Campaign to repeal the blasphemy law

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.

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