Atheist Ireland publishes 25 blasphemous quotes January 1, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Irish Politics.trackback
Michael Nugent sent this message to the members of Atheist Ireland.
From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine.
In response, we have published a list of 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Amanda Donohoe, George Carlin, Paul Woodfull, Jerry Springer the Opera, Tim Minchin, Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers, Ian O’Doherty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Dermot Ahern.
You can read the quotes on the website here.
If you run a website, blog or other media publication, please feel free to republish the statement and the list of quotes, in order to show your support for the campaign to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and to promote a rational, ethical, secular Ireland.
The blasphemy.ie website is down.
By Jove!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Great stuff. This law is an absolute joke. An absolute abomination in the 21st century.
Agreed, 100%.
Strange, that this law becomes operational today, and that this hilarious list is published, on the day that Justin Keating dies. I had no time for his politics or the governments he was part of, but he was a real pioneer of humanism (the Irish for ‘atheism’) in Ireland.
website is down. I would have liked to have seen these 25 quotes.
The full list has been reposted here
The Guardian has an item on it and quotes some of them here.
Earlier this year, Maman Poulet went further and re-published a poem that actually had been found to be blasphemous in a London court. It is a poem that had been published in Gay News in 1976, and led to a conviction. The editor of Gay News was fined and given a suspended sentence. The poem is written from the voice of a centurion who helped take the body of Christ down from the cross.
(I’m guessing that the coverage in the Guardian generated more traffic than had been expected.)
It would seem that blasphemy is not the same as defaming religion. Mícheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009:
It seems to be back up at:
http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/
Ireland was/is the 1st Nation to fall* domino like, during the 2007 “Int’l Financial TSUNAMi” a/k/a “Int’l Bank-Scare” orchostrated via the 150+/- GLOBAL-VINTRILOQUIST, aka “BILDERBERG GROUP!” Soo,
Now the Jealousy of the Pedphile “Judeo-abe-Christo/a’s Nation/Industries is leaching out of their un-holyness places & thus Stanically Versing Us & audaciously attempting to “Chill’ng [OUR, not their, inalienable/innate/natural/Rights] Speech?” (aka Supress TRUTH [opposite Myth] in the face of Holy-Reality!
If Athiest fail; Then, please expect a mass immigration into Cathoholic? Ireland by Europes Judeo-abe-Islamaholics &from All major Islamic Nations..?
We must Unite & embarass All of S.pace-S.hip Earth’s PRE-APOCALYPTIC Heads of Government & the “SUPERSTUPIDSTITIOUS”. Note: Bill Clinton et al shood get the Electric Chair. Soorrry!
Vote: DOWN w/THEOCRAY on S.S. EARTH! Down w/Monrachy on S.S. Earth!
PS: Me exwive was from KiLLdair. (Where certain Bishop recently resigned et al). Mozzletov & Sloncha! frm, NYC.
*Ireland Borrowed 100 Years worth of it’s GDP/GNP???
Ireland just had a big thing about the Roman Catholic Church covering up child molestation acts by the priests. Under this law future allegations will be quickly squashed. It will be blasphemous to charge a priest with anything. I’m sure they will enjoy their protected elevated position in society. Catholic, Muslim– makes no difference in Europe any more. Let’s go back to banging rocks.
Revelationists won’t rest until they de evolve the human species.
“Under this law future allegations will be quickly squashed. It will be blasphemous to charge a priest with anything.”
That’s not true.
This law may be pointless, stupid and an affront to freedom of speech, but let’s be clear about what is actually criminalised under it, and what isn’t. A statement which happens to contradict the beliefs of a religious adherent isn’t considered blasphemous. A statement which is made with the deliberate intention of offending a religious adherent may be.
On that point, it’s hard to see what exactly atheist ireland is realistically trying to achieve with publication of the quotes (which are hardly blasphemous anyway). Unless someone actually makes an official – and genuine – complaint, how is the law going to be tested? And who is likely to make such a complaint?
A serious campaign to have the law repealed should start with trying to build as broad a coalition as possible, given that the only way to definitively remove the offence of blasphemy from Irish law is with a referendum. I don’t think that AI are on the right track with this.
There will be plenty of people making claims of blasphemy. Its not like religious idiots are sitting around reading books. Look at Muslim society and you can easily see what Europe has in store for it. The Catholics have just taken a page from the Muslims.
