Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IF I ASKED you what comes to mind when you hear the word “blasphemy”, what would you say? Would you think of comical scenes from Life of Brian? Or of places where religious oppression is rife?
Would you even be aware that in Ireland blasphemy is a crime that could cost you up to €25,000? If not, you’re probably about to hear a lot more about our blasphemy law. In 2018, we may be voting on repealing it.
An unenforceable law
2009 saw the introduction of the Defamation Act. Sections 36 and 37 outline the crime of blasphemy, making Ireland the only Western country to introduce such a law in the 21st century. Despite recommendations to remove references to blasphemy from our Constitution, the government decided a referendum was too expensive for a country in recession. Instead, they introduced a law written in a way intended to make it unenforceable.
Section 36 states that:
A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.
To commit the crime, your blasphemous matter must be insulting to a religion and you must intend to cause offence to a substantial number of adherents to that religion. Section 37 outlines when your premises can be searched.
Silliness of the law
Most of us are aware of the infamous Stephen Fry complaint over comments made on a TV show when asked about his faith. The investigation was dropped when Gardaí couldn’t find enough offended people. The story was reported globally, embarrassingly emphasising the silliness of the law.
The Rubberbandit, Blindboy Boatclub, was also investigated recently over comments he made on TV about the Eucharist. As enraged as the complainants were, the complaint was not upheld.
This shows us that the law is a bit like Swiss cheese – full of holes. What qualifies as a “substantial number”? How can one prove intent to cause outrage? If you can prove that your “blasphemous” matter contained genuine educational value, then you’re off the hook.
What we need to ask is why it is seen as a crime if religious feelings are hurt? For any other reason you would defend your beliefs. Why is religion above this, instead giving people the option to make a complaint that could lead to prosecution? This reaction to offended religious feelings seems very extreme.
It compromises freedom of speech
While nobody should be targeted in an act of violence or hatred specifically because of their religion, this should be dealt with under an Incitement to Hatred Act. Blasphemy laws don’t provide this kind of protection. Having this law on our statute books raises a number of issues.
It compromises our right to freedom of speech by taking away the right to express beliefs for fear of uttering what can be perceived as an offence. This isn’t about religious versus non-religious beliefs, this affects each and every one of us.
However, the law does discriminate against non-religious people. As we know from the most recent census, 10% of the population have no religion. Having a law in place that excludes a substantial number of citizens is not acceptable. Also, introducing a law that is purposely written to render it unenforceable promotes disrespect for our legal system. Laws should be introduced to be adhered to, not to fill deficits.
On top of this, introducing a blasphemy law in the 21st century has damaged our reputation internationally. Ireland’s blasphemy law has been used as an example of Western hypocrisy by oppressive regimes who use blasphemy laws as a tool for persecution.
Repealing our blasphemy law isn’t turning our back on religion. We need to educate our children on different cultures. How can we do this if religious beliefs are placed above criticism and debate? A few hurt feelings are not going to truly cause any harm if it educates us without the fear of breaking the law.
To repeal our blasphemy law would show that we believe that debating religious ideas isn’t inciting to hatred and would show solidarity with the people who continue to be oppressed under these laws.
If we look at it this way, voting to repeal the law can enrich our already diverse society.
Selina Campbell is a member of the Humanist Association of Ireland Campaign Team. The HAI would welcome a referendum to repeal this law and believe that removing it is a positive step towards a more equal society. For more information see www.humanism.ie and follow them on Twitter and Facebook, using #blasphemyaware to join the conversation.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
100% this law is a joke and the religious should be on board with that too. Surely all the contradicting beliefs of the various religions are defacto blasphemy. Someone will always find offence but why should we care!
@Awkward Seal:
All religions should be able to put forward their case when challenged, but it’s hard when it boils down to “my god is better than your god”.
@Awkward Seal: The Charlie Hebdo mockers of religion had been told over and over that they were offending Muslims but they sadly had no law to stop them and sadly what happened happened.
@Tom Newnewman:
Sounds like victim-blaming of the highest order, or do you think it’s acceptable to go and kill someone who offends you with their words??
