[Constitutional Convention][8][2 Nov 2013] The Offence Of Blasphemy

RangeR

Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate

I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

The Convention are meeting on 2nd and 3rd of November 2013 to discuss the eight issue put to us.

The Removal Of The Offence Of Blasphemy From The Constitution

The Irish Constitution URL="https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf"]PDF[/URL currently states

Article 40.6.1 wrote:

The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

I welcome your comments. Discuss.


** Apologies for the late posting of this discussion. We only have just over two weeks to discuss.

oscarBravo

The word "blasphemous" has to go - it has no place in the constitution of a modern secular country. "Indecent" is one that could probably go too, but I'm not for budging on blasphemy, it simply must be destroyed with fire.

Nodin

A stupid law that was brought back because of a Government too conservative or too apathetic to get rid of it. Made more farcical by declaring it "unworkable" as if passing unworkable law was somehow a legitimate alternative to getting rid of the need for it. Fear of it has already caused the closure of threads on this board.

Likewise "seditious" has to go, and "indecent". It's not for the state (and in particular this state) to tell me whats decent or otherwise.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Likewise "seditious" has to go, and "indecent". It's not for the state (and in particular this state) to tell me whats decent or otherwise.

There's an argument to be had there. I have no problem with decency, but it's pretty much by definition the state's business to tell you what's seditious or otherwise.

RangeR

My point of view would be that religious utterances shouldn't be mentioned in the Good Book at all. There are a huge amount of references to Religious objects. The only utterance I could see would be to allow religious freedom, nothing else, which is already there under Article 44.

To name but a few...

The Opening Prayer wrote:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom
is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all
actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers
through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and
unremitting struggle to regain the rightful
independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with
due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so
that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be
assured, true social order attained, the unity of our
country restored, and concord established with other
nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this
Constitution.

Article 6.1 wrote:

All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the ulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

Article 12.8 wrote:

The President shall enter upon his office by taking and subscribing publicly, in the presence of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, and other public personages, the following declaration:

“In the presence of Almighty God I , do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me.”

Article 31.4 wrote:

Every member of the Council of State shall at the first meeting thereof which he attends as a member take and subscribe a declaration in the following form:

“In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties as a member of the Council of State.”

Article 34.5.1 wrote:

Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration:

“In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me.”

_Kaiser_

RangeR wrote: »

My point of view would be that religious utterances shouldn't be mentioned in the Good Book at all. There are a huge amount of references to Religious objects. The only utterance I could see would be to allow religious freedom, nothing else, which is already there under Article 44.

To name but a few...

Completely agree with this - any references to God, Divine or other such antiquities have no place in the (supposed) modern, diverse and multicultural Ireland.

The only reference should be to acknowledge and secure one's freedom of belief AS LONG AS that belief is not favored or otherwise "forced" or imposed upon others.

Manach

Any attempt to remove religious references would be an attack on the cultural Christian identity of the State. As such it is a valid heritage entity, at least according to reasoning of the ECtHR from a recent attempt to remove religious symbols in Italian state buildings. It is a reminder of a past when Ireland that was part of the common European Res Publica Christiana and attempts to overturn this as part of a deliberate attempt to create a value free post-Modern society smacks of Utopian social engineering, or a pandering to the very base supporters of certain parties.

Various other European countries have Hate Speech laws designed to prevent the lost of dignity by inflammatory speech. Given the rarity of protectionist of Blasphemy in those jurisdictions compared with the higher rates of conviction under Hate Speech legislation which could easily be brought in the former's place, it might be a case of be careful what you wish for.

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

Any attempt to remove religious references would be an attack on the cultural Christian identity of the State.

Yes. That's the idea. I don't want my state to have a Christian identity (or a Muslim, or a Jain, or a FSM identity); I want my state to be firmly secular, with the only nod to religion being the right to practice it without state oppression.

As such it is a valid heritage entity, at least according to reasoning of the ECtHR from a recent attempt to remove religious symbols in Italian state buildings. It is a reminder of a past when Ireland that was part of the common European Res Publica Christiana and attempts to overturn this as part of a deliberate attempt to create a value free post-Modern society smacks of Utopian social engineering, or a pandering to the very base supporters of certain parties.

