European Lawyer journal debates blasphemy law

In the current edition of The European Lawyer magazine, I argue against the new Irish blasphemy law and Thomas Byrne TD of the Oireachtas Justice Committee argues in favour of it. I am publishing the text of both articles here, and I will analyse the arguments made by Thomas Byrne TD in a separate post.

(The European Lawyer is the leading monthly magazine for the legal profession across Europe. Its subscribers – predominately senior private practice and in-house lawyers – are based in jurisdictions across the European continent as well as the UK and North America.)

This is the argument for the law:

Necessary modernisation

Thomas Byrne TD is a solicitor and a member of the Oireachtas Justice Committee

Long awaited reform and modernisation of defamation law in Ireland has unfortunately been overshadowed by ill informed and somewhat hysterical campaigning over the arcane issue of blasphemy libel.

The Defamation Act 2009 came into operation at the beginning of this year and introduces a modern statutory framework, providing for:

• comprehensive reform;
• statutory expression to developments in the jurisprudence of Irish courts, and elsewhere, including the European Court of Human Rights;
• respect for the necessary balance between the competing rights of freedom of expression (article 40.6.1 of the Irish Constitution) and of respect for ones good name and reputation. (article 40.3).

In completing the reform and modernisation of defamation law, the Minister for Justice had to consider the provision on blasphemous libel contained in section 13 of the old Defamation Act 1961. That section provided for the offence to be punishable by monetary and prison penalties (a term of up to two years’ imprisonment was possible). The section gave expression to article 40.6.1.i. of the Constitution, which is its only criminal offence provision, stating: ‘The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.’

This issue has onlv come to prominence in the context of the reform of Ireland’s defamation legislation. The minister had previously explained in some detail, both before the Oireachtas (the parliament) and in the media, the position in relation to the constitutional obligation involved here.

The Irish government was required to respect the provision of our constitution. Successive attorneys general advised that until the constitution is amended, by referendum of the Irish people, it is necessary that blasphemous libel remain a crime and that legislation must make provision for sanctions for this crime. Thus, to proceed with the reform of defamation law, it was necessary to address this issue.

At the Dail (the lower house of parliament) committee stage examination of the Defamation Bill last May, Justice Minister Dermot Ahern made it clear that (we as legislators do not have the luxury of pursuing a do-nothing approach while we wait for an opportune moment to move a constitutional amendment’. He set out all the relevant elements involved and drew particular attention to the nature of the constitutional obligation imposed.

The government’s preference, which I believe was widely supported, was to proceed with reform of defamation legislation rather than postpone it to await a possible referendum on blasphemous libel. I have expressed the hope that sanctions in regard to blasphemous libel will be little, if ever, a point of issue in the future. This was the case in the past under the provisions of the previous Defamation Act of 1961.

It is important to understand, despite claims to the contrary, that the provisions in the Defamation Act 2009 are not designed for the protection or promotion of any particular religion. I received no representations from any particular religion in regard to the drafting of those provisions.

Despite the criticism directed towards Mr Ahern by some, as a minister he is not in a position to advise anyone as to any potential breach of the law nor to offer a view as to any possible prosecution. Prosecution of criminal offences in Ireland is a matter solely for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions.

I hope that we will not have to wait a long time before a suitable occasion arises to put a proposal to the Irish people to delete the reference to blasphemy from our constitution. This course of action was proposed by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution in July 2008, which suggested that we might avail of any appropriate opportunity in the future.

However, I am not necessarily convinced that a referendum needs to be held as a matter of urgency, given the other serious challenges facing our country. I should also point out that one should not anticipate a positive result in a referendum.

And this is the argument against the law:

Blaspheme and be damned

Michael Nugent is an Irish writer and chairperson of the advocacy group Atheist Ireland.

Why has the Irish Government introduced a medieval canon law offence into the criminal law of a modern pluralist democratic republic? Officially, it is because blasphemy is an offence under the Irish Constitution. But in 1999, the Supreme Court had found that the existing law was unenforceable, as blasphemy was not defined. However, between 1996 and 2008, four Constitution Review Committees had called for the deletion of religious references, including blasphemy, from the Constitution.

And in 2008, the Venice Commission, the body that advises the Council of Europe on constitutional matters, recommended that incitement to hatred, including religious hatred, should be a crime; that insult to religious feelings should not be a crime; and that the offence of blasphemy should be abolished (which is already the case in most European States) and should not be reintroduced.

In this context, nobody in Ireland expected the offence of blasphemy to survive the recent updating of the Defamation Act which contained it. The Justice Minister had three options: to leave the law as it was, to seek a referendum to remove blasphemy from the Constitution, or to make the law enforceable by defining blasphemy. He chose the third option. And so, for the first time, Ireland now has an enforceable blasphemy law.

This new law is both dangerous and silly. It incentivises religious outrage by making it the first test of blasphemy, in a Europe where cartoons or novels can trigger such harmful behaviour. The new law also treats religious beliefs as more valuable than secular, scientific or political beliefs. But the criminal law should protect people from harm, not ideas from criticism. In any case, we should be removing 1930s religious references from our Constitution, not legislating to enforce them. For example, you cannot become President or a Judge in Ireland without taking a religious oath.

Even if the Minister felt obliged to bring in a blasphemy law, he was certainly not obliged to bring in this particular one. It is too vague to enable citizens to regulate their conduct, and is discriminatory in its ambiguities. For example, what is “a substantial number of adherents” of a religion? If it is an actual number, it discriminates against smaller religions. If it is a proportion, it discriminates against larger religions.

In 2007, the English High Court held that it was the prevention of imminent public disorder that made the old English blasphemy law compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. But “causing outrage” is a far lower hurdle than the risk of public disorder. If the Irish Supreme Court were to use the same criteria as the English High Court, it could find this law unconstitutional.

The new law also discriminates against atheists. In 1999, the Irish Supreme Court said the old common law of blasphemy would have to be adapted to the circumstances of a modern State which guarantees freedom of conscience and of religion. The new law attempts to do this by redefining blasphemy as protection from outrage and extending such protection to citizens of any religion. However, it arbitrarily excludes such protection from citizens whose fundamental belief system is based on no religion.

Under political pressure, the Minister reduced the fine from €100,000 to €25,000 and introduced some safeguards that merely add more problems. The ‘genuine value’ defence shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in a criminal trial. And the exclusion of so-called ‘cults’ from being classified as religions is an arbitrary interference in the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and from discrimination.

The Minister just doesn’t get it. The problem with a blasphemy law in a modern republic is its existence, not its detail. On the day it became operational, Atheist Ireland published 25 blasphemous statements on our website. If we are prosecuted, we will challenge the constitutionality of the law. If we are not prosecuted, it strengthens the political case for the repeal of a law that serves no purpose.

