Blasphemy now illegal in Ireland

[Black Eye Guy]

I don't think this law is about protecting people from being mean about religion.

But the law it's self doesn't make sense. Sawing Jesus is the son of God is blasphemy to other religions, Saying Allah is the only god will be blasphemy to other religions. But they will said by their respective parties, as it is part of their beliefs, so the law is stupid.

What I don't like, is that blasphemy is a religions thing (all religions not any one in particular) but it's now incorporated into law, where it has no business being.

It's now illegal to be blasphemous, and some of you are saying that it just means people will have more respect and will be more respectful, as they can't say bad things about religion. This law is primary aimed at people that will say bad things about religion (Which they should be allowed to do) But yet religion will still get to gush on about their beliefs and atheists will have to hear about it, which is the exact same thing as people slagging religion, your slagging a belief, if you talk about a religious principal, your basically telling atheists they are wrong

 

[InsaneMystic]

^ You really overlook the "grossly insulting or abusive" part. I'm sure that anyone trying to go to court over the sentence "Allah is the only God" as blasphemy has a snowball chance in hell to even make it to the courtroom, just as does the one trying to complain about "God doesn't exist".

This law is primary aimed at people that will say bad things about religion (Which they should be allowed to do)

I don't agree. If "which they should be allowed to do" means to include "in whatever way they choose", no, they should not be allowed to do so. See my above post as to what is already (and rightfully so) illegal to do with your "freedom of speech".

If "freedom of speech" is misunderstood as "freedom to insult who you want", I applaud every government that does away with it. And wow, look, they all already did! 😉

But yet religion will still get to gush on about their beliefs and atheists will have to hear about it, which is the exact same thing as people slagging religion, your slagging a belief, if you talk about a religious principal, your basically telling atheists they are wrong

Oh please. If you follow that route to it's logical endpoint, noone should ever have the right to say anything, because someone will always disagree (= feeling told to be wrong). And that's called "Freedom of Speech" then? Rrrright. 😀

Whenever some adherent of organized religion tells an atheist they're stupid or evil and will burn in hell or whatever, then by all means, I encourage the atheist who feels (rightly!) offended to go to court over it, especially if he/she does so under this exact law. Atheism must be granted the exact same respect as every other religious conviction.

But "exact same" means "no less, and no more either". If just stating that you disagree with atheism is offensive, then in all fairness, someone will have to make Dawkins shut up too and remove all copies of "The God Delusion" and other atheist writings out of circulation. Seriously, making atheism protected against being offended, while denying other faiths the same right, is totally hypocritical and, in the current zeitgeist of atheism as the rising star of Western faith, a much greater risk to civil rights than I can see in this law in question. I don't get why "freedom of speech" should be a higher value than "freedom of religion", when both are important basic human rights.

And just to make it clear: I have no problem with atheism on the rise, but if atheism ever gets to proclaim itself the "One True Faith" stating what may and may not be said, I'm all for opposing it by all means necessary, in the name of freedom and human rights. A "State of the Brights" would be no more democratic than a Shariah Islamic nation (or, for that matter, any other church state, be it Christian, Judaic, Hindu or what-have-you), so any democrat worth his salt has to be ready to stop it in its tracks.

 

[Flannen]

But yet religion will still get to gush on about their beliefs and atheists will have to hear about it, which is the exact same thing as people slagging religion, your slagging a belief, if you talk about a religious principal, your basically telling atheists they are wrong

In all fairness, when you think about the number of people in the world who follow any religion out there, it's actually a small minority who 'gush' about it. Yes, there are a lot of religious people who stand in the street and go knocking at doors but there are so many more of us who would never even think of doing such a thing.

I had this argument with someone at uni recently who said something similar and considering it was in a literature class reading a book where yes, it did in fact happen A LOT (being it was in like the 18th century and it was all the rage,, it's true but in this day and age I find myself being called out and challenged by 'gushing' Atheists when I would never in a million years think of doing it myself.

