Now on ScienceBlogs: That Which I Sowed in Tears, I Now Reap in Joy: A Love Letter to my Beautiful Readers
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
Saying your prayers could be a health hazard according to a report in the Medical Journal of Australia. Dr. Margaret T. Taylor traced a case of lead poisoning to the rosary beads an eight-year-old girl was in the habit of kissing. Dr. Taylor suggested that lead poisoning from the same source could account for anemia among nuns and other members of the Catholic faith.
[Cleveland Press, as quoted in True Facts]
« Mary's Monday Metazoan: it's huge! | Main | The Ultimate Proof of Creation! »
Category: Godlessness • Politics
Posted on: July 13, 2009 10:13 AM, by PZ Myers
And it's a strange thing. It's a law that slaps anyone who offends "a substantial number of the adherents of a religion" with a €25,000 fine — which is equal to most of my yearly salary, and also means I'm one of the few people that one could make a good case for having committed blasphemy. I guess I won't be vacationing in Ireland any time soon.
Fortunately, some people are speaking out against the law, especially Atheist Ireland. Join in if you can, work to repeal this medieval nonsense.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/114741
Sign in or register with TypePad. Sign up with Movable Type.
Comments
Posted by: Matlock Bolton | July 13, 2009 10:23 AM
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1576 Creationist excuse dice from a great comic site.
Posted by: Lynna | July 13, 2009 10:31 AM
The whole idea of blasphemy really offends me. Will Ireland send me money, please.
How many of the names of gods do I have refrain from using. The entire law is in vain.
Posted by: Matlock Bolton | July 13, 2009 10:34 AM
Well being that so many people insist that Atheism is a religion, perhaps I am offended because a catholic owner decides he wants to close shop on Sunday. Perhaps a bunch of fellow atheists and myself wanted to go shopping that particular Sunday and we felt offence to our "religion".
Could we then invoke the antiblasphamy laws?
Posted by: tsg | July 13, 2009 10:35 AM
Blasphemy: a crime in search of a victim.
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | July 13, 2009 10:37 AM
Should we all send blasphemous letters to the Irish Times, Irish Independent, and other Irish newspapers? Maybe I could get some choice pages of The God Delusion reprinted in an Irish newspaper. Suggestions welcome about which pages would be most likely to trigger the prosecution.
Posted by: Nangleator | July 13, 2009 10:37 AM
Looks like a mission for the Church of the FSM. I'd guess that a blasphemy law is precisely the sort of thing that offends those adherents. They should fine the Irish government over it, for creating the offensive law.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 10:38 AM
Well, I guess the members of Monty Python had better stay out of Ireland.
Lynna @2,
I would like to join your anti-anti-blasphemy religion. I'm assuming 100% of adherents is "a substantial number". Can we also decide that hurling is offensive?
Posted by: Richard Wolford | July 13, 2009 10:45 AM
Professor Dawkins, the introduction to your book (referring to Yahweh as a megalomaniac if I recall correctly), would be the most fitting.
Posted by: Strangel
|
July 13, 2009 10:45 AM
Oh come on, Professor! We all know which page of The God Delusion you should send them... only we should all sign it first.
Posted by: Don Martin | July 13, 2009 10:46 AM
The law apparently does not say where the fine money goes, but it is probably not distributed to that "substantial number" of offended persons. This looks like a wonderfully vague cash cow for the government that reminds me of the old joke about a Congressman proposing that "we tax our imaginations," and meeting with enthusiastic approval for turning up a new revenue source. Fines for blasphemy is precisely a taxation of the imagination.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 13, 2009 10:48 AM
There is one positive result for the Irish....
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2009/05/ireland-eliminates-its-national-debt.html
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 13, 2009 10:49 AM
So in response to priests fucking children and then charging the Irish taxpayer to have their identities kept secret and the victims paid off - Ireland just outlawed offending the religious.
Posted by: Nangleator | July 13, 2009 10:49 AM
I'd say that sodomizing children would offend "a substantial number of the adherents of a religion."
Perhaps the Catholic Church should pony up that amount for each count of child rape they've attempted to cover up.
Posted by: Spiro Keat | July 13, 2009 10:50 AM
I would have thought, that as a member country of the EU, the passing of such a law would be in breach of the Human Rights Act.
