Irish Blasphemy Referendum 2018

[Thermodolia]

Can you give 1 reason why?

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

Ya no fuck that. You’re LGBT right? Under those religious laws you would be stoned to death for being such.

So no thanks I’d rather not live under that bullshit

[Thermodolia]

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.

How to make your religion irrelevant 101 and How to make Atheists 102

[Geneviev]

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.

The religious law would be more important than the secular law.

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

Ya no fuck that. You’re LGBT right? Under those religious laws you would be stoned to death for being such.

So no thanks I’d rather not live under that bullshit

Under the religious laws nothing would change for people who already follow their religion.

[Internationalist Bastard]

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.

The religious law would be more important than the secular law.

Ya no fuck that. You’re LGBT right? Under those religious laws you would be stoned to death for being such.

So no thanks I’d rather not live under that bullshit

Under the religious laws nothing would change for people who already follow their religion.

And yet you’re arguing religious law is more important than secular law

[Vassenor]

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.

The religious law would be more important than the secular law.

Ya no fuck that. You’re LGBT right? Under those religious laws you would be stoned to death for being such.

So no thanks I’d rather not live under that bullshit

Under the religious laws nothing would change for people who already follow their religion.

Why should religious law be more important than secular law?

[Geneviev]

The religious law would be more important than the secular law.


Under the religious laws nothing would change for people who already follow their religion.

Why should religious law be more important than secular law?

Because religion is more important.

[The Free Joy State]

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.

The religious law would be more important than the secular law.

Yeah, in the unlikely event that that would ever happen, I would declare myself atheist on all official paperwork and pray quietly in my home.

If that meant being forbidden to celebrate Christmas or Easter (because I couldn't take that and leave what didn't work in modern society), sobeit. I am not following Old or New Testament law that says I should cover my head and remain silent, that I should be punished if I swear when I drop something on my foot, or that women who are raped should be married to be cleansed of their sin.

To hell with that.

Therm is right. All this would do is make atheists.

[The New California Republic]

Ya no fuck that. You’re LGBT right? Under those religious laws you would be stoned to death for being such.

So no thanks I’d rather not live under that bullshit

Under the religious laws nothing would change for people who already follow their religion.

Yes, it would. If a holy text says that the punishment for certain activities is death, and that text influences the law, then suddenly you have the death penalty for those activities...

[Internationalist Bastard]

Why should religious law be more important than secular law?

Because religion is more important.

You can’t defend your argument by repeating it

[The New California Republic]

Why should religious law be more important than secular law?

Because religion is more important.

Not what they asked. Religious law =/= religion as such. The former is based off of the latter, but the two aren't the same thing.

[Chestaan]

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.

To be honest I don't think their cutthroat economic policies and the liberal referendums are unconnected. Leo Varadkar is constantly trying to portray himself as a modern liberal, and goes to every pride parade he can to remind everyone he's a gay man. The liberalism is a smoke screen to distract from their awful economic policies, particularly with housing.

[Ifreann]

Why should religious law be more important than secular law?

Because religion is more important.

Look, kid, Ireland isn't going to become some kind of pluralistic theocracy that enforces every religion. It completely beyond the realm of possibility. So maybe just discuss the blasphemy referendum instead of your dream government?

[Little Tin Hat]

amazed that something that's a relic of bygone days still exists in a country which has seen fit to allow progressive laws such as abortion and same sex marriage.

[Ifreann]

amazed that something that's a relic of bygone days still exists in a country which has seen fit to allow progressive laws such as abortion and same sex marriage.

Our Constitution, which we adopted in 1936, requires a law against blasphemy. We're only now getting around to amending that out. Hopefully.

[Vassenor]

amazed that something that's a relic of bygone days still exists in a country which has seen fit to allow progressive laws such as abortion and same sex marriage.

Our Constitution, which we adopted in 1936, requires a law against blasphemy. We're only now getting around to amending that out. Hopefully.

And it's been the better part of a century and a half since anyone was actually prosecuted under said law.

[Greate Boston]

Our Constitution, which we adopted in 1936, requires a law against blasphemy. We're only now getting around to amending that out. Hopefully.

And it's been the better part of a century and a half since anyone was actually prosecuted under said law.

Then why not just get rid of that law?
It's evidently not used, after all. Why is it there, for the aesthetic?

[Genivaria]

And it's been the better part of a century and a half since anyone was actually prosecuted under said law.

