Irish atheists to oppose blasphemy law.

[Strong Atheist]

http://blog.atheist.ie/?p=64

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/ireland-outlaws-blasphemy/


Some of what the law could do:


http://www.palibandaily.com/2009/07/09/ireland-makes-blasphemy-illegal/

[defendandprotect]

1. Blasphemy is based on a religious concept, isn't it . . .

don't have time to check links or dictionary -- back later --

[SleeplessInAlabama]

2. Yes. Blasphemy would be "speaking against God". n/t

[Strong Atheist]

10. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[defendandprotect]

14. Therefore, kinda tough to see how they could pass this as law . ..!!!

Certainly the Irish government must recognize this as deja vous?

Surprised they did this but haven't read the links yet.

Bad news!

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Yep. It is a purely religious term. Blasphemy CANNOT be a crime

in a secular state. The only concept that comes close would be 'religious intolerance' i.e., hate speech.

One person's blasphemy is another person's doctrine.

[defendandprotect]

15. Religion is somewhat different from hate crimes in that ...

gender, race, sexual orientation aren't personal beliefs . . .

and certainly it is only RELIGION which is to be separated from government

Constitutionally. The founders understood the threat of organized religion --

and, very rarely discussed, but separation of church & state protects your

high privilege in a democracy . . . the right to freedom of thought and freedom

of conscience, free will.

[struggle4progress]

4. Jackeens has provided some context here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=212810&mesg_id=212814

[Goblinmonger]

5. Well, that makes it ALL better

that someone from Ireland thinks that nobody will ever be charged. Glad to see that you are an apologist for all levels of theocratic bullshit.

[struggle4progress]

6. Minister to cut proposed fines for blasphemy to €25,000 (2 Jul 09)

MARK HENNESSY Political Correspondent

MINISTER FOR Justice Dermot Ahern is to cut proposed fines for blasphemy from €100,000 to €25,000, under changes to be made to the Defamation Act next week.

Mr Ahern said the legislation, which passed its committee stage in the Dáil yesterday, has been drafted to “make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution <for blasphemy> out of it”.

A blasphemy prosecution has not been won for a century, while powers already in force under the 1961 Defamation Act have never been used ...

Mr Ahern insists blasphemy must remain a crime, unless the reference to it in the Constitution is removed. “It is already there in the 1961 Act, and it is in the Constitution and we have to comply with the Constitution. You are in derogation of your duty if you ignore the Constitution,” he told Opposition TDs ...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0702/1224249909022.html

[Strong Atheist]

11. So, racist/sexist laws on the books in America would be ok as long as

they were rarely enforced and the fines were reduced from $142,579 ( = €100,000)
to $35,644.75 ( = €25,000)?

Well, lah, de dah. Color me completely unimpressed by your logic.

Face it, IMMORAL LAWS are IMMORAL LAWS. Stop trying to defend them by saying they are not as bad as they could be.

Edited to add: I have respected your positions on some of the issues we have talked about here in the past, and no doubt will in the future, but on this one you must (I hope) be aware that your apology attempts for an evil law are 100% in the wrong. All your posts boil down to: "this law is less evil than it could be". Not worthy of you, my friend. What would Jesus think of that line of reasoning?

This should be completely gotten rid of, not watered down (to the extent it is, guess us serfs ought to be grateful to our overlords that they are benevolently reducing the penalties on speech...). And in light of the U.N. resolution, it is not isolated...

[struggle4progress]

16. You really ought to try to abandon your habit of putting words in other people's mouths.

I began by noting that our Irish progressive friend Jackeens had commented on this issue, and I subsequently provided some links supporting Jackeens' remarks: no one has been prosecuted for blasphemy in Ireland for a hundred years, and Ahern's bill eliminates the right private citizens previously "enjoyed" in initiate blasphemy suits, as well as the possibility of jail sentences; it further makes prosecution more difficult, by insisting the offender must deliberately offend a large number of people, by comments which lack any literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value, and prosecution is barred if the "religion" is primarily a money-making enterprise or if the "religion" engages in "oppressive psychological manipulation"

Jackeens' view seems to be that this is not merely a great improvement over the existing law but that it is crafted so as to make prosecution very nearly impossible, and that -- strange though it may seem -- the law (in the context of today's Irish politics) represents an effective attack on the very idea of blasphemy prosecutions

I have no expertise on contemporary Irish political culture, but it seems to me possible that the very discussion of Irish blasphemy law could stir up a referendum stripping blasphemy references from the constitution

Of course, on a board like DU, one should expect such political questions would be the real interest -- but instead one meets instead noisy nonsensical accusations and personal attacks

:shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

18. !

Reply #6 and #7. Author: struggle4progress

Minister to cut proposed fines for blasphemy to €25,000
Ireland Passes New Blasphemy Law, Reducing Penalties for Violation

Defense type: Apology.

Translation: This bill is not as evil as it could be, because it penalizes people less than it might.

Analogy: Racist/sexist laws that should be gotten rid of completely instead are made less evil because they penalized people less.