The law is removing the right of free speech from a large portion of the population.
One wonders if speaking out against the rape of children by priests could be construed as blasphemy?
Posted by: Jared | July 13, 2009 10:51 AM
I have started a religion; the only real tenet is that other religions which are not completely private (i.e. not discussed in public) are an abomination unto Nuggan. Thus, anyone speaking of his or her particular deity or tenets of his or her religion is offensive; fine them!
Posted by: TheBiologista | July 13, 2009 10:52 AM
Letters to the papers sounds like a good idea, though I imagine that if they're sufficient to cause a prosecution the paper will simply not print it. They'd probably be liable, after all.
The Times might do it, just to stir things up. The rest will not.
Also, on behalf of my countrymen: Sorry. We will try harder.
Between this and the Holy Stumpmonster of Limerick it has not been a good year for the rational Irish.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 13, 2009 10:52 AM
I mean seriously,how can they get away with this shit,in the 21st century?
Im all for sending "blasphemous" letters to the newspapers over there,seems like they need a healthy whack over the head with some common sense.
Posted by: writzer | July 13, 2009 10:52 AM
The first blasphemer, right out of the gate, is the Irish government itself. The preamble to their constitution: "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred..." could be construed as offensive to just about any group that's not catlick.
Posted by: Greg | July 13, 2009 10:53 AM
Oh well I guess there'll be no more repeats of Father Ted, on Irish TV.
The best way to rile an Irish fundie is to bring up abortion, gets em every time, connect it to decades of institutionalised physical and sexual abuse and just step back.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 13, 2009 10:59 AM
Fine each parish of the Catholic Church for each time they serve Communion; it offends the Holy Church Against Flesh-Eating. All those people nomming on Jesus Crackers every Sunday, it makes me clutch my pearls.
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 13, 2009 11:01 AM
I was also going to ask who got the money, but it seems I have been beaten on that line of thought... it is a serious quandry, though (leaving out for the moment the fact that the law is ridiculous and baseless).
Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 13, 2009 11:02 AM
My personal observation (and I may be incorrect) is that religious wingnuts, kooks and crazies are pouring out of the woodwork of late - all over the world, in all the major religions - because they are afraid... They are afraid of the rising tide of sanity and secular thinking, marked by the growing popularity of atheism - particularly amongst the youth, whose capacity for critical thinking has not yet been impaired. And whom do we have to thank for it? Yeah, you guessed it right! Not the mealy-mouthed accommodationists, but the vocal, fiercely critical, skeptical, the so-called "New Atheists" (I hate that term!).
Of course, the religious establishment is lashing out (literally), as only a scared, cornered animal would.
Many of you must have heard or read about how in the last week, the highest court of Delhi, the National Capital state of India, repealed an age-old law, a colonial throwback, that criminalized homosexuality, holding it in the same culpable level as bestiality. There was a huge celebration amongst the Indian GLBT community. However, the so-called leaders and 'holy men' of three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, have come together to "uphold traditional and moral values" by - no, not by praying to their respective deities - but by petitioning the Supreme Court.
This is why we needed outspoken atheists. The time for beating around the bush is gone. Religion has been not-so-silently harming people for centuries, but now it has taken a really virulent form. And while we cannot stoop to the level of the religionists and engage in violent acts as they do, we must speak out, point and ridicule, at every possible opportunity.
Posted by: Codswallop | July 13, 2009 11:03 AM
Nah, you can't have it both ways. I think the worst mistake we could make is trying to use this law against itself. Better to attack it on grounds of stupidity (which I admit is low-hanging fruit, but no matter).
Posted by: sammywol
|
July 13, 2009 11:03 AM
weeps! All in all it is a shit week to be Irish! Particularly annoying was the fact that they voted on it twice, not having managed to pass it the first time - sadly they managed to find the Green Party Senator who was
hidingtrying to miss the voteshowing some guests round and got it through on the second try. The one slim hope is that it will be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because it does not recognize the special privilege of the Catholic church as enshrined in the Constitution. woohoo.quite apart from anything else it is lousy law. The definition of the crime rests on someone's 'outrage'. Am considering arranging a mass mailing of http://www.divine-interventions.com/baby.php to the Pro Cathedral and see if we can really give them something to be outraged about.
Posted by: Newfie | July 13, 2009 11:07 AM
Nasty old buggers in funny hats?
Posted by: Wildflower | July 13, 2009 11:08 AM
Unfortunately this only "protects" the delicate minds of members of a religion.
So I guess I will yet have to renew my membership of the Orthodox Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Among other things we consider every spoken sentence that doesn't start with "By Her swift hooves I humbly tell you," a deep offense.
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 13, 2009 11:09 AM
Hmm, it would seem I accidentally hit post before fixing my spelling of quandary...
Posted by: Lynna | July 13, 2009 11:16 AM
@7: Yes, you may join. To join the anti-anti-blasphemy religion all that is required is a declaration, in electronic form, on the Pharyngula blog, that you are offended by anti-blasphemy laws.
It might help if you also declare that you have been physically harmed by the anti-blasphemy law. If you hurled onto your keyboard, you may have a case for property damage as well. Please document your personal health issues and any property damage.
Once we have a number of declared members of AABR, we can send a signed letter to the Irish Times, per Richard Dawkins' suggestion.
Posted by: Wildflower | July 13, 2009 11:26 AM
@Lynna (#28)
How do they define "religion" as it relates to that law? Is a group people offended by it enough to satisfy that definition?
Writzer (#18) might have a good point there. Sewing the government is definitely high profile and it should be possible to get every non-Christian (and not even every type of Christian believes in the trinity, don't they) to side with you... opposed to establishing a new 'religion' which by itself might be seen as an attempt to ridicule and which consequently might put all other religions in "hypocrisy-self-protection-mode".
Posted by: Bostonian | July 13, 2009 11:28 AM
A "fun" religion like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should definitely file a blasphemy case in the Irish courts. Really. It would cause a sensation. To create the potential for this, someone in Ireland should say something terribly disrespectful about the FSM right away.
Hey anyone in Ireland out there? If you have a blog, you might want to mention that the FSM is just a bunch of boiled semolina and who cares about an Italian dinner plate anyway?
Any Irish Pastafarians out there? Sue said blogger at once!
Posted by: Lynna | July 13, 2009 11:29 AM
This blog is read in Ireland (witness our several Irish friends who commented up-thread), so whatever we write here just needs to be made public in Ireland and we can all be prosecuted.
Perhaps we could blaspheme well and long and then have our Irish friends print and post the results, preferably in pubs. I'm hankering after a good pub crawl.
Posted by: Wildflower | July 13, 2009 11:31 AM
Gah, that's what happens when you don't proofread >.
+group of people
+Suing
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 11:40 AM
I presume in Ireland there is always the possibility of taking this to the European Court of Human Rights.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 11:50 AM
Lynna @28,
Heh. Not that kind of hurling. This kind of hurling. (Which is actually an awesome sport, but I figure woe be upon the Irish government if they try to fine every hurler 30k euros.)
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | July 13, 2009 11:51 AM
I can see why everyone is upset about the Blesphamy laws, but I don't see why everyone is trying to get them repealed. I just think we need to change them. Just add in that charges of blesphamy can only be filed by the person actually being blesphemed. No 3rd party filings.
Just like in the USA if the friend of Jane says "Jane" was raped, and Jane is not seen nor heard, the police/government can not take action against the person accused of the crime.
If God/Allah/Zeus/etc wants to come down and file a complaint, then I would have no problem if charges were filed.
Posted by: MikeS29 | July 13, 2009 11:53 AM
PZ, you need a raise...
Posted by: Lynna | July 13, 2009 11:59 AM
@34, Oh, *that* hurling. Well, body-check me. I dinna know.
Posted by: Cathal | July 13, 2009 12:04 PM
Bostonian @ 30:
The Church of the FSM is a load of tosh, followed only by unenlightened cretins.
I should hope to see the court summons in the post soon.
Posted by: MikeDaniels | July 13, 2009 12:14 PM
Great idea, Kema! But blasphemy laws are there to protect the all-powerful deities from their puny creations who make fun of them.
Blasphemy makes gods feel bad, but they don't want to have to go about smiting everyone like in the olden days; they need to be protected!
I guess that speaks to the all-powerfulness.