@Avina Laaf: Sounds like you would repeal the ” Incitement to hate Laws” as in your perfect world they suggest that victims of incitement are being blamed in anticipation of their possible reaction.
@Tom Newnewman:
Wow!
@Awkward Seal: why do we need to vote to repeal it? Surely TDs can do it on tgeir own
@Shawn O’Ceallaghan: They(FF) brought it in a few years ago, without asking us and why are we being asked to remove it?
The Blasphemy referendum can’t come quick enough in my opinion . We need the freedom to debate religious beliefs and ideologies without fear of persecution .
There are many religions coming to Ireland now , not just the main ones , but small sects and cults , who once they get hold of someone , keep a vice like grip on them .
@Paddy Hayden: It is quite a spectacle to see the failings of the Catholic Church used as a bogey man to push present social agendas when most massgoers this morning are in their 60′s and older with the clergy having little or no influence . Normally intelligent people work themselves up into a frenzy to make recent Irish history seem totally bad despite a more balanced history out there, even when the Church itself seems intent in dying out along with its congregation leaving only rednecks with their empirical voodoo and bluffing under the name of ‘humanist’.
@Gerald Kelleher: the influence of the Roman Catholic Church is gradually waning but it retains immense influence, often subtle and behind the scenes, in the areas of education, health and social policy. We take the pervasive influence so much for granted that it is often unnoticeable.
@Gerald Kelleher: you’re being unkind to “rednecks.”
@Fiona deFreyne: Well Tony, I do not enjoy dealing with people who live off stock phrases and slogans nor those who imagine that Christianity is a social conviction expressed through the Catholic Church albeit that this organization filled the gap for social responsibility when the State couldn’t. The Church made an awful historical decision back in the early 17th century which allowed for the emergence of the secularists and their ‘laws of nature’ and ultimately the diminution of the natural connection between the individual and the Universal both in physical and spiritual terms.
@Gerald Kelleher: What do you believe yourself Gerald?
@Gerald Kelleher: thankfully, the Spanish Inquisitionno longer blights and inhibits free thinking. The Enlightenement was a wonderful intellectual breakthrough although it took longer to gain traction in places where the Roman Catholic Church held excessive sway.
@Fiona deFreyne: Kiss my ar*e, the ‘enlightenment’ dummies wouldn’t even enact the change to bring the calendar dates in line with the Solstice and Equinox points for over 150 years after the Catholic Church worked to bring the dates in line with observations. If you went to the Battle of the Boyne on the 12th July, 1690 by local reckoning, nothing would have happened as the astronomical and timekeeping correction was irrelevant to the theorists as it remains so today.
The only breakthrough was bluffing and voodoo however the followers of Newton as the principle initiator of the ‘enlightenment’ never reckoned that the casual reader would ever find their way through the stitched together language ,seeing they themselves never understood it in any great detail -
“The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown, and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them. He therefore cast the whole reasoning into a geometrical shape” Rouse Ball 1908
@The Risen: Don’t mistake the ability to be inspired for holding convictions and spirituality comes from the former . I can go through the humanist convictions of the ‘laws of nature’ but what I can’t do is make you feel the creative and inspirational background in your journey through life. Christ taught that spotting and even suffering injustice is a part of life but there is no such thing as pure justice as the secularists imagine, there is no way to legislate for love and the creative/productive side of humanity. A society that relies on laws or the force of the State has lost its soul and that is what the atheists/humanists have yet to understand individually, collectively and bottom line.
@Gerald Kelleher: sorry, I did not intend to trigger you like that. I leave you to your views.
@Gerald Kelleher: You seem to have a fantastically long winded way of saying absolutely nothing.
I do not believe in a God and am constantly inspired. I know humanists who meditate and consider themselves spiritual, I know others who do not.
Before you start commenting on humanist matters, can I suggest that you do your homework.
@Fiona deFreyne: Tony,you are just a kid following the slogans and phrases of academics and you do yourself no favours on that account. I don’t expect people to go through the ins and outs of what happened but technically, from an astronomical standpoint, the manipulation and distortions of so much human achievement to make way for the empirical ‘laws of nature’ is vandalism of the highest order . What set it all off was a simple question between the Pope and Galileo that couldn’t have been answered but can now – Can the system which predicts astronomical events be also used to prove the Earth moves ?.