Mr Ahern said the legislation, which passed its committee stage in the Dáil yesterday, has been drafted to “make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution <for blasphemy> out of it”.

Defense type: Apology.

Translation: We want to prosecute people (or we would have gotten rid of it completely), but we are CLAIMING that we won't do it MUCH.

Analogy: Racist/sexist laws that should be gotten rid of completely are made less evil because they penalized people less.




Reply #8. Author: struggle4progress

Position of blasphemy in our Constitution cannot be ignored

Defense type: Apology.

Translation: We don't want to get rid of this, because we LIKE having it in our constitution, but we are reducing the penalties a bit.

From the OP link:

Seanad deputy leader Dan Boyle (Green Party) indicated his party’s preference for a constitutional referendum in “the mid-term” on the issue of blasphemy. However, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern said he would hazard a guess it was unlikely they would come back to this issue for some time.

Analogy: Racism in the Constitution is abolished with the 13th and 14th amendments, but not gotten rid of even in theory until the civil rights laws of the 60's...


Conclusion: Your four posts (including post #4) can only be read one way; as apologies for the blasphemy laws. "They are not as evil as they could be". Rather than acknowledge that, in post #16 you say I am misunderstanding you.


Fine, prove it.


Clearly say, as I do: "The blasphemy parts of the Irish Constitution and laws that were recently passed are evil and should be abolished." Say that, and say it clearly with no weasel words, and we will be in agreement again.

Otherwise, I have to conclude from your posts that you are in favor of them, and are defending them, as I very clearly read your posts...

[struggle4progress]

19. The Irish pollies don't give a flyin fug what I think. Hell -- most American pollies

don't give a flyin fug what I think. I'm a separation of church and state absolutist: I was constantly in trouble during my public education for refusing to acknowledge prayers broadcast over the school PA systems. I want In G-d we trust off the coinage, and if I say the Pledge of Allegiance I always leave out the under G-d. I've held these positions for decades: they're axiomatic to me -- and I find that expressing them again and again bores me somewhat

This is a political website and I am interested in politics. Jackeens' post, which you apparently haven't read, was interesting: it suggested that the bill could only be properly understood in the context of contemporary Irish politics -- and I posted snippets from the Irish press that supported Jackeens' POV. And I have clearly indicated that I was doing so. I have also clearly pointed out that I thought the present skirmish might eventually produce an Irish constitution free of blasphemy references

[Strong Atheist]

20. I see very mixed signals from your posts in this thread, but as we

have agreed in the past (from my POV), I am going to shut up now. You may have the last word. eom.

[struggle4progress]

7. Ireland Passes New Blasphemy Law, Reducing Penalties for Violation (11 Jul 2009)

This week, Ireland's parliament, the Oireachtas, passed the Defamation Act 2009 to replace the Defamation Act 1961 ... In defining the offense, the new law provides ...

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

(4) In this section "religion" does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation — (i) of its followers, or (ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers ...

The new law substantially reduces the penalty for the offence from that in the 1961 Defamation Act (Sec. 13) that provides a fine and up to 7 years in prison for blasphemy ...

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/07/ireland-passes-new-blasphemy-law.html

[struggle4progress]

8. Position of blasphemy in our Constitution cannot be ignored (Dermot Ahern | Irish Times | 1 May 09)

... Among my proposed amendments was a proposal in regard to the treatment of the issue of blasphemy in our law. It is wrong to state that we have no law in this area and that I am creating a new offence. Currently, section 13 of the 1961 Defamation Act provides for sanctions, both monetary and prison, where a person might be convicted of publishing a blasphemous libel. That section will be repealed, along with that whole Act by the new legislation ...

I have taken the opportunity of ensuring that private prosecutions for blasphemy can no longer be brought by ensuring it is not a summary offence and that all prosecutions have to be brought by the independent prosecutor, the DPP. I have also removed the punishment of imprisonment and instead imposed a fine ...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html

[Goblinmonger]

12. So why not just change the constitution?

Instead, they are going to leave horrible laws like this on the books that they promise not to use. Yep, I'd believe that if our government said it.

And it if were the other way around, would you be such a cheerleader? If the law said that Christians should be stoned if they attend a service but then they just changed it to a $25,000 fine and said they wouldn't really enforce it, would you be OK with that?

[Strong Atheist]

13. Actually, it has occurred to me that it can be used WITHIN any (yes ANY)

religion:

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion

Notice the "any religion" part. Now, suppose you criticize the policies or people in YOUR OWN church? If they are offended by your criticism; BLASPHEMY! €25,000 please. Hey, maybe that was why it was done, in light of (aheh) recent events in Ireland...

[struggle4progress]

17. See my #16. I have no real basis for gauging Irish political culture, other than the comments

of the Irish themselves on the subject. It would, of course, be interesting to see a careful political analysis of Irish attitudes towards this law, with some examination of those who voted for and against it -- because the significance of the law cannot be understood without the context of the history and current politics there.

[DeSwiss]

21. ....

[NeoGreen]

9. K&R