Some have said that this is meant to be an "unenforceable" law to replace, er, another "unenforceable" law based on the blasphemy clause in the Irish constitution. So, why does this "unenforceable" law seem eminently enforceable, from the law's text (see link)? Why is there a 25,000-euro fine instead of 1-euro? Why do the police have the authority to enter premises and confiscate copies of any item declared blasphemous (in trial) from not only the author, but any place where they might reasonably expect it exists?
That doesn't sound like a law written to be "unenforceable" to me.
Posted by: Nat J.
|
July 13, 2009 12:24 PM
All you atheists better stay away from my home state as well.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm
Posted by: tsg | July 13, 2009 12:31 PM
Far be it from me to let the obvious go un-pointed-out, but blasphemy laws apply to other religious people as well.
It is not possible to say "my religion is right" without also telling someone else theirs is wrong.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 13, 2009 12:40 PM
On the other hand this really crimps the style of anyone wanting to assert that atheism/Darwinism is religion so as to attack them.
"Atheism/Darwinism is a religion. Atheists are Satan's instruments of evil and will rot in hell because they caused Hitler."
Irish Court: That will be €25,000 thank you very much. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Dagger | July 13, 2009 12:43 PM
I was wondering how long it'd take for the news to hit here.
This seriously sucks- my sympathies go out to the Irish blasphemers.
Also, I second Kema (# 35), and would additionally like muchly to join the "offended by anti-blasphemy laws" religion.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 12:44 PM
Maybe this is a tactic should be used. File loads of complaints under this law, even if you do not think they have much chance of success. Overburden the legal system until someone takes notice and repeals the law.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 13, 2009 12:47 PM
Codswallop:
Well, you can and you can't: Atheism isn't a religion (i.e., it has no churches or heirarchy or dogma or sacred texts), but it is a religious belief (i.e., it is a belief about the existence of supernatural beings and their role in the creation and operation of the world... to wit, none and none).
Unfortunately, as PZ quotes it, the Irish law apparently "protects" religions rather than religious beliefs, so I don't see how atheists would have a claim under it.
Writzer:
I'm not sure how that passage of the preamble would be offensive to non-Catholic Christians, most of whom accept the trinity and the absolute authority of (nonexistent) God.
That said, though, there are enough doctrinal differences between Christian denominations that it's easy to make the case that almost any major denomination believes things that are heretical and potentially blasphemous to almost every other denomination. Given the number of wars that have been fought (and occasional new nations founded) over differences regarding transubstantiation, the status of the saints, the role of clergy in the relationship between the people and the diving, the indissolubility of marriage, and on and on and on, it shouldn't be hard to make the case that every existing religious expression is a violation of the Irish blasphemy law (or at least the part of it quoted here). It'll be interesting to see how the Irish courts split this particular baby.
Posted by: MikeDaniels | July 13, 2009 12:52 PM
Matt @44 -
One glitch with that idea. If you were in the middle of an economic crisis, and you could bring in €25,000 (no doubt WELL in excess of court costs, one a precedent is established), what would you do?
Posted by: Michelle R
|
July 13, 2009 12:54 PM
Of course, there is no law protecting us from being offended by religiosities.
It just works for the deluded.
Posted by: jagannath
|
July 13, 2009 12:54 PM
Maybe I have misunderstood the law but does it not make all holy books blasphemous towards other religions?
A mass purging of all religious texts with fines to churches? Whats so wrong with that?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 12:57 PM
It is not an idea I have thought through much. Actually I have not though it through at all.
I just like the idea of an atheist suing the Catholic Church for saying Atheism is a religion. I for one would not have to feign be offended in such a case.
Posted by: tsg | July 13, 2009 1:05 PM
"Religious belief" as in "belief about religious ideas" as opposed to "belief based in religion". I only point it out because I can smell an argument coming that will largely hinge on what that phrase means.
Posted by: tsg | July 13, 2009 1:28 PM
Re my #50:
I should also add "belief" as in "that which is understood to be true" as opposed to what is meant when it is preceded by "deeply held" and "cherished".
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 13, 2009 1:45 PM
Dear Irish Times, Irish Independent,
I just want to go on record that in the Trinity of the FSM - the Pasta, the Sauce and the wholly-grained bread - it is a white, creamy Alfredo sauce that is being referred to. That is the TRUTH that was revealed to me in a peyote-induced trance, ....uh, I mean divine revelation. Anyone says otherwise is a blasphemer of the True Faith.
Yours in Olive Oil
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 13, 2009 1:59 PM
You know, I just think it's funny. I can't see it getting used, but I also said I couldn't see it getting passed so maybe it will be.
Posted by: writzer | July 13, 2009 2:06 PM
Bill @ #45
Mormons replaced the concept of the trinity (3 gods in 1) with what they call the godhead (3 separate and distinct entities working toward one purpose). Evangelical sects doubt that Mormonism is truly Christian religion to begin with.
Jehovah's Witnesses are strictly monotheistic, believing that Jesus was a separate, created being and that the holy spirit is simply a force that god uses to interact with the world.
Now, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? First, determine the area of the pinhead.
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | July 13, 2009 2:21 PM
Instead of the Irish Legislators wasting time on this garbage, perhaps they should have employed their resources, time and effort, into protecting children from pedophiles that had infiltrated the Church.
Posted by: noodles | July 13, 2009 2:47 PM
Wrong. I submit that religion is supernaturalism + dogma. Some religions are theistic; some not. Atheism is a rejection of theism. A strict definition of atheism would be a rejection of god, gods, deities. By that definition, an atheist could believe in superstitions and supernatural nonsense such as ghosts and karma. Perhaps the term atheism will one day mean strict "anti-supernaturalism" but unfortunately I don't see it used in that manner at this time.
Thus, to refute your assertion; religion is a belief in the existence of supernatural beings (or supernaturalism in general). Not "belief about." Atheism is an assertion concerning the reality supernatural beings.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 3:06 PM
I would say more a position on the nature of religion.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 13, 2009 4:06 PM
There are Irish Jews who would find that passage blasphemous.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | July 13, 2009 4:07 PM
A position on the existence of gods, surely.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 13, 2009 4:33 PM
writzer:
Outliers, as you, yourself, point out: Vast numbers of Christians wouldn't even count those sects as "Christian." Most of the mainstream Christian denominations do accept the Trinity (including the divinity of Christ) and the omnipotence of God; certainly enough Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and others do that it's incorrect to say that mere assertion of the Trinity "could be construed as offensive to just about any group that's not catlick."
But my point was that you need not go that far to find mutually exclusive "blasphemies" among Christians: I've just been
readinglistening to Sarah Vowell's The Wordy Shipmates, so I've just been reminded that even the Puritan separatists and Puritan nonseparatists could find enough mutually offensive doctrine to motivate all manner and variety of banishments, killings, and wars. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and even the vast majority of Christians who do believe in big stuff like the Trinity can pretty quickly call each other blasphemers over trivial shit (relatively speaking, I mean; from a rationalist POV, it all seems trivial).noodles:
Pray tell, how does this refute my assertion? To me, it seems more like agreement than refutation. I said that atheism is not "a religion," which your comment affirms, but that it was a "religious" belief, by which I meant precisely (and I think I was clear on this point) that it was "an assertion concerning the reality [of] supernatural beings." How are we disagreeing here?
The thing is, atheism is not "a religion," not only because we don't believe in gods (theism, per se isn't "a religion" either, though most religions are forms of theism), but also because atheism lacks the systematism — as I said before, unique dogma, some form of clergy, sacred texts, shared ritual, etc., etc., etc. — that gives each religion its identity. So we don't want to be lumped in with religions, but we do want our right to disbelieve protected under the general umbrella of religious freedom. Our right to our belief about gods — namely, that none exist — is deserving of protection in exactly the same way that others' "belief[s] in the existence of supernatural beings" are.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 13, 2009 4:48 PM
'Tis:
Pardon my frustration, but what part of my comment suggested that nobody would find that passage offensive. Clearly, it's an affront to every non-Christian... but I was replying specifically to the original assertion that affirming the Trinity is "offensive to just about any group that's not catlick [emphasis added]." Of course Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and pagans and Muslims and (most of all) atheists have cause to be offended by a national constitution that exalts Christianity above all of them; I was just trying to correct the notion that only Catholics believe in the Trinity.
Given several posts in a row that have failed to grasp my meaning, either I'm losing it as a writer, or the blog has a Reading Comprehension Inversion Layer stalled over it today! mumble, mumble, mumble....
PS: Sorry 'bout the HTML FAIL! @60; I think y'all can sort out what I intended.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 13, 2009 5:01 PM
tsg (@50 and 51):
How perspicacious of you to predict the contentious misunderstanding! I actually anticipated it myself, hence my parenthesis...
...intended (futilely, it turned out) to make it absolutely cleary that I wasn't imputing any invidious mysticism to atheists.
As for "belief," that's a perfectly good word, with perfectly usual non-mystical meanings, and I refuse to allow the woo-ists to permanently hijack it.
Posted by: tsg | July 13, 2009 5:06 PM
No magic there. It happens every time this discussion comes up.
I agree as well. Unfortunately it is also a source of much disagreement.
Posted by: harebell | July 13, 2009 5:15 PM
It's kind if weird that the law was introduced prior to the production of two reports on the child abuse perpetrated by the catholic church and its suppression by the church and its apologists in generations of political administrations.
Shurely just a coincidence??
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 5:20 PM
There is a long standing joke in Northern Ireland where a new arrival in Belfast is asked if they are Protestant or Catholic. On explaing they are neither, they are Jewish, they are then asked if they are a Protestant or Catholic Jew.
Posted by: Vinny | July 13, 2009 5:27 PM
Another closetted 'professor' has crawled out of his hole to offer his stupid opinion. If you don't want to vacation in Ireland, believe me, you won't be missed. Dumb-asses who live their lives holed up in some backwater university believe the world is waiting for their opinion. These are the 'doctors' who have themselves paged at airports and who insist on being called 'doctor' when in fact they are closer to being loud mouthed idiots.
Posted by: Peter Kemp (Aussie Lawyer) | July 13, 2009 6:26 PM
Richard Dawkins @5, my choice is:
Speaking from a legal prospective, I also think it's a flagrant breach of human rights,
contrary to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights:
The Irish legislation cannot stand, it has the odious whiff of the middle ages about it, that somehow atheists have become modern day "witches" to theistic fundamentalists.
I suggest Richard that Rowan Atkinson, alias "Blackadder" needs to be contacted to do another middle ages series, set in Ireland among the theistic powerbrokers and Bishops of Birmingham therein. :-)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2009 6:31 PM
And how about someone like Ken Loach to write and direct a drama showing how the Irish State coluded in the child abuse, and how it has decided that the Catholic Church and its related religious orders will not have to answer for their crimes.
Posted by: Michael Nugent | July 13, 2009 7:05 PM
Atheist Ireland is campaigning against the law on two fronts.
One, we are running a serious campaign of lobbying and legal challenges.
See our campaign website at Blasphemy.ie for details.
See also this article in The Irish Times outlining specific concerns with the law.
The new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because it revives a medieval religious crime in a modern pluralist republic. And it is dangerous because it incentivises religious outrage, by making it the first trigger for defining blasphemy.
Two, we are complementing our serious campaign with a satirical campaign, in which we have founded a new religion called the Church of Dermotology.
We worship the irish Justice Minister Dermot AHern. We believe that ice cream wafers are literally the body of Dermot Ahern and that it is blasphemous to publish cartoons of Dermot Ahern.
The Church of Dermotology has over 750 members on our Facebook page.
We would appreciate any support that you can give us in our campaign to have this silly and dangerous law repealed.
You can also join three Twitter feeds for updates:
http://twitter.com/micknugent
http://twitter.com/blasphemyie
http://twitter.com/atheistie
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 13, 2009 7:10 PM
Ahhh, Vinny found the switch to turn on his computer, searched all over the millions of sites on the internets to find Pharynugula and spent over 20 minutes to write and post a sulky fit that says PZ isn't important for anyone to read.
Is that an example of irony? (I thought a lot of that song WAS "Ironic" so I guess I am not very good at defining irony....
Posted by: Talia | July 13, 2009 7:15 PM
Flaw Exposed In Blasphemy Law
paragraph in the blasphemy law
Quote:
a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in
relation to matters held sacred by any religion
The Word Publish equals distribute
the word publish
Quote:
To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/publish
The Word Distribute
Quote:
to promote, sell, and ship or deliver (an item or line of merchandise) to individual customers, esp. in a specified region or area
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distribute
now back to the paragraph in the blasphemy law
Quote:
matters held sacred by any religion
Now whats being published/distributed/ sold on a daily Basis
a lot of people use?
Beef
Where does beef come from cows
Quote:
Why is the Cow Sacred to Hindus?
