Feck! Ireland considers “blasphemous libel” law

[al-rawandi]

Hey. Chill the mother fucker out.

Don't worry about this law. It's not going to hapen.

Its my island.

Don't worry I got the Braveheart reference.

[devogue]

Hey. Chill the mother fucker out.

Don't worry about this law. It's not going to hapen.

Its my island.

Don't worry I got the Braveheart reference.

Hey. Chill the mother fucker out, sugar tits.

[Mysturji]

I can't wait to see them prosecute the publishers of the koran for all the nasty things it says about jews.

[klr]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 81506.html

For God's sake, why have blasphemous libel?

ANALYSIS: The proposal to make blasphemous libel an offence would likely criminalise many writers and publishers, writes CAROL COULTER
...
There the matter rested until the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Seán Ardagh, reported last year, recommending the deletion of references to sedition and blasphemy in the Constitution. While there appears to be no appetite for an amendment to do so, there equally has been no conspicuous clamour to legislate to fill the void identified by the Supreme Court.
...

I thought I might (belatedly) clarify this bit. I think what is meant here is that there is little appetite within the body politic for a referendum at this time, especially so in the case of the government, given the state of the economy. Most of the public would also be somewhat bemused, given that the status quo seemed to work well (i.e., no-one paid a blind bit of notice to the blasphemy provision in the Constitution). Why, a lot of people would ask, do we have to do anything?

In other news, this bizarre letter was published in the Irish Independent yesterday (Saturday May 2nd):

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/lette ... 26762.html

Note: 'Liveline' is a daily phone-in program on RTE (state) radio.

Why in the name of God (oops sorry, didn't mean to be so insensitive/offensive), does RTE give an entire 'Liveline' over to a tiny rump of deranged atheists to spout their puerile propaganda? Just what is their gripe?

Well it turns out they are annoyed at the prospect that proposed legislation will make it an offence to gratuitously offend religion: in reality, Catholicism (their big bogeyman). The big question is, though, what kind of ideology gets it kicks out of gratuitously offending the sincerely held views of others? It seems both immature and vulgar.

Perhaps the best critique of this ideology is provided in the recently published 'The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens', by Vox Day. This brilliant critique clearly demonstrates why a mere anti-blasphemy law is not sufficient. In the interests of rationality and common sense, the legislation should go further and label atheism a thought crime.

Also, why is the publicly-funded state broadcaster giving these airheads a platform for their dangerous juvenalia?

Eric Conway
Navan, Co Meath

If someone published sentiments like this on most of the online forums that I am familiar with, they'd be in danger of getting a thrashing with the moderating stick, or worse. Assuming it wasn't just laughed as being unworthy of comment - or a classic Poe.

Maybe it was meant to 'balance' this letter:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/lette ... 26761.html

Blasphemy law has left me swearing

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern has defended his new blasphemy law, I read to my embarrassment yesterday. I thought it was a late April Fool's joke until I called home and was told that it was very real.

Not being a lawyer, I used Wikipedia to learn that the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech by Article 40.6.1 and states that this may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, it explicitly requires that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence.

Obviously this was considered and written under the watchful eye of a Catholic bishop back when they more or less controlled every aspect of our lives, but this is severely outdated and does not need to exist in the Constitution of a free nation. The right to free speech is a cornerstone of democracy and an important right for free people, just as the freedom to practise any religion one chooses is, or equally the freedom to choose not to participate or believe in any form of religion or God.

The Government's role in a free and democratic nation is not to morally guide its citizens on matters such as what time to leave the pub, get up in the morning, or how many times they brush their teeth every day. They are there to maintain the functional administrative aspects of a nation and they should get out of people's lives.

Whether I believe in God, sex before marriage or the Dart timetable is my own business. And if I want to say bad things about God or any member of his dysfunctional family, it's my gamble between "everlasting damnation" or rotting away in an old wooden box.

The general exception to free speech is in the case of defamation/slander, in which you could be charged criminally, but, ironically, as a defendant, you have the right to challenge your accuser. Since God has not made a public appearance in quite some time, and the fact that there is no public record of him ever filing a complaint with the gardai, suggests that this is an event that would simply not take place.

