By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Ireland introduces new law which makes blasphemy a crime.

allaboutthegames885 on 04 January 2010
Chairman-Mao said:
That's a good law. If that was in North America a lot of people would be a out a lot of money.

I hope you're being sarcastic, Chairman-Mao... Though admittedly, you probably are...



My Wii Friend Code is: 6458-0869-2019-9754

Also, my 3DS Friend Code is: 1891-1193-6272

And my Pokemon White Friend Code is: 2408-6863-8559

PM me with your corresponding code if you Friend me!

Around the Network
mrstickball on 04 January 2010
bdbdbd said:
Hate speech and blasphemy share a common ground, but whereas hate speech virtually has a victim, blasphemy does not. Blasphemy only protects an ideology.
Hate speech would be damning all christians, while blasphemy would be calling bible a book of fairytales.

Ah, but your analogy is the same.

If one says the Bible is a book of fairytales, then you negate the idea of eternal life, negating the entire meaning of the Christians' life. To a Christian, that would be the same as damning them to hell.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

SnesTea on 04 January 2010
Akvod said:
This is blasphemy!!!!

This is madness!

No, this IS SPARTA!

 

OT: Even as a Catholic, I think this is bullshit.



Chairman-Mao on 04 January 2010
allaboutthegames885 said:
Chairman-Mao said:
That's a good law. If that was in North America a lot of people would be a out a lot of money.

I hope you're being sarcastic, Chairman-Mao... Though admittedly, you probably are...

I'm being sarcastic about it being a good law. I do wish people would stop with the blasphemy though anyways but that will never happen. 



Seraphic_Sixaxis on 04 January 2010

wow, blasphemy a crime.



Around the Network
stof on 05 January 2010
Kasz216 said:
stof said:
Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:
stof said:
Kasz216 said:
stof said:

That's not really a hate crime law, it's a blasphemy law. blasphemy and hate speech are very different. For Instance:

"The bible is full of ridiculous crap" - Blasphemy.

"Christians should be burned alive" - hate speech.

ridiculing a belief (or ridiculing an object of belief, as many followers of a religion may still blashpeme against it by criticizing their own god or church) is far different than inciting hatred towards a group of people.

 

Nah, not in all countries.  In a lot of countries hate speech if something as simple as "All jewish people are liers."

Saying "The bible is full of crap" would be like saying "All christians are idiots."

 

Either is holding an entire group of people in contempt.

um... I see a huge difference between criticizing an idea and insulting a person.

I don't think you understand what hate speech is, Stof:

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality ...

(from google define: hate speech). It doesn't have to involve threats.

By that definition, they are very similar. The only difference is who they are protecting. Hate speech laws usually protect minorities from the majority, and blasphemy laws protect the majority from the minority. Both are dumb.

More or less what i'm getting at.  Though insulting someones faith also does tread on insulting someone.

Yes, I misspoke in my original post about the nature of hate speech, as it is the intended degradation of a group, and not purely the inciting of hatred or violence towards them. But the point I was making was that criticizing or insulting a religion is different than criticizing or insulting a group of people. 

Hate speech laws protect people, as opposed to blasphemy laws that protect religions.

People are people, religions are not, which is why hate speech laws are arguably beneficial (I'd argue yes, Kasz would argue no), where as a blasphemy law is downright head in ass attrocious by just about any measure.

 

Hate speech laws do not protect people.  They protect a GROUP of people.

As do this law.  Uneeded protection, but protection none the less.

Insulting a religion really is no different then insulting an ethnic group at it's base.  Since an insult against either is one that effects all its members.


Insulting a religion is very much different than insulting a group of people. Because a religion is just a set of ideas and statements. The fact that someone believes them to be true doesn't mean they are suddenly above criticism.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

Kasz216 on 05 January 2010
stof said:
Kasz216 said:
stof said:
Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:
stof said:
Kasz216 said:
stof said:

That's not really a hate crime law, it's a blasphemy law. blasphemy and hate speech are very different. For Instance:

"The bible is full of ridiculous crap" - Blasphemy.

"Christians should be burned alive" - hate speech.

ridiculing a belief (or ridiculing an object of belief, as many followers of a religion may still blashpeme against it by criticizing their own god or church) is far different than inciting hatred towards a group of people.

 

Nah, not in all countries.  In a lot of countries hate speech if something as simple as "All jewish people are liers."

Saying "The bible is full of crap" would be like saying "All christians are idiots."

 

Either is holding an entire group of people in contempt.

um... I see a huge difference between criticizing an idea and insulting a person.

I don't think you understand what hate speech is, Stof:

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality ...

(from google define: hate speech). It doesn't have to involve threats.

By that definition, they are very similar. The only difference is who they are protecting. Hate speech laws usually protect minorities from the majority, and blasphemy laws protect the majority from the minority. Both are dumb.

More or less what i'm getting at.  Though insulting someones faith also does tread on insulting someone.

Yes, I misspoke in my original post about the nature of hate speech, as it is the intended degradation of a group, and not purely the inciting of hatred or violence towards them. But the point I was making was that criticizing or insulting a religion is different than criticizing or insulting a group of people. 

Hate speech laws protect people, as opposed to blasphemy laws that protect religions.

People are people, religions are not, which is why hate speech laws are arguably beneficial (I'd argue yes, Kasz would argue no), where as a blasphemy law is downright head in ass attrocious by just about any measure.

 

Hate speech laws do not protect people.  They protect a GROUP of people.

As do this law.  Uneeded protection, but protection none the less.

Insulting a religion really is no different then insulting an ethnic group at it's base.  Since an insult against either is one that effects all its members.


Insulting a religion is very much different than insulting a group of people. Because a religion is just a set of ideas and statements. The fact that someone believes them to be true doesn't mean they are suddenly above criticism.

No.  Religion isn't just a group of ideas.  It's part of a persons identity and culture.  It's as much part of a persons identity as racial or ethnic background. 

Also, nothing is above criticism.



Tyrannical on 05 January 2010

NEW?

What the hell is New about blasphemy laws? Was blaspehemy ever legal, or did they just stop enforcing the old laws?



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire