01/01/2010 Blasphmey Law in Effect.

philologos

It would be an irony to donate the funds from a blasphemy law to Amnesty International. But yes, I see your point, and I'm clearly not here to defend Dermot Ahern.

I don't think that blasphemy should be illegal, but I don't think it should be encouraged for people to blaspheme just for the sake of it on a social level.

axer

robindch wrote: »

(1) is the permanent solution, but for (2), he could have specified, say, a fine of one euro for a successful conviction, with all proceeds donated to Amnesty International. He did not.

Exactly. They could have made it illegal with no punishment listed or a minimal fine. They chose instead to have real punishment listed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Antbert

robindch wrote: »

Regardless of that, and remembering the visions in Knock, the Limerick tree-stump, the Ryan Report, the Murphy Report and now this, it seems Ireland is really going to have to try a lot harder this year and stop presenting itself as some weird religiously-inclined freak-show.

It would seem if anything, this law does absolutely no favours for religion in Ireland.

I like the Amnesty International idea.

lostexpectation

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.

impossible, i don't think so, you accuse others of over stating the case and then you go and do the same

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

(1) is the permanent solution, but for (2), he could have specified, say, a fine of one euro for a successful conviction, with all proceeds donated to Amnesty International. He did not.

Regardless of that, and remembering the visions in Knock, the Limerick tree-stump, the Ryan Report, the Murphy Report and now this, it seems Ireland is really going to have to try a lot harder this year and stop presenting itself as some weird religiously-inclined freak-show.

Might be worth another thread, but I wonder which makes Ireland look worse in the eyes of people in other countries, the visions/stump fiascos or the reports?

philologos

Indeed, I'm aware of that donegalfella. If the current government had any foresight this should have happened at the last Lisbon II referendum. I mentioned this a few posts ago in fact.

Galvasean

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't have much confidence in such a referendum being passed. In addition to the loopers we se at Knock etc. there are a whole lot of people who are not zany religious, but still probably would vote against taking the blasphemy bit out of the constitution.

philologos

Why don't you think such a referendum has a chance of passing when the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland amongst others have openly condemned the blasphemy law.

There was no consultation between the State and any of the churches before this was brought to pass:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0501/1224245756970.html

Antbert

I'm in agreement with Jakkass here. I don't think it'd be an overwhelming majority but I'd quite surprised if it were passed.

If Fianna Fail got behind removing it, that'd do a lot of good. And I'd again be surprised (lots of surprise) if they didn't.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, I'm aware of that donegalfella. If the current government had any foresight this should have happened at the last Lisbon II referendum. I mentioned this a few posts ago in fact.

Afaik they didn't want people voting no to Lisbon because they associated it with the blasphemy bill.

adamd164

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0102/breaking22.html

Atheists campaign against blasphemy law

by ELAINE EDWARDS

Atheists have begun a campaign against the Government’s new blasphemy law, which came into force on January 1st as part of the Defamation Act.

The group Atheist Ireland has published 25 quotes it says are blasphemous, attributed to people from Jesus Christ to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern.

Under the new blasphemy law, which Atheist Ireland is campaigning to have repealed blasphemy is now punishable by a €25,000 fine.

It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

Chair of Atheist Ireland Michael Nugent said in a posting on the blasphemy.ie website that the new law was “both silly and dangerous”.

...

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Afaik they didn't want people voting no to Lisbon because they associated it with the blasphemy bill.

They're two separate votes. I don't see how that is a reasonable argument.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

They're two separate votes. I don't see how that is a reasonable argument.

It's not a reasonable argument, but we're not talking about reasonable people here. People voted against Nice and Lisbon because they were under the impression that it had something to do with abortion. Never underestimate the ill informed voting public's ability to mix things up.

Daftendirekt

Jakkass wrote: »

They're two separate votes. I don't see how that is a reasonable argument.

It's not, but none of the arguments against Lisbon were reasonable.

LookingFor

As much as I'd love to have seen an amendment tacked on to Lisbon in theory, I've little doubt people would have voted yes to lisbon but voted no to the amendment as a way of getting at the government without pissing off the EU (again). A blasphemy referendum would have been the sacrificial lamb this time, so to speak.

The current government should have sat on this until the time was right for a referendum.

4Xcut

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, I'm aware of that donegalfella. If the current government had any foresight this should have happened at the last Lisbon II referendum. I mentioned this a few posts ago in fact.

They may have deemed it risky to have a religious referendum tied to the Lisbon one. They got a land slide victory in the end but there was people who were voting against it for religious reasons, or even had small fears about religion being impacted. It could have been a case of don't risk giving the No side a chance to undermine this.

