In case you don’t know about this law, I’ll write a few words to set the stage for the next post, which is about a suit being brought under that law.
The Irish blasphemy law, or “Defamation Act”, became law in 2009, although the Irish Constitution of 1937 also made blasphemy illegal, and includes this little gem:
“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 new law is clearly an embarrassment to Ireland, and many are making efforts to get it overturned. But since it’s not an unconstitutional law (the constitution is worse!), the only way to get rid of it is by public referendum. Politicians don’t want to push that lest they lose favor among Irish Catholic voters.
You can download the entire statute here, but this is the relevant section (my emphases):
36.—
(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters 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, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
- (i) of its followers, or
- (ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
h/t: Grania Spingies
€25,000 to call god a ‘cock-sucking motherfucker’? What a bargain!
Priceless
That really is embarrassing. As Catholic as I know Ireland still is, I find this shocking.
Couldn’t Irish atheists create a religion which specified that it is offensive to claim that Jesus is the son of god? That would outlaw all Christian churches.
Actually, come to think of it doesn’t this law outlaw all religions anyway, since they all make statements which are offensive to each other?
Muslims already find it highly offensive to call Jesus the son of god. They have a special name (shirk) for giving god associates and it’s one of their most serious sins.
Up to €25,000 in fines for insulting believers in mostly ancient, always fictional characters… That’s simply absurd.
I’d like to see them balance things with such a fine for deliberately misrepresenting the findings of science, and another for taking tithes and offerings at the behest of a deity for which there is no proof.
(No, not really.)
(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
This section pretty much nullifies the whole thing, doesn’t it? The RCC for example is a cult whose principle aim is to make money, it employs oppressive psychological manipulation not only to keep/gain new followers, but to gain new sex partners.
While it’s true that the RCC makes enough to keep ’em in red silk dresses, I wouldn’t say that that’s its principal aim.
As with all religion it’s about going to the deepest and most mysterious evolved feelings. The church was hijacked centuries ago by a gang of men whose whole reason for being is sex and sadomasochism.
Check out Bernini’s sculpture of St Theresa. It says it all.
If the “making a profit” – totally without honour – doesn’t cover it then I think that “oppressive psychological manipulation” – the religious indoctrination of children and the burqua being incontrovertible prima facie evidence – would do the trick.
If telling children they are going to burn in unimaginable pain forever and ever if they do not believe what you tell them isn’t oppressive psychological manipulation, what is?
+ 1
Shuggy,
Touche. There is nothing to add to that.
How does one hijack an organization when steering it in exactly the same course that it already had?
If anyone prosecuted under the law so chose they could take it to the ECHR in Strasbourg. I doubt if any conviction would be upheld by that body.
But the very existence of the law is certainly an affront to reason and free speech.
It says blasphemy to any religion. ‘Jesus is the Son of God’ is blasphemous to Muslims. ‘Jesus is not the son of God’ is blasphemous to Christians. Have fun Irish Courts.
+1
(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
I believe that 4b means that this doesn’t apply to any of the 3 main monotheistic religions, as it could be argued easily in court that the threat of Hell, (or being excluded from getting into heaven in the case of Jews) is psychological manipulation that oppresses many people. This is also the way in which Christianity and Islam gain new members – the threat of hell.
As a result, if anyone is charged under this new law, they SHOULD get off ok unless they insult Buddhism, which doesn’t use these techniques
So my question has always been: Isn’t every religion blasphemous to every other religion? And vice versa? Surely the whole blasphemy thing ought to self-destruct at some point.
For the purpose of a defence (3), I wonder what the definition of a “reasonable person” would be.
In the Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce defined impiety as “Your irreverence to my deity.”It works just as well for a definition of blasphemy.
And yet some of my Irish relatives seem to be unable to utter a single sentence without including at least three blasphemies. Especially after the sixth pint of Guinness.
Dara O’Briain was talking about this on one of his stand ups, I wasn’t wholey sure it was a real thing. Turns out it was. Rediculous!
I’m going to invent a religion that holds that spelling “ridiculous” wrong on the internet is outrage-inducing blasphemy.
In my religion it’s blasphemous to spell “incorrectly” incorrectly, and as a consequence its also blasphemous to spell “incorrectly” correctly.
The ultimate insult to a religion is to say its God is not true and yet that is what Christianity claims concerning all other religions. Tell that to a radical Muslim and he might kill you. Wars have been fought over lesser insults. So why does Ireland permit Christian churches to preach that all non Christian Gods are false? It is pure stupidity and religious bias!
The Indiana legislature and Governor just passed and signed a bill that will permit the teaching of creation stories of all religions in the science classroom along with evolution. Originally the bill included only the Christian creation story but to insure its passage, all creation stories of all religions, including Scientology, were added. The Indiana Governor and legislators don’t realize that evolution is not a religion and has no creation story.
Well that should keep them busy! The Scientology creation story will have them all rolling in the aisles.