Worryingly, this law is also harmful outside Ireland. In recent years, Islamic States have been trying to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level. Ireland has voted with our fellow EU States against this concept. Now Pakistan, on behalf of the Islamic States, has adopted the wording of the new Irish law to advance their agenda at UN level. This silly and dangerous Irish law will eventually be repealed. For everybody’s sake and for the reputation of Ireland, this should happen sooner rather than later.

As mentioned earlier, I will analyse the arguments made by Thomas Byrne TD in a separate post.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Hot Press tackles blasphemy law

Hot Press magazine has published a comprehensive feature on the new Irish blasphemy law. In it, Valerie Flynn argues that, in truth, Ireland’s ludicrous new blasphemy laws are no laughing matter and, what’s worse, there is now a move to get others to copy us!

2010: Yeah, it sounds like the future, but my hover skateboard and phaser gun seem to have gone missing! Instead, out here on the farthest, weirdest edge of Europe, we’re keeping things nice and retro in this sci-fi sounding year by reintroducing some Middle Ages-style blasphemy laws.

To quote: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000. He or she 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.”

Hot Press asked Michael Nugent, of campaigning secularist group Atheist Ireland, what he thinks of this absurd new addition to the Irish statute book.

“Well, there are two categories of concern. One is that it’s a silly law,” says Nugent. “Blasphemy is a theological concept and it shouldn’t have any place in the criminal law of a pluralistic country. When there are a number of religions it doesn’t make sense – any one religion’s stated beliefs are blasphemous to another religion’s stated beliefs.”

For example: in 2006 Pope Benedict XVI quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor – and caused quite a bit of offence – when he said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.”

On January 1, Atheist Ireland marked the introduction of the new law by publishing this sentence on their website – one of 25 (arguably) ‘blasphemous’ quotations thus enshrined. Also on the list was “Actually, I’m a bit gay” – that one from ‘Jesus’ in Jerry Springer: The Opera. A law that criminalises that kind of joke sounds like a joke itself. But Irish Independent cartoonist Aongus Collins reckons there’s a real and serious dimension to the blasphemy law when it comes to freedom of speech.

Here’s why: the maximum fine for blaspheming is €25,000. The only possible defence, under the terms of the law, is that “a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.”

According to Collins: “The problem is that you have to defend yourself in court. A national broadcaster or a national newspaper will have a libel fund. But a small book publisher or a small magazine could be literally bankrupted because legal costs are so high in Ireland. What it does is that any small publisher of, say, [militant atheist] Richard Dawkins in Ireland would have to go to a barrister before publishing. It is intended to have a chilling effect on free speech.”

Collins believes that for non-mainstream publishers – bloggers, freelance journalists, left-field magazines, smaller or radical publishing houses – the new law, with its hefty fine, will be a meaningful and material inhibition to freedom of expression.

“I work for the Irish Independent, the Irish Times and the [Sunday] Tribune, but I got started working in smaller magazines like In Dublin. In the 1980s, I did a few cartoons that were a bit close to the bone in terms of the Catholic Church. I didn’t think twice in my 20s or 30s – but I would now. A small magazine would have to decide if it can afford to go to court.”

Another disturbing aspect of this law, and one that has been very much under-reported since the Bill was first announced last year, is the powers given to the Gardaí. Where a garda has reason to believe that copies of a “blasphemous statement” are to be found at a premises – including a dwelling – he or she is authorised, “if necessary by the use of reasonable force… to seize and remove any copies.”

“I’m a cartoonist and it’s very easy to offend, for example, Islam,” Aongus says. “The definition of blasphemy is so subjective. It’s carte blanche for some religious extremist to make a complaint to the guards. If they make a complaint, the guards can enter a business premises or even enter your house and grab all copies of this statement. So they could take your PC.”

For many Irish people, the blasphemy law seems like a depressingly familiar throwback to the days when Monty Python’s Life of Brian was banned. That’s not so far from living memory, kids – 1987 to be precise. But Michael Nugent believes we shouldn’t just look at this law just in the context of our own, fairly miserable, history of censorship and of the cultural dominance of the church. We should pay close attention to the international implications.

“At the UN for the last 10 years, the Islamic countries have been trying to make defamation of religion a crime and the western states, including Ireland, are opposing those attempts. But now they have the opportunity to say, ‘Here’s one of your own countries doing this’,” says Nugent.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – the collective body representing Muslim states – has already adopted the wording of Ireland’s blasphemy law for the purposes of lobbying the UN General Assembly to introduce an international treaty criminalising defamation of religion. Now there is a contribution to the campaign for Freedom of Ideas!

So you’re probably wondering why in the name of god (oops – blasphemy?) this law was enacted? It’s a bit of a mystery. Before news of the blasphemy Bill came out last year, Foreign Affairs Minister Mícheál Martin had been actively opposing the OIC’s attempts to have blasphemy declared a crime. Surprisingly, there is no evidence to suggest that the Catholic Church lobbied for this new law. Neither did the Protestant churches, nor the Islamic community in Ireland – although the latter subsequently welcomed it.

The official line from Justice Minister Dermot Ahern (he wasn’t available for interview) seems to be that his hands were tied: previously, blasphemy was prohibited by the Constitution but there was no corresponding crime on the statute books.

Fianna Fáil TD Seán Connick, convenor of the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, told Hot Press the Government had a choice between a referendum on the blasphemy provision in the Constitution and reform of the existing law. It was the Minister’s choice, and he went down the road of ‘reform’. Too much is being “read into” this piece of legislation, he added.

Connick denies the blasphemy law will stifle free speech, using as a (slightly mystifying) example, last year’s pseudo-scandal, Portraitgate – when a nudey picture of the Taoiseach was hung on the wall of the National Gallery. But RTÉ was pressurised into issuing a full apology for reporting that story. “What one person finds humorous, another person might find offensive,” responds Connick.

Words of wisdom indeed – which underline very well the dangerous side to this blasphemy law.

By all accounts, Dermot Ahern is highly conservative. He (in)famously spoke against the de-criminalisation of homosexuality in the Dáil in 1993 (“We have a duty to legislate for the standards and norms which we regard as appropriate for the Irish people.”) In light of this, some observers have speculated that the influence of hardcore Catholic organisation Opus Dei within the public service might have been a factor behind the blasphemy law. We are unlikely to find out.

Whatever the impetus, it’s pretty clear that anyone publishing or broadcasting in Ireland on the topic of religion is going to have this law at the back of their mind. Michael Nugent says most media organisations have shied away from printing the exact words of Atheist Ireland’s 25 ‘blasphemous’ quotations. And Hot Press has already spoken to one frequent participant on RTÉ’s The Panel, who said he was reminded to be aware of the new law – even before it was enacted on January 1.

