Ireland's Blasphemy Law Goes Into Effect 845
stereoroid writes "As of January 1, it is a crime in Ireland to commit Blasphemy. The law was changed in July 2009 to fill a gap in the Irish Constitution, which states that it is a crime but does not define what it is, an omission highlighted in a Supreme Court decision in 1999. To mark the occasion, Atheist Ireland published a list of 25 blasphemous quotations on the blasphemy.ie website, from such controversial figures as Bjork, Frank Zappa, Richard Dawkins, Randy Newman, and Pope Benedict XVI. (The last-mentioned was quoting a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor, but that's no excuse.)"
Atheists Unite... as a religion (Score:5, Interesting)
If atheists in Ireland really want to stir up trouble, a group of them should formally recognize that atheism is itself a form of religion, register with the government (or submit whatever paperwork is necessary to make their beliefs protected under this law), and then ask that the law be used against priests who advocate that those who do not believe will burn in Hell, since it's a pretty abusive thing to say about a person and surely shouldn't be allowed.
this will be fun (Score:5, Interesting)
they banned life of brian making it one of the most pirated films in the 80s in ireland. every body i knew had a copy.
banning something in ireland automatically encourages it.
we'll probably need a blasphemy per comment counting system.
the first person to try and prosecute somebody with this will be the laughing stock of this country for quite a while.
Re:No, it's a stupid idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No, it's a stupid idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just claim that in the Irish denomination of Pastafarianism, "God" is the name of the devil and its utterance is blasphemy.
Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion (Score:5, Interesting)
In practice, though, that isn't how they are used. In practice, anything that enjoys the sanction of tradition and/or substantial popular support, even if formally blasphemous under the text of the law, will not be charged. Anything that is legally blasphemous and arouses public or state ire will be. Depending on the character of the state and the people, this can either involve fairly vicious crackdowns on minority religions and atheists, or the occasional takedown of fringe leaders within generally accepted religions.
So since Jedi is a religion over there... (Score:1, Interesting)
To come to the end: Can I sue any religion-infected idiot out there who dares to insult the holy flying spaghetti-monster? (E.g. by eating spaghetti in a non-ceremonial way.)
Oh boy... oh boy... ready the lawyer army! :D
P.S.: What happens, if all ceremonies in one religion involve actions that are “blasphemous” in another one? Because my religion involves pissing on every religious symbol out there. It’s called a “healthy brain”. ^^
Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion (Score:3, Interesting)
Name a single precept or belief or moral that you can say with absolute certainty that all atheists have, non-atheists do not have, that doesn't involve the disbelief in a deity.
Atheism is simply a response to the position of theism. Is "theism" a religion? No. It's an adjective with regard to belief.
Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion (Score:2, Interesting)
As such, its a natural conclusion based on scientific evidence that if there was no god, gods or higher forms of life other than man, that the existence of man is to benefit the species of man. To carry on the normal functions of life, to help others of the same species, to then die. Those are the logical conclusions.
Re:This is one of occasions wher... (Score:3, Interesting)
It has nothing to do with “beliefs” that’s a straw-man word.
Religion is a mild schizophrenia. A disease where people don’t use the outside world as a reference for their internal model of it, but a made-up internal model. E.g. “God wants it to be that way, therefore it’s OK that I lost my house, and I don’t have to break down and shoot myself.”
In some way it is a useful mechanism, because it helps people who can’t cope with the actual real world, not to go crazy. We all do an even milder form of it, where we just twist reality a bit... which is basically repression, for the same reason.
The difference between what we do, and what is religion, is that at their level of mind-twisting, tryin to reason with them is a lost cause.
Because I now understand this, I do not have any hatred for religious people anymore. Everyone is just trying to cope with reality in his way. And tomorrow, you could fall in a pit where your only choices would be to go crazy, or to twist your mind just as badly.
Hell, half our behavior is based on wrong social condidioning, which basically also is a mind-twist that is not attached to reality anymore.
Yes, religious statements have no place in any debate. Not in school, not in government, not anywhere. But there is also no point in just calling them idiots and hating them. We, as a community, must face the roots of what caused people to fall back to religion to manage their lives. Because otherwise, we also are only repressing the problem.
If you see someone who is very religious (and normally also very easily driven out of his calm state, when faced with the disparity of reality and his model of it), try to find the roots, help him face and fix them, and let him work the way up again, fixing the disparities in the process. :)
Or at least don’t make his life even worse.
(Be warned though, as that reality bubble can span multiple generations, many people and many things. You may find that you’re simply unable to do anything about it, other than invent a time machine and prevent a couple of wars.)
Re:No, it's a stupid idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
An athiest could only be compared to a bald head if the athiest never contemplated the existence of a god or deity. What generally defines an athiest is their _rejection_ of religions, which is no less a belief structure than a religious one.
A more appropriate metafor would be to compare atheism with white hair, devoid of color pigment. It appears white because it reflects light instead of absorbing it, in the same way an athiest rejects religious views. Incidentally, white is also not a color, which doesn't make it invisble.
If you're really hankering for contradiction, to disbelieve in belief itself is also a belief structure, much like necessity isn't necessarily necessary. We also drive on parkways and park on driveways. Somehow, life goes on...
Re:this will be fun (Score:3, Interesting)
So I would honestly hope this would cool down the rhetoric in Ireland, and for the so-called religious leaders to act like civilized persons.
Re:This is one of occasions wher... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
From Dictionary.com "Religion" is defined as:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
(The other definitions are quite redundant... "A set of beliefs", "A group of people who share a set of beliefs", etc... So, we'll just skip them. Of course, someone could always craft a definition that is carefully worded to specifically exclude atheism, but that doesn't seem intellectually honest to me.)
Is atheism a "set of beliefs"? Of course. Namely, it is the belief in the non-existence of a god. Does this set of beliefs concern the "cause, nature and purpose" of the universe? The "cause" and "nature" part are given by science and the "purpose" part is simply a negative... there is no "purpose" as theists would understand it. Notice the rest of the definition uses words like "especially", "usually" and "often", which means that those items are typical, but not necessary. So religion does not necessarily require a "superhuman agency" or "ritual observances" or even a "moral code"... most do, but it clearly is not necessary.
Now, I'm not saying that atheism is the same as theism, clearly they are not. But perhaps we are drawing unnecessary distinctions because of a Pavlovian response to the word "religion". Who ever said that religion=theism? It may usually carry that connotation, but must it? When we look at the word "religion" antiseptically, what is there to recoil from?
A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs and we all have beliefs about a great many things. Religion is merely the set of beliefs about the "cause, nature, and purpose" of the universe. So? We all have beliefs about that. Atheism is merely the religion that does not choose to rely on "superhuman agency or agencies" to explain the "cause, nature, and purpose" of the universe.
Re:No, it's a stupid idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion (Score:1, Interesting)
technically, the little known but none-the-less One True definition of blaspheme is the act of you putting words in God's mouth. Saying that "this is so" when only $God could know the answer to that is blasphemous. FOX News preachers saying that "God hates $group" is a blasphemous act. Saying that God does not exist is a blasphemous act, as only God or a peer of God could know that for sure.
The Pope doesn't have to worry about this, he's got bigger problems to worry about first with respect to the whole thing about putting himself and his statues up as a false idols.
LDS? Screwed.
(posted AC so the irish inquisition doesn't come after me; this is a political law enforced by men)
Re:No, it's a stupid idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
What's your point? Christianity isn't a religion either, by your definition. Being christian is simply the state of believing in one Jesus Christ. There is no dogma, no canon, no "book of how to behave", no punishment, no reward. Just faith in one thing.
Of course there are many christian churches. Some of them do have some of those components. The only dogma shared by all of them really have is that 'God exists' and 'Jesus christ existed. Some have a 'canon' some don't. Some have 'book of how to behave', some don't. Some have punishment/reward (just faith alone VS faith+good works debate), some don't.
None of these things you mentioned define religion.
Ever hear of the 1st church of Atheism [firstchurchofatheism.com] ?
Apparently Atheists do have some sacraments, such as marriage.
The possibility of congretations also cannot be ruled out.
The possibility of an atheist church existing, that has all the characteristics you describe as "religion" is very real.
Just because they're atheist, doesn't mean they can't have a church with a dogma and a book of how to behave (E.g. bylaws of the organization).
They can have punishment too -- break the rules, and you get sanctions laid upon you by the church.
Religion doesn't define a person's outlook, morals, or ethics either.
