01/01/2010 Blasphmey Law in Effect.

studiorat

Well today is the first day of the new Blasphemy Law and I'd like to propose a Blasphemy stickey for the forum.

To get the ball rolling I've cut and pasted some classic blasphemy from Mr. Mark Twain:

“Also it has another name - The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy - he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.”

And some of my own: The Holy Spirit exists only in the imagination of the ignorant and beguiled.

Turtwig

So what exactly are the ramifications if I accuse someone's God of being dimwitted dipsh1t in public?

krudler

I doubt anyone would ever get done for blasphemy, it'd make this country a laughing stock, oh wait...

To add, God was invented by those who wished to keep the simple minded in place, for fear of riling up some vengeful deity,its working pretty well, not having this fear of an invisible boogeyman hanging over you is infintely more freeing than anything trying to please an imaginary being could be

Galvasean

Antbert

If I started a topic about the Blasphemy Law I'd give more detail about it... Just in case there were people reading who didn't know any more than 'a blasphemy law was passed' and couldn't be bothered to look it up. Ahem.

Basically I echo Malty_T's question. And add, what exactly is blasphemous?

Galvasean

I've actually read the law and TBH it's going to be VERY hard for anyone to get punished for it, such is the way that it is worded.

Pushtrak

Atheism Ireland has posted 25 blasphemy quotes which can be read here. Just about to read them myself.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GLaDOS

Pushtrak wrote: »

Atheism Ireland has posted 25 blasphemy quotes which can be read here. Just about to read them myself.

Link's not working :eek:

Here's an article on the subject anyways http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law

Galvasean

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It could also be argued that blasphemy in all of it's forms offer a political value of sorts.

studiorat

The Mark Twain post was culled from the Atheist Ireland (splitters!) site.

My own was intended to Blaspheme (sp?) the Holy Spirit 'cause we all know that's a "mortaler". The only sin that is unforgivable apparently...

The Mad Hatter

studiorat wrote: »

The Mark Twain post was culled from the Atheist Ireland (splitters!) site.

My own was intended to Blaspheme (sp?) the Holy Spirit 'cause we all know that's a "mortaler". The only sin that is unforgivable apparently...

Hunh. I was told the same was true of not going to mass on easter.

Pushtrak

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, that is probably the case. That isn't the point though. Where I'd be hoping to see religion and legality less intertwined, we are regressing to what seems more Dark Age times.

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Link's not working :eek:

Yeah, took me a while to get it working too. I just kept refreshing the page till it worked.

MrPudding

Personally, I prefer to go with a simple "I deny the holy spirit." If that does not work I might consider following it up with a "I don't believe god exists, but if he did he is a cnut."

MrP

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Monty Pyton Blasphemy skit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erthun0Pauc&feature=player_embedded

Daftendirekt

I can't remember the exact wording of the law, but I'd imagine it'd be literally impossible to get yourself charged under it (as a form of protest or whatever). Any deliberate attempt to break it would be a form of civil disobedience, which would obviously have merit as a political statement.

In fact, the wording of it seems quite circular. If you intentionally set out to outrage a large number of people, surely that would have to be seen as having some political intent behind it?

Stercus Accidit

If this law is ever even threatened to be invoked against someone, free speech will be damaged, and I love that this law comes in on day one of a new decade in the 21st century.


I'm curious, is this law not in contravention of equality legislation, at an EU level?

PDN

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If this law is ever even threatened to be invoked against someone, free speech will be damaged, and I love that this law comes in on day one of a new decade in the 21st century.

Totally pedantic and off topic, but the new decade doesn't actually start for another year

Galvasean

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If this law is ever even threatened to be invoked against someone, free speech will be damaged, and I love that this law comes in on day one of a new decade in the 21st century.


I'm curious, is this law not in contravention of equality legislation, at an EU level?

Don't you get it? The law is written especially so it will be impossible to be convicted of blasphemy. It's actually a good thing for atheists, despite what Atheism Ireland seem to think.

krudler

PDN wrote: »

Totally pedantic and off topic, but the new decade doesn't actually start for another year

So by that logic 1990 was a part of the 80s? The decade goes 00-09, not 01-10, unless we're living in some sort of magic non counted year at the mo


Back on topic, itd only happen in Ireland where in the 21t century there would be a law approved and passed thats next to impossible to break, wonder how much taxpayers money was wasted on this shyte

PDN

krudler wrote: »

So by that logic 1990 was a part of the 80s? The decade goes 00-09, not 01-10, unless we're living in some sort of magic non counted year at the mo

No, but you need to be able to think logically to follow this.

There was no year zero - so the first decade started in the year 1. A decade lasts 10 years - so the last year of the first decade was the year 10.

So the new millenium started 1st January 2001 - and the second decade of this millenium will begin 1st January 2011.

It seems counter intuitive, but is actually perfectly rational.

