Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Adventurer]

Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws

Secular campaigners publish series of anti-religious quotes and say they will challenge law if charged with blasphemy

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

Bj�rk's comment on Buddhism has been included in the series of anti-religious quotes published by Atheist Ireland. Photograph: Getty Images


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, Bj�rk, Frank Zappa and the former Observer editor and Irish ex-minister Conor Cruise O'Brien.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law

[Sergio Stefanuto]

These anti-blasphemy laws are a total embarrassment to Ireland. With their history of appalling religious sectarianism and violence, what the heck are they playing at?

[JMO]

Isn't this just an extension of laws that previously applied to Christianity? BTW..i think a good of that religious sectarianism and violence happenes in N. Ire. by the way. These laws don't apply there.

[Fox]

[cangel]

Religious fundamentalists just need to relax.

[JMO]

[Adventurer]

Well, freedom of speech is not uniform in Europe. I mean you can publish cartoons about Mohammed in France, but you can't debate the holocaust. In Ireland, before this, you could utter blasphemy about other religions, but not about Christianity. Ireland is still somewhat conservative, though not as much as the past. Divorce is still hard to come by in Ireland. It's legal.

In Canada, you cannot attack an identifiable group such as Jews, French Canadians, and Muslims. That entails a hate law. For example, an Evangelical said that Muslims are wolves in sheeps clothing, and one American comedian was taken off the air because he insulted French Canadians in a joke. In Canada, they are concerned over ethnic strife, and in Ireland they are concerned about sectarian strife. Also, Geert Wilders, though England is part of the EU, was not allowed into England, and Turkey didn't allow him in, though he toned down his rhetoric. I think Turkey should have let him in and some Turks said the government should have let him in to show they are better than him. I also think Canada when it barred Galloway from going to Canada was being ridiculous.

I think people in general shouldn't try to inflame religious or ethnic groups, but we need to find a way to live in harmony without going nuts over whatever slight.

[Fox]

[mises]

I assume a rabid, foaming at the mouth and axe throwing Catholic is going to show up at the house of the leader of the atheist movement? Oh, no? But what does that do to Adventurers agenda?

[Fox]

[Adventurer]

[Adventurer]

[Fox]

[Adventurer]

Fox, I have mixed feelings regarding the issue. I mean I understand freedom of expression, but I think people should still try to be responsible when dealing with other people's religious figures. I can't tell you I liked seeing a Jesus with a huge boner in Montreal. What's the point? Still, if they want to express themselves that way, that's their choice. Where do I stand on that? As long as the intent is not to inflame religious passions, then I am okay with that. If it's not in a way that spreads possible ethnic or religious hatred, I don't really care what people say.

Here is an example where an exhibit with a chocolate Jesus was cancelled:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/


Here is where I basically stand on this issue:


It is understood that Church leaders could be willing to back the abolition of blasphemy offences if new laws banning the incitement of religious hatred can provide significant protection for Anglicanism.


Don Horrocks, of the Evangelical Alliance, a multi-denominational Christian group, yesterday warned against the message that would be sent by scrapping the law. But he accepted that there was little practical argument for retaining it.

"Everybody knows it's not really going to be used again," he said.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575113/Church-accepts-end-of-blasphemy-law.html

[Basically, scrap blasphemy laws, but have clear hate legislation dealing with identifiable groups as exists in Canada. I don't care for blasphemy laws. And, yes, I agree people should learn to accept critcism, but fanning religious sectarian feelings doesn't help encourage moderation, IMHO.]

[Fox]