So far, one month and two weeks into 2010, no one has yet been prosecuted yet for ‘grossly offending’ Jesus, Allah, Yahweh or any other deity. As they say in the clearly aberrant and thoroughly blasphemous Life of Brian: “Always look on the bright side of life.”

This article appeared in the Feb 3-24 print edition of Hot Press magazine. It is is online, along with further analysis of the blasphemy law, on the Hot Press website.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New version of Angelus on RTE

RTE, Ireland’s public service broadcaster, schedules the Angelus at 6 pm every day before the main evening news. This week it has revised it to keep the bells, but to include less overtly Roman Catholic images.

However, this merely subsumes non-denominational or even secular images into a specifically Roman Catholic call to prayer. If they are going to do that, here’s an alternative version that I much prefer:

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Christian church promotes gay rights

A Christian Church in Texas has launched a public billboard campaign in support of gay rights.

The slogan is Would Jesus Discriminate? and it is run by five of the worldwide Metropolitan Community Churches. And the Rev Dr Cindi Love has published a book of the same title.

I believe that atheist and humanist groups should be working with religious groups like these to promote an ethical and secular society.

The billboards will be displayed in north Texas throughout September, and their use of scripture has already been challenged by other Texas Christians. One local baptist Pastor, Sam Dennis, while agreeing that Christians shouldn’t hate gay people, told CBS: “I’m hard pressed to find that scripture advocates that it’s alright to live in a gay lifestyle.”

Bizarrely, he felt the need to add: “Just like I’m hard pressed to find that scripture advocates that’s it’s alright to live in an adulterous relationship or as a wife abuser or as a murderer.” So that’s the collective category in which Rev Dennis places gay people in his mind: alongside adulterers, wife abusers and murderers.

The first Metropolitan Community Church was founded in 1968 in Los Angeles, as the world’s first church group with a primary, positive ministry to gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender persons. The Churches now have over 40,000 members in 22 countries.

The Would Jesus Discriminate? campaign is organised in several American States as well as in the UK and Australia. You can download campaign materials from their website.

The campaign asks Christians to consider, “What if we are wrong about the issue of gay people’s place in society and in our churches? What if we offered them full citizenship and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How would our country improve if we simply stopped oppressing at least ten percent of our best and brightest people?”

The Metropolitan Community Churches also support initiatives like next year’s Soulforce Q Equality Ride in which young adults travel around America to illuminate the damaging consequences of discriminatory religious doctrine through non-violent resistance.

And here is a speech by Rev Candy Holmes, a lesbian clergywoman with Metropolitan Community Churches, giving testimony to a US Congress Committee in support of domestic partnership benefits and obligations.

My question is, what are the possibilities for formal campaigns on secular and equality issues, organised jointly by atheist and humanist groups and Christian groups like these? What are the advantages and disadvantages? How could such campaigns work in practice?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mass card law protects sale of magic

The Irish Times today published this letter from Atheist Ireland.

Madam, – From September 1st, the Charities Act 2009 has been offering State protection to the Roman Catholic Church, and only this one church, to sell Mass cards (Home News, September 1st). The legality of this Act is being challenged in the High Court, but for a reason that turns ethics upside down.

It is not being challenged to prevent people from selling claims of intercession with the creator of the universe to bereaved and vulnerable people. Instead, it is being challenged to allow a wider number of people to sell such unverifiable claims.

Such thinking exists in the realm of magic and superstition. It is like last year’s special offer by the Pope that, if you visited Lourdes during 2008, you would get a free “plenary indulgence” which would get you early release from a place called Purgatory after you die, and get you sooner to another place called Heaven.

In any other field of regulation, it would be seen as fraudulent to persuade sick or bereaved people to part with money in return for prayers or plenary indulgences. And the underlying purpose of a Charities Act is surely to protect vulnerable people, not to exploit them.

Atheist Ireland is a new advocacy group for an ethical and secular Ireland, free from superstition and supernaturalism, where the State does not support or give special treatment to any religion. 

– Yours, etc,
Michael Nugent,
Chairperson,
Atheist Ireland

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Same sex ice cream

Ben and Jerry’s has changed the name of its Chubby Hubby ice cream to Hubby Hubby, in support of the legalisation of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont.

Here’s the footage from a CBS news item on the name-change, in which free ice-cream is given to the public. (If you can’t see the video, go to the original post.)

Listen out for the woman at the end, whose taste-buds are more powerful than her conscience: “Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting, but I’ll take the free ice cream.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

History of Irish blasphemy law

If you plan to campaign against the new proposed Irish blasphemy law, here are some key points that it would be helpful to be familiar with.

Blasphemy was a common law offence under Irish law when the 1937 Constitution explicitly made it an offence punishable by law. The Defamation of Act of 1961 also made it a crime, but did not define what blasphemy was.

The 1996 Constitution Review Group called for the deletion of the crime of blasphemy from the Irish Constitution, along with other references to the Christian God, religion and religious oaths. Two other All-Party Committees have also called for the removal of religious references in the Constitution.

In 1999, the Supreme Court found the Irish law against blasphemy to be unenforceable, and the UK has since abolished its blasphemy law from which ours evolved. And the 2008 All-Party Committee on the Constitution repeated the call to remove the blasphemy reference from our Constitution.

Just last year, Ireland voted at the UN against an attempt by Islamic states to make ‘defamation of religion’ a crime. And yet now the Minister for Justice is seeking to revive this anachronistic medieval crime in modern Ireland.

History of Irish Blasphemy Law

Background to the Crime of Blasphemy
1937 – Dail Debate on Irish Constitution
1937 – Irish Constitution Outlaws Blasphemy
1961 – Dail Debate on Defamation Bill
1961 – Defamation Act Creates Blasphemy Law
1991 – Law Reform Commission Recommendation
1991 – Law Reform Commission Fallback Position
1996 – Constitution Review Group Report
1996 – Blasphemy Case High Court Ruling
1999 – Blasphemy Case Supreme Court Ruling
2003 – European Convention of Human Rights Act
2008 – UK Abolishes Blasphemy Law
2008 – All-Party Committee on Constitution
2008 – Ireland Opposes ‘Defaming Religion’ Crime
2009 – Defamation Bill Includes Blasphemy Crime
Campaign Against New Blasphemy Crime

Background to the Crime of Blasphemy

The crime of blasphemy appears several times in the Christian Bible and the related movie Life of Brian. In the Bible, some characters are stoned to death for blasphemy, and Jesus is condemned to death for the same offence. In Life of Brian, a character is stoned to death for telling his wife that a piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.