@The Risen: If you are inspired then you are spiritual and if spiritual then you are religious (drop it if you don’t like the term) -
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you–they are full of the Spirit and life.” Jesus
Not much to be said as this is not a sermon however if you wish me to explain your own humanist stance via the ‘laws of nature’ then let me know but it is pretty much silly and unfit for humanity.
@Gerald Kelleher: ” If you are inspired then you are spiritual and if spiritual then you are religious (drop it if you don’t like the term) ”
You seem to have a habit of telling people what they are and what they believe. As the statement was directed at me, I can tell you that you are incorrect.
For example I am inspired by the work of Doctors Without Borders, a non religious organisation. Am I now a spiritual and religious person?
@The Risen: A normal person would know exactly what I mean without having it explained to them as inspiration is there from the greatest creative masterpieces to the small kindness. Getting into the etymology of ‘inspiration’ is facile if a person insists they are not spiritual yet can be inspired for the heart informs the head of something new and exciting or something old and noble. People who believe they can reason or legislate themselves to satisfaction in this life impose on themselves and others the cruelty of a secular State that has been tried a thousand times with the same cold anti-inspirational drive and outcome.
@Gerald Kelleher: You can take the good from any religion and use it as a blueprint for living a decent life , it doesn’t have to be just Christianity or any of the main religions .
A man made law can be argued in court , a blasphemy case can’t , as you are highly unlikely to get God or Allah on the witness stand .
@Gerald Kelleher:
“A normal person would know exactly what I mean ”
Ooooh, so now its insults as well as telling people what they are and what they think.
Good lad.
Anything else??
@The Risen: No need to insult as if you are following a bunch of academics from across the water then you are already insulting yourselves. Spirituality/inspiration is for people with talent rather than those who choose to mock spiritual language or run with a mob. It is not about right/wrong or moral code, it is a more intimate connection to your surroundings hence the mutual play between the individual and the Universal -
“Even as God is common to all, the sun shines upon all trees” Ruysbroeck
Spirituality is almost a secret to yourself but then again the best things in life always are.
@Gerald Kelleher: ” No need to insult as if you are following a bunch of academics from across the water then you are already insulting yourselves.”
You are able to post that comment on the internet thanks to ‘academics across the water’, not talking snakes and forbidden apples.
@Gerald Kelleher: If you ever visit the middle east then you will find that Muslim culture is also the law of the land dictated by clerics. You could be put to death by challenging those views. Knowing where the boundaries are is also being respectful of other peoples viewpoint. Don’t forget that Christ was a Jew long before catholicism came into existence and his views are not necesarily dictated by the Jewish church who belive that Christ was a prophet, not a god or son of God.
@The Risen: The greatest achievement in Western astronomy was by Copernicus who figured out that the slower moving outer planets temporarily fall behind in view as the Earth moves and moves faster hence he inferred the Sun was stationary and central . You can see this any day on a traffic roundabout as a car in an inner lane overtakes a slower moving car in an outer lane so just apply it to the faster Earth and the slower moving Jupiter and the even slower Saturn in the following time lapse -
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
That is scientific inspiration on an astronomical scale for those who can appreciate this perspective masterpiece but it won’t resonate with the dull and dour.
This is actually farcical now. You are quoting a book written by people who thought the earth was flat as fact, discussing astronomy, dissing academics using a device developed by academics, and discussing Copernican theory whist ignoring the fact that the church tortured people who publicly acknowledged Copernican heliocentric theory.
@The Risen: It is farcical alright but before you go answer the question posed by the Pope in his correspondence with Galileo – Can the system which predicts astronomical events like eclipses and transits also be used to prove the Earth orbits the Sun ?.
Again, you are just a kid who bought a history of antiquity and astronomy that was manufactured for you by mathematicians who turned the celestial arena into a junkyard.
@Fiona deFreyne: Well the Catholic Church has Many secret organisations such as; ‘Opus Dei’, ‘Knights of Columba’, ‘knights Templar ‘, and ‘Sects’, such as ‘Legion of mary’ etc,etc. Freemasonry also give a hand.!!