And InsaneMystic, I totally agree with you about the fact it is 'grossly insulting or abusive' which to me doesn't say anything about disagreeing but being mentally and physically hurtful to someone who has religious beliefs be it Christian, Atheist or Buddhism. And again, totally with you on the freedom of speech thing. Freedom of speech is a good thing but abusing it and using it to make excuses for saying or doing things which, lets face it are completely unnecessary, is not.

I think it's quite strange I haven't seen more about this on the news to be honest, unless I've just missed it, which is entirely possible!

 

[Black Eye Guy]

^ You really overlook the "grossly insulting or abusive" part. I'm sure that anyone trying to go to court over the sentence "Allah is the only God" as blasphemy has a snowball chance in hell to even make it to the courtroom, just as does the one trying to complain about "God doesn't exist".

I don't agree. If "which they should be allowed to do" means to include "in whatever way they choose", no, they should not be allowed to do so. See my above post as to what is already (and rightfully so) illegal to do with your "freedom of speech".

If "freedom of speech" is misunderstood as "freedom to insult who you want", I applaud every government that does away with it. And wow, look, they all already did! 😉

Thats why this law is stupid, becasue there is already Freedom of speech, this law stops people from expressing opinions on an idea. No one is saying people dont want the law in place because they want to call people that believe a religion an ass. But this law isn't aimed at people and insulting people, it's aimed at protecting Religion, and stopping people from saying things that are considered blasphemous.
Which include:

Certainly those who deny his very existence blaspheme him! “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)

To observe the great creation of which we are a part (Psalm 19:1), and then to attribute that to chance, fate, accident, or evolution is a vile form of blasphemy against its author!

“For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles, because of you, even as it is written” (romans 2:24).

The grossly insulting or abusive part is all well and good, but in religion all blasphemy is grossly insulting, there is no way to see the difference being blasphemy that is ok and blasphemy that is grossly offensive.

I would assume Evolution is insulting to people who believe world was created by God, yet it will be a subject in Biology class.

Sorry but the law is a joke.

Oh please. If you follow that route to it's logical endpoint, noone should ever have the right to say anything, because someone will always disagree (= feeling told to be wrong). And that's called "Freedom of Speech" then? Rrrright. 😀

Whenever some adherent of organized religion tells an atheist they're stupid or evil and will burn in hell or whatever, then by all means, I encourage the atheist who feels (rightly!) offended to go to court over it, especially if he/she does so under this exact law. Atheism must be granted the exact same respect as every other religious conviction.

But "exact same" means "no less, and no more either". If just stating that you disagree with atheism is offensive, then in all fairness, someone will have to make Dawkins shut up too and remove all copies of "The God Delusion" and other atheist writings out of circulation. Seriously, making atheism protected against being offended, while denying other faiths the same right, is totally hypocritical and, in the current zeitgeist of atheism as the rising star of Western faith, a much greater risk to civil rights than I can see in this law in question. I don't get why "freedom of speech" should be a higher value than "freedom of religion", when both are important basic human rights.

And just to make it clear: I have no problem with atheism on the rise, but if atheism ever gets to proclaim itself the "One True Faith" stating what may and may not be said, I'm all for opposing it by all means necessary, in the name of freedom and human rights. A "State of the Brights" would be no more democratic than a Shariah Islamic nation (or, for that matter, any other church state, be it Christian, Judaic, Hindu or what-have-you), so any democrat worth his salt has to be ready to stop it in its tracks.

Is atheists a religion? I didn't think so, so it wouldn't be protected against stuff said about it.

And thats what Im saying there are to many things that people disagree with and find insulting, but why should religion get a nice shiny law to protect it, what makes it special enough?

I just don't understand how blasphemy gets to be an actual law, when it is just a religious one. It should be able to protect itself enough with the other laws in place.

