Comments on: Ireland’s Blasphemy Law

By: Matthew Hardman

Matthew Hardman — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:21:46 +0000

dguest: Your arguments are as facile as your intellect.
Taking my or a family member’s name in vain would not offend me: I would simply laugh at your stupidity in attempting to contrive an artificial allusion.
Religious people treating a make believe construct in the same way as I treat my family does not create a parallel. There is no hypocrisy in ridiculing people who believe in entities which exist as social constructs: you really ARE idiots.
Are far as whose fault it is regarding taking offence: if it is a deliberate insult, then yes, I expect you to be offended - I simply don’t care that you are.
If it is an argument which results in the conclusion that particular ideas are nonsense and the person who believes them gets offended, then yes, that is their own fault.
Are you seriously suggesting that if you believe in God and act upon this belief in ways that adversely affect people who don’t eg. by voting against abortion, then people should “show compassion and tolerance” toward you anyway and not criticise you, your beliefs or the ensuing actions? Not likely.
Can’t remember who said the following:
“You’ll never see an atheist getting on a plane with bombs strapped to their body and waving a copy of On The Origin of Species before blowing themselves and everyone else up”.

By: dguest

dguest — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:44:21 +0000

I have known atheists who fits Matthew Hardman’s deluded and unfair description of Veronica that are also offended when Atheism is put on trial, mocked and deconstructed. Perhaps Hardman should look at his own community and weep.
Another note, if we took Mr. Hardman’s name in vain or his brother’s or siblings or someone he dearly loves he would be insulted. Obviously being an atheist immediately nullified his own sense of compassion and tolerance to his fellow human beings who are religious and treat their gods the same why he treats his family. Talk about hypocrisy! but this doesn’t apply to him and his ilk because they are amoral, thinking themselves as god jr. they can offend, lambast ridicule all they want by making their own laws of etiquette and/or breaking them

Hardman’s attitude is nothing new, still presenting the same tired old insensitive and stupid argument like that of a fundy atheist. you made an ass out of yourself when you said that when people get offended its their fault, How exactly? when the blame lies onto the offender for initiating the insult in the first place. That is why in some countries they have SLander and Libel laws silly! So go ahead, whine about how the Blasphemy Law is a huge step backward or medieval, as far as decency is concerned its a huge step back from getting hit from an oncoming truck driven by a bunch of secularists drunk by their own power and stupidity

By: Matthew Hardman

Matthew Hardman — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 05:30:34 +0000

No prizes for guessing which of the 3 religions will abuse the law the most with frivolous complaints.

By: admin

admin — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 08:27:39 +0000

@Matthew. Veronica is wrong on all counts - the law was designed to give protections to minority religions i.e. NOT just the dominant Christian majority (which has de facto protection in Ireland because of this).
But more importantly, the law is stupid even without a discussion of the merits of free speech, because it is self contradictory, Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all explicitly blasphemous of each other.

By: Matthew Hardman

Matthew Hardman — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 05:38:45 +0000

So Veronica, you appear to be saying that it is the role of the law to enforce the principle that people should not say what they think of someone else’s philosophy because it might hurt their feelings.
This is absurd. It tacitly assumes that if someone is offended then it is the other person’s fault. Moreover, it assumes the law should be used to universally regulate harsh criticism, particularly ridicule or satire.
Rubbish! Often when people are offended, it is their own fault for being overly sensitive or having a fragile philosophical position which makes them feel easily threatened. Too bad! The latter case are the people who most deserve rigorous and often satirical criticism.
You can have whatever religious beliefs and rituals you like, but don’t expect not to be mocked by other people who think you are backward & superstitious. If your feelings are hurt by satire or even harsh logical criticism, that is your own fault. It only serves to illuminate the weakness of your beliefs if you cannot defend them and need to hide behind a dishonest law to protect your idiotic behaviour from other people’s criticism.

By: Veronica Bestellsteli

Veronica Bestellsteli — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:45:46 +0000

Redefication is purely for the Christian religion as all other religions are free from prosecution. Lisbon Referedum is so Christians are not presucted for there beliefs and beat by cops in the united states for being a Christian. It should be carried out throughout the whole world. As in school all other religions are able to talk about their religious ritual, But Christians are not allowed to talk about any of their religious beliefs at all. This is unfair and that is what the Blasphemy law in Ireland is about. And Ireland does not have free-speech due to the hurtful manner free-speech brings. Thanking you in advance for your time, Annonymous