ShooterSF

PDN wrote: »

Totally pedantic and off topic, but the new decade doesn't actually start for another year

Thank you so much for that. Memories of arguments over the "new millennium" flooding back

T-Square

What little waster is spending tax payers money coming up with sh1te like this law?

Surely we have bigger fish to fry?

blasphemy law my orse

krudler

PDN wrote: »

No, but you need to be able to think logically to follow this.

There was no year zero - so the first decade started in the year 1. A decade lasts 10 years - so the last year of the first decade was the year 10.

So the new millenium started 1st January 2001 - and the second decade of this millenium will begin 1st January 2011.

It seems counter intuitive, but is actually perfectly rational.

Course there was no year zero, the number zero didnt even exist until much later. Once again i ask, was 1990 a part of the 80s? or 2000 part of the 90s? no, its not the way we measure decades, be pedantic all you want, you'll still be wrong;)

PDN

krudler wrote: »

Course there was no year zero, the number zero didnt even exist until much later.

Exactly, no year zero, so the first decade CE was from 1 to 10.

ShooterSF

krudler wrote: »

Course there was no year zero, the number zero didnt even exist until much later. Once again i ask, was 1990 a part of the 80s? or 2000 part of the 90s? no, its not the way we measure decades, be pedantic all you want, you'll still be wrong;)

Of course 1990 wasn't part of the 80's. "The 80's" is a reference to the years beginning with "nineteen eighty". However if you said the 9th decade of the 10th century of the 2nd millennium then it would include 1981-1990. (If my maths is right :pac:)

axer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The point is not about something that is indefensibly blasphemous under the new law but the fact that someone could be charged and brought to court only to have to defend their actions there. It is a stupid unnecessary law that only moves with the christian rubbish in the constitution instead of trying to making efforts to have the christian sectarian crap removed.

Stercus Accidit

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't you get it? The law is written especially so it will be impossible to be convicted of blasphemy. It's actually a good thing for atheists, despite what Atheism Ireland seem to think.

Don't you get it?

There is a widely publicised "blasphemy law", it can be used for threats of legal action.

Most people will comply when threatened with legal action, as most people haven't learned the ins and outs of every piece of legislation written.

That that threat can be made at all is my problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pH

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Could any of these be found blasphemous?


p*ss Christ

The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name

Virgin in a Condom

An exhibit in a Catholic Museum in Vienna recently sparked a controversy after one of the artworks showed a homosexual orgy transpiring at the Last Supper. The art was being exhibited in a retrospective titled “Religion, Flesh, and Power,” a tribute to the eighty year-old Alfred Hrdlicka, one of Austria’s leading artists. Other artwork displayed include “works such as a depiction of the Crucifixion in which a soldier simultaneously beats Jesus and holds his genitals, [and] an image of Jesus on the cross without a face or a loincloth.”
http://curatorandcollector.com/?p=153

Ecce Homo *NSFW*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_with_erection

Mohamed cartoons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Mary_%28South_Park%29

Galvasean

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Don't you get it?

There is a widely publicised "blasphemy law", it can be used for threats of legal action.

Most people will comply when threatened with legal action, as most people haven't learned the ins and outs of every piece of legislation written.

That that threat can be made at all is my problem.

They can threaten all they like, but they will ultimately fail. Let the zealots waste their time/money having their asses handed to them in a court of law on a reular basis.

Stercus Accidit

Galvasean wrote: »

They can threaten all they like, but they will ultimately fail. Let the zealots waste their time/money having their asses handed to them in a court of law on a reular basis.

Being dragged through that legal system will be an unpleasant potentially expensive endeavour for the defendant victim. Hiring a solicitor, missing time from work, stress, its a real threat IMO. After all, a zealot group is a group, with group coffers and a collection plate, and an individual may well be silenced by this.

Galvasean

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Being dragged through that legal system will be an unpleasant potentially expensive endeavour for the defendant victim. Hiring a solicitor, missing time from work, stress, its a real threat IMO. After all, a zealot group is a group, with group coffers and a collection plate, and an individual may well be silenced by this.

Interesting point. What are the rules in this country as regards to reimbursing those you have taken on with legal action and failed?

lolwut

lostexpectation

Galvasean wrote: »

I've actually read the law and TBH it's going to be VERY hard for anyone to get punished for it, such is the way that it is worded.

yes but people are going to try and thats a problem, is it not, do you think the the law should be there?

Panrich

If I am correct, all members of the judiciary must swear a religious oath before taking their positions on the bench. If that is the csse then a non christian surely cannot get a fair trial under this law (if the charge related to blasphemy against christianity) as all judges would be inherently biased and would have to recuse themselves in the case.

robindch

A sad juxtapositioning on the BBC News website just now.

The third most-read story is one reporting on Atheist Ireland's response to yesterday's blasphemy enactment, while the most-read one is about the shooting of chap with a knife who broke into the house of one of the Danish cartoonists in an apparent attempt to murder him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8437460.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8437433.stm

Dades

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Don't you get it?

