http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/24/artwork-blasphemous-blasphemy-laws?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
Ireland's poisonous blasphemy debate
The uproar over a 'disrespectful' image of the Virgin Mary shows it is time to abolish Ireland's blasphemy laws
Padraig Reidy
guardian.co.uk, Friday 24 June 2011 15.31 BST
Article history
Alma Lopez's Our Lady makes use of popular images, such as this, of the Virgin of Guadeloupe. Photograph: Reuters
University College, Cork, is the jewel in the crown on the majestic head of Cork city. The limestone Victorian quad, the ornate Honan chapel and the state-of-the-art Tyndall National Institute (recently visited by Queen Elizabeth) are all sources of pride for an already proud people.
Today the university's department of Hispanic studies hosts the catchily titled "Transitions and Continuities in Contemporary Chicano/Chicana culture". What sounds like a niche event has gained notoriety because of an art exhibition taking place as part of the seminar.
In Our Lady and Other Queer Santas, Chicana artist Alma Lopez will exhibit her picture Our Lady, a digital pastiche of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, a 16th-century Peruvian manifestation of the Virgin Mary. More precisely, it is, in Lopez's words, "an image of a 40-year-old woman with her belly and legs exposed standing on a black crescent moon held by a bare-breasted female butterfly angel". The Madonna in a bikini, basically. So an obscure piece by an artist unknown in this part of the world is being exhibited as part of an academic conference on a specialist topic. You're wondering where this is going, aren't you?
On last Friday's Liveline, one of Ireland's most popular radio shows, presenter Joe Duffy was flooded with calls from irate Catholics mortified by this "blasphemous" artwork. One recounted the story of Our Lady of Guadeloupe and then told how "Microsoft and Nasa" had recently used a special microscope which had proved the miraculous nature of the image of Mary that had appeared on the poncho of Juan Diego. Their calls for bans and protests were countered by Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland, who later commented: "It was like discussing the rules of quidditch with people who believe Harry Potter was a documentary."
Then John Buckley, Catholic bishop of Cork and Ross, chimed in, describing the exhibition as "unacceptable", adding "respect for Mary, the mother of God, is bred in the bones of Irish people and entwined in their lives". Which neatly ignores the recently discovered fact that some Irish people aren't devout Catholics, or even Catholic at all.
Buckley's not a bad man, by no means the stern Bishop Brennan type represented in Father Ted. To be honest, he's a bit more of daft-but-likeable Dougal. My main two memories of the man from Cork are of him regularly visiting my primary school in the 80s and distributing Fox's Glacier Fruits (an odd, but not unwelcome choice of sweet), and years later, promising at a victory homecoming rally for the Cork hurling team that if they won the All-Ireland final for a third time in a row, he would personally ask the Pope to visit Cork, to a notably muted response from the assembled fans. He's also a noted fan of road bowling, in which contestants hurl cannonballs down country roads. With all that, it was a bit of a surprise to hear him come out with such strong words.
Cork South Central TD Jerry Buttimer chimed in, saying the university should not be supporting an event that was "overtly blasphemous and blatantly disrespectful" and that "those in charge at UCC should consider whether or not it is appropriate to permit this exhibition to take place on its campus without affording others the opportunity to present an alternative and balanced point of view". Protests and counter-protests were scheduled for Friday by Catholic activists and the university's atheist society.
All this would be amusing if it was happening in a vacuum, but the combination of factors here make this case particularly poisonous. Lopez has been under attack for her artwork since it was first exhibited in California in 2001. The current campaign is headed by America Needs Fatima, a Mariolatrous US group that organises anti-abortion and anti-blasphemy rallies. Lopez's adaptation of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, an image familiar to Chicana women, into an image of a Chicana woman has clearly rattled their cage.
Ireland, meanwhile, is facing its first blasphemy controversy since the Fianna Fáil/Green government introduced a new blasphemy law. Buckley's claim that all Irish people revere Mary chimes dangerously with that law's definition of blasphemy as something likely to cause "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion". UCC could yet have a case on its hands.
When the blasphemy law was introduced, the government claimed feebly that a referendum to remove the constitutional requirement that made it "necessary" would be too expensive. Yet this October, people in Ireland will take part in a referendum on judges' pay, on the same day as the presidential election. Can they now be allowed to vote on this unwanted law too?
Comments in chronological order (Total 209 comments)
Staff
Contributor
JewellyBird
24 June 2011 3:42PM
You haven't actually explained the significance of the law. Has the exhibition been banned?
Recommend (31)
Report abuse
| Link
flanker
24 June 2011 3:42PM
good luck with that.
Blasphemy is still on the statute books in Liberal Holland
go figure.
Recommend (20)
Report abuse
| Link
rightwinggit
24 June 2011 3:43PM
I'm going to engage in a bit of whataboutery.
I am an atheist who has no time for blasphemy laws. But...
No-one should produce artworks that they know will offend Christians unless they are prepared to produce works that will offend Muslims in equal measure.
Not prepared to produce blasphemous images of Mohammed?
Then don't produce blasphemous images of Mary.
Recommend (142)
Report abuse
| Link
EdmundBurkeLivesOn
24 June 2011 3:44PM
The majority of the people of Ireland long since gave up their faith in Our Lady, Virgin Mother of Christ, and put their trust in Mammon and capitalism instead.
How's that been working out for you lately?
Recommend (36)
Report abuse
| Link
EvilTory
24 June 2011 3:44PM
There is no such thing as blasphemy. There can't be, because all religions are false.
Anyway, hasn't the Catholic church done enough in Ireland? I mean, pederasty, hidden child abuse, the Magdalene laundries, .... You'd think they'd lie low for a while, wouldn't you?
Recommend (212)
Report abuse
| Link
MayoBoy
24 June 2011 3:45PM
That act was a serious & surprising step backwards (or was it a clarification of an older law..? - anyway it should have been removed) .
Wasn't there talk of a protest movement that would do some sort of mass (no pun intended) blaspheme?
Recommend (13)
Report abuse
| Link
BufoBufo
24 June 2011 3:46PM
an image of a 40-year-old woman with her belly and legs exposed standing on a black crescent moon held by a bare-breasted female butterfly angel"
Sounds more like pretentious crap than anything blasphemous.
Recommend (102)
Report abuse
| Link
JewellyBird
24 June 2011 3:47PM
The only blapsphemy law that the EU leftist establishment imposes is the one where anyone who questions environmentalism, multiculturalism or Islam is hounded out of a job, and generally persecuted by the forces of law.
Just one example. Please. Just indulge me a little bit.
Recommend (125)
Report abuse
| Link
FistofFun
24 June 2011 3:48PM
Tch... this country. I can't help but laugh at these Catholics who get so angry about something as trivial as a religious figure they revere being portrayed in a piece of non-malicious artwork. It's mad!
Incidentally, I am a hardline Muslim.
(I'm not really, I'm an Agnostic)
Recommend (45)
Report abuse
| Link
huggahoodie
24 June 2011 3:49PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
stfcbob
24 June 2011 3:51PM
"It was like discussing the rules of quidditch with people who believe Harry Potter was a documentary."
Quality.
Recommend (177)
Report abuse
| Link
MayoBoy
24 June 2011 3:52PM
@EdmundBurkeLivesOn Massively different to the UK then
Recommend (9)
Report abuse
| Link
Ilovemisty
24 June 2011 3:52PM
Watch an awful lot of posters contradict their own positions with respect to another religion. Surely such artwork is "racist" against Catholics?
Recommend (47)
Report abuse
| Link
bailliegillies
24 June 2011 3:52PM
@gosh23
Ireland should keep its blasphemy laws. Not least because once one gets rid of them then Christians and Christianity will be persecuted as they are in the UK.
So who's doing the persecution then given that officially the UK is a christian country. Don't tell me they've finally turned on themselves!
Recommend (54)
Report abuse
| Link
gosh23
24 June 2011 3:54PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
dollishillbilly
24 June 2011 3:55PM
Remind me what century we're living in, please?
Recommend (98)
Report abuse
| Link
flanker
24 June 2011 3:56PM
rightwingnit
remember when the church was the only/principle sponsor of the arts (OK, not personally but read some history books).
the idea that it is such a body that dictates the moral compass of a nation, especially as expressed through art, is so out of date it's funny.
i'll throw some whataboutery right back at you
what about if believers (of any faith) realise that ;
a) - there are plenty more non-believers out there
b) - why is anyone questioning traditional beliefs an insult and not, for example, just a different point of view
Recommend (34)
Report abuse
| Link
JewellyBird
24 June 2011 3:57PM
Remind me what century we're living in, please?
Apparently the one where religious people can protest that they don't like a piece of an exhibition, but the exhibition goes ahead anyway. Which sounds like the century with free speech and the one where dissent is tolerated.
Recommend (53)
Report abuse
| Link
Ilovemisty
24 June 2011 3:57PM
@gosh23
Ireland should keep its blasphemy laws. Not least because once one gets rid of them then Christians and Christianity will be persecuted as they are in the UK.
Persecuted like all those young women in the laundries were? There may be some double standards about the treatment of Christianity and other religions in the UK, but persecuted...my a**e.
Recommend (109)
Report abuse
| Link
bailliegillies
24 June 2011 3:58PM
@gosh23
So who's doing the persecution then given that officially the UK is a christian country. Don't tell me they've finally turned on themselves!
Marxists, and lefties in general.
Then kindly provide links to support your accusations as paranoia isn't evidence.
Recommend (49)
Report abuse
| Link
bailliegillies
24 June 2011 3:59PM
@dollishillbilly
Remind me what century we're living in, please?
Them or us?
Recommend (25)
Report abuse
| Link
billysbar
24 June 2011 3:59PM
I'm going to engage in a bit of whataboutery.
I am an atheist who has no time for blasphemy laws. But...
No-one should produce artworks that they know will offend Christians unless they are prepared to produce works that will offend Muslims in equal measure.
Not prepared to produce blasphemous images of Mohammed?
Then don't produce blasphemous images of Mary.
Well, like, that's just your opinion, man.
Recommend (27)
Report abuse
| Link
nansikom
24 June 2011 4:00PM
Blasphemy laws should be abolished worldwide. There should be no such offence in a free society - God is quite capable of looking after Himself.
Having said that, all these supposedly 'blasphemous' works of art always feature Christian iconography, don't they, ('Piss Christ' comes to mind) never Islamic! It's hardly a radical statement if you shy away from Moslems. And no-one's fooled - we all know it's because Moslems bite back and Christian's don't!
And I really am looking forward to hearing about an icone of Dawkins buggering AC Grayling as a radical observation on atheistic nihilism, and then reading the outraged reactions in the Guardian!
Recommend (58)
Report abuse
| Link
davidabsalom
24 June 2011 4:01PM
gosh23
24 June 2011 3:42PM
Ireland should keep its blasphemy laws. Not least because once one gets rid of them then Christians and Christianity will be persecuted as they are in the UK.
Quite right. You can't move around here for Christians burning at the stake. It's playing merry hell with my asthma.
