Blasphemy Law

Story_Bud

I just want to get people opinions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Ireland

I feel this is a good law,i seen people who disagreed with it but i dont understand why i feel it is right as we should respect others believes even if we do not worship them ourselves !

I just came across it and i thought it was interesting !

Onesimus

Yeah Atheist Ireland aint gonna agree with you though. They say they should have ''freedom of speech'' and yet if I were to have freedom of speech and voice my opinion about a persons color race or sexual beliefs I'm thrown into prison. What just happened to my freedom of speech?

The way I see it, is there is only two types of freedom. Freedom to be a horrible bigot and Freedom to be civilised and respectful towards others.

28064212

Story_Bud wrote: »

I just want to get people opinions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Ireland

I feel this is a good law,i seen people who disagreed with it but i dont understand why i feel it is right as we should respect others believes even if we do not worship them ourselves !

I just came across it and i thought it was interesting !

There's a difference between respecting other people's right to hold a belief, and respecting that belief. I respect the right of other people to believe in God, Allah, Buddha, and little green men. That does not mean I respect God, Allah, Buddha, and little green men. How can it be a criminal offence for me to not respect something I don't believe in? If I draw a picture of the prophet Mohammed, why should the state be punishing me? Muslims can tell me it's against the rules they live their life by, and that's fine, but I am not Muslim. It's like a golf-club punishing me for saying their course is crap, even though I am not a member of that club. It's absurd

Onesimus wrote: »

Yeah Atheist Ireland aint gonna agree with you though. They say they should have ''freedom of speech'' and yet if I were to have freedom of speech and voice my opinion about a persons color race or sexual beliefs I'm thrown into prison. What just happened to my freedom of speech?

What kind of statements do you think would get you thrown in prison exactly? The only type I'm aware of are ones which fall under incitement to hatred, which incidentally, protects Christians as much as any other group. You have every right to say that you believe being gay is wrong, perverted and against God. And other people have every right to say you're out-dated, ignorant and bigoted.

PDN

I am opposed to the blasphemy law. I think it is an unwarranted restriction upon freedom of speech. Religious belief shouldn't need special treatment from the State to prop it up.

Paparazzo

Onesimus wrote: »

yet if I were to have freedom of speech and voice my opinion about a persons color race or sexual beliefs I'm thrown into prison. What just happened to my freedom of speech?

You won't be thrown into prison for speaking about your racist beliefs, unless (as already mentioned) it's incitement to hatred.
And don't act on it either. For example, don't open a pub that has a sign outside saying "whites only".

Manach

My understanding, in response to 28064212, is that under the Incitement to Hatred Act - there has to be an element of stirring up hatred against the community in question.
So delibrately posting statements on Facebook such as “Hope they all die. Simple. Catholic scumbags ha ha” was deemed in the UK, under a similar act, to be actionable. My view is the due to closeness of concept between religious belief and God, that the terms of Blasphemy law is largely duplicated for material that is "as threatening, abusive or insulting " the community in question.

getz

i read a newspaper report by a european lawyer that it is impossible to convict anyone living in the EU on a blasphemy charge,you would have to convict them on other charges,racist or religious hatred ect, but lets face it every man and his dog knows why ireland resurrected the blasphemy law,and it wasent to protect non christian religions,

PDN

Onesimus wrote: »

and yet if I were to have freedom of speech and voice my opinion about a persons color race or sexual beliefs I'm thrown into prison.

So you've just told us that you hold opinions about a person's colour or race that are sufficiently extreme to have you thrown into prison?

Wow! I'm amazed that you would admit that.

28064212

Manach wrote: »

My understanding, in response to 28064212, is that under the Incitement to Hatred Act - there has to be an element of stirring up hatred against the community in question.
So delibrately posting statements on Facebook such as “Hope they all die. Simple. Catholic scumbags ha ha” was deemed in the UK, under a similar act, to be actionable. My view is the due to closeness of concept between religious belief and God, that the terms of Blasphemy law is largely duplicated for material that is "as threatening, abusive or insulting " the community in question.

The principle difference is that it a blasphemy law protects an idea instead of people or a group.

If the same protection that the blaspemy law gives to religion was extended to atheism, saying that there is a god would be blasphemous

getz

28064212 wrote: »

The principle difference is that it a blasphemy law protects an idea instead of people or a group.

If the same protection that the blaspemy law gives to religion was extended to atheism, saying that there is a god would be blasphemous

yes blasphemy is as pure as me saying,there is not such god,that in ireland could [in theory] have me charged for blasphemy,but in the fact that no one can prove there is,only a very stupid judge could find me guilty

28064212

getz wrote: »

yes blasphemy is as pure as me saying,there is not such god,that in ireland could [in theory] have me charged for blasphemy,but in the fact that no one can prove there is,only a very stupid judge could find me guilty

You don't have to prove that there is a god to find someone guilty of blasphemy

From the blasphemy law

[a person blasphemes if] he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion

There's nothing about whether those sacred matters are true or not, only that the religion holds them sacred. You could be convicted of blasphemy if you said that Jesus was a homosexual or burned a Qu'ran if other people found that to be abusive or insulting to those matters

Sonics2k

Onesimus wrote: »

Yeah Atheist Ireland aint gonna agree with you though. They say they should have ''freedom of speech'' and yet if I were to have freedom of speech and voice my opinion about a persons color race or sexual beliefs I'm thrown into prison. What just happened to my freedom of speech?

The way I see it, is there is only two types of freedom. Freedom to be a horrible bigot and Freedom to be civilised and respectful towards others.

They would have to be extreme statement and actions to get yourself thrown in jail.

But the Blasphemy Law does infringe on Freedom of Speech, it's hard to imagine it's a relatively new law (as in it was updated in 2009)

Onesimus

PDN wrote: »

So you've just told us that you hold opinions about a person's colour or race that are sufficiently extreme to have you thrown into prison?

Wow! I'm amazed that you would admit that.

No I said ''if'' I were to use that Freedom of speech and be racist in speech I'd be thrown away. I would never be racist towards anyone.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Religious belief shouldn't need special treatment from the State to prop it up.

Does that mean you're now in favour of having religious organizations taxed like other businesses?

getz

28064212 wrote: »

You don't have to prove that there is a god to find someone guilty of blasphemy

From the blasphemy law

There's nothing about whether those sacred matters are true or not, only that the religion holds them sacred. You could be convicted of blasphemy if you said that Jesus was a homosexual or burned a Qu'ran if other people found that to be abusive or insulting to those matters

just as you wouldent prosecute someone for suggesting that snow whites relationship with the dwaves was sexually perverse,how can you convict someone for disrespecting a god which,short of him appearing in court,has no more substance than a fairy tail,has the crime not therefore only ocurred within the confines of the mind of the offended party ? if you burned the quran or the bible you would not be charged under the blasphemy law ,that is religious hatred ,

28064212

getz wrote: »

just as you wouldent prosecute someone for suggesting that snow whites relationship with the dwaves was sexually perverse,how can you convict someone for disrespecting a god which,short of him appearing in court,has no more substance than a fairy tail,has the crime not therefore only ocurred within the confines of the mind of the offended party ? if you burned the quran or the bible you would not be charged under the blasphemy law ,that is religious hatred ,

Why on earth would god need to appear in court? The offence is not against him. Did you read the text of the law I quoted? Here's a more detailed quote from the section:

36.— (1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

If I say to a group of Christians "There is no God", or to Catholics "Transubtantiation is ridiculous", and they are offended by it, I am guilty of the offence of blasphemy. Whether those statements are objectively true or not is totally irrelevant

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Does that mean you're now in favour of having religious organizations taxed like other businesses?

My position is the same as it has always been. When it comes to taxation, religious businesses should be treated like non-religious businesses, and religious non-profit organisations should be treated like non-religious non-profit organisations. It's a very simple and fair concept, and I think you should be intelligent enough to understand it.

Manach

The courts have distingushed in civil trust law between Religious bodies carrying out non-religious as opposed to religious actions (eg holding seminars as opposed to services) and applied differing financial related orders.

getz

i doubt we will see anyone in ireland prosecuted under her blasphemy laws,for a start is not any church in breach of the law,who says this is the one true religion the others lie ?

Story_Bud

Thanks for all the opinions i had no clue this existed until an american brought it up to me while we were talking about america's war on terror and the way he put it was that it only applied to non christians who could be convicted until i read up on it .. i feel that it is fair as it protects peoples religious believes. I am a christian but who am i to tell someone what they believe is wrong ! I know many people who have different believes but i do not think it is fair to tell them what they believe is wrong

28064212

getz wrote: »

i doubt we will see anyone in ireland prosecuted under her blasphemy laws,for a start is not any church in breach of the law,who says this is the one true religion the others lie ?

