Posted on May 6, 2017
Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy after branding God an 'utter maniac'
2.33K
24
63
2
2
0
In Ireland, if you speak out against the Christian god, you apparently can be arrested for Blasphemy. Of course, you can only blaspheme the Christian god, it apparently is fine to disrespect the Muslim god, the Hindu gods, and so on...
Stephen Fry under police investigation for blasphemy after branding God an 'utter maniac'
Posted from telegraph.co.uk
Religion
Law
Justice
Christianity
Discrimination
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
If you believe the Bible as I do there is only one God and His son Jesus Christ died on the cross to forgive us of sin if we believed in Him. All the rest are false gods.
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
1SG James Matthews - Pascal's Wager has been debunked so many times. You know that it is useless if there is more than one religion available, don't you? Because you're in the same boat as I am if the Muslims are right, or the Mormons, or the Hindu, and so on. What happens if you die and find yourself in front of the Hindu god Shiva? Are you going to say oops, I was wrong?
I spend as much time worrying about your gods as I imagine that you spend worrying about the Hindu gods, which is no time at all.
I spend as much time worrying about your gods as I imagine that you spend worrying about the Hindu gods, which is no time at all.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SFC Marcus Belt - you do realize that there is not a theory yet for abiogenesis, don't you? All that we have are some hypotheses, none of which have advanced to the level of a theory because there is insufficient evidence. That is not a reason to use the god of the gaps fallacy.
Also, I don't have a burden of proof, as I'm not asserting a claim. You are, however, asserting a god exists. I'm sorry, but I don't trust your ability as a god detector, so unless you have proof, I'll pass on belief.
Also, I don't have a burden of proof, as I'm not asserting a claim. You are, however, asserting a god exists. I'm sorry, but I don't trust your ability as a god detector, so unless you have proof, I'll pass on belief.
(0)
(0)
SFC Marcus Belt
Capt Gregory Prickett - And you realize that without abiogenesis, nothing about your side of the argument works.
I have no burden of proof, because I don't actually care what you believe.
I'm under no obligation to you for anythinng.
The science that supports your arguments is not science, you clearly don't know what "debunked" means, and you grind this axe daily about something you claim you don't believe in.
Grind it when it really doesn't even support your position, as in this original article.
Funny.
Take it easy!
I have no burden of proof, because I don't actually care what you believe.
I'm under no obligation to you for anythinng.
The science that supports your arguments is not science, you clearly don't know what "debunked" means, and you grind this axe daily about something you claim you don't believe in.
Grind it when it really doesn't even support your position, as in this original article.
Funny.
Take it easy!
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SFC Marcus Belt - LOL, obviously you don't understand science, evidence, or the burden of proof.
In science, if one doesn't know something, the answer is "we don't know," not "god did it." That's a logical fallacy, and argument from incredulity in addition to being a god of the gaps argument.
Second, you do have the burden of proof since you made an assertion that there 1) was a creator; and 2) that I'm somehow aware of this. You've offered no evidence of either, so I've rejected your assertion. You're correct that you have no obligation to provide evidence, but I'm under no obligation to accept your bare assertions, either.
You have served a useful purpose, in exposing the irrational thought process of theists to others who will read this, so that was helpful. Thank you for that.
In science, if one doesn't know something, the answer is "we don't know," not "god did it." That's a logical fallacy, and argument from incredulity in addition to being a god of the gaps argument.
Second, you do have the burden of proof since you made an assertion that there 1) was a creator; and 2) that I'm somehow aware of this. You've offered no evidence of either, so I've rejected your assertion. You're correct that you have no obligation to provide evidence, but I'm under no obligation to accept your bare assertions, either.
You have served a useful purpose, in exposing the irrational thought process of theists to others who will read this, so that was helpful. Thank you for that.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The 2009 Defamation Act also abolishes the common law offences of defamatory libel, seditious libel and obscene libel. But anyone who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to €25,000. Blasphemous matter is material that is "grossly abusive or insulting" about beliefs held sacred by ANY religion, [Emphasis Mine] and which causes "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion", where the defendant intends to cause such outrage.
--Source http://www.irishbarrister.com/defamation.html
So apparently it is NOT "...fine to disrespect the Muslim god, the Hindu gods, and so on..." Once again your posting seems to be more about your perceptions of the "evils" of Christianity and less about the merits of atheism. Once again, I fail to feel informed and educated by your posts about the merits of an atheists approach to life. I ask again are you educating and informing? Or are you attacking? Is it possible to show the superiority of an atheist perspective without belittling faith?
--Source http://www.irishbarrister.com/defamation.html
So apparently it is NOT "...fine to disrespect the Muslim god, the Hindu gods, and so on..." Once again your posting seems to be more about your perceptions of the "evils" of Christianity and less about the merits of atheism. Once again, I fail to feel informed and educated by your posts about the merits of an atheists approach to life. I ask again are you educating and informing? Or are you attacking? Is it possible to show the superiority of an atheist perspective without belittling faith?
Defamation is one of the most serious dangers facing journalists and publishers today. Eighty per cent of all defamation actions are brought against the media – and a libel action can bankrupt a small newspaper, radio station or social media site. Indeed, in December 2015, Attorney General Máire Whelan called for a reform of defamation law to protect Court reporters who made innocent errors.
(2)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - When I try to open you link, my Security Software locks up like a drum. So I will make some assumptions, and you can tell me if they were wrong.
_Newspapers reprinted the offending Mohammed Cartoons.
_Dr. Selim filed a complaint.
_An investigation was conducted and for reasons I do not know no prosecution resulted
As far as I can tell
_Mr. Frye made statements that may qualify as blasphemy under the 2009 Irish Defamation Act
_A woman filed a complaint.
_An investigation is being conducted, and all indications, according to the Irish Independent News Agency are that no prosecution will result.
Do I think this is an ideal situation. No, I wish the entire planet had the 1st amendment. But to equate Ireland with Saudi Arabia.... You really don't like Christianity.
_Newspapers reprinted the offending Mohammed Cartoons.
_Dr. Selim filed a complaint.
_An investigation was conducted and for reasons I do not know no prosecution resulted
As far as I can tell
_Mr. Frye made statements that may qualify as blasphemy under the 2009 Irish Defamation Act
_A woman filed a complaint.
_An investigation is being conducted, and all indications, according to the Irish Independent News Agency are that no prosecution will result.
Do I think this is an ideal situation. No, I wish the entire planet had the 1st amendment. But to equate Ireland with Saudi Arabia.... You really don't like Christianity.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - the actual magazine was printed and shipped for sale in Ireland, with the cartoon on the cover. A complaint was filed, but not investigated, and obviously there was no prosecution.
BTW, I didn't compare Ireland to Saudi Arabia, I compared it to Pakistan. I don't have a problem with comparing it to Saudi Arabia though. Both punish blasphemy. Saudi Arabia is obviously much worse, as is Pakistan.
BTW, I didn't compare Ireland to Saudi Arabia, I compared it to Pakistan. I don't have a problem with comparing it to Saudi Arabia though. Both punish blasphemy. Saudi Arabia is obviously much worse, as is Pakistan.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - If a complaint was filed, then some level of management/supervision made a judgment call as to whether or not to devote resources to the complaint. It sounds to me like some Irish legislator(s) made the classic mistake of writing a law or part of a law where there was no will to enforce it. That is a shame because it encourages people to pull at the loose threads of all laws and destroys the credibility of the legislature and law enforcement. Better to not have the law at all.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - I agree, but they don't have the cajones to amend the constitution to remove the requirement for a blasphemy law. It was put in the constitution to allow for the prosecution of protestants, after centuries of abuse by the UK.
(0)
(0)
Ok to disrespect the Muslim God? Yea. Okay. Head to Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran....and make fun of Allah and see how things turn out for you. At least in the Western part of the world, your name may (and possibly will be) dragged thru mud but at least you will still have your head attached to your neck and shoulders.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - The truth of one set of words does not validate another. I do not know of Wilson or his works but in the case I cited I believe he is on the mark.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - I'm sorry, but someone who believes that slavery in the South was somehow OK, and that the slaves liked it is not a moral person. If he's not moral in that area, it brings into question anything else that he says. I trust what Wilson said about as much as I trust David Duke. Wilson bases his morality on his interpretation of the Bible, and accepts that the Bible condones slavery.
I don't accept that position, and I believe that owning another human being is immoral. Any system of morality that supports that is suspect, and not one I could follow.
I don't accept that position, and I believe that owning another human being is immoral. Any system of morality that supports that is suspect, and not one I could follow.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - How many ways must I say I disavow Mr. Wilson. I do not account my self one of his followers. I chose the quote because it illustrates the point that we are more than the sum of the chemical reactions in our brain. You now ignore my disavowals because it suits your prejudice against Christianity. In all your atheist benevolence you cannot bring yourself to accept my admission that he does not speak for me. What is it like to have never made a mistake? It is almost as if someone said that the Irish Defamation law of 2009 only protected Christians and then never acknowledged they were mistaken. At least I acknowledge when I've done something dumb.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - it wasn't clear that you were disavowing Wilson, based on the two sentences that you responded with. In fact, it was my impression that you were standing by him.
I'm fine with it if you're disavowing him, and everyone makes mistakes.
I'm fine with it if you're disavowing him, and everyone makes mistakes.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google