Secularism is not value-free, and it's as deliberately insulting to say so as if I were to argue that religion is intelligence-free.

Various other European countries have Hate Speech laws designed to prevent the lost of dignity by inflammatory speech. Given the rarity of protectionist of Blasphemy in those jurisdictions compared with the higher rates of conviction under Hate Speech legislation which could easily be brought in the former's place, it might be a case of be careful what you wish for.

I'm not at all clear what this means.

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

Any attempt to remove religious references would be an attack on the cultural Christian identity of the State..

....the state should have no religious identity.

Manach wrote: »

As such it is a valid heritage entity, at least according to reasoning of the ECtHR from a recent attempt to remove religious symbols in Italian state buildings.
.

....there's rather a large difference between symbols in state buildings and religious references, the wording of a constitutional imperative to have a blasphemy law

Manach wrote: »

It is a reminder of a past when Ireland that was part of the common European Res Publica Christiana and attempts to overturn this as part of a deliberate attempt to create a value free post-Modern society smacks of Utopian social engineering, or a pandering to the very base supporters of certain parties..

I don't see how you come to this "value free" notion.

If "Christendom" ever existed, its long since gone.

And if you're going to go on about "certain parties" please name them.

Manach wrote: »

Various other European countries have Hate Speech laws designed to prevent the lost of dignity by inflammatory speech. Given the rarity of protectionist of Blasphemy in those jurisdictions compared with the higher rates of conviction under Hate Speech legislation which could easily be brought in the former's place, it might be a case of be careful what you wish for.

To paraphrase OB - ye wha?

PopePalpatine

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not at all clear what this means.

I think he's using the tried-and-tested-by-John-Waters method of making his point as convoluted as possible.

Nodin wrote: »

if you're going to go on about "certain parties" please name them.

Anyone less socially conservative than Peter Matthews, I think.

The simple fact of the matter is, no-one has ever been convicted of blasphemy since before Ireland became independent of Britain. Why should it still be in the constitution?

P_1

It simply has to go IMO. As we know nobody has actually been convicted of it in the history of the state. All that it can possibly serve by having it in is to allow people to use religion to silence the opinions of others

Cody Pomeray

Manach wrote: »

Any attempt to remove religious references would be an attack on the cultural Christian identity of the State. As such it is a valid heritage entity, at least according to reasoning of the ECtHR from a recent attempt to remove religious symbols in Italian state buildings. It is a reminder of a past when Ireland that was part of the common European Res Publica Christiana and attempts to overturn this as part of a deliberate attempt to create a value free post-Modern society smacks of Utopian social engineering, or a pandering to the very base supporters of certain parties.

Couldn't agree with this more.

So many people think 'religion' and say the first thing that comes into their heads, like a case of mental diarrhea.

Do people understand how many 'liberal-friendly' constitutional cases have been won because the courts veered away from a literal, unforgiving, merciless interpretation of the constitution, to one where Christian charity and mercy were persuaded to the fore?

In the Supreme Court judgement on Marie Fleming's right to die, the Chief Justice specifically earmarked the Christian ethos of the Irish Constitution as one of the components guaranteeing to the citizen (or in fact, the visitor from abroad, in most cases) "a range of personal freedoms or immunities as are necessary to ensure his dignity and freedom as an individual".

It would be exhausting to try and list all of the occasions when the Supreme Court, in particular, has invoked the Christian ethos of the constitution in guaranteeing personal freedoms and rights. None stands out moreso than the words of Judge Henchy in David Norris's 1984 challenge. In one of the most significant judgements of modern times, and drawing the Christian nature of the constitution, Henchy recalled the Christian opposition to homosexuality and then, remarkably, said "With respect, I do not think that should be treated as a guiding consideration"

He then expounded with memorable eloquence why the Christian ethos of the constitution (i.e. mercy and charity) would not permit an "inhumane" interference by the state, or "intolerance, harassment, blackmail and other forms of cruelty at the hands of those who would batten on the revulsion that such acts elicit in most heterosexuals".

So you can see, it is important to underline how great a help the Christian ethos of the constitution has been to the values of liberal society. Suggesting we remove all references to our Christian ethos is reactionary and foolish.

That said, I would be in favour of the removal of references to blasphemy, because I can think of no legitimate function for it, whereas it causes confusion and some deserved offence.