There is a widely publicised "blasphemy law", it can be used for threats of legal action.

Most people will comply when threatened with legal action, as most people haven't learned the ins and outs of every piece of legislation written.

That that threat can be made at all is my problem.

The blasphemy law isn't like any other slander/libel type law that can be wielded like a stick as, iirc, a charge can only be brought by the DPP or the AG - so this fear is unfounded.

i.e. Joe Religious can't just threaten legal action when it suits him, and instead he'd have to persuade a very reluctant state to get involved.

BarbieBellex

When i heard about this law, i honestly thought it was a joke!!

axer

Dades wrote: »

The blasphemy law isn't like any other slander/libel type law that can be wielded like a stick as, iirc, a charge can only be brought by the DPP or the AG - so this fear is unfounded.

i.e. Joe Religious can't just threaten legal action when it suits him, and instead he'd have to persuade a very reluctant state to get involved.

So why have it then? Why not leave it like many laws that have no penalty or take steps instead to have this rubbish removed from the constitution?

BarbieBellex

In actual fact, i think its the worst thing the church needs. Its going to antagonise the public more, and turn them away! Shows the arrogance and self importance the church have.

hiorta

Aren't notions termed 'blasphemous' merely other folks subjective views and as such, are intrinsically the equal value of other views?

Who is to say such ideas are to be ranked in any order, other than making general sense?

If those who claim that their 'protected from blasphemy' views are the whole truth, then let them offer proof that it is so. The religious views have had plenty of opportunity and time to do it, but failed.
Aren't Laws, enacted by popular consent to protect people, not ideas?

philologos

BarbieBellex wrote: »

In actual fact, i think its the worst thing the church needs. Its going to antagonise the public more, and turn them away! Shows the arrogance and self importance the church have.

You do realise that the churches (RC, CofI, Presbyterian, etc) opposed this right?
Surely ones issues should lie with the State rather than the churches which are independent of it.

johnny_ultimate

While I do think that it is unlikely that this law is ever going to result in any convictions - and it'd probably be only public figures like Ian O'Doherty who would ever be called up on it - I do strongly disagree with the fact that I can be threatened with legal action for expressing my opinion. Not that it will ever happen (I don't tend to go around publishing 'I hate *insert religion here* articles ) but it still is a backwards, simplistic law that has no reason to exist in 2010. Britain repealed an old blasphemy law a good few years ago. Trust Ireland to introduce one years afterwards.

Stercus Accidit

Panrich wrote: »

If I am correct, all members of the judiciary must swear a religious oath before taking their positions on the bench. If that is the csse then a non christian surely cannot get a fair trial under this law (if the charge related to blasphemy against christianity) as all judges would be inherently biased and would have to recuse themselves in the case.

A friend recently did jury duty, he simply swore to be honest etc., they facilitate non belief.

adamski8

i love the last paragraphe on http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

Panrich

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

A friend recently did jury duty, he simply swore to be honest etc., they facilitate non belief.

Accepted, but that was not the point I was trying to make here. If a judge who is presiding over a blasphemy case against christianity has sworn an oath to God 'to support him in his work' than he cannot logically be impartial. You cannot become a judge without swearing that judicial oath of office in this country.

LookingFor

This story, Atheism Ireland's publication of quotes, is on the front page of cnn.com now (their international edition at least...can't speak for what folks in the US see).

Their buzz thing also shows it as the third most popular story on cnn now.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/02/ireland.blasphemy.law/index.html



Note the second story

As for the original law itself etc. I think I've said all I can say about it at this point. Just another manifestation of a cowardly government that doesn't want to deal with things properly.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

A sad juxtapositioning on the BBC News website just now.

The third most-read story is one reporting on Atheist Ireland's response to yesterday's blasphemy enactment, while the most-read one is about the shooting of chap with a knife who broke into the house of one of the Danish cartoonists in an apparent attempt to murder him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8437460.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8437433.stm

It is quite telling. You piss off the militant atheists and they quote poems at you. Piss off a religious fundamentalist and he breaks into your house and tries to chop you up with an axe.

Dades wrote: »

The blasphemy law isn't like any other slander/libel type law that can be wielded like a stick as, iirc, a charge can only be brought by the DPP or the AG - so this fear is unfounded.

i.e. Joe Religious can't just threaten legal action when it suits him, and instead he'd have to persuade a very reluctant state to get involved.

That's good to know.

Antbert

Alright, so the blasphemy law can basically do nothing... So why on earth was it introduced? As far as I can see it's only pissing everybody off. It's just like a symbol... A symbol of Ireland's ridiculous backwards attitude. With no actual power to do anything. It annoys atheists, for obvious reasons, then it annoys religious people because Atheism Ireland is becoming so popular...

Thinking about it, it seems to be quite a good thing.

But just how is it benefitting society?!