Recommend (186)
Report abuse
| Link
bailliegillies
24 June 2011 4:01PM
If gosh23 wants to know about persecution I can give him/her a first hand account of what it's like as the poor sisters of nazareth were quite adept at it as were the jesuits.
Recommend (56)
Report abuse
| Link
Kimpatsu
24 June 2011 4:02PM
Free speech trumps all other considerations. Of course, the muddled thinkers of the world can't grasp that simple fact, but the US 1st amendment really needs to apply worldwide.
Recommend (59)
Report abuse
| Link
ForgetfulCat
24 June 2011 4:02PM
My main two memories of the man from Cork are of him regularly visiting my primary school in the 80s and distributing Fox's Glacier Fruits
I don't know quite why, but the idea of a Catholic priest giving sweets to kiddies seems a bit, y'know, dodgy.
Recommend (83)
Report abuse
| Link
JewellyBird
24 June 2011 4:04PM
Free speech trumps all other considerations.
The exhibition is going ahead, apparently. The religious people who were offended were able to express this.
What is the threat to free speech?
Recommend (23)
Report abuse
| Link
MayoBoy
24 June 2011 4:05PM
@nansikom
Surely that is because many Europeans were brought up Christian and so are expressing a sort of repellion or expression of distaste towards that aspect of their upbrining. Basically, the art is based on their own experience being brought up as a Christian.
Is there examples of European muslim-raised artists doing similar art against their own Islamic upbringing? I'd imagine they woudn't get away with it too easily in Muslim countries.
Recommend (35)
Report abuse
| Link
ZacSmith
24 June 2011 4:05PM
Not least because once one gets rid of them then Christians and Christianity will be persecuted as they are in the UK.
I know - it's outrageous. It's just like being a Jew in Nazi Germany. I mean, we have the Head of State formally acting as Head of the established church, bishops acting as parlimentarians as of right, 1000's of church schools, obligatory religion in all schools, compulsory religious programming on state funded media. It won't be long before they are gassing you.
Recommend (109)
Report abuse
| Link
NoddingHomer
24 June 2011 4:06PM
Holy Mother o' Christ!
Given most of the posts here so far, have I by accident stumbled on the Daily Mail website by mistake?
Recommend (17)
Report abuse
| Link
Gobshitey
24 June 2011 4:06PM
rightwinggit
"No-one should produce artworks that they know will offend Christians unless they are prepared to produce works that will offend Muslims in equal measure."
I have some agreement with your point. However, the thing is the Catholic church regularly uses imagery and art to keep it's members placated. Especially images of Mary.
I'm not sure this is so much the case with Islam.
Recommend (21)
Report abuse
| Link
HandandShrimp
24 June 2011 4:07PM
As Bishop O'Neill said
it's all nonsense isn't it?
Recommend (20)
Report abuse
| Link
dirtandglitter
24 June 2011 4:08PM
"an image of a 40-year-old woman with her belly and legs exposed standing on a black crescent moon held by a bare-breasted female butterfly angel"
If god is supposed to be all-powerful, why does this image bother anyone? I mean, if god doesn't like this image, why doesn't s/he come and destroy it personally?
gosh23
24 June 2011 3:42PM
Ireland should keep its blasphemy laws. Not least because once one gets rid of them then Christians and Christianity will be persecuted as they are in the UK.
Are you confusing 'persecuted' with 'disagreed with'?
And throughout the last thousand years there are countless examples of Christians forcing everyone else to live by biblical law. Christians defined what was 'socially acceptable' and then forced everyone else to follow this dogma.
Is that the sort of country you want us to change back into?
Recommend (70)
Report abuse
| Link
ForgetfulCat
24 June 2011 4:08PM
To compound the treason against the Lord
Just to be pedantic, I'm fairly certain you can't actually commit treason against a deity, except possibly if you're a member of a group of deities and start aiding their opponents.
Recommend (73)
Report abuse
| Link
TigerDunc
24 June 2011 4:09PM
This very paper is the perfect example of this 21st century treachery and hypocrisy.
A perfect counter to your stone age arguments of irrationality, bigotry and intolerance then.
Recommend (50)
Report abuse
| Link
CrashBall
24 June 2011 4:12PM
@EdmundBurkeLivesOn
The majority of the people of Ireland long since gave up their faith in Our Lady, Virgin Mother of Christ, and put their trust in Mammon and capitalism instead.
How's that been working out for you lately?
Not as bad as you'd think. Nearly all the people I know here (I'm Irish by the by) would choose being broke yet having the church on the verge of finally dying out as opposed to winding back the clock to when we were (allegedly - by the religious nutters anyway) happier and men in black could stick their noses in anywhere and wielded more power than the politicians.
The only reason we have this joke of a blasphemy law is because the man who brought it in was one of said religious nutters (dogged by rumours of links to Opus Dei - which speaks for itself) and brought it in to protect the likes of himself.
And that's the problem - older, brainwashed people still hold the reigns of power in Ireland and many still actively act to protect the men in black who've done so much harm. Believe me, when the elderly die off and people of my generation take over we'll be far less forgiving of the men in black.
Recommend (68)
Report abuse
| Link
radicalcleric
24 June 2011 4:13PM
Pretty lame attempt at the end of the article to rope in the blasphemy law. The author claims that
Ireland, meanwhile, is facing its first blasphemy controversy since the Fianna Fáil/Green government introduced a new blasphemy law.
Firstly, has any complaint been made under the law?
Secondly, this is not the 'first controversy' since the law was enacted. Atheist Ireland attempted to get themselves prosecuted by posting 'blasphemous' comments on their website. Nothing happened to them, as the Act was designed to be unenforceable. Nothing will happen here either, notwithstanding the bleating of the Liveline mob (who are not representative of most Irish people in any event).
Recommend (8)
Report abuse
| Link
HandandShrimp
24 June 2011 4:13PM
Perhaps we should all take a time out to read a Jesus and Mo cartoon.
Recommend (29)
Report abuse
| Link
cutta
24 June 2011 4:14PM
@gosh23
Geert Wilders. Nick Griffin when talking about muslim paedophile and rape gangs (of which the authorities now admit are a massive problem).
Griffen gets pilloried because he's a racist scumbag, not because he's critical of Islam. He doesn't care one bit about Islam, he just hates non-white people and is happy to use Islam as a convenient stick to beat (some of) them with.
@rightwinggit
No-one should produce artworks that they know will offend Christians unless they are prepared to produce works that will offend Muslims in equal measure.
While I'd like to see more people knocking Islam, load of old nonsense that it is, are you really suggesting that people are only allowed to be offensive if they are equally offensive to everyone? Should they also make sure they're offending Hindus, Jews and Buddhists in equal measure?
I'd guess that the reason people are more likely to mock Christianity in this country is that it's something most of us are familiar with, what with being brought up in a vaguely Christian country, being immersed in its traditions and so on. It's not just fear stopping people, it's ignorance too.
Recommend (41)
Report abuse
| Link
dollishillbilly
24 June 2011 4:15PM
The exhibition is going ahead, apparently. The religious people who were offended were able to express this.
So why is the need for a law that makes blasphemy illegal if the religious are free to exhibit their rage at an exhibition? Do you not see the problem here, or are you being wilfully silly?
Recommend (34)
Report abuse
| Link
ibbo
24 June 2011 4:15PM
Blasphemy laws are by nature an extension of religious tyranny.
So in essence I'm saying God was a Tyrant. Speak against him and its blasphemy. So I say to thee Mary was a whore and Jesus was her pimp. Gods a bloody tyrant and satan the cast out one had the nerve to speak up against him.
Wow sounds like cif.
Recommend (27)
Report abuse
| Link
kged
24 June 2011 4:16PM
Ireland should keep its blasphemy laws. Not least because once one gets rid of them then Christians and Christianity will be persecuted as they are in the UK.
The only Christians who have ever been persecuted in the UK suffered at the hands of other Christians, and that was quite a long time ago. It was also frequently punctuated with turning of the national and political tables which allowed the persecuted to do some persecuting of their own, an opportunity they took with diligent relish.
All blasphemy laws are inherently ridiculous and must be discarded. I say "inherently ridiculous" - sadly, that is at best. In much of the world they are also vicious and inhumane. As they would be here, if implemented as they were intended.
Recommend (51)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:16PM
Kimpatsu
24 June 2011 4:02PM
Free speech trumps all other considerations. Of course, the muddled thinkers of the world can't grasp that simple fact, but the US 1st amendment really needs to apply worldwide.
.....................
I guess Paedophiles ..Holocaust deniers ..Klu Klux Klan ...extremisst of any credo or belief
..all should eb able to broadcast with impunity no matter how repugnant
they should be able to have their 2 cents worth?
No ..you cannot square that circle ..can you?
No you cant
well you can ...by using ..mindgames
toodle pip mon amis
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:18PM
Ive been banned period on Cif
so the article is hypocricy in extremis
playmates
Truth ..you cant handle the truth..or eccentric left brain views
Recommend (5)
Report abuse
| Link
gixxerman006
24 June 2011 4:18PM
The 'invisible friend' believers really have got this persecution complex down, huh?
Some of the more loopy element of the Christian belief are so delusional that they really do imagine that because they don't have their way 100% of the time anymore and that others (especially non-believers) have to be considered that this equates to them being 'persecuted' in the UK & Ireland.
It's hilarious, but only in a sad pitiable way.
Recommend (49)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:20PM
gixxerman006
24 June 2011 4:18PM
The 'invisible friend' believers really have got this persecution complex down, huh?
...............
dont be so subjective and polemical
all views are equal
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
Damntheral
24 June 2011 4:22PM
Any reason why the G doesn't show us the artwork so we get an idea what this is about?
Recommend (15)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:23PM
Damntheral
24 June 2011 4:22PM
Any reason why the G doesn't show us the artwork so we get an idea what this is about?
................
Whatttttttt!!!!??
and spoil an Atheist luv in !
Recommend (5)
Report abuse
| Link
rightlyso
24 June 2011 4:23PM
This has to do with a lack of respect towards other people's beliefs. Freedom of expression of this type should be kept to ones self instead of insulting the majority.
I don't believe that only catholics would be insulted about this.
I certainly would not like to see any one being ridiculed like this in the name of freedom of expression or speech.
Recommend (16)
Report abuse
| Link
Lokischild
24 June 2011 4:24PM
Nobody expects the Irish Inquisition!
Recommend (15)
Report abuse
| Link
RichJames
24 June 2011 4:24PM
Can't see what the fuss is about really. It's an uninteresting picture which any art student could have put together via Photoshop; and yet - because of the outcry - it's seen as either a) blasphemy; or b) the symbol of modern secular democracy.
I don't think it fits either, personally. It's not good enough as art to be a symbol of freedom; it's not bad enough to be genuinely offensive. Don't understand why people of any persuasion are being so pompous, really.
