Re: Irish atheists challenge new law
spicpussy
INTOLERANCE!
Thankfully, some Irish atheists are "moonin'" it!
-------------
"Atheists challenge Ireland's new blasphemy law with online postings"
By Karla Adam
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, January 3, 2010; A08
LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an
audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.
Under the law, which went into effect Friday, a person can be found
guilty of blasphemy if "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."
The penalty is a fine of up to 25,000 euros, or more than $35,000.
In a bid to demonstrate that the law is outdated and largely
unenforceable, a group named Atheist Ireland published on its Web site
on Friday 25 potentially blasphemous quotations from figures such as
Jesus Christ, Muhammad, George Carlin, Pope Benedict XVI and Mark
Twain, who opined in 1909: "When the Lord God of Heaven and Earth,
adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. . . . He slays,
slays, slays!"
"Two days ago, there was no question over whether these quotes were
legal. Now there is a question, and that is very bizarre," Michael
Nugent, the group's chairman, said in an interview Saturday.
Blasphemy was already a criminal offense in Ireland under the
country's 1937 constitution. But until now, the language had been too
murky to make prosecutions feasible. In 1999, Ireland's Supreme Court
dismissed the last case to test the law because blasphemy was not
clearly defined.
By clarifying the term and imposing a hefty fine, the government has
angered critics, who say the law undermines the state's increasing
independence from the Catholic Church.
There was "no clamor" for a new blasphemy law, said Eoin O'Dell, a
senior lecturer in law at Trinity College Dublin. "Most of the
commentary in Ireland has been pretty negative," he added.
When Ireland's constitution was drafted, church and state were tightly
entwined, O'Dell said, noting that the preamble begins, "In the Name
of the Most Holy Trinity," in contrast to the U.S. Constitution's "We
the People of the United States."
But despite the charter's "very Christian framework," O'Dell said, the
close relationship between church and state in Ireland has waned in
recent years -- the "special position" of the Catholic Church was
removed from the constitution by referendum in 1972, and the ban on
divorce was repealed in 1995.
Dermot Ahern, Ireland's justice minister, has said that he would have
preferred simply to abolish the previous blasphemy law.
"My personal position is that church and state should be separate," he
said in a speech in May. "But I do not have the luxury of ignoring our
constitution." Faced with choosing between the pricey referendum that
would be required to amend the constitution and reform that would help
judges address the 1999 Supreme Court ruling, he said, "I chose
reform."
Nugent, who estimates that there are a quarter-million atheists in
Ireland, said the new law is "silly" and "literally medieval."
[Adam is a special correspondent.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/02/AR2010010201846.html
Trance Gemini
> As if a country that's in a religious civil war needs more
> INTOLERANCE!
>
> Thankfully, some Irish atheists are "moonin'" it!
>
> -------------
> "Atheists challenge Ireland's new blasphemy law with online postings"
>
> By Karla Adam
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Sunday, January 3, 2010; A08
>
> LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an
> audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.
>
> Under the law, which went into effect Friday, a person can be found
> guilty of blasphemy if "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."
>
> The penalty is a fine of up to 25,000 euros, or more than $35,000.
>
> In a bid to demonstrate that the law is outdated and largely
> unenforceable, a group named Atheist Ireland published on its Web site
> on Friday 25 potentially blasphemous quotations from figures such as
> Jesus Christ, Muhammad, George Carlin, Pope Benedict XVI and Mark
> Twain, who opined in 1909: "When the Lord God of Heaven and Earth,
> adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. . . . He slays,
> slays, slays!"
The list they provided of "blasphemous statements was exceptionally
well done and I'll be following this challenge closely.
As I mentioned on another group where this topic is also being
discussed, in my opinion, we need our own NGO which can take
resolutions to the UN so that we can get appropriate UN Legislation
passed to protect ourselves and the world community from this type of
theocratic incursion into the secular state.
Howard
> The list they provided of "blasphemous statements was exceptionally
> well done and I'll be following this challenge closely.
>
> As I mentioned on another group where this topic is also being
> discussed, in my opinion, we need our own NGO which can take
> resolutions to the UN so that we can get appropriate UN Legislation
> passed to protect ourselves and the world community from this type of
> theocratic incursion into the secular state.
Indeed. Congratulations to my fellow Atheists to challenge this
oppressive religious control of free speech.
Howard
Uncle Vic
> LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an
> audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.
Yet another victimless crime.
>
> Under the law, which went into effect Friday, a person can be found
> guilty of blasphemy if "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."
>
> The penalty is a fine of up to 25,000 euros, or more than $35,000.
[shakes head sadly]
Even if atheism is on the rise more heavily in Northern Europe than nearly
anywhere else, the atheism concentration map is akin to one depicting cell
phone coverage. They get Verizon, and we 'mericans get AT&T.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Enkidu
> One fine day in alt.atheism, spicpussy <clit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an
>> audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.
>
> Yet another victimless crime.
No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined way
when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
Can you imagine a weaker God? Thor never suffered a headache because
somebody somewhere didn't believe in him. Then again, Christ was nailed
to a tree, while Thor carries a hammer, so who is the stonger imaginary
friend?
--
Enkidu
Uncle Vic
Now *that's* a good analogy. Sigworthy!
Alan Ford
> The list they provided of "blasphemous statements was exceptionally
> well done and I'll be following this challenge closely.
>
> As I mentioned on another group where this topic is also being
> discussed, in my opinion, we need our own NGO which can take
> resolutions to the UN so that we can get appropriate UN Legislation
> passed to protect ourselves and the world community from this type of
> theocratic incursion into the secular state.
The UN is a toothless, powerless organization that accomplishes nothing.
Hell, prayers are more effective than the UN.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
216.196.97.131:
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, spicpussy <clit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with
an
>>>> audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.
>>>
>>> Yet another victimless crime.
>>
>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined way
>> when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>>
>> Can you imagine a weaker God? Thor never suffered a headache because
>> somebody somewhere didn't believe in him. Then again, Christ was
nailed
>> to a tree, while Thor carries a hammer, so who is the stonger
imaginary
>> friend?
>>
>
> Now *that's* a good analogy. Sigworthy!
Makes a damn good motivational poster, too:
http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=54076
--
Doc Smartass | BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication | aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Kook Clearinghouse! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Pray for Goppers the way they pray for Obama! Psalm 109!
Lord Calvert
> INTOLERANCE!
>
> Thankfully, some Irish atheists are "moonin'" it!
I'm going to link to the transcript of the last prominent blasphemy
trial in the United States: New Jersey v. Reynolds in 1887. Although
Reynolds lost the case, Robert Green Ingersoll's defending arguments
were so eloquent and so well reasoned that blasphemy charges no longer
became prosecutable in this country. Even Christian preachers,
historically the greatest enemies of freedom, were impressed with
Ingersoll's reasoning. I hope that Ireland finds someone who can do
for them what Ingersoll did for us here in the States.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/blasph01.htm#ADDRESS
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
"No orthodox church ever had power that it did not endeavor to make
people think its way by force and flame. And yet every church that
ever was established commenced in the minority, and while it was in
the minority advocated free speech -- every one. John Calvin, the
founder of the Presbyterian Church, while he lived in France, wrote a
book on religious toleration in order to show that all men had an
equal right to think; and yet that man afterward, clothed in a little
authority, forgot all his sentiments about religious liberty, and had
poor Serviettes burned at the stake, for differing with him on a
question that neither of them knew anything about. In the minority,
Calvin advocated toleration -- in the majority, he practiced murder."
- Robert Green Ingersoll, defense counsel, New Jersey v. Reynolds
(1887)
Uncle Vic
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> Then again, Christ was nailed
>>> to a tree, while Thor carries a hammer, so who is the stonger
>>> imaginary friend?
>>>
>>
>> Now *that's* a good analogy. Sigworthy!
>
> Makes a damn good motivational poster, too:
>
> http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=54076
How 'bout Thor nailing Christ to the cross?
Enkidu
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian"
> <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
>
>> Then again, Christ was nailed
>>>> to a tree, while Thor carries a hammer, so who is the stonger
>>>> imaginary friend?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now *that's* a good analogy. Sigworthy!
