Yesterday the new Irish blasphemy law went into effect. The Irish Atheist responded immediately with blasphemy on their website - 25 "blasphemous quotes" from people as diverse as Jesus Christ, and George Carlin. Among the 25 quotes are a series of obscene comments about God, and the person of Jesus. (Note: following the above link will take you to a page with sexually graphic language not suitable for children.)
A fine of up to €25,000 could be levied against those found guilty of "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted."
Blasphemy prosecution has not been enforced for a century, but the Irish constitution has anti-blasphemy law written into it. Article 40 of the Constitution states that, “the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter” is a criminal offense.
The new blasphemy law broadens the religious groups protected to include all religions, when previously only Christianity was protected against blasphemy. This could be an important factor in the swiftly changing religious demographic of Ireland. The law appears to broadly define, and at the same time limit the scope of punishment.
Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern says that the new law, which has been drafted will “make it virtually impossible to get a successful prosecution" for blasphemy.
The modernized version, and redefinition of this law with its diminished punishment appears to an attempt to work around the problem of having blasphemy written out of the constitution by the process of referendum, but atheist groups around the world see this as a move back to the dark ages.
If blasphemy has not been prosecuted for a century - if the new law makes the punishment of blasphemy even more difficult, and the defining of it even more subjective, then what is this fuss all about? Could it simply be a wonderful opportunity for noisy advertisement by Atheist Ireland to evangelize their position and practice their right to demean and abuse religious people without impunity?
The published list of 25 blasphemous statements potentially violate Article 40 under the Irish Constitution in more than one category: it is "blasphemous," but more disconcerting it is"indecent." If Atheist Ireland wants to promote their cause, there are certainly more mainstream ways of doing it. Perhaps if they took the track of Hemant Mehta, The Friendly Atheist they might get a better public reception.
Comments
This is one of the most disgusting laws I have ever heard of. Though the punishment is not the same this is right up there with Uganada trying to execute homosexuals. In honor of the entering the second decade of the 21st century Ireland has taken a large and disconcerting step backwards. Today is not a good day for Irish pride.
John.... you're a retard
Comparing this to Ugandan pre-genocidal-style laws hardly seems at all appropriate.
This certainly raises some interesting and historic questions. It can be argued it isn't a direct step backward, for the very religious freedom and pluralism that is being added to this law is in fact based on the developments of secularism and enlightenment thought.
Its hard to tell how much intention the crafters of this law had... but it makes an interesting statement. Can diverse views of the sacred be, in principal at least entitled to some legal protections that compete with free speech in a free society?
For me the risks of limiting free speech always outweigh the benefits. But, in a pluralistic, globalized world can one make an argument from very different grounds than the original framers of this law?
Is it blasphemous to point out that scientifically if Jesus was a virgin birth then Jesus had only female chromosomes therefore either Jesus was a woman or was not a virgin birth. Is it offensive to follow that by pointing out that the Catholic church must either be lying if they are aware of the discrepancy but ignore it, or inept if unaware. Whichever it is the church is hardly fit to offer moral guidance to anybody..
From my humanist point of view the suggestion that a supernatural being somehow bypassed the laws of nature blasphemous and offensive in the extreme. I find the judeo/christian creation myth offensive. The bible contains explicit descriptions of rape, incest, child abuse and genocide and is one of the most inflammatory texts ever printed. The bible incites hatred and violence. Can we ban it using the new blasphemy law?
To make blasphemy prosecutions harder scrap all references to blasphemy in law. As Stephen Fry says "So you're offended. So f*@king what?"
It's the principle of the matter, you dolt. If there was a law on the books making being black a crime punishable by death, but another law made getting a conviction under such a law "virtually impossible" would you still say, "what is this fuss all about?"
I have a deeply held belief that all people may freely criticize anything they want upon any basis whatsoever as we may in turn criticize their criticisms.
That belief goes back 2,500 years; Thales of Ionia started it.
The blasphemy law obviously contradicts itself, because its existence deeply offends that deeply held belief of mine.
Alas, see how many people practice Thales' tenets in response to this law, proving them to be deeply offended as well.
-Tom
This article is nonsense. If there is a blasphemy law that has not been acted on for 100 years, creating a new blasphemy law is not progressive and it is perfectly reasonable for atheists to see this as oppressive. Don't confuse the issue. If a law exists, it can be used. Religious fundamentalism is best avoided under all circumstances.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!