Comments on: Ahern proposes Autumn referendum on blasphemy

By: Mary

Mary — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 00:44:41 +0000

Where is the promised referendum?

What has happened to the supposed movement against this shameful blasphemy law?

Why are you all so quiet?

By: Demonhype

Demonhype — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:11:12 +0000

BWAHH!!! You mean ol’ bigoted hateful atheists! All we want is a law that any criticism of our all-powerful imaginary friend who lives in the sky should be silenced and any such open criticism properly punished–as the APIFWLITS has no ability to do so for Himself!!!1! All we want is a return to the glory days of the Inquisition, when the hurt feelings of the religious were properly paid for in blood!!!! BWAHHH!! How miserable and evil-minded you atheists must be to oppose our efforts to return to the Golden Age of medieval Europe, when unbelievers got the punishments they deserved for not towing the Jesus line! How hateful and bigoted you atheists must be to not want to bare your shoulders for your well-earned floggings!!!! BWAHHH!!!! Maybe if you returned to the Holy Mother Child-Raping Church, you’d learn a little morality and serenity and see how truly Good our Laws are!!!!!11!!!!!! *sniffle…sniffle…..SOB*

Well, anyway, this is a Kompletely Kristian Kountry, and if you don’t want to return to the Church, we’ll find ways to MAKE you return to the Church! This is only the beginning…only the beginning….only the beginning…..

It’s interesting to see that we in America are not the only ones so blessed with over-Christianized wingnut zealots living in their own magical fantasyland devoid of facts. Depressing…but interesting.

By: colin

colin — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:44:57 +0000

@ patrick
At the time when saint patrick brought christianity to ireland christians themselves were considered atheists by the romans and had been for four hundred years…
Christians were the original atheists….

By: colin

colin — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:36:57 +0000

Not once was there ever a metion from the vatican to help the victims The only thing it does say is they can impose fear on the victims, and punish them, for disclosing what happened .
Imagine if this happened at your workplace. Imagine you discovered there was a paedophile ring running your crèche, and your boss issued a stern order that it should be investigated internally with “the strictest secrecy”. Imagine he merely shuffled the paedophiles to work in another crèche at another workplace, and you agreed, and made the kids sign a pledge of secrecy. You would both – rightly – go to prison. Yet because the word “religion” is whispered, the rules change. Suddenly, otherwise good people who wouldn’t dream of covering up a paedophile ring in their workplace think it would be an insult to them to follow one wherever it leads in their Church. They would find this behaviour unthinkable without the irrational barrier of faith standing between them and reality.

Yes, I understand some people feel sad when they see a figure they were taught as a child to revere – whether Prophet or Pope – being subjected to rational examination, or mockery, or criminal investigation. But everyone has ideas they hold precious. Only you, the religious, demand to be protected from debate or scrutiny that might discomfort you. The fact you believe an invisible supernatural being approves of – or even commands – your behaviour doesn’t mean it deserves more respect, or sensitive handling. It means it deserves less.

If you base your behaviour on such a preposterous fantasy, you should expect to be checked by criticism and mockery. You need it.

If you can’t bear to hear your religious figures criticised – if you think Ratzinger is somehow above the law, or Mohamed should be defended with an axe – a sane society should have only one sentence for you. Tell it to the judge.

By: colin

colin — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:12:26 +0000

@ PATRICK your present pope ratzinger was for 20 years in charge of the “Crimen Sollicitationis”‘ a secret ordering bishops to swear the victims of peodophiles to secrecy and move the offending priest on to another parish. This of course meant they raped more children there, and on and on, in parish after parish. Yes, these were different times, but the Vatican knew then that what it was doing was terribly wrong: that’s why it was done in the utmost secrecy.
Father Tarcisio Spricigo was first accused of child abuse in 1991, in Brazil. He was moved by the Vatican four times, wrecking the lives of children at every stop. He was only caught in 2005 by the police, before he could be moved on once more. He had written in his diary about the kind of victims he sought: “Age: 7, 8, 9, 10. Social condition: Poor. Family condition: preferably a son without a father. How to attract them: guitar lessons, choir, altar boy.”
YES indeed im so proud of ur name sakes importation of such a vile, evil monster that u so happily proclaim
You sould be ashamed….
god bless u indeed…..

