Jesus, another referendum on its way -blasphemy

PopePalpatine

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Mannach actually does have a point, if its worthwhile removing a law thats unenforcable by design, perhaps it would be worthwhile increasing and copper fastening genuine freedom of speech no matter how unpalatable that speech is to some quarters...

What I inferred from Manach's drive-by was just pure typical reactionary spite.

Smiles35

I just don't understand the hate for this old law. The way I see it our leaders we're planning ahead for hassle in the republic. Religious division was allways a fear.

PopePalpatine

Noblong wrote: »

I just don't understand the hate for this old law. The way I see it our leaders we're planning ahead for hassle in the republic. Could have locked up Big Ian under that law.

How would you define blasphemy? I honestly don't believe Dev & co were looking ahead for any potential trouble up north - I'd attribute more to capitulation to the RCC - remember, the original 1937 Constitution referred to the RCC's "special position".

I wouldn't be surprised if the Christian part of the No side are still dreaming of putting that "special position" back in.

Zebra3

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How would you define blasphemy? I honestly don't believe Dev & co were looking ahead for any potential trouble up north - I'd attribute more to capitulation to the RCC - remember, the original 1937 Constitution referred to the RCC's "special position".

I wouldn't be surprised if the Christian part of the No side are still dreaming of putting that "special position" back in.

They might as well put it back in.

No members of the RC hierarchy who participated in paedophile rings by moving child rapists to new areas while covering up their crimes have ever been charged.

Akrasia

Noblong wrote: »

I just don't understand the hate for this old law. The way I see it our leaders we're planning ahead for hassle in the republic. Religious division was allways a fear.

Well that's a load of rubbish. If the intent of the constitution was to avoid religious division, then it wouldn't have explicitly given a special position to the RC church (which was removed in a referendum in the 1970s)

The original constitution was one of a state controlled and dominated by one religion. Ireland was a catholic outpost and an enemy of the state was the protestant tradition in ireland, and abroad.

Smiles35

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How would you define blasphemy? I honestly don't believe Dev & co were looking ahead for any potential trouble up north - I'd attribute more to capitulation to the RCC - remember, the original 1937 Constitution referred to the RCC's "special position".

I wouldn't be surprised if the Christian part of the No side are still dreaming of putting that "special position" back in.

It could have been from any angle though. People were still worried about the terrible style of governments rising back then. Allways had to plan ahead back then.

o1s1n

Noblong wrote: »

I just don't understand the hate for this old law. The way I see it our leaders we're planning ahead for hassle in the republic. Religious division was allways a fear.

What does this post even mean? You're not making any sense.

How can you not understand the hate for a constitutional law which makes blaspheming a crime?

It's fairly straightforward - many people don't want our country to contain a law which makes it illegal to blaspheme. It's not something which fits in with a modern, progressive society.

Why?

1. How exactly do you ascertain what constitutes blasphemy? It's completely subjective.
2. Why should anyone have to limit what they say about an organization just because it's related to a religion?
3. Why should anyone have to limit what they produce, be it artwork, books, articles etc and have to avoid certain things for risk of being accused of blasphemy?
4. Why would anyone who is anti religion and state being in bed together want such a law in their constitution?

It's hardly requires a degree to understand why some folks have an issue with the law.

Smiles35

Akrasia wrote: »

Well that's a load of rubbish. If the intent of the constitution was to avoid religious division, then it wouldn't have explicitly given a special position to the RC church (which was removed in a referendum in the 1970s)

What about cultural division then? Why not put a full secular constitution forward and leave the religious to shout at one another? Or at us?

Czarcasm

Noblong wrote: »

I just don't understand the hate for this old law. The way I see it our leaders we're planning ahead for hassle in the republic. Religious division was allways a fear.

Questioning the authority of the RCC was always the real fear, and we already have the incitement to hatred laws. Religion is covered under those laws and I would see no issue with people questioning religion in a civil manner and without fear of reprisal.

I wouldn't want to see anyone promoting hatred of another human being simply because they don't share their beliefs, and conversely I wouldn't like to see anyone promoting hatred of another human being for their absence of belief.

Plenty more reasons to view someone as an arsehole besides their religion or absence thereof. I note that 'arrogant prick' doesn't come under hate speech, so we're good to go on that one at least!

Nobody likes those people!

catallus

Fear and hatred are a powerful tonic, but all the more fearsome when mixed with ignorance.

CramCycle

Czarcasm wrote: »

I note that 'arrogant prick' doesn't come under hate speech, so we're good to go on that one at least!

TBF I am one and decent enough to accept it even if it's not justified (according to some)

Galway K9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed.

In the last 4 years we've been twice given the chance to change how politics runs in Ireland & on both occasions we rejected it.

Yet b*tch about politics never changing.

Its not that, its 51% of the people controlling the 49%.

CramCycle

Galway K9 wrote: »

Its not that, its 51% of the people controlling the 49%.

Surely that's democracy for you? Also there was that large chunk of people who didn't bother their ass turning up, so the figures above are misleading as well, its 31% influencing policies that affect the 100% (made up of the 30% who cared and the 39% who didn't care, and the 31% who voted for the winning vote).

Caveat: numbers made up but I think you get the point.

AndonHandon

We should have a referndum to abolish referenda.

mickydoomsux

Galway K9 wrote: »

Its not that, its 51% of the people controlling the 49%.

That's sort of the concept of the whole thing

catallus

mickydoomsux wrote: »

That's sort of the concept of the whole thing

It's an extreme example but it will be the haven of the theophobes when this dastardly proposal is rejected by the people.

What else would one expect from people that blind themselves to the fact that over 90% of the people in this country fearlessly declare their faith?

mickydoomsux

catallus wrote: »

It's an extreme example but it will be the haven of the theophobes when this dastardly proposal is rejected by the people.

What else would one expect from people that blind themselves to the fact that over 90% of the people in this country fearlessly declare their faith?

I'm just going to back away slowly now, OK?

El Weirdo

catallus wrote: »

What else would one expect from people that blind themselves to the fact that over 90% of the people in this country blindly declare their faith?

Fixed that for you.

catallus

Ah, the condescension of the "FYP" post. Haven't seen that in a while :rolleyes:

El Weirdo

catallus wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Indeed.

Dick phelan

What does it matter? Not like it's enforced what a waste of time and money.

Knasher

catallus wrote: »

It's an extreme example but it will be the haven of the theophobes when this dastardly proposal is rejected by the people.

A group representing the majority of christian churches in Ireland came out recently and said they didn't support this prevision in the constitution http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-council-of-churches-blasphemy-1158078-Nov2013/

If even the catholic church is happy to support this proposal, then who exactly is voting against it?

catallus

Dick phelan wrote: »

What does it matter? Not like it's enforced what a waste of time and money.

You don't get it at all! It's a chance for secularist trolls to have a tantrum and get the country to kow-tow to their agenda of intolerance.

Woodville56

Galway K9 wrote: »

Its not that, its 51% of the people controlling the 49%.

No. It's called democracy !

PopePalpatine

Woodville56 wrote: »

No. It's called democracy !

To be fair, there's such a thing as too much democracy - which is usually in the form of an ethnic/religious majority forcing minorities to capitulate to their demands (e.g. Jim Crow Laws in the Deep South, the "special position" of the Catholic Church) - it's sometimes known as "majoritarianism".

Zebra3

catallus wrote: »

You don't get it at all! It's a chance for secularist trolls to have a tantrum and get the country to kow-tow to their agenda of intolerance.

1) Paedophile rings.

2) Mass graves.

3) Slave camps.

4) Outcasting those not following "The Rules".

5) Controlling education.

6) Massive tax avoidance.

7) Subverting democracy.

Yup. :rolleyes:

shruikan2553

catallus wrote: »

You don't get it at all! It's a chance for secularist trolls to have a tantrum and get the country to kow-tow to their agenda of intolerance.

Because trying to prevent people saying anything that could be blasphemous is just pure tolerance.

catallus

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Because trying to prevent people saying anything that could be blasphemous is just pure tolerance.

Such twisted moral blindness is appalling.

Blackhorse Slim

I agree with catallus - how dare you be intolerant of our intolerance! We won't tolerate it.

catallus

What's even more annoying is they blind themselves to the majesty of faith!