I doubt we'll see it either. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be repealed and removed from the constitution. The classic Irish attitude of "ah sure it'll be grand" is incredibly stupid to have enshrined in law, never mind in the constitution

Story_Bud wrote: »

Thanks for all the opinions i had no clue this existed until an american brought it up to me while we were talking about america's war on terror and the way he put it was that it only applied to non christians who could be convicted until i read up on it .. i feel that it is fair as it protects peoples religious believes. I am a christian but who am i to tell someone what they believe is wrong ! I know many people who have different believes but i do not think it is fair to tell them what they believe is wrong

Religious beliefs are protected without the blasphemy laws. No-one is trying to say that you don't have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. But that belief should not be above criticism. Nor should someone have to hold something sacred just because another person does

Sonics2k

Story_Bud wrote: »

Thanks for all the opinions i had no clue this existed until an american brought it up to me while we were talking about america's war on terror and the way he put it was that it only applied to non christians who could be convicted until i read up on it .. i feel that it is fair as it protects peoples religious believes. I am a christian but who am i to tell someone what they believe is wrong ! I know many people who have different believes but i do not think it is fair to tell them what they believe is wrong

It's actually all covered by the Incitement of Hatred act, the Blasphemy law is a joke and completely un-required.

getz

Sonics2k wrote: »

It's actually all covered by the Incitement of Hatred act, the Blasphemy law is a joke and completely un-required.

i think it was a ill timed/stupid to bring it back up at a time that the catholic church was under fire, it tells me that rome is still has a big say in the affairs of ireland

strobe

Story_Bud wrote: »

I am a christian but who am i to tell someone what they believe is wrong ! I know many people who have different believes but i do not think it is fair to tell them what they believe is wrong.

Are you not compelled by your religion to do just that? All that 'Go ye into the world...' stuff?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

When it comes to taxation, religious businesses should be treated like non-religious businesses, and religious non-profit organisations should be treated like non-religious non-profit organisations. It's a very simple and fair concept, and I think you should be intelligent enough to understand it.

Most non-profits are run on a shoestring. Leaving aside the larger question of whether state should be indirectly funding, via tax-breaks, activities like religions, you're of course aware that the largest "non-profit" religious organizations turn over hundreds of millions of dollars, are flush enough to construct buildings the size of shopping malls for themselves, equip their leaders with sizable expense accounts, salaries, corporate jets and so on.

It's rather silly to refer to such organizations as "non-profit".

BTW, while I'd like to say that I think you should be intelligent enough to understand that, I'd prefer to avoid contributing to the the kind of openly hostile atmosphere that every question -- pointed though honest -- seems to produce.

Onesimus

So this has now turned into a thread about taxing relgious orders etc from the OT which was about Blashemy law? *sigh* Mod and all to blame for encouraging the de-railing of thread :D

wolfsbane

Story_Bud wrote: »

I just want to get people opinions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Ireland

I feel this is a good law,i seen people who disagreed with it but i dont understand why i feel it is right as we should respect others believes even if we do not worship them ourselves !

I just came across it and i thought it was interesting !

One should not respect mistaken, silly or evil beliefs. Only the Truth should be respected.

But we should respect other's right to hold bad beliefs, and not punish them - no matter how mistaken, silly or evil the belief is.

That covers both the believer in X and those who think X is a nonsense.

However, blasphemy is not merely about believing bad about a religion, it is expressing that view. Should we have the right to say X is rubbish? Yes. Unless we wish to do away with freedom of speech/expression of ideas.

This is where the problem lies. There can be no justification for a Blasphemy Law in a democracy, but there is evidently a need to prevent incitement to hatred of persons.

So how much can I say in criticism of a religion/ideology without inciting others to hatred of those who adhere to that religion/ideology?

If I say Baptist theology is erroneous, who would not respect my right to say so, even if they disagreed with the sentiment? If I said it is heretical and will cause those who believe it to end up in Hell, that will be more disturbing - but surely my right to say it can be respected.