I agree that blasphemy laws should be repealed though. It's not because conservatives' sensitivities don't matter - there's never anything wrong with basic courtesy; but because without debate, iconoclastic views, plurality, irreverance, and humour, then religious discussion loses its vitality, and may as well be photoshopped too.
@dirtandglitter:
"if god doesn't like this image, why doesn't s/he come and destroy it personally?"
Who's to say God doesn't like it? No saying he/she has taste.
Recommend (10)
Report abuse
| Link
RumRiver
24 June 2011 4:24PM
Catholicism, developed as a state religion to iterate the social order and enforce loyalty to same, has a great deal in common with Islam. Not polar opposites at all.
Recommend (14)
Report abuse
| Link
StGallen
24 June 2011 4:25PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/9/indias-most-prominent-painter-mf-hussain-dies/
Off topic, I know, but don't you guys end up like India. A prominent Indian newspaper (stand up Times of India) mourned the death of MF Hussain, a Muslim, who painted Hindu goddesses in nude, but dared not print the muslim cartoons.
Recommend (12)
Report abuse
| Link
RedSperanza
24 June 2011 4:25PM
Everything about this "controversy" is manufactured - some radio talk show host whipping up ersatz conservative indignation on the one hand, and the article above whipping up cosmetic liberal indignation on the other. No-one cares.
Ireland's ludicrous blasphemy law was introduced by the last government as a desperate attempt at the politics of distraction at a moment when it was becoming clear that said government had destroyed the country. It's my favourite blasphemy law ever, because it does not define blasphemy and implicity condemns every religion in the state for blaspheming all the others in a circular firing squad. I hope it is never repealed, because it represents in itself a standing act of unintentional satire on the whole concept of blasphemy. It is the greatest, because the most stupid, blasphemy law anywhere, ever. I'm proud of it.
As for where real Irish people are today ... the article mentions an upcoming presidential election. It could also have mentioned that, according to recent opinion polls, the most likely victor and next head of state is an openly gay man of deeply socially liberal views.
Ireland is not full of crazed devotees of the Virgin Mary, I can assure you. Even if conservative radio hosts and liberal columnists have their own distinct reasons for pretending otherwise.
Recommend (19)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:25PM
This has to do with a lack of respect towards other people's beliefs. Freedom of expression of this type should be kept to ones self instead of insulting the majority.
I don't believe that only catholics would be insulted about this.
I certainly would not like to see any one being ridiculed like this in the name of freedom of expression or speech.
................
spot on
they think that free speech = the right to commit offence and disrespect
ah well
maybe one day thier minds will ..Man up ...and maybe they might realise the pedestal they stand on ..is not the centre of the universe
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
HandandShrimp
24 June 2011 4:26PM
@hyprocritesbeware
In the USA all these groups can have their tuppence worth. The Westboro Baptist Church can hold their demos at peoples' funerals with inflamatory placards. The question of whether this right or not is moot but the sky has not caved in on the US.
One can equally argue that no one can say anything that would upset another. This would cover upsetting religious groups but there would have to be a quid pro quo and anything that picks on minority groups from a religious perspective should be edited out too. No special pleading.
A middle road that I would favour would be that the religious can say their piece in their sphere and irreligious in theirs. So no to placards at other peoples' funerals and no to offensive comments or signs outside churches or religious interweb sites. Live and let live without shoving it down each others throats.
Recommend (15)
Report abuse
| Link
RichJames
24 June 2011 4:26PM
@rightlyso:
"Freedom of expression of this type should be kept to ones self"
Contradiction in terms. It's like saying people should only be vegetarian between meals.
@Lokischild:
"Nobody expects the Irish Inquisition!"
Shocking.
At least go for the 'Feck! Arse! Grrrls!' line.
Recommend (15)
Report abuse
| Link
TigerDunc
24 June 2011 4:26PM
all views are equal
</blockquote
>
OOh ho ho ho. That's a good one. C'mon, tell us another then.
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
Cardie
24 June 2011 4:27PM
You sir, are without conscience.
All decent God fearing Catholics know that very time an act of blasphemy is committed an imaginary kitten dies.
Recommend (20)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:27PM
OOh ho ho ho. That's a good one. C'mon, tell us another then.
.....................................
your a prig
will that do
moan ami?
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
KelvinYearwood
24 June 2011 4:28PM
Presumably the problematized image is one that references Amerindian culture and its link with the Cathoclic culture that was imposed on them.
Presumably what offends people is an Amerindian or developing world citizen taking control of their culture and related icons.
Europeans are free to impose; and developing world citizens are free to be imposed upon.
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
heavyrail
24 June 2011 4:28PM
Mary is not God. Therefore any accusation of blasphemy is itself blasphemous.
Recommend (28)
Report abuse
| Link
Mephistopheles1
24 June 2011 4:28PM
Ireland should keep its laws.
It is a matter for the Irish alone. If people in a society find something offensive, then they should be able to say so and have it removed (or whatever).
The Guardian hypocrisy on the subject of offence is massive.
In recent weeks, I have been "censored" (posts removed & posts pre-moderated etc) for refering to facts, as follows:
- referring to established biological science regarding chromosomes
- referring to official NHS statistics regarding HIV-AIDs in the UK
In the first instance, censorship occured because a transexual had become upset over these facts. In the second instance, censorship occured because gay men were upset about the facts.
So, the Guardian will censor / cover-up genuine scientific and medical data because their readers do not like the facts, at the same time as punting articles attacking the Irish on censorship.
Do the Irish not deserve the same protections / respect as transexual and gays?
Grow up Guardian.
Recommend (16)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:30PM
handandshrimp
Ive no problem with your views
as you have insight and a developed mind
But there are those on here ..who think that anything goes
well Im sorry ..but real life involves people ..and people have ..feelings
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
Mephistopheles1
24 June 2011 4:30PM
@ Damntheral
Any reason why the G doesn't show us the artwork so we get an idea what this is about?
I dont recall you (or anyone) asking that about the Danish Mohammed cartoons, also absent from the Guardian pages.
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
bailliegillies
24 June 2011 4:31PM
@rightlyso
This has to do with a lack of respect towards other people's beliefs.
A bit like their complete lack of respect for those people who don't want to believe.
Why is it that we have to respect their beliefs but they are complete free to ignore ours and try and impose their on us?
Respect is a two way street.
Recommend (27)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:33PM
A bit like their complete lack of respect for those people who don't want to believe.
Why is it that we have to respect their beliefs but they are complete free to ignore ours and try and impose their on us?
....................
Im sorry but ...Men in hoods no longer drag people from thier beds and drag them before Magistrates ..and force them to kiss the cross ...and tied to stakes wearing Dunces caps
Good lord......get a sense of Proprtion !!!! this isnt 1597
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:34PM
Why is it that we have to respect their beliefs but they are complete free to ignore ours and try and impose their on us?
.......................
ohh come on ........youve more chance of a charity chugger pissing you off ..than fearing anyone who believes in God
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
Spoutwell
24 June 2011 4:35PM
"The uproar over a 'disrespectful' image of the Virgin Mary shows it is time to reform Ireland's outdated blasphemy laws"
When oh when are the Irish going to institute a proper faith-based sectarian monarchy - complete with unwritten constitution.
Recommend (9)
Report abuse
| Link
Valten78
24 June 2011 4:36PM
The very concept of a blasphemy law is obscene. There should no place for such nonsense in any country wishing to be thought of as a free democracy.
Recommend (13)
Report abuse
| Link
PadraigR
24 June 2011 4:36PM
@rightwingit
"Not prepared to produce blasphemous images of Mohammed?
Then don't produce blasphemous images of Mary."
I'm really not sure how one works an image of Mohamed into a work on Latin American cultural and gender identity.
Recommend (28)
Report abuse
| Link
Bippity
24 June 2011 4:36PM
@HandandShrimp
Since we're onto the Father Ted quotes, isn't Ted's 'down with this sort of thing' - in response to an allegedly blasphemous film shown on Craggy Island (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM) more appropriate to this non-story?
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
TigerDunc
24 June 2011 4:38PM
your a prig
will that do
moan ami?
No, not really. Apart from the obvious factual inaccuracies contained therein, I think the sort of sub e e cumming pastiche is a bit overdone. Obvious without being clever.
I'm feeling kind though, so go on, have another go.
Recommend (10)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:39PM
No, not really. Apart from the obvious factual inaccuracies contained therein, I think the sort of sub e e cumming pastiche is a bit overdone. Obvious without being clever.
I'm feeling kind though, so go on, have another go.
..............
no ta
I dont argue with people who have aggressive attitude
I just blank them out
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
StevHep
24 June 2011 4:40PM
@rightwinggit
No-one should produce artworks that they know will offend Christians unless they are prepared to produce works that will offend Muslims in equal measure.
As it happens Muslims do revere Mary, she gets more mentions in the Quran than in the bible and she is believed to be the virgin mother of the greatest prophet prior to Muhammed. Therefore this exhibition will, I expect, be very offensive to Muslims. It just happens that the Muslim population of Ireland is so small that nobody really pays much attention to them. I bet that it doesn't get moved to Bradford though.
On the subject of blasphemy strictly speaking only God can be blasphemed and Catholic do not believe our Lady to be divine. What is being shown be be grossly offensive to the dearest feelings of many Irish people but that does not make it blasphemous.
And on the subject of America needs Fatima to call them Mariolatrous, as Padraig Reidy does, is to deliberately say something that is not true with the intention to mislead.
Recommend (11)
Report abuse
| Link
FirmbutFair
24 June 2011 4:41PM
Essentially it's important to distinguish between what people should have a right to do and what it is right to do.
In a civil sopciety we shouldn't offend people's sensibilities without good reason - and that includes a level of courtesy in dabate, where crude insults and lampooning in any case often backfire.
There is however absolutely no reason why the sensibilities of a relgious group should be protected any more than for example those of a political group, a nationality or a sexual orientation.
Indeed, sice religion is essentially based on belief and opinion, people should expect to have those beliefs challenged robuistly.
- By the same toke, while I despie Geert Wilders, it seems entirely right, based on what I know, to have found him "not guilty".
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
Corcagiensis
24 June 2011 4:42PM
All this would be amusing if it was happening in a vacuum, but the combination of factors here make this case particularly poisonous. Lopez has been under attack for her artwork since it was first exhibited in California in 2001.
So this lady goes round the world stirring up agitation and hostility through mocking the Blessed Virgin Mary? Why is that laudable?
I'm not Muslim or Buddhist but I won't go around insulting their faith and desecrating things they hold dear. As a Catholic I disagree fundamentally with what they believe and I am prepared to say so and explain why. That's free speech which I welcome and if Ms Lopez has issues with Mary, the Catholic Church, or anything else she should go ahead and air them. Why that has to be done through depicting Mary in a quasi-pornographic way I don't know, and I certainly don't see how it advances dialogue or any reasoned critique of Catholicism.
It's just an insult dressed up as pseudo-artistic guff. I say we ignore it.
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
| Link
Bippity
24 June 2011 4:42PM
This kind of over-reaction is not limited to Ireland. Just a couple of months ago Christian protesters in France damaged Serrano's Piss Christ (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters).