Under medieval canon law, the Catholic Church punished blasphemers by fining and flogging them, piercing their tongues and making them galley slaves. The English courts justified enforcing blasphemy laws on the grounds that Christianity was parcel of the laws of England, and therefore to reproach the Christian religion was to subvert the law.

In 1656, under English common law, Yorkshire Quaker James Naylor was convicted of blasphemy. He was flogged and imprisoned, his tongue was pierced with a red-hot poker, and his forehead was branded with the letter B.

In 1885, the burning of a Bible led to the last blasphemy prosecution in Ireland before the founding of the Free State. Prosecutions for blasphemy in Ireland effectively ceased when the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869.

In 1917, a legal case in Britain (Bowman v Secular Society Ltd) had an impact on how the common law against blasphemy should be interpreted. It was alleged that a bequest to the Secular Society Ltd was invalid, as the object of the company involved the denial of Christianity. The House of Lords decided that this object was not unlawful.

In 1921, Bradford man John Gott was the last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy when he published pamphlets satirising the Bible, in which he compared Jesus to a circus clown. Gott was sentenced to nine months hard labour and, being of ill health, he died shortly after his release.

1937 – Dail Debate on Irish Constitution

In May 1937 the Dail debated the proposed new Irish Constitution. Two TDs argued that it
was heretical and blasphemous, as it suggested that the Irish people had the authority to enact a constitution and elect rulers, whereas the reality was that all such authority derived from God. The President, Eamon de Valera, replied as follows:

“I want everybody to realise what this Constitution states about authority. In the Preamble, and in the Article that refers to that, there is a clear, unequivocal statement that authority comes from God. That is fundamental. It does not matter what view a group of Catholic theologians may take as to how it comes to the immediate rulers. What we have here is clear at any rate – that authority is from God. That is fundamental Catholic doctrine, and it is here. It is true doctrine.”

In June 1937, the debate continued. The opposition proposed deleting the explicit reference to blasphemy being an offence punishable by law. However, they were not arguing that blasphemy should not be an offence. They were arguing that it was already inherent in the right to free expression that you could not utter blasphemy, and so it was not necessary to include such a prohibition twice.

1937 – Irish Constitution Outlaws Blasphemy

In July 1937 the new Irish Constitution was passed. It contained various references to the Christian god and and to religion, including requirements to swear religious oaths in order to become President or a Judge. The three references most directly related to blasphemy are the Preamble, Article 40 on personal rights, and Article 44 on religion.

• The Preamble begins with the words: “In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, we, the people of Eire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ…”
• Article 40.6.1 guarantees the right of citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions subject to public order and morality. It then restricts this right by saying that says that “The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”
• Article 44.1 says that “The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.” Note that this article does not enshrine the rights of citizens to worship this imagined character. Instead, it enshrines the rights of this imagined character to be worshipped.

1961 – Dail Debate on Defamation Bill

In July 1961 the Dail debated a Defamation Bill which included a reference to blasphemous libel. During the debate, Justice Minister Charles Haughey was questioned by Patrick McGilligan, a TD who was also a professor of constitutional law at UCD.

McGilligan: There is no definition anywhere of blasphemy in this Bill. Is there in any of the old Acts?
Haughey: Not so far as I am aware.
McGilligan: Where are we then? The offences take in various things, including blasphemous libel. What does it mean?
Haughey: Blasphemy is a common law term. It is defined by common law.
McGilligan: Has it anything to do with the established Church and does nonconformity come into it?
Haughey: No.
McGilligan: Is there a definition of it?
Haughey: Blasphemy is a common law offence. There is no statutory definition of it.
McGilligan: I understood the old common law definition was that blasphemy was subversion of the established religion. Surely, we are getting away from all that?
Haughey: It has nothing to do with the established religion.
McGilligan: What has it to do with?
Haughey: The common law concept of blasphemy.
McGilligan: Which was anything against the established religion.
Haughey: Not necessarily.
McGilligan: It was.
Haughey: Everybody knows what blasphemy is.
McGilligan: I should like to see that put into the definition section – blasphemy is what everybody knows it to be.

1961 – Defamation Act Creates Blasphemy Crime

Currently, Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1961 states the following: “Every person who composes, prints or publishes any blasphemous or obscene libel shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both fine and imprisonment or to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years.” In practice, this law has proved to be unenforceable as there is no definition of what blasphemy consists of.

1991 – Law Reform Commission Recommendation

In December 1991, the Law Reform Commission recommended deleting the reference to blasphemy from the Constitution on the grounds that there was no place for such an offence in a society which respects freedom of speech. The President of the Commission was Justice Ronan Keane, who was then a High Court Judge and later became Chief Justice of Ireland.

The Commission noted that the offence of blasphemy was not defined in Irish law, but that it could in theory consist of three possibilities:

• It could mean any questioning of Christian doctrine, which is what it had been from earliest times until the 19th century. This would be totally incompatible with modern conditions, having originated in a period of religious intolerance. It might also be unconstitutional on the grounds of freedom of speech and religious equality.
• It could mean an offensive and insulting attack on the Christian religion, which is what it was deemed to be in England. This might be unconstitutional on the grounds of religious equality.
• It could mean neither of the above, but whatever the jury deemed it to be in any given case. This would mean that the offence lacked an objective basis.

For practical purposes, the Commission recommended that the reference to blasphemy in the Constitution should be deleted as part of a more extensive revision of provisions which, for one reason or another, were generally considered to be anachronistic or anomalous.

1991 – Law Reform Commission Fallback Position

The Law Reform Commission accepted that it might take some time to change the Constitution, and/or that the Government might not accept their recommendation to do so. For these reasons, they produced a secondary interim recommendation for revising the existing blasphemy law. They expressed three concerns about doing this:

• That providing for a new and reformed offence of blasphemy might be regarded as simply encouraging the retention of a law which is anachronistic and anomalous.
• That it would be difficult to acceptably define a religion in the context of a modern law of blasphemy.
• That any legislation might contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, which require a law restricting freedom of expression to be formulated with sufficient precision to enable a citizen to regulate his conduct.

In this context, their secondary recommendation was that:

• The common law offence of ‘blasphemous libel’ be replaced with a new offence of ‘publication of blasphemous matter’.
• That ‘blasphemous matter’ be defined as matter the sole effect of which is likely to cause outrage to a substantial number of the adherents of any religion by virtue of its insulting content concerning matters held sacred by that religion.
• That ‘religion’ be defined to include Christian and non-Christian religions
• That ‘matters held sacred’ be defined so as to exclude criminal offences.
• That the defendent knew he was likely to cause outrage
• That causing such outrage was his sole intent.