The point is, I can say anything I want. I am, though, very surprised at the lack of public outrage that this has caused on a matter of principle.

Graham Dale
Austin, Texas

[klr]

The Green Party - the (very much) minority partner in the current government, is fidgeting about this business:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 211741.ece

Greens in blasphemy challenge

Party set to call for referendum on amended Defamation Bill - which could see offenders face €100,000 fine
Sarah McInerney

A Green TD has said his party will request that a referendum on blasphemy be held before the justice minister pushes through new legislation to make it a crime.

Ciaran Cuffe said yesterday he believed many people would find the prospect of a law against blasphemy “old-fashioned”, and that the Greens would be asking Dermot Ahern to consider having a referendum on the issue.

Last week Ahern announced his intention to amend the Defamation Bill, which is currently before the Dail, to create a crime of libellous blasphemy, with offenders facing a fine of up to €100,000. The proposal has been widely criticised and the main religions in Ireland have said they did not lobby for the change.

“I’d like to see a debate about this, and I think we should consider a referendum to give people the chance to have their say,” Cuffe said.

“A lot of people might think blasphemy is a fairly old-fashioned idea. The issue [of a referendum] will be raised with the minister.”

A spokesman for the Greens said: “The party will be dealing with this matter in discussion with government colleagues.”

But sources close to Ahern yesterday played down the likelihood of a referendum. “The last people who tried to remove a reference to God from the constitution were the Progressive Democrats, and look what happened to them,” he said. “It’s a well-known fact that that is dangerous political ground.”

Ahern has said he has a legal obligation to flesh out the constitutional prohibition on blasphemy.

The Supreme Court has said that the offence does not exist in practice.

A spokesman for the minister said: “It is in the constitution, so the minister has just two choices. He either has to amend the legislation, or hold a referendum to remove the article about blasphemy.

“He has decided it would be costly, time-consuming and not politically practical to hold a referendum, so he is amending the legislation.

“Other political parties might like him to just turn a blind eye to the constitution, but he can’t.”

If passed, the Defamation Act would define blasphemy as matter that is “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion”.

It has been noted that irreverent performances by comedian Tommy Tiernan on The Late Late Show could easily fall foul of the provision.

Neville Cox,a senior law lecturer at Trinity College Dublin and author of Blasphemy and the Law, backed the move. He said that, while he did not agree with blasphemy being a crime, he believed Ahern had taken the “most sensible option”.

“If we were drawing up our constitution from the beginning, blasphemy shouldn’t be included, because it doesn’t reflect the values of the society we live in,” he said.

“But the reality is that the article is there, and I think a referendum to remove it would be very divisive.”

And a second piece from today's Sunday Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 211334.ece

New libel law is a threat to free speech
Suspicion that move to up-date Defamation Act is an attempt by desperate government to divert voters’ attention

The government’s plan to create a crime of blasphemous libel, punishable by a fine of up to €100,000, should be of concern to anyone who values freedom of expression. The stealthy manner in which Dermot Ahern, the minister for justice, inserted the blasphemy clause into the Defamation Bill was itself a cause of concern, with his justification unconvincing.

The new offence of publishing or uttering blasphemous matter is defined as anything “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion”. The offender must intend to cause such outrage.

Mr Ahern’s justification is that the Irish constitution states that “the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law”. The Defamation Act of 1961 is outdated, Mr Ahern argues, and he needs to modernise it.

He does not. The justice minister’s protestations that the mention of blasphemy in the constitution “cannot be ignored” ring hollow. Article 40.3.3 upholds the right to life of the unborn child, but no legislation has been passed to give effect to this. Pleas from judges to successive governments to give effect to this constitutional clause have been ignored. So much for Mr Ahern’s assertion that he would never undermine the constitution.

The outdated blasphemy clause in the constitution could be changed by referendum. This, Mr Ahern says, would be a “costly and unwarranted diversion”. Nonsense. A perfect opportunity arises in the autumn when we are forced to vote again on the Lisbon treaty. How easy it would be to hold a blasphemy referendum on the same day. It would be more practical to allow the constitutional prohibition on blasphemy to wither on the vine, as so many other arcane provisions of that 1937 document have done. Defenders of religion already have other mechanisms with which to tackle irreverence. Last year, this newspaper was the subject of a complaint from the Catholic church to the Press Council of Ireland over a derogatory comment made by columnist Liam Fay about St Padre Pio. The complaint was dismissed.