@Gerald Kelleher: Holier than thou, arrogance from you is off the richter scale and the all powerful jesus couldn’t save himself from the cross. Looking down on people, because they aren’t as special like you and all knowing. No wonder, christianity and the church is dying. Keep up the good work, the likes of you are killing it and turning people against it.
Spot on Selena. Great article.
Having also just read another well-written article about Paul McGrath I’m wondering whether I really got onto The Journal or ended up on another website by mistake!
@Avina Laaf: A calm, reasoned presentation for the abandoning a law that should never have been introduced in the first place. What strike me as odd, although then again maybe not, is the silence on this issue from the verious religious leaders. While I don’t mean to be singling any out, and I’m sure there have been some I haven’t heard, the only ones I have heard discussing this was a well known Muslim leader calling for its retention.
It seems to be that he is merely giving voice to what other religious leaders choose to keep quiet about, in that all would prefer to keep such a law in place but, for most at any rate, it isn’t the done thing to publicly say so.
These religious will keep their own council until after any referendum and then behave like the proverabial politician at the swimming pool. A politician was watching a man clim a diving board and prepard to dive into a swimming pool, as the politician glanced into the pool he saw it was empty so he whispered a warning to all who could hear him. The man dived in – and went splat. The politician then roared “I warned you, didn’t you hear me?”
After the referendum, regardless of the outcome, I suspect the various leaders will suddenly find the collective voices and declare the outcome the best result for their flock.
As a Christian of the Roman Catholic tradition, I completely agree with the removal of the Blasphemy Law. We should be able to critique and question all belief systems, including religious ones.
@Thomas McGilly: Indeed critique the question without labeling it will suffice. Religious belief is a personal thing and no church or faith owns it or should question it.
@Thomas McGilly: I can’t wait for it to go. Most religions can make cases for their beliefs but not all of their beliefs. This open debate when it’s allowed would actually allow people to see fully these arguments and make an Informed decision on religion. Personally I haven’t found any of the answers to my questions but others might who knows. Religions all need to be open to debate . Using the heavy hammer of the law to try to silence those who dissent is not the way to go ever !!!
@Thomas McGilly: No such thing as , ‘ Christian of the Catholic Church ‘. Catholic Church is not from ‘Christ’, but instead comes from: Rome, thus : ‘Roman Catholic Church’.,,!!
@Mairtín: There are plenty of examples of Christians who belong to the Roman Catholic community. Peter McVerry, Francis of Assisi, Pope Francis to name but 3.
The problem with religion is when absolutist religions intrude into the civil space, such as the Constitution, laws, public policy, health policy, education policy and social policy. Religion then becomes an attempt to interfere, proscribe and to build in the dominance of the values, dogmas and codes of conduct of one religion over persons who do not subscribe to that religion. We have seen this happen in Ireland and we have seen the damage done.
In a society, where one religion dominates in numbers, the combination of the domination of that religion on mainstream politicians with the offence of blasphemy poses the risk of tyrannical oppression.
The danger of all absolutist religions is that they lend themselves so easily to the development of fascism, illiberalism and stultifying conformity as well as repression and abuse.
@Fiona deFreyne: Very true Fiona, but aren’t you forgetting that the Irish Constitution was part written by bishops for the very reason of applying conditions set by the majority religion in an Irish state emerging from British colonialism and bitter political rivalry during the civil war.
A few years ago it was said that the entire Constitution needs to be rewritten to take account of modern thinking and EU laws.
@Chris Kirk: the role of archbishop of Dublin and of the 2 other bishops who assisted him is well known and not overlooked. Indeed, DeValera had to sidestep the Archbishop on some more extreme religious elements and we saw the special place of the Roman Catholic Church and the Constitution seek to claim the role of the divine Trinity etc.
It is perfectly possible to create secular Constututions and laws, leaving religions for personal observance outside of the realm of the civic space and we did not have to replace Brurush rule with Vatican rule.
It is when certain religions stray into the temoporal arena that so much damage is done. Dr Mary Warnock’s book, “Dishonest to God” shows how much damage religions does in the areas of politics and law making.