Does anybody, by any chance, actually know their cosmology? I mean, I know all about Xenu, etc.., but that’s not a “creation” story in the same sense, since Xenu was already a space emperor when the story takes place. Does they bother going further back than that?
I actually suspect they might be perfectly in line with modern theories on the origin of the universe and the solar system. Maybe evolution too, but I’m not actually sure. It’s crazy stuff, to be certain, but it’s mostly tangential to most scientific fields (other than, of course, psychiatry/psychology/neuroscience).
The Iron Chariots Wiki entry on scientiology says the beginning stuff is set 75 million years ago with the spaceships arriving at Earth. (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Scientology)
It is at odds with geology, since part of the story involves nukes being detonated in present-day volcanoes, none of which are nearly that old.
Brilliant. A law that incentivizes for outrage.
Not a good way to promote civil society.
Jesus Fucking Christ! I can almost hear blasphemers hanging from the Strappado.
All right, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even… and I want to make this absolutely clear… even if they do say, “Jehovah”.
Ok, who threw that rock!
Or, as Jesus said when a rock sailed out of the crowd towards the prostitute just after he had said “let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone”, “Mother! How could you?” ….
My Gawd!
An open door with welcome mat for jihadists.
Well, it sounds to me as if every Italian restaurant in the country is going to have the Thought Police shutting it down shortly. Smashing the windows too, I’d bet, so that all night long you can hear the sound of breaking crystal.
Why? They serve spaghetti! And even sometimes, meat balls! That is derogatory to the FSM, may his Noodly Appendage touch you.
How can you be irreverent to a religion whose central premise is irreverence to all gods?
Except, I suppose, by suggesting that some things, or ideas at least – the principles of democracy for example, justify some degree of reverence ….
Italian restaurants may be a bit irreverent but at least the don’t stoop to insulting the Holy Marzipan Man!
Love your gravatar image! 🙂
Though it might lead to WEIT being banned in Ireland ….
What would happen if someone starts their own religion whose tradition is to criticize other religions?.
I thought they already had… ?
/@
They have.
It is called, “Evolutionism.”
Not the same type of “religion” as it only espouses some principles and does not demand any type of homage or reverence for its god, at least that supposedly due to the creator of the Universe. But if you wish to try to ridicule or criticize them – lots of luck though as I don’t think you have a leg to stand on – then I’m sure the devotees of that “religion” are more than willing to grant you the right to do so. Though – sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander – it means you have to accept that they have the same right to criticize and ridicule your god ….
Really, Wayne?
I have friends who meet on Sunday.
They ask for contributions.
They indoctrinate children.
And they petition legislatures to ban speaking to children about ‘god.
They go around and speak (preach) to any who will let them.
They ridicule all others.
Sounds like the manner in which several describe the RCC.
Personally, I think the RCC does better than most human organizations.
AND, they are very much ‘atheists.’
There are degrees of atheism?
“Personally, I think the RCC does better than most human organizations.”
Someone’s swimming in a river that flows through Egypt…
+1
Btw, is Wayne saying that the RCC is an inhuman organisation?
/@
And these are FRIENDS of yours? Atheists panhandling for contributions on Sunday? I think you’re making this up.
“I have friends who meet on Sunday.”
Are they required to meet on Sunday? Do they employ a full-time orator to give speeches every Sunday morning? BTW, why do you speak so poorly of your friends?
“They ask for contributions.”
Are they required to contribute money? Maybe, ten percent of their earnings?
“They indoctrinate children.”
When one presents data, evidence, and facts it is not indoctrination, but education. Perhaps, you could, in the future, attempt to appreciate that distinction.
“And they petition legislatures to ban speaking to children about ‘god.”
Do you know why, Wayne? Because your religion wants to tell everyone on the planet how to have sex and with whom, how to speak, what to read, and how to live.
“They go around and speak (preach) to any who will let them.”
Are they required to spread the 2000 year old teachings of a primitive, transient, apocalyptic Jew to all the nations of the world?
“They ridicule all others.”
Perhaps, you need a mirror, Wayne? Were you not attempting to ridicule Jerry with your first post on this site?
“Sounds like the manner in which several describe the RCC.”
Wayne, you should not compare Rappahannock Community College to atheism. On a serious note, people describe the RCC as “petitioning legislatures to ban speaking to children about ‘god.”
“Personally, I think the RCC does better than most human organizations.”
Wayne, we wouldn’t expect you to think–at least, that is what some might call it–any differently.
Why aren’t you at mass like a good little boy instead of hanging around with these friends of yours?
What a bloody ridiculous and ludicrous law – no wonder that there’s quite some justification for Dickens’ assertion that “the law is an ass”.
For one thing, how are those benighted lawmakers going to prove intent? Or, for that matter, prove that the outrage isn’t feigned? Another totally ridiculous and bogus conflation of subjective feelings and objective physical damage. And, to boot, that the criticism of religion – which is developing its own science – isn’t a totally valid, reasonable and significant social benefit?