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:44PM
There is however absolutely no reason why the sensibilities of a relgious group should be protected any more than for example those of a political group, a nationality or a sexual orientation.
.........................
no one should bully or offend anyone
Recommend (5)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:46PM
gruanaird are crafty
they set up teh stall then wait for the village mob
click click click
oooooops
banned
deleted
tojours
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
skinhead69
24 June 2011 4:49PM
On the geert Wilders thread there was alot of people discussing his court case as a 'victory for freedom of speech'. Where are they, and why aren't they sticking up for Alma Lopez?
Double standards.
Recommend (11)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:51PM
seems to me anyone out to offend ..deliberatley . welll maybee blasphemey or censorship is a bit OTT
but then again ..anyone who seeks attention by virtue of Offending or causing upset
well they have not got anything wortth selling
In fact ..theyve lost
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
davidabsalom
24 June 2011 4:51PM
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:44PM
.........................
no one should bully or offend anyone
According to a couple of threads on here this week, I offend just by sleeping with my partner. Should I stop?
Recommend (21)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:53PM
Hurrah ..... Dutchman who wanted the Koran banned ..is achampion of free speech
err hold on ...Didnt he want a Book banned?
errrrr
and hes a champion of free speech?
excuse me while I fall off chair in disbelief
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 4:53PM
According to a couple of threads on here this week, I offend just by sleeping with my partner. Should I stop?
......................................
dunno your sex life is your own business
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
bailliegillies
24 June 2011 4:57PM
@hypocritesbeware
Im sorry but ...Men in hoods no longer drag people from thier beds and drag them before Magistrates ..and force them to kiss the cross ...and tied to stakes wearing Dunces caps
But they still reserve the right to knock on my door and prosetylise, against my wishes, post their propaganda through my door against my wishes, lay claim my taxes for their use against my wishes. Preach to me on the radio against my wishes.
Good lord......get a sense of Proprtion !!!! this isnt 1597
No but there are plenty who would dearly love to turn the clock back and if the church was once more able to gain ascendancy in Europe you would see those who failed to accept to their beliefs and hegemony once again punished. Maybe not burnt at the stake but then we have industrialised our ways of killing those we don't approve off.
Recommend (19)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 5:00PM
*
bailliegillies
24 June 2011 4:57PM
@hypocritesbeware
Im sorry but ...Men in hoods no longer drag people from thier beds and drag them before Magistrates ..and force them to kiss the cross ...and tied to stakes wearing Dunces caps
But they still reserve the right to knock on my door and prosetylise, against my wishes, post their propaganda through my door against my wishes, lay claim my taxes for their use against my wishes. Preach to me on the radio against my wishes
..............
I get Kebab leaflets ..Im against the slaughter of poor innocent lambs
Ive put signs on my door ..and still I get fast food leaflets
I switch on Tv and see mindless promotion of consumerism and sleaze .
Gods Sake man
dont be so touchy and pedantic
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
hypocritesbeware
24 June 2011 5:01PM
Gods teeth ..seems to me people nowadays only happy when stirring it up
live and let live
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
Soarer
24 June 2011 5:01PM
That 'America Needs Fatima' site is wonderful.
I can't work out if it's intended to be taken seriously, or if its taking the piss.
Excellent story of how one woman prevented a male stripper performing - no acknowledgement of other people's rights there at all.
Absolutely hilarious.
Recommend (5)
Report abuse
| Link
dollishillbilly
24 June 2011 5:07PM
rightlyso
This has to do with a lack of respect towards other people's beliefs.
Who said ideas and beliefs had to be respected?
Freedom of expression of this type should be kept to ones self instead of insulting the majority.
Ignoring the argument from numbers the above employs, you are contradicting the very point of freedom of speech.
I don't believe that only catholics would be insulted about this.
Well there are the other sects within the death cult known as Christianity, so yes, I am sure there are some on this planet who would be upset at poking a stick at something they hold dear, as childish as that stance may be. No one has the right not to be offended.
I certainly would not like to see any one being ridiculed like this in the name of freedom of expression or speech.
What you are calling for then, is for freedom of speech to be curtailed in case someone gets upset or offended by criticism, humour, mocking or ridicule. As I mentioned above, no one has the right not to be offended.
No one.
Recommend (22)
Report abuse
| Link
RuleBritannia87
24 June 2011 5:08PM
Blasphemy's a victimless crime.
Recommend (17)
Report abuse
| Link
FirmbutFair
24 June 2011 5:11PM
And of course religious leaders, be they Protestant, Catholic or Muslim have often hardly pulled their punches when it comes to offending atheists, gay people and (perhaps less often) people of other faiths.
I'm all for keeping debate cool and courteous but it works both ways matey.
Recommend (12)
Report abuse
| Link
bailliegillies
24 June 2011 5:17PM
@hypocritesbeware
I get Kebab leaflets ..Im against the slaughter of poor innocent lambs
Ive put signs on my door ..and still I get fast food leaflets
I switch on Tv and see mindless promotion of consumerism and sleaze .
Gods Sake man
dont be so touchy and pedantic
But Kebabs only give you temporary heartburn, not threaten you with eternal damnation if you don't accept their beliefs.
I had enough of being condemned to eternal damnation by the nuns and priests in nazareth house without having to put up with it as an adult.
It's your right to believe in myths and fairy tales but it isn't your right to impose those same fairy tales on others as being an incontroversial truth.
Recommend (17)
Report abuse
| Link
Valten78
24 June 2011 5:19PM
If the Catholics are right and there is a god who is creators of the whole universe then when on earth would such a powerful being need to have his feelings protected in this way? Im sure he's more than capable of zapping sinners himself.
This isn't about god though is it? It's about the god bother's own egos.
Recommend (22)
Report abuse
| Link
Freespeechknight
24 June 2011 5:19PM
This has always seemed to me to be a country steeped in political double standards and religious hypocrisy where belief has allowed the extreme to commit almost any act, no matter how evil in the name of religion. In my opinion it is the political establishment that is at the root of all this because it seems to me that while all was known the political establishment denied it because they were too cowardly to tell the truth and I think they are as guilty as the perpetrators. Do these, in my view, flawed and failing politicians really expect anybody to have any respect for religion after this history of the most brutal torture of children by those who had sworn the most sacred vows that turned out to be the worst of all possible blasphemies? And this is not a law about specifics, it is a law about the feeling of being offended by the majority, with the ethics of the lynch mob. It seems to me that they when they introduced these blasphemy laws so willingly they could not wait to gave aid and support to an ethos which has committed this most vile catalogue of crimes against the innocent and all this leaves me wondering how involved the political classes were, or may be still are, in all this, and whether there is still an undisclosed catalogue of abuse to come to light that will lead back to the political classes. What is the justification? There is no proof of the Apostolic Succession except one sentence of supposition by Irenaeus AD150 who invented the succession, and in my view therefore no authority for any Papal pronouncement or ordination. What is it that makes the political classes so keen on oppression and so touchy about legitimate criticism??
Recommend (5)
Report abuse
| Link
Valten78
24 June 2011 5:23PM
Hypocitesbeware.
It's not the Christians posting leaflets that worry me, they are just annoying. It's the ones in our schools and in our government buildings that worry me, they are downright dangerous.
Recommend (18)
Report abuse
| Link
annedemontmorency
24 June 2011 5:32PM
Perhaps the Guardian should show Ireland the way by first abolishing "deleted by moderator".
Recommend (9)
Report abuse
| Link
RuleBritannia87
24 June 2011 5:39PM
By default I have no respect for anyone's beliefs. Respect is earned.
Recommend (14)
Report abuse
| Link
AnonymousInfamy
24 June 2011 5:49PM
Blasphemy laws are necessary if people find it impossible to express themselves without wilfully offending people. As long as the blasphemy law covers all religions so that disrespectful or unacceptable gestures towards Islam, Catholicism, Sikhism etc are all banned, then I don't see the problem.
Don't understand why Islamophobes, anti-Catholics, atheists find it necessary to act like 5 year-olds instead of coming with logical arguments.
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
nodecencyleft
24 June 2011 5:50PM
'The uproar over a 'disrespectful' image of the Virgin Mary shows it is time to abolish Ireland's blasphemy laws'.
Jesus's mum Was NOT a vergin, maybe ( and I really mean maybe, perhaps) she was "intact" until someone 'd knocked her up .
Now, that someone for Mr. John Buckley, Catholic bishop of Cork and Ross, was the holy ghost/holy spirt ( is the holy ghost God, or a relative of him/her/it ? Like, I don't know , a close cousin? Never mind, in due time I'll find out), but we know that, much more likely, it was Joseph to get her pregnant, unless, unless Mrs Mary slept around .
IF that Remote chance was indeed the case, well, then , uh, uhh, well no, no....
Anyway, the Vergin Mary is no more "Vergin" than say Queen Elizabeth) who also believe in Mary's verginity, right ?
Now, disrespectful images of the Vergin Mary are not ok , I give you that, not nice, no.
But but about 2000 year old deceiving, fanciful tall stories ?
Is not that disrespectful ?
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
JewellyBird
24 June 2011 5:52PM
So why is the need for a law that makes blasphemy illegal if the religious are free to exhibit their rage at an exhibition? Do you not see the problem here, or are you being wilfully silly?
I don't really understand the point you're making here, but possibly you have me confused with someone who supports the blasphemy law. I'm not - I just don't see how it gives context to people protesting about this exhibition, since it wasn't invoked to prevent the exhibition going ahead, nor was any person prosecuted.
There is a painting on show. Some people don't like it, they don't have to. They made that known, they've a right to. That's literally all that happened. To imply that we're backward as a result isn't actually a great argument.
@Freespeechknight
Any chance of a paragraph now and again?
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
| Link
KermitsAFrog
24 June 2011 5:59PM
That would be an ecumenical matter...
...finally can cross that one off the bingo of life.
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
| Link
FirmbutFair
24 June 2011 5:59PM
@AnonymousInfamy
Blasphemy laws are necessary if people find it impossible to express themselves without wilfully offending people. As long as the blasphemy law covers all religions so that disrespectful or unacceptable gestures towards Islam, Catholicism, Sikhism etc are all banned, then I don't see the problem.
Don't understand why Islamophobes, anti-Catholics, atheists find it necessary to act like 5 year-olds instead of coming with logical arguments.
By the same token you would presumably want to stop the religious wilfully offending the non relgious, gay people etc., at which point the world would become a very quiet place, and CiF rather duller...
Recommend (8)
Report abuse
| Link
KermitsAFrog
24 June 2011 6:00PM
Down with this sort of thing...
...once you pop...
Recommend (5)
Report abuse
| Link
DamnWymz
24 June 2011 6:25PM
My Alma Mater....
"It was like discussing the rules of quidditch with people who believe Harry Potter was a documentary."
BRILLIANT.
