Blasphemy referendum 26th October

biko

How will you vote?
Have you made your mind up or are you still reading up on it?


Some info https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2018/0925/996954-blasphemy-referendum/


Edit
If there is a Yes vote the Constitution will no longer require the publishing or saying something blasphemous is a criminal offence

In the event of a No vote, that is if the majority votes No, then the Constitution remains unchanged.

terryduff12

Will it be ok to say Jesus was homosexual the prophet Muhammad was homosexual in public or will or you will only be able to talk about Jesus and other religions for risk being called a racist if you say anything about Muhammad.

Grayson

I'm in the US for work until november so I can't vote. However I would vote to get rid of it.

I understand the need for certain laws to prevent abuse but it shouldn't be in the constitution. I think we've learned from the 8th that these things shouldn't be in there. It's too hard to change when we find an edge case.

Currently we have laws against incitement to hatred and that should be enough. It should be fine to criticise aspects of faiths and even say that they're rubbish but it shouldn't be ok to whip up people against a particular religion. And that's covered in current legislation.

EdgeCase

It’s a ridiculous and thankfully unenforceable and unenforced law. From what I can see nobody is in favour of it, not even the Catholic Church.

It’s been used by oppressive regimes as a model for blasphemy laws that are actually enforced too. Also considering Irish people blaspheme every 2 seconds in normal speech!

Bye bye blasphemy!

Yer Da sells Avon

I'll be voting No because it's a funny little law that's too deliberately ludicrous to ever affect anyone. I also think it would be really funny if we rejected it. Marriage Equality? Yeah, fine. Abortion? Sure, go on. Blasphemy? Jaysis Tittyfucking Christ, No.

DEFTLEFTHAND

When was the last time somebody was even charged with blasphemy ?

It's a defunct law at this stage so it makes sense to remove it.

SEPT 23 1989

No for the divilment

Grayson

terryduff12 wrote: »

Will it be ok to say Jesus was homosexual the prophet Muhammad was homosexual in public or will or you will only be able to talk about Jesus and other religions for risk being called a racist if you say anything about Muhammad.

Criticising a religion is ok and doesn't make someone a racist. It's when someone decides that everyone of a particular faith is the exact same monolithic block . For example I can say that as an organisation the catholic church has been extremely bad in how it handled abuse cases. That's factual. However I can't say that all priests/catholics/christians are paedophiles because that's not true. I can't even say that priests pose an extra danger because the percentage of priests in the church who are abusers are no higher than the numbers in the general population.

Likewise the same goes for muslims. If you state that some, ISIS for example, are nuts that's accurate. If you state that they are all violent jihadists that's wrong.

That's the difference between criticising and being racist.

TheValeyard

Id vote to keep it just to watch Micheal Nugents head explode.

NickNickleby

First reaction from me was to vote to remove it. But.....

I feel that nowadays people feel more empowered to ridicule the religious beliefs of others. You only have browse the some of the posts on boards, or look in the comments section in the Irish Times to see plenty of examples of this.

I've no problem with anyone thinking and stating that belief in religion unscientific or illogical, but to ridicule believers is purely spite in my opinion.

I cannot say I'm an non-believer, but I'm certainly not a fervently religious person. I don't pray (but perhaps when I'm next in a fox-hole that'll change), don't go to Mass, except for funerals or Anniversary Mass. At these I'll take communion, but more out of the 'communion' thing - shared experience I suppose.

Anyway, I'm going to re-read the Referendum pamphlet, and will probably vote yes, but hope that the usual suspects won't be on here crowing about 'their' victory.

amcalester

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

No for the divilment

I think this will be the No campaign, Vote No to stick it to the government.

I don’t anyone really has an argument for keeping it.

badtoro

Ronan Mullen seems to be arguing in favour of keeping it by crying over the cost of it's addition on the day, so I'll be doing the opposite.

amcalester

badtoro wrote: »

Ronan Mullen seems to be arguing in favour of keeping it by crying over the cost of it's addition on the day, so I'll be doing the opposite.

I heard him say that.

The money is effectively spent at this stage, voting no won’t change that.

Had he any reasons actually keeping it other than sunken costs?

Atoms for Peace

Yes to blasphemy.

Fr_Dougal

Blasphemy law should stay, it’s one of the commandments. 85% of the country are Catholic.

