Sounds like a cool law to me. It bans the publishing of the Bible and Koran as a starter, as I read it.
…Unless someone wants to make the argument that it isn’t insulting to someone’s religion to tell them that there is only one true god and theirs ain’t it.
My prediction- the first serious attempt to enforce this law will be by Muslims against either a Christian or a secularist critique against Islam.
If blasphemy is defined as statements offensive to any religion, then every religion that denies other religions’ validity (that is, most of them) is guilty of it.
Thanks much, Captain Amazing and UDS! That kind of info doesn’t exactly make it’s way onto a wikipedia page, and it’s definitely a lot more complicated (and also a lot more contrite) than Mr. Paulos made out.
For myself, I hereby joyously rescind my self-imposed exile, and will gladly place Ireland back onto my list of places to visit, so long as you can assure me that there is no legal requirement to listen to the Pogues. 
We’re talking about the Republic of Ireland, not the UK. The UK abolished the common law offence of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in 2008.
I think it ought to be pointed out that although this is the excuse that was used by the Minister for Justice (a man not exactly known for his progressive views; dig up his speech on the decriminalisation of gay sex some time), absolutely nobody here really seems to believe it. As An Gadaí alludes to, there’s a referendum coming up in October anyway and there is absolutely no reason they couldn’t be held simultaneously. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a decision to hold a referendum on this would be unpopular - the reaction to the new law has been extremely negative, and I think it’s very likely that a majority would prefer removing this provision from the Constitution entirely rather than legislating for it.
Plus, the idea that the government “had to” legislate for it as long as it was there is pretty much nonsense anyway. There’s no evidence that this void in the law was doing any damage. Contrast this with the government’s ongoing (17 years) refusal to legislate for the decision in the X case (on when abortion is legal in the state), which has had very real consequences for some women. As I said in the previous thread, this law is just the Minister throwing a bone to the religious right in this country and nothing else.
From part (b) (bolding mine) it sounds like this is intended to be a law against what we would call trolling here on the SDMB.
Though one of the disturbing things about the law is how open-ended it is, and how easily all sorts of things could count as “blasphemy.”
The religious right didn’t even really come out for it, did they? What do you think of Jason Walsh’s opinion piece here?
I’ve been to Ireland numerous times, and no one I know there has ever shown the slightest reluctance to mock the Catholic Church openly (sometimes viciously).
If blasphemy is a crime in Ireland, it won’t be people sniping at the Pope who have to worry. I’ll gladly bet a pound… oops, make that a Euro, that when a high profile blasphemy case comes to court in Ireland, the plaintiffs will be Muslims.
The answer may be yes, actually. But they wouldn’t be able to enforce the judgment against you in the US.
Are you inferring JC is gay?
Light the torches and grab some pitchforks men, we have a blasphemer in our midst;)
At least they’re only proposing a fine.
http://www.janetomlinson.com/journal/files/jane_montypythonbrianstoning.jpg
Well, it’s interesting first of all that Jason doesn’t seem to have proposed an alternative hypothesis. Some of his arguments don’t hold up too well on examination either:
That’s a complete non-argument. Ireland doesn’t, at least at present, have the kind of parliamentary system where junior coalition partners can vote against government measures that they disagree with. Nobody actually believes the Green Party supported the bill but they had no option but to vote for it if they want to protect their place in government.
I don’t have much time for Labour but it’s not unusual for opposition parties to simultaneously seek amendments to, and oppose, legislation. They did actually vote against this provision entirely, but also sought to amend it to minimise its impact if it did get through (which it was always going to do). That doesn’t mean they weren’t really against it.
FF’s “urban support base” is very largely the C2DE group (working class and below) who aren’t exactly known for their liberal social views. Most of them wouldn’t necessarily be in favour of a blasphemy law but they’re hardly going to be “incensed” by it either.
It’s true to say that there was no organised campaign of the Christian right in favour of the legislation (one very conservative Muslim organisation did lobby in favour of it), but certain prominent representatives of that group, such as Senator Rónán Mullen, were vocal in their support of it.
I said previously that I think this was a quiet deal, done probably with the Fianna Fáil backbenchers rather than the Church, to get through the civil partnership legislation - which, as it happened, was only finally published the same week that the blasphemy provision cleared committee. It has also been suggested that the Minister is trying to shore up support among the ultra-conservative wing of the party with an eye to the party leadership challenge that many observers are expecting after the next budget. (Notably, one of the names often mentioned as a potential challenger is Minister for Social and Family Affairs Mary Hanafin - an Opus Dei member.)
One way or another, I just don’t see how trying to keep the God Squad happy could not be a major element in this.
I think you might be partly right.
The notion that it’s a quid pro quo to the Catholic church for the civil partnership legislation is not one that I find all that convincing. I seriously doubt whether the instititutional church care greatly about this – possibly they would rather have it than not, all other things being equal, but I doubt that they value it greatly, and they certainly wouldn’t bargain away any influence or expend any political capital to get it. They know perfectly well it will never be enforced and, if it were to be, the backlash would be overwhelmingly negative. This is not much use to them and, if it were offered to buy their silence on civil partnership, you’d have to assume that they weren’t greatly bothered by civil partnership either.
I suspect the gallery that the Minister is playing to is the neanderthal wing of Fianna Fail – not that they value this measure greatly either, but they would be upset at the alternative, which is a government-proposed referendum on the matter. And he really doesn’t want to do anything to cause division, or piss anyone off, in the party, especially just now.
A lot of us seem to live in the Pit, where if a disagreement with someone’s opinion is not abusive, insulting and outrageous, you’re just not doing it right.
What they should ban is religious speech. That is the heart of the Irish troubles.
You haven’'t spent much time in Ireland, have you?
They would stand a better chance banning alcohol in Ireland.
Freedom of Speech is the most sacred of canon law in the United States. Blood would flow before that changes.
is superceded by federal freedom of speech laws. It’s not even close.