Precedent tells us that religious advocates will seize on this new legal provision to make regular complaints about “blasphemous” material, usually little more than critical or mocking comments about their particular brand of faith. Experience has shown us, such as in the case of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, that “a substantial number” of outraged adherents can easily be mustered.

Religious beliefs are not inherently deserving of respect or legal protection. In exceptional circumstances a government might need to take special measures to defend an oppressed religious minority. But generally speaking freedom of expression, one of the most important rights in any country’s constitution, is what needs to be defended and upheld.

It should be remembered, too, that preventing the publication of “blasphemous” insults does not just protect mainstream religions such as Islam and Catholicism. It will provide a shield for every cult and visionary, since “religion” will not be defined in the Defamation Bill. It may also safeguard such outfits as the Church of Scientology, the Moonies and Opus Dei from legitimate scrutiny and criticism.

So flawed is Mr Ahern’s proposal that the suspicion nags that something else is afoot. Could this blasphemy initiative be an attempt by a desperate government to distract public attention? All the more reason to resist it.

[klr]

... and there's more (busy weekend). The Observer/Guardian is now interested:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... egislation

Atheists fight to keep God out of Irish law

Campaigners seek to block legislation carrying hefty fines for blasphemy

Henry McDonald, Ireland editor, The Observer, Sunday 3 May 2009

A group that claims to represent the rights of atheists in Ireland has launched a campaign to expel God from the Irish constitution, starting with an attempt to block plans for a new blasphemy law.

Atheist Ireland, which is led by a Bono impersonator and the writer of a hit musical about Roy Keane's infamous World Cup tantrum, says the proposed legislation combines the oppressive religious thinking of 1950s Catholic Ireland and Islamic fundamentalism.

Co-founder Michael Nugent said they intended to launch a roadshow in the republic to kick-start their campaign.

Nugent is the co-author of I, Keano, a comedy musical about the angry clash between Keane and former Ireland manager Mick McCarthy at the 2002 World Cup, which led to Keane walking out of the tournament. He has been joined by Paul Wonderful, a former singer with U2 send-up band The Joshua Trio, whose current incarnation - Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly - sings a song about Christ that could be illegal under the new law.

Dermot Ahern, Ireland's justice minister, has proposed the legislation, which will outlaw anything seen as "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". The legislation also includes fines of up to €100,000 for "blasphemous libel", a move that Nugent and Atheist Ireland describe as "criminalising free speech".

"This new law will treat religious beliefs as more valuable than secular beliefs and scientific thinking," Nugent said. He said the real solution to dealing with Ireland's current blasphemy law was to remove all references to religion in the 1937 constitution.

"The bill's first test of blasphemy is that religious adherents express outrage. Instead of encouraging outrage, we should be educating people to respond in a more healthy manner when somebody expresses a belief that they find insulting," Nugent said. "More worryingly, this law would encourage the type of orchestrated outrage that Islamic fundamentalists directed against Danish cartoonists."

The Dublin-based writer said many atheists found parts of the Bible insulting, but would not wish it to be banned or discussion about it closed down. "Parts of the Christian Bible suggest that women must not teach and must learn in silence, or that effeminate people are unrighteous, or that people should worship a god who threatens to make you eat your own children. But we do not believe the Bible should be banned, and neither should discussion of the Bible in terms that cause Christians to be outraged," said Nugent.

Under the proposed law, Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly, a spoof Irish republican extremist who sings in a Celtic shirt, could be prosecuted for his song The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, Nugent said.

Atheist Ireland's campaign against the proposed blasphemy law has been backed by Index on Censorship, the global campaign group for freedom of expression. Padraig Reidy, Index's news editor, said: "Ireland's ethnic and religious make-up has changed dramatically in the last 15 years. If the country is to thrive, surely the state must create a space where we can talk more, and more vigorously, about our beliefs and ideals, rather than shut down conversation."