@Fiona deFreyne: Being dishonest to God is like saying to your kids that they have to believe in Santa Claus or the wont get any presents.
Excellent article. We really do need to get rid of this joke of a law. You only have to look at the list of other countries which have similar laws to see the kind of backward thinking company we are in.
Well done to Selina and the HAI for their work on this.
@The Risen: It is not simply a law, it is a condition which people are taught to believe which makes the intolerant of other peoples views. This begins with school teaching of religion and forcing kids to see themselves as seperate from other kids of different faiths.
Blasphemy laws , a method of stoping people from questioning brainwashing cults speeding their poison .
@Joe Ryan: Didn’t take long for the irrational ones to crawl out from the shadows.
Under the the act, the word blasphemous could be replaced with ‘inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion’, similar to the wording of the UK act. I think it’s the word blasphemy itself that causes offence to people. I don’t think cancelling the act entirely is a good idea, but it may need to be amended.
It happens all the time in society and especially on comments made by posters on thejournal.ie.
I’m not particularly religious, but I do find it silly when when people keep referring to God as the Sky Fairy etc. It shows complete lack of respect for other people and is hypocritical. If religious people in Ireland (not the clergy) were appearing on comment sections just like this one and putting down humanists or atheists or whatever people label themselves as, they would be crushed as soon as they could say ‘Holy God’ The assertion by the author that it compromises freedom of speech may well be true, however in practice the ones who are compromised are the religious ones.
Some people do find comments that attack ones religious beliefs offensive but may be afraid to challenge back as we all know the barrage that would ensue, so religious beliefs are becoming the oppressed not the other way around. Indeed based on comments on the journal alone, there could have been hundreds of convictions of the law, what is truly embarrassing is that we have laws that we don’t bother to enforce.
@Nick Drake: what religious beliefs are being oppressed in Ireland? Who is doing the oppressing? In what context in the oppressing happening? Can you give examples?
@Nick Drake: It isn’t quite as simple as that, for example the rule still applies where families are concerned when enroling their children into schools and not being given a fair choice where religion is concerned. Schools who reject children and parents who do not want their children brainwashed into religion and prefer instead children learn to mix with all classes of other children regardless of race and belief.
@Nick Drake: if you feel so strongly that there have not been enough convictions for blasphemy due to comments on the Journal, you should make formal complaints to An Garda Siochana.
Are you able to give examples of the comments on the Journal which would justify hundreds of convictions?
Wild sweeping statements are one thing, emotive generalisations are another thing, but can you support any of your assertions with specifics?
@Fiona deFreyne: Factcheck: Not once did I use the words oppressing or oppressed in my comment.
@Nick Drake: “religious beliefs are becoming the oppressed” – your words – now give specific examples if you can.
@Fiona deFreyne: Ok I did use the word oppressed, my fail. But it is very easy to find examples where a ‘A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter ‘ on comment sections such as this. Do you own research, and please calm down. Now excuse me, I need to go and collect my wife from church.
@Nick Drake: what religious beliefs are being oppressed in Ireland? Who is doing the oppressing? In what context? You made an assertion.
Now you are wriggling, distracting and evading. I have asked you to try back up what you say.
@Nick Drake: Yiu say that you are not particularly religious but your comments come across as those of a rabid religionist with a superb line in pure spoof.
@Fiona deFreyne: let’s say Nick is religious (not saying he is). Journal commenters calling whoever god he believes in a “sky fairy” is very disrespectful and then mocking his beliefs to stop him and others from even trying to defend them or explain them without being mocked or derided is oppressing them is it not? That’s what I read from his initial post. Then labelling him so “rabid religionist” kind of supports that view. I am not religious but nobody here seems to be able to take an outside look at both sides. The UK definition seems best wording to me.
@Anto Curran: it was the history of comments of Nick on other topics such as abortion, same sex marriage and control of the National Maternity Hospital which in aggregate seem laden with not just a religious perspective but an especially extreme and hegemonic religious perspective.
The second problem is the assertion, repeated, by Nick that religious beliefs in Ireland are being oppressed but he never explains how this is so.
