Saturday, January 02, 2010

Campaign begins to repeal the Irish blasphemy law

From 1st January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law entered into force, and so began a campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy in the Irish Republic is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. Blasphemy is defined as ‘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’, with certain safeguards to make it harder to prosecute.

According to a group known as Atheist Ireland, this new law is both ‘silly and dangerous’. The say: “It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.”

They continue: “We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.”

And so to press the matter, to goad the authorities, to provoke their day in court, they have deiced to publish 25 ‘blasphemous quotes’ by Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, James Kirkup, Monty Python, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Frank Zappa, Salman Rushdie, Björk, 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.

Cranmer would like to warn his readers and communicants not to read any further if they are of a sensitive spiritual disposition or do not wish to read material which might cause them to decide to be offended and demand that His Grace be shut down.

Atheist Ireland freely admit that these quotations are abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, but that they unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them, and, further, they unreservedly support the right of any Irish citizen to make comparable statements about matters held sacred by any religion without fear of being criminalised, and without having to prove to a court that a reasonable person would find any particular value in the statement.

Some of the quotations are undeniably offensive; others are orthodoxy to their adherents. But the important thing to realise, as far as Ireland’s new law is concerned, is that each and every one of these statements has the potential to ‘cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion’. And when that ‘outrage’ becomes a matter of violent protest, it undermines the peace and security of a realm. And, as Cranmer has previously warned (and of the consequences, some absurd, some laughable), such a relativist approach to theology and such an assertion of 'equality' among all religions (without defining 'religion') will lead ultimately to the state protection of one religion alone and guard from defamation one personage alone and ensure reverence for one book alone.

And it is not Christianity, Jesus or the Bible.

Here is the list of Atheist Ireland’s ‘25 Blasphemous Quotes’

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.” According to the Christian Bible, the Jewish chief priests and elders and council deemed this statement by Jesus to be blasphemous, and they sentenced Jesus to death for saying it.

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.” This is one of several chapters in the Christian Bible that can give a scriptural foundation to Christian anti-Semitism. The first part of John 8, the story of “whoever is without sin cast the first stone”, was not in the original version, but was added centuries later. The original John 8 is a debate between Jesus and some Jews. In brief, Jesus calls the Jews who disbelieve him sons of the Devil, the Jews try to stone him, and Jesus runs away and hides.

3. Mohammad, quoted in Hadith of Bukhari, Vol 1 Book 8 Hadith 427: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” This quote is attributed to Mohammad on his death-bed as a warning to Muslims not to copy this practice of the Jews and Christians. It is one of several passages in the Koran and in Hadith that can give a scriptural foundation to Islamic anti-Semitism, including the assertion in Sura 5:60 that Allah cursed Jews and turned some of them into apes and swine.

4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name - The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy - he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

5. Tom Lehrer, The Vatican Rag, 1963: “Get in line in that processional, step into that small confessional. There, the guy who’s got religion’ll tell you if your sin’s original. If it is, try playing it safer, drink the wine and chew the wafer. Two, four, six, eight, time to transubstantiate!”

6. Randy Newman, God’s Song, 1972: “And the Lord said: I burn down your cities - how blind you must be. I take from you your children, and you say how blessed are we. You all must be crazy to put your faith in me. That’s why I love mankind.”

7. James Kirkup, The Love That Dares to Speak its Name, 1976: “While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him… I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft, still throbbed, anointed with death’s final ejaculation.” This extract is from a poem that led to the last successful blasphemy prosecution in Britain, when Denis Lemon was given a suspended prison sentence after he published it in the now-defunct magazine Gay News. In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution. In 2008, the British Parliament abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

8. Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath, in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, 1979: “Look, I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.”

9. Rev Ian Paisley MEP to the Pope in the European Parliament, 1988: “I denounce you as the Antichrist.” Paisley’s website describes the Antichrist as being “a liar, the true son of the father of lies, the original liar from the beginning… he will imitate Christ, a diabolical imitation, Satan transformed into an angel of light, which will deceive the world.”

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine - but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good - and cares about any of it - to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.” In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie because of blasphemous passages in Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.

13. Björk, 1995: “I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men… I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists.”

14. Amanda Donohoe on her role in the Ken Russell movie Lair of the White Worm, 1995: “Spitting on Christ was a great deal of fun. I can’t embrace a male god who has persecuted female sexuality throughout the ages, and that persecution still goes on today all over the world.”

15. George Carlin, 1999: “Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!”

16. Paul Woodfull as Ding Dong Denny O’Reilly, The Ballad of Jaysus Christ, 2000: “He said me ma’s a virgin and sure no one disagreed, Cause they knew a lad who walks on water’s handy with his feet… Jaysus oh Jaysus, as cool as bleedin’ ice, With all the scrubbers in Israel he could not be enticed, Jaysus oh Jaysus, it’s funny you never rode, Cause it’s you I do be shoutin’ for each time I shoot me load.”

17. Jesus Christ, in Jerry Springer The Opera, 2003: “Actually, I’m a bit gay.” In 2005, the Christian Institute tried to bring a prosecution against the BBC for screening Jerry Springer the Opera, but the UK courts refused to issue a summons.

18. Tim Minchin, Ten-foot Cock and a Few Hundred Virgins, 2005: “So you’re gonna live in paradise, With a ten-foot cock and a few hundred virgins, So you’re gonna sacrifice your life, For a shot at the greener grass, And when the Lord comes down with his shiny rod of judgment, He’s gonna kick my heathen ass.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

20. Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor, 2006: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” This statement has already led to both outrage and condemnation of the outrage. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the world’s largest Muslim body, said it was a “character assassination of the prophet Muhammad”. The Malaysian Prime Minister said that “the Pope must not take lightly the spread of outrage that has been created.” Pakistan’s foreign Ministry spokesperson said that “anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence”. The European Commission said that “reactions which are disproportionate and which are tantamount to rejecting freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

21. Christopher Hitchens in God is not Great, 2007: “There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.”

22. PZ Myers, on the Roman Catholic communion host, 2008: “You would not believe how many people are writing to me, insisting that these horrible little crackers (they look like flattened bits of styrofoam) are literally pieces of their god, and that this omnipotent being who created the universe can actually be seriously harmed by some third-rate liberal intellectual at a third-rate university… However, inspired by an old woodcut of Jews stabbing the host, I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.”

Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.

25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “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.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

Doubtless some of Cranmer’s communicants will criticise him for reproducing some of these statements. He makes no apology. One cannot relativise blasphemy without criminalising to the point of absurdity. What cannot outlaw incitement to ‘religious hatred’ without defining in law what degree of irritation may constitute such hatred. One cannot legislate to protect in law mutually-exclusive theologies without creating a new, state-sanctioned, intolerant pseudo-religious orthodoxy which will ensure the mutually-assured destruction of all diverse expressions of religion.

Cranmer fundamentally disagrees with Atheist Ireland that a secular Irish state can be ‘neutral’ on matters of religion. Only when ‘neutrality’ itself attains the status of religious orthodoxy can it be universally imposed, and such an imposition is as intolerant of dissension as the most oppressive religion. But Cranmer fervently agrees with Atheist Ireland to this extent: ‘Theological thought-crimes belong in the past. Religious and nonreligious people alike should be protected from harm and incitement to harm, but religious and nonreligious ideas alike should be open to any criticism. That is how human knowledge progresses.’

Without such criticism and protest there would have been no Reformation, no Enlightenment, no Industrial Revolution and no Modernity.

And yet there would have been no relativist, universalist postmodernity either.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

60 Comments:

Blogger Kenpachi said...

Well said your Grace. I find it astounding that such an initiative has come from my own country and not the usual suspects in the middle east.

2 January 2010 at 09:00  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Unbelievable. The lunatics are, indeed, running the asylum.

2 January 2010 at 09:39  
Anonymous len said...

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
(George Orwell)

2 January 2010 at 10:29  
Anonymous pedant said...

Blasphemy to one is dogma to another. What are Roman Catholics to make of the Rev Ian Paisley's incredulity that "God Almighty chooses to appear in the form of a glass of Valpolicella and a biscuit!" Truly, as Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce said, "Orthodoxy is my doxy. Heterodoxy is another man's doxy."

2 January 2010 at 10:37  
Anonymous no nonny said...

A tangled web indeed, Your Grace.

I haven't time to fight my way through it. From what I read at the beginning, it's as appalling as any other post-modern claptrap. The introductory use of 'incentive' as a verb heralds the absence of both style and substance.

Atheists are an aggressive lot these days, aren't they? One wonders why they bother trying force everyone to adopt their 'lacks'!

2 January 2010 at 10:47  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

This is a dangerous road we travel to the detriment of freedom of expression.

One unintended? consequence of the protection of religious sensitivities may be that it makes it easier for a government to protect its own reputation, whether deserved or not, by reintroducing the crime of seditious libel. In other words it becomes a crime to “blaspheme” the state, its actions, its policies and its officials.

2 January 2010 at 10:55  
Blogger Preacher said...

If our faith is as strong as it should be, we should be able to debate & put our point of view to any of the above people. Even if they disagree, they have a right to hold their own beliefs, or none without fear of legal prosecution. As the song says 'only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong'. God allows freedom of choice & we are not above Him, He WILL judge justly & rightly.
In these times we must strengthen our resolve & even if some of the things people say or write we find repulsive or painful we must remember that we are soldiers of Christ on a spiritual battlefield & we can't be squeamish. Many 'evil' men have been plucked from the fire & turned into some of Gods best warriors. It's time to gird our loins & enter the fight, the victory is won, but the fight will be hard & in all battles an army will sustain casualties, but God does not allow losses, for none can pluck them out of the Fathers hand. Thank the Lord for the courage of the Irish atheists, God certainly uses some unlikely people to fulfill His will.

2 January 2010 at 11:02  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

When did "offence" become life-threatening?No-one is phisically injured by words,they just pretend to be,if i am assaulted the police will look for cuts and abrasions on my person,if they find none they will show me the door,which is perfectly reasonable.If ones religious faith is so weak,that it can be disturbed by what is little more than childrens name calling,one obviously does not believe,this is all muslim privilige being enacted before our eyes,to make our countries fit for muslims to live in/control,but as for the paddies they deserve all that they get,as thier minds are too small to uphold the freedoms of five hundred million people,and this year will show them exactly how stupid they are.

2 January 2010 at 11:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its not Ireland, its the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland remains in the 21st century (mostly).
Please amend your blog.

2 January 2010 at 11:44  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

I enjoyed that piece Your Grace, it will be interesting to read the reactions. Because I am a strange man by my own admission, I could not take offence at any of it. My faith is very real but frustratingly unorthodox to many who I speak to. I am the first to admit that much of the scriptures read as absurd nonsense - but I find the fact that I am typing words on a screen to be transmitted anywhere in the world equally absurd. Sometimes I could actually think about grabbing God by the neck and smashing His face in, but I know He appreciates this fact, if He didn't, I would want nothing to do with Him.

2 January 2010 at 11:46  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

I have a small lovely dog who does not like to be left alone in the house. It gets agitated and goes off on a spree of bad behaviour, which does seem to be out of spite and in retribution to what it believes is me being selfish and going out leaving it in the house. But I love this small pain the backside, even though I know it would be futile for me to try and explain about having to go to work without it, and about the county by-laws which forbid dogs running amok and crapping on the streets. So I just scream at it every now and then and tell it to shut up and sit down, because I love it!

I think this is possibly similar to how God tolerates my pathetic behaviour. Every now and again I feel a swift toe penetrate my groin area, but it is because I would only injure myself if I continued without the prod. It's a man - dog relationship, it works really well, but I can sense that sometimes my dog could tear my face off.

2 January 2010 at 12:11  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"Only when ‘neutrality’ itself attains the status of religious orthodoxy can it be universally imposed, and such an imposition is as intolerant of dissension as the most oppressive religion."
How true! And that is the real danger. Indeed, that principle is being enforced in this country in many ways. The abolition of "blasphemy" may look like an advance, but it may be a step further towards the totalitarian control of speech and thought.