Nugent said blasphemy was not the only anomaly in the constitution. "You cannot become president of Ireland or be appointed a judge in the republic unless you take a religious oath asking God to direct and sustain you in your work.

"What an atheist is offered is an Irish solution - to ignore it, to pretend you believe in God. But this means, for example, that a new judge who is privately an atheist but swears to God is technically committing perjury.

"We should be amending our constitution to remove these theistic references, not creating new crimes to enforce provisions that were written in the 1930s," he added.

And this opinion/analysis piece from the Irish independent:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analy ... 27260.html

To criminalise blasphemy would just be outrageous
Emer O'Kelly considers the implications of Dermot Ahern's proposed offence of 'blasphemous libel'

Sunday May 03 2009

This week, we are fulfilling one of our Constitutional duties, and will continue to do so until May 10. Under Article 44 of the Constitution, the "State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion". The current national tour of the bodily remains of St Therese of Lisieux, with the remains due to be returned to France on May 10, could be said to fulfil that duty, with Garda escort and public processions scheduled in every town the relics are brought to.

In 2001, the last time the relics were brought to Ireland, and with a busy working schedule severely disrupted when various towns across the country were made impassable to traffic by the faithful, I inadvertently referred at a meeting to the event as "the bishop and his holy skeleton". It caused grave offence to some of the Catholics present. Others of them thought it was funny.

It was not, however, blasphemous, since one can't blaspheme against a saint, only against the godhead.

Article 40 occupies five-and-a-half pages in the Constitution. With 40.2 guaranteeing that titles of nobility will not be conferred by the State, the proposed President's Citizens honours' list is already arguably unconstitutional. Article 40.3 is the section which guarantees the right to life of the unborn, and 40.6.i guarantees freedom of speech, but adds that "the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law".

The theatre writer/director Conall Morrison produced his own version of Sophocles' Greek tragedy Antigone a few years ago, in which Antigone, agonised at the desecration of her hero brother's body after his death in battle, kept howling, "F**k God," (or rather, given the ear-shattering Belfast accent of the actor in question, "F**k gawd." Now that was blasphemous, if you want to be true to the religious interpretation of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.").

So the play was unconstitutional. But it didn't break any laws, because despite the Constitutional prohibition on blasphemy, there are no laws against it. And last year, the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution sensibly recommended amending Article 40 to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, replacing them with something along the lines of the relevant article in the European Convention on human rights.

In 1999, a judgment of the Supreme Court stated that it was "impossible" to say of what the offence of blasphemy consists. It was handed down in a case in which a man objected to the publication in the Sunday Independent of a cartoon which depicted a rather fat Catholic priest offering the host and chalice to a trio consisting of Ruairi Quinn, John Bruton and Proinsias De Rossa. They were then the party leaders in a coalition government which had sponsored the Divorce Referendum, and in the cartoon they were turning away from the offered host and chalice. The complainant charged that the cartoon constituted a major insult to the Catholic faith.

In faith, 10 years later, it all sounds rather mild when compared, for instance, with the international ruckus over the cartoons in Scandinavia depicting the prophet Mohammed which roused Islam to some murderous fury. But one citizen thought strongly enough to go to the Supreme Court over a slightly silly cartoon. And he lost.

That, you see, is what the separation of Church and State is about. Legally, you can't define blasphemy; religiously you can. So it comes down once again to whether you believe that religion should define our laws. It also, of course, comes down to how tolerant you are of those who disagree with you. For some people, even flippancy about religion is blasphemous, and deserving of whipping at the cart's tail.

But Dermot Ahern, the Minister for Justice and a usually sensible man (although he recently said that the terms of the Budget were "aspirations", so maybe overwork and pressure are affecting his marbles), is proposing a new crime of "blasphemous libel" in an amendment to the Defamation Bill and it hinges on the word "gross".

The Minister wants to define blasphemy as matter "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion ... (and) ... intended to cause ... outrage".

Most journalists have what they write checked by lawyers for possible libel. And it is not infrequent for a libel lawyer to come back and point out that you can't impute meaning to people: you're not inside their heads. So you're not allowed to call somebody a Nazi if they express far-right wing, racist, and sexually repressive views, unless you can prove that they are members of a neo-Nazi group. (I've tried to get away with that one myself, and have had to rewrite more longwindedly at times. "Nazi" is such a neat term, and saves a lot of explanation.)

