Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws

[JackLuis]

WTF! Blasphamey?

Tell me where that came from?

Next they will ban beer and cause a riot.

Or, whiskey and start a revolution!

 

[NoJo]

"So I say fuck the Buddhists.” I Bjork

 

[3113]

WTF!

Well, it is a ridiculous law.

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

I mean what is "grossly abusive or insulting"--and how is anyone to know what might be grossly abusive or insulting to all religions that exist? I mean, come to that, couldn't women wearing trousers and tee shirts be considered grossly abusive and insulting to a religion that holds that all women need to be covered head to foot? And how do you prove if it's intentional or not? That the person told a joke with intent to insult the religion rather than get a laugh among buddies? And what is a "substantial number of adherents?" Two? Twelve? A hundred?

Too many holes, never mind that, as the atheists point out, ideas should not be protected from criticism, even if people find that criticism insulting.

 

[xssve]

As long as it cut's both ways.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The Irish Republic is a Catholic Country althogh they claim to have no state religion. I'll wager it was the Poop - I mean Pope - who iwas behind this.

 

[3113]

As long as it cut's both ways.

What? You mean that the atheists can't make a law that says you can't blaspheme their non-religious belief and taken their non-god's name in vain?

 

[3113]

The Irish Republic is a Catholic Country althogh they claim to have no state religion. I'll wager it was the Poop - I mean Pope - who iwas behind this.

Well, there's the rub. They say it covers all religions, but likely that's just covering their asses. They say, "Look! It's not a law to protect Catholicism, it protects all religions," but their real intent is to stop people insulting or criticizing Catholicism.

But it does pose an interesting conundrum: Pope Benedict has upset a lot of Islamics with what he's had to say about their religion, including calling Mohammad "evil and inhuman." So, technically, the Pope has been a blasphemer according to his law.

If he went to Ireland right now, and said something like that, would they fine him for blasphemy?

 

[JackLuis]

I would respectfully submit that the Irish adopt the attitude that anybody who has an opinion should be able to voice it. This also means that the source of the opinion should be identified, in order that that opinion can be evaluated by the society.
This is in keeping with the Federalist tradition, which was influenced by Irish Americans, and should no longer be considered revolutionary.

I do realize that this effects the viability of older organizations who have not been able to change over the centuries, but without a vigorous defense, the sacrifices made in establishment of liberty will have been in vain.

I urge the Irish to recognize that the defense of the Church is not that same as the defense of Civilization. A free press is more vital to true freedom than an Army.

 

[3113]

I urge the Irish to recognize that the defense of the Church is not that same as the defense of Civilization. A free press is more vital to true freedom than an Army.

Blasphemer!

 

[patrick1]

I urge citizens of the usa to look after their own constitution, and not feel it's ok to be snooty about other countries'. Take it from me, I'm a brit, we had centuries of being snooty about other folks and look where it got us.

 

[Guest]

I urge citizens of the usa to look after their own constitution, and not feel it's ok to be snooty about other countries'. Take it from me, I'm a brit, we had centuries of being snooty about other folks and look where it got us.

[soapbox]

I don't feel that this is about 'other countries' or being snooty. As an American Soldier and an Atheist, I am all about freedom. Freedom to believe or not believe as you wish, and freedom to posit ideas and receive thoughtful criticism for them. Blasphemy is a purely religious concept that serves no purpose other than to insulate the religious from criticism. I say let the Irish question their sky god. Let them ask the hard questions and make up their own minds.

Knowledge is power, and there is no greater deterrence to knowledge than the accusation of 'blasphemy' against an imaginary being.

[/soapbox]

okay, off my soapbox. Feel free to flame away.

 

[3113]

I urge citizens of the usa to look after their own constitution, and not feel it's ok to be snooty about other countries'. Take it from me, I'm a brit, we had centuries of being snooty about other folks and look where it got us.

There is a big difference between people in the U.S.A. agreeing with a certain group in Ireland who feel their constitution is unjust, and people from the U.S. (or Britain) marching into a country, telling them that their cherished beliefs are wrong or primitive and, with laws, forcing them to change.

I don't see any army from the U.S. on the shores of Ireland forcing the Irish to adopt the U.S. constitution, do you?

Putting it another way, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Or, to avoid being "snooty," did you avoid feeling or expressing any unity with Iranian protesters who felt that their elections had been unfair? There's nothing "snooty" in expressing unity with those in another country who you feel are trying to fight injustice.

Finally, if the Pope and the Catholic Church can criticize laws that make life hard on Catholics in other countries, and Islamics in Arab countries can protest when France says that women can't wear headdresses--thus making it hard to be Islamic in France, if they're allowed to do this and not be considered "snooty," then I don't understand why it should be considered "snooty" for Atheists in other countries to protest a law making atheism difficult to practice in Ireland.

