Blasphemy

Template:Short description Template:Distinguish Template:Redirect Template:Use dmy dates Blasphemy refers to an insult that shows contempt, disrespect or lack of reverence concerning a deity, an object considered sacred, or something considered inviolable.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Blasphemy Merriam Webster (July 2013); 1. great disrespect shown to God or to something holy
2. irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable</ref><ref>Blasphemies, in Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed,
1. profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held as divine.
2. any remark or action held to be irreverent or disrespectful</ref> Some religions, especially Abrahamic ones, regard blasphemy as a crime, including insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in Islam, speaking the sacred name in Judaism,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> and blasphemy of God's Holy Spirit is an eternal sin in Christianity.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> It was also a crime under English common law, and it is still a crime under Italian law (Art. 724 del Codice Penale).<ref name="Harvard Law">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In the early history of the Church, blasphemy "was considered to show active disrespect to God and to involve the use of profane cursing or mockery of his powers". In the medieval world, those who committed blasphemy were seen as needing discipline.<ref name="Nash2007"/> By the 17th century, several historically Christian countries had legislation against blasphemy.<ref name="Nash2007">Template:Cite book</ref> Blasphemy was proscribed speech in the U.S. until well into the 20th century.<ref name="Harvard Law"/> Blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Ireland in 2020. Scotland repealed its blasphemy laws in 2021. Many other countries have abolished blasphemy laws including Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland, Norway and New Zealand.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Template:As of, 40 percent of the world's countries still had blasphemy laws on the books, including 18 countries in the Middle East and North Africa, or 90% of countries in that region.<ref>countries and territories worldwide had blasphemy laws in 2019, Pew Research (25 January 2022)</ref><ref name=pewres>Laws Penalizing Blasphemy, Apostasy and Defamation of Religion are Widespread Pew Research (21 November 2012)</ref><ref name=wsj>Blasphemy Divide: Insults to Religion Remain a Capital Crime in Muslim Lands The Wall Street Journal (8 January 2015)</ref>

Etymology

The word Template:Linktext came via Middle English {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} and Old French {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} and Late Latin {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} from Greek Template:Linktext, from βλασ, "injure" and φήμη, "utterance, talk, speech". From blasphemare also came Old French {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, from which the English word blame came. Blasphemy: 'from Gk. blasphemia "a speaking ill, impious speech, slander," from blasphemein "to speak evil of."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> "In the sense of speaking evil of God this word is found in Ps. 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 13:1, 6; 16:9, 11, 21. It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse (1 Kings 21:10 LXX; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.)."<ref>(from Easton's Bible Dictionary) Template:Bibleverse – Template:Bibleverse – Template:Bibleverse</ref>

History

Middle Ages

Heresy received more attention than blasphemy throughout the Middle Ages because it was considered a more serious threat to Orthodoxy,<ref>cf. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae. ST II-II q10a3, q11a3, q12. Q11A3: "With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."</ref> while blasphemy was mostly seen as irreverent remarks made by persons who may have been drunk or diverged from good standards of conduct in isolated incidents of misbehavior. When the fundamental understanding of the sacred became more contentious during the Reformation, blasphemy started to be regarded as similar to heresy.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

The intellectual culture of the early English Enlightenment embraced ironic or scoffing tones in contradistinction to the idea of sacredness in revealed religion. The characterization of "scoffing" as blasphemy was defined as profaning the Scripture by irreverent "Buffoonery and Banter". From at least the 18th century on, the clergy of the Church of England justified blasphemy prosecutions by distinguishing "sober reasoning" from mockery and scoffing. Religious doctrine could be discussed "in a calm, decent and serious way" (in the words of Bishop Gibson) but mockery and scoffing, they said, were appeals to sentiment, not to reason.<ref name=Frances/>

Common law

It was a common law crime according to William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England:

Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering conteumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land".

In 1636, the Puritan-controlled Massachusetts Bay Colony made blasphemy – defined as "a cursing of God by atheism, or the like" – punishable by death.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The last person hanged for blasphemy in Great Britain was Thomas Aikenhead aged 20, in Scotland in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles.<ref name=truth>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In the United States, blasphemy was recognized as proscribed speech well into the 20th-century.<ref name="Harvard Law"/><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The Constitution entailed a right to articulate views on religion, but not to commit blasphemy, with the Harvard Law Review stating, "The English common law had punished blasphemy as a crime, while excluding "disputes between learned men upon particular controverted points" from the scope of criminal blasphemy. Looking to this precedent, 19th-century American appellate courts consistently upheld proscriptions on blasphemy, drawing a line between punishable blasphemy and protected religious speech."<ref name="Harvard Law"/>

The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were repealed in England & Wales by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. In the 18th and 19th centuries, this meant that promoting atheism could be prosecuted.<ref>Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church: Vol 1 1829–1859 (1966) pp 487–489.</ref> The last successfully prosecuted case was Whitehouse v. Lemon (1976) where the court repeated what had by then become a textbook standard for blasphemy law cases in the UK:<ref name=Frances>Template:Cite book</ref>

It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not as to the substance of the doctrines themselves.

The common law offense of blasphemy was abolished in Scotland via the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

By religion

Christianity

Biblical texts

Christian theology condemns blasphemy. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain", one of the Ten Commandments, forbids blasphemy, which Christians regard as "an affront to God's holiness".<ref name="Sherwood2021">Template:Cite book</ref><ref name="Bright2005">Template:Cite book</ref>

Leviticus 24:16 states that "anyone who blasphemes the name of Yahweh will be put to death".<ref name="Netton1996">Template:Cite book</ref>

In Mark 3:29, blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable—an eternal sin.<ref name="Saunders2021">Template:Cite book</ref>

Church history

In the early history of the Church, blasphemy "was considered to show active disrespect to God and to involve the use of profane cursing or mockery of his powers".<ref name="Nash2007"/>

In The Whole Duty of Man, sometimes attributed to Richard Allestree or John Fell, blasphemy is described as "speaking any evil Thing of God", and as "the highest Degree whereof is cursing him; or if we do not speak it with our Mouths, yet if we do it in our Hearts, by thinking any unworthy Thing of him, it is look'd on by God, who sees the Heart, as the vilest Dishonour."<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

• Thomas Aquinas says that "[if] we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one's neighbor, than blasphemy does to God".<ref>Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica 2:2, q. 13.</ref>
• The Book of Concord calls blasphemy "the greatest sin that can be outwardly committed".<ref>The Book of Concord Template:Webarchive The Large Catechism, §55.</ref>
• The Baptist Confession of Faith says: "Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by the glorious and awesome name of God…is sinful, and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. …For by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns".<ref>The Baptist Confession of Faith Template:Webarchive Ch. 23, §2–3.</ref>
• The Heidelberg Catechism answers question 100 about blasphemy by stating that "no sin is greater or provokes God's wrath more than the blaspheming of His Name".<ref>The Heidelberg Catechism Template:Webarchive Q. 100.</ref>
• The Westminster Larger Catechism explains that "The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane...mentioning...by blasphemy...to profane jests, ...vain janglings, ...to charms or sinful lusts and practices".<ref>Westminster Larger Catechism Template:Webarchive Q. 113.</ref>
• Calvin found it intolerable "when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked".<ref>Jean Calvin: Harmony of the Law vol. 4. Lev. 24:10.</ref>

Catholic prayers and reparations for blasphemy

In the Catholic Church, there are specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy.<ref>Act of Reparation for Blasphemies Uttered Against the Holy Name, Righting Wrongs Through Prayer Template:Webarchive By Scott P. Richert, About.com</ref> For instance, The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion (Prayer) first introduced by Sister Marie of St Peter in 1844 is recited "in a spirit of reparation for blasphemy". This devotion (started by Sister Marie and then promoted by the Venerable Leo Dupont) was approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885.<ref>Dorothy Scallan. The Holy Man of Tours. (1990) Template:ISBN</ref> The Raccoltabook includes a number of such prayers.<ref>Joseph P. Christopher et al., 2003 The Raccolta, St Athanasius Press Template:ISBN</ref> The Five First Saturdays devotions are done with the intention in the heart of making reparation to the Blessed Mother for blasphemies against her, her name and her holy initiatives.