>>
>> Makes a damn good motivational poster, too:
>>
>> http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=54076
>
> How 'bout Thor nailing Christ to the cross?
Any artistic ability to create it? I'm as talented as a newt.
--
Enkidu
JohnN
>
> >> LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an
> >> audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.
>
> > Yet another victimless crime.
>
> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined way
> when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>
> Can you imagine a weaker God? Thor never suffered a headache because
> somebody somewhere didn't believe in him.
Tinker Bell almost died because people didn't believe in her. Can we
get a round of applause for God? Thank you.
JohnN
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Terry Pratchett has riffed on variations of that theme a few times,
particularly in _Small Gods_ and _Hogfather_. Both highly recommended,
along with the rest of his work. I wonder if novelists can be punished
for the works they have written in the past?
Uncle Vic
That sounds like a project for my daughter, who wants to attend a local
(expensive) art college next year.
livvy
about you. Free speech is a thing, it's done, treat it gently, too
bad you don't treat people well, at all. Take a thing as it comes,
everything isn't so global and angst-worthy. Have your causes,
don't make them about everyone. We know you have absolutely nothing
going on in real life...this is all you got. That's fine...some of
us have people, and lives, hurt, pain. The UN? It's a building in
NYC.....get the crap over yourself, get a bleeping life, for God's
sake, find something, anything, to care about. Eh....dodgy, you don't
like people, animals, religion, pretty much nothing other than
you. Why would anyone have any regard for anything you say?
You've got nothing....that's the best you have to offer?
On Jan 3, 11:50 am, Howard....@home.com (Howard) wrote:
Pink Freud
"livvy" <go...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b072cc90-0ee0-4558...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> oh, boo hoo. Sad, pathetic, yet not surprising, 'tis always, only
> about you. Free speech is a thing, it's done, treat it gently, too
> bad you don't treat people well, at all. Take a thing as it comes,
> everything isn't so global and angst-worthy. Have your causes,
> don't make them about everyone. We know you have absolutely nothing
> going on in real life...this is all you got. That's fine...some of
> us have people, and lives, hurt, pain. The UN? It's a building in
> NYC.....get the crap over yourself, get a bleeping life, for God's
> sake, find something, anything, to care about. Eh....dodgy, you don't
> like people, animals, religion, pretty much nothing other than
> you. Why would anyone have any regard for anything you say?
> You've got nothing....that's the best you have to offer?
>
How old are you? 12?
You seem to have zero understanding of any of the issues.
However, I found your post insulting so have decided to fine you 25,000
Euros.
Is that OK with you?
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> oh, b<quietus>
If it says "livvy, livvy, livvy"
On the label, label, label
It's a kookball, kookball, kookball,
That's no fable, fable, fable.
panam...@hotmail.com
> oh, boo hoo. Sad, pathetic, yet not surprising, 'tis always, only
> about you. Free speech is a thing,
"Free speech" also includes someone else's right to call you an idiot
when you say something idiotic.
If you don't learn anything else from your misadventures in
alt.atheism, please learn *that*.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Fergus O'Rourke
news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
[snip]
> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined way
> when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
[snip]
Who claims that ?
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
-353-87-2583485
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Fergus O'Rourke
news:0f602e9e-48f0-4010...@o35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> As if a country that's in a religious civil war needs more
Ireland is not "in a religious civil war" and has never been in living
memory.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
Father Haskell
> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>
> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>
> [snip]> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined way
> > when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>
> [snip]
>
> Who claims that ?
You ever get hungover? That's not really from your
favorite brand of whisky. That's from god punishing you
because someone else doubted he existed.
fasgnadh
> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>
> [snip]
>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined way
>> when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
> [snip]
>
> Who claims that ?
You know how atheists like to make shit up..
so they can feel someone cares enough to persecute them! B^]
They are now in a panic, because they have admitted
the historical reality of Jesus and declared they
support him;
Of 25 quotes the atheists claim are 'blasphemy' the second one
is also from Jesus.. one of the people atheists recognise
and declare they will support:
"2. Jesus Christ, talking to Jews about their God, in John 8:44:
�Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning,
and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.�
Atheists recognise the historical reality of Jesus Christ,
and support his right to say what they have quoted:
"we unreservedly support the right of these people to have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
published or uttered..."
Priceless! B^]
Atheists say the 25 quotes the atheists claim were blasphemy
are from real people, including Jesus, who they support!!! B^D
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
thomas p.
> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>
> [snip]
>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
> [snip]
>
> Who claims that ?
Those who claim that god can be offended. I thought that was obvious.
If he does not suffer, he is not injured.
tg
news:jfi2k5tmq56ciao44...@4ax.com...
> Terry Pratchett has riffed on variations of that theme a few times,
> particularly in _Small Gods_ and _Hogfather_. Both highly recommended,
> along with the rest of his work.
> I wonder if novelists can be punished
> for the works they have written in the past?
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> > news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
> >
> > [snip]
> >> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined way
> >> when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Who claims that ?
>
>
> They are now in a panic, because they have admitted
> the historical reality of Jesus and declared they
> support him;
On the contrary, they declare that the only human Jesus was guilty of
the crimes for which he was executed.
>
http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-q
uotes/
>
> Atheists say the 25 quotes the atheists claim were blasphemy
> are from real people.
Whereas Fasgnadh claims that such real people as George Carlin and Mark
Twain (Samuel Clemens) are really fictional?
Fasgnadh somehow manages in each post to exceed his stupidity in prior
postings.
B J Foster
> In article <54I0n.67034$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> Whereas Fasgnadh claims that such real people as George Carlin and Mark
> Twain (Samuel Clemens) are really fictional?
>
> Fasgnadh somehow manages in each post to exceed his stupidity in prior
> postings.
Is that possible?
F�achad�ir
wrote:
>Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>
>> [snip]
>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
>>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Who claims that ?
>
>Those who claim that god can be offended. I thought that was obvious.
>If he does not suffer, he is not injured.
For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An offence
is commited when someone does something "causing outrage among a
substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion"
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
� F�achad�ir
Caít()
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:04:55 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
I don't suppose it defines "substantial", does it?
Caít() (This dinner was fit for Jehovah! I'm awaiting the stones)
huge
Does that mean you can't speak out against Pasta?
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
Caít()
> > wrote:
>
> >>Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> >>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined way
> >>>> when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>> Who claims that ?
>
> >>Those who claim that god can be offended. I thought that was obvious.
> >>If he does not suffer, he is not injured.
>
> > For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An offence is
> > commited when someone does something "causing outrage among a
> > substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion"
>
> Does that mean you can't speak out against Pasta?
Evidently not in the presence of a significant number of thin skinned
Pastafarians.
Caít()
huge
Damn! What about Frap?
Lord Calvert
Substantial meaning the majority because only the majority religion
has enough members to be offended. Offending the adherents of minority
religions will be actively encouraged. That's the whole point of
blasphemy laws in the first place...to ensure that a majority remains
a majority.
They need to be reminded that every religion on the face of the planet
was once considered blasphemous...including theirs.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
"Whenever a church is in the minority it clamors for free speech. When
it gets in the majority, no. I do not believe the history of the world
will show that any orthodox church when in the majority ever had the
courage to face the free lips of the world. It sends for a constable."
- Robert Green Ingersoll, Closing Arguments for the defense, Reynolds
Blasphemy Trial (1887)
thomas p.
By redefining "blasphemy" they have only made it more ridiculous.
If an attempt is actually made to enforce it, the results will be hilarious.
Orthodox Jews (just to name one possibility) could be outraged by
the figure of Jesus as he is described by most Christian churches.
The Presbyterians, of course, are offended and outraged by the office
of the Papacy. I can't wait to see the show.
thomas p.
Crap?
thomas p.
> "spicpussy" <clit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0f602e9e-48f0-4010...@o35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> As if a country that's in a religious civil war needs
>> more
> [snip]
>
> Ireland is not "in a religious civil war" and has never
> been in living memory.
If one's life has been fairly short.
Sophistry Made Simple
"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
news:rjg7k5ta1n1ng6ep2...@4ax.com...
