PROF Richard Dawkins has thrown his weight behind a campaign to repeal Ireland’s new blasphemy organised by Atheist Ireland. The law, which makes the publication or utterance of blasphemous matter a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine, passed through the Oireachtas last week.
In a message read out at Atheist Ireland’s first AGM at the weekend, Dawkins said:
One of the world’s most beautiful and best-loved countries, Ireland has recently become one of the most respected as well: dynamic, go-ahead, modern, civilised – a green and pleasant silicon valley. This preposterous blasphemy law puts all that respect at risk.
He said it would be too kind to call the law a ridiculous anachronism.
It is a wretched, backward, uncivilised regression to the middle ages. Who was the bright spark who thought to besmirch the revered name of Ireland by proposing anything so stupid?
According to today’s Irish Times, messages of support for the campaign were also received from the creators of the Father Ted TV series Graham Linehan and Arthur Matthews, and the European Humanist Federation. The federation, which represents 42 organisations in 19 countries, said it was “appalled” at the new law and it was “a seriously retrograde step”.
At the AGM, Atheist Ireland members voted to test the new law by publishing a blasphemous statement, deliberately designed to cause offence. The statement will be finalised in the coming days. AI’s chairman Michael Nugent said the group wanted to highlight the ridiculousness of the law.
Atheist Ireland's Michael Nugent
Labour Senator and barrister Ivana Bacik told the meeting that an amendment provides for a review of the law within five years.
There’s a great potential to have this very much altered if not removed altogether.
The new law invites people to make complaints to gardaí and would result in “a huge amount” of wasted Garda time, she added.
So for lots of reasons I think it’s going to be highly problematic . . . and it’s bad lawmaking if nothing else.
Bacik said the establishment of Atheist Ireland was “long overdue”.
More than 150 people attended the meeting in Dublin and the group ran out of membership application forms.
I think it’s also good to see an organisation that has the word atheist in the title because for a long time many of us were in the closet.
It’s not fashionable or popular to declare oneself to be an atheist. There are many people in Ireland who would like to describe themselves as atheists and I’m one of them. I think I may be the only self-confessed or card-carrying atheist in the Oireachtas.
Ivana Bacik
The meeting agreed to campaign for the removal of all references to gods from the Constitution and for a secular education system. Ms Bacik said the education system, particularly at primary level, was:
Built on sectarian lines. It is a fundamentally sectarian system in which in our equal status legislation, schools are entitled to give priority to children of a particular religion.
The group also launched a website – Count Me Out – which provides information on how to formally leave the Catholic Church. AI believes that many lapsed Catholics, agnostics and atheists are counted in the church’s membership and claims that these figures are used by the church to justify its continued involvement in education.
Dick Spicer of the Humanist Association of Ireland welcomed the formation of the new group and said it illustrated the changes that had taken place in Irish society.
It’s a sign of how far we’ve come in Ireland, so take hope for the future. This society does move and it does move forward, more so, I think, than we appreciate.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
July 13th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I'm no fan of Dawkins, but in full agreement with him here. It really makes you wonder what was going through the minds of the politicians who thought this would be a good idea, especially with all the damning Irish Catholic abuse revelations so fresh in peoples' minds.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
The Old Testament is pretty blasphemous as it depicts God as being a sadistic mass murderer with the mentality of a spoilt toddler. So my blasphemy test case would consist of the statement "God is a sadistic mass murderer with the mentality of a spoilt toddler". If I go down I take all the Bible thumpers with me.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
"There are no gods", 'blaspheming' all with one stone?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Is there any word yet on when this blasphemous statement will be released??
I'm really looking forward to it
July 14th, 2009 at 2:48 am
Keep yourself posted here: http://blasphemy.ie/
July 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I once heard Dara O'bryn (or however you spell it) make a joke about cathocism. At least now i know why he's over here so much, he ought to seek asylum.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
As an Atheist I should perhaps not interfere in religious matters. However, I'm going to chance my luck..Many of Ireland's historical laws and internecine hatreds are the product of a Southern European religion being grafted onto a Northern European country.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Just when you think we are making good progress with a society of equality, they go and do something like this – its another ridiculous and infuriating backwards movement, like proposition 8. Its like theres a 17th century enthusiast in every government adament that we will all wear corsets and have rods shoved up our arses again. But, then again, thats 99% of our government already
December 13th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
When you read about “Separation of church and state”, what it should say is, “separation of religion and state”.
If you changed that wording, the deist’s howls of outrage could be heard on the moon. As it is, they are able to sneak their beliefs into law under the guise of “morality” and “public good”. The fact that no one has ever been able to legislate morality is as irrelevant to them as any other fact.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:50 am
In a court of law you must ‘prove’ guilt. What is blasphemy and what is not blasphemy can only defined by that religions deity. When they can get ‘God’ to testify in a court of law as to what does and does not constitute blasphemy in their religion then they have proof of the basis of the law against which someone can be judged, until then it is only a matter of belief, an opinion and not a statement of fact. In fact the choice to enact the law flouts the will of ‘God’ to define the nature of a religion and puts the courts definition of what is to be construed as blasphemous or true religious observance above the will of `’God’ ie. the law itself could be considered to be blasphemous as it place the court between the worshipper and god in defining what is an appropriate display of faith and what is not, the court is not the arbiter of faith, by definition God is.