Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 19

 

2010-01-11 16:16:09
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6999|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

lowing wrote:

.


your interpretation is another for your opinion. Of which you hold to a lower standard of proof than anyone elses.

My argument consisted of

the time line for such legislation being in conjunction with other legislation of this type. - I always said parallels could be drawn. there is no denying that, however, no direct influence can be proved between the two by you apparently because of a " PC Conspiracy" = WANKER.. why? NONE EXISTS.. FACT

The fact that it is celebrated and copied by Islamic nations, while condemned by freedom loving western societies - lt has to be tested in the Supreme court here, i'm confident it will be repealed in fact i'm pretty certain - my opinion, and I couldn't give a shit what Islamic countries do

The fact that, by your own admittance there is no outrage or incitement to reference to in your source which clearly hold outrage and incitement as a major concern of this legislation. Islam however has examples of this. -   i've shown that it existed, you're the one who keeps falsely asserting this, so another base less claim by you with no evidence to the contrary = WANKER

The fact that your own reference was a 15 year old obscure court case that, no one gave a shit about and I am sure you had to fucking look up to see if one existed.  - i've shown the evidence to disprove this.. hence the lengthy 5 year legal case which led to constitutional change - I guess someone gave a shit eh? WANKER

The fact that Islam is a rapidly expanding community within Ireland (hahaha WANKER!!!!!!)   and by the admittance of those on your side will be the major benefactors to such a curtailing of free speech and press.  again let it be tested in the courts that's how we roll in civilisation Lowing..

The fact that the attacks in England is close enough to home to raise eyebrows in Ireland - only in so far as it wasn't the Irish for a change I'd imagine or a shrug of the shoulder for perfidious Albion's colonial misdeeds coming home to roost possibly?

All you brought was, you're wrong because I said so, and insults. Sorry no comparison.
Blah blah blah WANKER  still no evidence none,zip,zilch.. only misinformed opinion.. BORING.. GTFO

At the end of the day context is everything Lowing and to understand Irelands Blasphemy law you have to decant it through 400 years of Irish history, arriving at the 37 Constitution,  Corway v's independent newspapers etc etc.. and the fact that 99% of Ireland is Christian.

It's no "PC conspiracy" that you cannot provide any direct link between the Danish Muslim outrage & Irelands Blasphemy laws, it's because none exists, FACT.  you have the context all wrong. YOU'RE WRONG and you cannot make it right.

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-11 17:31:53)

2010-01-12 05:20:03
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6999|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
WORLD VIEW: The role of religion in society is in a fascinating state of flux throughout Europe, writes PAUL GILLESPIE

ARTICLE 17 of the Lisbon Treaty, which respects the status under national law of churches, religious associations and non-confessional groups, attracted little comment during the recent referendum here. But it assumes new significance because of rapid changes in church-state relations throughout the EU. * This is now an urgent issue in Ireland following the child abuse scandals (Catholic Church Lowing) and the growing debate on religious control of education (state funded Protestant schools Lowing ).
The article commits the EU to “maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations”. Already that has happened here when the Government met a whole range of them, although it has yet to issue any conclusions. Many churches have boosted their representation in Brussels and are co-ordinating activity throughout the EU about how to respond to demands for change.

The picture is complicated by the sheer range of experience, as states like France with a strict separation of church and state are now more open to religion while those with (mainly Anglican or Lutheran) established or state religions like Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland or Britain are introducing more separation. Similar changes are happening in the third category, mainly Catholic states like Spain, Portugal or Austria, which have recently renegotiated existing concordats with that church.

Existing and prospective EU enlargement brings yet more diversity, including more Orthodox churches like Serbia’s along with Greece and the possibility that Turkey could become the first member state with a Muslim majority in its population. That would certainly bolster one of the principal religious trends in contemporary Europe: the steady growth and demand for a voice from Islamic minorities who do not assume religion must be confined to the private sphere.

The growing misfit between comfortable assumptions of a strong relationship between secularisation, modernity and democracy, and these changing realities on the ground is another complicating factor. Many analysts speak of a religious revival, despite continuing low church attendance figures – so much so that the term “post-secular” is widely used.

These figures often co-exist with much higher ones for religious affiliation. Such discrepancies are especially marked in Denmark, for example, which has a mere 2 per cent attendance but an 88 per cent expressed affiliation to the Lutheran church; but they are also found in Italy and Spain. Many Europeans still believe but don’t belong to churches – and vice versa.

Such paradoxes are often best explained by perplexed and fearful responses to the growth of Islamic minorities in states used to relatively long-standing religious settlements and taken-for-granted arrangements about the role of religion in education. New immigrants shake these up; but they also become scapegoats for wider social changes which brings religion back to the public sphere. Islam is then cast as a generalised and hostile “other” responsible for upsetting these settlements, symbolising intolerance and renewed religious conflict.

As the sociologist José Casanova puts it, “the immigrant, the religious, the racial, and the socio-economic unprivileged ‘other’ all tend to coincide. Moreover, all those dimensions of ‘otherness’ now become superimposed upon Islam, so that Islam becomes the utterly ‘other’.”

