Blasphemy Law

I've said it before, to friends, but here I go again: it's a rare thing for me to find myself in perfect agreement with Richard Dawkins. Under normal circumstances I find him too abrasive and purposely antagonistic to take seriously - however, when it comes to the recent introduction of the law pertaining to blasphemy and blasphemous libel in Ireland, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Here's a link to the article I'm referring to:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0713/1224250543694.html

As of the 1st January 2010, it is illegal in Ireland to utter publicly, or publish, matter which is deemed to be blasphemous toward any religion. I'm really at a loss as to the reasoning behind the introduction of this legislation, it has me practically foaming at the mouth with rage. I'm all for respect and tolerance towards a wide range of diverse belief systems, but this is just stupid. The government itself has all but admitted that the legislation only works on paper and is unenforcable in practice. It's just... so ridiculous, on so many levels, that I don't even know where to begin.

Mr. Dawkins has deemed the new law "a return to the middle ages", and I agree with him. Not only is it contrary to my understanding of free speech (please understand, I see a clear distinction between incitement to hatred/sectarianism, and a personal disagreement with certain aspects of a religion), but to introduce such a law in Ireland, of all places, seems almost ironic. We have such a history of our government having an unhealthy deference towards the Catholic church in particular. The recent spate of reports and tribunals investigating clerical child sex abuse, including the Ryan report, have chronicled for us the miserable truth of what happens when the relationship between church and state is too close for comfort. The Irish government has a lot to answer for in terms of assisting the clerical hierarchy to cover up the pandemic of abuse that took place in this country - and unlike the church, I feel the government has never been held to account for its' role. Bearing this in mind, Dermot Ahern's move seems nothing short of brazen.

I have to wonder if this law could potentially be used to stem the tide of criticism and fury against the clergy in the future, possibly in the wake of further revelations of abuse and corruption. I mean, will some of the most vehement criticism of the Catholic church be deemed "blasphemy" and penalised accordingly? If so, was that the idea all along? I cannot be sure, but the possibility worries me.

Aside from anything else, the premise of what the term "blasphemy" even comprises is ill-defined. For instance, what is to be done in the instance of certain religious doctrines being considered blaspemhous against the premise of another religion? If you interpret many religious texts and scriptures in a very literal manner you will find a myriad of passages that could be considered blasphemous, contradictory or offensive to those of other belief systems. Are these doctrines, then, to be outlawed under the new legislation? Does the government even know? I doubt it, it appears to be beyond the skill of the current government to consider bills with such foresight and scrutiny - and it drives me bloody nuts.

We are, now, being held up in foreign media as a sort of social and legal pariah, and deservedly so. Or at least, deservedly of the government. It really just disgusts me, even the way that it elevates religious convictions above personal ones. I mean - if I hold specific beliefs as an atheist or agnostic person, that are founded on personal observation or empirical evidence rather than a theistic system of belief, my views can be freely criticised or even vilified by those who take issue with them. Since they are not part of any formal religious structure and atheism is rarely recognised as a belief system, let alone a "religion", and agnosticism never is, they are not protected by the blasphemy legislation, and people can take the piss out of me all they like. On the other hand, my freedom to return the favour by criticising people's religious views is now limited. I'm not saying that I should go out and deliberately tick people off or make fun of them - but why should the views of some be protected from vilification under the law, and not those of others?

So in my opinion the new legislation is not only impractical, it's discriminatory.

Mnnnnnnnnnnfffffffffffhhhhhh. I think I need to go calm down now.