The third problem is that Nick constantly asserts that he is either not religious or else not particularly religious, when he asserts his variously religiously informed perspectives. Logically, the holding or the non holding of religious views does not add to or detract from the position being maintained but it is reasonable to expect that when people introduce their reloigious status, they should be honest about it. Nick is extremely religious, often rabidly so.
As for the incitement to hatred, I can see the virtue of protecting members of religious minorities from incitement to religious hatred against them because so much of European history and even world history shows the dangers of a religious majority oppressing the religious minorities.
@Nick Drake: Inciting hatred is not just about being blasphemous or speaking out against popular belief. We have seen in recent times in the UK and elsewhere that inciting hatred can be inflicting injury against persons of other faiths or races.
@Nick Drake: Actually atheists and humanists are way more discriminated against than any religion here in Ireland. Try getting a school place for your child and you will see. Holidays are tied to traditional religious festivals. Some religions do not like religious icons and such well atheists have to look at religious signs in crosses and headscarfs and everything else. Usually they don’t complain because they are generally way more tolerant of religions that religions are of other religions. I think our state needs to be totally secular and religion removed from public life. Religion should be a private matter and no one should have to make accomodation for religious beliefs in public life. If your religion prevents you from doing aspects of your job then do a different job entirely. Dont expect society to bend to your religious beliefs they are your private beliefs and no one else.
@Catherine Sims: Fiona was looking for examples of oppression. If your proposals were implemented that would be direct oppression.
” I think our state needs to be totally secular and religion removed from public life. Religion should be a private matter and no one should have to make accomodation for religious beliefs in public life. If your religion prevents you from doing aspects of your job then do a different job entirely. Dont expect society to bend to your religious beliefs they are your private beliefs and no one else.”
There is no place for a blasphemy law in a modern democracy. It is, however, less of a threat to free speech than the new religion of political correctness.
Laws framed around this new religion has much more of a corrosive effect on free speech with the growing list of ‘protected groups.’
This new form of blasphemy not only restricts speech, it restricts action. There is no clamour for the removal of the new blasphemy if anything the calls are for expanding it.
@Fran Lonergan: in order to reply to that comment, it would require to know what the laws you generally refer to are and how they impact. If you give specifics, it may be possible to discuss but your remark is so general, it is weak in content.
Very good article. Always found it odd that religious beliefs are given the same level of anti discrimination protection as race and gender. Those are things you are born to and have no control over. Religion is optional, it’s a choice. All religious beliefs should be open to criticism and condemnation and legal penalties should only be applied to those who resort to violence when faced with the critique.
@Jeffrey McMahon: that’s a rather interesting dimension. Certainly religion is not as inherent and as innate as the other features or characteristics. Protection of the expression of religious beliefs came from a history of internecine religious conflict.
@Jeffrey McMahon: Religion only becomes optional when people stop asking what church we belong to and therefore categorising us almost from birth until the grave. Ireland unfortunately is still bound up by religious denomination rather than in the majority being free to choose. Our kids still have to follow the same teachings in schools regardless of ethos.
@Jeffrey McMahon: “Religion is optional, it’s a choice”
I come across this view from time to time and I never understand it. You discover that you have faith, and you can discover another day that it’s gone. You can’t choose to make it go away, or come back any better than you can choose the weather.
You don’t have it from birth, but it’s not your choice. It’s more similar to the sexual-orientation ground than the other grounds because it doesn’t become evident until later in life. But once you discover it your life is affected in ways you could not have predicted.
The only time there should be a prosecution under the blasphemy law is when God is the plaintiff!
All other offences can be covered under incitement to hatred legislation!
@Jarlath Murphy: Any god or one in particular??
We have a free pass to debate, even ridicule Christianity. If we raise an eyebrow about any others however it’s a different story
@Simon O’Connor: No I see all religions as equally ridiculous. Christianity is no different from Scientology, Judaism or Islam.
Once the language is moved to spirituality or the human ability to be inspired and inspiring, the atheist,humanist ,deist or any other variation on that theme seem unsure of themselves and the roots of their convictions. The British ‘enlightenment’ was meant to replace the laws of man supplemented by the biblical laws with the laws of nature replacing the latter. It is close to impossible to get the proponents of humanist convictions to actually look at the massive shift in 17th century policy to social judicial and natural law in an effort to create a secular society and therein lies many difficulties with many issues.
