Blasphemy?

[Nearly Sane]

Ridiculous investigation caused by ridiculous law


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39830447

[Gordon]

Hard to believe in this day and age in this part of the world.

I'd imagine any number of comments made here would contravene this stupid law. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

[Harrowby Hall]

And I thought that the Republic of Ireland had finally grown up.

[Owlswing]

What surprises me most is that the law was only introduced in 2009.

Could it be that the law was never meant to relate primarily to Christianity, but to Islam, as a way of, possibly, fending off terrorist attackers giving blasphemy as the cause of their actions.

I can think of no other reason for enacting such a retrograde, in this day and age, law.

[Nearly Sane]

What surprises me most is that the law was only introduced in 2009.

Could it be that the law was never meant to relate primarily to Christianity, but to Islam, as a way of, possibly, fending off terrorist attackers giving blasphemy as the cause of their actions.

I can think of no other reason for enacting such a retrograde, in this day and age, law.

The law was introduced in 2009 but blasphemy against Christianity has always been part of the Republic's legal system.  The 2009 law extended it to other religions to avoid the restriction for Christianity being struck down as discriminatory in the ECHR, so the motivation, in part, for the extension was to allow the existing legal restriction to continue. (Note, there is another wrinkle but we will get to that later)

Odd as it may seem, the 2009 act was also an attempt to reduce the scooe of what is construed as blasphemy and introduced the defense of the statements being of cultural benefit to try and avoid spurious prosecutions. I think the belief was that cases such as the investigation of Fry would not progress. Putting laws on statute books though often fall foul to that greatest of all 'laws', the one on unintended consequences. It may be that the person complained specifically to highlight the problem.


And now to the 'other wrinkle', there is a problem in getting rid of the concept of blasphemy because it is specifically written into the 1937 constitution of the Republic! To get rid of it would require, it is thought, a referendum and there has been a reluctance to spend the money required to do so for something that isn't much used. In trying to reduce its impact, the 2009 act was forced to extend the protection.

[floo]

I have just seen this and cannot believe Ireland could be so stupid, I speak as one who has dual British and Irish nationality! If reported correctly, Fry made some very sensible comments.

[Robbie]

It does seem stupid but I wonder if it will go anywhere, can't think "looking into it"means all that much and we all know the media make a lot of nothing sometimes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have just seen this and cannot believe Ireland could be so stupid, I speak as one who has dual British and Irish nationality! If reported correctly, Fry made some very sensible comments.

Ireland is bilingual Floo, using Erse and English. Are you bilingual? and if so would you prefer English or prefer to communicate through your Erse?

[floo]

Ireland is bilingual Floo, using Erse and English. Are you bilingual? and if so would you prefer English or prefer to communicate through your Erse?

What are you waffling on about?

[Sebastian Toe]

What are you waffling on about?

He got on stage after it had worn off.

[Owlswing]

He got on stage after it had worn off.

Yeah, and wound up talking through his erse, as usual.

[Nearly Sane]

Investigation being dropped


https://humanism.org.uk/2017/05/09/stephen-fry-irish-blasphemy-investigation-dropped-as-new-zealand-prompted-to-repeal-its-own-law/

[john]

Quote from the above link

"More seriously, 13 states, all Islamic, have blasphemy laws that come with the death penalty, with citizens in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Mauritania actively facing persecution, while in recent days and weeks there have been extrajudicial killings of humanist activists for blasphemy in Pakistan, India, and the Maldives, as well as a spate of ongoing killings in Bangladesh."

Proof positive and absolute that religious belief is harmful to the development of humanity.

[Nearly Sane]

Quote from the above link

"More seriously, 13 states, all Islamic, have blasphemy laws that come with the death penalty, with citizens in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Mauritania actively facing persecution, while in recent days and weeks there have been extrajudicial killings of humanist activists for blasphemy in Pakistan, India, and the Maldives, as well as a spate of ongoing killings in Bangladesh."

Proof positive and absolute that religious belief is harmful to the development of humanity.

As ever with such statements, that reifies religion into a separate thing that isn't part of humanity. Since it isn't such a thing, the statement becomes essentially meaningless.

[john]

Is it essentially meaningless that.....Whole communities are brainwashed to believe the unproven and punished (by death in some cases) for looking for the truth?

[Nearly Sane]

Is it essentially meaningless that.....Whole communities are brainwashed to believe the unproven and punished (by death in some cases) for looking for the truth?

Well, strawman arguments aren't much more than meaningless. You  are missing the point that religion comes about because of humanity, not in spite of it. Absolutely argue against horrible outcomes, but do it from a position if logical consistency. If you are an atheist, then religion has to be caused by what we are. It's also cherry pucking to regard only certain outcomes, and treats the phenomenon of religion in an incredibly simplistic way.

[john]

Nearly Sane

I do not get your point at all, religion IS incredibly simplistic. Some people are brainwashed by it and forced never to question it. The society in which they live goes to extreme lengths to prevent them being exposed to any alternative ideas.

Quite apart from anything else this policy prevents those people from being fully developed members of and contributors to worldwide society.

Those of us who are "enlightened" surely have a duty to try to overcome such repression not simply for the benefit of the oppressed but in order to ensure that humanity as a whole reaches it's full potential.

[Nearly Sane]

Nearly Sane

I do not get your point at all, religion IS incredibly simplistic. Some people are brainwashed by it and forced never to question it. The society in which they live goes to extreme lengths to prevent them being exposed to any alternative ideas.

Quite apart from anything else this policy prevents those people from being fully developed members of and contributors to worldwide society.

Those of us who are "enlightened" surely have a duty to try to overcome such repression not simply for the benefit of the oppressed but in order to ensure that humanity as a whole reaches it's full potential.

Did you wrestle control of the Assertatron from Alan Burns? Religion seems to arise for reasons to do with how we process information, and relate to one and other. It is something that comes from humanity so to state that it 'brainwashes' people is indulging in the reification fallacy. As dies the idea that society has external intent.

I note that you appear to know what it means in an objective sense to be a fully developed member of society. How did you derive this? And in addition you think there us something called humanity's 'full potential' , again please 'enlighten' me how you worked that out.

I have to say there's a very ideologically pure whiff from your list that reminds me of some religious extremists.

[john]

Nearly Sane

Your reply is almost as incoherent as one of Vlads postings, I suggest you re read it for comprehension.

I refuse to agree that it is OK for some sections of society to bring up their kids to believe it is OK to deny education to girls, treat menstruating females as unclean and needing to be locked away, that men and women should not mix socially and that people who deny God should be killed.

No I do not know what full human potential is but we all need to work together to achieve it.

The girl who has the kernel of idea to eradicate cancer forever may never work that idea to fruition because her religious masters prevent her from attending school past the age of 13. The young physics student whose ideas might eventually lead to light speed intergalactic travel will never develop his ideas because the religious society to which he belongs threw him off the university roof for holding hands with another male student.

People are imo entitled to believe whatever they like. They should not however form groups of whatever kind that restrict or seek to control the beliefs of others. And that is what (some) of the religious do. As indeed do other restrictive societies, North Korea for example.

We (the enlightened, for the want of another convenient term) ought to strive to ensure that everyone can be what they want to be and achieve what they can for there own and everyone else's benefit.   

[Nearly Sane]

Nearly Sane

Your reply is almost as incoherent as one of Vlads postings, I suggest you re read it for comprehension.

I refuse to agree that it is OK for some sections of society to bring up their kids to believe it is OK to deny education to girls, treat menstruating females as unclean and needing to be locked away, that men and women should not mix socially and that people who deny God should be killed.

Did I say you should believe that? No, so why indulge in another strawman argument.

No I do not know what full human potential is but we all need to work together to achieve it.

And how does one work to a goal that you can't define?

The girl who has the kernel of idea to eradicate cancer forever may never work that idea to fruition because her religious masters prevent her from attending school past the age of 13. The young physics student whose ideas might eventually lead to light speed intergalactic travel will never develop his ideas because the religious society to which he belongs threw him off the university roof for holding hands with another male student.

And if one wasn't cherry picking, one might also consider the drive for universal education was from the religious through history.

People are imo entitled to believe whatever they like. They should not however form groups of whatever kind that restrict or seek to control the beliefs of others. And that is what (some) of the religious do. As indeed do other restrictive societies, North Korea for example.

Again since I haven't suggested otherwise, not entirely sure of the relevance. You seem though to see that this is something only some religious people do, and some non religious people do, why then would you think this was because of religion? 

We (the enlightened, for the want of another convenient term) ought to strive to ensure that everyone can be what they want to be and achieve what they can for there own and everyone else's benefit.   

And none of that is done by any religious person?

[Bubbles]

I was horrified, he was just expressing his opinion, and the person who is driving this wasn't even offended.

There is one word for that, imo.

Troublemaking!

I don't think Stephen Fry has said anything wrong.

 

Nothing is going to put people "off" religion faster, than something silly like this 

[Nearly Sane]

I was horrified, he was just expressing his opinion, and the person who is driving this wasn't even offended.

There is one word for that, imo.

Troublemaking!

I don't think Stephen Fry has said anything wrong.

 

Nothing is going to put people "off" religion faster, than something silly like this 

If the person who complained did it in order to show up the idiocy of the law, is that still troublemaking?

[john]

Nearly Sane

You appear to be arguing and nit-picking simply for the sake of it. Are you bored or is it personal?

Must take you up on this though;

"And if one wasn't cherry picking, one might also consider the drive for universal education was from the religious through history"

Really, exclusively? Did the religious never supress education?

[Nearly Sane]

Nearly Sane

You appear to be arguing and nit-picking simply for the sake of it. Are you bored or is it personal?

Must take you up on this though;

"And if one wasn't cherry picking, one might also consider the drive for universal education was from the religious through history"

Really, exclusively? Did the religious never supress education?

No, I'm arguing with you for the reasons I have already covered. It might be useful if you addressed points rather than attempted to evade them by questioning my motivation.

As to your question, this is another of your strawman arguments. I didn't say that the religious have never been involved in suppression of education. I was pointing out that they have also been involved in the expansion of education, a fact that your cherry picking approach ignored.

[floo]

I was horrified, he was just expressing his opinion, and the person who is driving this wasn't even offended.

There is one word for that, imo.

Troublemaking!

I don't think Stephen Fry has said anything wrong.

 

Nothing is going to put people "off" religion faster, than something silly like this 

I agree.