Blasphemy refers to an insult that shows contempt, disrespect or lack ofreverence concerning adeity, an object consideredsacred, or something consideredinviolable.[1][2][3][4] Some religions, especially Abrahamic ones, regard blasphemy as a crime, including insulting theIslamic prophetMuhammad in Islam, speaking thesacred name in Judaism,[5] and blasphemy of God'sHoly Spirit is aneternal sin in Christianity.[6] It was also a crime underEnglishcommon law, and it is still a crime under Italian law (Art. 724 del Codice Penale).[7]
In the early history of the Church, blasphemy "was considered to show active disrespect toGod 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.[8] By the 17th century, several historicallyChristian countries hadlegislation against blasphemy.[8] Blasphemy was proscribed speech in the U.S. until well into the 20th century.[7] Blasphemy laws were abolished inEngland and Wales in 2008, and inIreland in 2020.Scotland repealed its blasphemy laws in 2021. Many other countries have abolished blasphemy laws includingDenmark, theNetherlands,Iceland,Norway andNew Zealand.[9] As of 2019[update], 40 percent of the world's countries still had blasphemy laws on the books, including 18 countries in theMiddle East andNorth Africa, or 90% of countries in that region.[10][11][12]Indian religions such asHinduism andBuddhism have no concept of blasphemy and hence prescribe no punishment.[13][14][15]
The wordblasphemy came viaMiddle Englishblasfemen andOld Frenchblasfemer andLate Latinblasphemare fromGreekβλασφημέω, from βλασ, "injure" and φήμη, "utterance, talk, speech". Fromblasphemare also came Old Frenchblasmer, from which the English wordblame came. Blasphemy: 'from Gk. blasphemia "a speaking ill, impious speech,slander," from blasphemein "to speak evil of."[16] "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 21:10LXX; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.)."[17]
Heresy received more attention than blasphemy throughout theMiddle Ages because it was considered a more serious threat toOrthodoxy,[18] 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 thesacred became more contentious during theReformation, blasphemy started to be regarded as similar to heresy.[19]
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 asprofaning the Scripture by irreverent "Buffoonery and Banter". From at least the 18th century on, the clergy of theChurch 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 ofBishop Gibson) but mockery and scoffing, they said, were appeals to sentiment, not to reason.[20]
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, thePuritan-controlledMassachusetts Bay Colony made blasphemy – defined as "a cursing of God by atheism, or the like" – punishable by death.[21] The last person hanged for blasphemy in Great Britain wasThomas Aikenhead aged 20, inScotland in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles.[22]
In the United States, blasphemy was recognized as proscribed speech well into the 20th-century.[7][23] The Constitution entailed a right to articulate views on religion, but not to commit blasphemy, with theHarvard 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."[7]
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.
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".[8]
InThe Whole Duty of Man, sometimes attributed toRichard Allestree orJohn 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."[30]
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".[31]
TheBook of Concord calls blasphemy "the greatest sin that can be outwardly committed".[32]
TheBaptist 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".[33]
TheHeidelberg 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".[34]
TheWestminster 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".[35]
Calvin found it intolerable "when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on theebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked".[36]
In the Catholic Church, there are specific prayers and devotions asActs of Reparation for blasphemy.[37] For instance,The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion (Prayer) first introduced by SisterMarie 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 VenerableLeo Dupont) was approved by PopeLeo XIII in 1885.[38] TheRaccoltabook includes a number of such prayers.[39] TheFive 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.
TheDisputation 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 ofNicholas Donin, a Jewish convert toChristianity, who translated theTalmud and pressed 35 charges against it toPope Gregory IX by quoting a series of alleged blasphemous passages aboutJesus,Mary or Christianity.[44] Fourrabbis 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 wereset on fire in the streets of Paris.[45][46] The translation of the Talmud fromHebrew to non-Jewish languages stripped Jewish discourse from its covering, something that was resented by Jews as a profound violation.[47]
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.[48] During the inquisition, sects deemed heretical such as theWaldensians were also charged with blasphemy.[49]
Blasphemy inIslam is impious utterance or action concerningGod,Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam.[51][52] TheQuran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy.[53] Thehadiths, which are another source ofSharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, which may includedeath.[53][54] However, it has been argued that the death penalty applies only to cases where there istreason involved that may seriously harm theMuslim community, especially during times of war.[55] Different traditionalschools of jurisprudence prescribe different punishment for blasphemy, depending on whether the blasphemer is Muslim or non-Muslim, a man or a woman.[53] In the modernMuslim world, the laws pertaining to blasphemyvary by country, and some countries prescribe punishments consisting of fines, imprisonment,flogging,hanging, orbeheading.[56] 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.[57] 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.