Ironically, you are trying to do the very thing that this blasphemy law is doing. Telling people not to criticize any group's "ideas" because that would be arrogant. Yet to say that any idea is above criticism from anyone outside of those who came up with the idea is the very definition of being "snooty."

 

[JackLuis]

I urge citizens of the usa to look after their own constitution, and not feel it's ok to be snooty about other countries'. Take it from me, I'm a brit, we had centuries of being snooty about other folks and look where it got us.

Ah but how would you ever get a new idea if we didn't explain it to you? I agree the Brits had their noses in a lot of peoples business over the years. The USA tossed them out and formed a new style of Government. It's worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years, and would still work if we followed the laws.

The USA has a lot on their/our plate right now, two wars, a couple of economic problems, but we haven't passed any anti-blasphemy laws, those went out a long time ago here.

The real reason for this issue is probably something the Irish Government doesn't want to face so it puts up a strawman issue to divert the attention of the people. I bet if they looked real hard they would find that the Government is covering up something else.

 

[oggbashan]

UK has abolished Blasphemy

From Wiki:

Blasphemy laws in the United Kingdom were specific to blasphemy against Christianity. The last attempted prosecution under these laws was in 2007 when the fundamentalist group Christian Voice sought a private prosecution against the BBC over its broadcasting of the show Jerry Springer: The Opera (which includes a scene depicting Jesus, dressed as a baby, professing to be "a bit gay"). The charges were rejected by the City of Westminster magistrates court. Christian Voice applied to have this ruling overturned by the High Court, but the application was rejected. The court found that the common law blasphemy offences specifically did not apply to stage productions (s. 2(4) of the Theatres Act 1968) and broadcasts (s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990).

The last successful blasphemy prosecution (also a private prosecution) was Whitehouse v. Lemon in 1977, when Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News, was found guilty. His newspaper had published James Kirkup's poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name, which allegedly vilified Christ and his life. Lemon was fined £500 and given a suspended sentence of nine months imprisonment. It had been "touch and go", said the judge, whether he would actually send Lemon to jail. In 2002, a deliberate and well-publicised public repeat reading of the poem took place on the steps of St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, but failed to lead to any prosecution.

The last person in Britain to be imprisoned for blasphemy was John William Gott on 9 December 1921. He had three previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing two pamphlets which satirised the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7), comparing Jesus to a circus clown. He was sentenced to nine months' hard labour.

The last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1843. In 1697, a Scottish court hanged Thomas Aikenhead for blasphemy.

On 5 March 2008, an amendment was passed to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales. (Common law is abolished, not repealed.) The Act received royal assent on 8 May 2008, and the relevant section came into force on 8 July 2008.

Before the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act there had been a campaign by some Muslim groups, not all of whom were extremist, to get blasphemy extended to cover The Koran.

Parliament considered that abolishing blasphemy was preferable to extending it beyond Christianity.

Og

 

[Guest]

From Wiki:

Parliament considered that abolishing blasphemy was preferable to extending it beyond Christianity.

Og

Wow. You know, thank you. I learned a lot there. I always learn a lot on the forums. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that last bit though. To accept blasphemy in order to deny protection to Muslims. the same sort of protection that you already have. Oh well, at least they made it fair all round.

 

[oggbashan]

Wow. You know, thank you. I learned a lot there. I always learn a lot on the forums. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that last bit though. To accept blasphemy in order to deny protection to Muslims. the same sort of protection that you already have. Oh well, at least they made it fair all round.

The real problem that the lawmakers had to consider was that an acceptable definition of blasphemy in the 21st Century was really difficult to draft even for Christianity. The UK's public opinion wasn't particularly bothered by traditional "blasphemy", nor was the Anglican Church. What an obscure fundamentalist Christian sect might regard as "blasphemy" another church might consider legitimate debate. In theory denying Creationism could be seen by some as blasphemy.

If you consider extending the concept of blasphemy to Islam, which branch of Islam do you accept as arbiter? Some Islamic sects are considered blasphemous by others.

If you then consider all religions as arbiters of blasphemy you could have a prosecution for denying the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

Removing blasphemy from the law books was the safest option.

Og

 

[Tio_Narratore]

The real problem that the lawmakers had to consider was that an acceptable definition of blasphemy in the 21st Century was really difficult to draft even for Christianity. The UK's public opinion wasn't particularly bothered by traditional "blasphemy", nor was the Anglican Church. What an obscure fundamentalist Christian sect might regard as "blasphemy" another church might consider legitimate debate. In theory denying Creationism could be seen by some as blasphemy.