Quote:
in India, the cow is believed to be a symbol of the earth - because it gives so much yet asks nothing in return. They are guileless in their behavior and from them flow sacrifices… and milk and curds and butter. It acts as a surrogate mother by providing milk to human beings for the whole life
http://hinduism.about.com/b/2009/04/27/why-is-the-cow-sacred-to-hindus-2.htm
well well since the paragraph in the blasphemy law states
Quote:
matters held sacred by any religion
since the cow which is a matter held sacred by hindus
which are used killed in slaughterhouses for being published/distributed to be sold on the market
and the cow is a matter held sacred by Hindus
If the blasphemy law was to be enforced properly
The authorities will have to shut down all slaughterhouses of cattle and ban all sales of beef because the cow is a matter being sacred by Hindus
Posted by: Freedom Fighter | July 13, 2009 8:07 PM
WOW! My family heritage is from ireland. I know where I'll be moving when (not if) communism comes to the U.S. At least I'll still have my religious freedom.
It's sad when we call ourselves the land of the free and find ourselves with less and less freedom every day.
Posted by: Last Hussar | July 13, 2009 8:12 PM
I'm not sure how the EU extradition treaties will treat this law but
http://lasthussar.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/dear-ireland/
I'll let you know when visiting days are.
(Tomorrows boast.
"Me and Richard Dawkins- yeah we post on the same website...)
Posted by: Gene | July 13, 2009 8:33 PM
FUCK GOD FUCK GOD FUCK GOD!!!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 13, 2009 8:42 PM
Bye
Posted by: Snoof | July 13, 2009 9:20 PM
I've heard it applied to atheists, too. "Yes, but is it the Protestant God or the Catholic God you don't believe in?"Posted by: Captain C | July 13, 2009 11:24 PM
So does this mean that any mention of any god, goddess, or plural thereof could be considered offensive to atheists, and thus should get fined? This could get interesting for the Mother Church.
What about talking about a religion's sins, like say, abusing children, or attacking writers? Does this count as blasphemy?
Guess I'm not going to fair Eire anytime soon...
Posted by: Martin | July 14, 2009 3:42 AM
Well, thats not as bad as it sounds. As the religionists always claim that Atheism is just a religion, we can sue every time any religionist is making a derogatory remark about godlesness.
Posted by: itz | July 14, 2009 5:06 AM
Let’s start a blasphemy law contest!
I vote for Germany:
Section 166 Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life
(1) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings insults the content of others' religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings insults a church, other religious society, or organization dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be similarly punished.
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 14, 2009 7:56 AM
The one I'm familiar with has a man in a balaclava pull a gun on someone in Belfast and ask "what religion are you?" Thinking quickly, the man replies "Jewish."
The terrorist's face lights up. "Wow, what were the odds? I must be the luckiest Muslim in Belfast."
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | July 14, 2009 12:05 PM
Michael Nugent @#69.
Some of your links aren't working.
Blasphemy.ie
I couldn't find the Irish Times article. A search on Ireland.com (their website) returned me an article from The Southern Star, a paper of which I had never before heard.
The Church of Dermotology appears twice on Facebook, and there's also a Blasphemy Ireland group.
TRiG,
Tullamore,
Offaly,
Ireland.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | July 14, 2009 12:25 PM
And I've found the Irish Times article: Blasphemy law is silly, dangerous and unjust
TRiG.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | July 14, 2009 12:36 PM
Huh?
I posted a comment before, telling Michael Nugent @#69 that some of his links weren't working, and reposting those links in a working form. But I couldn't find the Irish Times link, so I didn't include it.
And then I tracked it down later, and put it in my next post. But the previous post hasn't appeared. What goes on?
TRiG.
Posted by: Emily | July 14, 2009 2:00 PM
If they use it to lock up all the fucking marchers, it'll be a Good Thing.
Posted by: Tony | July 14, 2009 8:58 PM
In USA, on regular TV, they can say "damn" but not "Goddamn". So we're not better.
Posted by: Tony | July 14, 2009 9:00 PM
In USA, on regular TV, they can say "damn" but not "Goddamn". So we're not better.
Posted by: Lynna | July 26, 2009 5:42 PM
George Bernard Shaw said, "All great truths begin as blasphemy."