Recommend (12)
Report abuse
| Link
ceiba
24 June 2011 6:27PM
Just a quick fact check: it's Guadalupe, not Guadeloupe. And the image is Mexican, not Peruvian. As a Mexican woman I don't really find it offensive, if a bit mediocre (as a previous poster said, a photoshop pastiche). However, here in Mexico such an image would not be seen without a great deal of public outcry. This considering that religion was, for a stint, banned in Mexico and civil wars were fought in the mean time, and up until recently we had a completely secular state. The point is that as much as the state remains secular, religious fervor tends to know no bounds. It is saddening to see blasphemy laws in this day and age, and to see the state siding with religious institutions. In Mexico it is a current and frightening fact. It is not surprising that in Ireland, a country with many historical and social similairities (colonialism, catholicism, the oppression of the native peoples, etc.) there is the same type of thing happening. A sad thing indeed.
As far as the image in and of itself is concerned, the image of la Vírgen is ubiquitous in Mexico and has been re-worked historically on many occasions (the struggle for independence and even the zapatista movement are a couple of examples). Trying to defy an image with a complex cultural (not just religious) significance in narrow, dogmatic religious terms is a bit absurd, a bit counterproductive... The image of la Vírgen does not belong to catholics but to the Mexican people, as a syncretic image that embodies prehispanic culture (the murals of Teotihuacán and aztec iconography, for example) and the violence of colonialism as well as the syncretism that arose from that. To me the religious/miraculous/dogmatic interpretations are another matter.
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
juggernaut
24 June 2011 6:31PM
Looking at how other religions are mollycoddled these days If Catholics got a little more killy whenever the VM is blasphemed against they might get their way. They could also try and play themselves off as a downtrodden minority who's cultural diversity isn't being respected. That seems to work for other religions too.
However, hopefully they'll just remember they have a sense of humour and get on with life.
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
| Link
rightlyso
24 June 2011 6:33PM
With freedom comes reponsibility. Of course everybody in the world should and must have the freedom of speech and expression. I never denied that.
It should be expressed in a sensible manner. It should be done responsibly and with an aim to improve and not simply to destroy for the sake of destroying.
In this case, and this is what I am talking about here, it does not improve on anything. On the contrary, it alienates people even more.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
Damntheral
24 June 2011 6:37PM
Mephistopheles1:
dont recall you (or anyone) asking that about the Danish Mohammed cartoons, also absent from the Guardian pages.
LOL, there had to be one... *rolls eyes*
Guess you weren't paying attention. Plenty of us did. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/04/prejudiced-danes-kurt-westergaard-cartoons?commentpage=all#start-of-comments"<Here is a thread full of us.
In this comment I even linked to the page with the cartoons and their explanation.
Recommend (10)
Report abuse
| Link
Damntheral
24 June 2011 6:40PM
Ah, I ballexed the link, sorry. Nevermind, both links are to the same page.
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
lairdoflard
24 June 2011 6:40PM
@rightwinggit
No-one should produce artworks that they know will offend Christians unless they are prepared to produce works that will offend Muslims in equal measure.
Not prepared to produce blasphemous images of Mohammed?
Then don't produce blasphemous images of Mary.
And I'm going to chime in with the rejoinder that in a free society, an artist can and should produce whatever the hell they like, be it a madonna in a bikini, a Madonna with elephant dung, an image of Myra Hindley, a work of fiction based on Qur'anic verses..
If you don't like the program, turn off the telly, if you don't like the book, don't read it, and it you don't like the artwork, don't look. Your 'right' not to be offended is trumped by my right to create and see whatever art I choose.
Recommend (13)
Report abuse
| Link
patrickfowke
24 June 2011 6:44PM
I remember seeing a religious procession in Spain coming down the mountain, followed by farmers on horses, surrounded by long-horn cattle with egrets on their backs, cacti, vultures soaring high above, lizards, croaking frogs, crickets, pink and rose-coloured flowers in the meadows, then down to the sea, along the beach, and then into the old town as it got dark, then down the cobbled streets, torches and lamps, banners, music and bright flowers - and they've been doing this for hundreds of years. Magic.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
ramekins
24 June 2011 6:45PM
rightlyso
I certainly would not like to see any one being ridiculed like this in the name of freedom of expression or speech.
Who is being ridiculed? Mary is a fantasy/mythical figure. Its a picture of a fantasy/mythical figure.
Recommend (11)
Report abuse
| Link
rightlyso
24 June 2011 7:11PM
True or false still does not give anybody the right. Be it for or against it. Discussed yes but not ridiculed, marked or belittled.
You have to respect to be respected.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
lairdoflard
24 June 2011 7:18PM
@rightlyso
The problem is in defining what constitutes ridicule or belittlement. Would a politician have the right to demand that a satirist desist from lampooning them, for example?
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
| Link
LesCharteris
24 June 2011 7:49PM
rightlyso
24 June 2011 4:23PM
This has to do with a lack of respect towards other people's beliefs. Freedom of expression of this type should be kept to ones self instead of insulting the majority.
I don't believe that only catholics would be insulted about this.
I certainly would not like to see any one being ridiculed like this in the name of freedom of expression or speech.
I would. The religious deserve everything they get.
Recommend (10)
Report abuse
| Link
lairdoflard
24 June 2011 8:35PM
It's important to add that the protesters also have every right to protest the artwork, to boycott the college event, and to vociferously oppose the thing they dislike. If that's the limit of their actions, then fair play to them. Sadly, when religious people are 'offended' they seek to do more than this - to damage the art, to kill the artist, to prevent the non-offended from seeing the art or hearing the speaker.
When they seek to curtail other people's rights through ridiculous legislation such as blasphemy laws, then they have stepped beyond their rights and are impinging on mine. At that point they must be told, as politely and inoffensively as possible, to get to fuck.
Recommend (10)
Report abuse
| Link
buildwithwatwehave
24 June 2011 8:48PM
No offence intended but while you have to worry about shifty lookin muslims sittin bside ya on the trains sayin their prayers in the UK and we dont ere in the Republic I'd sooner jst not offend peoples religion or how the live their lives. Execting people to change their way of life, jst cause it suits you is not gona happen has ur failed empire taught u notin.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
ReturnOfTheKing
24 June 2011 9:09PM
Do I hear the sound of peaceful religion...clashing again? Talk about baby Jesus meek and mild.
Recommend (5)
Report abuse
| Link
solfish
24 June 2011 9:52PM
Blasphemy laws are necessary if people find it impossible to express themselves without wilfully offending people. As long as the blasphemy law covers all religions so that disrespectful or unacceptable gestures towards Islam, Catholicism, Sikhism etc are all banned, then I don't see the problem.
That's cool as long as the same laws protect any secular ideology as well.
Why do the religious have to use insulting arguments rather than using rational arguments?
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
| Link
hallelujah
24 June 2011 10:07PM
The bishop's Mary is a puerile, perpetually virginal girl-mother created out celibate fantasies. Technically speaking, a virgin birth is not an impossibility as any midwife can attest. However no woman is a virgin after the birth of a child. The hymen is well and truly ruptured.
Catholic clergy would get over their peculiar obsession with Mary's hymen if they would engage with real women.
Recommend (8)
Report abuse
| Link
Valten78
24 June 2011 10:11PM
I recognise the right of anyone to hold whatever beliefs they wish, however I'll be damned if I'm going to respects peoples beliefs by default.
Recommend (8)
Report abuse
| Link
buildwithwatwehave
24 June 2011 10:14PM
Thats fair enough what I propose is that their be no talk of religion unless ur in the confines of a religious building or the privacy of your own home. As for seculars insulting religious people or how the live their lives u will find that everywhere here, on the bbc subsidised by the british taxpayer, comedians tryin 2 make a few quid off a very volatile subject just shouldnt b acceptable, if it puts people in danger then laws should be put in place 2 protect people.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
EdWelthorpe
24 June 2011 10:57PM
Catholicism isn't a religion. Christianity is the religion. Catholicism is one doctrine within that religion. Therefore we must be free to critique it. Some say it is dogmatic, power-seeking, right wing, hierarchical, reactionary, cruel, anti-science, anti-liberal, censorious, anti-choice, anti-rational. Some see it as voodoo because it believes in the healing power of magic bones and rocks. Some say its followers seem in denial, in a haze, shrugging off personal choice and moral beliefs as less important than submission to its law.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
MostUncivilised
24 June 2011 11:05PM
@gosh23:
Ireland should keep its blasphemy laws. Not least because once one gets rid of them then Christians and Christianity will be persecuted as they are in the UK.
Exactly - they won't be allowed to marry, people will start calling them unnatural and they'll be accused of destroying all that is sacred.
Oh, wait a minute - I might've confused Christians with gay people there. Sorry about that.
Recommend (13)
Report abuse
| Link
lazman
24 June 2011 11:12PM
oh BOO-HOO for people offended by a work of art that "doesn't respect their most cherished beliefs"!
i piss on your most cherished beliefs. grow up and deal with it.
90% of popular music and TV programs annoy the hell out of me. you know what i do? i change the damn station or turn off the TV! Don't like an art exhibit? Don't go to see it! Problem solved. Now get a hobby, or better yet an education. You might find your dearest cherished beliefs are a lot of bronze age nonsense not worth entertaining, much less getting hysterical over.
Recommend (13)
Report abuse
| Link
bodge
24 June 2011 11:13PM
Our edgy alternative sophisticated modern courageous artists do somersaults in order not to offend Islam,and take real pleasure in making vile images that are offensive to christians,dont they understand that muslims have great respect for Jesus.
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
tonguelash
24 June 2011 11:34PM
I went to see the ''our lady'' today. It is NOT the Virgin Mary at all ! It is numbered 13/99 . It looks like it is based on ''the birth of venus''. Little symbolism. Very little about the picture at all. But displaying it was premeditated.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
terranidea
24 June 2011 11:47PM
Of course religious maniacs [including Muslims!] should be offended, as much and as often as possible, for their superstitions are offensive to rational people. However only religious maniacs would find a bikini image of VM offensive, for, by taking the VM seriously, it is part of a Catholic dialogue.
To atheists, it has no significance at all. It's rather like old porn novels or movies from France, Spain or Italy, featuring naughty nuns. What's that all about?
Leaves me cold. The Voltairean 'Father Ted' approach is much more effective, since it treats religion as a joke.
## CrashBall // Believe me, when the elderly die off and people of my generation take over we'll be far less forgiving of the men in black.##
Lots of luck with that friend. We said the same thing 40 yrs ago.
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
physiocrat
24 June 2011 11:50PM
Atheists are obsessed with religion.
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
MostUncivilised
24 June 2011 11:55PM
@physiocrat:
Atheists are obsessed with religion.
When religion stops interfering in the lives of atheists we'll take less interest in it. If homeopaths spent their time trying to prevent same-sex couples marrying or enforcing collective worship sessions in praise of the life force in schools we'd spend just as much time slating them. Don't flatter yourself to think that your brand of irrationality is more valid than the others out there.
Recommend (16)
Report abuse
| Link
lazman
24 June 2011 11:56PM
"Atheists are obsessed with religion."
-- no we're just fed up with having it shoved in our faces, dominating public discourse, inciting violence and murder and circumscribing what we can do and say. we're finally standing up for ourselves. don't like it? then move to pakistan -- or ireland apparently.
Recommend (10)
Report abuse
| Link
tomper2
24 June 2011 11:58PM
skinhead69
On the geert Wilders thread there was alot of people discussing his court case as a 'victory for freedom of speech'. Where are they, and why aren't they sticking up for Alma Lopez?
Probably down the pub with all the people who conflate criticism and ridicule of Islam with racism.
Recommend (8)
Report abuse
| Link
MostUncivilised
25 June 2011 12:03AM
I demand that the University of Aberdeen's Zoology Museum be punished for its outrageous blasphemy - they're displaying insulting effigies of the Almighty Skeletal Crocodile who holds the universe in his left eye socket.
What are they trying to prove? Are they trying to create their own universes for any old mortal to gawp at when they stare into the remains of these noble creatures? Sheer arrogance and disrespect.
Those are my unsubstantiated beliefs, I demand that they be taken seriously!
Recommend (13)
Report abuse
| Link
terranidea
25 June 2011 12:20AM
## physiocrat
24 June 2011 11:50PM
Atheists are obsessed with religion. ##
Same as doctors are obsessed with diseases.
Recommend (11)
Report abuse
| Link
kged
25 June 2011 12:29AM
@AnonymousInfamy - the very existence of Catholicism is disrespectful and unacceptable to Islam, as the existence of Islam is to Catholicism. Therefore they each need to be banned in order to avoid offending the other.
Hey, look at that - it's a logical argument. And everyone wins.
Recommend (5)
Report abuse
| Link
terranidea
25 June 2011 12:39AM
However, I expect that if anyone exploits this dismal blasphemy law, it will not be Islam or Christianity, but the other desert religion.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
peterNW1
25 June 2011 1:14AM
Padraig Reidy writes ...
Lopez's adaptation of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, an image familiar to Chicana women, into an image of a Chicana woman has clearly rattled their cage.
That's nonsense, Padraig, and you know it. Africa is full of images of black African madonnas that are revered by the Church, and China is full of images of oriental Virgins blessed by bishops and revered by the faithful.
So no one is complaining that Lopez's Our Lady is a Chicana. In fact most of the criticism has come from devout Hispanics. Catholics are complaining because the image is deliberately irreverent and offensive ...
http://www.almalopez.net/idxpix/OurLady.jpg
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
peterNW1
25 June 2011 1:16AM
Sorry, that link was dead ...
http://www.almalopez.net/idxpix/OurLady.jpg
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
peterNW1
25 June 2011 1:26AM
Bizarre.
An article about so-called "blasphemous" Catholic art in Ireland ... and what does the Guardian offer us as "related information"?
Pope calls all Irish bishops to meeting about child abuse
Catholic church under pressure to stop sale of paedophile's book
Call to seize secret church abuse files
And the Guardian tells us it doesn't have an anti-Catholic agenda!
Lol.
Recommend (9)
Report abuse
| Link
terranidea
25 June 2011 3:19AM
## peterNW1
25 June 2011 1:26AM
An article about so-called "blasphemous" Catholic art in Ireland ... and what does the Guardian offer us as "related information"?
Pope calls all Irish bishops to meeting about child abuse
Catholic church under pressure to stop sale of paedophile's book
Call to seize secret church abuse files
And the Guardian tells us it doesn't have an anti-Catholic agenda!##
So trying and stop child abuse, punish child abusers, and prevent paedophile propaganda, is anti-RC. I rather thought it might be. In which case, any decent newspaper should have an anti-RC agenda.
Of course, peterNW1 and others of the faithful will assure us that all those children actually sodomized themselves.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
error418
25 June 2011 4:06AM
Ireland is one of the last outposts in Europe that actually renews or enforces blasphemy laws. This makes it attractive for religious extremist groups like Scientology, Markaz Dawat-o-Irshad, Jaish e-Muhammad or Lashkar-e-Tayiba.
There will be afresh inflow of funds from Saudi Arabia, UAE and the US but it won't make a dent on Ireland's precarious financial situation alas.
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
AnonUK
25 June 2011 8:23AM
I think our delusional friend with the microscope developed by Microsoft and NASA which is able to identify the miraculous nature of apparitions has been used to tar a whole group of people with the same brush of idiocy and credulousness. I think you need to think hard before using the term "Mariolatry". While I'm not a keen Mariologist myself, it is an important part of the religion and use of the term usually demonstrates sectarian disregard for Catholics (as in "All Catholics are Mariolaters").
@kged:
In a way you are right- the mere existence of an alternative viewpoint is offensive to some people. The main objective of "PC" was always to avoid people becoming offended- and the surest way to do that was to prevent freedom of expression. After all, a person offended by the freedom of expression of another is a cause for concern, while a person offended by having his own right to freedom of expression removed doesn't count: he should instead reflect on the way his privileged ancestors and colleagues have behaved towards those that he was "oppressing".
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
gjjwatson
25 June 2011 8:23AM
Good publicity for a dodgy artist. Mr Reidy is doing an Edna O`Brian, pandering to the anti-Irish, anti-Catholic mob. Which is not to agree with censorship, there`s enough of that sort of thing from the Community Standards police.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
RobinPercival
25 June 2011 8:48AM
I live in Ireland. I was unaware of this controversy until this morning when I read the above article. It has been a busy few days and I might have missed it, so I trawled through the Irish Times website to find only one reference to the controversy. It was a statement by Bishop Buckley to the effect that many Catholics would find the bikini clad madonna "offensive". No mention at all to the blasphemy laws by him or any one else.
Could this be a classic example of a non story? A beginners guide on how to create a story when none exists? By all means get rid of blasphemy laws in Ireland and elsewhere, I'm with you on that one hundred percent. But let's not pretend that the good Catholic people of Ireland are foaming at the mouth over this. They are not. By and large they have far more important things to worry about.
Recommend (12)
Report abuse
| Link
Klough
25 June 2011 8:52AM
lazman:
i piss on your most cherished beliefs. grow up and deal with it.
Be careful where you piss. It's OK to subject some beliefs to streams of urine, trendy, liberal and liberated even:
www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz4-23-08_detail.asp?picnum=38
But go easy with the golden showers when it comes to others:
http://urbangrounds.com/wp-content/uploads/Peeing_on_Mohammed.jpg
You will likely end up getting pissed on yourself for being a bigot and a racist by the liberals or maybe even get your head cut off by the somewhat less liberal.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
Waslabour
25 June 2011 8:57AM
It is disappointing the Guardian doesn't publish* the image in question.
However, it can be seen at the artist's site: http://almalopez.net/
* despite the abolition of blasphemy laws in the UK, an achievement the Lib Dems don't get sufficient credit for.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
Xenakis
25 June 2011 9:38AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
SimonNorwich
25 June 2011 9:50AM
I spoke to God last night.
He said, "A blasphemy law is insulting to me. Get rid of it."
Here endeth the debate.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
peterNW1
25 June 2011 10:09AM
Terranidea writes ...
Of course, peterNW1 and others of the faithful will assure us that all those children actually sodomized themselves.
Eh? You seem to have made a bizarre mental leap. My point was that one might expect the "related information" to include other articles about 'blasphemy' in the arts, rather than a list of articles on child abuse.
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
peterNW1
25 June 2011 10:17AM
But while we're at it, let's look more critically at the stories of thousands of boys raped in Ireland.
I quote Brendan O'Neill, writing in the humanist Spike magazine ...
‘Thousands were raped in Irish reform schools’, said the Independent. ‘Thousands raped in Ireland’s Christian Brothers schools’, said the Belfast Telegraph. ‘Thousands raped and abused in Catholic schools in Ireland’, said the Guardian.
So were thousands of children - in particular boys, the main focus of the media reports - raped in Irish reform schools? No - 68 were, allegedly. Two-hundred-and-forty-two male witnesses made 253 reports of sexual abuse against the staff of Irish reform schools at the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse - and of these, 68 claim to have been raped. Once again, not all of the allegations resulted in convictions. Some witness reports involved priests who had died, and out of the 253 male reports of sexual abuse, 207 related to the period of 1969 or earlier; 46 related to the 1970s and 1980s.
How did 68 claims of anal rape made against the staff of Irish reform schools over a 59-year period translate into headlines about thousands being raped? Because once again, everything from being neglected to being smacked to being emotionally abused - which thousands of Irish reform-school kids were subjected to - was lumped together with being raped, creating a warped image of a religious institution that rapes children on an almost daily basis.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9548/
I wonder why Brendan O'Neill's articles no longer appear in the Guardian.
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
| Link
peterNW1
25 June 2011 10:18AM
I mean Spiked
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
MikeMcShea
25 June 2011 10:24AM
Should not the good bishop be about his abuse enabling duties - seemingly bred in the bones of the Irish these days - somewhere in some closet instead of criticizing Ms. Lopez's very mediocre work? Or maybe better yet, having tea with Mrs. Doyle at the rectory?
If Lopez recycles the Guadalupe image as art, she is doing no more than the Mexican church did by recycling the Aztec earth goddess Tonantzin to wear Mary's traditional garb. Who committed blasphemy first? The church in hyjacking Tonantzin's good name and reputation at the point of a sword or Ms. Lopez in putting Mary, the earth goddess, making her modern and her into a bikini?
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
CrashBall
25 June 2011 10:25AM
Same as doctors are obsessed with diseases.
Brilliant!
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
sludge
25 June 2011 10:29AM
Meanwhile Wilders is under death threat and taken to court ( found not guilty) for blasphemy in quoting versus from the Koran that justify Islamofascism.
Recommend (7)
Report abuse
| Link
DavidNB
25 June 2011 10:44AM
Kged said
The only Christians who have ever been persecuted in the UK suffered at the hands of other Christians, and that was quite a long time ago. It was also frequently punctuated with turning of the national and political tables which allowed the persecuted to do some persecuting of their own, an opportunity they took with diligent relish.
All blasphemy laws are inherently ridiculous and must be discarded. I say "inherently ridiculous" - sadly, that is at best. In much of the world they are also vicious and inhumane. As they would be here, if implemented as they were intended.
Other than pointing out that in Northern Ireland it was not long ago, good post.
David B
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
Olly98765
25 June 2011 10:52AM
One man's religion is another man's blasphemy.
Just my two cents worth...
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
venerablejohn
25 June 2011 10:53AM
How sweetly Ironic; the Guardian raging against censorship, meanwhile armies of moderators are furiously cutting comments from the Eco-Mosque thread which dares to criticise a certain Religion........
Recommend (11)
Report abuse
| Link
ThomasY
25 June 2011 10:53AM
I seem to remember the Fianna Fail/Green bill was a recognition that Ireland is now multicultural and an attempt to protect any one segment of its population against harangues from clerics of all faiths and none.
It has to be the same law for everyone. Either all religions are fair game or none of them are.