Only if they also meant to cause that outrage, but yes, it pretty much
leaves it up to the mob to decide.
F�achad�ir
<din...@yourplace.com> wrote:
>
>"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
Actually, probably only if you *didn't* mean to cause outrage. If you
*meant* to offend, then it's difficult too see how you could not avail
of this:
"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."
huge
> huge wrote:
>> CaÃt() :
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 11:03Â pm, huge <h...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>>>> Féachadóir :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:04:55 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined
>>>>>>>> way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>> Who claims that ?
>>>>
>>>>>> Those who claim that god can be offended. Â I thought that was
>>>>>> obvious. If he does not suffer, he is not injured.
>>>>
>>>>> For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An offence
>>>>> is commited when someone does something "causing outrage among a
>>>>> substantial number of the adherents of [a] Â religion"
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean you can't speak out against Pasta?
>>>
>>> Evidently not in the presence of a significant number of thin skinned
>>> Pastafarians.
>>>
>>> CaÃt()
>>
>> Damn! What about Frap?
>
> Crap?
Uh-uh. Frap.
Google is your friend.
fasgnadh
> F�achad�ir wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:04:55 +0100, "thomas p."
>> <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
>>>>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Who claims that ?
>>> Those who claim that god can be offended. I thought
>>> that was obvious. If he does not suffer, he is not
>>> injured.
>>
>> For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended.
>> An offence is commited when someone does something
>> "causing outrage among a substantial number of the
>> adherents of [a] religion"
Thus it becomes part of anti-vilification laws, designed,
like Libel/ Slander and Incitement laws, to prevent malicious
lies and threats to public order.. in this case the sort of
violent hate speech of Militant Atheist thugs:
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
# Message-ID: <p8mrb5lvaf0cj5bp1...@4ax.com>
# Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
#
# We kill theists and shit down their throats
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
Not satisfied with murder, Steve favours GENOCIDE
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam
# Subject: Re: Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
# Message-ID: <8t6ve5hs41qn3a2rv...@4ax.com>
# Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:18 -0800
#
# On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:32 +0200, "Katrina"
# <blondes_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#
# >Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
#
# It is the most foul, disgusting filth on Earth.
# The sooner we nuke you fuckers, the better.
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
>
> By redefining "blasphemy" they have only made it more ridiculous.
I agree, the atheist attempt to imitate the Sanhedrin by
accusing Jesus of Blasphemy have made themselves an object
of ridicule.
Published by Atheist Ireland on 1 January 2010
1. Jesus Christ, when asked if he was the son of God,
in Matthew 26:64: �Thou hast said: nevertheless
I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of
man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming
in the clouds of heaven.�
http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/
Here is the basis of their charge, and while they recognise
Jesus as real, and publicly declare their support for him,
based on their understanding of the Bible as a reliable
Primary Source, they offer no PROOF for the Blasphemy
Charge.. Thus they commit what they condemn, and are hypocrites
given the history of opression and murder, the forced
indoctrination of Children and adults in the atheist regiemes and their
own slander, abuse, forgery and death threats attempting to intimidate
their critics into silence!
> If an attempt is actually made to enforce it, the results will be hilarious.
Still the atheists are determined not just to vilify but to
kill Jesus without fair trial;
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
Not a single atheist in this prominent atheist website have ever
protested this clear incitement to murder and violence.
What has Jesus done to you, you hate filled inheritors of the
spirit of atheist tyranny, oppression and murder;
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004
#
# "State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
# by a government, typically by active suppression of
# religious freedom and practice."
# - "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR:
# Characteristics and Consequences,
# David Kowalewski,
# Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441,
#
#
# "An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia�s Buddhist religion:
# monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
# Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
# other religious sentiments were often killed.
# ...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
# and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
# and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
# starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
# prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
# instead of the family.
#
# About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
# were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot�s regime."
# - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
#
# The Cambodian Genocide:
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg
#
# "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
# regarded by the regime as social parasites,
# were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
# Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
# destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
# Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
# rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
# or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
# were often killed.
#
# The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
# persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
# Phnom Penh was completely razed.
#
# The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
# regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
# Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
# - http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm
#
# "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
# because of their religion."
#
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg
#
#
# "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
# - Daniel Peris,
# "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
# Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
#
#
# "State atheism has been mostly implemented in communist
# countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[1] China,
# Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea,
# Communist Mongolia and Poland under communist rule also
# promoted state atheism and suppressed religion.
# - Forced out: the fate of Polish Jewry in Communist Poland.
# Wolak, Arthur J. p 104
#
# In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an
# intrinsic part of communist ideology.
> Orthodox Jews (just to name one possibility) could be outraged by
> the figure of Jesus as he is described by most Christian churches.
It doesn't seem to be a problem when they meet at the Parliament
of World Religions, or Catholic schoolchildren visit both Yeshivas and
Mosques and meet with children of other faiths.
You atheists need to update your stereotypes.
It is true that early religions, in pre-literate times, easily
became dominated and corrupted by clergy, becasue ALL social
formations in those days were rigidly heirarchical.
But since Guttenberg, and remember the first book printed was
the Bible, people can read the sacred texts for themselves and the
power of the Clerical organisations is waning.. majority RELIGIOUS
societies have evolved and established FREE, DEMOCRATIC and OPEN
societies which are pluralist and secular.. while atheism in the same
century DE-Volved into a murderous and tyrannical atheist states,
The Union of Savage Slaughter and Repression(USSR), Mao's Great
Leap Backward and Cultural Devolution, Pol Pot's Cambodian Genocide..
killing over 70,000,000 people in just seventy years.. a far higher
death toll than any religion in history! 8^o
Blasphemy laws are a sideshow. Personally I don't support them,
but like most people, I think you are hypocrites who refuse
to condemn the most vile atheist tyrannies, choose to live
in modern democratic MAJORITY RELIGIOUS societies, rather
than migrate to atheist Nth Korea, and then whine hypocritically
that your Atheist 'Waqrlord' might have his hate speech and
vilification of religious minorities and his death threats,
curtailed! pfffffft!
Atheists have offended the very people who afford them their
rights and freedoms, majority religious societies that
elect believers but maintian a SECULAR government and a
sensible separation of Church and State.. protecting all
minority beliefs.. including the tiny cult of atheist ingrates.
It is those generous modern religious majorities from which
come historically come the voices who traditionally Speak Truth
to Power, (Martin Luther King, Wilberforce, etc) so you will struggle
to get support given you are seen by most people as not to
be trusted hypocrites, liars and thugs:
# Atheists Identified as America�s Most Distrusted Minority"
# - American Sociological Association, ASA NEWS
#
# "A survey by sociologists at the University of Minnesota
# found that atheists are �America�s most distrusted minority.�
#
# "From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households,
# university researchers found that Americans rate atheists
# below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and
# other minority groups in �sharing their vision of
# American society.�
#
# Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are
# least willing to allow their children to marry.
#
# Even though atheists are few in number, not formally
# organized and relatively hard to publicly identify,
# they are seen as a threat to the American way of life
# by a large portion of the American public.
#
# Many of the study�s respondents associated atheism with
# an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal
# behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.
#
# Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting
# social disorder is behind the findings.
# �Americans believe they share more than rules and
# procedures with their fellow citizens�they share an
# understanding of right and wrong,� she said. �Our
# findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as
# self-interested individuals who are not concerned
# with the common good.�
#
# The study is co-authored by assistant professor
# Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann.
# It�s the first in a series of national studies conducted
# the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded
# by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation
# that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in
# the contemporary United States."
> The Presbyterians, of course, are offended and outraged by the office
> of the Papacy.
No one makes such pointless noise, and attempts to sow disunity,
as the whining atheists. pfffft!
Religion does get used, as atheists are attempting here,
by political movements pushing their own agenda.
> I can't wait to see the show.
Atheists, who refused to acknowledge, let alone condemn,
the atheist holocausts, the most violent tyrannies and
vile opressors of free thinking and belief, are whining
about free speech!