The campaign for worldwide criminal penalties for the "defamation of religions" had been spearheaded byOrganisation 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.[58] In the early 21st century, blasphemy became an issue in theUnited Nations (UN). The United Nations passed several resolutions which called upon the world to take action against the "defamation of religions".[59] However, in July 2011, theUN 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'.[60]
When the Danish newspaperJyllands-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".[61] 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."[62]
Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for a car bombing at the Danish embassy inIslamabad, Pakistan in June 2008 which they said was revenge for the "insulting drawings".[62]
After theCharlie Hebdo attack in 2015Je 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 theJe Suis Charlie protestors the sentiment of the protest was simply: it is not ok to kill someone because they have offended you.[63]
Nathan confrontsDavid 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).
InLeviticus 24:16 the punishment for blasphemy is death. InJewish law the only form of blasphemy which is punishable by death is blaspheming thename of the Lord.[64] Leviticus 24:16 states that "anyone who blasphemes the name of Yahweh will be put to death".[28]
TheSeven Laws of Noah, which Judaism sees as applicable to all people, prohibit blasphemy.[65]
In one of the texts of theDead Sea Scrolls, called theDamascus Document, violence against non-Jews (also calledGentiles) is prohibited, except in cases where it is sanctioned by a Jewish governing authority "so that they will not blaspheme".[66]
Buddhism has no concept of blasphemy. In contrast, inWest Asia, the birthplace ofAbrahamic religions (namelyIslam,Judaism, andChristianity), 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.[67] Similarly, in 2020 Shakthika Sathkumara, a Sri Lankan author was sentenced 10 years in prison for insulting Buddhism.[68]
Blasphemy is taken harshly by Sikhs. It is called “beadbi” by Sikhs. In October, 2021, aNihang Singh killed a man forbeadbi of theSarbloh Granth.[69] In December, 2021, a man was beaten to death at theGolden Temple for committing blasphemy.[70] Such punishments are justified with orthodox Sikhs saying, “instant justice” is deserving forbeadbi which is the “ultimate act of crime”.[71][69]
Multilateral global institutes, such as theCouncil of Europe and UN, have rejected the imposition of"anti-blasphemy laws" (ABL) and have affirmed thefreedom of speech.[72][60]
The Council of Europe's rejection of ABL and affirmation of FOS
TheParliamentary 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,[72] 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 theCouncil of Europe in view of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.
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,[58] theUN 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 theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976, concerning freedoms of opinion and expression states:[60]
Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18 and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.[73]
InternationalBlasphemy Day, observed annually on September 30, encourages individuals and groups to openly expresscriticism of religion andblasphemy laws. It was founded in 2009 by theCenter for Inquiry.[74] A student contacted the Center for Inquiry inAmherst,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 withCNN.[75]
Other countries have removed bans on blasphemy.France did so in 1881 (this did not extend toAlsace-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 inSweden in 1970,England andWales 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,[77]Canada in 2018, New Zealand in 2019, and Ireland in 2020.[78]
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.[79][80][81] Where blasphemy is banned, it can be either some laws which directly punish religious blasphemy,[82] 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 ofblasphemous libel,[83] expression of opposition, or "vilification," of religion or of some religious practices,[84][85] religious insult,[86] orhate speech.[87]
The other twelve nations with anti-blasphemy laws in 2012 includedIndia andSingapore, as well asChristian majority states, includingDenmark (abolished in 2017),[77]Finland,Germany,Greece (abolished in 2019),Ireland (abolished in 2020), Italy,Malta (abolished in 2016), theNetherlands (abolished in 2014),Nigeria,Norway (abolished in 2015) andPoland.[11]Spain's "offending religious feelings" law is also, effectively, a prohibition on blasphemy.[90] 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".[81] Many Danes saw the "blasphemy law as helping integration because it promotes the acceptance of a multicultural and multi-faith society."[79]
In contemporary language, the notion of blasphemy is often usedhyperbolically (in a deliberately exaggerated manner). This usage has garnered some interest among linguists recently, and the wordblasphemy is a common case used for illustrative purposes.[94]
^Miriam Díez Bosch and Jordi Sànchez Torrents (2015).On blasphemy. Barcelona: Blanquerna Observatory on Media, Religion and Culture.ISBN978-84-941193-3-0.
^"Blasphemy". Random House Dictionary. Retrieved12 January 2015.Quote: impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.; the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
^Blasphemy Merriam Webster (July 2013); 1. great disrespect shown to God or to something holy 2. irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
^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
^Karesh, Sara; Hurvitz, Mitchell (2006).Encyclopedia of Judaism. United States: Facts on File. p. 180.It is considered blasphemy to utter God's personal names...Interestingly, this prohibition has crept into the practice of writing God's name in English. Many Jews will choose to write "G-d" instead of "God" to avoid blasphemy.
^Concannon, Cavan W. (2017).Assembling Early Christianity: Trade, Networks, and the Letters of Dionysios of Corinth. Cambridge University Press. p. 114.TheDidache cites Mark 3:28-29 and implicitly defines blaspheming the holy spirit as testing or examining a prophet who is speaking in the spirit (11:7). This is the sin that cannot be forgiven, though other sins can be resolved through repentance. Epiphanius, in his discussion of the heretics he calls the Alogi, says they have committed the unforgivable sin. Because they reject the Gospel of John, which was inspired by the holy spirit, their teaching is therefore contrary to what the spirit has said and liable to the penalty imposed by Jesus' saying.
^abcd"Blasphemy and the Original Meaning of the First Amendment".Harvard Law Review. 10 December 2021.Until well into the twentieth century, American law recognized blasphemy as proscribable speech. The blackletter rule was clear. Constitutional liberty entailed a right to articulate views on religion, but not a right to commit blasphemy — the offense of "maliciously reviling God", which encompassed "profane ridicule of Christ". 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, nineteenth-century American appellate courts consistently upheld proscriptions on blasphemy, drawing a line between punishable blasphemy and protected religious speech.
^abcNash, David (2007).Blasphemy in the Christian World. Oxford University Press. pp. 3–5.
^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."
^Nash, David (2007).Blasphemy in the Christian World. Oxford University Press. p. 4.
^abKnight, Frances (2016).Religion, Identity and Conflict in Britain. Routledge.
^Williams Levy, Leonard (1995).Blasphemy: Verbal Offense Against the Sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie. University of North Carolina Press Books. p. 242.
^abNetton, Ian Richard (1996).Text and Trauma: An East-West Primer. Routledge. p. 2.ISBN978-0-7007-0325-8.
^Saunders, Craig D. (1 March 2021).A Mediator in Matthew: An Analysis of the Son of Man's Function in the First Gospel. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 77.ISBN978-1-5326-9704-3.
^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 studies42.1 (1997): 39–70.
^Siraj Khan.Blasphemy against the Prophet, in Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture (ed: Coeli Fitzpatrick PhD, Adam Hani Walker).ISBN978-1-61069-177-2, pp. 59–67.
^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 Affairs12(4). pp. 16–26.
^Juan Eduardo Campo, ed. (2009). "Blasphemy".Encyclopedia of Islam. Infobase Publishing.
^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
^abKlausen, Jytte (2009).The Cartoons That Shook the World. Yale University Press.
^After Charlie Hebdo: Terror, Racism and Free Speech. Zed Books. 2017. p. 53-9.
^ab"Denmark still largely in support of 'blasphemy' law". IceNews. 2 October 2012. Retrieved17 May 2016.A recent survey has shown that Danish citizens still largely back the country's 'blasphemy' law. The law, which makes it illegal to "mock legal religions and faiths in Denmark", is supported by around 66 per cent of Danish voters, according to a recent survey conducted by the liberal group CEPOS. Speaking about the report, religious expert Tim Jensen from the University of Southern Denmark said, "Danes may see the blasphemy law as helping integration because it promotes the acceptance of a multicultural and multi-faith society. But it can also be problematic if it reflects a belief that the feelings of religious people have a special status and require special protection," the Berlingske news agency reports.
^Scolnicov, Anat (18 October 2010).The Right to Religious Freedom in International Law: Between Group Rights and Individual Rights. Routledge. p. 261.ISBN978-1-136-90705-0.A different argument for the retention of the offence of blasphemy (and for its extension to the protection of all religions in the UK [the offence protected only the majority religion]) has been offered by Parekh: a majority religion does not need the protection offered by an offence of blasphemy, but minority religions do because of their vulnerability in the face of the majority.
^ab"Danes overwhelmingly support their own blasphemy law".The Copenhagen Post. 21 September 2012. Retrieved17 May 2016.Denmark's own blasphemy law makes it an offence to "mock legal religions and faiths in Denmark", and according to a study carried out on behalf of the liberal think-tank CEPOS, 66 per cent of the 1,000 Danes questioned answered that the law should not be repealed.
^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 (forthcoming[when?]).
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1998) "The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon". In Carruthers & Boucher (1998: 184–200).[ISBN missing]
Glucksberg, S. (2001)Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.[ISBN missing]
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber (2002) "Truthfulness and relevance".Mind 111: 583–632.