The Holy See has specific "Pontifical organizations" for the purpose of the reparation of blasphemy through Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ, e.g. the Pontifical Congregation of the Benedictine Sisters of the Reparation of the Holy Face.<ref>Letter for 50th anniversary of the Benedictine Sisters of Reparation of the Holy Face, 2000 Template:Webarchive Vatican archives</ref>

Disputation of Paris

During the Middle Ages a series of debates on Judaism were staged by the Catholic Church, including the Disputation of Paris (1240), the Disputation of Barcelona (1263), and Disputation of Tortosa (1413–14), and during those disputations, Jewish converts to Christianity, such as Nicholas Donin (in Paris) and Pablo Christiani (in Barcelona) claimed the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus.<ref>Carroll, James, Constantine's sword: the church and the Jews : a history, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002</ref><ref>Seidman, Naomi, Faithful renderings: Jewish-Christian difference and the politics of translation, University of Chicago Press, 2006 p. 137</ref><ref>Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, Judaism and other faiths, Palgrave Macmillan, 1994, p. 48</ref>

The Disputation of Paris, also known as the Trial of the Talmud, took place in 1240 at the court of the reigning king of France, Louis IX (St. Louis). It followed the work of Nicholas Donin, a Jewish convert to Christianity, who translated the Talmud and pressed 35 charges against it to Pope Gregory IX by quoting a series of alleged blasphemous passages about Jesus, Mary or Christianity.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Four rabbis defended the Talmud against Donin's accusations. A commission of Christian theologians condemned the Talmud to be burned and on 17 June 1244, twenty-four carriage loads of Jewish religious manuscripts were set on fire in the streets of Paris.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The translation of the Talmud from Hebrew to non-Jewish languages stripped Jewish discourse from its covering, something that was resented by Jews as a profound violation.<ref>Naomi Seidman, Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation, pp. 136–138</ref>

Between 1239 and 1775, the Roman Catholic Church at various times either forced the censoring of parts of the Talmud that it considered theologically problematic or the destruction of copies of the Talmud.<ref name="expunged">Template:Cite book</ref> During the inquisition, sects deemed heretical such as the Waldensians were also charged with blasphemy.<ref name="Napier 2017 p. 60">Template:Cite book</ref>

Islam

File:Brooklyn Museum - The Execution of Mansur Hallaj From the Warren Hastings Album.jpg

Sufi teacher Mansur Al-Hallaj was executed in Baghdad amid political intrigue and charges of blasphemy in 922.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

Punishment and definition

Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam.<ref>"Blasphemy" at dictionary.com</ref><ref name="Wiederhold, Lutz 1997">Wiederhold, Lutz. "Blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad and his companions (sabb al-rasul, sabb al-sahabah): The introduction of the topic into shafi'i legal literature and its relevance for legal practice under Mamluk rule". Journal of semitic studies 42.1 (1997): 39–70.</ref> The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy.<ref name="SaeedSaeed2004">Template:Cite book</ref> The hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, which may include death.<ref name="SaeedSaeed2004"/><ref>Siraj Khan. Blasphemy against the Prophet, in Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture (ed: Coeli Fitzpatrick PhD, Adam Hani Walker). Template:ISBN, pp. 59–67.</ref> However, it has been argued that the death penalty applies only to cases where there is treason involved that may seriously harm the Muslim community, especially during times of war.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Different traditional schools of jurisprudence prescribe different punishment for blasphemy, depending on whether the blasphemer is Muslim or non-Muslim, a man or a woman.<ref name="SaeedSaeed2004"/> In the modern Muslim world, the laws pertaining to blasphemy vary by country, and some countries prescribe punishments consisting of fines, imprisonment, flogging, hanging, or beheading.<ref name=psns>P Smith (2003). "Speak No Evil: Apostasy, Blasphemy and Heresy in Malaysian Syariah Law". UC Davis Journal Int'l Law & Policy. 10, pp. 357–373.

• N Swazo (2014). "The Case of Hamza Kashgari: Examining Apostasy, Heresy, and Blasphemy Under Sharia". The Review of Faith & International Affairs 12(4). pp. 16–26.</ref> Blasphemy laws were rarely enforced in pre-modern Islamic societies, but in the modern era some states and radical groups have used charges of blasphemy in an effort to burnish their religious credentials and gain popular support at the expense of liberal Muslim intellectuals and religious minorities.<ref name=failed3>Template:Cite encyclopedia</ref> In recent years, accusations of blasphemy against Islam have sparked international controversies and played part in incidents of mob violence and assassinations of prominent figures.

Failed OIC anti-blasphemy campaign at UN

Template:Anchor {{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

The campaign for worldwide criminal penalties for the "defamation of religions" had been spearheaded by Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on behalf of the United Nations' large Muslim bloc. The campaign ended in 2011 when the proposal was withdrawn in Geneva, in the Human Rights Council because of lack of support, marking an end to the effort to establish worldwide blasphemy strictures along the lines of those in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This resolution had passed every year since 1999, in the United Nations, with declining number of "yes" votes with each successive year.<ref name=failed1>An Anti-Blasphemy Measure Laid to Rest Nina Shea, National Review (31 March 2011)</ref> In the early 21st century, blasphemy became an issue in the United Nations (UN). The United Nations passed several resolutions which called upon the world to take action against the "defamation of religions".<ref>U.N. Resolutions:

• A/RES/60/150
• Vote on 16 December 2005 (A/60/PV.64)

</ref> However, in July 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) released a 52-paragraph statement which affirmed the freedom of speech and rejected the laws banning "display of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system'.<ref name=failed2>General Comment 34</ref>

Depictions of Muhammad

When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten decided to publish cartoons of Muhammad, its editor-in-chief wrote an editorial that the newspaper was publishing the cartoons because Muslims had to get over their "sickly oversensitivity". Another editor looked upon it as a cultural initiation: "By making fun of people we're also including them in our society. It's not always easy for those concerned, but that the price they're got to pay".<ref> Laborde C. The Danish Cartoon Controversy and the Challenges of Multicultural Politics: A Discussion of The Cartoons That Shook the World. Perspectives on Politics. 2011;9(3):603-605. doi:10.1017/S1537592711002817</ref> Editors expressed concern that Danish comedians, artists and so on were self-censoring because they were afraid of a violent response from Muslims.

The global protests that erupted in February 2006 shocked the artists who submitted cartoons. After receiving a bomb threat one cartoonist was angry that Muslims fleeing persecution in their own countries would "want the laws they have fled" to be enforced in Denmark. The editors stood their ground: "Everyone had to accept being subject to satire."<ref name=Klausen>Template:Cite book</ref>

Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for a car bombing at the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in June 2008 which they said was revenge for the "insulting drawings".<ref name=Klausen/>

After the Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015 Je Suis Charlie became a rallying cry for secular, free speech advocates. The attacks took place in France where the culture of militant secularism celebrates blasphemy but permits viewpoint based restrictions and prior restraint of speech. Emmanuel Todd was very skeptical and critical of the "right to blasphemy" narrative. Skeptics thought it amounted to little more than ridicule of a marginalized group. Scholars rebutting Todd's study have found that many of the protestors were liberal, tolerant people who did not have Islamophobic or xenophobic views. For many of the Je Suis Charlie protestors the sentiment of the protest was simply: it is not ok to kill someone because they have offended you.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Judaism

File:Schnorr von Carolsfeld Bibel in Bildern 1860 102.png

Nathan confronts David over his sex scandal with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, saying "by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme" (2 Samuel 12:14).