Casanova’s work on religious belief and practice in contemporary Europe contradicts the assumption that most EU member states are on a common and inexorable path towards a secular modernity in which church and state are separated, religion confined to private belief and cultural conflicts thereby avoided.

The actual picture is far less simple. Historically, religion has played a real part of European modernity and democratisation. Its role is best understood in terms of the long-term creation of twin tolerances in which states and churches agreed to coexist.

The churches accept the autonomy of democratically elected governments without veto rights on them. Governments tolerate the autonomy and freedom of religious people to worship, advance their values publicly and sponsor political initiatives, so long as they do not violate democratic rules and accept the rule of law.

That broad framework allows for the rich variety of church-state relations we find around contemporary Europe. According to Silvio Ferrari, an Italian researcher, we are living through a transition from religious to cultural and ethical pluralism reflected in a convergent practice of modifying such church-state relations to take more account of religious fragmentation and greater individualism. Most of this is happening somewhere between the two poles of the French strict separation and Lutheran systems. The French system is changing too. Some 20 per cent of education there is religious and the foreign ministry now has a special section dealing with religious issues. The Lutheran model is changing most rapidly.

Ireland’s hybrid system of church-state relations combines elements of the separatist and concordatarian approaches. Those who want to see the churches put altogether out of education here should be aware that similar radical changes are being sought elsewhere, as in Spain. But the main thrust of change is towards a renewed pluralism.
* What I have highlighted in bold for Lowing's benefit is "the Irish context" of the discussion - see no mention of Mooooooooooooooooooslims at all within it , I wonder why? eh? oh that's right the "PC CONSPIRACY" sorry I forgot.  Yet,  they are discussed within the article as a whole so much for the "PC Conspiracy"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi … 78083.html

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-12 05:29:17)

2010-01-12 10:01:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

.


your interpretation is another for your opinion. Of which you hold to a lower standard of proof than anyone elses.

My argument consisted of

the time line for such legislation being in conjunction with other legislation of this type. - I always said parallels could be drawn. there is no denying that, however, no direct influence can be proved between the two by you apparently because of a " PC Conspiracy" = WANKER.. why? NONE EXISTS.. FACT

The fact that it is celebrated and copied by Islamic nations, while condemned by freedom loving western societies - lt has to be tested in the Supreme court here, i'm confident it will be repealed in fact i'm pretty certain - my opinion, and I couldn't give a shit what Islamic countries do

The fact that, by your own admittance there is no outrage or incitement to reference to in your source which clearly hold outrage and incitement as a major concern of this legislation. Islam however has examples of this. -   i've shown that it existed, you're the one who keeps falsely asserting this, so another base less claim by you with no evidence to the contrary = WANKER

The fact that your own reference was a 15 year old obscure court case that, no one gave a shit about and I am sure you had to fucking look up to see if one existed.  - i've shown the evidence to disprove this.. hence the lengthy 5 year legal case which led to constitutional change - I guess someone gave a shit eh? WANKER

The fact that Islam is a rapidly expanding community within Ireland (hahaha WANKER!!!!!!)   and by the admittance of those on your side will be the major benefactors to such a curtailing of free speech and press.  again let it be tested in the courts that's how we roll in civilisation Lowing..

The fact that the attacks in England is close enough to home to raise eyebrows in Ireland - only in so far as it wasn't the Irish for a change I'd imagine or a shrug of the shoulder for perfidious Albion's colonial misdeeds coming home to roost possibly?

All you brought was, you're wrong because I said so, and insults. Sorry no comparison.
Blah blah blah WANKER  still no evidence none,zip,zilch.. only misinformed opinion.. BORING.. GTFO

At the end of the day context is everything Lowing and to understand Irelands Blasphemy law you have to decant it through 400 years of Irish history, arriving at the 37 Constitution,  Corway v's independent newspapers etc etc.. and the fact that 99% of Ireland is Christian.

It's no "PC conspiracy" that you cannot provide any direct link between the Danish Muslim outrage & Irelands Blasphemy laws, it's because none exists, FACT.  you have the context all wrong. YOU'RE WRONG and you cannot make it right.
1. yes parallels can be made and in fact have been made, kinda hard not to, when Islam uses verbatim your law.

2. your opinion nothing more

3. no you haven't ,in fact you have said there has not been any outrage or incitement. Also, 2 guys holding a sign is not outrage or incitement or even head turning. Try harder

4. not hardly, betting you even had to look it up because you had no idea. Hardly attention getting.

5. ahh no denial I see. Telling

6. opinion yet again, and no denial

7. lol, very nice reply, great debate skills.

8. Stop with the 400 years bullshit, the conflicts in Ireland had nothing to do with blasphemy. Blasphemy is a recent concern.
2010-01-12 10:03:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

WORLD VIEW: The role of religion in society is in a fascinating state of flux throughout Europe, writes PAUL GILLESPIE

ARTICLE 17 of the Lisbon Treaty, which respects the status under national law of churches, religious associations and non-confessional groups, attracted little comment during the recent referendum here. But it assumes new significance because of rapid changes in church-state relations throughout the EU. * This is now an urgent issue in Ireland following the child abuse scandals (Catholic Church Lowing) and the growing debate on religious control of education (state funded Protestant schools Lowing ).
The article commits the EU to “maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations”. Already that has happened here when the Government met a whole range of them, although it has yet to issue any conclusions. Many churches have boosted their representation in Brussels and are co-ordinating activity throughout the EU about how to respond to demands for change.