So who is to prove that strong opinions opposed to religion, gods, and the interpretation of their teaching are intended to be offensive? Atheists, and a lot of agnostics, find all religion offensive, idiotic, repressive, and frequently antagonistic to the good of the body politic, and say so. Even many religiously minded intellectuals agree with this, believing that selective personal beliefs should be private, and should not influence public decision-making.

But for those who hold various religious tenets dear, a lot of intellectual debate is offensive. And, depending on their tolerance of opinions which disagree with their own, they may define publicly expressed disagreement with their personal beliefs as blasphemous. To criticise or ridicule god -- in the persons of Jesus, Jehovah, or Allah, to name only the three of broadest appeal -- or indeed to deny their existence, is blasphemous for many people. And they are entitled to their opinions. But are they entitled to have those opinions upheld in law, and have those who offend against their personal beliefs punished in law?

Without even going to extremes, such a view would mean that the works of Richard Dawkins, international scholar and English-language guru of atheism, would have his works removed from bookshops in Ireland. We'd be back to buying books under the counter. But Dawkins does not set out to be offensive: he just proves, wittily, and to the mind of an atheist or an even vaguely rational, open-minded or doubting theist, irrefutably, that the notion of god is ludicrous.

That last sentence is, of course, blasphemous. But it is a cornerstone of my thinking, and it informs the way I live my life and my code of ethics. And I am well aware that there are people out there who would like to see me prosecuted for it. (I have the letters to prove it.) But it's what I believe, and I don't write it to give deliberate offence, merely to state my own philosophical case. So where does that leave the offence of "blasphemous libel"?

[AshtonBlack]

Is public opinion against this then, do we know?

[Arse]

Is public opinion against this then, do we know?

Are you kidding? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

Dermot Aherne is a fucking idiot - he has attempted to reverse about ten years of government policy in a manner that is simultaneously sneaky and clumsy. He failed. Our Justice Minister is an unlikeable twat - a bit like your Home Secretary, only less theiving. End of.

[klr]

Is public opinion against this then, do we know?

Public opinion in Ireland is an odd thing - where isn't it?

Most Irish people want the freedom to be able to say what they want to their heart's content, and to hell with the Church. But they might resent being asked to vote on something nonetheless, especially in these times. However, once the consequences of this proposal (and the sheer inoperability of it all) are pointed out to them, they might begin to smell blood.

Actually, I have a feeling that the Irish Catholic heirarchy might also prefer that this would die a death, as it could backfire on them very quickly and badly.

I've just registered on an Irish politics board where this and related issues are being discussed. Boy, there are some strange people there. Reassuringly though, most of them seem to have things the right way around.

[klr]

From the Monday (May 4th) edition of the Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 89559.html

No place for blasphemy law

IT IS tempting to think of punishment for blasphemy as a mediaeval anachronism. In fact, it is very much a contemporary reality. The Pakistani Supreme Court recently upheld a judgment that the only fit punishment for blasphemy is death. In Afghanistan, the journalist Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh received such a sentence last year for distributing an article critical of the status of women within Islamic societies. In Sudan British teacher Gillian Gibbons was convicted of insulting Islam by allowing a child to give the name Mohammed to a teddy bear. As an instrument of repression, the charge of blasphemy is very much in vogue.

All of which pushes the decision of Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern to propose legislation on the crime of “blasphemous libel” beyond the realms of mere misjudgment and into those of dangerous folly. An amendment to the Defamation Bill would outlaw the deliberate publishing or uttering of anything that is deemed by members of any religion to be “grossly abusive or insulting” to anything that they hold to be sacred. Such speech or writing would be punishable by a fine of up to €100,000.

We should be clear that blasphemy laws have nothing to do with the protection of religious freedom. The founders of most of the world’s major religions were regarded in their own times as blasphemers against the then-established spiritual truth. Jesus Christ himself was, according to the Christian Gospels, tried for blasphemy by the Jewish judiciary, the Sanhedrin. One of the first Christian martyrs, Saint Stephen, was stoned to death for blasphemy. Given the diversity of religious faith, it is almost axiomatic that one person’s sacred truth can be another’s gross insult to God. For the State to legislate against such subjectively perceived insults is to take sides in spiritual and intellectual disputes that are none of its business.

