we still have a law in place that says you can serve jail time for blasphemy. I agree it needs to be removed, but I don't see why people are so against Aherns idea in the first place.

Mena

I enjoyed Fintan O'Toole's take on it in today's IT:

Source

Fintan O'Toole, Irish Times 5 May 2009 wrote:

Absurdity of blasphemy law revived by Ahern




FINTAN O'TOOLE

WE ARE awful eejits really. How could anyone possibly believe that the Department of Justice is seriously planning to revive the crime of blasphemy for the 21st century?


A little more awareness of the historical context might have prompted a simple question: what year is this? 2009. And what happened a hundred years ago in 1909? Three Irish people made a deliberate feck of the blasphemy laws, exposed the idiocy of trying to enforce them and delivered a fatal blow to the intellectual assumptions on which they are based.
We should have realised that a man as cultured as Dermot Ahern would come up with a novel and provocative way to commemorate this glorious centenary.


The three Irish people in question were Bernard Shaw, WB Yeats and Augusta Gregory. A hundred years ago this month, Shaw’s little play The Shewing-up of Blanco Posnet was refused a licence for performance by the English censors.


This was exactly what Shaw had intended. He wrote a rather mild piece with a sprinkling of offensiveness just sufficient to provoke the wrath of the authorities. This includes a shot of blasphemy when the anti-hero preaches a sermon on God’s mysterious ways. The purpose is revealed when another character interjects: “Speak more respectful Blanco – more reverent.”


The stupid censor fell into Shaw’s trap, allowing the great controversialist to appear before a parliamentary select committee and announce: “I think that the danger of crippling thought, the danger of obstructing the formation of the public mind by specially suppressing such representations is far greater than any real danger there is from such representations”.
He also presented the committee with a written statement on censorship with a request that it be read into the record. The committee, in a gesture beyond satire, cleared the room, discussed the statement and decided that it should be suppressed.


That statement is, in fact, one of the great rebukes to the thought-control mechanisms behind blasphemy laws: “I am not an ordinary playwright in general practice. I am a specialist in immoral and heretical plays. My reputation has been gained by my persistent struggle to force the public to reconsider its morals.


“In particular, I regard much current morality as to economic and sexual relations as disastrously wrong; and I regard certain doctrines of the Christian religion as understood in England today with abhorrence. I write plays with the deliberate object of converting the nation to my opinions in these matters . . . ”


Shaw’s point was that he had not merely a right, but as he saw it a duty, to challenge accepted morality and to blaspheme against official religious doctrines.
And in one of the great founding statements of the importance of independent thought in the independent Ireland that was beginning to emerge, Yeats and Gregory took the bold decision to invite Shaw to submit Blanco Posnet to the Abbey.


They chose this whole issue of the idiotic anti-blasphemy laws as the one on which they would take a stand, not just for artistic and intellectual independence within Ireland but for Ireland’s intellectual freedom from England.


This was not just a grand gesture. Though Shaw and Gregory in particular enjoyed the sport of making fun of the authorities, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Aberdeen, had the power to revoke the Abbey’s patent and close it down.


He threatened to use “every power the law gave him” to stop the play. This included the threat of fines that would bankrupt the Abbey’s precarious finances. Gregory and Yeats publicly declared that to yield on this issue would be to compromise the independence of thought that would be needed in a free Ireland: “We must not by accepting the English censor’s ruling, give away anything of the liberty of the Irish theatre of the future”. The theatre, Gregory argued, “must have some respect for our audience and not treat them as babies”.


Gregory faced down the threats, and the play opened at the Abbey in August 1909. It played to packed houses. (“It is a pity,” reflected the ever-practical Gregory afterwards, “that we had not thought in time of putting up our prices.”)


The only complaint from audiences was that the play was so mild that it was hard to understand what all the fuss was about. Dublin Castle, its bluff successfully called, slunk away in humiliation. The idea that Irish people didn’t have to be treated as babies, though often forgotten after independence, was established.


How brilliant of Dermot Ahern to mark this important event in Irish intellectual life by reminding us of the absurdity of blasphemy laws.
Does he really think that it should be a crime to offend members of the Jedi church (from census returns that includes 70,000 people in Australia; 50,000 in New Zealand; 390,000 in the UK) by saying that a light sabre makes you look like a dork? Of course not.


With one satiric touch he has honoured the memory of Shaw, Yeats and Gregory and reminded us that blasphemy laws exist to protect, not religions, but bigots.


For his next trick, he will mark the Darwin bicentenary by threatening to make creationism compulsory.

The Mad Hatter

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Can someone explain to me why so many people are adamantly against Aherns proposals?

Lets say we hold a referendum, and it fails. Without Aherns amendments we still have a law in place that says you can serve jail time for blasphemy. I agree it needs to be removed, but I don't see why people are so against Aherns idea in the first place.

If the referendum fails, the law is still unenforceable. If Ahern's proposal passes, it is enforceable.