Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Repeal the Law on Blasphemy!

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Firstly - The Roman Catholic Church is only one denomination of a particular religion.

    Secondly - All voices should be allowed to speak in society on any issue. People of faith should be allowed to speak on political issues if they so desire. Those ideas in political consideration must be considered on merit alone. It's a nonsense to say that people should be ignored because they believe in God, and it is dangerous that anyone would suggest such an idea in my view as it fundamentally isn't what secularism is about. Secularism is about the Government treating all faiths and none on an equal footing. It isn't about denying faith-based views a hearing.

    Thirdly - However if those views are heard, they must be heard on merit alone. Jürgen Habermas made much the same point in his political philosophy particularly in his book "The Inclusion of the Other" and he was an atheist.


  • Options
    #33
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users Posts: 8,912 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    philologos wrote: »
    An example would be that if a Jewish politician brought a piece of legislation inspired by the Talmud to the parliament, if the idea had merit and was indeed useful, I wouldn't reject it, I'd welcome it. Likewise in terms of the Qur'an or the Bible or any other document, or indeed if an atheist or agnostic presented legislation that was useful for society. I'd welcome that too. Ideas should be considered on merit, things should only be dismissed on validation

    Yes, I think most secularists would agree with this position. I responded to your last post not to criticize it, but to expand on it.


  • Options
    #34
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Pakistan were very fond of our blasphemy law wording. Do we really want to be associated with the likes of this:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078899/Christian-death-row-blasphemy-Pakistan-cooks-meals-fear-poisoning.html

    Its incredibly embarrassing in the 21st century to have a blasphemy law in a so called modern western country. How did that fool Dermot Ahern get it through?

    It needs to be repealed asap.


  • Options
    #35
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    woodoo wrote: »
    Do we really want to be associated with the likes of this:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078899/Christian-death-row-blasphemy-Pakistan-cooks-meals-fear-poisoning.html

    The Daily Mail? Nope, you're right. Its a ridiculous pot-stirring pro-agendaic rag when not obssessed with pointless and mainly baseless stories on 'celebrities'.
    Don't read it.


  • Options
    #36
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    JustinDee wrote: »
    The Daily Mail? Nope, you're right. Its a ridiculous pot-stirring pro-agendaic rag when not obssessed with pointless and mainly baseless stories on 'celebrities'.
    Don't read it.

    Do you not believe that the likes of that is happening in Pakistan?

    Yes, They may enjoy highlighting those sort of stories in the daily mail. But i don't doubt that is happening.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    woodoo wrote: »
    Do you not believe that the likes of that is happening in Pakistan?

    Yes, They may enjoy highlighting those sort of stories in the daily mail. But i don't doubt that is happening.
    Yes, it has been very much in public domain but I was just having a go at the paper quoted, thats all. They do love a bit of this with faux outrage and concern.


  • Options
    #38
    Xenophile
    Registered Users Posts: 4,068 ✭✭✭Xenophile


    philologos wrote: »
    Firstly - The Roman Catholic Church is only one denomination of a particular religion.

    So it represents the interests of a certain section of the Christian religion. So it can be deemed a sect and hence the term sectarian conflict. No religious beliefs should be enshrined in the constitution of any country.

    The Forum on Spirituality has been closed for years. Please bring it back, there are lots of Spiritual people in Ireland and elsewhere.



  • Options
    #39
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Xenophile wrote: »
    So it represents the interests of a certain section of the Christian religion. So it can be deemed a sect and hence the term sectarian conflict. No religious beliefs should be enshrined in the constitution of any country.

    You've misunderstood my posts I feel.

    Firstly, I'm opposed to the blasphemy law.

    Secondly, I don't support any religion being favoured in law. Indeed, I don't support atheism being enshrined in law either. Both sound equally horrid to me, what we should aim for is religious freedom and a free market place of ideas where people are entitled to express whatever views that they desire.

    Thirdly, the reason why I pointed out that the RCC is one religion is precisely because I find continually on Boards.ie that people either do one of the following logical jumps.

    Religion (as a general concept) <=> RCC. As a result they conclude that they can dismiss all faith on the basis of the RCC.

    Christianity <=> RCC - As a result they use terms such as "the Church". Terms like this are unhelpful in any context, but also in an Irish context given that there are a number of different churches in Ireland. Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals, Orthodox and varying other forms of Christianity operate in the Irish State.

    I'm confused as to how you came to the conclusion that I was defending the blasphemy law from my posts.


Advertisement