View Full Version : Blasphemy law a return to middle ages - Dawkins
Beorn
07-15-2009, 12:10 PM
THE NEW blasphemy law will send Ireland back to the middle ages, and is wretched, backward and uncivilised, Prof Richard Dawkins has said.
The scientist and critic of religion has lent his support to a campaign to repeal the law, introduced by Atheist Ireland, a group set up last December, arising from an online discussion forum. The law, which makes the publication or utterance of blasphemous matter a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine, passed through the Oireachtas last week.
In a message read out at Atheist Ireland’s first agm on Saturday, Prof Dawkins said: “One of the world’s most beautiful and best-loved countries, Ireland has recently become one of the most respected as well: dynamic, go-ahead, modern, civilised – a green and pleasant silicon valley. This preposterous blasphemy law puts all that respect at risk.” He said it would be too kind to call the law a ridiculous anachronism.
“It is a wretched, backward, uncivilised regression to the middle ages. Who was the bright spark who thought to besmirch the revered name of Ireland by proposing anything so stupid?”
Messages of support for the campaign were also received from the creators of Father Ted Graham Linehan and Arthur Matthews, and the European Humanist Federation. The federation, which represents 42 organisations in 19 countries, said it was “appalled” at the new law and it was “a seriously retrograde step”.
At the agm, Atheist Ireland members voted to test the new law by publishing a blasphemous statement, deliberately designed to cause offence. :rolleyes2:The statement will be finalised in the coming days.
Atheist Ireland’s chairman Michael Nugent said the group wanted to highlight the ridiculousness of the law. Labour Senator and barrister Ivana Bacik told the meeting that an amendment provides for a review of the law within five years. “There’s a great potential to have this very much altered if not removed altogether,” she said. The new law invited people to make complaints to gardaí and would result in “a huge amount” of wasted Garda time, she said.
“So for lots of reasons I think it’s going to be highly problematic . . . and it’s bad lawmaking if nothing else.”
Ms Bacik said the establishment of Atheist Ireland was “long overdue”. More than 150 people attended the meeting in Dublin and the group ran out of membership application forms. “I think it’s also good to see an organisation that has the word atheist in the title because for a long time many of us were in the closet,” she said.
“It’s not fashionable or popular to declare oneself to be an atheist. There are many people in Ireland who would like to describe themselves as atheists and I’m one of them. I think I may be the only self-confessed or card-carrying atheist in the Oireachtas.”
She said there should be space for atheists, agnostics and believers in organised religions. “And that’s the nature, to me, of a pluralist and tolerant and democratic republic, a country in which there is space for all of us, and in which no body’s belief elevates them to any particular position.”
The meeting agreed to campaign for the removal of all references to gods from the Constitution and for a secular education system. Ms Bacik said the education system, particularly at primary level, was “built on sectarian lines. It is a fundamentally sectarian system in which in our equal status legislation, schools are entitled to give priority to children of a particular religion”.
The group also launched a website www.countmeout.ie (http://www.countmeout.ie) which provides information on how to formally leave the Catholic Church.
Atheist Ireland believes that many lapsed Catholics, agnostics and atheists are counted in the church’s membership and claims that these figures are used by the church to justify its continued involvement in education.
Atheist Ireland will also encourage people to read the Bible. Mr Nugent said an objective reading of the Bible was one of the strongest arguments for rejecting the idea of gods as intervening creators or moral guides.
Dick Spicer of the Humanist Association of Ireland welcomed the formation of the new group and said it illustrated the changes that had taken place in Irish society. “It’s a sign of how far we’ve come in Ireland, so take hope for the future. This society does move and it does move forward, more so, I think, than we appreciate.”
Source (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0713/1224250543694.html)
Dawkins is right about this.
Vulpix
07-15-2009, 12:30 PM
Dawkins is right about this.
Indeed he is.
Beorn
07-15-2009, 12:36 PM
I think it's a good idea. It's about time people started to understand the implications for their insults and disregard for others.
Vulpix
07-15-2009, 12:39 PM
I think it's a good idea. It's about time people started to understand the implications for their insults and disregard for others.
No. Freedom of speech is also the freedom to insult. If you are offended, it's your problem. You are responsible for your own emotions. Deal with it.
I think it's a good idea. It's about time people started to understand the implications for their insults and disregard for others.
I can start a new religion tomorrow, that has as its most sacret tenet the belief that there should be no laws pertaining to religion - any such would be considered extremely offensive and blasphemous by believers of this religion.
Poltergeist
07-15-2009, 12:42 PM
I think it's a good idea. It's about time people started to understand the implications for their insults and disregard for others.
As much as I dislike organized religion and its interference in private life, I am no less disgusted by these whining and pseudo-moralizing atheists as Mr. Dorkins. Appealing to the "terrible Middle Ages", a catchword of many modern intellectual snobs, testifies to lack of imagination on his part.
Not to speak of the fact that Dawkins himself vocally advocates some religion of his own making, that of genetic biological determinism, which tends - in reductionist manner - to deny free will and to reduce humans to machines operating mechanically for the benefit of the prolongation of their genes, whereby all kinds of behaviour are solely "adaptations" in the course of evolution, in the function of "preserving genes". A terribly narrow minded view of human nature which reminds me of Calvinism with its predestiantion (I was brought up in Calvinism - alas).
It doesn't mean I like laws as this one. On the contrary. It should be opposed, but by people who truly believe in human freedom and the freedom of conscience, not by religious fanatics like Dawkins, who are only bent on replacing one narrow-mindedness with another.
Treffie
07-15-2009, 12:42 PM
I think this law sets a precedent. I'm concerned that this law could be extended to include Islam and other religions.
Beorn
07-15-2009, 12:47 PM
If you are offended, it's your problem.
Agreed. And here's the solution to that problem.
An even more pertinent question:
If God is so great and mighty, why does he need national laws to protect his honour? I'm not impressed to be honest with you.
Vulpix
07-15-2009, 12:51 PM
Agreed. And here's the solution to that problem.
Cut off the nose to spite your face :rolleyes:.
SwordoftheVistula
07-15-2009, 01:07 PM
Agreed. And here's the solution to that problem.
Wouldn't a better solution be to just ban religions? They seem to cause a lot more irrational behavior than drug & alcohol usage which frequently come under target for bans.
Beorn
07-15-2009, 01:56 PM
An even more pertinent question:
If God is so great and mighty, why does he need national laws to protect his honour?
It's not about honour. It is to do with the insidiously rampant anti-religion that is a factor for the downturn and destruction of what is the Western World.
That I am not impressed with. If people decide to go out of their way to ridicule and oppress people's religious opinions and beliefs in life, then that is their problem. As it now stands, the religious are fighting back.
Long live religion.
Wouldn't a better solution be to just ban religions?
We could ban everything. Or, we could just ban those that wish to hurt people?
People who forced their religious dogma on others should be treated with ridicule and hatred.
What I'm trying to say is, people who make use of blasphemy laws to limit other people's right of speech/thought should be laughed at and received disgusted looks.
If people decide to go out of their way to ridicule and oppress people's religious opinions and beliefs in life, then that is their problem. As it now stands, the religious are fighting back.
Long live religion.
What if these very religions the laws are designed to protect, ridicule and slander non-believers and damn them to hell?
Beorn
07-15-2009, 02:08 PM
People who forced their religious dogma on others should be treated with ridicule and hatred.
Agreed. But life is always full of those. Whether religious or not.
What I'm trying to say is, people who make use of blasphemy laws to limit other people's right of speech/thought should be laughed at and received disgusted looks.
As should people who think it "right" to ridicule and hurt peoples beliefs, whether or not they make a life of "forcing their dogma! on others"? :)
What if these very religions the laws are designed to protect, ridicule and slander non-believers and damn them to hell?
All of the religious do that, do they? :)
As should people who think it "right" to ridicule and hurt peoples beliefs, whether or not they make a life of "forcing their dogma! on others"? :)
It's impossible to discuss religion because its followers play the hurt feelings-card at every chance they get, so I have the choice to either articulate my criticism of religion, hence being rude, or shut up which will never happen.
I can see parallels between religion and minorities who also have special laws who subsidize them on behalf of the majority/non-religious.
All of the religious do that, do they? :)
Not really, mostly Christianity and Islam (both relevant in this case of Ireland).
Beorn
07-15-2009, 03:02 PM
It's impossible to discuss religion because its followers play the hurt feelings-card at every chance they get.
Discuss religion as much as you want. I like the diverse opinions and interpretations many people can bring into a discussion.
I have found myself belittled by the pure knowledge of some and have gone away a better and more informed person because of that discussion. I have also gone away with nothing at all, except for more resentment for those who find it impossible to discuss religion without resorting to petty, over emotional outbursts at a religion(s) they neither understand or wish to never truly understand.
Discuss religions till you become blue in the face. Myself as a religious/spiritual person will ensure you don't suffocate and are able to continue the discussion.
But on no account think that some right-on fantasy buzzword called "free speech" earns you the right or the moral necessity to ridicule a part of mine and others daily lives without coming up against a wall of 'fuck you!'
I can see parallels between religion and minorities who also have special laws who subsidize them on behalf of the majority/non-religious.
