Does hearsay count as far as this law is concerned? Who has to hear the "violation" for it to be considered against the law?

I'm betting it lasts a good long time. It seems that we're heading backwards in a lot of ways.

Exactly my point. This doesn't show enlightenment, it shows archaic thinking.

Enlightened my butt!! The evidence proves otherwise.

How long do you think this law will last?

I'm betting it lasts a good long time. It seems that we're heading backwards in a lot of ways.

What troubles me is that this is an enlightened nation that knows better. This is a retreat to the 14th century at least.

Enlightened my butt!! The evidence proves otherwise.

How long do you think this law will last?

Do you mean Demolition Man? They fined people for saying bad words! /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Yeah - I think that was it!

Do you mean Demolition Man? They fined people for saying bad words! /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

don't forget those 3 seashells!

i agree that it may be in part at least from the problems (gad! i almost said 'the troubles'. hah!) the church is dealing with trying to get bishops to resign etc due to their passing priests to other parrishes time and time again after knowing they'd abused children. the church is scared. the people are no longer allowing a blind eye to be turned the churches way.

de valera kept ireland in the 19th century whilst most of the world moved on. he is responsible for the power the church has in the republic. but that is slowly changing. also, the celtic tiger isn't feeling very strong any longer due to the global financial woes.

on top of all this, we in the states are told very little of what goes on re: politically in the republic and the six counties. the protestant leaders especially are still adamant that there be no surrender/no withdrawal of britishness from their lives. it's basically due to fear of what will happen when a government based on appartheid is ended. there is still violence, there is still intimidation going on, there are still orange marches during marching season. it never was and still isn't a 'religious war' as much as the demographics of republicanism/unionism just happen to fall along those lines (in most instances). it's about power, money, housing, jobs etc., and allowing the majority to be ruled by the minority with prejudices sanctioned.

ok, sorry. off my soapbox now...

Wow - its almost like legislating hurt feelings or something. I thought the US had cornered the market on overly PC ridiculousness - but now I will have to rethink that.

And yes - it seems like a terribly unnecessary law.

Edit: It kind of reminds me of that movie that had Sandra Bullock in it where no one was allowed to say anything even vaguely upsetting, and the only stuff on radio and television was commercials because they were inoffensive. Maybe the movie had Wesley Snipes in it, too. That was ridiculous and seemed like it could never be possible. One wonders.

Do you mean Demolition Man? They fined people for saying bad words! /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

Wow - its almost like legislating hurt feelings or something. I thought the US had cornered the market on overly PC ridiculousness - but now I will have to rethink that.

And yes - it seems like a terribly unnecessary law.

Edit: It kind of reminds me of that movie that had Sandra Bullock in it where no one was allowed to say anything even vaguely upsetting, and the only stuff on radio and television was commercials because they were inoffensive. Maybe the movie had Wesley Snipes in it, too. That was ridiculous and seemed like it could never be possible. One wonders.

What troubles me is that this is an enlightened nation that knows better. This is a retreat to the 14th century at least.

According to the updated Irish Statute Book, the criminal blasphemer is defined as someone who “publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and … intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

Based on the above, IMO, no, it's not necessary. What about all the other opinions uttered that also cause outrage? Are they going to start adding laws against everything that causes outrage?

I say that half-humorously/half-seriously.

New Jersey state senate voted against gay marriage on Thursday.

Government is way too involeved in any personal choice, imo.

What are founding fathers based our country on, has sadly gotten lost.

My daughter's both in their 20's follow no religion, and one is an atheist.

I find by talking to their friends, in this age group many are leaning this way.

Our country needs to wake up, and be in tune with today's choices in life.

The think groups in government are very out dated, by the current life choices people follow.

And yes - it seems like a terribly unnecessary law.

Edit: It kind of reminds me of that movie that had Sandra Bullock in it where no one was allowed to say anything even vaguely upsetting, and the only stuff on radio and television was commercials because they were inoffensive. Maybe the movie had Wesley Snipes in it, too. That was ridiculous and seemed like it could never be possible. One wonders.

What's really ironic here is that atheists are not covered under this law because they are not part of or considered a "religion." Not that we want and/or need to be, but it still stands that anyone can say anything about us and go along their merry way.

Such as with Cardinal Corman Murphy O'Connor saying that atheists aren't fully human.

What I'm saying is that this blasphemy laws strives to protect "all," but it fails greatly.

Completely not necessary and very childish.

I believe this law is in response to recent revelations of more child rape commited by RCC priests in Ireland.

Such as with Cardinal Corman Murphy O'Connor saying that atheists aren't fully human.

What I'm saying is that this blasphemy laws strives to protect "all," but it fails greatly.

Completely not necessary and very childish.

As of Jan 1, Ireland's new anti-blasphemy law went into effect. One can be fined up to 25,000 pounds if one utters or publishes "matter grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, and intending by such publication to cause outrage."

Sigh . . . silly and babyish, and worthy of discussion.

Is this Northern Ireland, Belfast? Belfast is still really a mess in the religion area, the city is still divided as to where the different religious groups live.

This law will have no effect, imo after what I saw a few years ago. It is what it always was, just with a lower death toll. Parts of Belfast you just don't go to, no matter what your religious views are. This law is laughable, particularly here.

Or the Republic of Ireland?

I thought the UK had a similar law and was recently abolished a few years, ago.

It's silly but, it's Ireland look at what's happened in Belfast.

I wish them luck in enforcing it.

Don't give them any ideas..

/laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

According to the updated Irish Statute Book, the criminal blasphemer is defined as someone who “publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and … intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

Based on the above, IMO, no, it's not necessary. What about all the other opinions uttered that also cause outrage? Are they going to start adding laws against everything that causes outrage?

I say that half-humorously/half-seriously.

Don't give them any ideas..