What the State should do – protect people from discrimination or incitement to hatred on religious grounds – is already done through our laws. Anything else is an absurdity, a crank’s charter that makes an ass of the law and a censor of the State. This is why, in 1991, the Law Reform Commission said that a law of blasphemous libel has no place “in a society which respects freedom of speech”. It is why, just last year, the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution recommended that the current (extremely vague) prohibition of blasphemy be deleted from the Constitution.

Instead of following this eminently sensible advice, the Minister has chosen to regard himself as being under an obligation to legislate for that ill-framed constitutional ban. This position might be more convincing if the Minister felt himself similarly obligated in relation, for example, to the X case constitutional judgment on abortion – an area in which the State has steadfastly refused to legislate. It is, however, the height of folly to propose that there is a constitutional imperative to bring in bad laws for which there has been no substantial public demand. If Mr Ahern really feels the need to make Irish law on blasphemy coherent, he should move for a constitutional amendment to get rid of it altogether.

[klr]

The peasants are revolting. From today's Irish times letter section - no sign of any letters in support of the proposed legislation:

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index ... 4245889534

'Blasphemous libel' proposal

Madam, – All democrats must hope that the Minister for Justice’s proposed amendment to the Defamation Bill is a belated April Fool’s prank. However, if Dermot Ahern intends to follow through with such an alteration, he might answer the following: 1. As religious belief is at least partly subjective, how can blasphemous output be objectively assessed? The Supreme Court has already expressed concerns in this regard and the proposed new wording inspires little confidence that any different outcome will be forthcoming should another case arise.

2. Both the Equal Status Act and the separation of Church and State in Ireland would require the equal protection of all religions similarly. Given that different faiths and their adherents display widely varying levels of tolerance regarding criticism of their beliefs, are we to expect convictions under the new Act to correspond with the least liberal of such followers? Yours, etc,

NIGEL RYAN,
Ballinakill,
Gorey, Co Wexford.

Madam, – I am intrigued by one aspect of the prospective legislation on publishing or uttering blasphemous matter. The law will apply where the material complained of has caused “outrage” among a substantial number of the adherents of a religion and where the person publishing the outrage intends to cause such outrage.

How is outrage to be defined? What are its salient features? Can one’s outrage be measured by a specific rise in blood pressure, heartbeat rate, amount of perspiration or redness of face? And how can it be determined that there was an intention to cause outrage? Does a person in writing an article, drawing a cartoon or telling a joke consciously decide their output will cause outrage? I suggest it would prove extremely difficult, if not impossible, to sustain a prosecution based on these grounds.

I do not think we need this legislation. Fundamentalists may and ask, “Is nothing sacred?”. I believe that freedom of expression is. I also think God, in all his manifestations, probably has a sense of humour. Yours, etc,

JACK MORRISSEY,
Acorn Road, Dublin 16.

Madam, – I am fascinated when those who believe in an all-powerful god feel the need to defend such a being. Is not the lack of faith in such a deity’s ability to stand up for itself, well, blasphemy? – Yours, etc,

DONAL O’KEEFFE,

Fermoy,
Co Cork.

[klr]

This is a letter to Irish Independent in response to that bizarre letter by one Eric Conway (see earlier on this page):

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/lette ... 27857.html

I believe in your right to believe
Monday May 04 2009

Eric Conway (Letters, 02/05) suggests, apparently entirely seriously, that atheism should be legally branded a thought crime by the State.

Notwithstanding the obviously ludicrous nature of this dystopian fantasy, which in itself scarcely deserves consideration, I feel it important to correct his preceding misunderstandings which are perhaps a little more widely held.

A fact that seems to be acknowledged for all areas of social dialogue apart from religion is that scorning the views or beliefs held by another is quite distinct from criticising or ridiculing the individual themselves. No one set of beliefs or ideologies should ever be put off the table of rational debate; for this is the point at which we enter the realms of totalitarianism. Consider, for example, how ridiculous it would rightly be perceived if offence towards the political inclinations or musical tastes of others were outlawed, and you'll immediately notice the cognitive dissonance that seems to occur when religion is substituted for these fields.