Palmach

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Couldn't agree with this more.

So many people think 'religion' and say the first thing that comes into their heads, like a case of mental diarrhea.

Do people understand how many 'liberal-friendly' constitutional cases have been won because the courts veered away from a literal, unforgiving, merciless interpretation of the constitution, to one where Christian charity and mercy were persuaded to the fore?

In the Supreme Court judgement on Marie Fleming's right to die, the Chief Justice specifically earmarked the Christian ethos of the Irish Constitution as one of the components guaranteeing to the citizen (or in fact, the visitor from abroad, in most cases) "a range of personal freedoms or immunities as are necessary to ensure his dignity and freedom as an individual".

It would be exhausting to try and list all of the occasions when the Supreme Court, in particular, has invoked the Christian ethos of the constitution in guaranteeing personal freedoms and rights. None stands out moreso than the words of Judge Henchy in David Norris's 1984 challenge. In one of the most significant judgements of modern times, and drawing the Christian nature of the constitution, Henchy recalled the Christian opposition to homosexuality and then, remarkably, said "With respect, I do not think that should be treated as a guiding consideration"

He then expounded with memorable eloquence why the Christian ethos of the constitution (i.e. mercy and charity) would not permit an "inhumane" interference by the state, or "intolerance, harassment, blackmail and other forms of cruelty at the hands of those who would batten on the revulsion that such acts elicit in most heterosexuals".

So you can see, it is important to underline how great a help the Christian ethos of the constitution has been to the values of liberal society. Suggesting we remove all references to our Christian ethos is reactionary and foolish.

That said, I would be in favour of the removal of references to blasphemy, because I can think of no legitimate function for it, whereas it causes confusion and some deserved offence.

Good post. I am atheist but firmly believe that the Chrsitian references should stay. It is part of our heritage and indetity. It also gives a reference point to Judges when making decisions. I wonder what do the millitant secularists suggest we do with the most basic phrase in our language Dia dhuit. Should we just say dhuit. Chrsitianity is part of the Irsh identity.

Days 298

Manachs response is like Fox New's war on Christmas. Any liberty given from this ethos can be replaced with a secular version. It should at least go to referendum. I'm not Christian and don't feel like my country's constitution should contain references to it for any cultural reasons. Maybe put it on the sheet next to the gay marriage vote. See how "culturally" catholic the people are.

Blasphemy law should go. If a bit of bad mouthing your faith offends you, you should probably revalue your faith.

The idea the status quo is grand is the conservative grasping at straws.

I want the right to voice my opinion and I don't like the government endorsing any religion over another.

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Couldn't agree with this more.

So many people think 'religion' and say the first thing that comes into their heads, like a case of mental diarrhea.

Do people understand how many 'liberal-friendly' constitutional cases have been won because the courts veered away from a literal, unforgiving, merciless interpretation of the constitution, to one where Christian charity and mercy were persuaded to the fore?

............

...its a bit of a nonsense, not to mention insulting, to maintain that charity and mercy have to be chained to religious belief.

Days 298

Palmach wrote: »

Good post. I am atheist but firmly believe that the Chrsitian references should stay. It is part of our heritage and indetity. It also gives a reference point to Judges when making decisions. I wonder what do the millitant secularists suggest we do with the most basic phrase in our language Dia dhuit. Should we just say dhuit. Chrsitianity is part of the Irsh identity.

Haigh!

Edit: I'm irish. Christianity is not a part of my identity or most people I know. The only place a lot come in contact with religion is in school but that's another thread. I refuse to believe Christianity is an essential part of the modern Irish identity.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

Good post. I am atheist but firmly believe that the Chrsitian references should stay. It is part of our heritage and indetity. It also gives a reference point to Judges when making decisions. ........

...given theres various branches of Christianity, and the differing levels of faith and beliefs within those branches, that's not much of a reference.

Palmach

Days 298 wrote: »

Haigh!

Edit: I'm irish. Christianity is not a part of my identity or most people I know. The only place a lot come in contact with religion is in school but that's another thread. I refuse to believe Christianity is an essential part of the modern Irish identity.

It is. It is has been part and parcel of this nation for 1600 years and has shaped us. What's wrong with living in a Christian pluralist society?