2 January 2010 at 12:31  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

That statement that LBS has quoted is quite heavy and produces headache-like conditions. I think it is wrong though, I think we just need to keep growing up into maturity.

I believe that the scriptures are 'all' inspired by God, but not always to be read as intention. When I was in college I did a module on history, and I always struggled with unwitting testimonies. I believe many scriptures are intended to carry unwitting messages. The problem here is that we cannot even deal with what we have now so how to begin on this one is difficult to say the least. We just need to grow up out of all the silly primitive ideas about God, which to me is the major unwitting testimony of all the absurd scriptures. It was a story about primitive people struggling with a real and tangible divine influence in their lives. Much good came out of it, and also much evil, evil that they had to project out in order to justify it.....and here is the lesson. Read the good things and read the bad things and be honest with your heart. You will find God in the scriptures, in all of them, but under the surface, in unwitting testimonies, you will discern the evil of Satan and the qualities of man that we are to grow out of. This I believe is the overall message.

2 January 2010 at 13:04  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Amanda Donohoe? What, THE Amanda Donohoe?

(Amanda Dono - who?)

2 January 2010 at 13:32  
Blogger Jomo said...

10. Conor Cruise O’Brien, 1989: “In the last century the Arab thinker Jamal al-Afghani wrote: ‘Every Muslim is sick and his only remedy is in the Koran.’ Unfortunately the sickness gets worse the more the remedy is taken.”

You could always rely on the Cruiser to get to the point as well as provide the "remedy"

2 January 2010 at 13:45  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Since 'Christians' have for so long been sheltering behind the state-enforced anti-blasphemy law -- part of the legacy of Constantinian Christendom -- it is not surprising that now everybody else wants to get on the bandwagon.

They reasonably ask, 'If Christianity, which is no longer in charge, has traditionally been protected by such laws, why shouldn't we have our turn?'

Who can blame them?

And so at last, the terrible temptation to which the majority of Christians fell -- to use the power of this world to protect its privileges -- has at last turned round to bite them. 'I will give you the kingdoms of the world if you will fall down and worship me.' Jesus refused that temptation, but his alleged followers fell for it.

Far better that they had opted to follow their Saviour and remain marginalised; instead of taking power, ceasing to be the persecuted and becoming the persecutors.

Many contributors of comments to this blog will do well to remember that they are now starting to take the consequences of the very stance they themselves hold dear: that of letting Christianity be established by law and by worldly power. The worm has turned.

It is time to realise that talk of 'Christian nations' and 'Christian governments' and 'Christian laws' is fundamentally un-Christian, and is bound to lead to evil.

2 January 2010 at 13:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

most european countries have laws against 'inciting religious hatred', even though these laws were unorthodox when introduced I think most normal people can see the protection they provide; do the Republic of Irealand not have this law?? Or has the intentions of this blasphemy law by the Irish been misunderstood?? If it is supposed to be the Irish answer to protection against religious hatred I think it will fail.

2 January 2010 at 15:34  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Given that the EU,is, at root, a religious body, the notion of the separation of Church and State--essential to the health of both--is moot.
So; Muslims will no longer be able to lie about Christians, and Christians will not be able to tell the truth about Muslims?

2 January 2010 at 16:23  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Thank you for outlining some of the gripes and blasphemys your grace , most interesting .

The timing is interesting , for just as our country is trying to shed its PC language in the name of freedom of speech , it would seem that Ireland is constructed differently , I take it lady Chatterlys lover was a none starter !!

2 January 2010 at 16:45  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

I would have thought Ditchkins' comment 21 was about right (at the risk of getting some of you over-excited).

I always thaough Amanda Donohoe was a bit of a little fox, though. Heigh-ho...

2 January 2010 at 16:55  
Anonymous ilona@israel said...

its amazing-quran based on both- torah and christian's bible, how come that in modern world all ideas of it are so perverted...

2 January 2010 at 17:09  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

It is imprudent to criticise gays publically in any manner however mild, unless you want to have PC Plod banging on your door and perhaps prosecuted. (You can be dragged into the courts if you even tell a policeman that you think his horse is gay). And even if the judge throws the case out of court, the time spent, the anguish, the effect on nearest and dearest means that you think twice about a repeat performance.

So gays already have their de facto antiblasphemy law.

It is dangerous to criticise muslims and especially Mohammed, unless you want to have a price on your head. The Danish cartoonist had to be rescued yesterday from a Somali carrying an axe and a knife. He got away - this time. He has his own moslem-proof shelter into which he can retreat in case of attack.

Recently a couple, running a B&B in Aintree, Liverpool had the temerity to argue with a Moslem and were prosecuted. Again the case was eventually thrown out of court but not before their hotel business was trashed.

So Muslims have a de facto anti blasphemy law, enforced by the law, and if the law doesn't act strongly enough, by themselves.

So when atheists talk sincerely (in the context of Hughie Green - 'and I mean this most sincerely folks') about free speech and repeal of antiblasphemy laws, all they want is open season against Christians.

2 January 2010 at 18:01  
Blogger indigomyth said...

ultramontane grumpy old catholic,

//So when atheists talk sincerely (in the context of Hughie Green - 'and I mean this most sincerely folks') about free speech and repeal of antiblasphemy laws, all they want is open season against Christians.//

You evidently have not heard of Pat Condell. And you are completely ignoring the quotes provided above by Atheist Ireland which criticise Islam.

Your paranoia is showing UGOC.

2 January 2010 at 19:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sometimes I think it is not a good idea to repeat word for word pornographic writing as in no 7. Not only does it give an additional platform to the writer – who does not deserve this – but I think we are ourselves demeaned by doing so. It would have been enough to have written “graphic description of enjoying oral sex with corpse of Jesus Christ” .. Repulsive enough who ever the person was, but exceptionally so given the reverence and devotion we as Christians feel towards our Saviour.

2 January 2010 at 19:51  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

It is not the duty of a government to declare moralty and ethics! Only the Perfect One, God, has this right! And He has established it and given His Word, the Bible, that His creation would prosper by obeying Him.