If I wanted to walk around tomorrow with a sign saying I AM GOD, again I would assume thats grossly insulting, but it's not aimed at a person, it's not an accepted fact that there is a god, but it's now law that I couldn't do that in order to protect religion. - absolute Joke.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

In all fairness, when you think about the number of people in the world who follow any religion out there, it's actually a small minority who 'gush' about it. Yes, there are a lot of religious people who stand in the street and go knocking at doors but there are so many more of us who would never even think of doing such a thing.

I had this argument with someone at uni recently who said something similar and considering it was in a literature class reading a book where yes, it did in fact happen A LOT (being it was in like the 18th century and it was all the rage,, it's true but in this day and age I find myself being called out and challenged by 'gushing' Atheists when I would never in a million years think of doing it myself.

I totally agree, 99.9% religious people are no different then 99.9% of atheists, in that they don't go around gushing and shoving their religion in your face. But it's that 0.01% that now makes the biggest difference, because a religious person can get it into a debate and say whatever they like. While an athesiest would have to go into the same debate making sure that everything they say would be ok under the new law.


Just read this in an article too, lol:

The organisation also quotes an exchange between Mr Ahern and Labour Party TD Pat Rabbitte when the Minister discussed the blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting in 2009.

"Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure."

Atheist Ireland said this was a case of "an Irish justice minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary justice committee discussing his own blasphemy law, [which] could make his own jokes illegal".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0103/breaking3.htm

That just sums up how I don't get how this is a law, it's a religious matter should have nothing to do with the Law.

 

[JCC]

I don't agree with it, but this law has a very slim chance of ever being used. Simply being an atheist will not warrant any legal action, neither will virtually any offensive comment to religion you or I can conjure up. I'm assuming that this law is most likely there to guard against repetitions of the Danish cartoon scandal, for instance.

 

[Washburne]

If I wanted to walk around tomorrow with a sign saying I AM GOD, again I would assume thats grossly insulting

I guess I'm very tolerant then because I don't see that as insulting none the less grossly insulting. But yes I'm only one person and others might feel different. That's why I'm still curious about the a substantial number of the adherents of that religion part of it all and what it really means.

And it seems like people are more pissed off about religion getting special treatment than thinking that the thinking behind it is stupid. Religion is a touchy subject.

 

[Kean]

I don't agree with it, but this law has a very slim chance of ever being used. Simply being an atheist will not warrant any legal action, neither will virtually any offensive comment to religion you or I can conjure up. I'm assuming that this law is most likely there to guard against repetitions of the Danish cartoon scandal, for instance.

It was brought in because the original law was specifically meant for blasphemy of a Christian God. However, since immigration has soared in Ireland and we have a much more diverse society it was decided that the law needed to encompass all religions.

 

[Flannen]

I totally agree, 99.9% religious people are no different then 99.9% of atheists, in that they don't go around gushing and shoving their religion in your face. But it's that 0.01% that now makes the biggest difference, because a religious person can get it into a debate and say whatever they like. While an athesiest would have to go into the same debate making sure that everything they say would be ok under the new law.

I actually came back on to clarify something because when I was thinking back over what I'd said, I realised it sounded really hypocritical and that's not what I meant, lol. I realised I'd basically said not all the religious people are like that and then looked like I was saying but all Atheists are, which is not what I meant. What I should have made more clear was the 'it works both ways thing' lol. I had to come back on and say that cos it was bugging me 😛

I guess the Atheists having to be more careful thing is down to whether you think Atheist is or should be classed as a religion. Whereas I do and would so I wouldn't go in being able to say what I like because I'd still consider myself as breaking that law.

I also think that the fact the word blasphemy has been used has blurred it, because of what that word means.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Thats why this law is stupid, becasue there is already Freedom of speech, this law stops people from expressing opinions on an idea. [...] The grossly insulting or abusive part is all well and good, but in religion all blasphemy is grossly insulting, there is no way to see the difference being blasphemy that is ok and blasphemy that is grossly offensive.