The real problem here is that religion has carved itself a niche in society whereby it gains immunity from even the mildest of criticisms. In reality, all that most atheists are advocating here is the extension of free and open discussion; a concept that seems worryingly, but not surprisingly, troubling to large swathes of religious sentiment. In the spirit of Voltaire, I may not agree with the conflicting views of my compatriot, but I'll defend to the death his right to express it: and that goes for religion, too.

Adam Dinan
Douglas Road, Cork

[devogue]

This is a letter to Irish Independent in response to that bizarre letter by one Eric Conway (see earlier on this page):

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/lette ... 27857.html

I believe in your right to believe
Monday May 04 2009

Eric Conway (Letters, 02/05) suggests, apparently entirely seriously, that atheism should be legally branded a thought crime by the State.

Notwithstanding the obviously ludicrous nature of this dystopian fantasy, which in itself scarcely deserves consideration, I feel it important to correct his preceding misunderstandings which are perhaps a little more widely held.

A fact that seems to be acknowledged for all areas of social dialogue apart from religion is that scorning the views or beliefs held by another is quite distinct from criticising or ridiculing the individual themselves. No one set of beliefs or ideologies should ever be put off the table of rational debate; for this is the point at which we enter the realms of totalitarianism. Consider, for example, how ridiculous it would rightly be perceived if offence towards the political inclinations or musical tastes of others were outlawed, and you'll immediately notice the cognitive dissonance that seems to occur when religion is substituted for these fields.

The real problem here is that religion has carved itself a niche in society whereby it gains immunity from even the mildest of criticisms. In reality, all that most atheists are advocating here is the extension of free and open discussion; a concept that seems worryingly, but not surprisingly, troubling to large swathes of religious sentiment. In the spirit of Voltaire, I may not agree with the conflicting views of my compatriot, but I'll defend to the death his right to express it: and that goes for religion, too.

Adam Dinan
Douglas Road, Cork

I hate fuckers who quote that tired old Voltaire shit, no matter how true it is.

Just saying.

[Hermit]

This is a letter to Irish Independent in response to that bizarre letter by one Eric Conway (see earlier on this page):

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/lette ... 27857.html

I believe in your right to believe
Monday May 04 2009

Eric Conway (Letters, 02/05) suggests, apparently entirely seriously, that atheism should be legally branded a thought crime by the State.

Notwithstanding the obviously ludicrous nature of this dystopian fantasy, which in itself scarcely deserves consideration, I feel it important to correct his preceding misunderstandings which are perhaps a little more widely held.

A fact that seems to be acknowledged for all areas of social dialogue apart from religion is that scorning the views or beliefs held by another is quite distinct from criticising or ridiculing the individual themselves. No one set of beliefs or ideologies should ever be put off the table of rational debate; for this is the point at which we enter the realms of totalitarianism. Consider, for example, how ridiculous it would rightly be perceived if offence towards the political inclinations or musical tastes of others were outlawed, and you'll immediately notice the cognitive dissonance that seems to occur when religion is substituted for these fields.

The real problem here is that religion has carved itself a niche in society whereby it gains immunity from even the mildest of criticisms. In reality, all that most atheists are advocating here is the extension of free and open discussion; a concept that seems worryingly, but not surprisingly, troubling to large swathes of religious sentiment. In the spirit of Voltaire, I may not agree with the conflicting views of my compatriot, but I'll defend to the death his right to express it: and that goes for religion, too.

Adam Dinan
Douglas Road, Cork

I hate fuckers who quote that tired old Voltaire shit, no matter how true it is.

Just saying.

Oh fuck! In that case you'll really hate me. Part of my signature at the moment: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4 BC – AD 65" To me the Voltaire quote is not tired, old shit. It's democratic. I like it for that, and I like to see it quoted; the morer the betterer. But, hey, I can see where you're coming from.

[klr]

Good piece today by the redoubtable Fintan O'Toole:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi ... 43373.html

Absurdity of blasphemy law revived by Ahern

FINTAN O'TOOLE

WE ARE awful eejits really. How could anyone possibly believe that the Department of Justice is seriously planning to revive the crime of blasphemy for the 21st century?