He established governments with the power of the sword to punish the evildoer and protect the righteous. But He never gave them the right to decide what is morally or ethically wrong in violation of His Word!

He never gave the church worldly power to establish law and enforce the law with the sword: His Kingdom of NOT of this world, He kept saying!

Where the State crosses it's God-given boundaries the people suffer! Where the church crosses it's God-given boundaries not only do the people suffer, but the Kingdom of God suffers, and the ministry and the church loose their savor by their worldliness and corruption. They are only good to be trampled upon by the people, Jesus said. (Matthew 5:13; James 4:4 - they become enemies of God - Revelation 3:16: Jesus spits them out of His mouth. tc)

But our governments consist of fools - a fool is one who says there is no God according to the Bible (many verses), and therefore they hate to be told what God says, and as they have declared themselves/ man to be their own god, they also abuse their power to make their ideologies/ State-religion supreme over the land, and be used as the standard that all should submit to and abide by.

Thus they have declared all religions and ideologies of equal value, which is absolue nonsense!

Islam is far far far inferior to Christianity! Islam is a religion of darkness, violance, death, injustice, based on a book that is full of mistakes, lies, deceptions, historical and other errors - it was not even written when Mohammed died - and it should be banned because it violates our penal laws in that it calls for muslims to murder all - even all people of the Book (Christians & Jews) who do not do what Mohammed said.

Christianity is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, the Son of God & Mary in His humanity and God in His divity, Who died for the sins of the whole world, rose from the dead on the third day and after 40 days went to heaven from which, after 10 days He sent His Holy Spirit. And from which He will return to take His reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

Jesus Christ is alive. Mohammed is dead! How can anyone declare Christianity that follows a living Perfect Lord, equal to Islam who follws a dead person, full of sins???

That we are governed by fools is clear also in that this law is a tool in the hands of muslims and other anti-christians to oppress and silence them.

As I said many times: If anyone would bring charges against anyone because of offense or 'hate-crime' WITHOUT any proof that he has been INTENTIONALLY PERSONALLY offended by the accused, he should himself immediatly be detained and charged with abuse of the law and legal system for private objectives, and severely punished. But as we are ruled by fools who only look for private gain for today, this has not been forthcoming. I will keep saying it, however.

But it is obvious: The greatest oppressors are our governments! If they refuse to listen, they should be thrown out of office and prosecuted for treason, oppression, abuse of power to establish their own State-'religion' that is MARXIST as Political-Correctism is a marxist ideology.

2 January 2010 at 21:54  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Indigomyth

I'll believe the so called criticisms when Irish or UK Atheists decide to produce the film the world has been waiting for - "The life of Mo" the story of a randy young Arab during the 7th century - but no connection to the Prophet of course.

Or they could stand outside a Mosque, say the one at Finsbury Park and spout something scurrilous about the Prophet, or that vile stuff that the gay activist spouted about Jesus outside St Martin's. The Muslims revere Jesus and would not be amused.

I also note that the Atheist Ireland's strapline is

Providing a platform for people who wish to work together to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism

Ah yes, the perfect society, peopled by perfect ethical rational human beings. And what happens if people do not conform? There's that nifty little device called the guillotine, painless (we think) a bit messy but quick.

Paranoid? Just conscious of history.

2 January 2010 at 22:53  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

It is NOT true that atheïsm is not a religion! It ís! Because atheïsts can not prove there is no God, it is a belief, a conviction to some , may be, but for many it is a preference. They prefer to believe there is no God. They prefer to believe there is no Creator. Only for one reason, namely that they love their sin, and as their conscience accuses them, they do everything to silence their accusing conscience, even if it means to deny God.

Atheïsts are therefore people who have chosen to stick their heads in the sand, so they will not see from Creation around them, by exercise of their mind, that there is a God Who is powerfull and Who mainatains everything by His power!

Romans 1:18-32: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


For this cause God gave them up (He allowed them to do their own thing - dlf) unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2 January 2010 at 23:12  
Blogger tom sheepandgoats said...

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 silly laws such as this one, which carry so much potential for abuse.

It's the only practical way in a pluralistic society.

2 January 2010 at 23:42  
Anonymous len said...

Christian Preacher Wins Right to take Case to European Court of Justice.

A CHRISTIAN preacher has won the right to have his case referred to the European Court of Justice following an accusation that a state supported radio station aimed at the Asian community discriminated against him because of his Christian beliefs and views.

( Full details www.christianlegalcentre.com)

3 January 2010 at 01:08  
Blogger indigomyth said...

UGOC,

//Ah yes, the perfect society, peopled by perfect ethical rational human beings. And what happens if people do not conform? There's that nifty little device called the guillotine, painless (we think) a bit messy but quick.

Paranoid? Just conscious of history.//

Ahh, I see what you have done - projected the history of the Catholic church, on to the history of secularism. Clever trick that. Well, I suppose if we atheist do start torturing Christians, we can always use some of the devices used by the Inquisitors, eh?

I would say that the guillotine is a perfectly respectable and civilised device to use in some circumstances - murder for example. Or terrorism.

//I'll believe the so called criticisms when Irish or UK Atheists decide to produce the film the world has been waiting for - "The life of Mo" the story of a randy young Arab during the 7th century - but no connection to the Prophet of course.//

Well, we already have the cartoon, "Jesus and Mo". And we already have atheists that say clearly that they hate Islam (Pat Condell). And do you not think that Salmon Rushdie has articulated the very that you have suggested? Or does he not count in your measure? Why do their denunciations not meet your requirements? Or are you merely ignoring those to satisfy your little persecuted mindset, where all atheists are out to get Christians? You would, I presume, agree that there are atheists that do harshly and vigorously criticise Islam? Why do you not believe them NOW?

//Or they could stand outside a Mosque, say the one at Finsbury Park and spout something scurrilous about the Prophet, or that vile stuff that the gay activist spouted about Jesus outside St Martin's. The Muslims revere Jesus and would not be amused.//

Well, I have not heard the Muslim outcry at Life of Brian, or any of the other innumerable degradations of Jesus, so I think you are imagining things again.

