Dahon wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.)
Tfw unification of church and state = Saudi Arabia
Dahon wrote:Geneviev wrote:Except they would be.
Afghanistan under the Taliban. Iran after 1979. Saudi fucking Arabia.
Of course they're Islamic regimes
No they're not.
Dahon wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
And why can't the same be said for kufr law. Why do people get a free pass on something they themselves adhere to, but something they don't adhere to, they have to follow?
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
Theocracies don't have to be totalitarian.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:2. If they’re being forced to follow a religion then they don’t exactly have a choice.
Same for being forced to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:2. If they’re being forced to follow a religion then they don’t exactly have a choice.
Same for being forced to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:2. If they’re being forced to follow a religion then they don’t exactly have a choice.
Same for being forced to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:2. If they’re being forced to follow a religion then they don’t exactly have a choice.
Same for being forced to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:2. If they’re being forced to follow a religion then they don’t exactly have a choice.
Same for being forced to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:2. If they’re being forced to follow a religion then they don’t exactly have a choice.
Same for being forced to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:2. If they’re being forced to follow a religion then they don’t exactly have a choice.
Same for being forced to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:2. If they’re being forced to follow a religion then they don’t exactly have a choice.
Same for being forced to follow secularism.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:3. Why should they have to follow the religion?
Why should they have to follow secularism?
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
And yet you’re arguing religious law is more important than secular law
Always has been, always will be.
The New California Republic wrote:Geneviev wrote: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...
Exactly.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Ifreann wrote:Geneviev wrote: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?
Nah, we finna do both (if it isn't threadjacking).
Thermodolia wrote:Geneviev wrote: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.
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
You should if it's illegal and that's the punishment. Considering both are illegal in Judaism, and if the Jewish equivalent of an 'ulama come up with a punishment, you'd have to follow it. Of course at this point, I'm just speaking in hypotheticals.
Vistulange wrote:Chestaan wrote: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.
If he's Catholic (and I assume he isn't), he should be fined.
Thermodolia wrote:Alvecia wrote: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
Good. Now the blasphemy laws just have to be edited.
The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Thermodolia wrote: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
Technically some US states still have blasphemy statutes on the books, but thankfully they’re all unenforceable since 1952 with Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson. It’s pretty embarrassing how modern western liberal democracies could still have them and potentially be able to enforce them.
Why?
Vassenor wrote:The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Technically some US states still have blasphemy statutes on the books, but thankfully they’re all unenforceable since 1952 with Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson. It’s pretty embarrassing how modern western liberal democracies could still have them and potentially be able to enforce them.
With the way things are going you have to wonder how long it'll be before the GOP tries to use those laws against people for being anti-Trump.
Trump isn't Allah SWT, so that won't be happening anytime soon. Unless he makes himself god, then we're screwed