In Template:Bibleverse the punishment for blasphemy is death. In Jewish law the only form of blasphemy which is punishable by death is blaspheming the name of the Lord.<ref>Template:Cite encyclopedia</ref> Leviticus 24:16 states that "anyone who blasphemes the name of Yahweh will be put to death".<ref name="Netton1996"/>

The Seven Laws of Noah, which Judaism sees as applicable to all people, prohibit blasphemy.<ref name="Jewishvirtuallibrary.org">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In one of the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, called the Damascus Document, violence against non-Jews (also called Gentiles) is prohibited, except in cases where it is sanctioned by a Jewish governing authority "so that they will not blaspheme".<ref>Template:Cite encyclopediaTemplate:Subscription required</ref>

Buddhism

Buddhism has no concept of blasphemy. In contrast, in West Asia, the birthplace of Abrahamic religions (namely Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), there was no room for such tolerance and respect for dissent where heretics and blasphemers had to pay with their lives.

Insulting Buddhism is a punishable offence in some Buddhist majority counties like Sri Lanka and Myanmar. In 2015 a man from New Zealand was sentenced to prison for depicting a picture of Buddha with headphones.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Similarly in 2020, Shakthika Sathkumara, a Sri Lankan author, was sentenced 10 years in prison for insulting Buddhism.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Sikhism

Blasphemy is taken harshly by Sikhs. It is called “beadbi” by Sikhs. In October, 2021, a Nihang Singh killed a man for beadbi of the Sarbloh Granth.<ref name=":0">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> In December, 2021, a man was beaten to death at the Golden Temple for committing blasphemy.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Such punishments are justified with orthodox Sikhs saying, “instant justice” is deserving for beadbi which is the “ultimate act of crime”.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name=":0" />

Backlash against anti-blasphemy laws

Affirmation of Freedom of Speech (FOS)

Multilateral global institutes, such as the Council of Europe and UN, have rejected the imposition of "anti-blasphemy laws" (ABL) and have affirmed the freedom of speech.<ref name=aff1/><ref name=failed2/>

The Council of Europe's rejection of ABL and affirmation of FOS

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, after deliberating on the issue of blasphemy law passed the resolution that blasphemy should not be a criminal offence,<ref name=aff1>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> which was adopted on 29 June 2007 in the "Recommendation 1805 (2007) on blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion". This Recommendation set a number of guidelines for member states of the Council of Europe in view of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

UN's rejection of ABL and affirmation of FOS

Template:Anchor {{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

After OIC's (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) campaign at UN (United Nations) seeking impose of punishment for "defamation of religions" was withdrawn due to consistently dwindling support for their campaign,<ref name=failed1/> the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), in July 2011, released a 52-paragraph statement which affirmed the freedom of speech and rejected the laws banning "display of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system'. UNHRC's "General Comment 34 - Paragraph 48" on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976, concerning freedoms of opinion and expression states:<ref name=failed2/>

Template:ErrorTemplate:Main other{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

International Blasphemy Day

International Blasphemy Day, observed annually on September 30, encourages individuals and groups to openly express criticism of religion and blasphemy laws. It was founded in 2009 by the Center for Inquiry.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> A student contacted the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York to present the idea, which CFI then supported. Ronald Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, said, regarding Blasphemy Day, "[W]e think religious beliefs should be subject to examination and criticism just as political beliefs are, but we have a taboo on religion", in an interview with CNN.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Events worldwide on the first annual Blasphemy Day in 2009 included an art exhibit in Washington, D.C., and a free speech festival in Los Angeles.<ref name=USAT>Template:Cite news</ref>