If you consider extending the concept of blasphemy to Islam, which branch of Islam do you accept as arbiter? Some Islamic sects are considered blasphemous by others.

If you then consider all religions as arbiters of blasphemy you could have a prosecution for denying the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

Removing blasphemy from the law books was the safest option.

Og

What? The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? How will I ever ascend to the ninth sphere of Putanesca Sauce? You know, where the faithful get the 24 non-virgins with too little time to stir the sauce since they're always checking to see if the pasta is al dente. C'mon, if there's no Flying Spaghetti Monster, how will any Litster enjoy the afterlife. I think you should be charged with blasphemy. And, remember, truth is no defense against the charge!

 

[3113]

we haven't passed any anti-blasphemy laws

Believe me, we would if that darn "freedom of speech" bit wasn't hanging over everyone's head and reminding them what would happen to such a law. Keep in mind how long it took to get rid of verbal obscenity laws in the U.S. Not 50 years ago people didn't dare say "Fuck" in public for fear of going to jail.

 

[Pure]

Let's try to get some info on the talble

Excepting Ogg, i see no effort to ascertain the presetn situation, which is that blasphemy laws exist in many countries, including states of the US.

Since they usually show bias in favor of one religion, these laws are NOT generally enforced, though they're on the books in Mass; or they have been repealed

They are being replaced, in some instances, with laws against 'hate speech' [existing in Germany, Holland, discussed for US] , or against 'insult to religion.' Since some posters favor such laws--as i do in a limited way-- perhaps they would explain the apparently inconsistency

===
Massachusetts General Law [CURRENT 2009]
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/index.htm


PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior

===


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States_of_America

Blasphemy laws

"An Act against Atheism and Blasphemy" as enacted in 1697 in "His Majesty's PROVINCE of the MASSACHUSETTS-BAY in NEW-ENGLAND" (1759 printing)

Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania have laws that make reference to blasphemy.[1] Some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days. For example, Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws — a provision based on a similar colonial era Massachusetts Bay statute enacted in 1697 — states:

Section 36.[...] {see quote, above}.

The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:

Art. 72, sec. 189. If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at Art. 27, sec. 20, unaltered in text. As late as 1939, this statute was still the law of Maryland. But in 1972, in Maryland v. Irving K. West, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) declared the blasphemy law unconstitutional.[2]
Pennsylvania enacted a law against blasphemy in 1977. In the fall of 2007, George Kalman sent the completed forms for incorporating a company to the Pennsylvania Department of State. Kalman wanted to incorporate a movie-production company which he called I Choose Hell Productions, LLC. A week later, Kalman received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of State which informed him that his forms could not be accepted because a business name “may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.” In February 2009, Kalman filed suit to have the provision against blasphemy struck down as unconstitutional.[1]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law#Canada

[edit] Prosecution for blasphemy
The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838 (a Massachusetts case: Commonwealth v. Kneeland).[3] The Kneeland case preceded the ratification (1868) of the 14th Amendment, which incorporated the Bill of Rights and made it apply to the states and not just to the federal government. From 1925, the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to all states.[4]

---

United Kingdom
Main article: Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom
Blasphemy laws in the United Kingdom were specific to blasphemy against Christianity. The last attempted prosecution under these laws was in 2007 when the fundamentalist group Christian Voice sought a private prosecution against the BBC over its broadcasting of the show Jerry Springer: The Opera (which includes a scene depicting Jesus, dressed as a baby, professing to be "a bit gay"). [...] {{see Ogg's quote, above}}


In place of prohibitions against blasphemy, or in addition to prohibitions against blasphemy, some countries have laws which give redress to anyone who feels insulted on account of his religion. These laws forbid hate speech, the vilification of religion, or "religious insult".

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

This opened a can of worms haha. But really, how long do you think this law will be inforced? All laws are written to discribe the moors of a society at a point in time. I find it had to believe that clearer minds in the Republic will not see the dangers of the law and either ignore or repeal it.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

The greater danger is that religious fundamentalists of any belief will successfully drive such laws with the assent of the overly liberal who fear offending anyone, even those who despise liberal values.
I was raised in the US, and saw its greatest democratic strength in the Bill of Rights, charter which provides the basis for defense of individual rights against collectivities that would impose their will on other. Laws against blasphemy grant collective rights, and enable collectivities to run roughshod over individuals.
I wouldn't expect the conservatives to come to the rescue, either; after all, they tend to see democracy as the right of the largest collectivity to decree its will for everyone.
It will take the people themselves to keep us all from going down that road. As an example, we can consider what happened with the abortion law here in Canada. Dr. Henry Morgentaler was charged with performing abortions, and didn't deny it. Three times he was chaged, and each time the jury in refused to find him guilty. The courts got the message, and the Supreme Court ruled in the end. If such laws are passed, and where such already exist, they should be violated, and the rest of us must stand behind the violators.
And that's another great American tradition: dissent itself!

