Eurovision, politicking and the law on blasphemy.

realitykeeper

Should Ukraine have stopped the Russia entrant from participating in Eurovision? It is my contention they should not as it went against everything Eurovision stands for. Sometimes the competition is accused of politicking when neighbours vote for each other and perhaps that is warranted but in a good way. After all, Russia and Ukraine might potentially have given each other 12 points.

Portugal won Eurovision with a song by a sister and brother team on the 100th anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady in Fatima Portugal, and the same day as the cannonization of two of the visionaries - also a brother and sister. Is it a sign?

Finally, regarding the law on Blasphemy. I think it should stay. I also think it is healthy to have public debate about religion and the nature of God. Stephen Fry expressed an opinion based on his belief that God does not exist and his assumption that if God does exist he is to blame for everything that is wrong with the world. I do not share this point of view but I believe public debate would be enlightening, not least to Stephen Fry.

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is my contention they should not as it went against everything Eurovision stands for.

Eh, what exactly does it stand for?

Oink

realitykeeper wrote: »

Should Ukraine have stopped the Russia entrant from participating in Eurovision? It is my contention they should not as it went against everything Eurovision stands for. Sometimes the competition is accused of politicking when neighbours vote for each other and perhaps that is warranted but in a good way. After all, Russia and Ukraine might potentially have given each other 12 points.

Portugal won Eurovision with a song by a sister and brother team on the 100th anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady in Fatima Portugal, and the same day as the cannonization of two of the visionaries - also a brother and sister. Is it a sign?

Finally, regarding the law on Blasphemy. I think it should stay. I also think it is healthy to have public debate about religion and the nature of God. Stephen Fry expressed an opinion based on his belief that God does not exist and his assumption that if God does exist he is to blame for everything that is wrong with the world. I do not share this point of view but I believe public debate would be enlightening, not least to Stephen Fry.

I think you have two separate threads here. The one thing they have in common is how ridiculous everyone involved is.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

Portugal won Eurovision with a song by a sister and brother team on the 100th anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady in Fatima Portugal, and the same day as the cannonization of two of the visionaries - also a brother and sister. Is it a sign?

If it is, it's a very obscure one. Which would kind of defeat the whole point of being a sign in the first place.

Vojera

realitykeeper wrote: »

Finally, regarding the law on Blasphemy. I think it should stay. I also think it is healthy to have public debate about religion and the nature of God.

You can't really have both of those. While the law exists, debate is stifled because people are afraid of breaking the law.

me_right_one

realitykeeper wrote: »

I also think it is healthy to have public debate about religion and the nature of God. Stephen Fry expressed an opinion based on his belief that God does not exist and his assumption that if God does exist he is to blame for everything that is wrong with the world. I do not share this point of view but I believe public debate would be enlightening, not least to Stephen Fry.

This. But you cant do that on Boards. Already, a moderator has called you ridiculous for expressing your view. And this ain't even after hours.

Oink

me_right_one wrote: »

This. But you cant do that on Boards. Already, a moderator has called you ridiculous for expressing your view. And this ain't even after hours.

If you're talking about me, I'm not a mod in this forum, just a commoner.
Anyway, I should have said that "the law" was ridiculous rather than "the people", so I repent, recant, and retract this part of my statement.

Peregrinus

Vojera wrote: »

You can't really have both of those. While the law exists, debate is stifled because people are afraid of breaking the law.

I take your point. On the other hand, Fry's expression of his opinion (and Gay Byrne's enquiry into it, and RTE's broadcasting of it) clearly weren't stifled by this law, and the authorities seem to have concluded that what Fry (and Byrne, and RTE) said and did was not an infringement of the law.

Bad and all as this law is, I don't think it does very much to stifle debate. That last prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland was in 1855 (and that resulted in an acquittal) and the present law is designed to be more or less unprosecutable. A number of people have tried to be prosecuted under this law, as a way of protesting against it, but nobody has managed so far. Realistically, I doubt if anybody seriously expects to be prosecuted, and I doubt if anybody expects or fears that they ever will be.

Don't get me wrong. It's a bad law, but it's bad for other reasons than the risk of stifling discussion.

Vojera

Peregrinus wrote: »

I take your point. On the other hand, Fry's expression of his opinion (and Gay Byrne's enquiry into it, and RTE's broadcasting of it) clearly weren't stifled by this law, and the authorities seem to have concluded that what Fry (and Byrne, and RTE) said and did was not an infringement of the law.

According to the papers, the case was dropped because not enough people cared. But surely there's the possibility that more people might care in the future about something that someone else has to say? I still think it hamstrings one side of the debate as long as it exists.

I fully agree that it's a stupid law for a lot of other reasons too, though.

PopePalpatine

kbannon wrote: »

Eh, what exactly does it stand for?

Maybe realitykeeper has blocked out everything in the Eurovision since Dana -
Scanlon of course, not International .

realitykeeper

Vojera wrote: »

You can't really have both of those. While the law exists, debate is stifled because people are afraid of breaking the law.

But that point solves itself. Simply by pointing it out, you negate the need to abolish the law.

realitykeeper

me_right_one wrote: »

This. But you cant do that on Boards. Already, a moderator has called you ridiculous for expressing your view. And this ain't even after hours.

"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5:11-12).

Timberrrrrrrr

realitykeeper wrote: »

"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5:11-12).

You must have missed

Oink wrote: »

If you're talking about me, I'm not a mod in this forum, just a commoner.
Anyway, I should have said that "the law" was ridiculous rather than "the people", so I repent, recant, and retract this part of my statement.

Ephesians 4:18 “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.”

realitykeeper

Vojera wrote: »

According to the papers, the case was dropped because not enough people cared. But surely there's the possibility that more people might care in the future about something that someone else has to say? I still think it hamstrings one side of the debate as long as it exists.

I fully agree that it's a stupid law for a lot of other reasons too, though.

It is not a stupid law but I cannot say why here, because the reasons are theological and not political. Free speech is already stifled even without the law on blasphemy.

realitykeeper

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Maybe realitykeeper has blocked out everything in the Eurovision since Dana -
Scanlon of course, not International .

Eurovision started 10 years after WWII. Granted the songs might not always be very good but I refuse to believe they sound worse than the blitz.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

If it is, it's a very obscure one. Which would kind of defeat the whole point of being a sign in the first place.

That reminds me of this scene from Sherlock Holmes where Watson says: How did you see that? and Holmes replies: Because I was looking for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCy3DPWEWQc

Vojera

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is not a stupid law but I cannot say why here, because the reasons are theological and not political. Free speech is already stifled even without the law on blasphemy.

I honestly do think it's a stupid law. What religions are covered? Are all religions covered? Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster need to be protected from blasphemy as much as Allah? Where is the line drawn? What about polytheistic religions?

What is blasphemy exactly? Is it saying that a god doesn't exist? Or criticising the acts of said god? Using a sacred name as a swear word?

And why does a deity need such a law? Why does society need such a law? Why is blasphemy considered heinous enough that there's a law against it? I don't see any justification or any situation where we benefit from it.

realitykeeper

Vojera wrote: »

I honestly do think it's a stupid law. What religions are covered? Are all religions covered? Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster need to be protected from blasphemy as much as Allah? Where is the line drawn? What about polytheistic religions?

What is blasphemy exactly? Is it saying that a god doesn't exist? Or criticising the acts of said god? Using a sacred name as a swear word?

And why does a deity need such a law? Why does society need such a law? Why is blasphemy considered heinous enough that there's a law against it? I don't see any justification or any situation where we benefit from it.

The original idea behind the law against blasphemy was not to protect people against insult but to prevent people from insulting God and in this country that meant God from a Catholic/Christian perspective.

It is true that nowadays people believe in all sorts of things and of course there are the non religious also. However, as a conservative Catholic it is my belief that only society has changed and the one true God has not.

How do I know the God I believe in is the one true God? Faith. How about other peoples faiths? Remember, the blasphemy law was not about people but about God and God has not changed, society and the people in it have changed and they have done so for the worse.

Ending the blasphemy law will not settle this matter but the wrath of God will come all the sooner to a Godless society. Russia tried to do without God and it didn`t work out for them so now they are returning to God in their droves and it is wonderful to see that.

What is blasphemy? I think it is irreverence. Not believing is not blasphemous but cussing or disrespecting God (whether you believe in God or not) is blasphemous from God`s perspective.

Mr.Micro

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is not a stupid law but I cannot say why here, because the reasons are theological and not political. Free speech is already stifled even without the law on blasphemy.

If so, then the stupid law on blasphemy only further stifles free speech.

Peregrinus

Vojera wrote: »

I honestly do think it's a stupid law. What religions are covered? Are all religions covered? Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster need to be protected from blasphemy as much as Allah? Where is the line drawn? What about polytheistic religions?

All religions are covered.

Vojera wrote: »

What is blasphemy exactly? Is it saying that a god doesn't exist? Or criticising the acts of said god? Using a sacred name as a swear word?

We talk loosely about "blasphemy", but what the law actually refers to is "blasphemous matter", which it helpfully defines as " matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion".

Vojera wrote: »

And why does a deity need such a law? Why does society need such a law? Why is blasphemy considered heinous enough that there's a law against it? I don't see any justification or any situation where we benefit from it.

The deity doesn't need such a law and, in fairness, I have't seen even the warmest enthusiast for this or similar laws claiming that God needs them. The usual claim is that we need them.

The actual reason why we have this law is (a) the Constitution enacted by the people in 1937 requires that we have such a law, and (b) the power that be don't (up to now) have the stomach for a referendum that would remove this requirement from the Constitution.

In principle, the present government favours a referendum on this question, but it's apparently not a top constitutional priority for them.

realitykeeper

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If so, then the stupid law on blasphemy only further stifles free speech.

The law on blasphemy is for God`s sake and by extension our sake. By removing that law, we are placing our whims over the right of God, thereby exposing society to the wrath of God.

Cookie_Monster

realitykeeper wrote: »

The law on blasphemy is for God`s sake and by extension our sake. By removing that law, we are placing our whims over the right of God, thereby exposing society to the wrath of God.

well since god does not exist, it's all moot anyway sure.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

The law on blasphemy is for God`s sake and by extension our sake. By removing that law, we are placing our whims over the right of God, thereby exposing society to the wrath of God.

Being an atheist, I'm not overly worried

PopePalpatine

realitykeeper wrote: »

The law on blasphemy is for God`s sake and by extension our sake. By removing that law, we are placing our whims over the right of God, thereby exposing society to the wrath of God.

You'd think an almighty deity would have a thicker skin. :rolleyes:

realitykeeper

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

well since god does not exist, it's all moot anyway sure.

God gave us everything (even his son) so by my calculation, the don`t knows really ought to give God the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to have no doubt in your opinion. What makes you so sure?

realitykeeper

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You'd think an almighty deity would have a thicker skin. :rolleyes:

God is slow to anger.

Seth Brundle

realitykeeper wrote: »

God gave us everything (even his son) so by my calculation, the don`t knows really ought to give God the benefit of the doubt, but you seem to have no doubt in your opinion. What makes you so sure?

Can we see your calculations please?

ancapailldorcha

I'm locking this thread. OP, don't start any more of these, please.