Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

Fred Swanson

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Well the RCC says you can never leave.

They can't have it both ways.

Let them try and stop us!

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Only in Ireland as they say

An Irish solution to an Irish problem :pac:

King Mob

Absolam wrote: »

So the idea is to arrange with a significant number of others to falsely claim to be outraged by something that doesn't bother you at all using an affiliation you vehemently repudiate as your standing, all to point out how silly someone... else is? Only in Ireland as they say

More to point out how the law is ridiculous and unenforceable as well as point out how it can be abused and also draw attention to it's more serious effects.

And you'd have to explain what part of the complaint would be false.
By Catholic rules, anyone who's baptised is Catholic regardless of how they might protest. So they are just as entitled as any other Catholic to be offended.

Similarly, what Stephen Fry, Dawkins and every atheist says or thinks is absolutely no question blasphemy to Catholics (and most Christians) by any measure. Catholics should consider blasphemy offensive at the very least...

Unless you're suggesting that there should be some test or method to determine a person's true religion and that they are genuinely offended? If so, how would you go about doing this test and how would you determine when do them?
Or could it be that these are points that make the law a bit flawed and stupid and potentially dangerous?

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

And you'd have to explain what part of the complaint would be false.
By Catholic rules, anyone who's baptised is Catholic regardless of how they might protest. So they are just as entitled as any other Catholic to be offended.

Nitpick: this isn’t actually true. Under Catholic canon law, it’s perfectly possible for someone to have been a Catholic, but no longer to be so.

We’ve covered this before, and I don’t want to hijack the thread. In the present context it’s not really relevant, because what the law requires is not outrage among a substantial number of people who the Catholic church claims as Catholics, nor outrage a substantial number of people who think they are claimed by the Catholic church as Catholics, but “outrage a substantial number of the adherents of that religion”. In other words, for your outrage to have any relevance, you’d have to identify yourself as an adherent of Catholicism - a person having allegiance to Catholicism; a person steadfast in support of Catholicism; a person loyal to Catholicism.

Earlier in this thread people made noises about a charge of “wasting police time” against the person who made the original complaint here, and I pooh-poohed the idea, but what’s being suggested here - lying to the police (by claiming to be an adherent of Catholicism) in order to get them to bring a charge against someone that they wouldn’t bring if you told the truth - is definitely “wasting police time” in the criminal charge sense.

King Mob wrote: »

Similarly, what Stephen Fry, Dawkins and every atheist says or thinks is absolutely no question blasphemy to Catholics (and most Christians) by any measure.

Again, no. The Christian tradition recognises the challenge raised by Fry as a completely legitimate one and a very serious one, and in fact there’s a whole branch of theology - “theodicy” - devoted to studying the question. Not blasphemous at all, so.

King Mob wrote: »

Unless you're suggesting that there should be some test or method to determine a person's true religion and that they are genuinely offended? If so, how would you go about doing this test and how would you determine when do them?
Or could it be that these are points that make the law a bit flawed and stupid and potentially dangerous?

Oddly enough, nobody has raised this objection over in the “Dail prayers” thread when talking about the offence to atheist TDs. What test to do we apply to determine whether Ruth Coppinger is really an atheist, and is really offended at having to stand while Christian prayers are said? Could she just be showboating for the publicity?

If it ever becomes an issue in yer’ actual genuine honest-to-god legal proceedings, the courts will deal with it as they always have; by looking for evidence. This isn’t a wholly novel problem, since the state of someone’s mind is frequently an issue in legal proceedings. Was he careless? Negligent? Malicious? Did he act deliberately? Was he subjectively honest? Did he have a reasonable belief that he was under threat, or that he was entitled to X or Y? This stuff comes up every day. “The state of a man’s mind”, as some pompous judge once said, “ is as much a question of fact as the state of his digestion.” And courts make judgement of fact, based on evidence, all the time. Deciding whether, as a matter of fact, someone is an adherent of Catholicism or Christianity is a relatively unusual question to come before a court, but I don’t think it would demand completely novel tools or approaches.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

In other words, for your outrage to have any relevance, you?d have to identify yourself as an adherent of Catholicism - a person having allegiance to Catholicism; a person steadfast in support of Catholicism; a person loyal to Catholicism.

Sure then I'm an adherent of my particular brand of Catholicism that doesn't require belief in God or to engage with the church at all.
Leaving aside how we've had people on this forum try to argue that that's a valid approach for someone to still be Catholic, it highlights the question of what religions are valid? How much should a person adhere to that religion?
The law does not really account for this and many many other things leaving it rather pointless and open for abuse.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, no. The Christian tradition recognises the challenge raised by Fry as a completely legitimate one and a very serious one, and in fact there?s a whole branch of theology - ?theodicy? - devoted to studying the question. Not blasphemous at all, so.

Well no, he's not posing a question. He's stating clearly and concisely (and correctly) that God from the bible (if he exists) is an evil sadistic manic that is unworthy of love, respect or worship. He's asking only in the rhetorical sense.
This would be blasphemy.

In addition, denying the Holy Spirit, as all atheists do by the fact they deny God is specifically a mortal sin and blasphemy according to many of the Christian doctrines.

There's no question that Fry blasphemed.
If you don't agree, could you explain what would be blasphemy?

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

Sure then I'm an adherent of my particular brand of Catholicism that doesn't require belief in God or to engage with the church at all.
Leaving aside how we've had people on this forum try to argue that that's a valid approach for someone to still be Catholic, it highlights the question of what religions are valid? How much should a person adhere to that religion?
The law does not really account for this and many many other things leaving it rather pointless and open for abuse.

Well, all laws are open for abuse if you wish to abuse them. And I get that you might wish to abuse this law for the purpose of protesting against it.

It's just that it's a bit harsh to abuse the law by trying to have Stephen Fry charged under it. What did Stephen ever do to you, that you should wish this misfortune upon him? If you wish to make a sacrifice for the cause, utter your own blasphemy and then seek to have that prosecuted. Sacrificing someone else for the cause, who (presumably) hasn't asked you to do this to him, is a bit less praiseworthy.

But, OK, let's assume that Stephen Fry's peace of mind and substantial legal costs are a sacrifice that you are selflessly willing to make for the cause. Where do we go from here?

King Mob wrote: »

Well no, he's not posing a question. He's stating clearly and concisely (and correctly) that God from the bible (if he exists) is an evil sadistic manic that is unworthy of love, respect or worship. He's asking only in the rhetorical sense.
This would be blasphemy.

I don't think raising the issue is blasphemy; if it were, an awful lot of extremely eminent theologians over the centuries would have been blasphemers.

Nor does it become blasphemy merely because you come down on the non-theist side of the question rather than the theist. Simply not believing in God, and saying why you don't, is not regarded as blasphemy in the mainstream Christian tradition.

King Mob wrote: »

In addition, denying the Holy Spirit, as all atheists do by the fact they deny God is specifically a mortal sin and blasphemy according to many of the Christian doctrines.

Bzzt! Logic fail! Simply establishing that something is a mortal sin does not establish that it is blasphemy. There are mortal sins other than blasphemy.

King Mob wrote: »

There's no question that Fry blasphemed.
If you don't agree, could you explain what would be blasphemy?

Here, actually, you come to a fundamental problem with the whole project. In the view of many Christian theologians, only a believer can commit blasphemy. In order to commit a mortal sin, you have to know that what you are doing is grievously wrong. Somebody who doesn't believe that God exists can't be taken to believe that it is nevertheless intrinsically grievously wrong to attack or criticise the concept of God offered by others. (Or, if they do believe that it's wrong in some contexts, the wrong can't be found in the insult/injury/disrespect etc shown to God; how can you injure a non-existent entity?)

So, whatever Stephen Fry says about God, however rude, you'll always be able to find an respected, authoritative, mainstream Christian theologian who will say, in effect, "it's not blasphemy when Stephen says it".

But this may not matter. The thing to bear in mind here is that the Irish legislation has its own definition of "blasphemous matter", and it's not defined in terms of what any particular religion, or its adherents, means by "blasphemy". So the question of whether a particular utterance would be blasphemy in Christian terms, or in Islamic terms, or whatever, is irrelevant. The only question is whether it's blasphemous in terms of the Defamation Act 2009 s. 36(2). And this actually provides you with a way forward; regardless of whether Christians think an unbeliever can blaspheme or not, Fry is "uttering blasphemous matter" if what he says ticks all the boxes in s. 36(2).

There are three such boxes:

First, what he says has to be "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred" by Catholicism. His central point is actually a mainstream point accepted as serious, and much discussed, by the Catholic tradition, so simply making the point is not "grossly abusive or insulting". Does it become "grossly abusive or insulting" because of the passion and vehemence with which he makes it? In other words, can it be blasphemy not because of what you said but because of how you said it? We don't know, since this provision has never come before the courts, but in the context of a television program where he is being asked to explain and defend his own views on religious/spiritual questions, I can't see the courts saying that defending your position with passion is g.a. or i.

Secondly, as already noted, he has to cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents. There's a practical difficulty there; is the prosecution going to troop dozens, or hundreds, of outraged adherents through the witness box to say "yep, I'm outraged"? I kind of doubt it; I think if they were ever to mount a prosecution (which, NB, they never will) they'd probably put in evidence of manifestations of public outrage (as you no doubt recall, Gay Byrne was dragged from his car and hung from a lamppost by an outraged Presidium of the Legion of Mary for his part in this affair, and Fry had to be smuggled out of the country disguised as a circus strongman of Eastern European origins) plus evidence from representative leaders of the community concerned saying, yes, they were outraged, and so were the many, many adherents who contacted them to say how very outraged they were.

And, thirdly, you have to show that Fry's intent in making the statement was to cause outrage among a substantial etc etc, i.e. that was why he said what he said. And, again, in the context of the television program and the question put and the answer given, I think you'd have difficulty there.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's just that it's a bit harsh to abuse the law by trying to have Stephen Fry charged under it. What did Stephen ever do to you, that you should wish this misfortune upon him?

I'm sorry, what point are you trying to make here?
I didn't complain to anyone. Nor do I or did I think it would result in any prosecution or ill effects on Stephen Fry.

Even if it did go that far, I think Fry would find it rather funny and would have the means and inclination to fight it. So I would much rather it be a rich, outspoken famous person test the law over nothing rather than it being someone without the funds, following and will to fight it over something more important.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, OK, let's assume that Stephen Fry's peace of mind and substantial legal costs are a sacrifice that you are selflessly willing to make for the cause. Where do we go from here?

Simply highlighting the issue and forcing it back into the public eye will increase awareness and political pressure to remove it.
And the Garda refusing to take the law seriously deadens some of the threat of the law being used to silence people. If it can be shown that it can't be effectively used to silence someone, less people would be wary of it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think raising the issue is blasphemy; if it were, an awful lot of extremely eminent theologians over the centuries would have been blasphemers.

But he's not raising the issue. He's stating it as his positive belief...

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nor does it become blasphemy merely because you come down on the non-theist side of the question rather than the theist. Simply not believing in God, and saying why you don't, is not regarded as blasphemy in the mainstream Christian tradition.

That's not what I was claiming. I stated that it was denying the Holy Spirit, which is blasphemy. If you deny God, it's pretty likely that you also deny the existence of a holy spirit, which is blasphemy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bzzt! Logic fail! Simply establishing that something is a mortal sin does not establish that it is blasphemy. There are mortal sins other than blasphemy.

Yes, they are separate things. And something can be blasphemy without being a mortal sin.
Denying the Holy Spirit is both. And it's a pretty big one too.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, whatever Stephen Fry says about God, however rude, you'll always be able to find an respected, authoritative, mainstream Christian theologian who will say, in effect, "it's not blasphemy when Stephen says it".

And there's plenty who would say he did blaspheme...

But again, my point is that this law is useless and unenforceable in the first place since blasphemy seems to be for all legal and logical purposes impossible to commit.
Why do we need a law against something that does not exist?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Deciding whether, as a matter of fact, someone is an adherent of Catholicism or Christianity is a relatively unusual question to come before a court, but I don?t think it would demand completely novel tools or approaches.

We are living in an era of "a la carte catholicism" and also with multiple christian and muslim sects springing up in old buildings and warehouses around the country, not to mention the majority of religious "adherents" identified in the census who rarely actually appear in person at any place of worship at all.

In such circumstances the only way for a court to ascertain somebody's beliefs is to ask the person. And as a definitive (but ironically circular) "proof" of this, get them to swear on the bible before asking them. Ridiculous, but true.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, as already noted, he has to cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents. There's a practical difficulty there; is the prosecution going to troop dozens, or hundreds, of outraged adherents through the witness box to say "yep, I'm outraged"? I kind of doubt it; I think if they were ever to mount a prosecution (which, NB, they never will) they'd probably put in evidence of manifestations of public outrage (as you no doubt recall, Gay Byrne was dragged from his car and hung from a lamppost by an outraged Presidium of the Legion of Mary for his part in this affair, and Fry had to be smuggled out of the country disguised as a circus strongman of Eastern European origins) plus evidence from representative leaders of the community concerned saying, yes, they were outraged, and so were the many, many adherents who contacted them to say how very outraged they were.

While the mob violence you suggest seems an unlikely consequence of alleged blasphemy against the Christian God in a western democracy, we have already seen it happen, including in western democracies, by Islamists in response to the Danish and Charlie Hebdo cartoons. In this context, it is irresponsible to have a law that incentivises the demonstration of outrage as the first test if getting the police to take action against an alleged blasphemer.

Peregrinus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

While the mob violence you suggest seems an unlikely consequence of alleged blasphemy against the Christian God in a western democracy, we have already seen it happen, including in western democracies, by Islamists in response to the Danish and Charlie Hebdo cartoons. In this context, it is irresponsible to have a law that incentivises the demonstration of outrage as the first test if getting the police to take action against an alleged blasphemer.

Yes, I agree.