The picture is complicated by the sheer range of experience, as states like France with a strict separation of church and state are now more open to religion while those with (mainly Anglican or Lutheran) established or state religions like Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland or Britain are introducing more separation. Similar changes are happening in the third category, mainly Catholic states like Spain, Portugal or Austria, which have recently renegotiated existing concordats with that church.

Existing and prospective EU enlargement brings yet more diversity, including more Orthodox churches like Serbia’s along with Greece and the possibility that Turkey could become the first member state with a Muslim majority in its population. That would certainly bolster one of the principal religious trends in contemporary Europe: the steady growth and demand for a voice from Islamic minorities who do not assume religion must be confined to the private sphere.

The growing misfit between comfortable assumptions of a strong relationship between secularisation, modernity and democracy, and these changing realities on the ground is another complicating factor. Many analysts speak of a religious revival, despite continuing low church attendance figures – so much so that the term “post-secular” is widely used.

These figures often co-exist with much higher ones for religious affiliation. Such discrepancies are especially marked in Denmark, for example, which has a mere 2 per cent attendance but an 88 per cent expressed affiliation to the Lutheran church; but they are also found in Italy and Spain. Many Europeans still believe but don’t belong to churches – and vice versa.

Such paradoxes are often best explained by perplexed and fearful responses to the growth of Islamic minorities in states used to relatively long-standing religious settlements and taken-for-granted arrangements about the role of religion in education. New immigrants shake these up; but they also become scapegoats for wider social changes which brings religion back to the public sphere. Islam is then cast as a generalised and hostile “other” responsible for upsetting these settlements, symbolising intolerance and renewed religious conflict.

As the sociologist José Casanova puts it, “the immigrant, the religious, the racial, and the socio-economic unprivileged ‘other’ all tend to coincide. Moreover, all those dimensions of ‘otherness’ now become superimposed upon Islam, so that Islam becomes the utterly ‘other’.”

Casanova’s work on religious belief and practice in contemporary Europe contradicts the assumption that most EU member states are on a common and inexorable path towards a secular modernity in which church and state are separated, religion confined to private belief and cultural conflicts thereby avoided.

The actual picture is far less simple. Historically, religion has played a real part of European modernity and democratisation. Its role is best understood in terms of the long-term creation of twin tolerances in which states and churches agreed to coexist.

The churches accept the autonomy of democratically elected governments without veto rights on them. Governments tolerate the autonomy and freedom of religious people to worship, advance their values publicly and sponsor political initiatives, so long as they do not violate democratic rules and accept the rule of law.

That broad framework allows for the rich variety of church-state relations we find around contemporary Europe. According to Silvio Ferrari, an Italian researcher, we are living through a transition from religious to cultural and ethical pluralism reflected in a convergent practice of modifying such church-state relations to take more account of religious fragmentation and greater individualism. Most of this is happening somewhere between the two poles of the French strict separation and Lutheran systems. The French system is changing too. Some 20 per cent of education there is religious and the foreign ministry now has a special section dealing with religious issues. The Lutheran model is changing most rapidly.

Ireland’s hybrid system of church-state relations combines elements of the separatist and concordatarian approaches. Those who want to see the churches put altogether out of education here should be aware that similar radical changes are being sought elsewhere, as in Spain. But the main thrust of change is towards a renewed pluralism.
* What I have highlighted in bold for Lowing's benefit is "the Irish context" of the discussion - see no mention of Mooooooooooooooooooslims at all within it , I wonder why? eh? oh that's right the "PC CONSPIRACY" sorry I forgot.  Yet,  they are discussed within the article as a whole so much for the "PC Conspiracy"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi … 78083.html
Also no mention of Catholic or Protestant, except where you piped in.

Also funny how the rest of that article does address Islamic influences. Oh well. I guess Ireland somehow is a bubble within the EU.
2010-01-12 10:04:49
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6547|Éire
@Lowing

Blasphemy is not a recent concern here, neither is Islam. That's why people are scratching their heads as to why the Government bothered refining the vague, outdated, Christian-inspired law at all.

I got my clothes washed by a Muslim today, he didn't try to cut my head off either. Nice guy in fact.
2010-01-12 10:14:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Braddock wrote:

@Lowing

Blasphemy is not a recent concern here, neither is Islam. That's why people are scratching their heads as to why the Government bothered refining the vague, outdated, Christian-inspired law at all.

I got my clothes washed by a Muslim today, he didn't try to cut my head off either. Nice guy in fact.
While you are scratching your heads to figure this out, opinions have been formed by others.

Islam is growing within Ireland, proven that. Appeasement toward Islam is a common theme in EU, fact

Ireland is part of the EU.

By your own admittance there is no reason at all as to why Ireland is so willing and ready to throw away distinctly western freedoms for laws only an Islamic state could love.

Is forming this  opinion really such a stretch given the facts and circumstances of our time?
2010-01-12 10:29:55
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6838|SE London

5 minutes of Googling and reading:

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.

By clarifying the term and imposing a hefty fine, the government has angered critics, who say [h]the law undermines the state's increasing independence from the Catholic Church[h].
Lawmakers in staunchly Catholic Ireland passed the law in July, but it came into force January 1.
One year after Britain abolishes blasphemy laws protecting the Church of England, Ireland has brought in a new blasphemy law to protect the Catholic Church.
Irish legal experts agree that Mr. Ahern's revival of blasphemy is a technically appropriate response to a legitimate problem. Article 40 of Ireland's 1937 Constitution positively requires that "blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter" be criminally punishable. But in 1999, when a blasphemy prosecution was last attempted, the country's Supreme Court found that the offence was too poorly defined for a conviction to be possible. Either the relevant part of Article 40 had to go, or the blasphemy statute had to be rewritten.

But the court also insisted that any new law could not incorporate a strictly Roman Catholic definition of blasphemy, pointing out that the Catholic faith no longer enjoys a guaranteed "special status" under the Constitution as it once did. Even though the preamble to the Constitution still invokes the "Name of the Most Holy Trinity" and acknowledges Christ as "Divine Lord" of the Republic, the Irish state is no longer formally Catholic or Christian.

Thus is the pinnacle of stupidity reached: Under the Irish Constitution, no religion can be considered true and therefore supreme, yet under a different provision of the Irish Constitution, the law is obliged to contain and implement a working concept of blasphemy. The only logical possibilities left are to forbid blasphemy against all religions -- treat them all as equally true, which they can't be--or to remove the stupidity from the Constitution.
The simple fact is, blasphemy (specifically directed at the Catholic church) was illegal under the constitution and has been since 1936. This law was completely unworkable as it is in contravention of various other EU laws. This meant no one could be prosecuted for it. Broadening the scope of the law makes it legally workable. This is what has been done.

Islam does not factor into that whatsoever. It's just untying some legal loopholes.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-12 10:31:05)

2010-01-12 10:47:36
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6547|Éire

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

@Lowing

Blasphemy is not a recent concern here, neither is Islam. That's why people are scratching their heads as to why the Government bothered refining the vague, outdated, Christian-inspired law at all.

I got my clothes washed by a Muslim today, he didn't try to cut my head off either. Nice guy in fact.
While you are scratching your heads to figure this out, opinions have been formed by others.

Islam is growing within Ireland, proven that. Appeasement toward Islam is a common theme in EU, fact

Ireland is part of the EU.

By your own admittance there is no reason at all as to why Ireland is so willing and ready to throw away distinctly western freedoms for laws only an Islamic state could love.

Is forming this  opinion really such a stretch given the facts and circumstances of our time?
• Islam still doesn't even constitute a single solitary percent of the population. Fact.

• Ireland technically had no freedom to blaspheme under the constitution before now. Fact.

• This lack of free speech on matters of religion was a result of the Catholic church. Fact.

• Ireland has just recently clarified laws that were previously too murky to enforce. Fact.

I don't like these laws, I don't like them one bit, but they don't have anything to do with Islam. You claiming they do is as preposterous as me claiming some hypothetical technical legal amendment to the US constitution being inspired by Zoroastrianism.
2010-01-12 11:22:24
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6999|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

WORLD VIEW: The role of religion in society is in a fascinating state of flux throughout Europe, writes PAUL GILLESPIE

ARTICLE 17 of the Lisbon Treaty, which respects the status under national law of churches, religious associations and non-confessional groups, attracted little comment during the recent referendum here. But it assumes new significance because of rapid changes in church-state relations throughout the EU. * This is now an urgent issue in Ireland following the child abuse scandals (Catholic Church Lowing) and the growing debate on religious control of education (state funded Protestant schools Lowing ).
The article commits the EU to “maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations”. Already that has happened here when the Government met a whole range of them, although it has yet to issue any conclusions. Many churches have boosted their representation in Brussels and are co-ordinating activity throughout the EU about how to respond to demands for change.

The picture is complicated by the sheer range of experience, as states like France with a strict separation of church and state are now more open to religion while those with (mainly Anglican or Lutheran) established or state religions like Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland or Britain are introducing more separation. Similar changes are happening in the third category, mainly Catholic states like Spain, Portugal or Austria, which have recently renegotiated existing concordats with that church.

Existing and prospective EU enlargement brings yet more diversity, including more Orthodox churches like Serbia’s along with Greece and the possibility that Turkey could become the first member state with a Muslim majority in its population. That would certainly bolster one of the principal religious trends in contemporary Europe: the steady growth and demand for a voice from Islamic minorities who do not assume religion must be confined to the private sphere.

The growing misfit between comfortable assumptions of a strong relationship between secularisation, modernity and democracy, and these changing realities on the ground is another complicating factor. Many analysts speak of a religious revival, despite continuing low church attendance figures – so much so that the term “post-secular” is widely used.