@Gerald Kelleher: That’s because spirituality is at best subjective, at worst waffly nonsense. It is no basis for imposing rules with the force of the state.
@Ben McArthur: The very nature of spirituality is a person’s ability to be inspired or inspiring so there is no objective/subjective as the humanists would have it but simply the spirit that lights up what you see or hear. The Irish through the Brehon laws understood injustice but there is no such thing as perfect justice as the secularists would wish as that would mean a State not worth living in. If you can find a way to detach spirituality from inspiration then good for you but it isn’t going to happen.
@Gerald Kelleher: As a humanist I can tell you that you are talking absolute tosh. There’s plenty of resources on humanism at your fingertips, please study them.
@Gerald Kelleher: Your argument is lost to ignorance when you start blaming the British for everything you don’t like about this country.
@The Risen: Go ahead, tell me you can’t be inspired or inspiring (spiritual) and then you can be left to your own humanist devices but I know you can’t admit that, nobody can.
@Gerald Kelleher: Telling me what I can and can’t admit. Good lad.
What do you believe yourself Gerald?
@Chris Kirk: The rise of the humanist ideology following the ‘laws of nature’ really got going through the Royal Society academics in the 17th century and specifically through Newton so it is only fair to inspect exactly what was proposed in this so-called ‘enlightenment’ or the British version of Renaissance-lite. It would help if readers were aware of what was destroyed to make way for English common law and the aggressive strain of empiricism we inherit that drives many comments here but experience shows me that few are informed by history but rather victims to a manufactured history. The Church has a huge role in all this but even here the organization itself and the people who comprise it do not want to know.
@The Risen: It wasn’t a dictate but a question – if inspiration and spirituality is one and the same, how do you live without the ability to fall in love, to be inspired by nature, to enjoy the creative side of humanity ?. It is not an issue of chasing you in circles looking for an answer but I will shrug and point out that while the term ‘religious’ can cause a lot of mischief, spirituality/ inspiration is an altogether different perspective.
@Gerald Kelleher: “if inspiration and spirituality is one and the same”
They’re not. Your argument begins with a falsehood, hence my ‘tosh’ comment.
@The Risen: Well then your belief is that inspiration doesn’t exist and that makes you a walking corpse, that is, unless you manage to extract yourself from using the failings of the Catholic Church to live in your head. You may not believe in the head and the heart but it is the spiritual that informs the physical and always has where a creative and productive society exists.
@Gerald Kelleher: “Well then your belief is that inspiration doesn’t exist ”
First, you’re telling me what i can and can’t admit, now you’re telling me what I believe.
Kind of arrogant, no?
@The Risen: Let me see -
“Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare.”
https://www.humanism.ie/2012/12/amsterdam-declaration-2002/
This cracks me up, divine intervention for a spiritual person in matters of science as in all other creative endeavors is drawn from inspiration whether it is writing a song or researching terrestrial sciences or the motions in the celestial arena .
” For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.” John
The idea is to love more and be excited more rather than know more so when I see dummies follow after the theorists and their voodoo scam or an idea that nature is outside the understanding of normal people and only available to mathematicians I have to laugh.
@Gerald Kelleher:
You can be spiritual without being religious.
@Gerald Kelleher: Gerard, you are quoting from a book of fiction as if it were fact, and then you are telling people what they believe.
Have you considered joining the priesthood at all?
@Avina Laaf: “A normal person would know exactly what I mean ”
Correct
Apologies avina, my c+p didn’t work….
2nd go…
@Avina Laaf: “You can be spiritual without being religious.”
Correct
@The Risen: I am enjoying dealing with humanists as the usual thing is that they talk a facile view of spiritual language in order to pump themselves up with academic language. It does come down to talent so unless you are really good with astronomy and the myriad of different systems inherited from antiquity , I have the ability to sort them out and not mix them up as the priests of Oxford and Cambridge once did for their own rotten purposes.
@Gerald Kelleher: Are you able to write a comment and not mention the royal society and Newton? It’s cold today, damn you Newton. Tomorrow is Monday, damn you Royal society.