Blasphemy will be in the eye of the holder (complaintant)
This law may be pointless, stupid and an affront to freedom of speech
I recall that one of the FF ministers defended this by claiming that changing the Constitution to remove the blasphemy offence would be too much effort for an obscure, outdated, never-to-be-invoked etcetc. part of the document – yet they found the time to write and pass legislation giving teeth to it, and they’ve never shown a problem before with annoying the electorate with referendums (including EU Treaty re-runs!).
There’s also the matter of the FF ditching of the urgent cervical cancer vaccination, which was ostensibly for reasons of cost – but which also happens to be a dog-whistle Catholic issue (sluts should get cancer and die, effectively).
And who is likely to make such a complaint?
It’s not in the RL actual application, but the (deliberate, I think) chilling effect on *any* criticism of religious superstition. This, is what it’s about.
And who is likely to make such a complaint?
With a quick search, it seems that this isn’t true:
In 1999, there was an attempt to prosecute a newspaper for a cartoon mocking the church, but the judge in that case noted that he could not prosecute
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/ireland-blasphemy-laws
I don’t recall this – does anyone else recall what it was about?
“I don’t recall this – does anyone else recall what it was about?”
Eoin O’Dell’s blog at cearta.ie is a good place to go for an answer:
@EWI
I should clarify: when I ask who is likely to make such a complaint, I’m not talking about anyone making any complaint under the new blasphemy law. I’m asking whether anyone will actually make a formal complaint about atheist ireland’s 25 statements. I doubt very much if that will happen, not least because it’s precisely what atheist ireland is looking for.
I guess time will tell. I agree with you on the rest of it, though.
Tomboktu – thank you for the link to that – and damn you for hence also seeing a comment by that same blogger (elsewhere on the TV3 brouhaha) to:
“Update: have a look at John McGurk’s thoughtful posts on the issue.”
I could’ve started my year minus the awful knowledge that the perennially-reinventing McGuirk now has his own blog
@smiffy: I expect to hear and read lots of David Quinn (and the other usual suspects) insinuating from this that Roman Catholics are persecuted, under attack from vicious atheists etcetc. – and a lot of the media commentariat parroting this line. This will be used in an attempt to deflect from people’s anger at the RCC over the child abuse revelations – if not handled smartly by AI.
A public awareness campaign with some easily-digestible examples of the silliness inherent in the law is called for, and I hope that AI are planning on such a course.
PZ Myers is coming to Dublin in February to give ‘em some more of those “blasphemous quotes” (he was previously best-known as a scourge of Intelligent Design/Creationists, and for the Cracker Controversy).
Should be fun. Think someone could organise a debate between him and William “God is responsible for everything” Reville, otherwise known as the:
“Associate Professor of Biochemistry, Public Awareness of Science Officer and College Radiation Protection Officer at UCC. He also writes the weekly science column Under the Microscope in The Irish Times”?
Btw – a Happy New Year to everyone. I’m just back up in the Land of Broadband (i.e. Dublin), so hence the delay.
OMG – a biochemist who says “God is responsible for everything” – makes me ashamed of my discipline! Still he is not representative, although there is a US “biochemist” in the US who is a prominent “intelligent designer”. Sad.
This is Reville from 1995, who certainly appears to be pushing a variant of Intelligent Design (while throwing overboard the more outlandish arguments in support, which usually sink ID proponents):
http://www.ucc.ie/academic/undersci/naturalworld/Explanatory_power_of_theory_evolution.pdf
There’s more here:
http://understandingscience.ucc.ie/pages/nat_world_science_religion.htm
There’s also this, which is more recent (2005):
I fully accept scientific discoveries regarding evolution and genetics, but I personally do not subscribe to atheistic conclusions, which, in my opinion, make less sense than theistic conclusions. Of course, when I teach students I present the conventional scientific explanation of evolution – my personal opinions are not for the science classroom.
http://understandingscience.ucc.ie/editorials/September_2005.doc
Now, I’ve no reason to disbelieve him when he says that he doesn’t engage in this in the classroom. Of course, on the other hand you’ll note that his ethics on “personal opinions” haven’t stopped him using his positions both in UCC and in the Irish Times to push the very same Christian spin on science at the general public.
The 25 quotes are hardly blasphemous, as Smffy says, but some of the comments on the site -of which there were 155 at my time of reading – are deeply offensive and represent pathetic schoolyard attempts to be ‘blasphemous’. Do these people not know that religions has been fair game for mockery since the 18th century?
I eagerly await the first cases to hit the courts -as I would be interested to know what kind of group(s) will try to gain advantage under this law. I suspect they won’t be Catholic.
Few have been more critical of religious organizations over the years than Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yet they are universally recognized as a nonviolent people. They’re ‘weapons’ are words only.
Would that all followed that example. Then you could have groups of uncompromising principles existing side by side with like groups espousing different principles. And you wouldn’t need laws such as this one, which carry so much potential for abuse.
It’s the only practical way in a pluralistic society.
still waiting for your broad coalition smiffy, taps foot.
Its clear AI are perfectly aware that the quotes won’t breach the law if you read their statements you’d see that.
Well, I don’t think that’s clear at all from AI’s statements, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that AI is aware that the quotes wouldn’t breach the law. If that’s the case, what’s the point of sending them to the DPP and the Garda Commissioner?
still waiting for you broad coalition smiffy….,hows it coming along?
where does it say they sent them, the Sunday Times said the gardai would be looking at them, thats the gardai wasting their own time.
I’m not campaigning against the law, steve, so there’s much point in repeating that point about “my” broad coalition.
To your second question, I suggest you read the Sunday Times article again:
“Michael Nugent, the organisation’s founder, said he plans to challenge the authorities even more directly by sending copies of the “blasphemous” quotes to the Department of Justice, the director of public prosecutions and the garda commissioner this week.”
If AI is aware that the quotes don’t breach the law, as you suggest, then what’s the point of sending them to the relevant authorities? What’s the point of publishing them at all?
he’s simply being helpful to the police who said they were going to look into them, okay well if you can’t conjure up this ‘broad coalition’ then i suggest you stop suggesting it as possibility, as I’ve told you before.
and as soon as you figure out a way to breach the law which you are telling us that AI has failed to do please tell us.
Thanks for the advice, steve, and the insight into the mind of Atheist Ireland.
Frankly, I think it’s entirely reasonable to make criticisms of the activities of a particular group, even if one isn’t involved in campaigning on the particular issue of concern itself. Similarly, if you disagree with the point I made about what I see as the flaws in the Atheist Ireland approach, perhaps you might wish to address the point itself, rather than indulging in a rather lame “what are you doing about it” ad hominem approach.
I think your final sentence is a bit of a non sequitur. I don’t really understand what the point of this publication is, given that – by your admission – it doesn’t breach the law. If it’s just an attempt to highlight the fact that the law has come into effect, fine. However, that would suggest that Nugent and the rest are being somewhat disingenuous in claiming that publication represents some kind of challenge to the authorities.
Given your apparent understanding of Nugent’s motivation, perhaps you could explain.
As for how to breach the law, I guess you would have to print or publish something which is genuinely grossly offensive to a particular religious group, and is published for no other reason than just to cause offense. I don’t think that would be likely to achieve very much, though. I think it’s likely that the standard to be prosecuted under this law would probably be very high (just as it is under incitement to hatred provisions under the law), although I agree with EWI that the pernicious effect of the law is in how it’s likely to lead to self-censorship, rather than state censorship.
BTW, given that I’ve accepted your claim that Atheist Ireland didn’t intend to breach the law with this publication, I’m not sure how I can also be saying that they have ‘failed to do’ so.
AI is trying to suggest that ‘blasphemy’ laws outlaw speech that is considered part of normal culture and have been for centuries, particularly in quoting Jesus and Mohammed.
They’ve failed- It’s religious people who are hamstrung by this law and not atheists, unless saying “f*ck Jesus” is the intellectual extent of modern atheism.
This is one of those laws that will be used for political ends and not to create more criminals.
The ‘purpose’ of AI’s actions, it seems to me, is to goad the authorities into making them martyrs to some cause.
A ‘broad coalition’ would be a welcome weapon in the fight against this insane rule.
your the one that keeps saying the alternative to Atheist Ireland’s approach is to start a “broad coalition”, you’ve said it repeatedly, its not ad hominem of me to bring it up if you keep bringing it up, i don’t think its possible, I want you to show me how it would be, and the only way to do that would to actually start and maintain a broad coalition.
considering nobody knows what would be blasphemous under the law, then what they published could be… who knows the gardai are looking into it.