If I say Baptists are hell-deserving sinners, again that should be respected as a theological view and not an incitement to hatred. Why? Because there is no direct link between you being a hell-deserving sinner and me wanting to harm you. I may want to win you from your error; at the least pity you in your ignorance.

Yet there are some who will assume that such sinners should be hated and punished by us. We make our laws with those in mind - but should we ban free speech against ideas? Should we not rather warn the foolish that everyone has the right to be heretics/sinners without molestation, and punish any who harm others?

The way Incitement to Hatred laws are being enforced in many places is a suppression of free speech. People are arrested for 'insulting' a religion/ideology. If I am offended by you saying my religion is rubbish or my lifestyle sinful, I call the police and they arrest you. That is well on the way to a police-state/ideocracy/theocracy.

*************************************************************
Matthew 24:9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.

Feathers

(Almost) all religions are blasphemous to each other. If Islam says that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of God for example, how could that not be considered blasphemy? (Or vice versa).

Regarding protecting religious freedoms, keep in mind that the law could be used in the opposite way - were a fanatically religious party to gain power. While I'd consider it highly unlikely, I see no reason to keep it on the statue books.

It's a concept that only works in a religious state (why we had it in the first place) and runs against the ideals presented by any modern, pluralist democracy - especially one claiming to be a republic.

Until it can be repealed via referendum, the fine should be lowered to 'not more that €0.01', rather than €2,500.

tommy2bad

if you burned the quran or the bible you would not be charged under the blasphemy law ,that is religious hatred ,

Mental isn't it.
Unless it someone else's Quran or Bible, then it's criminal damage. If it's my Bible or Quran then it's backyard burning of rubbish. They have you coming and going.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Most non-profits are run on a shoestring. Leaving aside the larger question of whether state should be indirectly funding, via tax-breaks, activities like religions, you're of course aware that the largest "non-profit" religious organizations turn over hundreds of millions of dollars, are flush enough to construct buildings the size of shopping malls for themselves, equip their leaders with sizable expense accounts, salaries, corporate jets and so on.

It's rather silly to refer to such organizations as "non-profit".

And it's rather silly to make a point about 'most non-profits' and then compare them with a tiny minority of religious non-profits.

Most religious non-profits are run on a shoestring. I would heartily support the removal of non-profit status from any organisation (religious or not) which breaches reasonable regulation.

BTW, while I'd like to say that I think you should be intelligent enough to understand that, I'd prefer to avoid contributing to the the kind of openly hostile atmosphere that every question -- pointed though honest -- seems to produce.

Then I suggest you try framing questions without obviously grinding an axe, and avoid wording them in ways that make untrue insinuations. The way you worded your question (Does that mean you're now in favour of having religious organizations taxed like other businesses?) implied that I had somehow changed my position when, as you know fine well from previous discussions on this subject, I have consistently advocated that religious organisations should be treated exactly the same as non-religious organisations.

Please don't insult all our intelligences by slipping in such snide insinuations and then asking, in wide-eyed innocence, why the nasty Christian is being hostile to you.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

And it's rather silly to make a point about 'most non-profits' and then compare them with a tiny minority of religious non-profits.

Not really, since I believe the majority of tax lost to the exchequer disappears via the small number of megachurches and other outlets which request their flocks to hand over ten per cent of their annual salary. Rather than the much larger number of religious outlets that don't do this and are, consequently, much more likely to be run on a shoestring.

But that said, I think it would be in the public interest for "non-profit" religious service providers to publish full audited accounts , where it's reasonable and possible to do so (ie, where the service provider has an annual turnover that exceeds some relatively low figure). So that tax-payers can see where the state's subsidy of religious activity, expressed via the non-taxation of normal economic activity, is going.

PDN wrote: »

I would heartily support the removal of non-profit status from any organisation (religious or not) which breaches reasonable regulation.

Happy to hear it -- we agree on something!

PDN wrote: »

Then I suggest you try framing questions without obviously grinding an axe, and avoid wording them in ways that make untrue insinuations.

Such as your insinuation a week or two back that all atheists are fools?

FYI, added the word "now" since I don't recall that you were in favour of taxing any religious outlets, high-earning or otherwise, the last time the topic came up. If you were in favour of selective or blanket taxation, then I must sincerely apologize for failing to recall this.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Not really, since I believe the majority of tax lost to the exchequer disappears via the small number of megachurches and other outlets which request their flocks to hand over ten per cent of their annual salary. Rather than the much larger number of religious outlets that don't do this and are, consequently, much more likely to be run on a shoestring.

Unfortunately what you believe is just flat out wrong. Tithing, or the giving of ten percent of one's income to God, is taught in the majority of evangelical churches. Most of these churches have less than 100 members and are run on a shoe string. In most of them there are no paid staff or clergy, and the work is done by volunteers.

To try to portray the tiny minority of megachurches as somehow being representative of the whole is like accusing every corner-shop of being like Tesco.

Again, the money is only 'lost to the exchequer' if it is wrongly been used for purposes other than non-profit. Otherwise it is immaterial whether the non-profit organisation is large or small.

I am a Director of a small Christian charity which pays no salaries, which submits audits to the Revenue Commissioners each year demonstrating all income is applied to the stated purposes of the charity and in reasonable administrative expenses. I would prefer it if the Irish government would dispense with the whole 'charitable' status, and go for a less value-laden definition of 'non-profit' - but we work with the law as it is, not as we woould like to be.

Now, if I look at a charity like the Red Cross or Oxfam, I see that they have, in contrast to the shoestring operation of which I am a Director, employees, property and very large annual incomes. However, that does not make them any less of a 'non-profit' in my eyes. My definition of 'non-profit' is (and I appreciate this seems a difficult concept to those accustomed to thinking of everything in sectarian & partisan terms) that it doesn't make a profit for any owners or shareholders. Some non-profits (religious and non-religious) run on a shoestring. Other non-profits (religious and non-religious) deal in millions, and have salaried employees with pension schemes, company cars etc.

FYI, added the word "now" since I don't recall that you were in favour of taxing any religious outlets, high-earning or otherwise, the last time the topic came up. If you were in favour of selective or blanket taxation, then I must sincerely apologize for failing to recall this.

Maybe you would recall it if you actually listened to what other people say rather than pursuing your own narrow agenda.

I own a religious 'outlet' - it is a for-profit business that provides consultancy services and publishes Christian books and materials. As such I pay tax and VAT like anyone else. Which is exactly as it should be.

So, let me state my position on this as clearly as I can to avoid any future 'misunderstandings'.

1. Organisations that serve purely non-profit purposes should not be subject to corporation tax, or other taxes normally applied to businesses that exist to make profits. This should apply equally to religious and non-religious organisations.

2. The definition of 'non-profit' should be determined by whether an organisation provides profits to owners or shareholders. This should apply equally irrespective of whether the turnover of that organisation is large or small, and irrespective of whether it is religious or irreligious.

3. Directors of non-profit organisations should receive no financial remuneration whatsoever (as currently applies to charities under both UK and Irish law). This should apply equally to religious and non-religious non-profits.

4. Non-profit organisations should be permitted to pay employees - but such remuneration should be limited to a reasonable level. This should apply equally to religious and non-religious non-profits.

5. If any organisation claims to be non-profit, but can be demonstrated to actually be providing a profit for owners or shareholders, then that organisation should be stripped of its non-propfit status, and the Directors should be prosecuted and, hopefully, jailed for fraud. This should apply equally to religious and non-religious non-profits.

6. All organisations that exist to provide owners or shareholders with a profit should be subject to the ordinary tax regime as applied to businesses. This should apply equally to religious and non-religious non-profits.

7. All employees of religious organisations (including clergy etc) should be taxed exactly the same as employees of non-religious organisations (as is currently the case under Irish law anyway). All people self-employed in a religious capacity should be taxed exactly the same as self-employed people with no religious connections (as is currently the case under Irish law anyway).

Such as your insinuation a week or two back that all atheists are fools?

We have a policy here of not commenting on the moderation of other fora - so I will refrain from pointing out why I consider that to be one of the most breath-taking pieces of hypocrisy I have ever encountered.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately [...] encountered.

Accusations, attempted misrepresentation, scare quotes, breathtaking hypocrisy, narrow agendas, deafness? And after I sincerely apologized for failing to recall something? And I'm the guy who's making insinuations?

I'd have replied to the rest of your post if you could have been civil.

Fanny Cradock

I think those accusations relate to the content of your posts and your manner, not your inability to recall a particular statement that you may or may not have been aware of.

Simtech

Backseat modding removed