Morning Coffee (156)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. Today is the second day in what appears to be the Most Optimistic Year in history. I suppose we'll see what everyone's saying around 31 December. If I had to guess, it would be something along the lines of, "Here's to hoping that 2011 is better than this year."

See? You like how I take that optimism and crush it under the boot heel of pessimistic realism? I do what I can, folks. If you didn't like such bitter Brew, I suspect that you would not keep coming back for more, day after dolorous day.

Blasphemers Will be Punished by the Hand of the…uh, Law:

This past July, lawmakers in Ireland banded together to protect an endangered group of social belief systems, called religions. These institutions are so frail, despite having millions of adherents and the ability to generate untold millions of dollars in tax-exempt revenue around the globe, that in Ireland a law was passed in July of this past year (2009) which protects these belief systems from blasphemy, making said indiscretion a crime.

Thank the gods/God/Allah/Yahweh/Buddha/Quetzalcoatl/David Koresh. If this law weren't passed, these "religions," as they're called, would surely have lost what little prestige they still have, and would likely have been eradicated within a couple of years. (Since we're talking about religion, I pray that you sense the sarcasm.)

This law, the breaking of which can result in a fine of up to 25,000 euro (almost $37,000), defines blasphemy as, "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defenses permitted." That is what I call "clear and comprehensive."

I am no lawyer, but it seems to me, through the use of my ill-educated mind, that the operative phrase is "intentionally causing outrage among as substantial number of adherents of that religion." It would appear, then, that a court must decide if the resulting outrage caused by some nefarious blasphemy (i.e. what we might consider free speech) was done intentionally. The element that does NOT appear to be considered, however, is whether or not that outrage was, by any measure, rational. This law, arguably, encourages irrational behavior by the faithful. If I were to publish or utter matter that was critical of a particular religion and that religion's adherents irrationally became outraged, and say, rioted and looted buildings in Copenhagen, I would still be at fault. If I somehow escaped the rabid lynch mobs caused by my blasphemy, I could be fined a fair sum of money for "intentionally" causing outrage. Never mind that I didn't intend for the adherents of this belief system to cause millions of dollars in damage to public and private buildings and/or cause harm to persons in the vicinity of the expression of outrage. Isn't an eternity in Hell enough of a punishment?

I had always considered blasphemy an act that could only be committed by an adherent to a particular faith. It always seemed difficult to me that someone who does not believe in something could blaspheme against it, but I guess this is not true. I think it shows how insecure these religions are; they can stand not even the slightest criticism from those outside their faith, let alone inside it. It is as if they realize how intellectually shoddy their faith's construction is, and fear that their flock will also realize it if they are allowed to hear these outside blasphemers. (Brewer's Note: Not all members of religions are this way. The Brewer knows some fine individuals that are happy to discuss and address a non-believer's questions and criticisms, no matter how harsh they may be.)

Dermot Ahern, a justice minister (maybe THE justice minister, I do not know), is of the opinion that the law is necessary, because the 1936 constitution protects only the belief of Christians. And if you know anything about Europe, immigration has somewhat changed the face of faith in many countries. So, according to Ahern, it is necessary to protect the beliefs of all faiths. I agree with this. But why not simply amend the constitution to state that all faiths are protected, rather than bring about a law that arguably limits free speech? I see no reason for this law. Laws surely already exist that protect people from being discriminated against based on their beliefs, age, sex, etc. Fear must be the only reason. Fear of offending someone. Fear of riots in the streets over cartoons depicting Muhammad. I should add that the authors of these cartoons still face real threats to their lives. I can't help but wonder, though, if this law protects the beliefs of atheists. It must, right? I would hope that a Christian official would be fined for saying something derogatory about atheists, but I find this unlikely.

Atheist Ireland, which claims to protect the rights of atheists, agrees with me that this law serves only to hinder free speech. In response to this law, Atheist Ireland published a list of 25 quotes from all sorts of people that technically would result in a fine under this new law. These quotes have been uttered by the likes of Mark Twain, Bjork, Salman Rushdie, George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and, yes, Jesus. That's right; some of the things Jesus had said would have resulted in him being fined 25,000 euro under this law.

What is it that they say? "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions?" Hopefully, this nonsense will be repealed, and a valid law will be created that prevents discrimination, while preserving free speech. I do not think it terribly likely, but I can hope.

Burj Dubai Set to Open:

I love the city of Dubai, which is situated in the United Arab Emirates. I visited there in 2003, and was impressed with the city and its residents. Dubai has taken a big hit in this financial crisis, the irony of which I couldn't help but to admire. UAE's leaders had endeavored to relieve the nation's dependence on oil for its economic vitality, and thus invested heavily in real estate and infrastructure and building projects to hopefully lure other investors and big-spending tourists. I give UAE credit for identifying that they needed to diversify their economic base, which most countries in the region seem very reluctant to attempt. I hope that Dubai and UAE comes out on top in the future, but right now it seems they are feeling the crunch, just as much, if not worse, than the rest of the world.

But good news is on the horizon. The Burj Dubai, the world's newest "tallest building" is set to open soon. So far though, from what I've read, it seems that they're having issues renting out space in this magnificent, 2,640+ feet tall building. Despite this, it should give Emiratis something to cheer about; a boost in national pride and prestige. Congratulations to Dubai.

Word of the Day: Constitutional (noun): A walk taken for one's health.

On This Day in History: The Alamanni cross the frozen Rhine and invade the Roman Empire (366 CE). Georgia is the fourth state to ratify the US Constitution (1788). The Russian garrison at Port Arthur surrenders to the Japanese (1905). President Nixon signs an order lowering the speed limit to 55 in order to conserve gasoline during an OPEC embargo (1974). A moron was enjoying the first day of marital bliss in his life (2001).

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." – Jesus Christ, said to the Jews in John 8:44, example of possibly blasphemous speech covered by the new Irish law.