Nodin wrote: »

...given theres various branches of Christianity, and the differing levels of faith and beliefs within those branches, that's not much of a reference.

It is a big reference and avoids the obvious Catholic Protestant argument.

Cody Pomeray

Nodin wrote: »

...its a bit of a nonsense, not to mention insulting, to maintain that charity and mercy have to be chained to religious belief.

Sorry Nodin, I note that we share many of the same opinions of a liberal slant, but "charity" and "mercy" are meaningless words without their proper context. There is no clear and unambiguous meaning attached to such words, taken out of their Christian meaning. Thatcher's individualism could be said to be an endorsement of 'charity derived from the community', so as to exclude the charitable mandate of the State.

Taken in their Christian context, especially in the letters of Saint Paul, charity, agape, takes on a very particular meaning which we might associate with The Good Samaritan, a case where practical, humane love of the common man trumped pious aspiration.

I am no Christian, but I am a person shaped by the Christian tradition of human liberty, as are most of us. To thinklessly remove references to Christianity from the constitution would be to deprive the courts of an important, practical reference point for the values of LIBERAL Irish society.

Days 298

Palmach wrote: »

It is. It is has been part and parcel of this nation for 1600 years and has shaped us. What's wrong with living in a Christian pluralist society?

I don't. There are remnants of a gone era. What's wrong with an actual separation of church and state? Would it devalue the church's standing? I'm not Catholic. A lot of people are cultural Catholics. Lovely word isn't it.. cultural. The state is not even a century old. I have no interest in the it's always been like this attitude. Ireland has changed. I've no interest in Christianity. I don't like my constitution supporting it. The idea that the state must anchor it to the pillar of our democracy for ever basically is a farce. I'm irish 100% Christianity may be part of my ancestors but it in no way makes up a part of my identity.

Modern Ireland is a lot different to Ireland 25 years ago never mind the time the constitution was written. The constitution must adapt or be rewritten.

I ask you what's wrong with a secular society where everyone can believe what they want without the States interference.

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

..."charity" and "mercy" are meaningless words without their proper context.

It's shockingly arrogant to claim that charity and mercy can't exist outside of a Christian (or any religious) context.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's shockingly arrogant to claim that charity and mercy can't exist outside of a Christian (or any religious) context.

If I responded to this in any material way, I would be repeating the subsequent words I used in post #19, which, un-helpfully you either did not read nor quote. Therefore, there can be no meaningful response.

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If I responded to this in any material way, I would be repeating the subsequent words I used in post #19, which, un-helpfully you either did not read nor quote. Therefore, there can be no meaningful response.

I read it. You're claiming that Christian charity and mercy are the only useful benchmarks that a secular court could or should apply, or that a secular court would somehow lose the ability to apply those benchmarks if it felt they were the appropriate ones.

The idea that Irish society would undergo a sudden and wrenching shift in values on the removal of some magic formulas from one specific religion is one that is utterly baffling to me.

Cody Pomeray

Fine. I would rather you be baffled than the superior courts.

The meaning of words must be unambiguous.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

It is. It is has been part and parcel of this nation for 1600 years and has shaped us. What's wrong with living in a Christian pluralist society?.

.....because nobody can really agree what defines "Christian", for a start.

Palmach wrote: »

It is a big reference and avoids the obvious Catholic Protestant argument.

A 'reference point' is a precise thing. "Christian" is not. Neither is "protestant". Despite what some would have you believe, neither is "catholic". Once could have three church attending catholics and three rather different views.

Cody Pomeray wrote:

Sorry Nodin, I note that we share many of the same opinions of a liberal slant,
but "charity" and "mercy" are meaningless words without their proper context.
There is no clear and unambiguous meaning attached to such words, taken out of
their Christian meaning. Thatcher's individualism could be said to be an
endorsement of 'charity derived from the community', so as to exclude the
charitable mandate of the State.

Thatcher was a "Christian". COE, if I recall.

This is supposedly a secular state. While peoples beliefs and actions may be informed by their faith, I think it inappropriate to have one referenced in the constitution.

Cookie_Monster

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The meaning of words must be unambiguous.

And Christianity and Religion in general are unambigiuous are they?

The very basic concept of religion is abstract and ambigious (and that's being generous and polite about it) so anything based on it is hardly going to be much more substancial in the real world. The definitions attached to the words given them a very clear meaning; all religion does is add a particular slant to them to suit the agenda of the particular church.


All references to god or religion need to be removed from the constitution and the operation of the state.

Cody Pomeray

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

And Christianity and Religion in general are unambigiuous are they?

The very basic concept of religion is abstract and ambigious

You're potentially correct, but only correct when taking an objective and historical view of Christianity, from the ante Nicene theologians to Pope Francis! Mercifully, the courts, along with all right minded adults, reject such approaches.

We live in the year 2013 (rare truth!).

The current moral paradigm (liberalism? Irishism? European socialism? secularism?) is itself a secondary paradigm to the relatively fundamental Christian tradition regarding the dignity and liberty of the individual in the Irish constitution, drawn from our preamble, without which there is scarce clarity.

As bad as moral relativism might be, at least we are not stuck with vague, secular predicates.

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The current moral paradigm (liberalism? Irishism? European socialism? secularism?) is itself a secondary paradigm to the relatively fundamental Christian tradition regarding the dignity and liberty of the individual in the Irish constitution, drawn from our preamble, without which there is scarce clarity.

As bad as moral relativism might be, at least we are not stuck with vague, secular predicates.

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom
is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all
actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers
through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and
unremitting struggle to regain the rightful
independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with
due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so
that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be
assured, true social order attained, the unity of our
country restored, and concord established with other
nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this
Constitution."
http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf

The above is the preamble. Tbh, your notion strikes me as wishful thinking at best. The French survive well without such references, the German has only passing reference to religion.....

LuckyLloyd

I think people should debate the wider issue of Christian heritage or words like mercy and charity if they ever get proposed for removal or amendment.

In this case, the question posed is specifically about the removal of the offense of blasphemy. An 'offense' that has never been prosecuted in the history of the state eventhough it is committed on a daily basis by strict definition. It cannot be considered a "valid heritage entry" when it has never been enacted or respected during the history of the state. That seems a fairly clear and straightforwad reason for its removal.

Cody Pomeray

Nodin wrote: »

The above is the preamble.

I'm really not sure why you felt the need to regurgitate the preamble; surely we already know about the references to Christianity, which is what was being discussed

The preamble is declaratory and is not justiciable, it serves as the prism through which the constitution is to be viewed. Whether you like it or not, liberal western values are constructed from the Christian tradition. Nobody would suggest any supernatural genesis, nor is it necessary to endorse Christian dogma; noting the approximate location of Irish values on the spectrum of morality seems like a legitimate undertaking, and has tended to work in liberals' favour. That is a fact.

Anyway this is off topic, I'm sure everyone agrees on blasphemy.

Palmach

Nodin wrote: »

The above is the preamble. Tbh, your notion strikes me as wishful thinking at best. The French survive well without such references, the German has only passing reference to religion.....

Most of the succesful coun tries in the world are majority Christian and have some references to Christianity in their constitution or have established religions.

Phoebas

Palmach wrote: »

Most of the succesful coun tries in the world are majority Christian and have some references to Christianity in their constitution or have established religions.

Most of the 'successful' countries in the world are also majority white - but I wouldn't be so arrogant to suggest a causal link between race and success.

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The preamble is declaratory and is not justiciable, it serves as the prism through which the constitution is to be viewed.

Yes, that's the problem. Viewing things through prisms creates distortion. A secular society should have a secular constitution.

Also, it's not just the preamble. The constitution requires certain office holders to swear an oath in the presence of a deity they may not believe in; it also requires that the President and members of the judiciary seek guidance from the Christian god.

Whether you like it or not, liberal western values are constructed from the Christian tradition.

Liberal western values are not constructed exclusively from the Christian tradition. To say otherwise is to suggest that liberal western values are incompatible with secular humanism.

All of which is irrelevant to the wider point that it's possible to understand how our modern values have evolved from Christian morality without requiring that we permanently bind ourselves to that Christian ethos, and it's possible to remove religious references from the constitution without leaving superior court judges unable to know right from wrong.

Dave!

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're potentially correct, but only correct when taking an objective and historical view of Christianity, from the ante Nicene theologians to Pope Francis! Mercifully, the courts, along with all right minded adults, reject such approaches.

We live in the year 2013 (rare truth!).