An absurd parallel.
Not really, mostly Christianity and Islam (both relevant in this case of Ireland).
I asked if it was all of the religious, not the religions themselves.
anonymaus
07-15-2009, 04:15 PM
There is no right "to not be offended" and that is that.
Groenewolf
07-15-2009, 04:22 PM
At the agm, Atheist Ireland members voted to test the new law by publishing a blasphemous statement, deliberately designed to cause offence. T
This reminds me of some youths who where shouting repeatly goddamn towards people leaving church and somehow tought they where making a point.
No. Freedom of speech is also the freedom to insult. If you are offended, it's your problem. You are responsible for your own emotions. Deal with it.
mmm so if one insults you or Loki or any other admin/superadmin/mod then he won't get banned , because you've got to deal with it right?:rolleyes:
I mean , do we really find it normal to walk outside and throw words at unknown people?and then pretending not to get beaten?or
I'm not for freedom of offending anyone , it's should be punished because it's a malevolent behaviour and very risky of involving violent reactions , I think the point is draw a clear line between what is an insult and what is a legitimate thught.
Of course in my view the line should be put far away and only real insults should be punished , say by a fine , for sure not with jail , no way I take side with muslims , everyone knows they (and the jews too) are too susceptible at critics.
Vulpix
07-15-2009, 08:22 PM
mmm so if one insults you or Loki or any other admin/superadmin/mod then he won't get banned , because you've got to deal with it right?:rolleyes:
You are confusing things. As it takes precious time and resources to provide this forum to all of you, we as the owners have all the rights to decide who is eligible for membership, and thus influence the forum direction. Membership is a privilege, not a right, and might be terminated at any time.
mmm so if one insults you or Loki or any other admin/superadmin/mod then he won't get banned , because you've got to deal with it right?:rolleyes:
What Foxie said. And also:
You cannot compare the owners of Apricity with God. That is an insult. We actually exist, God doesn't. He's a fantasy.
DarkZarathustra
07-15-2009, 08:41 PM
No. Freedom of speech is also the freedom to insult. If you are offended, it's your problem. You are responsible for your own emotions. Deal with it.
Of course, it's personal problem...but sometime's some problem's come back to society... :rolleyes:
The Lawspeaker
07-15-2009, 08:43 PM
Of course, it's personal problem...but sometime's some problem's come back to society... :rolleyes:
Yes. And that person who "felt insulted" should be dragged before a court because he instigated direct violence or committed it. Nothing is more then some idiot abusing his so-called "religion"- now let's call it for what it is: "poisonous ideology", "fairytale"- for committing acts of terrorism.
Whether someone is insulted by what someone else says is a personal problem. If someone offends me a couple of times and I would punch his lights out (or worse) I am too blame- not he. The same goes for that Muslim that shot Theo van Gogh because van Gogh ruffled some feathers.
Sticks and stones.
DarkZarathustra
07-15-2009, 08:50 PM
Yes. And that person who "felt insulted" should be dragged before a court because he instigated direct violence or committed it. Nothing is more then some idiot abusing his so-called "religion"- now let's call it for what it is: "poisonous ideology", "fairytale"- for committing acts of terrorism.
Well, I can agree. :)
You are confusing things. As it takes precious time and resources to provide this forum to all of you, we as the owners have all the rights to decide who is eligible for membership, and thus influence the forum direction. Membership is a privilege, not a right, and might be terminated at any time.
Of course you're right , mine was an example for absurd , I wanted to bring the stuff to an extreme for purpose.;)
But I still find hard to believe someone thinks in the freedom to insult , that struck me by you , would you tell me why you don't find punishable a verbal harassment?
In my view it's a dangerous behaviour that bring bad consequences and it should be fined for this reason.
What Foxie said. And also:
You cannot compare the owners of Apricity with God. That is an insult. We actually exist, God doesn't. He's a fantasy.
I'll report this to the nearest Sharia court as an insult to Islam , there's only one God , Allah.:writing_thinking:
Whether someone is insulted by what someone else says is a personal problem. If someone offends me a couple of times and I would punch his lights out (or worse) I am too blame- not he. The same goes for that Muslim that shot Theo van Gogh because van Gogh ruffled some feathers.
Sorry but I hardly believe you , getting offended by someone else's intellettual critic , someone you don't even know face to face , is a thing and I can't accept but I can't believe if one says you just have to stay mute and accept all the shit while someone starts to harass you or you girlfriend.
The atheists pat themselves on the back and smugly congratulate themselves on a job well done- neverminding that their antics are every bit as idiotic as the antics of street preachers and holy-rollers.
"See, we just blasphemed the Holy Spirt! Whatcha gonna do God you big phoney?"
