Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws | Religion Spirituality | Forum

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws
Avatar
Guest
Guests
1
January 5, 2010 - 8:21 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Henry McDonald, Ireland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 January 2010 16.49 GMT

EXCERPT:

Secular campaigners in the Irish Republic defied a strict new blasphemy law which came into force today by publishing a series of anti-religious quotations online and promising to fight the legislation in court.

The new law, which was passed in July, means that blasphemy in Ireland is now a crime punishable with a fine of up to €25,000 (£22,000).

It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".

The justice minister, Dermot Ahern, said that the law was necessary because while immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths, the 1936 constitution extended the protection of belief only to Christians.

But Atheist Ireland, a group that claims to represent the rights of atheists, responded to the new law by publishing 25 anti-religious quotations on its website, from figures including Richard Dawkins, Björk, Frank Zappa and the former Observer editor and Irish ex-minister Conor Cruise O'Brien.

Michael Nugent, the group's chair, said that it would challenge the law through the courts if it were charged with blasphemy.

Nugent said: "This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic states led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

"We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja ... sphemy-law

Avatar
mrshumphreys
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 431
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
January 6, 2010 - 8:33 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I guess nobody else is going to bite.

I have to whole-heartedly agree with Michael Nugent's quote, though.

"This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic states led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

"We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous."

"It's like arguing with a brick wall, except the brick wall thinks you're an idiot, and thinks it's winning." - Humphreys, that sexy beast.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Avatar
Guest
Guests
3
January 9, 2010 - 2:04 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

"We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous."

I don't believe blasphemy laws silence people in order to protect ideas.
Blasphemy is defined as a contemptuous or profane act aimed at or concerning a sacred diety. How is that following the golden rule of treating others justly?

Poking fun at religious concepts and dieties is one thing,being honest why you disagree is another, but I for one have personally seen blasphemy so intense in its profanity and contempt that it could be hardly be called anything close to being just. The motivation behind much of it is not based on the desire to to express their ideas about religions they may not agree with ,but to mock it in such a disgusting way as to seriously offend. I find nothing just in that.

Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10316
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
January 9, 2010 - 5:30 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

If you applied those Blasphamy laws to some of the things people have said on our message board, all our posters would be in Irish prisons. Laugh Actually that would probably not be far fetched, becasue we have had some very blasphamous things said, in many discussions here. That should make you appreciate your freedom of speech, if even free countries like Ireland, would pass a law you would expect in oppressive counties.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Online:
46
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10316
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Newest Members:
Steven Joels
Cracker Jacks
Tristan Lila
Gideon Hardcastle
Rute
JacquesE
Alan1966
Douglas
Andrea
Elacious
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9198
Posts: 124592

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 24967
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault