Trees, worshippers and Ireland’s new blasphemy law

July 10, 2009

irish-crossWhat do Monty Python, the Virgin Mary and environmentalists have in common? They have all been at the centre of a debate in Ireland’s parliament this week before the upper house passed a bill imposing a fine of up to 25,000 euros for the crime of blasphemy. For days, Irish media has been excited about a tree stump in the western county of Limerick which has attracted a flow of pilgrims who believe it is an image of the Virgin Mary. As one senator recalled in the debate however, a local Catholic priest has warned his flock not to worship what he said is, after all, “just a tree.”

(Photo: Crucifixes with Irish flags in a shop in the pilgrimage town of Knock, 10 June 2009/Cathal McNaughton)

“Fr. Russell might be at risk of being found guilty of blasphemy since he is being critical, grossly abusive or insulting to people of a religion who seem to want to worship a tree,” Senator Ivana Bacik said. “We should be mindful of the danger of introducing an offence like blasphemy in light of the sort of events that we are seeing in Rathkeale in Limerick.”Senator Dan Boyle, the chairman of the Green Party, the junior member in Ireland’s governing coalition, quipped that he apparently led a party of “tree worshippers” and argued that the offence of blasphemy was archaic and should be made obsolete. “The concept of blasphemy was brilliantly satirised by Monty Python in the film ‘Life of Brian’ where a Pharisee was unintentionally stoned to death for repeatedly, although unwittingly, saying the word ‘Jehovah’,” Boyle said. “Much of the debate on this issue is a political equivalent of repeatedly saying the word ‘Jehovah’. It is something we need to get out of our political system as soon possible.”The house passed the bill, but only after an initial hiccup when two senators’ absence — one reportedly away at the dentist — all but caused the bill to be defeated by a small margin or at least its main provisions weakened to meaninglessness by an opposition amendment. The government of the traditionally Catholic country has defended the law by pointing out that there was already an existing piece of legislation dating back to 1961 that called for much stricter punishments. Ireland’s constitution requires some form of punishment of blasphemy and the new law would decrease the penalty involved.ahernAbolishing the crime of blasphemy altogether would require a constitutional amendment and a referendum. A referendum would not be impossible to organise — for example, Oct. 2 will see the second vote in less than two years on just one issue, the European Union’s Lisbon reform treaty, which was rejected by the Irish electorate last year. Some have suggested a referendum on defamation could be held on the same day. But the government has argued a referendum on blasphemy would be too costly and “distracting” for a country busy fixing one of Europe’s worst public finances and the worst recession in the industrialised world.

(Photo: Dermot Ahern, 9 March 2007/Thierry Roge)

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern also defends his bill by pointing to clauses which stipulate that blasphemous matter will only be prosecutable if it causes actual outrage among a substantial number of adherents of a religion. It also exempts works in which a “reasonable person” would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value.Which works qualify for that seems to open up a whole new debate. Atheists, who have separate campaigns running against the requirement for religious oaths before taking the office of judge or president of Ireland, say they will test the new law by quickly publishing a deliberately blasphemous statement. “The law also discriminates against atheist citizens by protecting the fundamental beliefs of religious people only,” said Michael Nugent, one of the founders of Atheist Ireland. “Why should religious beliefs be protected by law in ways that scientific or political or other secular beliefs are not?,” Nugent asked in an op-ed piece in Friday’s Irish Times.(Additional reporting by Ashley Beston)

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

6 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

This is not the Virgin Mary-it is the goddess Isis who was known to the Ancient Egyptians as our Lady of Heaven and was famous for her many appearances to worshippers in visions and or her statues crying tears. She was a Virgin who gave birth to Horus. She was depicted standing on a half moon with a ring of stars above her head just as the Virgin Mary is depicted today and there is strong evidence the Christian Church took over this cult of Goddess worship since there are many statues in the Middle East that appear to depict Mary holding Jesus but are actual pre Christian and depict Isis holding Horus. Isis is still worshipped and hopefully those placing crucifixes have not outraged the faithful of Isis.

The law is ridiculous and totally eludes enforcement except by insane people.

Posted by Franklin | Report as abusive

So when a Christian says accepting Jesus is the only way to salvation or a Muslim says there’s only one god, Allah, and Mohamed is his prophet, are they both guilty of blasphemy and subject to a 25,000 euro fine? This might just be a brilliant way for the government to solve the national deficit!

Is this a picture of Mr Ahern with a masonic hand signal? Note the pyramid mast beloved by Masons.

Posted by JASON | Report as abusive

Ireland places itself shoulder to shoulder with those governments in the Middle East who treat non-Islamic believers and non-theists with disdain. Ireland exalts ancient superstitions and mysticism without subjecting such ideas to critical thinking (except in a private conversation that stays private).

Posted by John | Report as abusive

So in this day and age, Thought Crime is (almost) on the statute books thanks to a hypocricical shower of bigotted, backward, superstitious religious maniacs.Who would have thought it eh?

Posted by John Bunyan | Report as abusive