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

Jesus, another referendum on its way -blasphemy

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    They didn't shaft the taxpayer with the debts of private businesses.

    I agree with that sentiment, but specifically, they must be holding referenda more cheaply than we do in order to hold them so often. Switzerland is perhaps the closest thing in the world to a direct democracy, I doubt that would have worked out for them if it was seen to involve wasting massive amounts of money the way referenda are seen in Ireland, regardless of whether the country itself is well off or not.


  • Options
    #63
    Bongalongherb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    Noblong wrote: »
    I suppose, but do you remember that case in Norway with the cartonist. That caused riots in some places. I'd much rather Ireland presented with some religous heritage abroad than none.

    Why ? you don't need it. A person that slags off another religious persons belief is nothing but an uneducated fool imo. There is no need for it.

    Even though I'm atheist, I still respect others beliefs.


  • Options
    #64
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users Posts: 5,129 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    Is/was the law ever enforced ? Anybody ever fined for blasphemy ?

    Might be good to have the law there, just in case somebody spouts very offensive stuff regarding somebody else's Belief


  • Options
    #65
    twinytwo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    It is a bit silly though, in fairness. Unfortunately requires a referendum to change the constitution.

    And long may it stay that way


  • Options
    #66
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    twinytwo wrote: »
    And long may it stay that way

    Very very true. A great way to protect our rights from corrupt governments


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    twinytwo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,177 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So we should just keep antiquated laws?

    You know that it is still a legal requirement in England for every able bodied male to practice with their longbow for 3 hours a day???

    The point is why spend millions to remove something so trivial that doesn't matter at the end of the day


  • Options
    #68
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,941 ✭✭✭Daith


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Is/was the law ever enforced ? Anybody ever fined for blasphemy ?

    Nope.


  • Options
    #69
    Bongalongherb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Is/was the law ever enforced ? Anybody ever fined for blasphemy ?

    Might be good to have the law there, just in case somebody spouts very offensive stuff regarding somebody else's Belief

    Some stupid people spout worse things to others that effect them mentally much more than just what their belief system is.


  • Options
    #70
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Bongalongherb wrote: »
    Why ? you don't need it. A person that slags off another religious persons belief is nothing but an uneducated fool imo. There is no need for it.

    Even though I'm atheist, I still respect others beliefs.

    If you're willing to lie to people because you think they're too thick to tolerate blasphemy against their religion then you're not respecting the person who holds those beliefs - you're treating them like a child.


  • Options
    #71
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,367 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    Let's have a vote to ditch all mention of God from the constitution while we're at it.

    I reckon older voters would kill any chance of that, but it would be nice to have a secular constitution at some point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    DLMA23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 296 ✭✭DLMA23


    Would this be considered blasphemous or satirical under the proposed blasphemy laws?



  • Options
    #73
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Is/was the law ever enforced ? Anybody ever fined for blasphemy ?
    The law was introduced in response to the Supreme Court rejected a case in 1999 against the Irish Independent for publishing this cartoon, because even though there was a provision in the constitution, there wasn't a specific law against it.
    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Might be good to have the law there, just in case somebody spouts very offensive stuff regarding somebody else's Belief
    If that cartoon represents the level of offence necessary to get somebody to bring a court case to the supreme court, then clearly some people are far too sensitive and we probably shouldn't have laws pandering specifically to their feelings.


  • Options
    #74
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,852 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    Damn elites ceding democratic control to the populace like some sort of democracy!

    Ah shur, we could hand that power (back) to the Catholic hierarchy's elite.


  • Options
    #75
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,852 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Oh look, catallus [sic] has an ally:
    https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/517714794661826560

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #76
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Oh look, catallus [sic] has an ally:
    https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/517714794661826560

    :rolleyes:

    indeed...the world famous
    http://33.media.tumblr.com/fa204e22e66419068893e9145436c9b1/tumblr_mgfdkqzmgf1rxh9k8o1_400.jpg


  • Options
    #77
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,941 ✭✭✭Daith


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Oh look, catallus [sic] has an ally:
    https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/517714794661826560

    :rolleyes:

    Love the fact that Mullen was caught out on the fact he voted against the bill which he claimed sorted everything.


  • Options
    #78
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Bongalongherb wrote: »
    Why ? you don't need it. A person that slags off another religious persons belief is nothing but an uneducated fool imo. There is no need for it.

    Even though I'm atheist, I still respect others beliefs.
    Such as those of Islamic State?


  • Options
    #79
    Miss Lizzie Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 347 ✭✭Miss Lizzie Jones


    uch wrote: »
    Fuking country is Nuts if we have to spend several millions on a Referendum to abolish a fuking Gobbledegook law

    I'm currently laughing my ass off.


  • Options
    #80
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Mullen is missing the other point: it is nescience wrapped up in intolerance masquerading as reform.


  • Options
    #81
    mad muffin
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭mad muffin


    Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Do they need to waist money on a referendum? Can't they use bloody common sense?

    Jesus.H frakin Christ. What are we paying them for?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    Mullen is missing the other point: it is nescience wrapped up in intolerance masquerading as reform.

    Have you had any contact with the being in the photo here? (warning, not for the sensitive)
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/1236296_1377062345860436_209550976_n.jpg?oh=5682b1b758f411c6b0435e1501e3eb5e&oe=54698BA0&__gda__=1417587315_3c164b70b50aa638f0bde016cf577346


  • Options
    #83
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    catallus wrote: »
    Mullen is missing the other point: it is nescience wrapped up in intolerance masquerading as reform.

    He is also missing the point that the previous government promised a referendum on this when they introduced the law. It was always meant to be a stopgap measure.


  • Options
    #84
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Nodin wrote: »
    Have you had any contact with the being in the photo here? (warning, not for the sensitive)
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/1236296_1377062345860436_209550976_n.jpg?oh=5682b1b758f411c6b0435e1501e3eb5e&oe=54698BA0&__gda__=1417587315_3c164b70b50aa638f0bde016cf577346

    Good lord. Wrap that man up in something at once, even intolerance masquerading as reform if that's all that is available.


  • Options
    #85
    Smiles35
    Registered Users Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    Bongalongherb wrote: »
    Why ? you don't need it. A person that slags off another religious persons belief is nothing but an uneducated fool imo. There is no need for it.

    Even though I'm atheist, I still respect others beliefs.

    I suppose the worst case's of 'satire', while used to rile up the religious abroad were also condemed roundly enough. Maybe talking openly is the key.


  • Options
    #86
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Knasher wrote: »
    The law was introduced in response to the Supreme Court rejected a case in 1999 against the Irish Independent for publishing this cartoon, because even though there was a provision in the constitution, there wasn't a specific law against it.

    If that cartoon represents the level of offence necessary to get somebody to bring a court case to the supreme court, then clearly some people are far too sensitive and we probably shouldn't have laws pandering specifically to their feelings.

    Seriously somebody found that to be blasphemous and decided to take it all the way to the bloody Supreme Court and as a result we ended up with the current mess?
    Frack sake


  • Options
    #87
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    I'm reminded of Burckhardt: "At certain times the world is overrun with false scepticism. Of the true kind there can never be enough."

    Whither are we headed?


  • Options
    #88
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    I'd be glad to see the back of that silliness, but having said that, just wondering - has anybody ever been convicted on the back of the existing blasphemy law?


  • Options
    #89
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    Good lord. Wrap that man up in something at once, even intolerance masquerading as reform if that's all that is available.

    Much as I'd like to wrap him up in something, If I do that I get "Noddin, you republicans are still blah blah blah" comments.


  • Options
    #90
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    rozeboosje wrote: »
    I'd be glad to see the back of that silliness, but having said that, just wondering - has anybody ever been convicted on the back of the existing blasphemy law?

    Nope. Ne'er a one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,172 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    I don't see why we need so many Referendums on Amendments.

    Our Constitution is rotten to the core and completely out-of-date not even a century after it was written. We need a ground up re-write of the document and a single referendum to vote in it's replacement.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement