Irish Blasphemy Referendum 2018

[Dahon]

Religion has no business dictating laws.

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

Who wants Ireland to become Saudi Arabia again? (Not me.)

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Religion has no business dictating laws.

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

Nah, theocracies aren't really a preferable alternative here.

[Thermodolia]

Religion has no business dictating laws.

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

No it wouldn’t be

[Genivaria]

Religion has no business dictating laws.

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

Move to Iran then.

[Geneviev]

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

Nah, theocracies aren't really a preferable alternative here.

Except they would be.

[Genivaria]

Nah, theocracies aren't really a preferable alternative here.

Except they would be.

Can you give 1 reason why?

[Dahon]

Nah, theocracies aren't really a preferable alternative here.

Except they would be.

Afghanistan under the Taliban. Iran after 1979. Saudi fucking Arabia.

Of course they're Islamic regimes, but how would yours be better in comparison with avowedly secular societies?

[Geneviev]

Except they would be.

Can you give 1 reason why?

Most religions have laws that should be enforced so that people follow whatever religion they should follow.

[Minzerland II]

I'm going off the referendum that outlawed abortion in the 80s. If you want, these latest amendments would horrify almost every Irishman before the 70s.

When someone calls a law "outdated," that's a very good indication that their ancestors would disagree, hence the spitting on graves comment. For over a thousand years the Irish have respected God in their laws, but the secularists are putting an end to that.

You can be a catholic and a secularist, and you can still be a catholic, support getting rid of a stupid law such as this, and respect your god in the process. Ireland is a secular country and has been for a long time and most people are still catholic and will continue to still be catholic after this.

I mean, if you’re a masochist to some degree as well.

[Major-Tom]

Ireland's government seems to have taken a strong stand on social issues. I mean, in recent memory, I can recall a same sex marriage referendum, abortion referendum and some others I'm sure I've forgotten about. Didn't even know Ireland had blasphemy laws, but given the huge margins for the more "liberal" referendums, I'm sure Ireland will vote to repeal blasphemy laws, which is undeniably a good thing.

Granted, while I'm always happy to see Ireland quickly becoming socially accepting in both attitudes and changes in law, I still dislike the Fine Gael government immensely for its cutthroat economic policies over the last several years. Oh well.

[Dahon]

Can you give 1 reason why?

Most religions have laws that should be enforced so that people follow whatever religion they should follow.

Those who feel like they should obey the laws of their chosen deity can do so. No reason to compel others who don't feel like it to go along with it.

[Geneviev]

Most religions have laws that should be enforced so that people follow whatever religion they should follow.

Those who feel like they should obey the laws of their chosen deity can do so. No reason to compel others who don't feel like it to go along with it.

The problem is that a lot of people don't follow their religion.

[Aggicificicerous]

Those who feel like they should obey the laws of their chosen deity can do so. No reason to compel others who don't feel like it to go along with it.

The problem is that a lot of people don't follow their religion.

That's their business.

[Dahon]

Those who feel like they should obey the laws of their chosen deity can do so. No reason to compel others who don't feel like it to go along with it.

The problem is that a lot of people don't follow their religion.

The problem is that you're compelling them to follow their religion, whether they want to or not.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Nah, theocracies aren't really a preferable alternative here.

Except they would be.

They really wouldn’t be. Most people probably don’t want to live under a totalitarian dictatorship enforcing its religious values on them.

Can you give 1 reason why?

Most religions have laws that should be enforced so that people follow whatever religion they should follow.

People generally have the choice over whether or not they follow a religion, and there’s nothing wrong with having that choice.

Those who feel like they should obey the laws of their chosen deity can do so. No reason to compel others who don't feel like it to go along with it.

The problem is that a lot of people don't follow their religion.

So?

[Genivaria]

Can you give 1 reason why?

Most religions have laws that should be enforced so that people follow whatever religion they should follow.

Yeah I asked if you could give a reason why, simply repeating your assertion is not what I asked.

[Geneviev]

Except they would be.

They really wouldn’t be. Most people probably don’t want to live under a totalitarian dictatorship enforcing its religious values on them.

Most religions have laws that should be enforced so that people follow whatever religion they should follow.

People generally have the choice over whether or not they follow a religion, and there’s nothing wrong with having that choice.

The problem is that a lot of people don't follow their religion.

So?

1. It wouldn't be forcing its religious values on them. It would be helping people follow their own religion.
2. The choice still exists but if someone wants to follow s religion they have to actually follow it.
3. So they should actually follow the religion.

[Genivaria]

They really wouldn’t be. Most people probably don’t want to live under a totalitarian dictatorship enforcing its religious values on them.


People generally have the choice over whether or not they follow a religion, and there’s nothing wrong with having that choice.


So?

1. It wouldn't be forcing its religious values on them. It would be helping people follow their own religion.
2. The choice still exists but if someone wants to follow s religion they have to actually follow it.
3. So they should actually follow the religion.

So are we back to this oversimplification with labels now?
So which version of Christianity shall you be forcing on people against their will?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

They really wouldn’t be. Most people probably don’t want to live under a totalitarian dictatorship enforcing its religious values on them.


People generally have the choice over whether or not they follow a religion, and there’s nothing wrong with having that choice.


So?

1. It wouldn't be forcing its religious values on them. It would be helping people follow their own religion.
2. The choice still exists but if someone wants to follow s religion they have to actually follow it.
3. So they should actually follow the religion.

1. It would be, you’d be forcing them to follow a religion.

2. If they’re being forced to follow a religion then they don’t exactly have a choice.

3. Why should they have to follow the religion? They have the freedom not to, and they’re using that freedom.

[Geneviev]

1. It wouldn't be forcing its religious values on them. It would be helping people follow their own religion.
2. The choice still exists but if someone wants to follow s religion they have to actually follow it.
3. So they should actually follow the religion.

So are we back to this oversimplification with labels now?
So which version of Christianity shall you be forcing on people against their will?

Precisely no religion will be forced on anyone against their will.

[Aggicificicerous]

So are we back to this oversimplification with labels now?
So which version of Christianity shall you be forcing on people against their will?

Precisely no religion will be forced on anyone against their will.

Which is ridiculous, because anyone who gets into trouble with the law can just claim to not be religious.

[Geneviev]

Precisely no religion will be forced on anyone against their will.

Which is ridiculous, because anyone who gets into trouble with the law can just claim to not be religious.

They would still have to follow secular law.

[Dahon]

Which is ridiculous, because anyone who gets into trouble with the law can just claim to not be religious.

They would still have to follow secular law.

Which may or may not conflict with religious law, to the point of said religious law being declared illegal before secular courts, for any number of reasons, including (as in the case of the blasphemy law) contravening free speech.

[Aggicificicerous]

Which is ridiculous, because anyone who gets into trouble with the law can just claim to not be religious.

They would still have to follow secular law.

Thus rendering religious law irrelevant.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Which is ridiculous, because anyone who gets into trouble with the law can just claim to not be religious.

They would still have to follow secular law.

Then the religious law would be absolutely useless.