You clowns are right.. it's hilarious! B^]
Sophistry Made Simple
"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
news:h0o7k59bb15ij1mrl...@4ax.com...>>"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
The minister has already said that he has made it almost impossible to
obtain a conviction under this Act, nevermind even to bring charges.
If proceedings were brought it would only be if a substantial number were
outraged, the actual number to be decided by someone not specified as
substantial, that it would first have to be somehow known that the person
intended to cause that outrage. Then all you need to do is produce a
reasonable person who finds academic value in the whole thing and you walk
free. You could dance forever on the nuances and definitions left wide open
here. The intention of the clauses was to stay onside of the constitution,
not to actually allow for prosecuting blasphemers.
F�achad�ir
<Calver...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Jan 5, 6:00�pm, Ca�t() <cathy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 10:54�pm, F�achad�ir <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:04:55 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>> > >> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>> > >>news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>
>> > >> [snip]
>> > >>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
>> > >>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>> > >> [snip]
>>
>> > >> Who claims that ?
>>
>> > >Those who claim that god can be offended. �I thought that was obvious.
>> > >If he does not suffer, he is not injured.
>>
>> > For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An offence
>> > is commited when someone does something "causing outrage among a
>> > substantial number of the adherents of [a] �religion"
>> > --
>> > 'Donegal: �Up Here It's Different'
>> > � F�achad�ir
>>
>> I don't suppose it defines "substantial", does it?
>
>Substantial meaning the majority because only the majority religion
>has enough members to be offended.
No, read the plain meaning of the words. Substantial meaning a
substantial number of the adherents of a particular religion.
Which technically means it there are only three Jedi in Dublin, and
two of then get in a huff because you say Obi Wan is a rip-off of
Gandalf, you got a case.
>Offending the adherents of minority
>religions will be actively encouraged. That's the whole point of
>blasphemy laws in the first place...to ensure that a majority remains
>a majority.
Actually no. Part of the reasoning behind the redefinition was to
protect members of all (or at least most) religions in Ireland. Though
I will grant you the status of Pastafarians remains unclear.
The fun will begin when a Jehovah's Witness sues following the next
forced transfusion in an Irish hospital.
>They need to be reminded that every religion on the face of the planet
>was once considered blasphemous...including theirs.
>
>Rich Goranson
>Amherst, NY, USA
>aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
>EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
>
>"Whenever a church is in the minority it clamors for free speech. When
>it gets in the majority, no. I do not believe the history of the world
>will show that any orthodox church when in the majority ever had the
>courage to face the free lips of the world. It sends for a constable."
>- Robert Green Ingersoll, Closing Arguments for the defense, Reynolds
>Blasphemy Trial (1887)
>
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
� F�achad�ir
F�achad�ir
<din...@yourplace.com> wrote:
>
>"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
>news:h0o7k59bb15ij1mrl...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:54:25 -0000, "Sophistry Made Simple"
>> <din...@yourplace.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
The intention was to pander to money-bearing zealots.
Trouble with your scenario is, you need the trial before you produce a
reasonable academic. And where is the prosecution if you refuse to
call one in your defence?
Lord Calvert
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:11:33 -0800 (PST), Lord Calvert
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 5, 6:00 pm, Caít() <cathy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 5, 10:54 pm, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
>
> >> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:04:55 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > >Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> >> > >> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> >> > >>news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>
> >> > >> [snip]
> >> > >>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
> >> > >>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
> >> > >> [snip]
>
> >> > >> Who claims that ?
>
> >> > >Those who claim that god can be offended. I thought that was obvious.
> >> > >If he does not suffer, he is not injured.
>
> >> > For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An offence
> >> > is commited when someone does something "causing outrage among a
> >> > substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion"
> >> > --
> >> > 'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
>
> >> I don't suppose it defines "substantial", does it?
>
> >Substantial meaning the majority because only the majority religion
> >has enough members to be offended.
>
> No, read the plain meaning of the words. Substantial meaning a
> substantial number of the adherents of a particular religion.
Is there anyone who is really suffering under the delusion that this
law will actually be enforced on anyone offending a religion other
than Catholicism? You'd have to send constables in to arrest priests
during Mass because other sects and faiths will be offended by their
religious doctrine. It's not going to happen.
No blasphemy law ever made was meant to protect minority faiths. Not
one, because if it was enforced fairly, you'd have to start arresting
EVERYBODY.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
"I want to say right here -- many a man has cursed the God of another
man. The Catholics have cursed the God of the Protestant. The
Presbyterians have cursed the God of the Catholics -- charged them
with idolatry -- cursed their images, laughed at their ceremonies. And
these compliments have been interchanged between all the religions of
the world. But I say here today that no man, unless a raving maniac,
ever cursed the God in whom he believed. No man, no human being, has
ever lived who cursed his own idea of God. He always curses the idea
that somebody else entertains. No human being ever yet cursed what he
believed to be infinite wisdom and infinite goodness -- and you know
it. Every man on this jury knows that. He feels that that must be an
absolute certainty." - Robert Green Ingersoll, Closing Arguments for
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended.
> >> An offence is commited when someone does something
> >> "causing outrage among a substantial number of the
> >> adherents of [a] religion"
>
> Thus it becomes part of anti-vilification laws
No, it becomes a way to stifle those with who you disagree.
It is an offence to both FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF RELIGION to
restrict anyone's speech about religion as those fascists in Eire are
trying to do.
And Fasgnadh supports their fascist crimes.
Faghdagh - formerly 'Che' - was a ostensibly a marxist for most of his
netlife. He rebirthed himself only recently, presumably because
defending basket cases like Zimbabwe, Cuba and North Korea became simply
too challenging even for a veteran net kook.
Fergus O'Rourke
news:4b435510$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>
>> [snip]
>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
>>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Who claims that ?
>
> Those who claim that god can be offended.
But who are they ?
If there is a point to a blasphemy law, it concerns the offence to human
beings, not to possibly non-existent deities.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
thomas p.
"Fergus O'Rourke" <barr...@tinet.ie> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hi1hn6$lk6$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b435510$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
>>>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Who claims that ?
>>
>> Those who claim that god can be offended.
> [snip]
>
> But who are they ?
>
> If there is a point to a blasphemy law, it concerns the offence to human
> beings, not to possibly non-existent deities.
Offending human beings is not blasphemy. On the other hand I am offended
by the teachings of Christianity, may I make a complaint of blasphemy
against
any Christian clergyman under this law?
thomas p.
"huge" <hu...@nomailaddress.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:Vc6dndzBE9L7ft7W...@earthlink.com...
> thomas p. :
>
>> huge wrote:
>>> Ca�ft() :
>>>
>>>> On Jan 5, 11:03�, pm, huge <h...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>>>>> F�f©achad�f³ir :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:04:55 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined
>>>>>>>>> way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who claims that ?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> obvious. If he does not suffer, he is not injured.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An offence
>>>>>> is commited when someone does something "causing outrage among a
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean you can't speak out against Pasta?
>>>>
>>>> Evidently not in the presence of a significant number of thin skinned
>>>> Pastafarians.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Damn! What about Frap?
>>
>> Crap?
>
> Uh-uh. Frap.
> Google is your friend.
I was trying to be funny actually.
Westprog
> On Jan 5, 8:36 pm, F�achad�ir <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote:
>> No, read the plain meaning of the words. Substantial meaning a
>> substantial number of the adherents of a particular religion.
>
> Is there anyone who is really suffering under the delusion that this
> law will actually be enforced on anyone offending a religion other
> than Catholicism? You'd have to send constables in to arrest priests
> during Mass because other sects and faiths will be offended by their
> religious doctrine. It's not going to happen.
>
> No blasphemy law ever made was meant to protect minority faiths. Not
> one, because if it was enforced fairly, you'd have to start arresting
> EVERYBODY.
The original constitutional provision was intended to relate to Catholicism,
and to a lesser extent other Christian groups and Jews. This legislation is
something else entirely, and is not intended to ever be used for anything.
If it was intended to inhibit blasphemy by its presence it's certainly
failed. I don't think it had any particular well thought out intention.
--
J/
SOTW: "One Life Stand" - Hot Chip
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101286758
http://galaxies-sf.monsite.orange.fr/page1.html
Westprog
> I was trying to be funny actually.
Apparently there are these little symbols one should insert into the text to
indicate "jokes" and "humour". The clever thing is that they can be
constructed using normal punctuation! Isn't that clever?
Westprog
>> If proceedings were brought it would only be if a substantial number
>> were outraged, the actual number to be decided by someone not
>> specified as substantial, that it would first have to be somehow
>> known that the person intended to cause that outrage. Then all you
>> need to do is produce a reasonable person who finds academic value
>> in the whole thing and you walk free. You could dance forever on the
>> nuances and definitions left wide open here. The intention of the
>> clauses was to stay onside of the constitution, not to actually
>> allow for prosecuting blasphemers.
>
> The intention was to pander to money-bearing zealots.
>
> Trouble with your scenario is, you need the trial before you produce a
> reasonable academic. And where is the prosecution if you refuse to
> call one in your defence?
Bad laws are bad because they produce unexpected results. This law says one
thing and the Minister is claiming that it means another. It might just lie
dormant for years, merely a national humiliation - or it might end up
putting someone in jail.
Fergus O'Rourke
news:e7e58f4f-4edf-4105...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>Is there anyone who is really suffering under the delusion that this
>law will actually be enforced on anyone offending a religion other
There's the giveaway: you don't know whereof you write. There are no
constables here.
I know no-one who *really* knows if the Government had anyone in mind, but
most seem to suspect Muslims, not Christians of any variety.
My own supicion is that the whole thing was intended to divert attention
from the main business of the statute in question: making life easier for
the media. It worked like a dream.
Fergus O'Rourke
It hasn't been the case in my parents' lifetimes, and they're in their 80's.
You want to specify when a war was last fought on religious issues in
Ireland ?
Howard
> For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An offence
> is commited when someone does something "causing outrage among a
> substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion"
So this law now says that I, as an atheist, cannot publish a book or
column that tells people "There is no God people !!!" ....
What a farce this country has gotten itself into.
H
Howard
Ulick Magee
But what if atheists are offended by a religious book?
--
Ulick Magee
Free software and free formats for free information for free people.
Open Office for Windows/OSX/Linux: http://www.openoffice.org
openSUSE Linux: http://en.opensuse.org
huge
> thomas p. wrote:
>> I was trying to be funny actually.
>
>
> Apparently there are these little symbols one should insert into the
> text to indicate "jokes" and "humour". The clever thing is that they can
> be constructed using normal punctuation! Isn't that clever?
Th:)k you.
huge
> "huge" <hu...@nomailaddress.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:Vc6dndzBE9L7ft7W...@earthlink.com...
>> thomas p. :
>>
>>> huge wrote:
>>>> CaÃfÂt() :
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 5, 11:03Ã, pm, huge <h...@nomailaddress.com> wrote:
>>>>>> FÃf©achadÃf³ir :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:04:55 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
>>>>>>>>>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who claims that ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those who claim that god can be offended. Ã, I thought that was
>>>>>>>> obvious. If he does not suffer, he is not injured.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An
>>>>>>> offence is commited when someone does something "causing outrage
>>>>>>> among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] Ã, religion"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean you can't speak out against Pasta?
>>>>>
>>>>> Evidently not in the presence of a significant number of thin
>>>>> skinned Pastafarians.
>>>>>
>>>>> CaÃfÂt()
>>>>
>>>> Damn! What about Frap?
>>>
>>> Crap?
>>
>> Uh-uh. Frap.
>> Google is your friend.
>
> I was trying to be funny actually.
Actually, Frop would have been the better
spelling.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Jan 3, 1:46 pm, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
>
> > Uncle Vic wrote:
> > > One fine day in alt.atheism, spicpussy <clitte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an
> > >> audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.
>
> > > Yet another victimless crime.
>
> > No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some undefined way
> > when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>
> > somebody somewhere didn't believe in him.
>
> Tinker Bell almost died because people didn't believe in her. Can we
> get a round of applause for God? Thank you.
>
Funny thing. My hands are glued to my sides. I
always was able to clap for Tinkerbell, though.
Jimbo
wrote:
> Howard wrote:
> > F achad ir <F ach@d. ir> wrote:
>
> >> For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An offence
> >> is commited when someone does something "causing outrage among a
> >> substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion"
>
> > So this law now says that I, as an atheist, cannot publish a book or
> > column that tells people "There is no God people !!!" ....
>
> > What a farce this country has gotten itself into.
>
> But what if atheists are offended by a religious book?
>
I've just finished reading the text of this law and it's ill-conceived
to be sure. Like someone else said, it's going to be fun to watch the
fireworks over the coming months/years.
Jimbo
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b43d85f$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
> > Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> >>news:0f602e9e-48f0-4010...@o35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >>> As if a country that's in a religious civil war needs
> >>> more
> >> [snip]
>
> >> Ireland is not "in a religious civil war" and has never
> >> been in living memory.
>
> > If one's life has been fairly short.
>
> It hasn't been the case in my parents' lifetimes, and they're in their 80's.
>
> You want to specify when a war was last fought on religious issues in
> Ireland ?
You're cutting a fine thread with the word "war", I think you know
what the original poster meant.
Fergus O'Rourke
>
> "Fergus O'Rourke" <barr...@tinet.ie> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:hi1hn6$lk6$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b435510$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
>>>>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Who claims that ?
>>>
>>> Those who claim that god can be offended.
>> [snip]
>>
>> But who are they ?
>>
>> If there is a point to a blasphemy law, it concerns the offence to human
>> beings, not to possibly non-existent deities.
>
> Offending human beings is not blasphemy.
Read the Act.
>On the other hand I am offended
> by the teachings of Christianity, may I make a complaint of blasphemy
> against
> any Christian clergyman under this law ?
Complain away.
bert
>
> news:4b447526$0$36558$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Fergus O'Rourke" <barris...@tinet.ie> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:hi1hn6$lk6$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> >> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4b435510$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> >>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> >>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
> >>>>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
> >>>> [snip]
>
> >>>> Who claims that ?
>
> >>> Those who claim that god can be offended.
> >> [snip]
>
> >> But who are they ?
>
> >> If there is a point to a blasphemy law, it concerns the offence to human
> >> beings, not to possibly non-existent deities.
>
> > Offending human beings is not blasphemy.
>
> Read the Act.
>
> >On the other hand I am offended
> > by the teachings of Christianity, may I make a complaint of blasphemy
> > against
> > any Christian clergyman under this law ?
>
> Complain away.
>
> --
> FERGUS O'ROURKEwww.twitter.com/ubfidwww.irish-lawyer.com
> (Not just law stuff)
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where are Irish atheists hiding in Irland? They must have big
problems with the Cathlics. Do they have same sex partners.Any lesbian
pubs? Sheep humpers? Should we send troops into Irland to make it a
true American type democracy? Oi Ya Bdrt
Fergus O'Rourke
news:4f2501d4-8a90-4006...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
I think I know to which war he was referring, and I think that you know as
well as I do that religion had nothing to do with it.
F�achad�ir
wrote:
>F�achad�ir wrote:
>>> If proceedings were brought it would only be if a substantial number
>>> were outraged, the actual number to be decided by someone not
>>> specified as substantial, that it would first have to be somehow
>>> known that the person intended to cause that outrage. Then all you
>>> need to do is produce a reasonable person who finds academic value
>>> in the whole thing and you walk free. You could dance forever on the
>>> nuances and definitions left wide open here. The intention of the
>>> clauses was to stay onside of the constitution, not to actually
>>> allow for prosecuting blasphemers.
>>
>> The intention was to pander to money-bearing zealots.
>>
>> Trouble with your scenario is, you need the trial before you produce a
>> reasonable academic. And where is the prosecution if you refuse to
>> call one in your defence?
>
>
>Bad laws are bad because they produce unexpected results. This law says one
>thing and the Minister is claiming that it means another. It might just lie
>dormant for years, merely a national humiliation - or it might end up
>putting someone in jail.
As I said previously, the Jehovah transfusion case will be
interesting.
thomas p.