This is reasonably close to the new crime being introduced by Dermot Ahern, with two important differences. One, the Law Reform Commission saw it as an interim fall-back measure, not as a primary recommendation. And two, Ahern’s proposed law merely says causing outrage must be intended, whereas this proposal says that causing outrage must be the sole intent.

1996 – Constitution Review Group Report

In May 1996 the Irish Constitution Review Group recommended that the reference to blasphemy be deleted from the Constitution, along with other religious references such as the references to God in the Preamble, the reference to the homage of public worship being due to the Christian God, and the requirement for Presidents and Judges to swear religious oaths.

The Review Group was chaired by TK Whitaker, and had fifteen members from the fields of law, administration, economics, education, political science and sociology.

With regard to freedom of expression, the Review Group recommended that Article 40.6.1 should be replaced by a new clause protecting the right of free speech which was modeled on Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It said that the onus should be on the Government to show that restrictions on free speech were objectively necessary.

Between then and 2006 there were ten All-Party Oireachtas reports on aspects of the Constitution. These have been described as Progress Reports, and each has covered one section of the Constitution. The 1998 and 1999 reports recommended removing the requirements that the President and Judges swear a religious oath.

1996 – Blasphemy Case High Court Ruling

In November 1995, after the divorce referendum, the Sunday independent published a cartoon of a priest holding a chalice and communion host, with three politicians turning away from him. The caption was “Hello progress, goodbye Father.” This was a play on one of the slogans used by anti-divorce campaigners, “Hello divorce, goodbye daddy”.

Arising from this cartoon, Dublin man John Corway applied to the High Court for an order allowing him to take a blasphemy prosecution against the Sunday Independent. In October 1996, the High Court ruled that the cartoon did not provide a clear prima facie case for a blasphemy prosecution, and that, even if it had done so, the public interest would not be served by instituting a prosecution.

Justice Geoghegan considered the cases of Bowman v Secular Society Ltd 1917 and Regina v Lemon 1979. He concluded that while the causing of offence is a necessary ingredient of the modern crime of blasphemy, it must accompany an attack on some tenet or practice of the Christian religion to constitute blasphemy. He said it was no longer the law that any criticism of the Christian religion was blasphemous.

1999 – Blasphemy Case Supreme Court Ruling

In July 1999 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by John Corway against the High Court’s decision that the Sunday Independent had not published a blasphemous cartoon. On the specific issue of the cartoon, the Supreme Court found that no jury would consider that an insult to the Blessed Sacrament existed or was intended.

On the more general issue of blasphemy, the Supreme Court found that, because there is no legal definition of blasphemy in Irish law, “it is impossible to say of what the offence of blasphemy consists”.

The Supreme Court also said that, under the Irish Constitution, “the State is not placed in the position of an arbiter of religious truth”. In effect, the Supreme Court found that the common law crime of blasphemy was inconsistent with the religious equality provisions of the Constitution, and thus had not survived the enactment of the Constitution.

Part of the Supreme Court ruling read:

“From the wording of the Preamble to the Constitution it is clear that the Christian religion is one of the religions protected from insult by the Constitutional crime of blasphemy. But the Jewish religion would also appear to be protected as it seems quite clear that the purpose of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was certainly not to weaken the position of the Jewish congregations in Ireland but to bring out the universal nature of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion. What then is the position of the Muslim religion? Or the polytheistic religions such as Hinduism? Would the constitutional guarantees of equality before the law and of the free profession and practice of religion be respected if one citizen’s religion enjoyed constitutional protection from insult and another’s did not?”

2003 – European Convention of Human Rights Act

In 2003 the Oireachtas passed the European Convention of Human Rights Act. This obliges the courts to interpret statutes and laws in a manner compatible with the European Convention. If it is impossible to do this, the Irish law still prevails. However, The case law of the European Court of Human Rights establishes that a blasphemy clause is not a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

2008 – UK Abolishes Blasphemy Law

In May 2008 the United Kingdom abolished its laws against blasphemy, as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It was from the British common law against blasphemy that the Irish common law against blasphemy evolved.

2008 – All-Party Committee on the Constitution

In July 2008 the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution recommended deleting the reference to blasphemy from the Constitution, on the grounds that a modern Constitution should not expressly prohibit blasphemy, and that the Supreme Court decision of 1999 had already rendered the offence a dead letter anyway.

The Committee suggested that, If there is a need to protect against religious offence or incitement, it is more appropriate that this be dealt by way of legislative intervention, with due regard to the fundamental right of free speech.

The Committee was chaired by Sean Ardagh and the vice-chair was Jim O’Keeffe. The members were TDs Thomas Byrne, Michael D’Arcy, Tom Hayes, Brendan Howlin, Michael Kennedy, Denis Naughten, Ned O’Keeffe, Mary O’Rourke and Michael Woods; and Senators Dan Boyle, Denis O’Donovan, Eugene Regan and Alex White.

2008 – Ireland Opposes ‘Defaming Religion’ Crime

In December 2008 in Durban, the United Nations discussed an Egyptian motion on “combating defamation of religion”. The motion was supported by Islamic states and opposed by European Union states. The motion was passed, but a later conference in Geneva removed references to “defamation of religion” from the final document.

Ireland voted with the other EU states that there should not be such a crime as “defamation of religion”. The Minister for Foreign affairs, Micheal martin, later explained why Ireland had taken this position. He told the Dail that:

“We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.”

He said that Ireland also supported a UN resolution on “Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.” He explained that there is a difference between “defamation of religion” and discrimination based on religious belief and incitement to hatred

2009 – Defamation Bill Proposes Blasphemy Crime

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice is currently discussing the Defamation Bill 2006. The purpose of this Bill is to “revise in part the law of defamation and to replace the Defamation Act 1961 with modern updated provisions taking into account the jurisprudence of our courts and the European Court of Human Rights”.

The 1961 Act includes the offence of blasphemy, as quoted above. The Minister for Justice is proposing to replace this reference with a new proposed offence, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.”

“Blasphemous matter” is defined as 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 he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

Campaign Against The New Blasphemy Crime

Atheist Ireland will be organising public meetings this month at which we can organise active opposition to the blasphemy bill, and also widen the issue into the need for a secular Irish constitution.

If you want to help out, please leave a message here or visit the Atheist Ireland website. Together we can build an ethical and secular Ireland that we can be proud of.

Please also contact the Minister for Justice and the members of the Justice Committee discussing this Bill. These are:

TDs
Brendan Kenneally FF Chairman
Dinny McGinley FG Vice Chairman
Sean Connick FF Govt Convenor
Brian O’Shea Lab Opposition Convenor
Darragh O’Brien FF
Thomas Byrne FF
Jimmy Deenihan FG
Michael Mulcahy FF
Denis Naughten FG
Charlie Flanagan FG
Niall Collins FF
Pat Rabbitte Lab
Noel Tracey FF

Senators
Eugene Regan FG
Ivana Bacik Ind
Lisa McDonald FF
Denis O’Donovan FF

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Cultural Map of the World

Religion and wealth are the two main factors that influence cultural values around the world. The influence of religion can be measured on a scale from traditional values to secular-rational values, and the influence of wealth can be measured on a scale from survival values to self-expression values.

