Ireland Makes Blasphemy Illegal

exactly :yes:

 

i am not agreeing with you here ASDF, i was merely stating that the opposing factions arguements were flawed.

This law is way over the top and stops non-christians from talking about their religion while there is no harm in that, and therefore, this law should be removed.

 

The person would first have to agree with those laws to make it not a good argument. There are no laws which prohibit you from cricizing a person for any of his beliefs or actions. Not in the countries I know of (although I know Britain for example has some severe policies on this.)

I am more than fine with gays being protected against discrimination and emotinal bullying based on their sexual orientation but that doesnt make their sexual orientation taboo. Not according to the law anyways. And if in your country it does - I disagree with it.

EDIT: And as I was about to add, ijffdrie is right. Regardless of the arguments between us we all agree that the law in ireland is uterly wrong on so many different levels. The only person who seems to be in favour of turning Ireland into middle-east is Exe.

 

just bear in mind that it was not me who introduced "middle east" to the debate but Higgs. If you do this then ill be happy.

How i value/rank the different terms:

science and facts > religious beleives and doctrines > democracy.

Now, you can be religious, thats all fine with me, but you must have knowledge about what the religion says thats has been proven false.

Also the democracy is governed by the people. If the majority of the people is religious then you have a religious democracy.
As long as the religious people dont touch science and the facts.

 

wait wait wait


are you for or against this law?

 

- Not in USA you dont. You have secular constitutional democracy. Even if 99.9% of the US population wanted christianity to get state privilege they simply could not as it is unconstitutional.
- Democracy does not equal to freedom of speech. They are inherently tied together of course but they can exist independently.
- Religious people do touch science and facts quite a lot actually.
- Middle east is just an analogy and I want it to stay that way. The last thing we need is to bring that whole thing into this.

 

But you can change the constitution. Lets say they wanted to have monarchy. Then lets say 80% of the US population wanted that, then they could change the constitution right?

 

No thats the whole point of constitutional democracy. There are certain things that you simply cant change without engaging in a revolution.

 

lol ok i wont investigate this further. But thats stupid, sry.

 

Whats even more worrying is that very simmilar resolution recently passed (even though its non-binding at the moment) in the UN. Of course most countries ignore it except for the countries that pushed it through (middle-east, northern africa and parts of asia) which usually have heavy anti-blasphemy laws within their law anyways.

 

but if you beleive its only the religious who are against free speech, think again after watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc4OzpgTOhk

The non-religious government censored stuff. Since i before ranked science and facts as a top priority you know i am strongly against this.

So when the religoius parties are censoring stuff then its not okay, but when the government is censoring stuff then its okay. So the law of free speech has no more value than the paper its written on.

 

- "but if you beleive its only the religious who are against free speech"
I do not believe that.

 

are you trying to look stupid, or is it highly coincidental?

We never ever claimed that cencoring stuff is okay when its not done non-religious group


what i said was: cencoring harmless stuff wrong.
It doesnt matter if its the government banning diablo 2 cause its bloody, or a religious group removing the word clitoris from all schoolbooks, its just wrong

 

You dont have to read it if you dont want to Exe - my point here is that; Blasphemy in respect to how its covered by freedom of speech, is covered for a reason, regardless of the social discourse of the discussion. As long as it doesnt infringe into slander.

Not if their religious icons inspire wars - then they step on OTHERS. Not if their religious icons cause censorship of freedom of speech - then they step on OTHERS. On such occasions it is important that critisism of such beliefs are present. It is paramount for prevention of THEIR insitutions from stepping on the toes of others.

However, this im am sure, is not what you are refering to. And like Higgis explained - the 'stepping' as you think of it, is a personal insult. Do i advocate personally insulting people as a side effect of talking about their belief? Thats what it would be isnt it? A side effect that would occur - i cant point out their beliefs are folly without hurting their feelings now.. I dont think anyone can. But do i advocate it? I suppose insult is a necessasary evil in the situation, but the situation is completely arbitrary without a specific example other than 'stepping on their icons'.

I would agree that walking around saying jesus ate **** is wrong, but yeah, freedom of speech. And i would fight to protect your freedom to tell people im an asshole.

Why would i bother? Because organised religion has a distinct habit of handicapping humanity from a intellectual point of view? Because they have a habit of stepping on such rights as freedom of speech? This news article is evidence enough that people need to care more about the actions of these institutions.

Yes, i agree with you, it can be done nicely. But as Higgis says, this is where the subject comes more into a political sense of freedom of speech. They have the right to advocate my burning in hell for enternity, then i have the right to say they're all a bit silly. Depending on the floor i use to say such things of couse.

My religion means a lot to me too, i really hate it when people laugh at me and call me crazy when i tell them about Zeus. Does that make their actions seem 'provocating' to you? No, infact i wouldnt expect you to defend me. Just as i dont expect you to defend other religious institutions from such insults. Nor do i expect you to make such actions illegal.

Yes, when it comes down to it, what is antisocial and social is the determining factor here. Is it social to point out that they are being silly? No, its antisocial because our society views such beliefs as 'sacred'. But should i have the right to do so? Yes.

You dont have to read it if you dont want to Exe - my point here is that; Blasphemy in respect to how its covered by freedom of speech, is covered for a reason, regardless of the social discourse of the discussion. As long as it doesnt infringe into slander.

 

@rie:

You dont have to. The fact that no one, like for example the old government, havent been prosecuted is enough to let me think its okay. Its okay for the government to censoring science and facts.

 

i dont know how it goes in America, but cencorships by the government are almost never introduced, and the only one i can think off( Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler) has been revoked.

I do not agree with the bush administration, but just because the american legal system does not listen to my complaints does not mean that i am okay with it.

 

I think Exe is starting to pull false controversies out of his arse now.

 

Why do you think its false controversy?

Btw the only thing that comes out of my ass in a normal situation is ****.

 

Nobody is discriminating against other forms of censorship and freedon infringment, not in this thread at least. Why are you dragging it in here then?

 

Are you from china? and enjoying life there?