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b447526$0$36558$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>
>> "Fergus O'Rourke" <barr...@tinet.ie> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:hi1hn6$lk6$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4b435510$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>>>> "Enkidu" <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:20100103184620....@nogodhere.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> No, apparently, their all-powerful God suffers in some
>>>>>> undefined way when He hears anyone doubt His existence.
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Who claims that ?
>>>>
>>>> Those who claim that god can be offended.
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> But who are they ?
>>>
>>> If there is a point to a blasphemy law, it concerns the offence to human
>>> beings, not to possibly non-existent deities.
>>
>> Offending human beings is not blasphemy.
>
> Read the Act.
I am sorry that I wasn't clear. I do not doubt your description
of the law. I just pointed out that it is misnamed.
>
>>On the other hand I am offended
>> by the teachings of Christianity, may I make a complaint of blasphemy
>> against
>> any Christian clergyman under this law ?
>
> Complain away.
Since the complaint will come from 100% of the members of my sect
(one person), it should qualify for the "substantial number" requirement.
thomas p.
It will be fun if a lot of people are stupid enough to file
complaints and they are taken seriously. It will certainly
do religion no good, and that's good.
thomas p.
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b43d85f$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>> "spicpussy" <clit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0f602e9e-48f0-4010...@o35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>>> As if a country that's in a religious civil war needs
>>>> more
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Ireland is not "in a religious civil war" and has never
>>> been in living memory.
>>
>> If one's life has been fairly short.
>
> It hasn't been the case in my parents' lifetimes, and
> they're in their 80's.
> You want to specify when a war was last fought on
> religious issues in Ireland ?
So it is just an accident that nearly all opponents of separation
from the UK were Protestants and nearly all supporters were
Catholics? Furthermore if a Catholic or Protestant is totally
uninterested in politics it would be perfectly safe for them to
live in a quarter dominated by the other faith?
Yes there are many secular reasons for the problems Ireland has
been through, but it is absurd to pretend that religion has not been
a major cause of violence and continues to be to this day.
Sophistry Made Simple
"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
news:e6r9k5pl10evmtcv5...@4ax.com...
>>>> If proceedings were brought it would only be if a substantial number
>>>> were outraged, the actual number to be decided by someone not
>>>> specified as substantial, that it would first have to be somehow
>>>> known that the person intended to cause that outrage. Then all you
>>>> need to do is produce a reasonable person who finds academic value
>>>> in the whole thing and you walk free. You could dance forever on the
>>>> nuances and definitions left wide open here. The intention of the
>>>> clauses was to stay onside of the constitution, not to actually
>>>> allow for prosecuting blasphemers.
>>>
>>> The intention was to pander to money-bearing zealots.
>>>
>>> Trouble with your scenario is, you need the trial before you produce a
>>> reasonable academic. And where is the prosecution if you refuse to
>>> call one in your defence?
The DPP aren't going to act on it, it's not going to happen that they allow
someone to make a martyr of themselves..
>>Bad laws are bad because they produce unexpected results. This law says
>>one
>>thing and the Minister is claiming that it means another. It might just
>>lie
>>dormant for years, merely a national humiliation - or it might end up
>>putting someone in jail.
>
> As I said previously, the Jehovah transfusion case will be
> interesting.
That's different, a forced transfusion is not the publication or utterance
of blasphemous matter, nor is there an intention to cause outrage.
Howard
F�achad�ir
<din...@yourplace.com> wrote:
>
>"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
>news:e6r9k5pl10evmtcv5...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:03:34 -0000, "Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>F�achad�ir wrote:
>>>>> If proceedings were brought it would only be if a substantial number
>>>>> were outraged, the actual number to be decided by someone not
>>>>> specified as substantial, that it would first have to be somehow
>>>>> known that the person intended to cause that outrage. Then all you
>>>>> need to do is produce a reasonable person who finds academic value
>>>>> in the whole thing and you walk free. You could dance forever on the
>>>>> nuances and definitions left wide open here. The intention of the
>>>>> clauses was to stay onside of the constitution, not to actually
>>>>> allow for prosecuting blasphemers.
>>>>
>>>> The intention was to pander to money-bearing zealots.
>>>>
>>>> Trouble with your scenario is, you need the trial before you produce a
>>>> reasonable academic. And where is the prosecution if you refuse to
>>>> call one in your defence?
>
>The DPP aren't going to act on it, it's not going to happen that they allow
>someone to make a martyr of themselves..
In which case, you get impotent rage from the religious loonie
element, which works too.
>>>Bad laws are bad because they produce unexpected results. This law says
>>>one
>>>thing and the Minister is claiming that it means another. It might just
>>>lie
>>>dormant for years, merely a national humiliation - or it might end up
>>>putting someone in jail.
>>
>> As I said previously, the Jehovah transfusion case will be
>> interesting.
>
>That's different, a forced transfusion is not the publication or utterance
>of blasphemous matter, nor is there an intention to cause outrage.
That's arguable - which is what courts are all about. And there is
provision in Irish law to bring private prosecutions.
Sophistry Made Simple
"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
news:eidak590jtcre5c9h...@4ax.com...>>"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
>>news:e6r9k5pl10evmtcv5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:03:34 -0000, "Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
Still different though.
livvy
idiot..." You can call me whatever you want; we don't know each
other....it's nice on the internet, ain't it, to believe what you say
is "free", without knowing to whom you are talking? That's not what
"free speech" means. It's not a big old free-for-all, as you'd
like to think. Look stuff up.
> when you say something idiotic"
Says ignorant you....free speech can also mean a free exchange of
ideas. Since you're what, 11?, you wouldn't know what that means.
But thanks for your nastiness---it means so much to adults. It's
so common within your community, and you're fine with that. And that
is idiotic, sad, and pathetic.
Idiotic
On Jan 5, 2:24 am, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 4, 11:00 pm,livvy<go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > oh, boo hoo. Sad, pathetic, yet not surprising, 'tis always, only
> > about you. Free speech is a thing,
>
> "Free speech" also includes someone else's right to call you an idiot
> when you say something idiotic.
>
> If you don't learn anything else from your misadventures in
> alt.atheism, please learn *that*.
>
> -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
> aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
> "..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
> -Mark Twain
>
> Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Paul Carr
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> д����Ϣ����:4b45009c$0$36587$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Protestants in Ireland have big bums and their eyes sockets are closer
together than Catholics. In single sex male prisons, certain skinny tall
male inmates are designated as female and they dress up as such and behave
as such so that the other men can have some sexual relief and they don't
have to upset their own strict male code of honour in the process.
Many foreigners criticize the Irish as being inbreds. To some extent, this
description is not fair. If you go back in time further enough, you'll find
that the Irish were subject to many an invasion from people overseas or we
invited them here (we had an educational system to run et cetera). We're of
fairly mixed racial stock. However, if foreigners mean that we are inbred in
our thinking sometimes, then, yes, they have a point. Please refer to my
first paragraph. On the surface, we look homogenous. There hasn't been too
much genetic mixing in recent centuries.
I think many a society or nation-state need internal difference or an exotic
other. It makes it more interesting to live there (&). In the USA, of
course, there were no problems there. Lots of ethnicities live there
together harmoniously or not. In Ireland, well, go back to my male prison
description in the first paragraph.
Paul Carr
(&) That's the optimistic assessment. Perhaps, a more realistic (and
slightly dark) assessment is that a society or nation-state needs an exotic
other or an internal difference for the purposes of social stability
especially if there isn't really any internal (ethnic) difference in the
first place.
Paul Carr
"Howard" <Howar...@home.com> д����Ϣ����:1jbwxh1.iyqw4p1p9iivuN%Howar...@home.com...
I bet ye 10 euros it won't ever be used. Fianna Fail are thick but not
stupid.
hypa...@comcast.net
> One fine day in alt.atheism, spicpussy <clitte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an
> > audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.
>
> Yet another victimless crime.
>
>
>
> > guilty of blasphemy if "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."
>
> > The penalty is a fine of up to 25,000 euros, or more than $35,000.
>
> [shakes head sadly]
>
> Even if atheism is on the rise more heavily in Northern Europe than nearly
> anywhere else, the atheism concentration map is akin to one depicting cell
> phone coverage. They get Verizon, and we 'mericans get AT&T.