By: patrick h

patrick h — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:38:22 +0000

Nobody should mind sincere unkind criticism of any religion it shows interest but ridicule for its own sake is anti social and can lead to murder and mayhem.There are sad people who want to get rid of religion altogether.Religion is a good subject but the popular versions of everything don’t amount to much.Many people around the world have little else.Leave them alone and Atheism has’nt been proven either.

By: Frank Biggar

Frank Biggar — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:17:37 +0000

I suppose I should perhaps have added that the above sample law’s definiton of blasphemy is genuinely infinitely closer to what most people have traditionally understood blasphemy to mean (including those who voted for the 1937 Constitution) than the nonsense in Dermot Ahern’s definition (which would have amazed those who voted for the 1937 Constitution).

By: Frank Biggar

Frank Biggar — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:56:29 +0000

As a postscript to my previous posting, let me point out that there are any number of entirely harmless ways that the law could be made to comply with the Constitutional requirement that blasphemy be punishable by law without the need for a referendum that will probably merely copperfasten the current blasphemy law.

Here’s one example of such a harmless law:
Article 1. The offense of blasphemous libel is hereby abolished.

Article 2. After a prosecution initiated by the DPP, and conviction by a unanimous jury, blasphemy shall be punishable, so long as the Constitution requires such punishment, by a fine not exceeding 25 euro.

Article 3. Blasphemy shall consist of provably offending a provably good and true and all-powerful God, by publicly insulting the afore-mentioned God (also known as ‘taking His name in vain’).

Article 4. For the purposes of article 3 above, ‘provably’ shall have the following meaning:
4.1 The all-powerful God will descend in a flaming chariot into Dail Eireann during a televised session when at least 140 Deputies are in attendance, and publicly declare Himself to have been offended by the blasphemous utterances of one or more named individuals. The attending Deputies will confirm unanimously by both public and secret ballot that they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no possibility of the aforementioned events being the result of trickery by a being or beings who are not a good and true and all-powerful God.
4.2 The all-powerful God will then, within less than a week, also descend in a flaming chariot into a live television transmission of RTE’s Late Late Show when at least 100 audience members are in attendance, and publicly declare Himself to have been offended by the blasphemous utterances of the same named individual or individuals. The attending audience members will confirm unanimously by both public and secret ballot that they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no possibility of the aforementioned events being the result of trickery by a being or beings who are not a good and true and all-powerful God.

Article 5. No prosecution for blasphemy shall be initiated prior to the availability of proof, as defined in article 4 above.

Article 6. For the purposes of this law, any alleged God who fails to supply proof as defined in article 4 above, shall be presumed to be either insufficently offended to be the victim of blasphemy, or insufficiently powerful to qualify as a true all-powerful God, and thus ineligible to be considered a victim of blasphemy.

By: Frank Biggar

Frank Biggar — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:24:08 +0000

As someone who sees himself as some sort of agnostic but who doesn’t normally see himself as an atheist (though I don’t want to get bogged down here in pointless arguments about the ‘true’ meanings of words like atheist, agnostic, belief, God, gods, etc), I suppose I should congratulate Atheism Ireland on the brilliant way they have used the blasphemy law to promote themselves.

But I fail to see any reason for atheists or agnostics to be happy about the ‘success’ in getting the referendum requested by Atheism Ireland (assuming that we do in fact get it), in the absence of any evidence that the outcome is likely to be favorable (and a great deal of evidence, admittedly not yet conclusive, suggesting the exact opposite). Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I think there’s every reason to fear that the real purpose of the proposed referendum is to copperfasten the law through the backing of a popular vote, as well as to make it much more difficult in practice for people such as moderate liberals in the DPP’s office to turn a blind eye to future breaches of the law.

By: cearta.ie » Referendum should thoroughly revise free speech clause

cearta.ie » Referendum should thoroughly revise free speech clause — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:01:33 +0000