| |
Blasphemy is the disrespectful use of the name of one or more gods. It may include using sacred names as stress expletives without intention to pray or speak of sacred matters; it is also sometimes defined as language expressing disapproved beliefs, or disbelief.
Many cultures disapprove of speech or writing which defames the God or gods of their established religions, and these restrictions have the force of law in some countries.
"Blasphemy" may be used by extension to describe any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Blasphemy' Start a new discussion about 'Blasphemy' Answer questions from other users |
Quotations
Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought.
Let the gods avenge themselves.
Roman law maxim on blasphemy.
Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me.
Blasphemy is a blast for me.
Bumper Sticker
Encyclopedia
Blasphemy is the disrespectful use of the name of one or more gods. It may include using sacred names as stress expletives without intention to pray or speak of sacred matters; it is also sometimes defined as language expressing disapproved beliefs, or disbelief.
Many cultures disapprove of speech or writing which defames the God or gods of their established religions, and these restrictions have the force of law in some countries.
"Blasphemy" may be used by extension to describe any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem. In this broader sense the term is used by Sir Francis Bacon in the Advancement of Learning, when he speaks of "blasphemy against teaching".
Sometimes the word "blasphemy" is used loosely to mean any profane language, for example in "With much hammering and blasphemy, the locomotive's replacement spring was finally fitted.".
The public domain 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines blasphemy as:
- Blasphemy (Blas"phe*my) n. [L. blasphemia, Gr. : cf. OF. blasphemie.]
- An indignity offered to God in words, writing, or signs; impiously irreverent words or signs addressed to, or used in reference to, God; speaking evil of God; also, the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of deity. When used generally in statutes or at common law, blasphemy is the use of irreverent words or signs in reference to the Supreme Being in such a way as to produce scandal or provoke violence.
- Figuratively, of things held in high honor: Calumny; abuse; vilification.
Etymology
The word "blasphemy" came via Middle English blasfemen and Old French blasfemer and Late Latin blasphemare from Greek ß?asf?µ??, from ß??pt? = "I injure" and f?µ? = "reputation". From blasphemare also came Old French blasmer, from which English "blame" came.
Compare "euphemy", which is a little-used word meaning "describing something as better than it is", as in euphemism.
Blasphemy laws
There has been a recent tendency in Western countries towards the repeal or reform of blasphemy laws, and these laws are only infrequently enforced where they exist.
Other terms for blasphemy are blasphemous libel, defamation of religion, vilification of religion, and religious vilification.
Blasphemy laws exist in these countries:
Australia
The Commonwealth of Australia
The Commonwealth does not recognize blasphemy as an offence. In 1991, the Australian Law Reform Commission proposed the removal of all references to blasphemy in federal legislation. All that remains as a law against blasphemy is a prohibition against the registration of a ship which has a blasphemous name.
Tasmania
The Tasmanian Criminal Code makes blasphemous libel a crime but leaves its definition to common law.
A person who is aggrieved because aspersions are cast upon his religious belief or affiliation or religious activity does not need to file a complaint under the Criminal Code. He can seek redress under the Anti-Discrimination Act (1998).
New South Wales
Criminal law in New South Wales is currently governed by the Crimes Act 1900. The Act names blasphemous libel as an offence, but leaves the definition of blasphemy to the common law. The Defamation Act 1974 makes reference to the offence.
The last successful prosecution for blasphemous libel in New South Wales took place in 1871. The case was R. v. William Lorando Jones (unreported, Parramatta Quarter Sessions, Simpson J., February 18, 1871). In that case, the elderly Mr. Jones was found guilty for saying that the Old Testament was immoral and unsuitable for a female readership. The Court sentenced Mr. Jones to a fine of £100 and two years in jail. A public outcry over the sentence resulted in the release of Mr. Jones four weeks later.
Queensland
Queensland's Criminal Code Act of 1899 abolished blasphemy by repealing the Blasphemy Act of 1697. The Objectionable Literature Act of 1954 allows the state to prevent the distribution of literature which is blasphemous.
A person who is aggrieved because aspersions are cast upon his religious belief or affiliation or religious activity can seek redress under the Anti-Discrimination Act (1991).
Western Australia
The Criminal Code Compilation Act of 1913 abolished blasphemy by repealing the Blasphemy Act of 1697.
Victoria
It is unknown whether blasphemy is a crime in Victoria where it might yet exist under common law.