And, I would note that the Pope did apologise for any offence caused to the Muslim world for his quoting of the medieval scholar. Perhaps if you want strength you should look to your own ranks as well? Oh no, the Muslims are offended, we must submit ourselves! Pathetic. Where is the Christian-produced film regarding the disgraceful history of Muhammed? It is such a shame, when you are as cowardly as those that you accuse, isn't it?

And, I would also note that the most grievous of abuses to Christians occurs in Muslim countries. So, why are you targeting atheists for your criticism, not Muslims?

3 January 2010 at 07:40  
Blogger Urban_Underclass said...

Thank you for this post and for highlighting this pernicious issue. This is THE WORST law this rotten government has yet to pass.

I am writing as a practicing Catholic and a secular humanist.

Rory

3 January 2010 at 09:06  
Blogger Nemesis said...

This is all a part of a trend.

First you could not criticise homosexuality now you cannot criticise religion - or should I say, Islam. Hate Crime!

The Irish are ahead of the game. At least if muslims start their hate filled pronouncements in Ireland they will be dragged before a court instead of, as in the UK, given freedom to do so and police support for their protests.

3 January 2010 at 09:32  
Anonymous len said...

In mankind’s final millennia, the religion of man, Socialist Secular Humanism, became the national religion of Russia, China, and most of Europe. Even in America, politics, the media and academia became slaves to political correctness—man’s replacement moral code. As a result, we stopped being judgmental, and with that, we ceased to be just, civil, moral, and rational.
Soon it will be all over. In the next 25 years (between 2008 and 2033) we will poison and scorch our planet, killing as many as six billion people in two horrible wars. As the era of man comes to a climactic close, humankind will come within an hour of destroying the earth, completely eliminating choice and life. We are in for a rough ride. The road ahead is dark, serpentine, and deeply pitted—and it is headed the wrong way.
Apart from God we have learned that we are a conniving lot, devious, destructive, self-serving, vicious, and cruel. Born of water and dust, most will return from whence we came. Heedless of Yahweh’s salvation story, the man of science is the sum of his existence. There is nothing more.
But for those of you who choose to know Yahuweh, to value Him, to join His family and to love Him, the seventh day will be long and glorious. On it, God rested and so shall we. Those who survive the Tribulation will enter the Millennial Kingdom—one thousand years of perfect peace.
In this regard, the seventh day is symbolic of the seventh Miqra’. It is the culmination of all things, of God and man forming a relationship and living together as a family. Tabernacles is the result of the first six Called Out Assemblies. It is a time that the descendants of Adam get to camp out with Yahweh, our Creator.

( From 'WWW.Yada Yahweh' quite a revelation for anyone seeking the truth!)

3 January 2010 at 09:43  
Blogger ZZMike said...

I don't know about your side of the Pond, but over here we try to keep religion and politics out of each other's hair. Most of the time we overdo it - as when somebody finds a cross in the middle of the desert and files a major lawsuit - but usually we let things slide. For our chaps to even think of a blasphemy law would get them laughed out of the country.

Mostly it's a matter of free speech (but they're hammering away at that, too, with almost daily applications of "hate speech" laws. It won't be long before we'll be "cautioned" if we're overheard saying "I hate broccoli!")

"... a fine not exceeding €100,000.”

I see this as some progress. You've come a long way since Bishop Latimer (who I believe preceeded Your Grace into the hereafter by about a year).

dutchlionfrans: "It is NOT true that atheïsm is not a religion!"

Definition: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

One could say that some football fans follow their team religiously, but this is another meaning entirely.

I'm puzzled by the little umlaut over the "i" in your "atheïsts". Is that an affectation?

Overall, though, does anyone doubt that this law will be used primarily against people expressing opinions that Islam is suboptimal?

3 January 2010 at 10:35  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Indigomyth

You are just queer and because you have a one way ticket to hell you want to drag queen the rest of us down with you. Wont happen.

I will say that I can at least admire your conversion to atheism which seems to indicate that you are aware of your dilemma, nothing churns my guts more than rampant queers praising the Lord.

Incidentally, Pat Condell is virtually frothing at the mouth in his latest video, the 'man' is a fanatic! But he has much to lose and Satan's glory is a disease.

3 January 2010 at 11:36  
Blogger indigomyth said...

DDIM 'n HOFFI,

//Incidentally, Pat Condell is virtually frothing at the mouth in his latest video, the 'man' is a fanatic! But he has much to lose and Satan's glory is a disease.//

Yes, I suppose he is a fanatic. But then, so am I. Would that we all were fanatics for freedom from state control and the removal of our liberty by governments. We all have so so much to lose by these sort of laws - rage, anger and disgust are appropriate responses.

//You are just queer and because you have a one way ticket to hell you want to drag queen the rest of us down with you. Wont happen.//

I did not know that I had declared my sexuality. Still, thanks for the affirmation of my ultimate destiny being hell. But then, most people are going to hell - you are, probably, so I guess I will see you there!

//I will say that I can at least admire your conversion to atheism which seems to indicate that you are aware of your dilemma, nothing churns my guts more than rampant queers praising the Lord.//

Curious that you assume that I am an atheist? Why could I not be a Satanist? Lucifer knows God exists, but fights against him - perhaps I am in legion with him?

3 January 2010 at 11:43  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

IndogoM

You can still be a Christian, there are loads of them in the church, and you would not even encounter bastards like me because I do not go to church. But if there is only one person out there who is not sure which way to swing, I will be equally fanatic about making sure he keeps his member out of other guys backsides. If I go to hell for this, then watch out boyo because I will fully embrace the experience.

3 January 2010 at 12:20  
Blogger indigomyth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 January 2010 at 13:32  
Blogger indigomyth said...

DDIM 'n HOFFI,

//But if there is only one person out there who is not sure which way to swing, I will be equally fanatic about making sure he keeps his member out of other guys backsides.//

Why? What business is it of yours what he does with their genitals? And how will you make sure? Will you beat him with a cosh? Imprison him? Burn him at the stake? Why would you do these things? What value can you place on liberty and freedom, if you do not even believe that people have the right to use their bodies as they wish?

//If I go to hell for this, then watch out boyo because I will fully embrace the experience.//

A curious idea, given that one of the tortures commonly depicted as occurring in hell, is all manner of torments of the rear. The fact you would embrace such an experience speaks volumes for your subconscious mind, and the desires of your flesh.

3 January 2010 at 13:54  
Anonymous Wholesome said...

I think the person who wrote statement 7 is attempting to make all homosexuals appear as depraved animals .There are many who would be disgusted and offended and they may not necessarily be Christian or religious.Decent people are not comfortable with blatent filth.I believe in freedom of speech but
it is illegal to expose one's genitals in public and as far as I am concerned this is in the same league.Ban it!

3 January 2010 at 14:01  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Indigo

Essentially it's two beliefs at odds. I make it my business like you make it yours. I see it as Satan against everything else. You do your best to corrupt, and I sense you glean some kind of sexual pleasure out of discussing queerness on blogs, I will always seek to point out the alternatives to such filth. It is a never ending battle and we will be replaced by equally determined zealots, but in the mean time we continue to engage.

With regards to your last sentence, I have a subconscious mind and desires for my flesh, but they are not homosexual, but they do border on the insane now and again, I pray often; it is a never ending battle. I am a believer in Christ and I put my faith in Him. I am aware that God wishes us to be more graceful and I let this idea down drastically, but we must fight against the urges of the animistic nature. Ours is a steep learning curve and we have climbed about 20mm up a twenty meter pole but we will get there in the end. In the mean time you are just a faggot and I need to keep telling you this.

3 January 2010 at 14:38  
Anonymous len said...

God doesn`t hate homosexuals any more than any other sinner.What God hates is sin, because it corrupts, distorts,separates us from God and leads to death.
It is interesting that the only people Jesus condemned were the self-righteous religious hypocrites.
We are all more or less on a level playing field as far as righteousness is concerned, some are a bit better some a bit worse.

Jesus didn`t shun sinners, he actually got into trouble from the self -righteous Pharisees for befriending them.
Jesus knew that through His death and resurrection men could be transformed, renewed, through the power of the re-birth by the Holy Spirit.
The true message of the Gospel is God loves His creation and has given man the opportunity to be redeemed, led out of the darkness, that is Gods free gift to all who would accept Jesus Christ.

3 January 2010 at 14:45  
Anonymous len said...

Christians are not supposed to be fighting sin! It this is what you are doing you are guaranteed to lose the battle.(This is the problem with works based religion)
Christianity is CHRIST , the only person who can live the Christian life is Christ,
It is an exchanged life, His victory over sin and death is mine.
His death my death, his life my life.
No-one can boast its all Him, its all Christ.

3 January 2010 at 14:56  
Blogger indigomyth said...

DDIM 'n HOFFI,

//I make it my business like you make it yours. I see it as Satan against everything else. You do your best to corrupt, and I sense you glean some kind of sexual pleasure out of discussing queerness on blogs, I will always seek to point out the alternatives to such filth. It is a never ending battle and we will be replaced by equally determined zealots, but in the mean time we continue to engage.//

Yes, it is two beliefs at odds - the idea that a person owns their own body (me), and the idea that you own other peoples bodies, and can force them to not use them in ways that you disapprove of. Tell me, show me where any gay activist has advocated the use of violence to force heterosexuals to not have sex; that is the true opposite of your position. I advocate no use of violence, you do.

I wish to preserve liberty, you seem to wish to take it away. You wish to use violence to make people stop doing what you do not like, what you find immoral, I do not.

You did not answer my question; what measures would you take to stop someone engaging in mutual, consenting homosexual activity? Would you beat them? Imprison them? Kill them, to stop the sin, the vice? It is not just a matter of you "pointing out" alternatives - it is a matter of you advocating violence against those that are acting against your moral code. You have a violent belief, I have a civilised belief. You have an authoritarian mindset, I have a libertarian one. I value freedom from violence and state suppression, you exult violence and control.

It is not sexual pleasure, but rather a heartfelt love of liberty and a free people. It is more akin to a spiritual or intellectual satisfaction.

//In the mean time you are just a faggot and I need to keep telling you this.//

But while you exult violence and state repression, your exhortations fall on deaf ears. Leave aside your cudgels, your axes, your nooses and your blades, and we can talk, as reasonable men do. But, for as long as you talk of violence and aggressive things, there can be no dialogue, as there cannot be dialogue with those that proclaim "death to the West" and "death to Freedom", for these people have let go of reasoned debate and have reverted to the very animistic nature that you abhor, and yet indulge in. You have suppressed sexual desire, only to indulge violent desire. You have curtailed individual aggression, only to support state aggression.

Silly rabbit.

3 January 2010 at 14:58  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

I have not produced a single weapon in my comments? Your hormones are running riot girl.

3 January 2010 at 15:20  
Blogger indigomyth said...

DDIM 'n HOFFI,

You said,

//But if there is only one person out there who is not sure which way to swing, I will be equally fanatic about making sure he keeps his member out of other guys backsides.//

How will you "make sure"? A rather sinister phrase, when you could have chosen to say "But if there is only one person out there who is not sure which way to swing, I will be equally fanatic about trying to convince him to keep his member out of other guys backsides." - the crucial emphasis being on persuasion and debate, rather than "making" someone do something. If you try and "make" someone do something, you ultimately use violence.

3 January 2010 at 15:28  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

A very penetrating argument, and I do actually agree with your rephrasing. You still make me sick.

3 January 2010 at 15:59  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

I am finished communicating with you, I already need a bath.

3 January 2010 at 16:05  
Blogger indigomyth said...

DDIM 'n HOFFI,

//A very penetrating argument, and I do actually agree with your rephrasing. You still make me sick.//

That is absolutely fine by me. The brilliance of a liberal society is that people who hate one another can live side by side without trying to kill each other, or trying to imprison each other.

3 January 2010 at 16:08  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Indigomyth

'so if we atheists start torturing people..'

Atheists are well ahead of the game when it comes to torturing and murdering people. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, not to mention Pol Pot...

All done in the name of scientific socialism working towards the ideal society where the state shall wither away.

...and don't forget the French Revolutionaries exemplified by Maximilian Robespierre.

Do you think British atheists or Irish Atheists would be any different?

Learn some history Indi

'Where is the Christian-produced film regarding the disgraceful history of Muhammed? It is such a shame, when you are as cowardly as those that you accuse, isn't it?'

Why should we want to do that? Christians are too busy fighting amongst themselves to bother about Mohammed. It's up to the atheist / agnostic satirists who say they want to push the boundaries thereby showing how bright, edgy, ballsy, and brave (up to a point). When push comes to shove it's always better to have a go at Jesus. It's unlikely that you subsequently will have to build yourself a bomb proof shelter.

3 January 2010 at 16:51  
Blogger indigomyth said...

UGOC,

//Atheists are well ahead of the game when it comes to torturing and murdering people. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, not to mention Pol Pot...//

It is a small difference, but those people committed murder, but did not really go in for torture so much. The explicit desire to inflict pain, rather than kill, is mainly the provenance of religious folk. And, I do not know for certain that Hitler was not a believer in god, or the supernatural.

//All done in the name of scientific socialism working towards the ideal society where the state shall wither away.//

I think that socialism and communism were all about making the state ultimately strong - the state seen as the mechanism of the people. That is what the whole "dictatorship of the people" idea was about. And a dictatorship is the ultimate expression of state power. Socialism and Communism are driven by a desire to see the state infect every aspect of life, not to do away with the state. The very idea that the withering away of the state is the end goal of communism is utterly absurd - the whole idea of communism was that all property was owned by the state!

Have you actually got any knowledge of political models, or are you only equipped with the standard drivel of most of the people that comment here about "Marxism" "Communism" "Socialism" etc etc? Though, I have to say that of all the many people I have ever talked to, of all the many articles I have read denouncing socialism and communism, of all the political debates I have read or seen, of all the definitions I have heard of, you are the very very first person to even hint at the idea that socialism had as its ideal the destruction of the state. Do you have any sources that you could cite where I could read about the communist desire to destroy the state? Any political descriptions? Or have you your own arguments that you can present to defend such an outlandish idea?

(Curiously, if your assertion is accurate, it would mean that favouring a large, controlling, authoritarian state, as the one we have in the UK at the moment, is actually not communist or socialist at all, and should attract your support. Indeed, the more controlling, ever present and domineering the state, the more you should cheer, applaud and celebrate as being a rejection of the socialist principles of the destruction of the state.)

3 January 2010 at 18:44  
Blogger indigomyth said...

//Do you think British atheists or Irish Atheists would be any different?//

I would have you note that Stalin also persecuted Muslims.

You are wriggling about OGOC - is your point that atheists are socialists, who will kill millions, or is your point that atheists only want to attack Christianity? Because, quite clearly, you are wrong to say that atheists only want to attack Christianity, for, as I have stated, Stalin killed Muslims. And you are also wrong that atheists are all socialists - I am an atheist, and I am not a socialist. There, your argument is refuted. Or any number of blogs by capitalist atheists attest to their rejection of socialism - Devils Kitchen, and Counting Cats being two examples.

Also, you exhibit the classic communitarian idea of judging an entire group by a small number of individuals. Let us rephrase your question thus; "Do you think British Muslims or Irish Muslims would be any different?" when talking of terrorism. Well, I cannot answer your question, because some of them might be like that, and indeed are. However, to so crudely generalise about an entire group of people is quite sickening. You honestly believe all atheists are ravaging monsters, that lurk behind closed doors, waiting to rape your women and eat your babies. It is such a shame that you are old, and yet have not abandoned such histrionics.

And I notice that you do not answer my question; is it, or is it not true, that Atheist Ireland has issued statements critical of Islam, and that this directly refutes your assertion that they are only out to get Christianity. If they were, would they not have only produced statements offending Muslims? Answer the question; were you wrong to claim that atheists are only out to get Christianity?

//It's up to the atheist / agnostic satirists who say they want to push the boundaries thereby showing how bright, edgy, ballsy, and brave (up to a point). When push comes to shove it's always better to have a go at Jesus. It's unlikely that you subsequently will have to build yourself a bomb proof shelter.//

Well, again I refer to Pat Condell. And, of course, the Dutch cartoons. And Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Do they not qualify as edgy and ballsy?

Your reply also sort of refutes what you have previously said - if Muslims are offended by degradation of Jesus, then they are also offended by all the things you claim to be offended by, therefore there is no need to have a go at Mo.

//It's unlikely that you subsequently will have to build yourself a bomb proof shelter.//

And what is the consequence of that? What is your point? That Atheists and agnostic comedians fear for their lives, and so do not make jokes about Islam? And you censure them for that? Or, do you want Brownie points for not threatening them with death for offending Christian sensibilities? Would you be as quick to criticise a large unpleasant person, who would attack you, or a small unpleasant person, who would not? They both are equally deserving of criticism, but it is expedient to hold your tongue in front of the large one.

//Why should we want to do that? Christians are too busy fighting amongst themselves to bother about Mohammed//

Well, if Sunni and Shia can spend most of their time kicking the sh*t out of each other, yet still find time to blow up the West, I think Christian could take a little time out of their niggling about Papal Infallibility, Gay Marriage, Abortion and the like, to attack Islam.

Is Islam not a threat to Christianity? Therefore, why do you not denounce, rather than spending your entire time focused on atheism and atheists? Could it be your own (justifiable, though hypocritical) fear of Muslims? Surely defending Christians from persecution by Muslims, takes precedence over your rather feeble quibbles with atheists? Are not most of the Christians that are persecuted, persecuted in Muslim countries, because of Islam? And you ask why you would want to produce a film disgracing Islam, the motivator behind the murders of these Christians?!

3 January 2010 at 18:45  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Indigomyth

This atheist - good/bad ping pong started with your claim that atheists wouldn't stoop to the methods of the Catholic Church / Inquisition.