Traditional values are highest in Africa and Latin America, and secular-rational values are highest in Japan and Protestant Europe. Survival values are highest in Africa and ex-communist countries, and self-expression values are highest in Protestant Europe and English-speaking countries.

That’s according to the World Values Surveys, which is the largest ever cross-national survey of social change. It was conducted from 1990 to 2005, in over eighty countries spanning all six inhabited continents, by a network of social scientists at leading universities around the world.

Cultural Values Map of the World

Based on these surveys, two political scientists (Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michegan and Christian Welzel of Jacobs University Bremen) have devised this Cultural Map of the World:

Religious societies typically emphasise parent-child ties, deference to authority and traditional family values, as well as national pride. They reject divorce, abortion, euthenasia and suicide.

Wealthy societies allow young people to grow up taking survival for granted, and to focus on subjective wellbeing and quality of life, which in turn can have an influence on traditional values.

In most societies, although more slowly in Africa, cultural values have been shifting towards both secular-rational and self-expression since the first World Values Survey was conducted in 1990.

Human Constraints versus Human Choice

Here’s how Prof. Welzel analyses this trend. He says both dimensions actually measure human constraints versus human choices, on the community and personal levels. When a community has strong traditional values, it emphasises human constraints such as religion, patriotism, authority, obedience, and traditional family structures. When a person has strong self-expression values, she emphasises human choices such as freedom and self-direction, taking part in public expression, tolerating nonconformity, and trusting people.

Prof. Welzel says this shift in values is a central aspect of human development. More wealth enables younger people in particular to feel more independent in material means, intellectual skills and social connectivity. They then feel more safe and secure, and thus more able to escape from unchosen community ties. They also feel more self-directed, and thus more able to develop their creative human potentials. And all of this leads to what Prof Welzel calls postmaterialistic liberty aspirations, where people both value democracy more and are more critical of the actual performance of democracy.

Sources

• World Values Surveys
• Professor Ronald Inglehart
• Professor Christian Welzel

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

UN Split on protecting gay rights

The United Nations was split this week between States supporting gay rights and States supporting religious homophobia. But gay rights campaigners are pleased with the outcome, as it is the first time that the UN Assembly has considered such a declaration.

66 nations signed a French declaration calling for the global decriminalisation of homosexuality.

But almost sixty nations signed a rival Islamic-backed declaration that claimed that the phrase “sexual orientation” could lead to legitimising paedophilia.

The Catholic Church, which attends the UN through its pretend State in the Vatican City, called for an end to violence and criminal sanctions against gay people. But it refused to support the French declaration, because it would protect sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights.

The French Declaration

Gay people can be executed in seven Islamic countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Mauritania and parts of Nigeria and Pakistan. And gay sex between consenting adults in private is a crime in almost eighty other countries.

In September, Rama Yade, the French minister of human rights and foreign affairs, announced that she would be asking the United Nations to call for the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the world.

The French declaration condemns human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in particular the use of the death penalty, executions, torture, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights.

You can read more about the French declaration in this previous post on the topic.

The Islamic Opposition

The rival Syrian declaration condemned

“all forms of stereotyping, exclusion, stigmatization, prejudice, intolerance and discrimination and violence directed against peoples, communities and individuals on any ground whatsoever, wherever they occur.”

However, despite this seemingly wide-ranging definition, it excluded what it called

“the so-called notions of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

It complained that “the ominous use of the notion of sexual orientation spans a wide range of personal choices”, and could

“usher the social normalization, and possibly the legitimisation, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia.”

And it complained that the notion of gender identity

“attributes sexual interests or behaviours to genetic factors, a matter scientifically rebuffed repeatedly.”

Finally, it complained that the French declaration:

“delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states counter to the commitment in the UN to respect the sovereignty of States and the principle of non-intervention.”

It said that, by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership, the French declaration could

“seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework.”

The Catholic Opposition

The Catholic Church did not support either declaration. It supported the French call for an end to violence and unjust discrimination against gay people, but complained that the declaration “went well beyond” this by describing sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights.

The Vatican statement at the UN said that sexual orientation and gender identity “find no recognition or clear and agreed definition” under international law, and added:

“If they had to be taken into consideration in the proclaiming and implementing of fundamental rights, these would create serious uncertainty in the law as well as undermine the ability of States to enter into and enforce new and existing human rights conventions and standards.”

The official Vatican newspaper later elaborated that the French declaration was part of an attempt to

“equate same-sex unions with marriage and to give homosexual couples the chance to adopt or procreate children.”

It also feared that it could endanger other human rights, including the rights of religions to teach that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Supporters of the French Declaration

Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Supporters of the Syrian Declaration

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Vatican opposes gay rights at UN

The Catholic Church, through its pretend State in the Vatican City, is joining with Islamic States to try to stop the United Nations from protecting the equal rights of gay people throughout the world.

Gay people can be executed in seven Islamic countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Mauritania and parts of Nigeria and Pakistan.

And gay sex between consenting adults in private is a crime in almost eighty other countries.

France wants the UN to pass a declaration calling for an end to these laws. It wants all States to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.

The Catholic Church has joined with Islamic States in opposing this move. The Vatican complains that the move would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination”. They also fear that it could lead to gay people being allowed to marry.

The French Declaration

Laws against against consensual gay sex are a violation of human rights. Even if they are not systematically enforced, their very presence on the statute books leads to fear, prejudice, hostility and discrimination against gay people.

In September, Rama Yade, the French minister of human rights and foreign affairs, announced that she would be asking the United Nations to call for the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the world.

The French declaration condemns human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in particular the use of the death penalty, executions, torture, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights.

It urges States to do the following:

• To ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.
• To ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;
• To ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles to them carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.

Over fifty countries have signed the declaration, including all 27 European Union countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The Vatican Opposition

Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican’s representative at the UN, opposed the move as it would

“add new categories of those protected from discrimination”.

He also complained that it would

“create new and implacable discriminations… For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as ‘matrimony’ will be pilloried and made an object of pressure.”

After protests by gay rights groups outside the Vatican, and a statement by the European Parliament’s LGBT Intergroup, Vatican Radio later claimed that Migliore’s real concern was:

“the introduction of a declaration of political value, which could result in control mechanisms according to which, norms that do not place each sexual orientation on the same level, would be considered contrary to respect for human rights.”