 

[Pure]

A quick look at Hate Speech laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Hate speech is illegal in Canada, notwitstanding robust freedom of speech, expression, opionion, artist works. But let's look at Europe:

The German situation is typical. Free speech is protected, but like defamation, 'hate speech' is not. This holds in France, Finland, Denmark, Australia, Croatia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Serbia, UK.

http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=212


I. The Standard Range and Definition of Speech and the Inclusion of Hate Speech in Art. 5 (1) of the Basic Law

[20] Central to Art. 5 (1) BL is a citizen's "right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures…." According to the Federal Constitutional Court,

[opinions] are marked by the individual's subjective relationship to his statement's content (cf. BVerfGE 33, 1 [14]). Opinions are characterized by an element of taking a position and of appraising (cf. BVerfGE 7, 198 [210]; 61, 1 [8]). To this extent, demonstration of their truth or untruth is impossible. They enjoy the basic right's protection regardless of whether their expression is judged to be well-founded or unfounded, emotional or rational, valuable or worthless, dangerous or harmless (BVerfGE 33, 1 [14 ff.]). The basic right's protection also extends to the statement's form. An expression of opinion does not lose this protection by being sharply or hurtfully worded (BVerfGE 54, 129 [136 ff.]; 61, 1 [7]). (29)

[21] Whether hate speech enjoys the protection of Art. 5 (1) BL depends on a more precise definition of the term. Hate speech refers to "utterances which tend to insult, intimidate or harass a person or groups or utterances capable of instigating violence, hatred or discrimination." (30) Prime examples of such speech are aggressive utterances directed at individuals or groups on account of their race, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, or religion. In international law, comparably broad interpretations of what constitutes hate speech can be found. For instance, hate speech can fall under Art. 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which uses the highly inclusive term "race discrimination." The article reads,

In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life. (31)

 

[Pure]

note to tio

TIO: The greater danger is that religious fundamentalists of any belief will successfully drive such laws with the assent of the overly liberal who fear offending anyone, even those who despise liberal values.

no, i don't think so. in [delete] the bastion of free speech, the US, the 'liberals' , equally, favor a number of restrictions on free speech, some of which are already on the books. They represent, equally, a clear and substantive danger. Proposed are restrictions for insults based race, religion, gender and sexual orientation.

the same has happened in Canada, in the Ezra Levant case (anti-Muhammed cartoons)
http://www.eyeweekly.com/features/article/31894

As well, as criminal law, there are various regulations in place, either govenmental or private that apply.

For a survey regarding college campuses, see:

http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v4i3/smolla.html

[[review, by Smolla, of Free Speech in the College Community
Robert M. O'Neil,
Indiana University Press, 1997.
ISBN: 0-253-33267-2]]

[[incidents:]]

A group of male first-years send e-mail messages to a group of female students containing graphic sexist jokes. The female students file a complaint with the United States Office of Civil Rights which launches an investigation to determine if the university is in violation of civil rights laws.[4]

The Black Student Alliance invites a militant Black Muslim minister to speak on the campus, who only weeks earlier made highly controversial remarks that were brazenly anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and homophobic. The university is asked to bar the speaker from the campus.[7]

case involving a xian student newspaper
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10271

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Pure,

I never claimed the US as a bastion of free speech, but as a place where a constitution was amended to guarantee individual rights. But those rights are never securely guaranteed; they maust be, and have been, fought for over and over again. The amending process itself has been used to abridge individual rights as with Prohibition. But the US is a nation whose constitution can provide a base for the defense of free speech.
In Canada, we have a constitution and a charter of rights that largely sets collective rights above individual rights; some of our "rights" are even subjecte to a "notwithstanding clause" - a Province can abridge the rights when it deems it expedient to do so.
Our courts, particularly the Supreme Court, generally have supported our rights, earning them villification from the conservatives, who favour a "tyranny of the majority," as de Tocqueville so eloquently and aptly phrased it over a hundred and seventy years ago.

 

[Pure]

ok,

tio, i assumed you were american, from your last posting [#21]. sorry.

indeeed, your current posting also echoes the US right wing:

TIO
In Canada, we have a constitution and a charter of rights that largely sets collective rights above individual rights; some of our "rights" are even subjecte to a "notwithstanding clause" - a Province can abridge the rights when it deems it expedient to do so.

=====
I invite anyone to inspect the Canadian Charter to see if "collective rights" prevail over individual rights.


http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html