The current moral paradigm (liberalism? Irishism? European socialism? secularism?) is itself a secondary paradigm to the relatively fundamental Christian tradition regarding the dignity and liberty of the individual in the Irish constitution, drawn from our preamble, without which there is scarce clarity.

As bad as moral relativism might be, at least we are not stuck with vague, secular predicates.

How do the countries with secular Constitutions manage to function?

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm really not sure why you felt the need to regurgitate the preamble; surely we already know about the references to Christianity, which is what was being discussed

.

....because the case you present and the reality differ remarkably.

Palmach

Phoebas wrote: »

Most of the 'successful' countries in the world are also majority white - but I wouldn't be so arrogant to suggest a causal link between race and success.

But there is. Most poor countries are black majority. Could be a coincidence.

However let's take another barometer. Here is the Mo Ibrahim index of African countries http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/interact/ Note the top countries.

K-9

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Couldn't agree with this more.

So many people think 'religion' and say the first thing that comes into their heads, like a case of mental diarrhea.

Do people understand how many 'liberal-friendly' constitutional cases have been won because the courts veered away from a literal, unforgiving, merciless interpretation of the constitution, to one where Christian charity and mercy were persuaded to the fore?

In the Supreme Court judgement on Marie Fleming's right to die, the Chief Justice specifically earmarked the Christian ethos of the Irish Constitution as one of the components guaranteeing to the citizen (or in fact, the visitor from abroad, in most cases) "a range of personal freedoms or immunities as are necessary to ensure his dignity and freedom as an individual".

It would be exhausting to try and list all of the occasions when the Supreme Court, in particular, has invoked the Christian ethos of the constitution in guaranteeing personal freedoms and rights. None stands out moreso than the words of Judge Henchy in David Norris's 1984 challenge. In one of the most significant judgements of modern times, and drawing the Christian nature of the constitution, Henchy recalled the Christian opposition to homosexuality and then, remarkably, said "With respect, I do not think that should be treated as a guiding consideration"

He then expounded with memorable eloquence why the Christian ethos of the constitution (i.e. mercy and charity) would not permit an "inhumane" interference by the state, or "intolerance, harassment, blackmail and other forms of cruelty at the hands of those who would batten on the revulsion that such acts elicit in most heterosexuals".

So you can see, it is important to underline how great a help the Christian ethos of the constitution has been to the values of liberal society. Suggesting we remove all references to our Christian ethos is reactionary and foolish.

That said, I would be in favour of the removal of references to blasphemy, because I can think of no legitimate function for it, whereas it causes confusion and some deserved offence.

You seem to be giving Christian ethos credit for solving problems that it contributes a big part in making big deals!

Take your homosexuality point, there's a reason why Ireland was very late to the game in legalising homosexuality, divorce and has very strict abortion laws.

If a judge liberalised our abortion laws based on Christian ethos tomorrow you would give Christianity credit for that, but that's ignoring the major flaw in that argument, Catholicism played a major part in creating the problem in the first place!

Cody Pomeray

Dave! wrote: »

How do the countries with secular Constitutions manage to function?

Well they have a different system to ours. The Irish constitution is a pretty unique beast because the courts are bound by precdent, i.e. we are a common law jurisdiction, and secondly because of its ownership at the hand of the People alone, which is quite unique in the common law world.

Nevertheless, we might tentatively compare the Irish constitution with the British constitution, which does have an underlying Christian ethos in terms of the established Church of England, the Lords Spiritual, and case law which similarly draws on the Christian ethos as a way of protecting individual dignity and freedoms.

We can't compare ourselves directly to the French, that's a completely different legal system, and not a particularly attractive one.

Nevertheless, I am not saying that it is impossible for us to have a desirable constitution without any reference to Christianity. No, that is not what I say. I merely say that (i) it would be cumbersome to change and (ii) that in tweaking it around, you risk wiping out some of the unenumerated rights, especially as they relate to the freedom and dignity of the individual, and which are not codified.

In case you think I am making all of this up, I will briefly quote from some well known, important judgements down through the years.