Well my point is that men are men and can be corrupt and cruel whatever their beliefs or unbeliefs.

And the interesting thing about history is that the cruelest regimes have been those with unbelief. And they have proclaimed high falutin' ideas about liberty egalite fraternite, the noble brotherhood of man.

Normally I would not be bothered with atheists, but in recent years they are getting more in yer face and more shrill.

I'm not censuring the atheist / agnostic comedians for not making jokes about Islam. I am just pointing out that they will take the easy way out and have a go at the Christians. So they are not being so edgy and daring as they think.

And as for the public reading on the St Martin's about the love that dares to speak its name? What were they trying to prove (gay stunt or atheist stunt), apart from being obnoxious? They were not being brave. The vicar probably gave the reader a cup of tea.

Try something similar at the Finsbury Park Mosque? Only from inside a Centurion tank I'll wager.

The Irish Atheist strapline posits that they want to create "a rational ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism"

How are they going to do that then?

History shows (I repeat) that all movements that assume that man can be coaxed into a set of beliefs (no matter how good you think these are) end up in coercion.

Dostoyevsky makes the same point in 'Demons'

So these aims could be interpreted as sinister. But on the other hand we could deduce from the total naivety of the statement that that the Irish atheists are just a bunch of students who have met to sink a few pints of guinness and know how to put up a website.

3 January 2010 at 23:12  
Blogger apodeictic said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2010 at 03:23  
Blogger apodeictic said...

What about the Preamble to the Bunreacht na hÉireann (Constitution of the Republic of Ireland)? Why didn't the "Irish Atheists" mention those words to illustrate their point? Of course legally speaking the Constitution cannot be impugned under a criminal statute, but the point to be made is that the Irish Constitution's explicitly Trinitarian Christian preamble would be "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by" Mohammedans, Jews, various heretical Christian sects (such as the Arians) not to mention a whole host of other religions. A tangled web indeed.

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."

4 January 2010 at 03:32  
Blogger indigomyth said...

UGOC,

You still haven't answered the question I asked: have Atheist Ireland issued statements critical of Islam, and does this not directly contradict your statement that they only want the repeal of the blasphemy law to criticise Christianity. Answer the question.

//And the interesting thing about history is that the cruelest regimes have been those with unbelief.//

I am sure the people undergoing torture during the Inquisition would beg to differ. And I am sure that the Christians being beaten to death in modern Saudi Arabia would also have a thing or two to say about it as well.

So, do you actually think that atheism is worse than Islam?

//Well my point is that men are men and can be corrupt and cruel whatever their beliefs or unbeliefs.//

Yes, but you are taking an entire group of people, and grossly generalising - declaring all atheists to be X, Y or Z.

There full tagline is -
"Providing a platform for people who wish to work together to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism"

I agree that they should have said "state" rather than "society", because it does invoke ideas of coercion. Or, it could mean that they wish to convince and persuade people that religion is nonsense, and therefore eradicate religion that way? Would you want a good Christian society? Do you want to resort to violent means? Why, then, should they?

//Normally I would not be bothered with atheists, but in recent years they are getting more in yer face and more shrill. //

Hmm, well you can get irritated by atheists being in your face and shrill, or you could get scared by Muslims shouting for your death - it seems like you have a wonky set of priorities if you spend your time worrying about an irritation, rather than a threat.

//I am just pointing out that they will take the easy way out and have a go at the Christians. So they are not being so edgy and daring as they think.//

Again, I point out Salmon Rushdie, the Dutch cartoons, Pat Condell and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

And, in case you care, there are comedians who make jokes about Islam. Do you watch a lot of comedy? No, then how do you know what all comedians are saying?

//This atheist - good/bad ping pong started with your claim that atheists wouldn't stoop to the methods of the Catholic Church / Inquisition.//

Well, actually it started when you insinuated that Atheist Ireland would resort to the guillotine to eradicate religion - your comment at 2 January, 22:53

//And what happens if people do not conform? There's that nifty little device called the guillotine, painless (we think) a bit messy but quick.//

My response merely highlighted the brutal history of your faith, and the continuing abuses it does to human freedom, in the name of "human dignity". And I never said that they would not stoop to such levels - of course they may do. My point was to show that you should not denounce all atheists on the basis of what some atheists (which may or may not include Hitler) have done. Do you understand?

//Try something similar at the Finsbury Park Mosque? Only from inside a Centurion tank I'll wager.//

Is this a criticism of atheists, or more of Muslims? Is it worse to be a coward or a violent zealot?

4 January 2010 at 07:43  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

ultramontane grumpy old catholic wrote: "And the interesting thing about history is that the cruelest regimes have been those with unbelief."
Try telling that to the Hindus, considered by Moslems to be idolaters. By all accounts the slaughter visited by the Islamic conquests of India amounted to over eighty million dead over several hundred years. The magnitude of Moslem atrocities in India was so great by the sword of Islam, that an entire civilisation was destroyed. Additionally, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were plundered, and laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. India before Islam was one of the most advanced civilisations of all time.

4 January 2010 at 11:03  
Blogger indigomyth said...

UGOC,

I have just remembered quite an amusing joke involving Muslims-

Man goes into a sex shop and asks for an inflatable doll. Shop assistant asks 'Do you want a Christian one, or a Muslim one?'. Man replies, 'What is the difference?'. The shop assistant says, 'Well the Muslim one blows itself up.'

That is currently one of my favourite jokes.

4 January 2010 at 13:05  
Anonymous Steve said...

The victory of superstition over reason.

4 January 2010 at 17:59  
Blogger scottspeig said...

Your Grace,

While Atheist Ireland have a point, is there no limit on the depravation allowed to a religion.

While I am happy for people to call me delusional, I do have a problem with theatres portraying Christ as a homosexual.

I don't have a problem with people trying to argue that God is an egotistical megalomaniac, yet I have a problem with the quotation number 7 (yet not with 14).

So while I think that Ireland's blasphemy law is too intrusive, I do think there should be a case for bringing Libel charges for the particular characters.

5 January 2010 at 11:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older