I said it once on this thread. Hardly repeatedly. As for how one would go about creating one, I guess one way to start would be to reach out to religious believers who oppose this law on free speech principles (of whom there are plenty). Making statements which denigrate religious belief is hardly likely to build many bridges with such groups. I would also focus on parliamentarians, particularly in Labour, with the intention of securing a commitment for a repeal of the Constitutional provision on blasphemy at the earliest opportunity, in the next Programme for Goverment.
You don’t think that’s possible. Fine. What tactics would you then propose to have the law changed?
“considering nobody knows what would be blasphemous under the law, then what they published could be… who knows the gardai are looking into it”
You seem to be contradicting yourself here, somewhat. Earlier you stated that: “its clear AI are perfectly aware that the quotes won’t breach the law ”
Well – do AI believe that they may be breaching the law or not?
Interesting that neither Aosdána nor The Irish Writers’ Union have made any statement about the blasphemy law. One would have expected that artists and writers would be concerned, but rather a “keep-your-head-down” attitude prevails. It wouldn’t happen in any other country. But it seems that Cardinal Richelieu’s notion that by providing a pension to intellectuals he would shut them up still rings true. Irish artists too often come across as servants of the State, not the free-thinking keepers of the State’s conscience. Writers are publishing more and saying less. We will have book-banning, that’s a virtual certainty, though it may not be for some time. Maybe then these organisations will be stirred from their winter sleep.
But it seems that Cardinal Richelieu’s notion that by providing a pension to intellectuals he would shut them up still rings true.
To say nothing of our trade union leadership.
True!!
On the safe side the law is probably unenforceable. Nontheless it does infringe free speech. Its advocates will claim that it will not stifle debate but that is what it will be used for. It is too late for the Catholic Church but I am sure McQuaid would have loved this law.
While I respect many with religious beliefs and understand that they are tolerant that is not true of every religious believer.We need and it is a price worth paying a society where good and bad jokes can be made about beliefs of any kind.Like censorship along with Ulysses it would be used for a lot of rather dubious stuff as well.
Many religions have contradictory beliefs even within the same religion.
Some religions are to say the least not very tolerant. Others over time have accepted living in a society where they cannot put the boot in to those who do not share their beliefs.
I am even wary of the leftwing mantra of “no free speech for fascists”. eg as far as some people were concerned the Provos should have been banned on this basis.My point here is who should decide who is a fascist and who is not. Another case in point, in the countries of “actually existing socialism” practically every dissident though was classified as fascist.
This is not the same as not protesting vigourously when scum like the National Front abuse this and utilise it to intimidate..
Just in case I suppose I will have to hide my Dave Allen DVD.
“Jehovah’s Witnesses”. These and the Christian Scientists are entitled to their beliefs provided they do not stop their children accessing say blood transfusions.Would say criticising these and other stupid beliefs come under the heading of blasphemy. Sorry, I have a touch of the Dawkins when dealing with nonsense.
Jim, Not sure what you mean by “nonsense” specifically in your last sentence? For me religion is nonsense, I cannot understand its widespread appeal, I try to ignore its day to day implications on my life. It’s difficult to accept a law that makes ignoring religion less possible. Live and let live and all of that, but let’s hope this law will be an irish solution to an irish problem and will be ignored until someone in their wisdom repeals it in the future. (That’s one for the “if you were minister” thread maybe http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/if-you-were-the-minister/).
Over on Human Rights in Ireland Fiona de Londras has posted a clear explanation of what constitutes the offence of blasphemy under the Act and why it will be difficult for the State to secure a conviction under it.
Even if you don’t usually hack a legal text, her post is worth a look.
To me all religion is nonsense. Some are worse than others. eg some anglicans have compromised with reality and some are tolerant. But in the end they are like old map makers with their “yonder lie monsters” for unexplored lands, which encourages people not to explore. Science is about curiosity and exploring, religion is about so-called mysteries and acceptance of ignorance (in the sense of saying that because we don’t know the reason for something we should just accept that we will never know).
The only possible forgiving thing is Marx’s comment about a refuge in a heartless world. But we are in the business of changing the world not hiding from it.
Oh Hughes and Hughes were giving 70% off on a Dawkins book. Excellent value. Sorry for the commercial plug, no personal gain invovved.
Neither faith nor atheism is the problem (viz atheist Chinese persecution of Tibetan religious, American ‘Christian’ persecution of atheists), but intolerance.