That's why a judge, working for the state, and not a priest/mullah/rabbi/whatever should get to preside over a legal charge of blasphemy. (And I'm sure the Irish don't intend to "outsource" that way, so it should be safe enough. 😉 ) It will be a representative of a secular judicial system to decide what is grossly insulting or abusive, so yes, there will be "big" vs. "small" blasphemies, just like there are in lawsuits about libel and insult charges already.

I would assume Evolution is insulting to people who believe world was created by God, yet it will be a subject in Biology class. [...] If I wanted to walk around tomorrow with a sign saying I AM GOD, again I would assume thats grossly insulting, but it's not aimed at a person, it's not an accepted fact that there is a god, but it's now law that I couldn't do that in order to protect religion.

I see neither example in any way as insulting, let alone grossly. If you take teaching evolution, it only starts reaching any kind of "insulting" level at all when people start saying you're an idiot to believe otherwise as no sane person could ever think anything else. If teachers tell their students that, then yes indeed, have them removed from their job (but not for being blasphemers... just for being unfit for their job due to trying to indoctrinate children).

And as for your sign, I'm pretty sure you'll be safe walking through town with it unless you plan to go for a "Worship me or else!" attitude along with it. 😀

Is atheists a religion? I didn't think so, so it wouldn't be protected against stuff said about it.

Just like Flannen, I firmly hold that atheism is a religion - a matter of faith about a spiritual subject, unproven and unprovable, adhering to which will strongly influence your worldview on many levels. So I'll be the first one to say Atheism must get the same respect under the law as any other denomination.

The fact that many atheists would stubbornly refuse to admit that atheism is a faith and thus not go to seek protection for it is another story. But well, that false pride is their problem, and the law cannot and should not be bothered to protect them if they choose to decline their rights. The moment an atheist goes to court over abuse and insult of atheism, citing this law as their basis, and then gets sent away - that will be the moment I start criticizing this law, or rather, the way it is implemented.

And thats what Im saying there are to many things that people disagree with and find insulting, but why should religion get a nice shiny law to protect it, what makes it special enough?

See above. Your religious convictions shape your whole worldview and personality on a fundamental level.

What made matters like skin colour or sexual orientation special enough to warrant "nice shiny laws" not too long ago for their protection, if religion doesn't? What, in your opinion, makes anti-black jokes and use of the "N word" not just examples of "free speech"? What makes insulting someone's race a bad thing if insulting his religion isn't?

Once again: Unlimited freedom of speech - i.e. without protection of the rights of the person or group spoken about - is a BAD thing. I'm against it, I don't see how anyone could seriously be in favor of it, and thankfully, no state I know ever was foolish enough to have offered it to its citizens.

 

[Flannen]

I would assume Evolution is insulting to people who believe world was created by God, yet it will be a subject in Biology class.

To some maybe, but not to all. Not by any means. It's kind of one of those things that I get thrown at me in an argument and generally those challenging me about are shocked to hear that although I'm a Christian and believe that the world didn't just happen, I also think the theory of evolution is pretty darn solid. And I know for a fact, I'm not the only one out there, lol.

Christianity is not the same religion that it used to be. I can't speak for any other religions, but for me personally, it's not black and white any more. For some denominations, I guess it would be but that's not what this thread is about.

As for walking around labelled God? Didn't offend me when Oz did it 😉

 

[Black Eye Guy]

it only starts reaching any kind of "insulting" level at all when people start saying you're an idiot to believe otherwise as no sane person could ever think anything else. If teachers tell their students that, then yes indeed, have them removed from their job (but not for being blasphemers... just for being unfit for their job due to trying to indoctrinate children).

I 100% agree, but thats not with this law protects. If I called someone an Idiot for their religions beliefs that not blasphemy, blasphemy is insulting the religion itself, saying there is no god, saying you are god, saying one religion is the one true religion, and thats where this law makes no sense.
It would make sense if it was aimed at protecting people, but it's not it aimed at protecting religion, would should be open to public scrutiny.