Removing the double negatives, and translating the gobbledegook into plain language, it seems that this may be the part of the French resolution that the Vatican has problems with:

We reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In essence, the Vatican is complaining that respect for human rights would include placing each sexual orientation on the same level. And preventing this from happening is more important than preventing gay people from being executed, tortured or jailed.

The Toy Vatican State at the UN

This would not matter so much if the UN treated the Catholic Church like it does all other Churches: by allowing it to make submissions as an ordinary nongovernmental organisation.

Instead, despite having no citizens, territory or economy, the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that can attend and vote at UN conferences and co-sponsor drafts of UN resolutions and decisions.

Why? Because its pretend State, the Vatican City, issues its own stamps.

Here’s an earlier post where you can read the background to the Vatican’s bizarre involvement with the UN.

Sources

• The French Declaration on LGBT Rights
• ILGA publishes State-sponsored Homophobia report
• MEPs call on Vatican to embrace LGBT rights

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Catholic radio advert banned

The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has banned a radio advert for the Catholic bookstore Veritas. The advert promoted religious Christmas presents. Catholic spokespersons have slammed the decision as bizarre, ridiculous, silly, absurd, farcical and ludicrous.

Why did this happen? Irish law bans adverts that are directed towards a religious end. There is a free speech case that they shouldn’t be banned. And there is a public protection case that they should be. For me, the key point is that our advertising code treats religious adverts on the same basis as any other advert.

So why do we have an advertising code? It is to protect vulnerable people from being misled. As an advertiser, you must be able to rationally prove, using objective evidence, that you can deliver what you are promoting. This is the test, whether it be slimming tablets that soak up fat or eternal salvation after you die.

That’s why the law bans adverts directed towards a religious end. And, despite its subtle message, this advert is clearly one of these. The Catholic bishops own Veritas. The stated purpose of Veritas is “to serve the needs of the Irish Catholic church”. It does this by “using the culture and modes of communication of the time to speak to the people about god and his message.”

The wording of the advert

Here’s what the proposed advert says:

Cake and crackers, Santa and stockings, turkey and tinsel, mistletoe and mince pies, and presents and puddings. Christmas: aren’t we forgetting something? This Christmas, why not give a gift that means more? Veritas has a range of different and thoughtful gifts, for children and adults alike. From books and music to candles and artwork, there is something for everyone to enjoy and treasure. So to give a gift that means more, drop into your local Veritas shop or log on to www.veritas.ie

The Broadcasting Commission objected to the following phrases: “Christmas: aren’t we forgetting something?” and “Why not give a gift that means more?” and “So, to give a gift that means more.”

The Commission also objected to the inclusion of the address for the Veritas website, which contains material that is much more overtly religious than the wording of the advert.

Christmas: aren’t we forgetting something?

Let’s start with a point that is often skipped over. The implication of the phrase “aren’t we forgetting something” is that we are forgetting that we should really be celebrating the birth of the baby Jesus on December 25. But the Christian Bible says nothing about when Jesus was born, and the presence of shepherds does not suggest winter.

Christmas evolved from an ancient tradition of midwinter festivals that celebrated the winter solstice, the impending return of good weather, the Roman festival of Saturnalia the god of agriculture, and the birth of the Persian sun god Mithras on December 25.

In the mid-300s, Pope Julius designated December 25 to be the birthdate of Jesus. By doing this, he made it easier to absorb pagans, with their existing traditions, into Christianity. And food, drink and hedonism were always at the heart of their midwinter festivals.

That’s a secondary point, because the Christian churches have long established their own tradition of celebrating at this time of year, but it should not be ignored.

Why not give a gift that means more?

Now let’s look at the main issue. On the face of it, the phrase “give a gift that means more” sounds harmless enough. Who wouldn’t want a gift that means more? Particularly one chosen from “a range of different and thoughtful gifts, for children and adults alike”, where “there is something for everyone to enjoy and treasure.”

However, in reality, the range of available gifts is much narrower than that. The only gifts that Veritas sells are gifts that are aimed at promoting Catholicism in Ireland. If you visit the website named in the advert, you will see a set of category links on the front page. The first five are:

• Christmas and Advent at Veritas
  
• Helping Others at Veritas
  
• Baptism at Veritas
  
• Holy Communion at Veritas
  
• Confirmation at Veritas

And if you visit the “about us” page on the website, you can read about the history and purpose of Veritas, as described by its owners, the Catholic bishops of Ireland:

• Veritas has its origins in the Catholic Truth Society of Ireland, which was founded to publish and make available a range of religious materials…
  
• The name was recently changed to Veritas Communications. Its aim is to explore and use the language, culture and modes of communication of the time to speak to the people about God and about God’s message for their times…
  
• Our function is to serve the needs of the Irish Church…
  
• Veritas is wholly owned by the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference...

This advert is directed towards a religious end

On the basis of this alone, there can be no doubt that any advert that aims to bring people to Veritas is an advert directed towards a religious end.

the words of the advert are more subtle than its ultimate aim, just as the personality tests that Scientologists offer are more subtle than their ultimate aim.

As I have mentioned earlier, there is a separate argument as to whether we should ban adverts that are directed towards a religious end. But, given that they are currently banned, I believe that this advert falls into that category.

Photo: Golden Christmas by Krisdecurtis (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The toy Vatican State at the UN

The Vatican is by far the smallest State in the world, being just over a hundred acres in size. It plays at being a real State by issuing its own stamps, but it has no proper citizens (just transient employees of the Catholic Church), few public services (Italy provides it with police and water) and no real economy (though it does have a novelty ATM machine that issues instructions in Latin).

But that does not matter, because the toy Vatican State does not generally interact with other real States. Instead, an entity called the Holy See, which is the central government of the worldwide Catholic Church, masquerades as a State and deals with actual States from its base in the Vatican.

This distinction is very important. It is the openly religious Holy See, and not the theoretically civic Vatican State, that swaps diplomats with actual States, and that has Permanent Observer status at the United Nations and other bodies. But the Holy See does not have any citizens, or any defined territory, and all that it governs is the religious affairs of some citizens of actual civic States.

Preaching to Diplomats about God

In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI gave a ‘state of the world’ address to all foreign diplomats to the Holy See. He told them that ‘law can be an effective force for peace only if its foundations remain solidly anchored in natural law, given by the Creator,’ and that ‘God can never be excluded from the horizon of man or of history.’

In a particularly patronizing passage, he added that ‘my thoughts today go especially to the nations that have yet to establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See: they too have a place in the Pope’s heart.’ But he could be forgiven for sounding smug: compared to the 176 States that have diplomatic relations with the Holy See, there are only seventeen that have not (nine of which are Muslim, and four communist).