These figures often co-exist with much higher ones for religious affiliation. Such discrepancies are especially marked in Denmark, for example, which has a mere 2 per cent attendance but an 88 per cent expressed affiliation to the Lutheran church; but they are also found in Italy and Spain. Many Europeans still believe but don’t belong to churches – and vice versa.

Such paradoxes are often best explained by perplexed and fearful responses to the growth of Islamic minorities in states used to relatively long-standing religious settlements and taken-for-granted arrangements about the role of religion in education. New immigrants shake these up; but they also become scapegoats for wider social changes which brings religion back to the public sphere. Islam is then cast as a generalised and hostile “other” responsible for upsetting these settlements, symbolising intolerance and renewed religious conflict.

As the sociologist José Casanova puts it, “the immigrant, the religious, the racial, and the socio-economic unprivileged ‘other’ all tend to coincide. Moreover, all those dimensions of ‘otherness’ now become superimposed upon Islam, so that Islam becomes the utterly ‘other’.”

Casanova’s work on religious belief and practice in contemporary Europe contradicts the assumption that most EU member states are on a common and inexorable path towards a secular modernity in which church and state are separated, religion confined to private belief and cultural conflicts thereby avoided.

The actual picture is far less simple. Historically, religion has played a real part of European modernity and democratisation. Its role is best understood in terms of the long-term creation of twin tolerances in which states and churches agreed to coexist.

The churches accept the autonomy of democratically elected governments without veto rights on them. Governments tolerate the autonomy and freedom of religious people to worship, advance their values publicly and sponsor political initiatives, so long as they do not violate democratic rules and accept the rule of law.

That broad framework allows for the rich variety of church-state relations we find around contemporary Europe. According to Silvio Ferrari, an Italian researcher, we are living through a transition from religious to cultural and ethical pluralism reflected in a convergent practice of modifying such church-state relations to take more account of religious fragmentation and greater individualism. Most of this is happening somewhere between the two poles of the French strict separation and Lutheran systems. The French system is changing too. Some 20 per cent of education there is religious and the foreign ministry now has a special section dealing with religious issues. The Lutheran model is changing most rapidly.

Ireland’s hybrid system of church-state relations combines elements of the separatist and concordatarian approaches. Those who want to see the churches put altogether out of education here should be aware that similar radical changes are being sought elsewhere, as in Spain. But the main thrust of change is towards a renewed pluralism.
* What I have highlighted in bold for Lowing's benefit is "the Irish context" of the discussion - see no mention of Mooooooooooooooooooslims at all within it , I wonder why? eh? oh that's right the "PC CONSPIRACY" sorry I forgot.  Yet,  they are discussed within the article as a whole so much for the "PC Conspiracy"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi … 78083.html
Also no mention of Catholic or Protestant, except where you piped in.

Also funny how the rest of that article does address Islamic influences. Oh well. I guess Ireland somehow is a bubble within the EU.
All I did was put what was written in the article in Bold for your benifit you fucking moron, it's not me "piping in"
2010-01-12 14:06:12
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

5 minutes of Googling and reading:

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.

By clarifying the term and imposing a hefty fine, the government has angered critics, who say [h]the law undermines the state's increasing independence from the Catholic Church[h].
Lawmakers in staunchly Catholic Ireland passed the law in July, but it came into force January 1.
One year after Britain abolishes blasphemy laws protecting the Church of England, Ireland has brought in a new blasphemy law to protect the Catholic Church.
Irish legal experts agree that Mr. Ahern's revival of blasphemy is a technically appropriate response to a legitimate problem. Article 40 of Ireland's 1937 Constitution positively requires that "blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter" be criminally punishable. But in 1999, when a blasphemy prosecution was last attempted, the country's Supreme Court found that the offence was too poorly defined for a conviction to be possible. Either the relevant part of Article 40 had to go, or the blasphemy statute had to be rewritten.

But the court also insisted that any new law could not incorporate a strictly Roman Catholic definition of blasphemy, pointing out that the Catholic faith no longer enjoys a guaranteed "special status" under the Constitution as it once did. Even though the preamble to the Constitution still invokes the "Name of the Most Holy Trinity" and acknowledges Christ as "Divine Lord" of the Republic, the Irish state is no longer formally Catholic or Christian.

Thus is the pinnacle of stupidity reached: Under the Irish Constitution, no religion can be considered true and therefore supreme, yet under a different provision of the Irish Constitution, the law is obliged to contain and implement a working concept of blasphemy. The only logical possibilities left are to forbid blasphemy against all religions -- treat them all as equally true, which they can't be--or to remove the stupidity from the Constitution.
The simple fact is, blasphemy (specifically directed at the Catholic church) was illegal under the constitution and has been since 1936. This law was completely unworkable as it is in contravention of various other EU laws. This meant no one could be prosecuted for it. Broadening the scope of the law makes it legally workable. This is what has been done.