Petrovia

Off topic, but:

Galvasean wrote: »

Might be worth another thread, but I wonder which makes Ireland look worse in the eyes of people in other countries, the visions/stump fiascos or the reports?

being from another country myself, until just now I hadn't heard of the visions and tree stump thing (quite, um... interesting though), whereas I have heard about the reports. I'm quite sure some people I know have too, whether or not indirectly ('you know, that stuff with the priests in Ireland').

Xluna

Great. We have a mafia for a government, an economy in ruins,a bunch of paedophiles and paedophile enablers amongst the clergy, one of the highest levels of suicide,mental illness, alcoholism and drug abuse in Europe and now we have this stupid law. I wonder are the U.K. interested in readopting former colonies.:pac:

axer

Xluna wrote: »

I wonder are the U.K. interested in readopting former colonies.:pac:

Now that is just blasphemous!

eblistic

Galvasean wrote: »

I wouldn't have much confidence in such a referendum being passed. In addition to the loopers we se at Knock etc. there are a whole lot of people who are not zany religious, but still probably would vote against taking the blasphemy bit out of the constitution.

You don't think there'd be enough support for a general constitutional reform referendum that would ensure it would finally be totally neutral on matters religious? I'd like to see some proper polls on that. Have there been any in the wake of the year we've just had?

Rubberbandits

Hey guys,
I am sure ye have heard of the Government’s new blasphemy law, which came into force on January 1st as part of the Defamation Act. It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.
Anyway, this law troubles me. I am a comedian by the way. We performed our Christmas Show in the academy, Dublin on December 17 2009, before the Blasphemy law was passed. During this show we nailed Santa Claus to a crucifix, under the new blasphemy law this is considered illegal. We Nailed Santa to a crucifix as a comedic statement and the audience interpreted it as such. This law is wrong and absurd. What do ye think about this?

Here is some youtube footage of our show, go to 2:10 to see the Santa Crucifixion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJo4Jr3DMzA

Dades

Mod note: I've merged your new thread with the existing Blasphemy Thread that was on page 1 of the forum.

Rubberbandits wrote: »

During this show we nailed Santa Claus to a crucifix, under the new blasphemy law this is considered illegal.

That is a huge assumption. Just because something is a bit "controversial" and involves religion doesn't mean it's blasphemous. Also, as an artist you should have noted that the legislation makes exceptions for materials etc that are deemed to have artistic merit.

So, no, I doubt the Attorney General will be taking a case against you.

Antbert

Rubberbandits wrote: »

Hey guys,
I am sure ye have heard of the Government’s new blasphemy law, which came into force on January 1st as part of the Defamation Act. It defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.
Anyway, as an artist this law troubles me in particular. I am a comedian by the way. We performed our Christmas Show in the academy, Dublin on December 17 2009, before the Blasphemy law was passed. During this show we nailed Santa Claus to a crucifix, under the new blasphemy law this is considered illegal. We Nailed Santa to a crucifix as a comedic statement and the audience interpreted it as such. This law is wrong and absurd. What do ye think about this?

Here is some youtube footage of our show, go to 2:10 to see the Santa Crucifixion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJo4Jr3DMzA

Edit: Oops I didn't realise this had been merged. Makes more sense now. Carry on!

Galvasean

Comedians have nothing to worry about. (Thank you 'artistic meerit' )
I visit a lot of comedy clubs frequently, and I must say it's getting a bit pathetic how nearly every comedian these days tries to be edgy by saying things like, "Oh look there's a new blasphemy law..." then make jokes about religion. If they knew more about the law they would realise it's only making them look ignorant.
Now, I have nothing against blasphemous comedy material. In fact, a lot of it is bloody well hilarious. It's just when they try to invoke the blasphemey laws in an attempt to make their material seem more daring, that's annoying.

drkpower

Galvasean wrote: »

Now, I have nothing against blasphemous comedy material. In fact, a lot of it is bloody well hilarious. It's just when they try to invoke the blasphemey laws in an attempt to make their material seem more daring, that's annoying.

+1

I dont know which is worse - the 'look at me, Im rebellious and mad' vibe or the failure to even read a law that you are so excited about.

pH

As an atheist, I consider blasphemy a victimless crime.

Undergod

pH wrote: »

As an atheist, I consider blasphemy a victimless crime.

Baby Jesus disagrees.

Sam Vimes

pH wrote: »

As an atheist, I consider blasphemy a victimless crime.

I'm of the opinion that if god was really offended he'd tell me himself. Nothing yet...