Irish referendum on blasphemy law seeks to remove morality from constitution Commentary
Irish referendum on blasphemy law seeks to remove morality from constitution
Edited by:

Johanna Higgins [Barrister, Association of Catholic Lawyers of Ireland]: "Minister Ahern has stated in the past, regarding the constitutional provision on blasphemy: "As a republican, my personal position is that Church and State should be separate. But I do not have the luxury of ignoring our Constitution." This then begs the question on what philosophy of law does Minister Ahern seek to rest his envisioned Constitution?

The moral code on which the Irish system is presently based is Catholic. Of that one need look no further that the preamble to the Irish Constitution, as written by Taoiseach Eamon De Valera, to be persuaded:

"In the Name of the most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Eire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial…."

The requirement in the Constitution that blasphemy "shall be punishable" is part and parcel of the jurisprudential framework of the Irish State. One cannot simply remove parts of the Constitution at will, blind as to the actual effect this will have on society and the function of the law. Simply put, if one believes that murder is wrong because it offends against God's law, what happens to that belief if God is effectively removed from the law, so to speak, and nothing is holding up the legal system in His place?

Lord Patrick Devlin stated "A State which refuses to enforce Christian beliefs has lost the right to enforce Christian morals." The crime of blasphemy is a cornerstone in the Christian legal system, which is precisely why some wish for its removal. However if they succeed the State will have to justify the criminal law and the punishments it hands down in some way other than by morality."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.