Irish Blasphemy Referendum 2018

[Alvecia]

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

I suspect many would be in similar situations as Ireland is currently.
Italy is the one there that doesn't surprise me given it's proximity to the Vatican.

[Chestaan]

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.

Yeah it's pretty similar. Stephen Fry appeared on an Irish TV show and was asked what he would do if he met God. Someone complained about his answer, although I don't know if the complainant was an angry religious person or someone using this as an opportunity to attack the law.

[Thermodolia]

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

I suspect many would be in similar situations as Ireland is currently.
Italy is the one there that doesn't surprise me given it's proximity to the Vatican.

Canada is currently reviewing its blasphemy law and is most likely going to repeal it.

[Alvecia]

I suspect many would be in similar situations as Ireland is currently.
Italy is the one there that doesn't surprise me given it's proximity to the Vatican.

Canada is currently reviewing its blasphemy law and is most likely going to repeal it.

Nice to hear

[Ifreann]

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.

Yeah it's pretty similar. Stephen Fry appeared on an Irish TV show and was asked what he would do if he met God. Someone complained about his answer, although I don't know if the complainant was an angry religious person or someone using this as an opportunity to attack the law.

The latter.

[Thermodolia]

Yeah it's pretty similar. Stephen Fry appeared on an Irish TV show and was asked what he would do if he met God. Someone complained about his answer, although I don't know if the complainant was an angry religious person or someone using this as an opportunity to attack the law.

The latter.

Someone give that bloke a cookie

[The Free Joy State]

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

Worth saying that, in the UK, all attempts to bring prosecutions under blasphemy statutes recently -- such as the attempt of Christian Voice (the 'voice' of a few hundred members) to prosecute the BBC for airing the Jerry Springer musical -- have failed dismally.

In England and Wales, blasphemy laws were repealed in 2008. There have been no recent prosecutions in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Even before it was overturned, to all intents and purposes, the law may as well not have existed.

EDIT: That said, I thought it had been repealed across the whole UK after the Jerry Springer trial, so...

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

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

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.

[Vassenor]

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.

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.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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

Except they would be.

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

Of course they're Islamic regimes

No they're not.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

3. Why should they have to follow the religion?

Why should they have to follow secularism?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

[Aggicificicerous]

Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.

Wow, you sure love to parrot that phrase. It almost makes me think you dislike secularism. How does secularism hurt you? I can think of lots of examples of how a theocracy would repress my rights, but not a secular government. At least not by virtue of being secular.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

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

Of course they're Islamic regimes

No they're not.

Now you're just denying reality. If they proclaim themselves as Islamic states and incorporate Islamic law into their legal systems, especially in the case of Saudi Arabia, and even more especially in the case of Iran (which is a literal Islamic theocracy), then they're Islamic states.

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.

Yet they almost always are in practice. The modern states that incorporate and practice their religion on the government level (particularly in the Middle East and Southeast Asia) are definitely totalitarian or at least authoritarian in their governance and offer little to no freedoms to their people. Your hypothetical "Democratic Theocracies" are not a thing that happen in real life.

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

Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.

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.

I think you're having a serious misunderstanding on what secularism is. Nobody is really being forced to do anything under a secular government (except for, you know, not forcing their beliefs on others), secularism is simply the government and religion being separate and keeping them from being entangled with each other. People also generally have more rights and freedoms under a secular government than a theocratic one, especially when it comes to what religious beliefs they choose or not choose to follow.

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

Always has been, always will be.

Maybe to you and others like you, but not to the majority of other people in western nations who generally tend to believe in religious liberty.

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.

And you were just saying that theocracies don't have to be totalitarian. Putting people to death for inconsequential crimes activities is literally one of the most totalitarian things about theocracies. Hypocrisy much?

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?

Because after establishing themselves as free liberal democracies heavy on the values of liberty and freedom, particularly religious freedom, it's embarrassing to still have borderline theocratic garbage from long bygone eras still codified in law.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Just like you're forcing them to follow secularism.

Wow, you sure love to parrot that phrase. It almost makes me think you dislike secularism. How does secularism hurt you?

It forces me to disobey Allah SWT, which is a big deal for religious people.

I can think of lots of examples of how a theocracy would repress my rights

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=el- ... /id=677140

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No they're not.

Now you're just denying reality. If they proclaim themselves as Islamic states and incorporate Islamic law into their legal systems, especially in the case of Saudi Arabia, and even more especially in the case of Iran (which is a literal Islamic theocracy), then they're Islamic states

They don't incorporate Islamic law though, that's the thing. At least, they only put in what they want and change everything else beyond what the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah allow.

[Genivaria]

Wow, you sure love to parrot that phrase. It almost makes me think you dislike secularism. How does secularism hurt you?

It forces me to disobey Allah SWT, which is a big deal for religious people.

I can think of lots of examples of how a theocracy would repress my rights

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=el- ... /id=677140

It forces me to disobey Allah SWT

Oh bullshit, how is secular law forcing you to disobey Allah?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It forces me to disobey Allah SWT, which is a big deal for religious people.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=el- ... /id=677140

It forces me to disobey Allah SWT

How is secular law forcing you to disobey Allah?

No Shari'ah courts, for one.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Wow, you sure love to parrot that phrase. It almost makes me think you dislike secularism. How does secularism hurt you?

It forces me to disobey Allah SWT, which is a big deal for religious people.

No it doesn't, you can still have your religious beliefs, you just can't force them onto people, especially those who don't want them.

I can think of lots of examples of how a theocracy would repress my rights

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=el- ... /id=677140

Democratic Theocracies aren't a thing that happen in real life, theocracies today and in the past have almost always been oppressive totalitarian regimes that restrict the freedoms of the people and severely punish nonbelievers and those who commit perceived "sins" against the religion.

[Neutraligon]

Good, blasphemy laws should never have existed in the first place. Blasphemy laws only matter to those who are so sensitive that they can't deal with their...god... being insulted. If their god is so weak as to care about humans insulting him, then that is its problem.

[Neutraligon]

How is secular law forcing you to disobey Allah?

No Shari'ah courts, for one.

There are Shari'ah courts. They just don't get to surpass the laws of the country they reside within.

[Genivaria]

How is secular law forcing you to disobey Allah?

No Shari'ah courts, for one.

So we're back to your beliefs being insecure.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

How is secular law forcing you to disobey Allah?

No Shari'ah courts, for one.

Pretty sure you don't need your own special religious courts to worship Allah.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No Shari'ah courts, for one.

Pretty sure you don't need your own special religious courts to worship Allah.

Actually you do. Complete obedience is an act of worship.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No Shari'ah courts, for one.

So we're back to your beliefs being insecure.

Wrong.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It forces me to disobey Allah SWT, which is a big deal for religious people.

No it doesn't, you can still have your religious beliefs, you just can't force them onto people, especially those who don't want them.

Well you're not supposed to force non-Muslims into Al-Islam, so I agree.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

No it doesn't, you can still have your religious beliefs, you just can't force them onto people, especially those who don't want them.

Well you're not supposed to force non-Muslims into Al-Islam, so I agree.

So then there's no need to establish a theocracy to enforce your religious beliefs, especially in nations where the majority have no desire for it.

Pretty sure you don't need your own special religious courts to worship Allah.

Actually you do. Complete obedience is an act of worship.

Then your mosque can handle whether you're being obedient to your beliefs or not, you don't need your own special religious court.