Removal of blasphemy laws by several nations

Other countries have removed bans on blasphemy. France did so in 1881 (this did not extend to Alsace-Moselle region, then part of Germany, after it joined France) to allow freedom of religion and freedom of the press. Blasphemy was abolished or repealed in Sweden in 1970, England and Wales in 2008, Norway with Acts in 2009 and 2015, the Netherlands in 2014, Iceland in 2015, France for its Alsace-Moselle region in 2016, Malta in 2016, Denmark in 2017,<ref name="Denmark"/> Canada in 2018, New Zealand in 2019, and Ireland in 2020.<ref>Blasphemy law#Ireland</ref>

Nations with blasphemy laws

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

File:Blasphemy laws worldwide.svg

Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend

In some countries with a state religion, blasphemy is outlawed under the criminal code.

Purpose of blasphemy laws

In some states, blasphemy laws are used to impose the religious beliefs of a majority, while in other countries, they are justified as putatively offering protection of the religious beliefs of minorities.<ref name=IceNews/><ref name="Scolnicov2010">Template:Cite book</ref><ref name="The Copenhagen Post">Template:Cite news</ref> Where blasphemy is banned, it can be either some laws which directly punish religious blasphemy,<ref>See Blasphemy law</ref> or some laws that allow those who are offended by blasphemy to punish blasphemers. Those laws may condone penalties or retaliation for blasphemy under the labels of blasphemous libel,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> expression of opposition, or "vilification," of religion or of some religious practices,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> religious insult,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> or hate speech.<ref>See Blasphemy law and Hate speech.</ref>

Nations with blasphemy laws

Template:Anchor As of 2012Template:Update inline, 33 countries had some form of anti-blasphemy laws in their legal code.<ref name=pewres/> Of these, 21 were Muslim-majority nations – Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, the Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, the UAE and Western Sahara. Blasphemy is treated as a capital crime (death penalty) in some Muslim nations.<ref name=wsj/> In these nations, such laws have led to the persecution, lynchings, murder or arrest of minorities and dissident members, after flimsy accusations.<ref>Bad-mouthing: Pakistan's blasphemy laws legitimise intolerance The Economist (29 November 2014)</ref><ref>Sources of claims:

• World of Intolerance Template:Webarchive Religious Watch. Retrieved 5 October 2011
• United Nations will violate Human Rights International Humanist and Ethical Union. Retrieved 5 October 2011
• {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}

• Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom May 2009 (Pakistan, etc.). Retrieved 5 October 2011
• A call upon states to work toward abolishing the juvenile death penalty U.N. January 1999. Retrieved 5 October 2011
• Indonesia – Amnesty International Report 2009 Template:Webarchive Amnesty International. Retrieved 5 October 2011

</ref>

The other twelve nations with anti-blasphemy laws in 2012 included India and Singapore, as well as Christian majority states, including Denmark (abolished in 2017),<ref name="Denmark">Denmark scraps 334-year-old blasphemy law 2 June 2017 the Guardian</ref> Finland, Germany, Greece (abolished in 2019), Ireland (abolished in 2020), Italy, Malta (abolished in 2016), the Netherlands (abolished in 2014), Nigeria, Norway (abolished in 2015) and Poland.<ref name=pewres/> Spain's "offending religious feelings" law is also, effectively, a prohibition on blasphemy.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> In Denmark, the former blasphemy law which had support of 66% of its citizens in 2012, made it an offence to "mock legal religions and faiths in Denmark".<ref name="The Copenhagen Post"/> Many Danes saw the "blasphemy law as helping integration because it promotes the acceptance of a multicultural and multi-faith society."<ref name=IceNews>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In the judgment E.S. v. Austria (2018), the European Court of Human Rights declined to strike down the blasphemy law in Austria on Article 10 (freedom of speech) grounds, saying that criminalisation of blasphemy could be supported within a state's margin of appreciation. This decision was widely criticised by human rights organisations and commentators both in Europe and North America.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Hyperbolic use of the term blasphemy

In contemporary language, the notion of blasphemy is often used hyperbolically (in a deliberately exaggerated manner). This usage has garnered some interest among linguists recently, and the word blasphemy is a common case used for illustrative purposes.<ref> Recanati, F. (1995) "The alleged priority of literal interpretation". Cognitive Science 19: 207–232.

Carston, R. (1997) "Enrichment and loosening: complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed?" Linguistische Berichte 8: 103–127.

Carston, R. (2000). "Explicature and semantics." UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 1–44. Revised version to appear in Davis & Gillon (forthcomingTemplate:When).

Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1998) "The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon". In Carruthers & Boucher (1998: 184–200).Template:ISBN?

Glucksberg, S. (2001) Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Template:ISBN?

Wilson, D. & D. Sperber (2002) "Truthfulness and relevance". Mind 111: 583–632.

</ref>

See also

• Blasphemy laws
• Defamation of religion and the United Nations
• Desecration
• Freedom of speech
• Hate crime
• International Blasphemy Day
• Quran desecration
• Religious offense
• Sacrilege
• Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

Further reading

• Maledicta: The International Journal of Verbal Aggression {{#if:0363-3659|Template:Catalog lookup link{{#if:Template:Trim|{{#ifeq:Template:Yesno-no|yes|Template:Main other|{{#invoke:check isxn|check_issn|Template:Trim|error=Template:Error-smallTemplate:Main other}}}}{{#if:Template:Trim|{{#ifeq:Template:Yesno-no|yes|Template:Main other|{{#invoke:check isxn|check_issn|Template:Trim|error=Template:Error-smallTemplate:Main other}}}}{{#if:Template:Trim|{{#ifeq:Template:Yesno-no|yes|Template:Main other|{{#invoke:check isxn|check_issn|Template:Trim|error=Template:Error-smallTemplate:Main other}}}}{{#if:Template:Trim|{{#ifeq:Template:Yesno-no|yes|Template:Main other|{{#invoke:check isxn|check_issn|Template:Trim|error=Template:Error-smallTemplate:Main other}}}}{{#if:Template:Trim|{{#ifeq:Template:Yesno-no|yes|Template:Main other|{{#invoke:check isxn|check_issn|Template:Trim|error=Template:Error-smallTemplate:Main other}}}}{{#if:Template:Trim|{{#ifeq:Template:Yesno-no|yes|Template:Main other|{{#invoke:check isxn|check_issn|Template:Trim|error=Template:Error-smallTemplate:Main other}}}}{{#if:Template:Trim|{{#ifeq:Template:Yesno-no|yes|Template:Main other|{{#invoke:check isxn|check_issn|Template:Trim|error=Template:Error-smallTemplate:Main other}}}}{{#if:Template:Trim|{{#ifeq:Template:Yesno-no|yes|Template:Main other|{{#invoke:check isxn|check_issn|Template:Trim|error=Template:Error-smallTemplate:Main other}}}}{{#if:Template:Trim|{{#ifeq:Template:Yesno-no|yes|Template:Main other|{{#invoke:check isxn|check_issn|Template:Trim|error=Template:Error-smallTemplate:Main other}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|Template:Error-small}}.
• Levy, L. Blasphemy. Chapel Hill, 1993.
• Dartevelle, P., Denis, Ph., Robyn, J. (eds.). Blasphèmes et libertés. Paris: CERF, 1993.
• Template:Cite book

External links

• The Rational Response Squad: The Blasphemy Challenge
• A More4 news film report on how insulting the prophet Mohammed in Pakistan is a capital offence, and defiling the Koran carries life imprisonment.
• review of laws relating to blasphemy and sacrilege in various jurisdictions
• Template:CathEncy
• Jewish Encyclopedia – Blasphemy
• Template:Cite Americana