Congratulations to atheist.ie for international publicity success

[Garland Names the Planets]

As a lapsed atheist this Thread is making it more difficult for me to return to the fold

As a lapsed atheist you're not wanted

[White Horse]

I'm serious about this, by the way. I've never heard anyone putting forward the theory alluded to.

Perhaps you are not well versed in right wing Catholic Republicanism.

We used to have a few of that ilk on this site. I don't know where they went.

Sinn Fein might like to portray republicans as liberals. However, next time you join the hordes leaving Dublin for cheap beer in Newry, stop off for a pint in Hanrattys in Crossmaglen. Ask the locals what they think of secularism and where it comes from.

[Thranduil]

The following epic silliness was inspired by a 'you are going to hell' bus campaign by a Christian Fundamentalist Group in Britain... Showing how one hair brained activity feeds another seemingly opposite activity on the other extreme (when in reality the two feed on each other - healthy religion lies in the middle ground).

Atheist Bus Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard Dawkins donated to it (no doubt he could expect substantial 'returns' on that investment anyway, since it is really an advert for his books - he symbolises this kind of movement more than any other figure after all).

I also note that their 25 points raise the issue of anti-semitism twice, that too is a complete red topic on The Guardian (where the atheist bus campaign originated) at The Guardian this is the only minority you absolutely may not offend (or come close to offending) no matter how inadvertently.... Which suggests to me that these ideas may be rooted in an attempt merely to de-Christianise ie to target the predominant faith rather than show disrespect to all faiths (Universal Atheism).

[Garland Names the Planets]

The following epic silliness was inspired by a 'you are going to hell' bus campaign by a Christian Fundamentalist Group in Britain... Showing how one hair brained activity feeds another seemingly opposite activity on the other extreme (when in reality the two feed on each other - healthy religion lies in the middle ground).

Atheist Bus Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard Dawkins donated to it (no doubt he could expect substantial 'returns' on that investment anyway, since it is really an advert for his books - he symbolises this kind of movement more than any other figure after all).

I also note that their 25 points raise the issue of anti-semitism twice, that too is a complete red topic on The Guardian (where the atheist bus campaign originated) at The Guardian this is the only minority you absolutely may not offend (or come close to offending) no matter how inadvertently.... Which suggests to me that these ideas may be rooted in an attempt merely to de-Christianise ie to target the predominant faith rather than show disrespect to all faiths (Universal Atheism).

2/25 directed at one of the three Monotheisms of the world is not a very impressinve level of statistic to draw such a conclusion really is it

[lostexpectation]

It seems as much a publicity stunt on behalf of Atheist.ie as a real attempt to highlight issues arising from the law.

I would suspect that the use of quotations, rather than publication of an original blasphemous article, was specifically chosen with the knowledge that it is far less likely that their publication would in actuality fall within the defition of blasphemy, for the purposes of the Act, which is the only definition which matters, rather than a generalised understanding of the concept.

Despite the website maintaining that the statements made were abusive and insulting, this is not a matter for them to decide. It is rather a matter for any court before which an action is made, who would presumably, though not definitively, apply a test of reasonableness as to what constitutes blasphemy for the purposes of the Act. That being the publication of matters which are grossly insulting and which as a consequence cause outrage (presumably actually causing, rather than potentially) among a substantial number of adherents to a particular religion or where such outrage is intended. It is also a defence where a reasonable person would consider the statements to have genuine literary, artistic, scientific or academic value.

1. There is no obvious intent to actually cause outrage, they state quite clearly that they are merely highlight problems in the law - so that heading is likely not applicable.
2. The matters would have to be grossly offensive, it is not clear that they are.
3. Outrage would actually have to be caused and demonstrated by a substantial number of adherents to a religion. Again, most unlikely, particularly given the manner in which they are published. Why didn't they publish the statements as an advertisement in the Irish Times if they actually wanted to do that? Again, an example that they are not that bothered with testing the law.
4. Quite likely that one could reasonably argue academic, artistic or literary value towards historical quotations.
5. Quite possible that republication of material already in the public domain prior to the effectiveness of the Act (which was 1/1/2010) would not fall within the scope of the Act when the judiciary are called upon to interpret it.

