One Step Forward, Two Backwards, Irish Style
When we least expect it, we press freedom fighters from throughout the world find our rearguard is leaving us exposed.
On Friday, Ireland enacted a blasphemy law taken straight out of the Middle Ages. It holds that any person risks being sentenced for blasphemy if "he or she publishes or utters 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."
Those heartless sinners risk paying a fine of US$35,000 if they infringe the new statute, which was inspired by this court decision.
So what if a Martin Luther dares to post any thoughts that could be interpreted as "heresy" by the Catholic Church?
Or what if a cartoonist publishes a piece on the Prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb under his turban, which could be interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as a crime punishable by death?
Or what if Atheist Ireland publishes on their website, as they did over the weekend, writings by Jesus Christ, Muhammad, US comedian George Carlin, Pope Benedict the XVI or US classic author Mark Twain, all historic figures who had a lot to say about organized religion and its followers?
The Washington Post:
Well, if sanctimonious legislators in Ireland think their "masterpiece" makes things any clearer, they failed miserably.
Civilized nations the world over have long ago concluded that church and state must remain separate, basically because what one religion may consider sacred, another may dismiss as frivolous, and vice-versa.
The Irish law, as written, could indict perhaps half of the volumes of Dublin's public libraries and the collective intelligence of the country's entire population.
Note to the Irish Parliament: the time for sanctimonious aspersions expired sometime before the 12th Century. Please hit the modernize button.
On Friday, Ireland enacted a blasphemy law taken straight out of the Middle Ages. It holds that any person risks being sentenced for blasphemy if "he or she publishes or utters 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."
Those heartless sinners risk paying a fine of US$35,000 if they infringe the new statute, which was inspired by this court decision.
So what if a Martin Luther dares to post any thoughts that could be interpreted as "heresy" by the Catholic Church?
Or what if a cartoonist publishes a piece on the Prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb under his turban, which could be interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as a crime punishable by death?
Or what if Atheist Ireland publishes on their website, as they did over the weekend, writings by Jesus Christ, Muhammad, US comedian George Carlin, Pope Benedict the XVI or US classic author Mark Twain, all historic figures who had a lot to say about organized religion and its followers?
The Washington Post:
[Twain] opined in 1909: "When the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. . . . He slays, slays, slays!"
"Two days ago, there was no question over whether these quotes were legal. Now there is a question, and that is very bizarre," Michael Nugent, the group's chairman, said in an interview Saturday.
Blasphemy was already a criminal offense in Ireland under the country's 1937 constitution. But until now, the language had been too murky to make prosecutions feasible. In 1999, Ireland's Supreme Court dismissed the last case to test the law because blasphemy was not clearly defined.
"Two days ago, there was no question over whether these quotes were legal. Now there is a question, and that is very bizarre," Michael Nugent, the group's chairman, said in an interview Saturday.
Blasphemy was already a criminal offense in Ireland under the country's 1937 constitution. But until now, the language had been too murky to make prosecutions feasible. In 1999, Ireland's Supreme Court dismissed the last case to test the law because blasphemy was not clearly defined.
Well, if sanctimonious legislators in Ireland think their "masterpiece" makes things any clearer, they failed miserably.
Civilized nations the world over have long ago concluded that church and state must remain separate, basically because what one religion may consider sacred, another may dismiss as frivolous, and vice-versa.
The Irish law, as written, could indict perhaps half of the volumes of Dublin's public libraries and the collective intelligence of the country's entire population.
Note to the Irish Parliament: the time for sanctimonious aspersions expired sometime before the 12th Century. Please hit the modernize button.
Print
Comments