25 Grand Fine for Blasphemy

Fear Uladh · 04-01-2010 11:00PM

There will have to be a lot of posts deleted on boards.ie that state some priests are Paedophiles.

ScumLord · 04-01-2010 11:01PM

It's about time something was done about all the heathens that blaspheme science.

PK2008 · 04-01-2010 11:07PM

JangoFett wrote: »

I still think it's offensive even is it is unenforcable. I'm an athiest and I think having a LAW about FICTIONAL CHARACTERS is insane. It's like if the government suddenly said that you could get in trouble or be fined for saying Tony the Tiger is a c unt

Yeh but to get rid of it we'd have to have another bleedin referendum and we only just had 2 of them!

Anyway- the way referendums go in this country if it was removed we'd only end up having another referendum a couple of months later voting it back in.

Better things to be doing with money than spending it on a vote on a law nobody give a sh!te about

me-skywalker · 04-01-2010 11:08PM

The third part of that law states, not verbatim, that you have to have intent to cause insult..... DUH!!!!!

Gaspode · 04-01-2010 11:11PM

insult who? Jesus? The Pope? those 2 tossers are just too easy to insult it not even a challenge any more.

sadista · 04-01-2010 11:14PM

Notice of non consent and petition here, please take the time to read and sign if you oppose this ridiculous piece of legislation.
http://www.petitiononline.com/asdf11/petition.html

Canard · 04-01-2010 11:15PM

What a bad way to make money. EVERYONE says the ol' JC every now and then. :P

Besides, I'm sure not every politician believes in God, or feels SO strongly that this law must be imposed.

K4t · 04-01-2010 11:23PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

Proper order too, no symptahy for them - anyone caught using Springsteen's name in vain deserves the 25k fine.

http://www.stratcollector.com/images/news/clapton/god.gif tbh.

Edit: God doesn't exist. Get with the times.

PK2008 · 04-01-2010 11:29PM

K4t wrote: »

http://www.stratcollector.com/images/news/clapton/god.gif tbh.

Edit: God doesn't exist. Get with the times.

I only found out the other day that Clapton is a racist:eek:, seriously.

Great guitarist and all but still kind of ruins him a bit for me

K4t · 04-01-2010 11:40PM

PK2008 wrote: »

I only found out the other day that Clapton is a racist:eek:, seriously.

Great guitarist and all but still kind of ruins him a bit for me

No he's not. Read the full story.

PK2008 · 04-01-2010 11:46PM

K4t wrote: »

No he's not. Read the full story.

Will do

OutlawPete · 04-01-2010 11:52PM

K4t wrote: »

No he's not. Read the full story.

What going on tonight?

First I am accused of being a racist and now Clapton.

Too fecking much

Sofaspud · 05-01-2010 01:14AM

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Dear { TD's Name},
I am writing in relation to Minister Aherns blasphemy law which recently came into affect.

Effect.

Template fail.

RMD · 05-01-2010 01:33AM

Seems most people don't realise the only time this law will be enforced would be extremely well known cases such as the Danish newspaper printing a picture of a modern day Muhamed with a bomb in his turban.

Queen-Mise · 05-01-2010 01:36AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yes and also its an attack on our freedom of speech.

Im surprised someone is not making up T Shirts for this to wear outside the Dail to see if they will enforce it.

Ireland doesnt have freedom of speech. I believe that is in the american constitution only.

Id say this is being brought in to have more control on the media - newspapers particularly.

4leto · 05-01-2010 01:56AM

So what our news media need freedom of speech in ours and any democracy.

Religion has extreme view and it needs ridiculing at times, so is that blasphemy.

derfderf · 05-01-2010 02:07AM

Wouldn't it just be easier to let the papers say what they want while the rest of us bury our heads in the sand?

Terry · 05-01-2010 02:23AM

JangoFett wrote: »

I still think it's offensive even is it is unenforcable. I'm an athiest and I think having a LAW about FICTIONAL CHARACTERS is insane. It's like if the government suddenly said that you could get in trouble or be fined for saying Tony the Tiger is a c unt

I've seen Tony the Tiger. He's a cartoon animal who promotes a cereal.
I have yet to see any evidence of any God in any form.

Here's the thing. This only applies to published blasphemy and the publishers are the ones who take the hit. In this case, Boards.ie.
Second thing. Boards will only be fined if they refuse to remove the offending posts after being asked to do so by the offended party.

Wanna test it for yourself? Create your own website. Not one of those free ones. Actually buy a domain name and Irish based hosting space, then blaspheme away and see what happens.

Now I'm not too well up on the bible or the Koran, but both books have scriptures calling for non-believers to be killed.
What we need to do is have all of that published material destroyed because it is offensive to people who do not believe in any of the Abrahamic faiths.
Let's use this law to our own advantage.

A quick google brought up the following: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/cruelty/long.html
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm (JESUS, ON NONBELIEVERS - John 15:6 (KJV)
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.") I read that as Christian scripture calling for me (a nonbeliever) to be thrown onto a fire. I'm really offended.

I'm sure the OT has some great ones too.
Then there's the book of Mormon, the many Christian sects, Scientology, Buddhism and so forth.

If this is played correctly, religion could be completely wiped from this country.

Most religions do not believe that Mary was a virgin. That's offensive to Catholics.
Rally the Catholic Church to have those religions removed. Then we only have one religion left to deal with.
The Catholic Church doesn't like gay people or pro-life people. Get them in on the game and we're rid of those aspects of Catholic teaching.

I know it's not that simple, but there's an outline for anyone who wants to follow it up.

Dotsie~tmp · 05-01-2010 02:25AM

Priests follow the teachings of jesus. Priests are all pedos thus so was the jesus. Who do i make this cheque out to?

me-skywalker · 05-01-2010 02:34AM

4leto wrote: »

So what our news media need freedom of speech in ours and any democracy.

Religion has extreme view and it needs ridiculing at times, so is that blasphemy.

derfderf wrote: »

Wouldn't it just be easier to let the papers say what they want while the rest of us bury our heads in the sand?

'publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.'

he law, he says, also attempts to define blasphemy as causing "outrage … among a substantial number of adherents" of a religion. But the law fails to define what outrage is or what a substantial number is,

Terry wrote: »

I've seen Tony the Tiger. He's a cartoon animal who promotes a cereal.
I have yet to see any evidence of any God in any form.

Here's the thing. This only applies to published blasphemy and the publishers are the ones who take the hit. In this case, Boards.ie.
Second thing. Boards will only be fined if they refuse to remove the offending posts after being asked to do so by the offended party.

Wanna test it for yourself? Create your own website. Not one of those free ones. Actually buy a domain name and Irish based hosting space, then blaspheme away and see what happens.

Now I'm not too well up on the bible or the Koran, but both books have scriptures calling for non-believers to be killed.
What we need to do is have all of that published material destroyed because it is offensive to people who do not believe in any of the Abrahamic faiths.
Let's use this law to our own advantage.

A quick google brought up the following: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/cruelty/long.html
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm (JESUS, ON NONBELIEVERS - John 15:6 (KJV)
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.") I read that as Christian scripture calling for me (a nonbeliever) to be thrown onto a fire. I'm really offended.

I'm sure the OT has some great ones too.
Then there's the book of Mormon, the many Christian sects, Scientology, Buddhism and so forth.

If this is played correctly, religion could be completely wiped from this country.

Most religions do not believe that Mary was a virgin. That's offensive to Catholics.
Rally the Catholic Church to have those religions removed. Then we only have one religion left to deal with.
The Catholic Church doesn't like gay people or pro-life people. Get them in on the game and we're rid of those aspects of Catholic teaching.

I know it's not that simple, but there's an outline for anyone who wants to follow it up.

I like your thinking!! Maybe you could lead the Rally?

Boosh · 05-01-2010 02:52AM

RMD wrote: »

Seems most people don't realise the only time this law will be enforced would be extremely well known cases such as the Danish newspaper printing a picture of a modern day Muhamed with a bomb in his turban.

And that makes it ok how?

If anything the example you have mentioned is the perfect example of why this law shouldn't exist in a secular democracy. The nutcases that rioted and threatened violence against any media outlet that published that particular image should be marginalised, not given backing from the law. The fact that the majority of the Western Media gave into these people is shameful imo.

philologos · 05-01-2010 02:57AM

We don't need this law.

I'd rather that people wrote, spoke, recorded and published offensive things about Christianity and gave me the chance to clear up misconceptions than people bottling it up. I'm glad that people are interested enough to even deem it worthy of criticism. Blasphemy although I would consider it unmannerly, socially unacceptable, rude, and lacking in etiquette, isn't a matter for the law to sort out. It's up to individuals to decide.

Christians need to be more willing to defend their beliefs in public and I can do that without this law.

People don't have the right not to be offended. They do have the right to freedom of expression or at least should do in a modern democracy.

OutlawPete · 05-01-2010 03:05AM

An infamous case of Blasphemy..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fm0QOIw8nQ

ascanbe · 05-01-2010 03:14AM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Even if there was a constitutional necessity to have such a law (and there probably isint given that weve managed the last 70+ years without it) where did they come up with the figure of twenty five grand for an appropriate level of punishment -as opposed to say two shillings and sixpence ?

It's 30 pieces of silver, taking inflation into account...

me-skywalker · 05-01-2010 03:20AM

I understand the constitutional version to a certain degree.... BUT I dont understand the WHY of bringing this into effect since the law hasnt been used since its introduction why the need for clarification and writing into law now?

I dont get the motive in this day and age.

monkey9 · 05-01-2010 03:23AM

So you could use the Lord's name in vain and be fined twenty grand, but if you're a priest and you **** a child, you're asked to move on like a good fella, onto the next Parish.

Great priorities there, d!ckhead government

aidan24326 · 05-01-2010 03:31AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Meh, I bet it never becomes an issue. It'll be used to shut up people on massive anti church rants in the media.

Maybe it won't become an issue, but then why introduce this legislation in the first place? It's completely unnecessary, even some church leaders declared it unneccesary, and they certainly didn't ask for it. It has no place in a supposedly secular democracy. So what is Dermot Ahern playing at? Going off on his own little tangent? If so, he shouldn't be allowed get away with it. Bombard him with emails. Why is it always religious beliefs that are deemed worthy of such protection?

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't need this law.

I'd rather that people wrote, spoke, recorded and published offensive things about Christianity and gave me the chance to clear up misconceptions than people bottling it up.

Well said, and I'd imagine many reasonable believers in the country agree with you. So again, who exactly is Dermot Ahern representing here?

ascanbe · 05-01-2010 03:36AM

Anyway, this law, i believe, was the result of Fianna Fail floundering about like a dying fish looking somewhere, anywhere for some kind of support; a knee jerk attempt to get someone, anyone to row in behind one of it's initiatives.
No one will go to bat for you like religous groups when you throw them a bone; really it was just an attempt to try and change the debate, even for a few days, from the fact that the country was falling apart economically.
A cynical, desperate move; it could be classified as worrying except we have so much more to worry about right now.

Intothesea · 05-01-2010 04:46AM

I think the aims of this law are (ostensibly) worthwhile in that public inflammatory statements targeting cultural/religious identity have no place in an equitable and inclusive society. Trouble enters when you have a government posing as protector of Ireland's new cultural and religious mix with a true motivation of attempting to stifle social change. A very expensive band-aid of medievally bad quality :pac:

ETA: Potentially the concept stewed away over the period that the material world appeared to be conquered with science reigning supreme and money standing in for truth. The rise of atheism and call for a secular society were predictable well before all hell broke loose around the Church. Add economic disaster to the mix and delay tactics/damage limitation is Church and State's only option.

we'llallhavetea_old · 05-01-2010 04:51AM

i've seen this "blasphemy law" pop up in forums the last few months, never read anything, just assumed it was a JOKE!

fupp me. what fuppin next?

25 Grand Fine for Blasphemy

Comments