Giveaway

ITs important to repeal the blasphemy provision overwhelmingly, to send a message to a vicious totalitarian ideology that the people of ireland will never accept it or convert

badtoro

amcalester wrote: »

badtoro wrote: »

Ronan Mullen seems to be arguing in favour of keeping it by crying over the cost of it's addition on the day, so I'll be doing the opposite.

I heard him say that.

The money is effectively spent at this stage, voting no won’t change that.

Had he any reasons actually keeping it other than sunken costs?

Not that I heard, to be fair there are only so many seconds I can listen to him.

Eggs For Dinner

I too old to start using allowable curse words.

amcalester

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Blasphemy law should stay, it’s one of the commandments. 85% of the country are Catholic.

Covers all religions, even the made up ones.

Yer Da sells Avon

amcalester wrote: »

I don’t anyone really has an argument for keeping it.

It'll really annoy Atheist Ireland is the best argument I can come up with.

I've come up with a campaign slogan too: "Jesus, no!"

freshpopcorn

I'll vote yes mainly because it might mean we'll see less of Colm O'Gorman on TV!

biko

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

When was the last time somebody was even charged with blasphemy ?

Stephen Fry was under investigation under this law. But charges were dropped after garda failed to find 'substantial number of outraged people'.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/stephen-fry-blasphemy-probe-dropped-after-garda-fail-to-find-substantial-number-of-outraged-people-35692915.html

GreeBo

terryduff12 wrote: »

Will it be ok to say Jesus was homosexual the prophet Muhammad was homosexual in public or will or you will only be able to talk about Jesus and other religions for risk being called a racist if you say anything about Muhammad.

If you say anything about Muhammed I reckon being called a racist is the least of your worries.

Endaaaagh

All I said was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!

gimli2112

I only realised it's a thing this week. Do we really need a referendum, can we not just keep ignoring it?

Zirconia

amcalester wrote: »

Covers all religions, even the made up ones.

Even the made up ones? That's all of them then!

amcalester

Zirconia wrote: »

Even the made up ones? That's all of them then!

That was the joke.

Pherekydes

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Blasphemy law should stay, it’s one of the commandments. 85% of the country are Catholic.

I think you'll find that the figure is more like 78%, but quite a few of those have no say in the matter.

The Blasphemy law is itself blasphemous. The idea that god needs protection is a blasphemy. All religions are blasphemous to other religions. You can't have freedom of religion with it.

It's literally the stupidest law possible.

But Rónán Mullen will defend it.

Roger Hassenforder

Ill informed voter here

Will vote 'no' get rid of it?
If yes, ill be voting no.

jaxxx

The fact that a referendum is even needed to get rid of this stupid meaningless $hit of a thing is absolutely pathetic. Another reason why we're the laughing stock of the so-called "Western world".

TheValeyard

jaxxx wrote: »

The fact that a referendum is even needed to get rid of this stupid meaningless $hit of a thing is absolutely pathetic. Another reason why we're the laughing stock of the so-called "Western world".

Were aint no laughing stock buddy...



Brexit ========>

Ipso

Isn’t it a victimless crime?

The Rape of Lucretia

The worry is that it will open the floodgates, and we wont be able to move for blasphemous comments all over the place. There is a huge pent up disire to be blasphemous that has only been held in check by the penalty the law could impose. Now everyone will be at it non stop. Buying a pint of milk, bidding good morning one's neighbour, switching on the evening news. People may really regret this one. There is only so much blasphemy people can partake in during an average day.
Voting no.

Ah, another referendum. The economic conservatives who pass themselves off as liberals in the Irish media and political class certainly love peddling these cost-free distractions to the plebs.

Any sign of tackling the rapidly growing, and widely attested to, inequality in Irish society? All that little stuff like the richest people here paying sweet fúck all taxes, while those of us in the middle are paying marginal tax rates of between 50% and 60%? Or how the ideology of this state is to privatise everything, even when society is clearly undermined by that ideology (e.g. the current 8-year-long housing crisis which our rightwing ideologues in government have very kindly handed over to private developers to solve).

Far safer to devote infinite hours to all this referendum rubbish than take on the elephant in the room of modern Ireland.

whisky_galore

Should never have been on the books in the first place.
Ridiculous law.

whisky_galore

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Blasphemy law should stay, it’s one of the commandments. 85% of the country are Catholic.

Bouncy castle Catholics.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Grayson wrote: »

Criticising a religion is ok and doesn't make someone a racist. It's when someone decides that everyone of a particular faith is the exact same monolithic block . For example I can say that as an organisation the catholic church has been extremely bad in how it handled abuse cases. That's factual. However I can't say that all priests/catholics/christians are paedophiles because that's not true. I can't even say that priests pose an extra danger because the percentage of priests in the church who are abusers are no higher than the numbers in the general population.

Likewise the same goes for muslims. If you state that some, ISIS for example, are nuts that's accurate. If you state that they are all violent jihadists that's wrong.

That's the difference between criticising and being racist.

this is such a lovely and wholesome post, you should be very proud.

but it doesn't address the concern of the poster you replied to.

Discodog

The OP should clarify what yes/no means - some won't read the article.

alchemist33

I'm almost certainly a Yes, but my only concern is protection against hate speech. I think there is some legal provision for this but will have to look it up.

Mint Sauce

I was definitely voting yes, but my concern with that, is that it could open the flood gates. I am for free speech, but also respect other people's religions. With out the correct legislation, could you say what you want, with out repercussion.

Going to have to think about this one.

Corb_lund

Ah yes let's pat ourselves on the back. How very progressive Tabitha, we can stick one in the maw of the Catholic church.

Does this mean I can mock Islam as openly for its anti homosexual rights, misogyny, repressive apostasy beliefs?

Good God no, what are you....racist? Don't be so bigoted and xenophobic


Irish progressives are getting seriously boring at this stage.

The Rape of Lucretia

alchemist33 wrote: »

I'm almost certainly a Yes, but my only concern is protection against hate speech. I think there is some legal provision for this but will have to look it up.

A society where hate is restricted, I find a deeply troubling idea.

Zebra3

Giveaway wrote: »

ITs important to repeal the blasphemy provision overwhelmingly, to send a message to a vicious totalitarian ideology that the people of ireland will never accept it or convert

I'm confused, for a long time Irish people were under the spell of the woman hating child raping scum of the Catholic Church and their non-existent deity.

alchemist33

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

A society where hate is restricted, I find a deeply troubling idea.

There's a point where "telling it like it is" becomes pure scumbaggery and I wouldn't want to be in a society where it's allowed free rein.

CruelCoin

terryduff12 wrote: »

Will it be ok to say Jesus was homosexual the prophet Muhammad was homosexual in public or will or you will only be able to talk about Jesus and other religions for risk being called a racist if you say anything about Muhammad.

Depends on the context.

If you were to megaphone in through the door of the Dublin mosque, then that would not be allowed i don't think.

SoyBoy69

alchemist33 wrote: »

There's a point where "telling it like it is" becomes pure scumbaggery and I wouldn't want to be in a society where it's allowed free rein.

There is already a law for threatening and abusive behaviour. I would prefer a state with no hate crime laws OR blasphemy laws.

I probably wont vote as it seems a foregone conclusion.

CruelCoin

amcalester wrote: »

Covers all religions, even the made up ones.

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster slap you about the mouth with his soggy noodle!

CruelCoin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ill informed voter here

Will vote 'no' get rid of it?
If yes, ill be voting no.

A yes vote is a vote to change the constitution (remove the word blasphemy)
A no vote is to leave the constitution unchanged (retain the word)

terryduff12

CruelCoin wrote: »

Depends on the context.

If you were to megaphone in through the door of the Dublin mosque, then that would not be allowed i don't think.

If i was passing leaflets out on the streets of Dublin saying 10 reason Jesus was gay and 10 reasons why Muhammad was gay that should and would be alright i would imagine.

Niles Crane

NickNickleby wrote: »

First reaction from me was to vote to remove it. But.....

I feel that nowadays people feel more empowered to ridicule the religious beliefs of others. You only have browse the some of the posts on boards, or look in the comments section in the Irish Times to see plenty of examples of this.

I've no problem with anyone thinking and stating that belief in religion unscientific or illogical, but to ridicule believers is purely spite in my opinion.

I cannot say I'm an non-believer, but I'm certainly not a fervently religious person. I don't pray (but perhaps when I'm next in a fox-hole that'll change), don't go to Mass, except for funerals or Anniversary Mass. At these I'll take communion, but more out of the 'communion' thing - shared experience I suppose.

Anyway, I'm going to re-read the Referendum pamphlet, and will probably vote yes, but hope that the usual suspects won't be on here crowing about 'their' victory.

If you want to ridicule someones relgious beliefs you should be allowed to.They are no more important than anyone's belief in any other thing in life.

suicide_circus

🧔