>
Verizon sucks. When I downloaded Verizon, it wrecked one of
my computers to the point where deleting it couldn't help. And,
when I called them for help, they were incredibly rude. They
refused to send someone out to check the problem. I swore at
that point to never use Verizon again. I switched to AT&T for
my phone and never had a problem. But, thanks to Verizon,
my computer crashed and had to be replaced.
My best wishes to our Irish friends in their fight aganst
government fascism. If they are fined, we should take
up a collection to help them and spread the word.
Howard
> > Except for people charged...
>
> I bet ye 10 euros it won't ever be used. Fianna Fail are thick but not
> stupid.
You are probably right - but does that justify having such a law on the
books ?
Would you be hapy having oppressive laws against criticism of the Gov on
the books even if they 'promised' not to use them except in exceptional
circumstances ?
H
Jimbo
> "Howard" <Howard....@home.com> д Ϣ :1jbwxh1.iyqw4p1p9iivuN%Howard....@home.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jan 5, 6:14 pm, Ulick Magee <ulickatmaildot...@feckoff.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Howard wrote:
> >> > > F achad ir <F ach@d. ir> wrote:
>
> >> > >> For the record, Irish law does not say gods get offended. An offence
> >> > >> is commited when someone does something "causing outrage among a
> >> > >> substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion"
>
> >> > > So this law now says that I, as an atheist, cannot publish a book or
> >> > > column that tells people "There is no God people !!!" ....
>
> >> > > What a farce this country has gotten itself into.
>
> >> > But what if atheists are offended by a religious book?
>
> >> I've just finished reading the text of this law and it's ill-conceived
> >> to be sure. Like someone else said, it's going to be fun to watch the
> >> fireworks over the coming months/years.
>
> > Except for people charged...
>
> I bet ye 10 euros it won't ever be used. Fianna Fail are thick but not
> stupid.
Understood, but such a bill should have never seen the light of day,
much less been passed into law.
Paul Carr
"Howard" <Howar...@home.com> д����Ϣ����:1jbyc2y.byktbz1b7k80sN%Howar...@home.com...
As I say, Fianna Fail are thick but not stupid.
Fergus O'Rourke
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b43d85f$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>>> "spicpussy" <clit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0f602e9e-48f0-4010...@o35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> As if a country that's in a religious civil war needs
>>>>> more
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Ireland is not "in a religious civil war" and has never
>>>> been in living memory.
>>>
>>> If one's life has been fairly short.
>>
>> It hasn't been the case in my parents' lifetimes, and
>> they're in their 80's.
>> You want to specify when a war was last fought on
>> religious issues in Ireland ?
>
> So it is just an accident that nearly all opponents of separation
> from the UK were Protestants and nearly all supporters were
> Catholics ?
The differing religions of those at war is not what makes a conflict into a
"religious war". If it were, it would be difficult to find a war that was
not religious, which would be ridiculous.
Such a test would also mean that conflicts which had completely different
bases could be re-labelled as ethnic or ideological simply by picking out an
irrelevant point of difference between the antagonists.
> Furthermore if a Catholic or Protestant is totally
> uninterested in politics it would be perfectly safe for them to
> live in a quarter dominated by the other faith?
Any lack of safety would not be due to differences of religion.
> Yes there are many secular reasons for the problems Ireland has
> been through, but it is absurd to pretend that religion has not been
> a major cause of violence and continues to be to this day.
It is not absurd. They are not fighting about whether the Pope is their
supreme leader or whether transubstantiation really occurs. Ask any of those
who have been fighting about what motivated them and consider their answers
No-one with any knowledge of the facts would make your absurd claim.
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
Jimbo
> "Jimbo" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4f2501d4-8a90-4006...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 6, 8:10 am, "Fergus O'Rourke" <barris...@tinet.ie> wrote:
> >> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4b43d85f$0$36562$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
> > >> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> > >>> "spicpussy" <clitte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:0f602e9e-48f0-4010...@o35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>> As if a country that's in a religious civil war needs
> > >>> more
> > >>> [snip]
>
> > >>> Ireland is not "in a religious civil war" and has never
> > >>> been in living memory.
>
> > >> If one's life has been fairly short.
>
> >> It hasn't been the case in my parents' lifetimes, and they're in their
> >> 80's.
>
> >> You want to specify when a war was last fought on religious issues in
> >> Ireland ?
>
> >You're cutting a fine thread with the word "war", I think you know
> >what the original poster meant.
>
> I think I know to which war he was referring, and I think that you know as
> well as I do that religion had nothing to do with it.
>
Religion was surely not the only cause, but to deny that it had a
religious element is being disingenuous.
Howard
> > >You're cutting a fine thread with the word "war", I think you know
> > >what the original poster meant.
> >
> > I think I know to which war he was referring, and I think that you know as
> > well as I do that religion had nothing to do with it.
> >
>
> Religion was surely not the only cause, but to deny that it had a
> religious element is being disingenuous.
So what on earth does 'element' mean ? it was either a cause or not a
cause or a contributory fact or not a contributory factor ?
H
thomas p.
So you are saying that it is just a coincidence that Protestants
and Catholics are on different sides and that people get shot
at merely because they are Protestant or Catholic? Interesting.
>
> Such a test would also mean that conflicts which had
> completely different bases could be re-labelled as ethnic
> or ideological simply by picking out an irrelevant point
> of difference between the antagonists.
>> Furthermore if a Catholic or Protestant is totally
>> uninterested in politics it would be perfectly safe for
>> them to live in a quarter dominated by the other faith?
>
> Any lack of safety would not be due to differences of
> religion.
What would it be due to? Why is it dangerous for a Catholic
(politically involved or not) to live in a Protestant neighborhood or the
reverse
for that matter?
>
>> Yes there are many secular reasons for the problems
>> Ireland has been through, but it is absurd to pretend
>> that religion has not been a major cause of violence and
>> continues to be to this day.
>
> It is not absurd. They are not fighting about whether the
> Pope is their supreme leader or whether
> transubstantiation really occurs. Ask any of those who
> have been fighting about what motivated them and consider
> their answers
> No-one with any knowledge of the facts would make your
> absurd claim.
And anyone who disagreed with you would automatically be
classified as not having any knowledge of the facts. The fact
is that there is no way to separate the economic, political and
social causes from the religious ones. They have fed on each
other for centuries.
Jimbo
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >You're cutting a fine thread with the word "war", I think you know
> > > >what the original poster meant.
>
> > > I think I know to which war he was referring, and I think that you know as
> > > well as I do that religion had nothing to do with it.
>
> > Religion was surely not the only cause, but to deny that it had a
> > religious element is being disingenuous.
>
> So what on earth does 'element' mean ?
Dictionaries can be your friend.
Lord Calvert
When considering any law that increases the power of government, it is
best to think "would I want government to have this power should my
political enemies gain control of the government?" If the answer is
"no," then the law is a bad idea. The Republicans in the US over the
last eight years forgot that basic principle of conservatism because
they never thought they'd be out of political power ever again, and
now they are paying the penalty for their short-sightedness.
Once you surrender your rights to the state they are very difficult to
get back. Government, by its very nature, is exceptionally reluctant
to give up any power it has been given, regardless of which political
parties are in control.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
Paul Carr
Fianna Fail, the main political party of the present coalition
government in the Republic of Ireland, is a political party which is
a master at sending mixed and even contradictory messages.
Take the blasphemy law. Just a few months before the blasphemy law was
introduced, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Michael Martin,
opposed attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a
crime at UN level.
He said the following:
"We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not
consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can
be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom
of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is
a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought
and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or
belief.”
Fine words.
Just a few months later, his ministerial colleague and fellow Fianna
Failer, Dermot Ahern, introduced Ireland's new blasphemy law.
Fergus O'Rourke
No. Are you suggesting that if they all became atheists - as most of them
probably have already - it would make a difference ?
Not so. I apologise if that is the impression that I am giving.
>The fact
> is that there is no way to separate the economic, political and
> social causes from the religious ones. They have fed on each
> other for centuries.
You think the conflict in Palestine is a religious war too, do you ?