As Kean said before there has been a big issue with Priests and little children in the last month since a published report of the matter highlighted years of the church covering it.
On a completly hypotetical what if someone came forth and the church went after them under the new law, sawing they were being blasphemous, all it takes is a good lawyer and you don't know what could happen.
Religion should not be part of law.

And as for your sign, I'm pretty sure you'll be safe walking through town with it unless you plan to go for a "Worship me or else!" attitude along with it. 😀

Just like Flannen, I firmly hold that atheism is a religion - a matter of faith about a spiritual subject, unproven and unprovable, adhering to which will strongly influence your worldview on many levels. So I'll be the first one to say Atheism must get the same respect under the law as any other denomination.

The fact that many atheists would stubbornly refuse to admit that atheism is a faith and thus not go to seek protection for it is another story. But well, that false pride is their problem, and the law cannot and should not be bothered to protect them if they choose to decline their rights. The moment an atheist goes to court over abuse and insult of atheism, citing this law as their basis, and then gets sent away - that will be the moment I start criticizing this law, or rather, the way it is implemented.

I'd said before I wasn't sure if atheism was a religion so I did a bit of googeling and would like to change my stance on that.

Athesim is not a religion, it is a rejection of religion - It's not a religious belief. The best example I read was "If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport"

Thats fine that you don't consider them grossly offensive, but that doesn't mean others wont. Its a well known fact there is a problem with schools teaching Evolution and church groups being against it. I've also had personal experience with that topic being grossly offensive to someone, where one of the mothers of one of the guys in my year wouldn't let them do Biology for the last 2 years of Secondary School (High School) because it thought evolution. I did biology and the Teacher I got was heavily religious and our Evolution lesson consisted of a double class where we watched a video from 10 years ago, and thats all that was supposed to prepare us for the exam, that wasn't the schools system as other classes got proper lessons just my teachers.

As for the sign, again I think allot of people would take that as offensive, because even if I didn't have "Now worship me" written below it, by proclaiming "I am God" it says it in that. I am saying I am the Christan God, so if you worship him you are to worship me

What made matters like skin colour or sexual orientation special enough to warrant "nice shiny laws" not too long ago for their protection, if religion doesn't? What, in your opinion, makes anti-black jokes and use of the "N word" not just examples of "free speech"? What makes insulting someone's race a bad thing if insulting his religion isn't?

Once again: Unlimited freedom of speech - i.e. without protection of the rights of the person or group spoken about - is a BAD thing. I'm against it, I don't see how anyone could seriously be in favor of it, and thankfully, no state I know ever was foolish enough to have offered it to its citizens.

To be honest what separates them is that they are real - and I don't mean to offend, but the fact there there are White people and Black people is 100% correct everyone knows it.
Same with murder, almost everyone knows it's wrong, (there are of course the few who don't, but they end up in prison)
Religion isn't 100% factually real, there are allot of different religions, and there are people that have no religion.
This law enforces something that is taken from something not everyone believes in, and varies from religion to religion and applies it to every single person living in the country, (or anyone that visits on a holiday)

To some maybe, but not to all. Not by any means. It's kind of one of those things that I get thrown at me in an argument and generally those challenging me about are shocked to hear that although I'm a Christian and believe that the world didn't just happen, I also think the theory of evolution is pretty darn solid. And I know for a fact, I'm not the only one out there, lol.

Christianity is not the same religion that it used to be. I can't speak for any other religions, but for me personally, it's not black and white any more. For some denominations, I guess it would be but that's not what this thread is about.

As for walking around labelled God? Didn't offend me when Oz did it 😉

Totally agree that probably a majority of christians believe in evolution (although I don't know that for sure, so I could be totally wrong) but if I were to say it to the wrong one, with this new law, they could take me to court. It would probably be thrown out, but because of this law it could actually get to court.