1960: Attorney General v. Southern Industrial Trust
"The Supreme Court, dictum of Lavery.
`The Declaration in the Preamble made in general terms may add little to
the more precise terms of the more relevant Articles.
Nevertheless the words of the Preamble declaring the purpose of the People in adopting, enacting and giving it to Themselves the Constitution may help in determining the meaning of and the effect to be given to particular provisions'


1974: McGee v. Attorney General
Supreme Court: Dictum of Walsh
"According to the Preamble the people gave themselves the Constitution to promote the common good with due observance of prudence justice and charity so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured. The judges must therefore as best they can from their training
and their experience interpret these rights in accordance with their ideas
of prudence, justice and charity"

-dictim of Budd in the same ruling
`When the Preamble of the Constitution speaks of seeking to promote the common good by the observance of prudence justice and charity so that
the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, it most surely
informed those charged with its construction as to the mode of application
of its Articles'.

1981: King v. Attorney General
Judge McWilliam drew from the Christian spirit of the the Preamble in laying the ground for his finding that part of s 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, was inconsistent with the Constitution. (Think of The Good Samaritan). he would have been quite circumscribed in condemning that cruel piece of legislation were it not for the Christian tradition of vindicating the dignity of the human person.

K-9 wrote: »

Take your homosexuality point, there's a reason why Ireland was very late to the game in legalising homosexuality, divorce and has very strict abortion laws.

If a judge liberalised our abortion laws based on Christian ethos tomorrow you would give Christianity credit for that, but that's ignoring the major flaw in that argument, Catholicism played a major part in creating the problem in the first place!

But the courts are quite clear that they see Christianity, and morality, as a changing paradigm. The courts have never sought to implement Christian dogma, they opt simply to draw from the ideals of justice and charity in a Christian context - that is quite a different thing to blindly fretting over Catholic teaching, which as Judge Henchy said in Norris, he did not think ought to be a guiding principle.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

Most of the 'successful' countries in the world are also majority white - but I wouldn't be so arrogant to suggest a causal link between race and success.

Palmach wrote: »

But there is.

There is a causal link between race and success? What exactly is it?

Palmach wrote: »

Could be a coincidence.

Make up your mind.

Eggy Baby!

Whether you like it or not, liberal western values are constructed from the Christian tradition.

I would have assumed that they were descended from Greco-Roman political and philosophical traditions.

The only thing Christianity did to Europe throughout history was hold it back. Compare Spain in early modern history (1700s/1800s) to France or England in the same period. The influence of the church in Spain kept them lagging behind the other, more secular powers. Its clear (to me anyway) that the emergence of secularism in Europe led to an explosion in progress.

K-9

But the courts are quite clear that they see Christianity, and morality, as a changing paradigm. The courts have never sought to implement Christian dogma, they opt simply to draw from the ideals of justice and charity in a Christian context - that is quite a different thing to blindly fretting over Catholic teaching, which as Judge Henchy said in Norris, he did not think ought to be a guiding principle.

But, bringing it back to the OP in some way, why are judges using Christian morality in the first place?

Because the constitution is so heavily wrapped up with Christian references a judge in particular is going to refer to what he derives the law from.

In other words, if there was no reference to Christianity in the constitution, he wouldn't need to even consider what the Christian ethos is. To exaggerate your claim, they are basically theologians, not judges in a secular state.

Cody Pomeray

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

I would have assumed that they were descended from Greco-Roman political and philosophical traditions.

I bristle when people say this for the simple reason that of course Christian ideals have their root in the Jewish, Greek and Roman tradition; that is simply not up for debate.

"Christainity" is short-hand. Just as I say "glass of Shiraz" instead of saying "Ferment of the sugars extracted from the syrup of the Shiraz grape, associated with France, but originating from Asia Minor... bla bla bla". It's simply a tag that people can understand, without resorting to an essay.

Christian ideals are christian ideals without having to resort to belief in the supernatural. As I said earlier, I am not a Christian believer but as an atheist I endorse the themes of Christian scripture - justice, mercy, charity, peace, and forbearance.

K-9 wrote: »

But, bringing it back to the OP in some way, why are judges using Christian morality in the first place?

Because the constitution is so heavily wrapped up with Christian references a judge in particular is going to refer to what he derives the law from.

In other words, if there was no reference to Christianity in the constitution, he wouldn't need to even consider what the Christian ethos is.

You're right, he probably wouldn't. Or at least, the Christian ethos would diminish in importance.