How about Cyprus ?
Paul Carr
$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
According to an Iona Institute for Religion and Society report on
November 2nd 2009, two thirds of Irish people attend church at least
monthly.
http://www.zenit.org/article-27413?l=english
46% of those surveyed attend church weekly.
thomas p.
Would it exist if there was no religion?
>
> How about Cyprus ?
Of course not, the history of Islam and Christianity have absolutely
nothing to do with the centuries of tension and the repeated wars
between Greece and Turkey.
(That was sarcasm by they way, as is this remark)
zzbu...@netscape.net
> As if a country that's in a religious civil war needs more
>
> Thankfully, some Irish atheists are "moonin'" it!
>
> -------------
> "Atheists challenge Ireland's new blasphemy law with online postings"
>
> By Karla Adam
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Sunday, January 3, 2010; A08
>
> LONDON -- Atheists in Ireland are risking possible prosecution with an
> audacious online challenge to the country's new blasphemy law.
>
> guilty of blasphemy if "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."
>
> The penalty is a fine of up to 25,000 euros, or more than $35,000.
Well, Ireland is one of those countries, that leads people
who knows how God works to work on Lasers, rather than Banks
anyway.
To work on Robots, rather than Green. To work on AI, rather than
History.
To work on Satellites rather than Monday. To work on Holograms,
rather than Bells.
To work on HDTV, rather than computers.
> In a bid to demonstrate that the law is outdated and largely
> unenforceable, a group named Atheist Ireland published on its Web site
> on Friday 25 potentially blasphemous quotations from figures such as
> Jesus Christ, Muhammad, George Carlin, Pope Benedict XVI and Mark
> Twain, who opined in 1909: "When the Lord God of Heaven and Earth,
> adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. . . . He slays,
> slays, slays!"
>
> "Two days ago, there was no question over whether these quotes were
> legal. Now there is a question, and that is very bizarre," Michael
> Nugent, the group's chairman, said in an interview Saturday.
>
> Blasphemy was already a criminal offense in Ireland under the
> country's 1937 constitution. But until now, the language had been too
> murky to make prosecutions feasible. In 1999, Ireland's Supreme Court
> dismissed the last case to test the law because blasphemy was not
> clearly defined.
>
> By clarifying the term and imposing a hefty fine, the government has
> angered critics, who say the law undermines the state's increasing
> independence from the Catholic Church.
>
> There was "no clamor" for a new blasphemy law, said Eoin O'Dell, a
> senior lecturer in law at Trinity College Dublin. "Most of the
> commentary in Ireland has been pretty negative," he added.
>
> When Ireland's constitution was drafted, church and state were tightly
> entwined, O'Dell said, noting that the preamble begins, "In the Name
> of the Most Holy Trinity," in contrast to the U.S. Constitution's "We
> the People of the United States."
>
> But despite the charter's "very Christian framework," O'Dell said, the
> close relationship between church and state in Ireland has waned in
> recent years -- the "special position" of the Catholic Church was
> removed from the constitution by referendum in 1972, and the ban on
> divorce was repealed in 1995.
>
> Dermot Ahern, Ireland's justice minister, has said that he would have
> preferred simply to abolish the previous blasphemy law.
>
> "My personal position is that church and state should be separate," he
> said in a speech in May. "But I do not have the luxury of ignoring our
> constitution." Faced with choosing between the pricey referendum that
> would be required to amend the constitution and reform that would help
> judges address the 1999 Supreme Court ruling, he said, "I chose
> reform."
>
> Nugent, who estimates that there are a quarter-million atheists in
> Ireland, said the new law is "silly" and "literally medieval."
>
> [Adam is a special correspondent.]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/02/AR201...
Westprog
That's basically why bad law is a bad idea. If the constitution needs a bad
law, then change the constitution. FF and FG are too cowardly to do this.
--
J/
SOTW: "One Life Stand" - Hot Chip
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101286758
http://galaxies-sf.monsite.orange.fr/page1.html
Michael Flynn
wrote:
Where was that survey done? To get 46% it must have been carried out by
people standing outside the church just after Sunday mass, even then 54%
was just people who were walking past.
--
Michael
Fergus O'Rourke
news:34f820cf-cfee-402e...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
"Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com> д����Ϣ����:hi6qur$2oeo
$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b461f9c$0$36563$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>> No. Are you suggesting that if they all became atheists - as most of them
>> probably have already - it would make a difference ?
>
>According to an Iona Institute for Religion and Society report on
>November 2nd 2009, two thirds of Irish people attend church at least
>monthly.
So ?
I bet the figures are different for those actively involved in so-called
sectarian conflict.
Fergus O'Rourke
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
[snip]
>> You think the conflict in Palestine is a religious war
>> too, do you ?
>
> Would it exist if there was no religion?
Would it exist if there was no sex ?
Does that mean that these are also sexual wars ?
>> How about Cyprus ?
>
> Of course not, the history of Islam and Christianity have absolutely
> nothing to do with the centuries of tension and the repeated wars
> between Greece and Turkey.
>
> (That was sarcasm by they way, as is this remark)
I have never suggested that religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I
am not interested in discussing the role of religion in Irish history, or
whether it has played a bigger one in Cyprus or Palestine.
This discussion is about whether there has been a religious war in Ireland
recently.
There hasn't, any more than there has been any in Cyprus, Yugoslavia, or
Palestine.
thomas p.
"Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hi9u2b$1qhp$2...@adenine.netfront.net...
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b4709d2$0$36572$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
> [snip]
>>> You think the conflict in Palestine is a religious war
>>> too, do you ?
>>
>> Would it exist if there was no religion?
>
> Would it exist if there was no sex ?
>
> Does that mean that these are also sexual wars ?
>
>>> How about Cyprus ?
>>
>> Of course not, the history of Islam and Christianity have absolutely
>> nothing to do with the centuries of tension and the repeated wars
>> between Greece and Turkey.
>>
>> (That was sarcasm by they way, as is this remark)
>
> I have never suggested that religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
> I
> am not interested in discussing the role of religion in Irish history, or
> whether it has played a bigger one in Cyprus or Palestine.
>
> This discussion is about whether there has been a religious war in Ireland
> recently.
>
> There hasn't, any more than there has been any in Cyprus, Yugoslavia, or
> Palestine.
I have no idea what your problem is, but I have no interest in playing word
games with you.
Fergus O'Rourke
My "problem" is with your insistence that Ireland has had a religious war
recently.
My position is that recent conflict has not been "religious". Our
difference of opinion is over the use of that word.
That is a serious issue, not a game.
Paul Carr
The opinion poll was conducted by RedC on behalf of The Iona Institute.
There was an ESRI poll conducted early in 2008 which gave a figure of 54%
who attended church in the Republic of Ireland at least monthly.
From:
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/Press_Release_by_The_Iona_Institute_2Nov2009.pdf
Regarding methodology, the following is written:
"RED C interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults aged 18+ years old by
telephone between the 19th-21st October 2009. Interviews were conducted
across the country and the results weighted to the profile of all adults
aged 18+. The margin of error on the sample size of 1,009 is +/- 3.2%."
Paul Carr
> "Paul Carr" <paulca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34f820cf-cfee-402e...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> "Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com> д����Ϣ����:hi6qur$2oeo
> $1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b461f9c$0$36563$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> [snip]
>>> No. Are you suggesting that if they all became atheists - as most of
>>> them
>>> probably have already - it would make a difference ?
>>
>>According to an Iona Institute for Religion and Society report on
>>November 2nd 2009, two thirds of Irish people attend church at least
>>monthly.
> [snip]
>
> So ?
>
> I bet the figures are different for those actively involved in so-called
> sectarian conflict.
Well, I presume by "them" you are referring to the people of Northern
Ireland, not the people of the island of Ireland as a whole.
According to this BBC news page from 2007, 45% of the population of Northern
Ireland are regular church-goers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6520463.stm
So you could be right. The other 55% may be atheists. It's worth noting
though that the Iona Institute Report of November 2009 on church attendance
in the Republic of Ireland found that "Only 1% of respondents (of 1000
adults in total) never go [to church], while another 10% have not been in at
least a year."