Here in the USA, recently we were presented with an "aw, schucks!" attitude from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that even though she wouldn't know if an alleged terrorist on a Christmas flight were Qaedan or how stuff got on a plane etcetera, she's done her best and hey...has anybody been a victim of terrorism on her watch (other than in Mumbai and who knows where else, if one relies solely on Fed-Bailed Hollywood/media, which doesn't even mention the once-vaunted Darfur or Somalia any more)? Come on, people, our uberdamen und ubermenschen are doing the best they can...$290 billion or more no-strings to Laden-coddlers, plus clamping down hard on ANY faith expression not fitting Ladenists WILL produce a super economy and security for every last person on earth. Mustn't blaspheme REAL deity after all, as governments can best discern.

Next, we were informed TIME chose Ben Bernanke as Person of the Year for 2009, with a tagline describing that sure 2009 was a super-weak economy but hey...Benster was THERE, and think of how bad it COULD have been if ubermensch hadn't been en suite stabilizing the out-of-the-blue jolts in 2009 (of course, forget that he was there before Barack Obama took office and obviously has no foresight whatsoever, or is back-patted by bailed-out media as payback). What anti-Ladenist, anti-government schemer could blaspheme against the real deity through claiming even civilly that ethical issues exist between some things that are said and some things that don't exist in reality? To some officials, such diverse blasphemies against government-discerned true faiths weren't enough...in Maryland, one town wants to erect a monument to secular government on precept it is THE infallibility of mankind and its potential philosophies, dreams, skills, talents, education, and so on.

That is the opinion status of assorted USA government at the moment, pretty much a mirror of Pakistani, Irish, and many other governments who feel the ultimate in blasphemy is democratic participation in one's society (although often Courts provide saving grace against the mere hot air of mere officials).

Other opinions besides theirs or mine can be made; here is how I assess the general idea that still tongues make for happy lives, questions are a burden to others, and answers make prisons for one's self, whether asserted in religious or secular cast:

I don't believe in limiting speech which does not denegrate, precede, or cause direct harm to anyone in the measurable physical sense. In terms of faith, at best when one "blasphemes" they're not hurting GOD at all, just their own chances with Him; when one "blasphemes" a human member of any religion in nature only of attempting to "give them social cooties", and no more, again what God will SPIRITUALLY deem is the risk of the speaker, and what God will SPIRITUALLY strengthen against mere words is PART of any faith.

Now, if any Irish officials (or any other nations') want to protect from physical harm or hindrances HOLDING and PRACTICING peaceful religious activities ala UN Resolutions and say the First Amendment of the USA Constitution, fine; but where for example any old government were to ply any old governance (Louis XIV, Stalin, e.g.) and wrap themselves in deterministic quietism against even rotten rulers, one could only glow about Augustine of Hippo or Martin Luther that even rotten leaders are "judgments of God"...the heavy preponderance of assorted global historical faith ontology against such absolute quietism then would be "blasphemy", and in effect establish State religion. Also for example, look at Laden and Pakistan officials "being blasphemed" by Pakistanis or Hindus.

Again, most nations outside the USA have ALWAYS required licensure or regulation of ALL religions; it makes no theologic or secular sense to command people to simply believe or not believe ANYTHING available to human perception or apperception...as Hegel observed, ANY system which does not admit of unbelief is a mere convenience of some human(s).