 

[Rack]

Ok no disrespect intended but everyone seems to have it all wrong. I've heard a lot of discussion on this law on the BBC, NPR, and Foreign Policy (.org) This law was not intended to protect Christianity, as one might think. It was specifically tailored to prevent something like what has happened as a result of the now-infamous cartoons of the prophet Mohammed by the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (who has just had his house attacked by a terrorist linked to al-Qaeda: Danish police shoot 'terrorist' trying to enter Mohammed cartoonist's home - Telegraph)

The basic thinking in the Irish legislature was, "We need to make sure that Ireland doesn't become the victim of a terrorist attack from the Islamic world because of something one person does in the press/art/film/media." In doing this they completely trampled on the notion of free speech. I have lived in Muslim countries and among my circle of friends there are Muslims, Catholics, Wiccans, Hindus, Bible-belt evangelicals, secular humanists, and so forth. For full disclosure I was raised in--and recently returned to--the Episcopal church. I believe deeply in the sanctity of religious freedom, and that as faith is a universal principal (insert Buffy joke here to lighten the mood :wink🙂. However this law gives those who would do violence a major victory. By kowtowing to an implicit threat by a radical minority (the vast majority of Muslims find violent Islamic fundamentalism repulsive), the Irish Parliament has given them credence, legitimacy, and power to affect the freedom of speech in a sovereign nation.

Part of what makes freedom of speech so valuable is that it protects all speech, no matter how repugnant we, or others, find it. I consider it an inalienable human right. You can say awful things about me, my God, my trombone playing (and you'd be right), my country, or Buffy. You may even think Bangel was a good idea :wink:. I might not agree with you but I strongly believe you have a right to say those things. This law is awful for anyone who lives in Ireland and believes in free speech, and is a victory for threats of violence and fascism everywhere.

 

[InsaneMystic]

I'd said before I wasn't sure if atheism was a religion so I did a bit of googeling and would like to change my stance on that.

Athesim is not a religion, it is a rejection of religion - It's not a religious belief. The best example I read was "If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport"

Without wanting to digress too far, but that's simply false advertising. An atheist doesn't know anything about the existence of God, he believes in the unproven and unprovable statement "God does not exist". There's as much scientific truth in atheism as in any religion (i.e., nothing, zero, zip, zilch) no matter how many smokescreens "scientific atheists" like to throw around to proselytize.

While one can argue about the semantics of "faith" vs. "religion", you can't argue that atheism is a faith. (Anyone who does argue that is either a fool or dishonest, and definitely an ideologist - which, sadly, is true of a lot of atheists, just as it's true of a lot of adherents of any faith.)

"Atheism is not a faith" is just as valid a statement as "Christianity is not a faith, it's The Truth as reveiled by God Himself". :tongue2:

Seriously, if you want "no religion", you'll have to stay clear of atheism and embrace cold, hard-core agnosticism. 😉

To be honest what separates them is that they are real - and I don't mean to offend, but the fact there there are White people and Black people is 100% correct everyone knows it.
Same with murder, almost everyone knows it's wrong, (there are of course the few who don't, but they end up in prison)
Religion isn't 100% factually real, there are allot of different religions, and there are people that have no religion.

There's no less reality to Christian people, Muslim people, Jewish people etc. pp. than to Black or White people. So even if I don't take the bait (this time) as to what is "100% correct and everyone knows it", race clearly doesn't have any more social reality to it than than religion. If you can legally insult one, you should be legally allowed to insult the other at leisure; there's no sensible reason either one should have a benefit of better legal protection over the other.

This law enforces something that is taken from something not everyone believes in, and varies from religion to religion and applies it to every single person living in the country, (or anyone that visits on a holiday)

Of course it is applied to every person living in the country, that is the point. The way it's written, it enforces equal rights for all of those religions and protects them equally. I really don't get your reasoning here how that could ever be considered a bad thing.