Islam does not factor into that whatsoever. It's just untying some legal loopholes.
This legal loopholes you speak of that are now closed does nothing except benefit Islam.  They were loopholes that absolutely no one gave a shit about since 1937 less 1 court case that is being toted as ground breaking. The only religion that gives a shit about stifling free speech and press in the name of a religion is Islam, . No other religion has eve rmade it a REAL issue. This law is celebrated and copied by Islamic states while being condemned by western freedom loving states. Not really sure how much more clear I can make it. Islam is the ONLY benefacator to such laws.
2010-01-12 14:09:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:


* What I have highlighted in bold for Lowing's benefit is "the Irish context" of the discussion - see no mention of Mooooooooooooooooooslims at all within it , I wonder why? eh? oh that's right the "PC CONSPIRACY" sorry I forgot.  Yet,  they are discussed within the article as a whole so much for the "PC Conspiracy"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opi … 78083.html
Also no mention of Catholic or Protestant, except where you piped in.

Also funny how the rest of that article does address Islamic influences. Oh well. I guess Ireland somehow is a bubble within the EU.
All I did was put what was written in the article in Bold for your benifit you fucking moron, it's not me "piping in"
I read the article, CATHOLIC and PROTSTANT are not printed where you have put them.

Also you are starting to take a little too much artistic license in your posts with all of the insults and name calling, you need to tone it down a bit.
2010-01-12 14:15:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

@Lowing

Blasphemy is not a recent concern here, neither is Islam. That's why people are scratching their heads as to why the Government bothered refining the vague, outdated, Christian-inspired law at all.

I got my clothes washed by a Muslim today, he didn't try to cut my head off either. Nice guy in fact.
While you are scratching your heads to figure this out, opinions have been formed by others.

Islam is growing within Ireland, proven that. Appeasement toward Islam is a common theme in EU, fact

Ireland is part of the EU.

By your own admittance there is no reason at all as to why Ireland is so willing and ready to throw away distinctly western freedoms for laws only an Islamic state could love.

Is forming this  opinion really such a stretch given the facts and circumstances of our time?
• Islam still doesn't even constitute a single solitary percent of the population. Fact.

• Ireland technically had no freedom to blaspheme under the constitution before now. Fact.

• This lack of free speech on matters of religion was a result of the Catholic church. Fact.

• Ireland has just recently clarified laws that were previously too murky to enforce. Fact.

I don't like these laws, I don't like them one bit, but they don't have anything to do with Islam. You claiming they do is as preposterous as me claiming some hypothetical technical legal amendment to the US constitution being inspired by Zoroastrianism.
1. that is changing, rapidly

2. technically, now all of a sudden Ireland gives a shit about blasphemy, for no apparent reason whatsoever, so much so now, they have stripped away 2 of your basic freedoms. Islam and Allah will be pleased, will you?

3. This legislation does not specifiy that. Making it opinion

4. Yes, murky for 70 plus years, now a hot button issue, right along with the other countries racing to legislate laws of this nature. Again Islam and Allsh will be pleased, how 'bout you
2010-01-12 14:29:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Please provide me evidence that says  that this new legislation is DIRECTLY supposed to break the stranlehold(sic) of the Catholic Church..
OMG!!!!!!  you fucking PLANK - I direct you to the 37 Constitution, I direct you to the new definition of Blasphemy.  GTFO..
the definition in the Constitution for blasphemy named the Catholic Church, missed that.
2010-01-12 14:43:40
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6547|Éire

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

Please provide me evidence that says  that this new legislation is DIRECTLY supposed to break the stranlehold(sic) of the Catholic Church..
OMG!!!!!!  you fucking PLANK - I direct you to the 37 Constitution, I direct you to the new definition of Blasphemy.  GTFO..
the definition in the Constitution for blasphemy named the Catholic Church, missed that.
Our constitution used to specifically name the Roman Catholic church as having a "special place" in the eyes of the Irish nation. The original blasphemy law had to be amended recently as it's specific reference to Catholicism was not seen as fair (and probably not even legal in EU law).
2010-01-12 14:53:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:


OMG!!!!!!  you fucking PLANK - I direct you to the 37 Constitution, I direct you to the new definition of Blasphemy.  GTFO..
the definition in the Constitution for blasphemy named the Catholic Church, missed that.
Our constitution used to specifically name the Roman Catholic church as having a "special place" in the eyes of the Irish nation. The original blasphemy law had to be amended recently as it's specific reference to Catholicism was not seen as fair (and probably not even legal in EU law).
Ok, so now EVERYONE benefits form this new law that no one gave a shit about, ( except Islam), and Islam is the only religion that celebrates this new found abolishment of free speech and press. COngrats!! Now, how is removing 2 of your basic freedoms DEPLORED BY ISLAM, benefiting you again?
2010-01-12 15:04:20
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6547|Éire

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

the definition in the Constitution for blasphemy named the Catholic Church, missed that.
Our constitution used to specifically name the Roman Catholic church as having a "special place" in the eyes of the Irish nation. The original blasphemy law had to be amended recently as it's specific reference to Catholicism was not seen as fair (and probably not even legal in EU law).
Ok, so now EVERYONE benefits form this new law that no one gave a shit about, ( except Islam), and Islam is the only religion that celebrates this new found abolishment of free speech and press. COngrats!! Now, how is removing 2 of your basic freedoms DEPLORED BY ISLAM, benefiting you again?
That's been my point from the start mate! I'm guessing our Government doesn't want to shell out the cash for a referendum to get rid of it from the constitution so it's redefining the law as best it can; unfortunately this quick fix solution plays right into the hands of religious nutjobs (yes lowing, including Muslims).