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
LargeMarvin
25 June 2011 11:18AM
America may need Fatima, but does it need the Animals?
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
HandandShrimp
25 June 2011 12:28PM
Some light relief
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/10/03/bill/
Ok back to work.
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
jefferd
25 June 2011 1:29PM
JewellyBird
24 June 2011 3:42PM
You haven't actually explained the significance of the law. Has the exhibition been banned?
Yes, typical Guardian style on display here.
There is no evidence that there has been any action under the blasphemy laws referred to. What seems to have happened is that a controversial image is to be displayed which offends some traditional Catholics; some politicians have got involved.
Seems very similar to the Jerry Springer opera etc in UK.
I think what the writer really seems to want is to suppress Catholics' rights to protest. Juts imagine if another religion was involved here.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
StanleyBaker
25 June 2011 1:39PM
bailliegillies
@rightlyso
This has to do with a lack of respect towards other people's beliefs.
A bit like their complete lack of respect for those people who don't want to believe.
Why is it that we have to respect their beliefs but they are complete free to ignore ours and try and impose their on us?
Respect is a two way street.
Respect need not be a two way street but you will find little respect for any belief in these pages. Perhaps religious nutters and rabid atheists thrive off and deserve each other. Meanwhile the vast majority are happy to live and let live. Just imagine the outrage and comments on cif if the 'art' attacked homosexuality!
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
TakeNoPrisoners
25 June 2011 2:25PM
There's no need for Ireland's blasphemy laws. In 2010, the UNHRC voted to adopt a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions" proposed by Pakistann behalf of the Organization of Islamic Countries.
So I suggest the aggrieved Christians take their case to the UN. Though I doubt they will get a sympathetic hearing from the Islamic bloc in the UN that controls freedom of speech. We all know which religion the resolution is there to stop us criticizing.
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
shellshock
25 June 2011 2:39PM
what poisonous debate is this you are inventing? Apart from the bishop denouncing it, and everyone else ignoring it, except for the wing nut who phoned Joe, who himself insists on referring to mary as 'our lady', the debate must have been going on in your head.
Why are you giving English readers a paddywhackery version of what is going on over here. Why you need to invent shit, when there more than enough mad stuff going on, like taking on bank debt for instance is a mystery.
Interestingly, the divesting of the church of their role in the educational sector received far more coverage and debate than this non story. But I guess because it shows that we are growing up and moving on in that department, there is nothing sexy about that.
Let's have a heated debate (yawn)
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
MostUncivilised
25 June 2011 2:56PM
@StanleyBaker:
Just imagine the outrage and comments on cif if the 'art' attacked homosexuality!
I don't need to imagine - we've had all sorts of harmful fallacies thrown at us even within the past week on here, it's nothing unusual.
However, they are easy to combat with a combination reasoned argument, logic and statistics. The arguments against blasphemous artworks generally consist of hurting someone's feelings or angering a deity we have no evidence for. There is also the difference between making a comment about an invisible, absent deity and people who actually exist and walk among us every day. The two types of insult are quite different in nature.
Recommend (5)
Report abuse
| Link
LargeMarvin
25 June 2011 3:17PM
Yes, typical Guardian style on display here.
Do fascists read the Guardian just so they can tee off online?
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
raithrover1976
25 June 2011 3:19PM
Given that god doesn't exist, doesn't that make blasphemy a victimless crime?
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
TVwriter
25 June 2011 3:24PM
@Padraig Reidy
Our Lady of Guadeloupe, a 16th-century Peruvian manifestation of the Virgin Mary
Do you by any chance mean Our Lady of Guadalupe, a 16th-century Mexican manifestation of the Virgin Mary?
Maybe you'd like to correct things.
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
LargeMarvin
25 June 2011 3:36PM
Do you by any chance mean Our Lady of Guadalupe, a 16th-century Mexican manifestation of the Virgin Mary?
There was no Virgin Mary: there is no such thing as a virgin birth. Stipulating for the sake of argument that Jesus existed at all, nobody knows what his mother looked like.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
TVwriter
25 June 2011 3:52PM
@LargeMarvin
Do you by any chance mean Our Lady of Guadalupe, a 16th-century Mexican manifestation of the Virgin Mary?
There was no Virgin Mary: there is no such thing as a virgin birth. Stipulating for the sake of argument that Jesus existed at all, nobody knows what his mother looked like.
I know that. You know that. The trouble is that the writer of the piece doesn't seem to know that even what he thinks he knows is wrong.
Guadeloupe is a French island in the West Indies.
Peru is not Mexico.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
faduda
25 June 2011 3:53PM
The law is designed to be effectively toothless, with wide-ranging exemptions for any work with "literary, artistic, social or academic merit" among other things. That's not to say that it won't eventually lead to a successful prosecution, unintended consequences being what they are.
Meanwhile, Garda and DPP resources will be wasted investigating complaints from every crank in the country.
@hypocriteseware The image in question can be seen here http://www.thejournal.ie/a-holy-mess-bishop-and-td-weigh-on-on-controversial-ucc-exhibit-161807-Jun2011/
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
RedmondM
25 June 2011 4:02PM
davidabsalom
According to a couple of threads on here this week, I offend just by sleeping with my partner. Should I stop?
So long as you both are fast asleep while in bed together, no kitten will die.
Recommend (3)
Report abuse
| Link
LangdonOlger
25 June 2011 4:03PM
Down with this sort of thing!
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
MarcCountry
25 June 2011 4:13PM
Blasphemy laws are fine, as long as you leave it to the discretion of the victimized god or goddess whether or not to press charges. As far as I can see, nobody else should have any legal standing to do so.
Everyone's religion is a blasphemy to everyone else's, after all.
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
RodneyM72
25 June 2011 4:13PM
StanleyBaker
Just imagine the outrage and comments on cif if the 'art' attacked homosexuality!
As far as I know there aren't any laws saying you can't insult someone who is homosexual. Quite right to - if someone is offended by something that is their own responsibility. If we all had to guard our speech (or art or whatever) for fear of offending someone and getting locked up for it, most of us just wouldn't say anything.
The point of the article is that in some countries (actually in quite a lot of countries) there are laws against insulting and offending certain religions. To me this seems very draconian. But more importantly if their beliefs are that fragile that they want to lock someone up for offending them, it doesn't say much about their beliefs.
Of course respect is the way forward and as you say, you will find little respect on CiF for people's religious beliefs. Unfortunately that's just the way it is here - if you cant stand the heat.......
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
SirJoshuaReynolds
25 June 2011 4:41PM
jefferd
I think what the writer really seems to want is to suppress Catholics' rights to protest. Juts imagine if another religion was involved here.
The other religion doesn't have a blasphemy law to invoke. I think that's the point.
And disgree with is not the same thing as suppress.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
Plataea
25 June 2011 4:41PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
rongoklunk
25 June 2011 4:42PM
"A terrible thing has now happened to religion. Except in the places where it can stll enforce itself by fear superimposed on ignorance, it has become one opinion among many. It is forced to compete in the free market of ideas, and even when it strives to retain the old advantage of inculcating its teachings into children (for reasons that are too obvious to need underlining) it has to stand up in open debate and submit to free inquiry."
C.Hitchens, intro from" The Portable Atheist".
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
petekreff
25 June 2011 4:51PM
Hypocritesbeware:
dont be so touchy and pedantic
Firsst-class hypocrisy, well done
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
petekreff
25 June 2011 4:54PM
hypocritesbeware:
Gods teeth
You're a wind-up merchant, aren't you?
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
nodger
25 June 2011 5:01PM
shellshock (and others) is perfectly correct. This is a non story. It was a small conference /art exhibition at UCC which nobody apart from interested parties, would have even been aware of without the attendant publicity generated by the insane 'America needs Fatima' (Just one look at their website removes any credibility they might - might - just have had).
As far as I can make up the media (non) storm was whipped up by this group for their own ends. A great deal of the accusations of blasphemy and calls for prosecution came from outside Ireland.
The local radio station in Cork, where I live, treated the event in the manner which it deserved.
I don't know the bishop in question (or any other) but I reckon he was put on the spot a bit when asked for his reaction to the picture. Nice though it would have been for him to give a sensible, measured response, I know too well how easy it is to be tripped up by the media (no - I'm not in the slightest bit paranoid about the press, but stories do need to be 'driven' to keep them going.)
Ireland may have many faults but it truly does not match the God bothering image frequently attached to it by the Guardian. And I'm a trendy pinkie lefty muesli eating (though beardless) Guardian woman living in Cork.
Recommend (4)
Report abuse
| Link
nodger
25 June 2011 5:04PM
Oops - second para: 'As far as I can make OUT - not up....
Typo not Freudian.
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
AnonUK
25 June 2011 5:10PM
Do fascists read the Guardian just so they can tee off online?
No, they read the headline and spout off BTL, where they either perform their Rant of the Day or find some herbivorous liberal type to attack. The same usually applies to Thatcherite libertarians.
@Plataea:
There is a lot of merit to the idea that semen and ectoplasm are essentially the same thing.
As for Mary, the Catholic Church commands its followers to believe that she rose up to heaven in the same way that most Christians are taught that Jesus did. Both the Catholic and Orthodox also teaches that Mary's mother was a saint (St. Anne) and that Mary was born without sin. The reference to Mary being "ever Virgin" is in the Mass- and is more important to Catholics than the idea of the Assumption (the Ascension of Mary). However, there are plenty of Biblical references to Jesus having brothers and sisters, which would have been conceived in the usual way. As Mary is such a shadowy figure (and the stuff about her mother pure invention), how will we ever know?
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
patrickfowke
25 June 2011 6:09PM
rongoklunk
[Hitchens]:
A terrible thing has now happened to religion
- spot the hyperbole!
Except in the places where it can stll enforce itself by fear superimposed on ignorance, it has become one opinion among many. It is forced to compete in the free market of ideas, and even when it strives to retain the old advantage of inculcating its teachings into children (for reasons that are too obvious to need underlining) it has to stand up in open debate and submit to free inquiry.
- Sounds as if he's got verbal constipation and shitting the words them through his arse.
C.Hitchens, intro from" The Portable Atheist".
- And can someone please explain, w..F. is "religion"
?
(although he talks a lot of crap - in my opinion - i still like Hitchens, and i hope he manages to live as long as possible with as little discomfort as possible)
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
patrickfowke
25 June 2011 6:17PM
(apologies for the rant - was in the mood, unfortunately for Hitchens - although i still think his writing is a bit pseudy at times / often)
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
Silverwhistle
25 June 2011 8:08PM
Here's a good link re: some of the artists and works involved. It seems to be about reworking traditional religious iconography to reflect Latin American and gay experience: a perfectly valid stance. Here's another piece, with the actual picture.
"It was like discussing the rules of quidditch with people who believe Harry Potter was a documentary."
I know the feeling. Religion (of all kinds) is a fantasy fandom that takes itself far too seriously.