It would therefore seem that whilst this is a worthwhile ambition, it is an incredibly poor effort. It smacks more of a publicity stunt, rather than a genuine attempt to fall foul of and highlight the difficulties in the law. It in fact seems that stringent efforts were made to ensure that they would not fall foul of the law. Which is a bit like talking about speed limits being too low, saying you're going to show that they're too low, and at the same time rigidly sticking to them.

what exactly could they have published (in a widely available publication) that would have broken the law, having such a fine understanding of the law and what atheist ireland quoted you should be able to tell us.

[johnfás]

what exactly could they have published (in a widely available publication) that would have broken the law, having such a fine understanding of the law and what atheist ireland quoted you should be able to tell us.

I already gave an idea of what they could have done here: http://www.politics.ie/current-affai...ml#post2367486

They could have got themselves onto Joe Duffy and said something live on air, they could have posted a newsletter containing such information to various organisations which they felt would take grievous offence or they could have taken out an ad in the national press, they could even have simply published such grievously offensive material on their website.

They did none of these things, they merely engaged in a publicity stunt. Why did they do this? Quite probably because they didn't have the balls to go through with actually breaking the law as it stands and because they didnt want the negative publicity which would have followed such a breach, which given the actual provisions of the Act, would require material offensive to a fairly extreme level - which they likely did not want to deal with the fallout of.

If their aim was to actually break the law as it currently stands, well then they did about as bad a job as one possibly could. If it was their aim to break the law, they're entirely incompetent. If it was not, then they're just decent self publicists - but they aren't leaders of any great surge against poor legislation.

I wouldn't be surprised if they marched down to the Garda station themselves - most of them still probably being nominally members of the Catholic Church - to register their disgust at their own publication. Whoops, I probably foiled their plan.

They can do better than this, surely.

[lostexpectation]

I already gave an idea of what they could have done here: http://www.politics.ie/current-affai...ml#post2367486

They could have got themselves onto Joe Duffy and said something live on air, they could have posted a newsletter containing such information to various organisations which they felt would take grievous offence or they could have taken out an ad in the national press, they could even have simply published such grievously offensive material on their website.

They did none of these things, they merely engaged in a publicity stunt. Why did they do this? Quite probably because they didn't have the balls to go through with actually breaking the law as it stands and because they didnt want the negative publicity which would have followed such a breach, which given the actual provisions of the Act, would require material offensive to a fairly extreme level - which they likely did not want to deal with the fallout of.

If their aim was to actually break the law as it currently stands, well then they did about as bad a job as one possibly could. If it was their aim to break the law, they're entirely incompetent. If it was not, then they're just decent self publicists - but they aren't leaders of any great surge against poor legislation.

they made a submission to the committee (and to the president council i think), now they highlighting that the law has been implemented, why are you criticising them for that. its day 1 patience.

joe duffy ain't on, national press ads cost money, they gave examples of some things that have may be blasphemous,and some that were deemd so, but who knows what the dpp would consider blasphemous, that was what they were asking, giving old examples.

the campaign as far as i can see is directed at the legislator not religious adherents, no religious adherents asked for this amendment.

they are aware that efforts by them to deliberately break the law probably wouldn't work.

im sure ian o'doherty will give it a good go in his column next week.

you still havn't said what would be so offensive as to break the law.

[seabhcan]

no religious adherents asked for this amendment.

Someone must have...

[lostexpectation]

Someone must have...

well dermot ahern is a religious adherents of some kind

[Sean O'Brian]

Someone must have...

The OIC were pushing for legal protections against "defamation of religion" at the United Nations not too long ago.

Basically the test of this law will be if/when Athiest Ireland blaspheme Mohammed, as Muslims are probably more likely to take the bait and call for prosecution. Does anyone remember the Muslims protestors who thanked the Irish Times for not reprinting the Mohammed cartoons?

Quote number 20 by Pope Benedict XVI about Mohammed is not in fact blasphemous at all. It is a matter-of-fact statement about Mohammed, who nobody would dispute was a warlord, that created a political fallout.

Quote number 21 by Christopher Hitchens comes closer but by failing to name the Koran as the "ill-arranged set of plagiarisms" in question it is a bit of a dodge. The Koran is supposed to have been dictated by Allah himself thus questioning it's sanctity or authority would be considered a blasphemous attack on Allah.

An original blasphemous cartoon of Mohammed with the caption "This cartoon is not intended to have any academic, literary, scientific or artistic (including humourous) merit" would certainly do the trick.

Of course I don't expect A.I. or anyone else to risk life and limb and €25,000 just to test a law but I don't think they're especially deserving of congratulations either. If they really want to test the law they should be attempting to initiate a prosecution instead of merely floating bait.