If it makes you feel more comfortable the Government doesn't appear to be coming down on anyone like a tonne of bricks yet.

Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-12 15:05:03)

2010-01-12 15:33:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


Our constitution used to specifically name the Roman Catholic church as having a "special place" in the eyes of the Irish nation. The original blasphemy law had to be amended recently as it's specific reference to Catholicism was not seen as fair (and probably not even legal in EU law).
Ok, so now EVERYONE benefits form this new law that no one gave a shit about, ( except Islam), and Islam is the only religion that celebrates this new found abolishment of free speech and press. COngrats!! Now, how is removing 2 of your basic freedoms DEPLORED BY ISLAM, benefiting you again?
That's been my point from the start mate! I'm guessing our Government doesn't want to shell out the cash for a referendum to get rid of it from the constitution so it's redefining the law as best it can; unfortunately this quick fix solution plays right into the hands of religious nutjobs (yes lowing, including Muslims).

If it makes you feel more comfortable the Government doesn't appear to be coming down on anyone like a tonne of bricks yet.
Perhaps, and yet all it does is pander to Islam, which has been my point from the start.
2010-01-12 15:51:49
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6999|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:


Also no mention of Catholic or Protestant, except where you piped in.

Also funny how the rest of that article does address Islamic influences. Oh well. I guess Ireland somehow is a bubble within the EU.
All I did was put what was written in the article in Bold for your benefit you fucking moron, it's not me "piping in"
I read the article, CATHOLIC and PROTSTANT are not printed where you have put them.

Also you are starting to take a little too much artistic license in your posts with all of the insults and name calling, you need to tone it down a bit.
yeah because it's an article designed for an audience that aren't fucking retards who have a  grasp of the situation & context, i'm making it absolutely clear so even a fucking cretin like you understands the context of what they're taking about because that is exactly what they are talking about, write large for your benefit.  You repeatedly demonstrate that you don't have a grasp of the situation by making a total fucking show of yourself through this thread mate, and still you continue with your blatant irrational islamophobia, spouting and linking nonsense, You're a fucking embarrassment quite frankly.. good day..
2010-01-12 15:56:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

All I did was put what was written in the article in Bold for your benefit you fucking moron, it's not me "piping in"
I read the article, CATHOLIC and PROTSTANT are not printed where you have put them.

Also you are starting to take a little too much artistic license in your posts with all of the insults and name calling, you need to tone it down a bit.
yeah because it's an article designed for an audience that aren't fucking retards who have a  grasp of the situation & context, i'm making it absolutely clear so even a fucking cretin like you understands the context of what they're taking about because that is exactly what they are talking about, write large for your benefit.  You repeatedly demonstrate that you don't have a grasp of the situation by making a total fucking show of yourself through this thread mate, and still you continue with your blatant irrational islamophobia, spouting and linking nonsense, You're a fucking embarrassment quite frankly.. good day..
Ok so we are in agreement then, there is NO LANGUAGE associated with this law that targets Catholics. and it is merely implied. Got it.

then I will take the implication as to benefit Islam and absolutely no one else. Enjoy your loss of free speech and press. Islam will.

Do me a favor, do not throw fits of rage on the internet then claim me as the one who is irrational. If there is any embarrassment it should be yours for such a display of frustration and immaturity, on an internet forum no less.

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-12 15:57:22)

2010-01-12 16:01:13
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6999|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

I read the article, CATHOLIC and PROTSTANT are not printed where you have put them.

Also you are starting to take a little too much artistic license in your posts with all of the insults and name calling, you need to tone it down a bit.
yeah because it's an article designed for an audience that aren't fucking retards who have a  grasp of the situation & context, i'm making it absolutely clear so even a fucking cretin like you understands the context of what they're taking about because that is exactly what they are talking about, write large for your benefit.  You repeatedly demonstrate that you don't have a grasp of the situation by making a total fucking show of yourself through this thread mate, and still you continue with your blatant irrational islamophobia, spouting and linking nonsense, You're a fucking embarrassment quite frankly.. good day..
Ok so we are in agreement then, there is NO LANGUAGE associated with this law that targets Catholics. and it is merely implied. Got it.

then I will take the implication as to benefit Islam and absolutely no one else. Enjoy your loss of free speech and press. Islam will.