One of my work-colleagues, who goes on pilgrimages to Medjugorje, would be aghast if she knew that I customised a glow-in-the-dark plastic Virgin of Medjugorje statuette into a vampire, by painting fangs and blood on to her. Glow-in-the-dark plastic says 'vampire' to me. I remember, in childhood, being fascinated by a glow-in-the-dark Sacred Heart figurine that my Nanna had: it struck me as spooky and creepy and I liked taking it into the dark after shining a light on it. Very Gothick.
Catholic popular iconography is ripe for artistic subversion: it's a very visual tradition, and veers into kitsch anyway. As has already been said, the Guadelupe Vvirgin is a Christianisation of a Mexican goddess, anyway, and besides, it's amazing how far official religious art can go. There are plenty of depictions of martyrdoms that, if they weren't labelled as 'St Barbara', 'St Dorothea' or 'St Agatha' or whoever, would be regarded as rather outré (topless women having their breasts injured with pliers/flaming torches/sharp pointy objects). There are also plenty of underclad Sebastians and Christs who are pure male eye-candy: some of the Spanish polychrome sculptures (which influenced Latin American iconography) are very sexy. Here's a modern example from Valladolid.
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
Silverwhistle
25 June 2011 8:13PM
LargeMarvin:
there is no such thing as a virgin birth
Actually, some animals have parthenogenesis, but the offspring is/are invariably female. I don't think Christians have really thought through the implications of that one. They just nabbed the "innocent maiden getting impregnated by a God" storyline from existing (mainly Greco-Roman) traditions… ;-D
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
Silverwhistle
25 June 2011 8:34PM
Here's the link that includes the picture.
Last posting of it was broken.
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
AlanDente
25 June 2011 9:35PM
I have it on good authority (no, before you ask not the highest authority, just good authority) that the artist is in cahoots with the RCC, and that all this controversy is engineered to sell more images of the virgin Mary, thus 'growing the Catholic brand' in a global marketplace becoming ever more saturated with iconoclastia.
People from all religious backgrounds have actually commended Lopez, whose art has variously been described as 'highly vaginal'.
The people who tour America with signage decrying 'blasphemy' are actually out of work method actors, earning 50 bucks a day with no medical coverage (which is the real tragedy here, and genuinely offensive, I might add).
The marketing campaign will reach a crescendo when the Pope, tongue in cheek, will come out and make a hilarious attack on the 'secularisation of society' (I know!), after which he'll retire to the Vatican to have a chuckle about it while watching Britain's Got Talent.
The embarrassing thing is that there are people around who genuinely think that all of this could even be plausible- it's like the reputed audiences who originally believed Spinal Tap to be a REAL band. If that's you, and you fell for the recent campaign of ironic-trolling by the Catholic Church, then please stop commenting about how outrageous it is while you still have an ounce of dignity left to you, for heaven's sake.
Next you'll be telling me that self-appointed 'hardline' (lol) Islamic leaders genuinely encourage the killing of people who draw a sketch of some prophet or other!!
You people need to learn about irony. Read the dictionary.
Sincerely,
Poe
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
belgrave
25 June 2011 9:38PM
" Our Lady of Guadeloupe, a 16th-century Peruvian manifestation of the Virgin Mary. "
¿Huh?
Re. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe , Tonantzin Guadalupe (in the proper Nahuatl) was seen by a mexican peasant, Juan Diego, at Tepeyac outside Mexico City and is recognised as a symbol of all catholic Mexicans. Nothing whatsoever to do with Peru.
There had been a temple of the mother godess Tonantzin at Tepeyac and representing Her as pregnant, standind on a black crescent moon and supported by an angel are all iconographically correct. The opponents of this work of art don't know what they're talking about.
Incidentally, if one were to be absolutely correct, I suppose human sacrifices should be offered. I can think of a few candidates (hint - Irish w...er...bankers).
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
foolisholdman
25 June 2011 10:13PM
bailliegillies
24 June 2011 4:31PM in reply to
@rightlyso who wrote
"This has to do with a lack of respect towards other people's beliefs." wrote
>>A bit like their complete lack of respect for those people who don't want to believe.
Why is it that we have to respect their beliefs but they are complete free to ignore ours and try and impose their on us?
Respect is a two way street.<<
Indeed! Why do we agnostics/atheists/non-believers have to respect people whose beliefs are not based on evidence but on faith? (I.e. believing that for which the evidence is lacking.)
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
Silverwhistle
25 June 2011 10:20PM
foolisholdman:
Indeed! Why do we agnostics/atheists/non-believers have to respect people whose beliefs are not based on evidence but on faith? (I.e. believing that for which the evidence is lacking.)
I don't know. In my experience, the religious demand 'respect' while not showing it to the non-religious: they interpret 'respect' as 'not being contradicted but being deferred to'.
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
Donaskeigh
25 June 2011 10:42PM
I am a practising Catholic of the modern variety and really couldn"t give a toss one way or the other. I imagine it is more the older generation who are offended.
Still we live in a democracy so let them demonstarte if they want. If people feel offended they are entiltled to demonstarte even if the majority feel its a load of tosh. It's called free speech and is not a sign of backwardness as some comments suggest..
By the way, the comment about the blasphemy law in The Netherlands is correct, as I live here and now and again it pops up in a debate for similar reasons and believe it or not they even demonstrate sometimes.
I bet the artist is thrilled with all the free publicity, nothing like a bit of old fashioned controversy if your trying to flog something
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
FLYSWATTER
25 June 2011 11:39PM
Things would be much calmer if humans went back to worshiping rocks, trees, etc. Once you anthropomorphise superstition then the whole irritating nonsense about blasphemy pops up.
The Irish are lucky that the Catholics have given up on burning at the stake and the like for the "sin" of blasphemy.
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
FLYSWATTER
25 June 2011 11:41PM
On further thought: maybe I am wrong on my substitution of rocks and trees on the blasphemy question.
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
LargeMarvin
26 June 2011 8:21AM
Actually, some animals have parthenogenesis, but the offspring is/are invariably female. I don't think Christians have really thought through the implications of that one. They just nabbed the "innocent maiden getting impregnated by a God" storyline from existing (mainly Greco-Roman) traditions… ;-D
Just so. Erratum: There is no such thing as human virgin birth.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
patrickfowke
26 June 2011 8:47AM
If stuff (time/space/matter) can come out of Nothingness, if as scientists claim future time can influence present time, if there is such a thing as spiritual existence, then why draw a limit to virgin births (an all-powerful God can do anything).
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
LargeMarvin
26 June 2011 8:55AM
If stuff (time/space/matter) can come out of Nothingness, if as scientists claim future time can influence present time, if there is such a thing as spiritual existence, then why draw a limit to virgin births (an all-powerful God can do anything).
There is no God
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
patrickfowke
26 June 2011 9:24AM
LargeMarvin
There is no God
- Takes faith to say that.
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
patrickfowke
26 June 2011 9:42AM
FLYSWATTER
Things would be much calmer if humans went back to worshiping rocks, trees, etc. Once you anthropomorphise superstition then the whole irritating nonsense about blasphemy pops up.
The Irish are lucky that the Catholics have given up on burning at the stake and the like for the "sin" of blasphemy.
- And 'modern', Celtic-tiger Ireland is some kind of Utopia is it?
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
GrimFace
26 June 2011 6:09PM
Erm...if you don't like it don't go and see it. Simples. I wouldn't enjoy going to church....so I don't. Sounds like a lot of people getting on their high horse trying to show the world how morally superior they are to everyone else.
Recommend (0)
Report abuse
| Link
JewellyBird
26 June 2011 7:16PM
The Irish are lucky that the Catholics have given up on burning at the stake and the like for the "sin" of blasphemy.
Just the kind of comment this piece was intended to provoke.
I feel like I'm always saying this, but it never ceases to amaze me just how wilfully ignorant some people in the UK are about Ireland. There's not even a language barrier!
Recommend (13)
Report abuse
| Link
patrickfowke
26 June 2011 11:02PM
JewellyBird
I feel like I'm always saying this, but it never ceases to amaze me just how wilfully ignorant some people in the UK are about Ireland. There's not even a language barrier!
In fairness, though, this wasn't a comment about Ireland but about Catholicism. The UK has a very strong tradition of Catholicism.
- For a little under a thousand years, Britain was, of course, Catholic.
- Arguably, the main apologist of Catholicism in Europe during the Reformation was an Englishman (Sir Thomas Moore).
- The English Catholic martyrs during the Reformation
- After the Reformation, England had a Catholic monarch (Mary) - known as 'Bloody Mary' for her treatment of Protestants.
- Catholic guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot ..
- For much of the 16th and 17th centuries, the British monarchy was often very supportive of Catholicism - culminating, of course, with a later British monarch, actually being a Catholic, James II (and Charles II converted to Catholicism on his deathbed)
- Much of the old British aristocracy have remained Catholic i.e. the premier duke of England, The Duke of Norfolk.
- But not just the aristocracy, but, also, the middle and working classes (in fairness, many of the last two categories being converts or immigrants).
- Think of the people in the arts who've been Catholic: Shakespeare (living in post- Reformation England, is believed to have been a Catholic), Donne, Alexander Pope, Evelyn Waugh, Tolkein, Elgar, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Alfred Hitchcock, Gerard Manley Hopkins
- Prominent English clergy: Cardinal Newman
- The guy who brought Mother Teresa to prominence: Malcolm Muggeridge
- Arguably the most famous 20th century Catholic apologist was English (G.K. Chesterton).
Then think of prominent UK Catholic journals such as The Tablet (and The Telegraph and The Spectator have a lot of prominent Catholic journalists - even one of The Guardian's best known journalists, Hugo Young, was a Catholic - the current head of the BBC is a Catholic, and so on).
So i think the English know a lot more about Catholicism than you suggest. Both middle class, as well as, working class English. I doubt there isn't an English person who hasn't got cousins or friends who are Catholics (with roughly - just under - 10% of the population being Catholic).
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
patrickfowke
26 June 2011 11:03PM
In fairness, though, this
- in reference to the comment you were responding to ..
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
| Link
JewellyBird
27 June 2011 8:22AM
So i think the English know a lot more about Catholicism than you suggest. Both middle class, as well as, working class English. I doubt there isn't an English person who hasn't got cousins or friends who are Catholics (with roughly - just under - 10% of the population being Catholic).
I said that it never ceases to amaze me how little some people in the UK know about Ireland. Ireland is not Catholicism.
Recommend (6)
Report abuse
| Link
LargeMarvin
27 June 2011 8:46AM
I agree. When there was an Irish channel on cable I was astonished to find out that there is a strong and vocal secular movement in Ireland. Only a couple of weeks ago I surprised some friends by telling them that in my youth I had a Protestant neighbour from County Cork.
Recommend (2)
Report abuse
| Link
patrickfowke
27 June 2011 12:21PM
JewellyBird
I said that it never ceases to amaze me how little some people in the UK know about Ireland. Ireland is not Catholicism.
- Apologies
In my eagerness to preach .., i failed to read the 'some' bit
All the best!