An Eaglais is conspóidí in Éirinn i láthair na huaire ná “The Church of Dermotology.” (Nó an dara Eaglais is conspóidí ar a laghad.) Cheapfá gur cultas reiligiúnach eile atá ann ar dtús. Nó gríos cnis! Ach ní mar sin atá an scéal…
Bunaíodh “The Church of Dermotology” mar fhreagra ar an dlí nua in éadan an diamhasla a tháinig i bhfeidhm ar an gcéad lá d’Éanáir 2010 mar chuid den Acht Um Chlúmhilleadh. Dar leis an dlí nua seo, gearrfar píonós nach mó ná €25,000 ar éinne a fhaightear ciontach as diamhasla. Tá go leor cur agus cúiteamh ann faoin dlí seo agus an bac a chuirfidh sé ar shaoirse cainte.
Bhunaigh Michael Nugent, Uachtarán Atheist Ireland, “The Church of Dermotology” in ómós an Aire Dlí is Cirt, Dermot Ahern leis an dlí a thástáil. (Imeartas focal dár ndóigh atá in ainm na hEaglaise ar ainm Dermot Ahern agus ar an “Church of Scientology”). De réir an dlí nua seo, is éard atá i “ndiamhasla” ná ráitis nó foilseacháin a mhaslaíonn aon nithe atá beannaithe ag aon chreideamh ar bith agus a spreagann uafás d’aon ghnó i “líon substaintiúil” de lucht leanúna an chreidimh úd. Ach tá an sáinmhiniú seo chomh doiléir gur deacair a shamhlú conas gur féidir an reachtaíocht a chur in éifeacht. Cad is brí le “líon substaintiúil?” An é sin 99% de leantóirí an chreidimh i gceist? Nó an leor aon trian dóibh? Ach nach bhféadfaí diamhasla a chur i leith daoine ar nós Arthur Mathews and Graham Linehan, scríobhneoirí Father Ted, an clár teilifíse is cáilliúla dár rinneadh in Éirinn riamh?
Is í an phríomhchreidiúnt atá ag “The Church of Dermotology” ná gur sheol Dia Dermot Ahern go hÉirinn chun an tír a shábháil ó “smaoineamh réasúnach.” Tá fobhristí le ceannach fiú ar a bhfuil siombal na hEaglaise (The Star of Dermot) orthu. Creidtear go diongbháilte go gcosnaíonn na fobhristí “draíochtúla” seo an duine atá á gcaitheamh ó thine agus ó philéir! Creidtear chomh maith gur ionann wafers uachtar reoite agus corp Dermot Ahern. Mar sin, is geall le diamhasla wafers uacthar reoite a ithe, dar leis an Eaglais. Anuas ar seo, tá an eagraíocht a’ rá gur diamhasla thar na bearta atá ann, dar leo, aon phictiúir a fhoilsiú dá nDia, Dermot Ahern, agus tá siad toilteanach an dlí a chur ar éinne a dhéanann a léithéid le teorainn an dlí nua a thástáil. A léithéid de sheafóid? B’fhéidir é, ach caithfear a adhmháil go bhfuil ag éirí go seoigh leis an eagraíocht aird a tharraingt ar cé chomh dáiríre is atá an reachtaíocht seo.
Ní miste súil a leagan ar impleachtaí an dlí seo ar thíortha eile. Is cosúil go bhfuil an dlí ag cur breosla ar teannas agus antoisceachas domhanda. Sna Náisiúin Aontaithe, bhain an Phacastáin úsáid as sampla na hÉireann cheana féin mar thacaíocht lena dtuairim gur chóir dlí mar seo a chur i bhfeidhm ar bonn idirnáisiúnta.
