It’s the second day of the new year, and the second day of the Irish Blasphemy law coming into affect. The Guardian newspaper reported on the activist group Atheist Ireland publishing 25 blasphemous quotes on the blasphemy.ie website including 2 quotes from Jesus Himself which could be perceived to be blasphemous towards Jews, and stating that they will fight prosecution if brought to court by the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions).
This seems a good idea to explain why I as a Christian oppose the current blasphemy law. Personally I think all people should have equal right to express their viewpoint, and people should have equal right to freedom of conscience irrespective of what belief system one holds. Not only this though, there is a clear disadvantage in making blasphemy illegal. Not only does it put religious affairs back into the grip of the Government, if people suppress criticism of Christianity or any other religion in the media it will be more difficult to clarify any misconceptions that people have.
The other reason which Michael Nugent brought forward is also valid:
Nugent said: “This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic states led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.
“We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.”
I likewise don’t believe that religious outrage should be incentivized. Why should the anger of one group go above and beyond anyone else’s anger. In a society which is also becoming a pluralism rather rapidly it seems not only absurd to do this, but untenable. People will always hold views that will be deemed to be blasphemous to a certain group of people. In my case even if I regard the dietary laws of certain religions it could be utterly blasphemous for me to eat beef, or to eat pork. This aside, if I hold the viewpoint that Jesus is Lord, and that He is the Son of God, it’s immediately blasphemous to Jews and Muslims.
This aside, I wouldn’t share the position of Michael Nugent that this law is here necessarily as an expression of the Golden Rule considering that exercising this right to blasphemy could result in offence, and of course nobody would desire to be offended. However, if we are to follow the logical conclusion from the rights of freedom of speech, and the freedom of conscience. This results in the freedom of statements according to any given belief system people may hold including secular criticisms of religion even if they are invalid.
Although refraining from blasphemous statements could be considered a common act of courtesy, what is condemned legally isn’t always consistent with what is moral or what is indeed good etiquette. That is up for the individual to decide, and it is up for people in society to condemn and criticise as they deem fit. If people are interested in churches / religious institutions being something independent of the State, having the State police religious matters doesn’t seem the best way to deal with it.