A little more awareness of the historical context might have prompted a simple question: what year is this? 2009. And what happened a hundred years ago in 1909? Three Irish people made a deliberate feck of the blasphemy laws, exposed the idiocy of trying to enforce them and delivered a fatal blow to the intellectual assumptions on which they are based.

We should have realised that a man as cultured as Dermot Ahern would come up with a novel and provocative way to commemorate this glorious centenary.

The three Irish people in question were Bernard Shaw, WB Yeats and Augusta Gregory. A hundred years ago this month, Shaw’s little play The Shewing-up of Blanco Posnet was refused a licence for performance by the English censors.

This was exactly what Shaw had intended. He wrote a rather mild piece with a sprinkling of offensiveness just sufficient to provoke the wrath of the authorities. This includes a shot of blasphemy when the anti-hero preaches a sermon on God’s mysterious ways. The purpose is revealed when another character interjects: “Speak more respectful Blanco – more reverent.”

The stupid censor fell into Shaw’s trap, allowing the great controversialist to appear before a parliamentary select committee and announce: “I think that the danger of crippling thought, the danger of obstructing the formation of the public mind by specially suppressing such representations is far greater than any real danger there is from such representations”.

He also presented the committee with a written statement on censorship with a request that it be read into the record. The committee, in a gesture beyond satire, cleared the room, discussed the statement and decided that it should be suppressed.

That statement is, in fact, one of the great rebukes to the thought-control mechanisms behind blasphemy laws: “I am not an ordinary playwright in general practice. I am a specialist in immoral and heretical plays. My reputation has been gained by my persistent struggle to force the public to reconsider its morals.

“In particular, I regard much current morality as to economic and sexual relations as disastrously wrong; and I regard certain doctrines of the Christian religion as understood in England today with abhorrence. I write plays with the deliberate object of converting the nation to my opinions in these matters . . . ”

Shaw’s point was that he had not merely a right, but as he saw it a duty, to challenge accepted morality and to blaspheme against official religious doctrines.

And in one of the great founding statements of the importance of independent thought in the independent Ireland that was beginning to emerge, Yeats and Gregory took the bold decision to invite Shaw to submit Blanco Posnet to the Abbey.

They chose this whole issue of the idiotic anti-blasphemy laws as the one on which they would take a stand, not just for artistic and intellectual independence within Ireland but for Ireland’s intellectual freedom from England.

This was not just a grand gesture. Though Shaw and Gregory in particular enjoyed the sport of making fun of the authorities, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Aberdeen, had the power to revoke the Abbey’s patent and close it down.

He threatened to use “every power the law gave him” to stop the play. This included the threat of fines that would bankrupt the Abbey’s precarious finances. Gregory and Yeats publicly declared that to yield on this issue would be to compromise the independence of thought that would be needed in a free Ireland: “We must not by accepting the English censor’s ruling, give away anything of the liberty of the Irish theatre of the future”. The theatre, Gregory argued, “must have some respect for our audience and not treat them as babies”.

Gregory faced down the threats, and the play opened at the Abbey in August 1909. It played to packed houses. (“It is a pity,” reflected the ever-practical Gregory afterwards, “that we had not thought in time of putting up our prices.”)

The only complaint from audiences was that the play was so mild that it was hard to understand what all the fuss was about. Dublin Castle, its bluff successfully called, slunk away in humiliation. The idea that Irish people didn’t have to be treated as babies, though often forgotten after independence, was established.

How brilliant of Dermot Ahern to mark this important event in Irish intellectual life by reminding us of the absurdity of blasphemy laws.

Does he really think that it should be a crime to offend members of the Jedi church (from census returns that includes 70,000 people in Australia; 50,000 in New Zealand; 390,000 in the UK) by saying that a light sabre makes you look like a dork? Of course not.

With one satiric touch he has honoured the memory of Shaw, Yeats and Gregory and reminded us that blasphemy laws exist to protect, not religions, but bigots.

For his next trick, he will mark the Darwin bicentenary by threatening to make creationism compulsory.