Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Blasphemy laws: state-sponsored religion on steroids
Q: Atheists are others are protesting a new law in Ireland, under which a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if "he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion." The penalty is a fine of up to about $35,000. Should Ireland or any nation have a law against blasphemy?
Thomas Helwys, founder of the first Baptist church in England, published a "Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity" in 1611-12. This treatise was a cutting edge diatribe advocating for complete religious liberty and the freedom of conscience. He even sent a copy of it to King James I with this revolutionary utterance penned by Helwys on the cover:
The king is a mortal man and not God, therefore has no power over the immortal souls of his subjects, to make laws or ordinances for them, and to set spiritual lords over them. If the king has authority to make spiritual lords and laws, then he is an immortal God and not a mortal man.
For his trouble Helwys was thrown into Newgate Prison along with his wife, where they eventually perished.
Ever since, Baptists and all champions of religious liberty and the cause of conscience have condemned theocracies and attempts on the part of government officials to dictate spiritual matters, including passing blasphemy laws.
The U. S. Supreme Court has observed, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official ... can prescribe what shall be orthodox in ... religion or others matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). Indeed, the Court has also appropriately said that, "the law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect." Watson v. Jones (1872).
Yes, blasphemy laws -- state-sponsored religion on steroids -- have always been the death knell to religious liberty and the precursor of persecution. This goes for 17th Century England, 18th Century Colonial America (in Vermont, for example, blasphemy was a capital offense), Ireland today (it should know better), and even the United Nations in its attempt to condemn "defamation of religions" by passing what amount to resolutions endorsing a world-wide blasphemy law.
No, what we need to do in the United States is robustly enforce the two clauses protecting religious freedom in the First Amendment: No Establishment (keeping government from promoting religion), Free Exercise (keeping government from harming religion) and, at the very least, keep government out of the business of "prescribing what shall be orthodox in religion."
As my friend Charles Haynes writes in his biweekly column, internationally, we would do well to embrace Article XVIII of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the U.N. itself in 1948, which provides that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Finally, blasphemy laws are simply unenforceable. Even if it were proper for a government official to make such determinations, how does one define "grossly abusive or insulting" utterances? How does one measure "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents"? It simply cannot be done. This problem is exacerbated by the fundamentally fair notion in Anglo-American jurisprudence that before someone can be convicted of a crime, he or she needs to be put on notice of what constitutes the crime. This blasphemy law from Ireland, and others like it, fall flat on this score, too and, for reasons having as much to do with "due process" as with religious liberty, should be voided for vagueness.
In short, blasphemy laws suck: always have, always will.
By
J. Brent Walker
|
January 5, 2010; 12:00 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Blasphemy a crime against God, not government |
Next: Two cheers for blasphemy
Posted by: mostberg | January 13, 2010 11:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
My sons in Christ:
I encourage all men to convert to, and be confirmed in, the Roman Catholic Church of Pedophilia. Even the body of Christ cannot compare to the body of a boy!
Posted by: PopeBentdickXIV | January 10, 2010 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Razzl, I think you might be confusing the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) with the Southern Baptist Convention. The BJC has always fought for the separation of church and state, believing it is good for both. www.BJConline.org
Posted by: Csquare2 | January 8, 2010 3:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Razzl, I think you might be confusing the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty with the Southern Baptist Convention. The BJC has always worked for the separation of church and state, believing it is good for both. www.BJConline.org
Posted by: Csquare2 | January 8, 2010 3:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Nice try, Mr. Walker, but in our own time your own Baptist denomination has been most identified with attempting to impose theocratic rule on America in defiance of the fair and wise legal separation of church and state. For you to pretend this is not the case is delusional or perhaps nostalgic, but will certainly not be ignored by those of us who have been offended by the Baptist assault on American civil rights and liberties...
Posted by: razzl | January 7, 2010 9:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
This dismay with the law in Ireland in effect protecting the Catholic religion from gross assault - can we remind of the dung and urine on Christian symbols? - does raise parallels in my mind. How about the widespread anger out by the Muslims regarding the poorly drawn picture of one of their most significant religious figures? Are we equally appalled by that? And there is is currently before the United Nations a proposal sponsored by some which which make illegal any such even minor attack on another religion - to actually include missionaries. Presently Christians seeding churches in predominantly Muslim countries are having churches burned or worse. Is the condemnation expressed here broad enough and lacking in hypocracy enough to include that? Or are we not concerned there is a fear out there to even mention Islam as doing far more harshly what Ireland is doing. And what gets Muslims agitated is apparently at a much lower level of setting the bar? In other words if we are going to talk about restrictions in a religious context comparison is an intelligent way to do it - unless, as I say, fear dominates the discussion. There is a level in any belief system where attacks and criticism are unfair and gross and a discussion of where the line should be draw is reasonable. Muslims should join this discussion I would think. Open and honest communication is in the best spirit of respect for each other. We may be missing something that should be heard to keep from being one-sided here.