Comments on: Hello blasphemy … Bye bye debate? http://www.cearta.ie/2009/09/3849/ the Irish for rights Sun, 05 Feb 2012 01:43:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: cearta.ie » Blasphemous rumours and constitutional amendments http://www.cearta.ie/2009/09/3849/comment-page-1/#comment-11877 cearta.ie » Blasphemous rumours and constitutional amendments Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:10:53 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=3849#comment-11877 [...] But first, the context. The blasphemy provisions in the 2009 Act are provoking quite a bit of commentary in the media, both in Ireland (Sunday Independent | Sunday Tribune | Irish Times here and here | Sunday TImes) and abroad (BBC | CNN | Guardian | MSNBC | New York Daily News | Sydney Morning Herald | Washington Post). Even the Drudge Report has commented on the story; and there are more here). I particularly like the Post piece, because I’m quoted in it. More seriously, much of the coverage revolves around the publication by Atheist Ireland of 25 potentially blasphemous quotations in the hope of provoking a prosecution; and they’ve opened an online petition to challenge the blasphemy provisions of the 2009 Act. As Fiona argues here and here, it is actually rather difficult to commit the offence. Difficult perhaps, but not impossible – it’s unlikely that Atheist Ireland’s 25 quotes do so, though this poem has been found to be blasphemous, and questions have been seriously raised about this cartoon. [...] [...] But first, the context. The blasphemy provisions in the 2009 Act are provoking quite a bit of commentary in the media, both in Ireland (Sunday Independent | Sunday Tribune | Irish Times here and here | Sunday TImes) and abroad (BBC | CNN | Guardian | MSNBC | New York Daily News | Sydney Morning Herald | Washington Post). Even the Drudge Report has commented on the story; and there are more here). I particularly like the Post piece, because I’m quoted in it. More seriously, much of the coverage revolves around the publication by Atheist Ireland of 25 potentially blasphemous quotations in the hope of provoking a prosecution; and they’ve opened an online petition to challenge the blasphemy provisions of the 2009 Act. As Fiona argues here and here, it is actually rather difficult to commit the offence. Difficult perhaps, but not impossible – it’s unlikely that Atheist Ireland’s 25 quotes do so, though this poem has been found to be blasphemous, and questions have been seriously raised about this cartoon. [...]

]]> By: cearta.ie » New year, new defamation regime http://www.cearta.ie/2009/09/3849/comment-page-1/#comment-11372 cearta.ie » New year, new defamation regime Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:52:26 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=3849#comment-11372 [...] the Defamation Act, 2009 (pdf) does indeed have provisions relating to blasphemy; and yes, I’ve written quite a bit about those provisions on this blog; [...] [...] the Defamation Act, 2009 (pdf) does indeed have provisions relating to blasphemy; and yes, I’ve written quite a bit about those provisions on this blog; [...]

]]> By: Michael Walsh http://www.cearta.ie/2009/09/3849/comment-page-1/#comment-10488 Michael Walsh Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:26:30 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=3849#comment-10488 As far as I can remember, all the judges - High Court and Supreme Court - who considered he cartoon in the Corway case agreed that the cartoon wasn't blasphemous. As far as I can remember, all the judges – High Court and Supreme Court – who considered he cartoon in the Corway case agreed that the cartoon wasn’t blasphemous.

]]> By: Enda http://www.cearta.ie/2009/09/3849/comment-page-1/#comment-10486 Enda Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:16:42 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/?p=3849#comment-10486 Freedom of speech altogether aside, the cartoon seems to me to not mock religion at all, but rather the relationship between Church and state. The relationship between the Church and the state is a political issue and not a religious issue - Give unto Caesar that which is due to Caesar and give unto the Lord that which is due to the Lord: God is divine (or not) regardless of whether He is mentioned in the preamble of the constitution or not. "Christ in Piss" the cartoon is not. Though being a monotheist myself, I could perhaps be considered thoroughly unreasonable. Freedom of speech altogether aside, the cartoon seems to me to not mock religion at all, but rather the relationship between Church and state. The relationship between the Church and the state is a political issue and not a religious issue – Give unto Caesar that which is due to Caesar and give unto the Lord that which is due to the Lord: God is divine (or not) regardless of whether He is mentioned in the preamble of the constitution or not. “Christ in Piss” the cartoon is not.

Though being a monotheist myself, I could perhaps be considered thoroughly unreasonable.

]]>