Hardly adds much luster to the reputation of lawmakers and lawyers ….
C’mon, folks… This is too easy. The “and” clause of the definition is completely unenforceable. The accused need merely say, “My intent was to speak openly about religion. I have no intent of causing outrage.”
That said, anti blasphemy laws are antithetical to free society, and no matter how lame or unenforceable this one is, it should be ripped from the law as soon as possible.
… it should be ripped from the law as soon as possible.
And stomped all over with hobnail boots. With prejudice ….
Georgia fan?
Far out; learn something new every day:
Larry Munson died this week. He grew up in Minneapolis in the 1920s and found fame in Dixie, as the voice of the Georgia Bulldogs football team. …
Munson still was talking about stomping opponents with hobnail boots in this century, and his audience didn’t care how dated such a reference might be. The Bulldog fans loved Munson, and they grieved when he had to leave the broadcasts due to health reasons in 2008.
But no, I’m not. Seems it’s quite an old colloquialism and I see that he grew up in a Northern state so it might have been common in a wide area. Would be interesting though to know where it came from and its history …..
Reblogged this on luvsiesous and commented:
Now this is interesting. Finally, an atheist who spends time attacking Religion, is posting about The Irish Blasphemy Law. Since he wrote “Religion poisons everything,” I wonder if he considers himself builty of blasphemy?
Seems you aren’t aware that the owner of this website – Jerry Coyne – isn’t the one – Christopher Hitchens – who wrote that aphorism about religion.
But why should you think that he should feel guilty if “his attacks on faith have consequences”? That is the reason for criticizing anything, because one thinks that there’s a problem that needs to be corrected. And from where I’m sitting it looks to me like believing something to be true for which there is no tangible evidence, and a great amount of evidence showing that beliefs in such figments of the imagination is decidedly problematic, would definitely qualify.
Wayne, really?
Wayne, if you think that 18 years old girl should be prosecuted for a prank of changing a church banner from “Persist in faith, live like Mary.” into “Persist animal, devour like Mary.” (which happend in Poland), then you are a deplorable nasty bastard. And she was sentenced to 1 year in probation and a fine. Just for changing one letter and adding another one.
Hmm… an 18yo “girl” is a woman!
Was she prosecuted for blasphemy or criminal damage? If the latter (well, anyway), are you advocating vandalism?
/@
OK, she was an adult woman, but anyway her exact age and whether she was a woman or not is irrelevant here.
She was sentenced under the blasphemy law (more precisely: offence of religious feelings). Apart from that, she was fined for vandalism, and I agree this was apropriate.
I’m not advocating vandalism which I deplore as much as you do. I’m not even advocating telling derogatory things about gods or the Bible. I am just against prosecuting citizens for doing the latter.
Actually her age is very relevant as it is an indicator of responsibility and accountability — very different for an 8yo child (regardless of gender), a 13yo teenager and an 18yo adult. (If she had been a man, would you have said, “an 18yo boy”? What you did say might be regarded as casual misogyny.)
But I agree that the blasphemy charge is fatuous.
/@
As a parent, oh, yeah, I’d have often have said “18-year-old boy.” Even now I’m sometimes tempted to say “26-year-old boy…”
Lame levity aside, the idea that any particular chronological milestone marks a real and absolute distinction between immature irresponsibility and its opposite is hardly scientific. The law has to draw a line. People vary all around it.
But pedantic points aside, one would hope that most 18 year olds would abjure vandalism.
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
This law coincided with attempts by various Ministers to obtain funding from several wealthy Middle Eastern countries.
Given the position of the State finances, as much as I disapprove of this blasphemy law, I can’t support rescinding it if it would put those finances in any more jeopardy than they are already in.
This just takes the biscuit. This is the most inane, stupid and idiotic reason I have ever heard for supporting repression I have ever heard. Just because the Irish government is too cowardly to take on the international banks is no excuse for this sort of blatant oppression.
I guess OMF thinks moral and intellectual bankruptcy are preferable to financial bankruptcy.
This is somewhat off topic, but the readers here would probably be interested in checking out Saturday’s Zippy the Pinhead comic strip.
They might as well have omitted most of clause 4 and just written “Scientology”. It could hardly be more obvious who that clause is aimed at. Which, given Scientology’s litigious track record, I suppose shows that the drafters of the law weren’t entirely clueless. (Just mostly so).
That seemed to me like a clear reference to Scientology.
Umm yes, that was what I meant. Sorry if I managed to obscure my meaning.
I thought the UK had got rid of blasphemy laws because of EU treaty obligations. Is Eire exempt?
Ireland is not part of the UK.
No but it’s part of the EU.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
IIRC the new blasphemy law was actually an attempt to comply with EU directives. Previously Irish law had privileged Catholicism.
(subscribing)
Welcome to Irelandistan.
I really love how this guarantees that only the most uptight and and hostile believers will get protected, whereas liberal and calm people who don’t get upset get no protection at all.