Vatican Issues its own Stamps

How did this happen? How did the worldwide leadership of one religion come to be accepted as not only a civic State, but an influential one, while it is preaching to diplomats about God?

Well, in 1929, when Mussolini’s Italy recognised it as a State, the Vatican started issuing its own stamps. Because of this, in 1951, it got to attend UN meetings through its membership of the Universal Postal Union.

In 1957, the Vatican delegates persuaded the UN to refer to them as ‘the Holy See’. There was no vote on this, just an exchange of letters with the Secretary General. With this political sleight-of-hand, the Catholic Church could now officially act as a State.

Vatican Gets Status at United Nations

In 1964, the UN gave the Holy See permanent observer status, allowing the Catholic Church to attend and vote at UN conferences.

Pope Paul VI quickly set the tone when he colourfully told the next General Assembly that the UN must ‘not favour an artificial control of birth, which would be irrational, in order to diminish the number of guests at the banquet of life.’

Since then, because the UN takes most decisions by consensus, the Holy See has been able to frustrate negotiations on population, contraception, reproductive health care and women’s rights.

Vatican Status Upgraded at United Nations

In 1999, a campaign called ‘See Change’ tried to get the UN to treat the Catholic Church in the same way as it treats other religions – by allowing it to make submissions as an ordinary nongovernmental organisation. A reasonable suggestion, you would think.

Instead, in 2004, the UN upgraded the Holy See to having all of the rights of a full member State except voting at the General Assembly, which they didn’t want to do.

And so today, because the toy Vatican State can issue stamps, the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that can attend and vote at UN conferences and co-sponsor drafts of UN resolutions and decisions.

I am of course exaggerating for effect here. The Vatican did not get to attend UN meetings solely because they could issue their own stamps. It was also because they ran their own radio station.

Photo: Vatican Postbox by Dear Barbie (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The unelectable atheist President

An atheist running for President of the United States today faces roughly the same level of prejudice from voters as a female candidate would have faced in the 1940s while women workers were being sacked to make way for returning soldiers.

Or as a black candidate would have faced in the 1960s while Martin Luther King was delivering his ‘I have a Dream’ speech. Or as a gay candidate would have faced in the 1980s while many of the straight community were blaming gay men for an AIDS epidemic.

In 2007, a Gallup poll revealed that most Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as President. Incredibly, half of all American moderates, and three in ten liberals, said they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist who was nominated by their own party. If you look at similar polls since the 1930s, you will see that black and female politicians are gradually escaping from this prejudice – or, at least, voters are less willing to openly admit such prejudice to pollsters – but atheist politicians, like gay politicians, still have decades of catching up ahead of them.

The question that Gallup asked, for USA Today, in Feb 2007, was: If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [atheist etc], would you vote for that person?

Gallup has asked similar questions in Jan-Feb 1937, Sep 1949, Sep 1958, Mar 1969, Jul 1978, Jul 1987, Aug 1987, and Feb 1999.

Photo: The White House by David Paul Ohmer (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

America’s top elected atheists

Americans elect a lot of public officials – over half a million, from the President down to school district level. If atheists and other nonbelievers were represented fairly, you would expect about 50 in the US Congress and another 50,000 at State and local level. In 2007, the Secular Coalition for America tried to find them. They found only five. Three were very local officials: a school board president, a school committee member and a town meeting member. And the two most senior were both in their seventies, much closer to the end than the start of their political careers.

Pete Stark, United States Congressman

The first, Pete Stark, was born in 1931 and served in the Air Force and founded a bank before being elected to Congress in 1973 to represent a liberal district in California. He grew up a Republican, but had switched sides when he opposed the Vietnam War. He is a Unitarian Universalist, a congregation in which members seek their own truth about theological issues. Stark does not believe in a supreme being, saying that he is more interested in people, though he adds that the Stark family does recognize a supreme being – his wife Deborah.

So what horrific future would this openly atheist Congressman inflict on Americans? His shocking priorities are universal health care, ending the war in Iraq and protecting Medicare. He wants higher taxes for the wealthy and on cigarettes. He wants incentives for teachers to work in low-income schools. He wants higher payroll taxes to better fund social security. He wants better job re-training, child care and housing assistance. He supports the UN, the Kyoto protocol, abortion, gay marriage and affirmative action. He opposes the death penalty, and wants to restrict sex and violence on television. May God protect us all from Pete Stark.

Stark is unruffled by religious fanaticism, saying that ‘the leading candidates all agree that they believe in a supreme being, but forget about it as soon as they are elected.’ He believes that religion affects the style, rather than the substance, of the main political debate in America, which he says is between the Democrat view that government makes our lives better and the Republican view that government is dangerous for us. On ‘coming out’, he looked forward to ‘working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social service.’

Ernie Chambers, Nebraska State Senator

Next comes Ernie Chambers, the only openly atheist lawmaker at State level. He was born in 1937 and worked as a barber before he became a local civil rights leader in the 1960s. He was first elected as an independent candidate to the Nebraska Senate in 1971, and is the State’s only black Senator, its longest serving Senator and the only one to wear blue tee-shirts and jeans instead of a suit. His crimes against God include ending corporal punishment in state schools, getting equal state pensions for women, and blocking the legalization of concealed weapons. He strongly opposes the death penalty, and starts every legislative session by proposing its abolition.

Chambers got world attention in 2007 when he took a legal case against God. In a different case, a Nebraska judge had barred a woman from using the words ‘rape’ or ‘victim’ while alleging that she was a rape victim. He insisted that she describe what happened as ‘sex’, which is a bit like calling a mugging a ‘financial transaction’. The woman took a lawsuit against the judge, but her case was dismissed as being frivolous. Chambers took her side, arguing that the Nebraska constitution allows anyone to sue anyone. To make this point in a satirical way, he sued God in the district court of Douglas County, Nebraska.

Chambers wanted an injunction ordering God to cease certain harmful activities including the making of terroristic threats as well as ‘fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like.’ He argued that the court had jurisdiction because God, being omnipresent, was personally in Douglas County, and that he should not have to serve legal papers because God, being omniscient, already knew about the case.

Three Local Elected Officials

The three local officials who responded to the Secular Coalition were Terry Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, California.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Massachusetts. And that, in the early twenty-first century, was the extent of openly atheist elected officials in America: Pete Stark married to his supreme being in California, Ernie Chambers suing God in Nebraska, and three local officials scattered across three million square miles of land.

Clearly there are many, many more elected atheists in the American closet. If one in every ten citizens rejects belief in gods, then about fifty members of Congress should do so. The Secular Coalition says there are 21 others who are not yet willing to go public. Even if this is true, it would still be less than half the amount that would be proportional to the overall population. It is time for elected American atheists to stand up for their rational beliefs.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!