These twits are ridiculous, ambling around and looking to be offended at every little thing that has to do with the big beard in the sky. Frankly, I hope they get a citation or a fine for breaking the law. All of this crap about free speech blahblahblah. Would the atheists be pleased if a mob of religionists surrounded them and exercised their right of free speech to tell them to STFU? Hark, they'd probably file a lawsuit for harassment since they're such a gaggle of thin-skinned whiners.
"Someone BELIEVES IN GOD AND SAID SO IN PUBLIC! My secular humanistic values are offended, to arms, to arms!" Are they just intolerant of Jehovah or are they equal-opportunity curmudgeons? For example, would they get all offended if a heathen professed his faith in Odin in public or put of a banner supporting Asatru?
Poltergeist
07-15-2009, 10:28 PM
An even more pertinent question:
If God is so great and mighty, why does he need national laws to protect his honour? I'm not impressed to be honest with you.
In most cases it is not about "protecting God", it is about the notion of sacred. If some community holds something as sacred (not always and not necessarily connected with "god" of some sort), any "blasphemy" against it can be taken as an affront against the entire community/country/nation. The main question is then what is to be considered as sacred. Since most western nations these days are heavily secularized and Christianity is not such a driving force in society, it is absurd to legally sanction and "sacralize" blasphemy against dogmas advocated by exponents of the organized religion.
Wouldn't a better solution be to just ban religions?
Yeah, why not? Including also the stupid religion of Dawkinsian atheism.
They seem to cause a lot more irrational behavior than drug & alcohol usage which frequently come under target for bans.
How Calvinistically puritan you sound, I just can't believe it.
Poltergeist
07-15-2009, 10:30 PM
You cannot compare the owners of Apricity with God. That is an insult. We actually exist,
Do you? :p:D
George Washington said it best:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
The degeneration of modern society stems from irreligiousity and the attempts of a small cabal of I know better than you types to enforce irreligiousity on the rest of the world, a cabal which is stupidly inconsistent in attacking only the Abrahamic triad whilst ignoring the rest of the world's religions.
I'm not religious, that is I don't do to church or hof or whatever, but I recognize that the establishment of religious beliefs in a people is indicative of the strength of their civil morality and values. I don't give a fart if God exists or not, plenty of people have doubts, but the whims of a cabal of pseudo-intellectuals who seem to think that getting rid of God is going to make the world a better place... Well, it's simply not realistic.
Do you honestly think that the rest of the world agrees with you? Or will anytime soon? People need structure and the carrot-and-stick approach that religion offers- it makes them into good people and can give them a sense of well-being and self-esteem that a clinical view of the world can't. The average person would rather believe in Jesus or Jehovah or whatever because it makes him feel good inside and gives his life structure than to be told (or, more correctly, browbeaten) by some windbag that his entire belief system is BS. Religion is an essential component of society and, despite the dreams of Dawkins and his crew of misfits, it's not going to go away. Ever. I accept that, and I also accept philosophical and religious diversity as being healthy for humanity. Yes, this includes atheists, but they ought to learn to behave themselves along with the rest of the groups in society.
Rather than clowning around, these people should accept facts and learn to live peacefully without being agitators of public order. The Occidental world has enough problems, mass foreign immigration, abortion, erosion of morals and on and on, without these people running around causing disturbances in society.
Creeping Death
07-17-2009, 08:46 AM
(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.
Now this interesting.
The Muslim Legal brigades have made it a practice to be offended when people point out on blogs, movies and print how the Koran has passages that instruct the faithful to commit murder, rape and other vile acts.
Well if someone is convicted for writing such facts and publishing them a judge could order the Garda Siochana to enter a Mosque and confiscate all copies of the Koran.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_t2Ry7I5DNuQ/Sf_Xu2atLYI/AAAAAAAAD-s/XCxTb0eEhWE/s320/jesus+guinness.jpg
Groenewolf
07-17-2009, 11:48 AM
Now this interesting.
The Muslim Legal brigades have made it a practice to be offended when people point out on blogs, movies and print how the Koran has passages that instruct the faithful to commit murder, rape and other vile acts.
Well if someone is convicted for writing such facts and publishing them a judge could order the Garda Siochana to enter a Mosque and confiscate all copies of the Koran.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_t2Ry7I5DNuQ/Sf_Xu2atLYI/AAAAAAAAD-s/XCxTb0eEhWE/s320/jesus+guinness.jpg
I have heard of cases like that. Alto those where more under the heading of the socalled anti-hate laws. And lets say no cops enters Mosques to confisicate quran. And those prosecuted where not alowed to quote the quran in their defence.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.