Then why not just get rid of that law?
It's evidently not used, after all. Why is it there, for the aesthetic?

It's part of their constitution which makes changing it rather complicated.
It would be kind of like if the US held a referendum on whether or not to abolish the 2nd Amendment, the difference being that there would be significantly more resistance to the idea than there is to abolishing the blasphemy law in Ireland.

[Alvecia]

And it's been the better part of a century and a half since anyone was actually prosecuted under said law.

Then why not just get rid of that law?
It's evidently not used, after all. Why is it there, for the aesthetic?

That what the referendum is for I suppose.

It'll be nice to see Ireland not pop up on those fancy map graphics that label "Countries with existing Blasphemy laws".
I suppose the only potential ways this might fail are if everyone who wants to get rid of it doesn't bother to vote because they assume it'll be gotten rid of.

[Ifreann]

Then why not just get rid of that law?
It's evidently not used, after all. Why is it there, for the aesthetic?

That what the referendum is for I suppose.

It'll be nice to see Ireland not pop up on those fancy map graphics that label "Countries with existing Blasphemy laws".
I suppose the only potential ways this might fail are if everyone who wants to get rid of it doesn't bother to vote because they assume it'll be gotten rid of.

The referendum is on the same day as the presidential election, so hopefully that'll help get voters out. The problem with that is, if there hasn't been a strong Yes campaign then people will go out to vote for President, get their referendum ballot, and just vote no by default.

[The Free Joy State]

Then why not just get rid of that law?
It's evidently not used, after all. Why is it there, for the aesthetic?

That what the referendum is for I suppose.

It'll be nice to see Ireland not pop up on those fancy map graphics that label "Countries with existing Blasphemy laws".
I suppose the only potential ways this might fail are if everyone who wants to get rid of it doesn't bother to vote because they assume it'll be gotten rid of.

Looking at this, Ireland seems to have a historically good turnout for referenda: 70.88% to join the EEC, 68.13% to allow abortions for the mother's health and to allow women to travel for an abortion, 64.5% to overturn the abortion ban, and 61% to approve same-sex marriage.

Fingers-crossed for Ireland that the turnout should be similarly high here.

[Thermodolia]

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.

The religious law would be more important than the secular law.

Ya no fuck that. You’re LGBT right? Under those religious laws you would be stoned to death for being such.

So no thanks I’d rather not live under that bullshit

Under the religious laws nothing would change for people who already follow their religion.

Fuck that bullshit. If I want to eat shrimp that’s on me. I don’t want to be fined or worse for eating shrimp or having a boyfriend

[Chestaan]

And it's been the better part of a century and a half since anyone was actually prosecuted under said law.

Then why not just get rid of that law?
It's evidently not used, after all. Why is it there, for the aesthetic?

Because referenda are expensive and time consuming and deleting a law that is never used is a low priority for the government.

[Genivaria]

The religious law would be more important than the secular law.


Under the religious laws nothing would change for people who already follow their religion.

Fuck that bullshit. If I want to eat shrimp that’s on me. I don’t want to be fined or worse for eating shrimp or having a boyfriend

Notice that 2 pages later he still can't answer the question of WHY the law should should enforce this on people.

[Vistulange]

Then why not just get rid of that law?
It's evidently not used, after all. Why is it there, for the aesthetic?

Because referenda are expensive and time consuming and deleting a law that is never used is a low priority for the government.

It's when you get curveballs that such things become priorities.

Such as when Germany suddenly had to start prosecuting that comedian because surprise, there was this law in Germany that made it an offence to insult another country's leader! And they promptly abolished that law, if I remember correctly. This, I'm guessing, is a similar affair, though I don't know what exactly happened with Stephen Fry.

[Thermodolia]

Then why not just get rid of that law?
It's evidently not used, after all. Why is it there, for the aesthetic?

That what the referendum is for I suppose.

It'll be nice to see Ireland not pop up on those fancy map graphics that label "Countries with existing Blasphemy laws".
I suppose the only potential ways this might fail are if everyone who wants to get rid of it doesn't bother to vote because they assume it'll be gotten rid of.

So that prompted me to look up which nations have blasphemy laws.
Canada, Italy, Ireland, Finland, and Austria all fine you for blasphemy.
The UK and Australia have sub national blasphemy laws but no national law.
And Germany and Poland both have prison sentences for blasphemy. The German law has been used frequently in the past few years

Kinda scary and shocking that blasphemy laws are still on the books in supposedly progressive nations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law