But my central point is what happens when you delete it? I am about to answer.

The unenumerated, fundamental rights are drawn heavily from from the preamble, and its Christian vindications. You know your constitutional right to privacy, which I'm sure you cherish? *not written down*. You know your constitutional right to bodily integrity? *not written down*. You know your constitutional right to beget children, access the courts, and your constitutional right to earn a living, among others? *not written down*

These core constitutional rights which pertain to your fundamental freedoms, have been established by the courts, with special references to the preamble, with its Christian ideal of human dignity and justice.

What happens when you delete that? What happens to those rights?

I don't mind us having a secular constitution, although I would be concerned about what philosophical reference point would be available to the courts. Nevertheless to do so, we would need to rewrite the entire constitution. You can't just delete the preamble and wipe your hands free.

So tell me, what happens to all the unenumerated constitutional rights?

RangeR

Can we not use a humanitarian pre amble, rather than a religious one?

Cody Pomeray

Because, as above, we don't know that all the unenumerated rights (marry, practice religion, etc) would survive the deletion.

Lets go mad and say the unenumerated constitutional rights survive.

Lets say I am a Muslim and my wife's a Muslims and so, indeed, are all my many wives.

Lets say I demand that my constitutional right to marry should respect my right to practice my religion, and marry all the women I desire.

Without a nod to the Christian prism of Irish moral values, what do you say?

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Because, as above, we don't know that all the unenumerated rights (marry, practice religion, etc) would survive the deletion.

Lets go mad and say the unenumerated constitutional rights survive.

Lets say I am a Muslim and my wife's a Muslims and so, indeed, are all my many wives.

Lets say I demand that my constitutional right to marry should respect my right to practice my religion, and marry all the women I desire.

Without a nod to the Christian prism of Irish moral values, what do you say?

I've no problem with polygamy meself. However I might point out that bigamy is already a specific offence....?

Cody Pomeray

Nodin wrote: »

I've no problem with polygamy meself. However I might point out that bigamy is already a specific offence....?

Obviously, but statutory and common law are subordinate to constitutional.

Presumably the object of the action would be to strike down the law on bigamy.

I am not asking people whether they personally think we should allow shariah law, or bigamy or whatever. Clearly some people do, which proves nothing except that they are "some".

RangeR

With the greatest of respect, if your Muslim and you come to Ireland; you live by Irish laws. Endof. I'm not in favour of allowing total religious freedom if that religion freedom breaks our laws.

Cody Pomeray

RangeR wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, if your Muslim and you come to Ireland; you live by Irish laws. Endof. I'm not in favour of allowing total religious freedom if that religion freedom breaks our laws.

I agree with you, but it's unfair (on us, the public, and on the immigrant community) to expect judges to rule by their own personal opinions , without regard to some external reference point. Think of a judge like a computer, he can only work with the commands he is given. He does not have intrinsic wisdom.

If you sterilize the constitution by stripping the words back to their most literal translation, then it's easy to see how you make them malleable to the point where the courts cannot take note of local morality.

I am the last person you;re going to have defending an image of Catholic Ireland. I just think people need to be aware that if you;re going to remove the Christian ethos, you have to do some serious editing elsewhere to make up for it, in fact you might as well just start from scratch with a new document.

Nodin

RangeR wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, if your Muslim and you come to Ireland; you live by Irish laws. Endof. I'm not in favour of allowing total religious freedom if that religion freedom breaks our laws.

....I'm speaking generally. It comes up most often in discussions in related to gay marriage - '"what next, 3 men marrying?" to which I reply "Why not." If any grouping of people of the age of consent want to get married, I've no objections.

Nodin

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Obviously, but statutory and common law are subordinate to constitutional.

Presumably the object of the action would be to strike down the law on bigamy.

...I don't see how they would do that on the basis of the lack of the existing preamble. It's only been mentioned in 5 cases since its inception afterall.

Cody Pomeray

Nodin wrote: »

...I don't see how they would do that on the basis of the lack of the existing preamble. It's only been mentioned in 5 cases since its inception afterall.

what's only been mentioned in 5 cases? the preamble? The preamble has been brought up in way more than 5 cases. A failing law student should be able to recall about 5; a library would give in or about 40.

Are you saying that you favour a literal-only reading of the constitution?