Have to laugh at Gerald. Posts quotes from the Bible, disses academics, using technology developed by academics.
@The Risen: You are just a kid mixing up engineering achievements with the separate interpretative research of astronomy and terrestrial sciences, great if you can get away with it but more or less a silly thing to do. All I see are kids influenced by academics and their ‘laws of nature’ which requires a suspension of the normal faculties people have in making judgments and handing it over to mathematicians who have convinced the world they have insights denied the wider population under the umbrella of the laws of gravity/physics/motion ect. It rots the mind and obscures the real human achievers who existed before the ‘enlightenment’ and its modelling agenda.
@Gerald Kelleher: ” You are just a kid”
Nope. In my 40s with two kids of my own.
Let me know if there’s anything else you’d like to be wrong ago.
Oh, and if you could limit your reply to less than 100 words, I’m quite busy today (with Humanist related stuff, ironically enough.)
@Gerald Kelleher: You seem to be getting yourself confused between Newtons science based on proof, fact and logic and that of idiology based upon a set of religious teachings. The Roman Catholic church does not own God or have sole rites to christianity that followed the teachings of a belief in one god, either through the Jewish faith or Coptic beliefs. It could be said that Rome jumped on the bandwagon in this regard and has exploited religion for its own gains.
@The Risen: Just another uninteresting kid so you are best left talking with your own dull and dour kind at your own level. A humanist is a poor creature who can’t manage to connect spirituality to inspiration and from there into Christ and Christianity rather than the failings of the Catholic Church. If you learned that today then it is a good day’s work .
@Chris Kirk: Here you go Chris, you get to explain in visual form what Newton was trying to do to someone who already knows -
“That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun…. for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun.” Newton
Like the other guy you are full of phrases and slogans with no understanding of how Newton tried to stitch phrases together to come up with the ‘scientific method’ which obscures human appreciation of astronomy and terrestrial sciences at this level.
Blasphemy prosecutions are cherry-picked. Some faiths have outrageous gods such as Krishna who engaged in miss wet t short parties with gopis. Moses’ God who habitually commanded murder and wanted people stoned to death. Jesus who told a vulnerable woman she should be stoned to death if the stoners were worthy to kill her. He went as far as to say the Old Testament was infallible and the word of God. The Mormon god is a mere man with superhuman powers and who wants people to wear magic underwear. The Jehovah Witness God wants children denied a blood transfusion even to save their lives. And as for Allah what can we say? How can religion demand respect for its gods when it does not really respect them itself?
Excellent piece. All belief systems religious & non religious shouldnt be protected from criticism & satire. The fact that Saudia Arabia & Pakistan have praised our blasphemy law shows it for the illiberal anachronism that it is.
It’s only deemed “hatred” if the religion is Islam. Any other religion can be bashed as long as it’s not our beloved Islam. All so called hate speech is free speech. As citizens of a democratic nation we have the right to blaspheme against any religion without being shut down or even fined.
@Daniel Donovan: “our beloved Islam”
Speak for yourself, Most people have the opinion that all religions are equally ridiculous.
They call it respect. For humans and dignity. I respect all religions and none.
@Paul Coughlan: the problem is when religions become disrespectful to and hostile of others, intrude into the civil space, and seek to dominate public policy.
@Paul Coughlan: Unfortunately humans have been conditioned by other humans throughout history to be followers rather than leaders. The arguments put by religion into creating believers, without questioning the authenticty of the teaching under pain of death or being removed from society during earlier centuries has created most of us to follow the same codes as our forefathers.
Freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression came from a time when there were internecine wars of religion and when religion operated as a strongly divisive force in society. The wars of religion were hugely damaging. They costs many lives and created immense misery.
Today, the stress points are two fold. The first is between the adherents of Christianity and the adherents of Islam. That is not really a major issue domestically in Ireland unless or until terrorism polarises public opinion into mutual hatred.
The second stress point is that between an absolutist religion and civil society. This is the more pernicious problem. It has had detrimental effects in Ireland.
Organised religion or humanism… Shoot me someone. Quickly.
Christianity failed, bin it.
have your say