There are lots of good christians with very poor morals/ethics, by objective standards. There are lots of bad christians and even atheists with very good morals/ethics, by objective standards.
Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No, it's a stupid idea... (Score:1, Interesting)
Not just "Visit," but "Constable Visit-the-unbeliever-with-informative-pamphlets." He's an Omnian, a nation ruled by a crazy religious cult. Although, as his name suggests, the Omnian faith has become much more mild after the events of _Small Gods_ and has shut down the torture chambers in exchange for less ruthless forms of proselytizing.
His opinion on atheists is whacked, and Pratchett wrote him that way on purpose.
Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe you could point me to what writings of faith say you will burn in hell?
Re:Only the view of a theist. (Score:5, Interesting)
Your post is full of factual errors.
Back when the bible was written, planets were most certainly not unknown. The Hebrews even at the time they wrote the Torah were well aware of the same planets the Greeks, Romans and before them the Egyptians and Sumerians recognized.
The Vatican hasn't constantly denied the existence of extraterrestrial life. They started denying the existence of extraterrestrial life during the counter-reformation. (from about 1545). The Vatican itself existed for at least 400 years before that time (founding estimated 1210), and the Roman Catholic Church for much longer.
The most explicit offical denial came as part of the trial of Geordano Bruno in 1600. Bruno has often been described as a martyr to scientific thought, but it's worth noting that the church judges did not find Bruno's claims of a heliocentric cosmos or planets around other stars, or even life on such worlds, as grounds for his conviction and execution. The actual sentence cites Bruno's expression of pantheism as the only position actually, clearly heretical and worth execution.
The Vatican isn't just now revising its stance on extraterrestrial life due to exoplanet discoveries - It rejected the positions of the counter-reformation as early as 1648, presumably including the denial of the posibility of extra terrestrials along with the rest of the things it threw out. It officially specifically allowed blanket publication of opinions on the subject by priests to the general public before 1950, resulting in several popular books, for example by Ftr. A Zubak in 1954. LeMatre published arguments as early as 1927 in the same paper where he described the formation of the universe from a monobloc of infinite density (the earliest form of the Big Bang theory) although as a good Catholic he put some of his notes through church review first. By all accounts, it was a pro forma review, even with ideas as
spectacular as the Big Bang being proposed.
Note: I'm not a practicing Roman Catholic, nor was I raised as one.
Re:Blasphemy... (Score:5, Interesting)
"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"."
It says ANY religion. So what religions are legally recognized in Ireland? How about Scientology? Is there are list somewhere?
There are a fair number of religions that have a high proportion of adherents who are easily outraged.
Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion (Score:3, Interesting)
One major branch of Buddhism doesn't see any need for gods - That's the Theravadist position. Do the meditation, get off the wheel. Mahayanists would probably say Theravada is good prep for moving into the full Mahayana tradition, and gods are part of the package but the goal is not to become a god but to become enlightened and then go back to get everyone else there. Vajrayanists would generally say there are gods, and then teach you how to make them useful tools for going further if that's needful, but the goal is not to become a magician that can command even gods, but to get enlightned and then make the decision whether to go back and help everyone else or not, except if you can make the decision, you already know which way you will decide.
Theravadists mostly (not all), think the other branches have gotten into too complex models. So does Zen, except that Zen is mostly founded on Mahayana, and wants to avoid throwing out universal compassion with the bath water.
Some practicing Buddhists out there, feel free to shoot me down on this.
Re:Atheists Unite... as a religion (Score:3, Interesting)
Or another postition -- "There are Things Out There (which we don't yet fully understand) that have some of the attributes of a god, but I don't believe that any of them are a supreme being per se, and I'm not required to believe in any of them that I don't wish to."
This is approximately the position of people who manage to be both pagans and atheists at the same time. More akin to the practical view of Greek/Roman polytheism than to modern religion.
Re:I can't blaspheme?! (Score:2, Interesting)
Ireland and Iran both share "aria", meaning "noble" in Indo-european language group, as the root of their name.
Guess they share more than the name root.
Re:No, it's a stupid idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoosh - someone doesn't get irony. Who else but Pratchett gives his characters names like "Visit"
Surely you mean "Visit-the-infidels-with-informative-pamphlets"?
The law is to protect the Church (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I can't blaspheme?! (Score:3, Interesting)