Should atheism itself be outlawed as a “thought crime”?

Amazingly, these are the sorts of questions that people in Ireland seem to be seriously debating.

And yes, I mean 21st century Ireland – not 13th century Ireland.

Here are some of the details:

—– Justice Minister Defends New Blasphemy Law (Dearbhail McDonald/The Irish Independent; April 30)

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern has defended the introduction of a new crime of blasphemous libel, stating that a new definition was required by the Constitution.

Speaking after an Oireachtas [the Irish Parliament] committee meeting, Mr Ahern yesterday defended a fine of up to 100,000 euros [about $132,000 US] that will be imposed on blasphemers.

The Government moved to revive the crime by placing it onto a fresh statutory footing following advice from the office of the Attorney General.

Gardai [police] will now have the power to seize blasphemous material from the home or any other premises used by a person convicted of blasphemy.

The proposed law flies in the face of a recommendation by the Law Reform Commission which said in 1991 that there was no place for such an offence in a society which respects freedom of speech.

There are fears that the new offence may be used by fundamentalists to crack down on publication of material perceived to be injurious to faith.

—– Ireland To Reform But Not Drop Blasphemous Libel Law (Andras Gergely/Reuters; May 1)

DUBLIN: Ireland will change a law that provides prison sentences for the crime of “blasphemous libel” but cannot abolish it altogether without a referendum to change the constitution, the justice minister said on Friday.

Dermot Ahern said he would repeal a 1961 act under which blasphemous libel can lead to a jail term of seven years, but added a new law was needed instead due to a constitutional requirement to punish blasphemy.

“Those who argue that, where the constitution has ordained an offence, a minister should simply ignore it to suit his ideological positions, seems to me to be arguing for a clear constitutional provision to be wilfully ignored,” Ahern wrote in an opinion piece for the Irish Times.

The traditionally Catholic country’s Constitution Review Group said in a 1996 report the offence of blasphemy should be dropped from the constitution as it is ambiguous and potentially clashes with the freedom of speech and conscience.

But Ahern said a referendum would have to be held to change the Irish constitution and that would be a “costly diversion.”

Britain last year abolished its law against blasphemy — an offence prosecuted in many Muslim countries — and Ahern’s critics said he was taking a “retrograde” step by proposing a fine of up to 100,000 euros (89, 348 pounds) for the crime.

“We are faced with the creation of a new offence, the parameters and reach of which are altogether uncertain,” the Irish Examiner newspaper wrote on Friday.

Under Ahern’s proposals, blasphemous material would only be prosecutable if it is “grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion,” causes actual outrage among adherents of that religion and there is intent to cause outrage.

“Such intent was not previously required,” Ahern said.

The Constitution Review Group, which was set up by the government, said in its 1996 report it was not clear whether the constitutional reference to blasphemy applied only to the “Judaeo-Christian religion” or to other faiths as well.

“The retention of the present constitutional offence of blasphemy is not appropriate,” the group concluded….

—– Blasphemy Law Has Left Me Swearing (Graham Dale/Letter/The Irish Independent; May 2)

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern has defended his new blasphemy law, I read to my embarrassment yesterday. I thought it was a late April Fool’s joke until I called home and was told that it was very real.

Not being a lawyer, I used Wikipedia to learn that the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech by Article 40.6.1 and states that this may not be used to undermine “public order or morality or the authority of the State”. Furthermore, it explicitly requires that the publication of “blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter” be a criminal offence.

Obviously this was considered and written under the watchful eye of a Catholic bishop back when they more or less controlled every aspect of our lives, but this is severely outdated and does not need to exist in the Constitution of a free nation. The right to free speech is a cornerstone of democracy and an important right for free people, just as the freedom to practise any religion one chooses is, or equally the freedom to choose not to participate or believe in any form of religion or God.

The Government’s role in a free and democratic nation is not to morally guide its citizens on matters such as what time to leave the pub, get up in the morning, or how many times they brush their teeth every day. They are there to maintain the functional administrative aspects of a nation and they should get out of people’s lives.

Whether I believe in God, sex before marriage or the Dart timetable is my own business. And if I want to say bad things about God or any member of his dysfunctional family, it’s my gamble between “everlasting damnation” or rotting away in an old wooden box.

The general exception to free speech is in the case of defamation/slander, in which you could be charged criminally, but, ironically, as a defendant, you have the right to challenge your accuser. Since God has not made a public appearance in quite some time, and the fact that there is no public record of him ever filing a complaint with the gardai, suggests that this is an event that would simply not take place.

The point is, I can say anything I want. I am, though, very surprised at the lack of public outrage that this has caused on a matter of principle.

—– Label Atheism A Thought Crime (Eric Conway/Letter/The Irish Independent; May 2)

Why in the name of God (oops sorry, didn’t mean to be so insensitive/offensive), does RTE [Radio Telefís Éireann, the Public Service Broadcaster of Ireland] give an entire ‘Liveline’ over to a tiny rump of deranged atheists to spout their puerile propaganda? Just what is their gripe?

Well it turns out they are annoyed at the prospect that proposed legislation will make it an offence to gratuitously offend religion: in reality, Catholicism (their big bogeyman). The big question is, though, what kind of ideology gets it kicks out of gratuitously offending the sincerely held views of others? It seems both immature and vulgar.

Perhaps the best critique of this ideology is provided in the recently published The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, by Vox Day.

This brilliant critique clearly demonstrates why a mere anti-blasphemy law is not sufficient. In the interests of rationality and common sense, the legislation should go further and label atheism a thought crime.

Also, why is the publicly-funded state broadcaster giving these airheads a platform for their dangerous juvenalia?

NOTE: I haven’t had the pleasure of reading Vox Day’s book, but I *have* read an essay of his entitled The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens that was posted at the WorldNetDaily website back on Nov 17, 2003. I didn’t find it very persuasive – and neither did About.com’s Austin Cline (whose detailed Nov 18, 2003 critique of Day’s essay can be found here). If you happen to be impressed by anything Day has to say, please tell me what and why.

Have any comments about the Irish debate over blasphemy that you’d like to share? I’d enjoy reading those, too. :-)