smacl wrote: » Any reason to think you wouldn't? No shortage of taking the mickey out of Allah and friends on the funnies thread here so couldn't see it being an issue on AH.
Kidchameleon wrote: » As discussed on this thread, the media are afraid to do it, I seemingly wrongly thought Boards would be afraid to host such content. Perhaps I will give it a try...
Kidchameleon wrote: » As far as I know, no person would be able to criticize Islam in this country.
Kidchameleon wrote: » In your opinion, would I be free to start a thread in After Hours, criticizing Islam?
robindch wrote: » Idle, paranoid and completely inaccurate speculation - as you well know.
Michael Nugent wrote: » I regularly criticise Islam (and other religions) while also working with Muslims as people to protect their human rights. For examples, feel free to go to my website and use the search box to search for the word Islam.
Michael Nugent wrote: » However, mainstream media outlets do self-censor themselves with regard to statements that they fear might be considered blasphemous. In my experience, this self-censorship spans all religions. Mainstream media outlets generally just don't want to get involved.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I can have a look once I see proof for the assertion that Islam can't be criticised.
recedite wrote: » Can you give examples? A quick Google search returns the opposite, though in this case Google may not be entirely impartial.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » This is just nonsense to be honest. There have been plenty of far right anti-Muslim marches and the police have facilitated them, not prohibited them.
Kidchameleon wrote: » Im not sure, would you stand on a milk crate with a megaphone in the middle of temple bar screaming about everything wrong with Islam? You would be dragged off kicking by the guards, if on the other hand your subject was Christianity / Catholic you would be left alone
Mattie McGrath (extract from his Dail speech yesterday) wrote: I am happy to speak on this Bill. I acknowledge that the issue of removing the offence of blasphemy is a source of deep concern for a very significant proportion of the population. I share those people's view that respect for authentically held religious values has been on the decline for decades. Anti-Catholic rhetoric in particular is rampant. Indeed, some have even described such views as the last acceptable public prejudice. That said, I support the Government's Bill to repeal the blasphemy clause from the Constitution. As Our Lord said: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's”. Ever since the 1996 Constitution Review Group found that the contents of the offence of blasphemy "are totally unclear and are potentially at variance with guarantees of free speech and freedom of conscience in a pluralistic society", the end has been coming for this particular clause in Article 40.6.1o. The issue also received a substantial and detailed analysis in the sixth report of the Constitutional Convention, which was established by the then Government in 2012. As I understand it, however, the convention voted in favour of including a new constitutional provision against religious hatred, with 53% of members in favour, 38% against and 9% undecided. I am aware that many people will see the position I am taking as some kind of concession to those who want to remove even the mention of God or the sacred from our culture and society. That is emphatically not the case. I simply hold the view that it is not tenable for the State to involve itself in the making of theological judgments, much less enforce specific theological or philosophical judgments by any one particular creed or church. I believe in the separation of church and state. I do not believe, however, that that separation should become a division, which some people would like it to be. The church has a vital role to play in our society and it works effectively in a spirit of collaboration with the State on many issues. That role needs to be respected and protected. It is not appropriate for the State to act as the guard dog of any particular church. Such a position harms both church and State, an outcome that is in no one's interests. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Easy. One is real while the other is just today's right wing fetishisation of victimhood.
Kidchameleon wrote: » I will be voting to repeal obviously, but I don't know which is worse, the blasphemy law, or the unwritten "cannot criticize Islam" law. Our media outlets self sensor themselves against that too.
Michael Nugent wrote: » At the opening meeting yesterday of the campaign to remove the blasphemy law, I outlined the history of the law and why it is important to vote yes to remove it.]
magicbastarder wrote: » the constitution is just the first layer, of course. this is not the first - or last - issue which should be taken out of the constitution and dealt with using legislation where required or sensible.
ELM327 wrote: » If something is not prohibited then it's permitted.
magicbastarder wrote: » disagree. the constitution should be silent on the matter.
ELM327 wrote: » there should be a replacement stating that any and all religions are expressly open for rational criticism. Including Islam