 

[Rack]

So I responded earlier with serious and analytical discourse....let me just throw a couple of things out there:

--Joss is a professed atheist. Yet in what show have you seen more crosses? (We could do 100 posts on the symbolism and significance of crosses in BTVS). Everyone believes in something.

--"Why when I talk about belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?" Shepherd Book, Serenity

 

[Jill_Valentine]

I can't believe people are acting like this okay. Stupid country has done lots of stupid things, but this is probably the stupidest in memory.

It's absurd to say "Well it probably won't be prosecuted, so it's fine." It's shitty lawmaking, and it has real consequences. It's not as though our media aren't hobbled enough already. Back on 1st of January, for instance, I could find more information on this in the Guardian, on CNN, or in The Times than I could in any of the actual Irish press. I've seen my own letters appear edited to hell in their pages to excise any potentially blasphemous implications "just in case". It doesn't matter if the government actively pursues a prosecution when for all intents and purposes the media will do the job for them.

Nor can it be reasonably argued that "the law isn't meant to be used" in the first place. It's all well and good to say that, until it is used. Bear in mind, Ahern wanted this to have a prison sentence - he was only argued down to a 25k fine, which is plenty enough to ruin somebody. The precedent it sets within Ireland is irreversible, and it has terrible implications for inter-EU extraditions. In the case of an extradition, the definition of blasphemy won't be up to Ireland - all that matters is that the offence itself is common in both juridictions. Again, it doesn't matter if our Government doesn't actively seek prosecutions themselves.

It's absurd for a first world country in the 21st century to implement a censorship law. It's a disgusting, cynical assault on something we're supposed to be able to take for granted, and in the wake of the Murphy Report I'd go so far as to say it's grossly insensitive. Banana republic where somebody's magical imaginary friend is considered more deserving of respect by the law than Michael O'Brien.

 

[MergedLoki]

As an atheist that law discriminates against me... so what am I gonna do? Not a helluva lot as i'm not a whiner 'my personal rights aren't respected waaaaaaaah' etc.

I don't mean to offend ANYONE'S religion. I'm a pretty accepting guy but im really tired of this bullshit about 'respecting' other religions... only cuz why should I?

The vast majority of people who BELONG to a religion respects MY choice of NOT belonging to one. (I mean yes ok people do but all you cool people who follow a paticular religion and have no issue with people who dont follow your religion are fine by me) (or should i say 5 x 5 here? 😛 lol).

But seems like there's always tons of people who when they find out your not (insert religion of choice here) they are shocked 'how can you NOT beleive in (insert name of their god(s) here)' OR they attemp to convert you.

At best your 'tolerated' which doesn't mean you're accepted. you're "tolerated' which means 'well... I won't insult you to your face, and I STILL think your going to hell, but i'll be polite and 'tolerate' you'

ok done my rant. just this law in ireland thing is garbage IMO.

 

[thevikingsgirl]

I'm American and of course we have freedom of speech pounded into our brains from birth, so this kind of law is really crazy to me. I LOVE the starting your own religion thing. LOL! That sounds like something I would've done in HS to piss off my religious friends (except I didn't have any. Religious friends, I mean, not friends in general, ha ha).

 

[Jill_Valentine]

All's not lost, seems like there's to be a referendum on this in Autumn sometime.

 

[crazysoulless]

I find this extremely surprising since England has been very proactive and fearless in its commitment to support the United States in the War Against Terror. Many English officials, including Tony Blair, spoke out against the way that a certain sect of Islam (terrorist groups that twist the Quaran or only adhere to the negative passages) has zealots that take away the basic rights of people or punish them for perceived offenses against their religion. I agree that Hate Speech is wrong and should be held in contempt if it arouses violence towards others but simply being offensive isn't enough. That seems too similiar to the kinds of action that the UK and the US have tried to stop, the kind of people that wanted blood justice against cartoonists for depicting their faith in a blasphemous way or those that burned effigies of the Pope because they didn't like one quote in one of his traveling sermons.