Do me a favor, do not throw fits of rage on the internet then claim me as the one who is irrational. If there is any embarrassment it should be yours for such a display of frustration and immaturity, on an internet forum no less.
rage? don't flatter yourself pal, the internet is full of fucking dunces like you, you entertain me.. haha.. Fact is Lowing, I know what it's like to live behind " peace walls " or "interface areas " you might think that you hate Islam, but fact of the matter is you're probably a decent enough person who is just a bit ignorant, but I know what it's like living surrounded by Psycho's who kill because of  irrational sectarian hatred, who will murder someone in the blink of the eye for the "perceived God" they prey to.  I was born at the start of the troubles & i'm still stood here at the end of them, and how we finished it is by defeating cunts like you who  ferment the hate. The pen is mightier than the sword & this is why i'm convinced that the law passed that you are getting your cotton panties in such a twist about will be repealed as soon as someone/group manages to provoke a court case. which they will... eventually..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-12 16:33:05)

2010-01-12 17:25:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

yeah because it's an article designed for an audience that aren't fucking retards who have a  grasp of the situation & context, i'm making it absolutely clear so even a fucking cretin like you understands the context of what they're taking about because that is exactly what they are talking about, write large for your benefit.  You repeatedly demonstrate that you don't have a grasp of the situation by making a total fucking show of yourself through this thread mate, and still you continue with your blatant irrational islamophobia, spouting and linking nonsense, You're a fucking embarrassment quite frankly.. good day..
Ok so we are in agreement then, there is NO LANGUAGE associated with this law that targets Catholics. and it is merely implied. Got it.

then I will take the implication as to benefit Islam and absolutely no one else. Enjoy your loss of free speech and press. Islam will.

Do me a favor, do not throw fits of rage on the internet then claim me as the one who is irrational. If there is any embarrassment it should be yours for such a display of frustration and immaturity, on an internet forum no less.
rage? don't flatter yourself pal, the internet is full of fucking dunces like you, you entertain me.. haha.. Fact is Lowing, I know what it's like to live behind " peace walls " or "interface areas " you might think that you hate Islam, but fact of the matter is you're probably a decent enough person who is just a bit ignorant, but I know what it's like living surrounded by Psycho's who kill because of  irrational sectarian hatred, who will murder someone in the blink of the eye for the "perceived God" they prey to.  I was born at the start of the troubles & i'm still stood here at the end of them, and how we finished it is by defeating cunts like you who  ferment the hate. The pen is mightier than the sword & this is why i'm convinced that the law passed that you are getting your cotton panties in such a twist about will be repealed as soon as someone/group manages to provoke a court case. which they will... eventually..
Actually I am not flattered. You seem to be flattering yourself by your tirades and insults, thinking that you've somehow, gotten to me. I have maintained a civil debate in the face of yours and others raging insults, regardless.

I also find it ironic that you claim I am so full of hatred, yet it is you who is insulting, angry and belittling while I am discussing, or trying to.

I do not think I entertain you more than you seem to entertain yourself with your fits, and your perceived rapier wit at what you think is at my expense. hate to break it to you, but the angrier you get the more irrational and off your rocker you appear.

I do not ferment hate, I respond to the hate projected toward my way of life. I simply do not think Islam is mis-understood. I take it for what it teaches and what acts are committed on its behalf. Neither of which is for the good of western society in which i live.

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-12 19:14:10)

2010-01-13 02:38:12
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6999|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
you're not trying to discuss anything Lowing, we're the ones dealing in fact relevant  to Ireland, why? well given that we live here & we have a modicum of understanding about what is happening unlike yourself.  All you are doing on the other hand is spouting a load of unsubstantiated wank, thats not a discussion pal it's just you slabbering and when challenged to provide some evidence to back up your assertions from an independent verifiable source, Oh you can't, because of some "PC Conspiracy" you're a fucking wanker mate end of discussion.  You're not the rock that liberals break upon, you're a dumb fuck who can't even tell when he's wrong..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2010-01-13 02:39:04)

2010-01-13 02:54:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6908|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

you're not trying to discuss anything Lowing, we're the ones dealing in fact relevant  to Ireland, why? well given that we live here & we have a modicum of understanding about what is happening unlike yourself.  All you are doing on the other hand is spouting a load of unsubstantiated wank, thats not a discussion pal it's just you slabbering and when challenged to provide some evidence to back up your assertions from an independent verifiable source, Oh you can't, because of some "PC Conspiracy" you're a fucking wanker mate end of discussion.  You're not the rock that liberals break upon, you're a dumb fuck who can't even tell when he's wrong..
Again with the insults oh well.



Ireland is part of EU and there is a trend in the EU that panders to Islam. These fantastic laws of yours that strip away freedom of speech and press, play right into Islams wants and desires, while detracting directly from what freedom is supposed to be. I have shown that Islam is an ever increasing presence in the EU including Ireland which makes my point of view valid.

You have not shown that this law is directed toward Catholics, especially since it directly says it included ALL religions.


I posted articles that supported my opinion only to have them dismissed by you, go figure. Now it is supposed to be "independant verifiable sources". A standard you don't even hold yourself to. It is my opinion, I do not need it "independantly verified".

There is no doubt that of ALL THE RELIGIONS, Islam is the only one that will benefit from this and I do not beleive I am not wrong about it.

If all you have left is name calling so be it.

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-13 03:18:40)

2010-01-13 03:17:22
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6999|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
sez you..
2010-01-13 03:21:04
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6999|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
ps.. rather than going round the mulberry bush again for the umpteenth time.. this thread should be locked.  Everything relevant that needs to be said has been, and we can all agree that Lowing is just a slabbering irrational Islamophobe bigot..

 

Pages: 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 19

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard