Irish Blasphemy Referendum 2018

[Bananaistan]

Just to be clear. The last prosecution of a case for blasphemy in Ireland was in 1855, and the last successful prosecution in 1852.

This referendum is merely a tidying up of the constitution, similar to the 2001 amendment which banned the use of capital punishment and deleted all references to it from the constitution despite it not having been a thing in law since 1990 and not having been used since 1954. I can confidently predict that this will pass easily and without controversy.

I also note earlier posts referring to Ireland as a catholic country. It is not. The RCC had its chance, Irish people saw just how it used its power and influence, didn't like it, and now no religion will ever return to such a position in Irish society as the RCC had.

I think the referendum is more about the folks who tried to use it against Steven fry, and that made ireland feel shame it was possible. And of course technically speaking Mr. Fry was quite guilty, and should be punished, as it was the law at the time.

Well actually it was agreed to have a referendum in the programme for government which predates the complaint about the Stephen Fry thing. But yeah, the entire basis of that complaint was to embarrass the government into action.

[Ethel mermania]

I think the referendum is more about the folks who tried to use it against Steven fry, and that made ireland feel shame it was possible. And of course technically speaking Mr. Fry was quite guilty, and should be punished, as it was the law at the time.

The blasphemy law on the books isn't exactly absolute.

"Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter",[63] which carries a maximum fine of €25,000.[63]The offence consists of uttering material "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion", when the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".[

Sounds clear cut to me.

[Ethel mermania]

I think the referendum is more about the folks who tried to use it against Steven fry, and that made ireland feel shame it was possible. And of course technically speaking Mr. Fry was quite guilty, and should be punished, as it was the law at the time.

Well actually it was agreed to have a referendum in the programme for government which predates the complaint about the Stephen Fry thing. But yeah, the entire basis of that complaint was to embarrass the government into action.

There was one piece I was reading that said a commission was formed 8n the 1990's to deal with it, but decided it wasn't worth the money to do a referendum to change the constitution to remove the blasphemy law requirement.

Edit: the committee felt they could get to it later.

[Ifreann]

The blasphemy law on the books isn't exactly absolute.

"Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter",[63] which carries a maximum fine of €25,000.[63]The offence consists of uttering material "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion", when the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".[

Sounds clear cut to me.

It should be noted that there was no outrage among any of the adherents of that religion.

[Zander Cerebella]

I mean, I'm mostly neutral on the issue, because Ireland has far greater problems right now, and this just seems like a tactic to distract the public and earn the government some popularity points.

What? No! Our government would use no such tactics!

[Dahon]

Might as well have an Irish "Let's spit on the graves of our Catholic ancestors" Referendum at this point

There are no blasphemy laws to protect non-Christian deities in Ireland, plus the modern Irish state recognizes the principle of religious equality.

Under those circumstances, what's one less?

[Ethel mermania]

"Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter",[63] which carries a maximum fine of €25,000.[63]The offence consists of uttering material "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion", when the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".[

Sounds clear cut to me.

It should be noted that there was no outrage among any of the adherents of that religion.

Fry's intent is always to blaspheme religion. Probably does it with his morning orange juice

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

It should be noted that there was no outrage among any of the adherents of that religion.

Fry's intent is always to blaspheme religion. Probably does it with his morning orange juice

And why should Fry be charged for criticism of religion?

[Chestaan]

Might as well have an Irish "Let's spit on the graves of our Catholic ancestors" Referendum at this point

There are no blasphemy laws to protect non-Christian deities in Ireland, plus the modern Irish state recognizes the principle of religious equality.

Under those circumstances, what's one less?

I believe the blasphemy laws do currently protect non-Christian deities.

[Ifreann]

Might as well have an Irish "Let's spit on the graves of our Catholic ancestors" Referendum at this point

There are no blasphemy laws to protect non-Christian deities in Ireland, plus the modern Irish state recognizes the principle of religious equality.

Under those circumstances, what's one less?

Our current blasphemy law doesn't make reference to any specific deities.

[Ethel mermania]

Might as well have an Irish "Let's spit on the graves of our Catholic ancestors" Referendum at this point

There are no blasphemy laws to protect non-Christian deities in Ireland, plus the modern Irish state recognizes the principle of religious equality.

Under those circumstances, what's one less?

The rewritten law removes the xtian only requirement. Don't be insulting the Celtic gods either, whomever they may be.

I wonder if the druids would have a case against the Catholic church now?

[Kintada]

Finally doing this. Its just because our constitution was written by a religious nutjob who was borderline fascist. We're finally fixing some of the ridiculous things de Valera put in their decades ago.

[Ethel mermania]

Fry's intent is always to blaspheme religion. Probably does it with his morning orange juice

And why should Fry be charged for criticism of religion?

As he freely admits, his speech in ireland was blasphemous, and if I remember right he offered to come back and do it again at the prosecutors offices convenience. I think that offer more than anything else was the "oh shit" moment for the government.

[Dahon]

There are no blasphemy laws to protect non-Christian deities in Ireland, plus the modern Irish state recognizes the principle of religious equality.

Under those circumstances, what's one less?

Our current blasphemy law doesn't make reference to any specific deities.

... Wikipedia lied to me. Dammit.

[Chestaan]

Finally doing this. Its just because our constitution was written by a religious nutjob who was borderline fascist. We're finally fixing some of the ridiculous things de Valera put in their decades ago.

Yeah Dev has an awful lot to answer for. So much of Catholic Church's influence is because of his actions.

[Risottia]

Sauce

DUBLIN — For eight decades, the blasphemous of Ireland have risked the wrath not just of their maker and of the Roman Catholic Church, but of the government itself.

“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law,” says Article 40 of the Irish Constitution.

But the government may soon step out of the religious enforcement business. In October, Irish citizens will vote in a referendum on whether the blasphemy clause should be stripped from the Constitution.
...

Well, about fucking time, porco dio ladro!

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

"It's not the state's business to enforce religion"
Says who?

Says those who enjoy freedom from religion being forced upon them by the government. You also haven’t provided any compelling reasons as to why religion should be enforced by the government.

[Greate Boston]

"It's not the state's business to enforce religion"
Says who?

Says those who enjoy freedom from religion being forced upon them by the government. You also haven’t provided any compelling reasons as to why religion should be enforced by the government.

He doesn't really need to. "God says so" is the biggest reason of them all, at least as far as a religious person is concerned.

[Thermodolia]

If blasphemy is illegal in Christianity and/or Catholicism, then this law should stay in place and should be enforced on Christians/Catholics.

No. That’s dumb

[Geneviev]

If blasphemy is illegal in Christianity and/or Catholicism, then this law should stay in place and should be enforced on Christians/Catholics.

No. That’s dumb

Not really, no.

[Thermodolia]

No. That’s dumb

Not really, no.

Religion has no business dictating laws.

[Thermodolia]

"It's not the state's business to enforce religion"
Says who?

Says me.

[Thermodolia]

Nonsense. Separating Church and State doesn't disrespect God.

Which is not the case for the 3 most known Abrahamic religions.

1.5 only the most orthodox Christians and Jews care the rest of those don’t.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

No. That’s dumb

Not really, no.

It really is, yes. Especially since laws don't really work like that IRL.

[Geneviev]

Not really, no.

Religion has no business dictating laws.

A lot of religions have laws already anyways. Those laws being enforced would be better.