Stephen Fry on God and getting into heaven

This is known as "the problem of evil" or "the problem of suffering." It's probably the biggest obstacle to belief, for most people. They can't get their heads around why there would be a God who is supposed to be loving yet creates a world with what seems like unnecessary suffering and cruelty. I get it. It's why I lost my faith when I was 13. I ended up regaining it decades later, although the God I ended up believing in was very different than the childhood version.

The question (the problem of evil) has many answers. It goes back to antiquity. It's a deep well and complex subject. There are some good philosophical answers, but they don't eliminate the emotional objections (i.e., the suffering of the people who have to endure the suffering, the bewilderment, etc.).
 
  • Like
Reactions: GordoSan


What’s really funny is that this very interview has ended up triggering a constitutional referendum in Ireland. After Stephen Fry comment on God someone took a challenge to the courts that he should be prosecuted for blasphemy as that was a constitutional requirement. We’re now voting to remove that from the constitution next month.
 
What’s really funny is that this very interview has ended up triggering a constitutional referendum in Ireland. After Stephen Fry comment on God someone took a challenge to the courts that he should be prosecuted for blasphemy as that was a constitutional requirement. We’re now voting to remove that from the constitution next month.

Good. Yeah, that shouldn't be in the constitution. Freedom of speech and all that. One man's blasphemy is another man's truth.
 
Good. Yeah, that shouldn't be in the constitution. Freedom of speech and all that. One man's blasphemy is another man's truth.

It’s a throw back to a different time. The person that took the case was very quick off the mark to publicly highlight the sillyness of it by saying the police needed to arrest Fry.
 
Last edited:
It’s a throw back to a different time. The person that took the case was very quick off the mark to publicly highlight the sillyness of it by saying the police needed to arrest Fry.

Yup. All kinds of weird laws on the books.

It's tough to amend a constitution, though, I bet. Does it require a simple majority vote, or something more?
 
Yup. All kinds of weird laws on the books.

It's tough to amend a constitution, though, I bet. Does it require a simple majority vote, or something more?

More financially a drain on public expenses than tough from a legal perspective. That’s why it was there was these years I guess.

But yes, once the amendment details are decided by the Supreme Court it’s a majority vote on a ballot. In this case I think they are simply removing the paragraph and not replacing it with anything which is good because putting something into the constitution that’s open to interpretation can have all sorts of unintended consequences.

It was actually a countryman of yours that wrote our constitution after the English finally packed up and left.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éamon_de_Valera
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Andy
More financially a drain on public expenses than tough from a legal perspective. That’s why it was there was these years I guess.

But yes, once the amendment details are decided by the Supreme Court it’s a majority vote on a ballot. In this case I think they are simply removing the paragraph and not replacing it with anything which is good because putting something into the constitution that’s open to interpretation can have all sorts of unintended consequences.

It was actually a countryman of yours that wrote our constitution after the English finally packed up and left.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éamon_de_Valera

Interesting. You guys vote on it after the Supreme Court rules. Here, it's the Supreme Court that decides, and that's it.

I read in the link that "De Valera was throughout his life portrayed as a deeply religious man, who in death asked to be buried in a religious habit." I'm guessing that's how the language about blasphemy got in there. That's different than the US version, which emphasizes separation of church and state.

I believe we still have some language in our constitution about no "obscenity." That's another of those words that's hard to define. One man's obscenity is another man's hobby...
 
Interesting. You guys vote on it after the Supreme Court rules. Here, it's the Supreme Court that decides, and that's it.

I read in the link that "De Valera was throughout his life portrayed as a deeply religious man, who in death asked to be buried in a religious habit." I'm guessing that's how the language about blasphemy got in there. That's different than the US version, which emphasizes separation of church and state.

I believe we still have some language in our constitution about no "obscenity." That's another of those words that's hard to define. One man's obscenity is another man's hobby...

Actually I think I was wrong about the stage where the Supreme Court gets involved. The president resides over the amendment details that’s presented to him and if he thinks it needs to go to the Supreme Court it gets sent there for a judgment before going for a vote. Or something like that.

That guy De Valera is very polarizing. People either him hate or love him. I wouldn’t be his biggest fan but he do lots of great things (like introduce the constitution).