In Éirinn, tá baol ann go ngríosfaidh an dlí seo daoine radacacha le seasamh antoisceach a ghlacadh. An gá do chláir ar nós That’s All We’ve Time For agus The Savage Eye aire a thabhairt? Nó an gcaithfidh scríobhneoirí scripte do shobalchláir abháir chonspóideacha a cháineann an Eaglais a sheachaint? Ach n’fheadar cén fáth go mbeadh éinne ag cáineadh na hEaglaise….
Ní cioncheap úrnua é an dlí in éadan an diamhasla- ba chuid den Bhunreacht é i 1937. Ach is dóigh go bhfuil athrú meoin tagtha ar mhuintir na hÉireann ó shin. Iorónta b’fhéidir gur scríobhadh dlí an diamhasla sa bhliain chéanna inár tháinig scannail agus uafáis na hEaglaise Chaitlicí chun léargais. Cinnte, ní féidir a shéanadh ach go raibh forlámhas ag an Eaglais ar an stáit nuair a cumadh Bunreacht na hÉireann. Ach ní mar sin atá sé a thuilleadh. Tá ár saoirse cainte á creimeadh ag reactaíocht nua seo. An nglacfaimid le dlí mar seo sa tsochaí iolraíoch atá againn in Éirinn inniu.
The Church of Dermotology- Ireland’s most controversial Church at the moment. (Or the second most controversial at the least.) At first you’d imagine it was just another religious cult. Or a skin condition! But it isn’t quite like that…
The Church of Dermotology was set up in response to the new law against blasphemy that was introduced on the 1st January 2010 as part of the Defamation Act. According to this new law, anyone found guilty of blasphemy will be fined up to €25,000. There has been great debate over the law and its implications on freedom of speech.
Michael Nugent, the President of Atheist Ireland set up the Church in honor of the Dermot Ahern, the Minister of Justice, in order to test the blasphemy law. (The name of the Church is of course a clever pun on the Minister’s Name and ‘’The Church if Scientology.’’) According to the law, blasphemy is defined as any statement or publication that is insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion and that causes deliberate outrage amongst a ‘’substantial number’’ of the followers of that religion. But this definition is so vague it’s hard to imagine how the legislation can be put into effect. What is a substantial number? Is it 99% of the followers of the religion in question? Or is one third of them enough? But couldn’t the writers of Father Ted, Arthur Mathews and Graham Linehan, be accused of blasphemy?
The main religious belief held by the ‘’Church of Dermotology’’ is that God sent Dermot Ahern to Ireland to save the country from ‘reasonable thinking.’ Underwear with the Church’s symbol (the Star of Dermot) has even been made available for purchase! It is firmly believed that these ‘magical’ underpants are protection against fire and bullets! It’s also believed that ice-cream wafers are literally the body of Dermot Ahern. Therefore, anyone who eats ice-cream wafers is committing blasphemy against the followers of ‘’The Church of Dermotology.’’ As well as this, the Church believes that it is hugely blasphemous to publish images of their God, Dermot Ahern, and they are willing to convict anyone who does so in order to test the law. A load of nonsense? Maybe so, but the organisation must be given credit for effectively raising attention to the seriousness of this legislation.
We have to consider the implications this law has on other countries across the world. It seems the Irish blasphemy law is in fact fuelling international extremism. At the United Nations, Pakistan have already used Ireland’s example to support the implementation of a similar legislation on an international level.
In Ireland, there’s a danger that the blasphemy law will encourage radicals to take extremist stances. Should programmes such as That’s All We’ve Time For and The Savage Eye watch their backs? Or will script writers for soaps have to avoid controversial subjects that condemn the Church? But then again, why would anyone be criticizing the Church…
The idea of a law against blasphemy isn‘t a brand new concept – it was a part of Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937. Since then, however, attitudes in Ireland have totally changed. It seems ironic that this blasphemy law was written during the same year in which the scandals and horrors of the Catholic Church came to light. Of course, we can’t deny that the Catholic Church had dominance over the State when the Constitution was first written. But times have changed. This legislation threatens our freedom of speech. Will we accept such a law in the pluralist society of Ireland today?