The Crown last laid a charge of blasphemous libel in 1919. The case concerned journalist Robert Ross, who had published a satirical piece in which Bolsheviks ransack heaven. The prosecutor dropped the charge, but proceeded on a charge of sending blasphemous materials through the mail. The Court convicted Ross, and sentenced him to six months of hard labour.
A person who is aggrieved because someone is engaging in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of him on the ground of his religious belief or activity can seek redress under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.
South Australia
It is unknown whether blasphemy is a crime in South Australia where it might yet exist under common law.
In 1977, the Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee stated that “today it would seem anachronistic to charge anyone with blasphemous libel.”
The Northern Territory
It is unknown whether blasphemy is a crime in the Northern Territory where it might yet exist under common law.
The Australian Capital Territory
By its Law Reform (Abolitions & Repeals) Act 1996, the Australian Capital Territory abolished the crime of blasphemous libel.
Austria
In Austria, Articles 188, 189 of the penal code relate to blasphemy.
Brazil
In Brazil, blasphemy is a crime, but is very uncommon a person be condemned for it; in about fifty years just one person was condemned: a Universal Church of the Kingdom of God preacher who kicked a statue of Virgin Mary on a TV program.
Canada
The Criminal Code of Canada lists blasphemous libel as a crime; but the Code's provision contravenes provisions in the superseding Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Crown last prosecuted a charge of blasphemous libel in R. v. Rahard (1935). In that case, the court adopted an argument that prosecutor E. J. Murphy had proffered in the case of R. v. Sperry (unreported) 1926. Mr. Murphy put the issue this way:
- The question is, is the language used calculated and intended to insult the feelings of and the deepest religious convictions of the great majority of the persons amongst whom we live? If so, they are not to be tolerated any more than any other nuisance is tolerated. We must not do things that are outrages to the general feeling of propriety among the persons amongst whom we live.
In Rahard, the Court found the Rev. Victor Rahard of the Anglican Church guilty of blasphemous libel for his aspersions upon the Roman Catholic Church.
Because blasphemy appears to be an obsolete crime in Canada, Canadians complain instead of hate speech. The Criminal Code of Canada prohibits hate speech that targets an "identifiable group," which includes a religious group. Canada's provinces and territories have human rights commissions or tribunals which can award compensation in matters of hate speech.
Denmark
In Denmark, Paragraph 140 of the penal code is about blasphemy. The paragraph has not been used since 1938 when a Nazi group was convicted for antisemitic propaganda. The hate speech paragraph (266b) is used more frequently. Abolition of the blasphemy clause was proposed in 2004, but failed to gain a majority. It has been discussed since, especially after the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.
European initiatives
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg adopted on 29 June 2007 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. In this area, there is also considerable case-law by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Finland
In Finland, Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code relate to blasphemy. Unsuccessful attempts were made to rescind the law in 1914, 1917, 1965, 1970 and 1998.
Germany
In Germany, blasphemy is covered by Article 166 of the Strafgesetzbuch, the German criminal law. In 2006, Manfred van H. (also know as "Mahavo") was prosecuted for blasphemy.
Iran
Blasphemy laws in Islamic Republic of Iran are based on sharia, the body of Islamic religious law.
Israel
In Israel, blasphemy is covered by Articles 170, 173 of the penal code.
Jordan
In October 2008, the prosecutor general of a magistrate's court in Amman charged Islam Samhan with insulting Islam and the Koran as well as violating the press and publications law for incorporating verses of the Koran into a book of love poetry.
The Netherlands
In The Netherlands, blasphemy is covered by Article 147 of the penal code. Gerard Reve was prosecuted in 1966 for allegedly breaking a law against blasphemy. In his novel Nader tot U (Nearer to Thee) he describes the narrator's love-making to God, incarnated in a three year old donkey. Reve was acquitted. In April 1968 he was acquitted by the High Council. When proposing to lift the law in 2008, Minister of Justice Hirsh Ballin considered that a) no true deity would need human protection, and b) there are more general rules in place to regulate civilized interaction.
New Zealand
In New Zealand, Section 123 of the Crimes Act 1961 allows for imprisonment up to one year for anyone who publishes any "blasphemous libel".
The only person prosecuted for blasphemous libel in New Zealand was John Glover, publisher of The Maoriland Worker (a newspaper), in 1922. The Crown laid a charge of blasphemous libel because the 12 October 1921 issue of The Maoriland Worker included two poems by British poet Siegfried Sassoon. Siegfried's poem 'Stand-to: Good Friday Morning' includes the following three lines:
- O Jesus, send me a wound to-day,
- And I’ll believe in Your bread and wine,
- And get my bloody old sins washed white!
The case was tried in the Supreme Court in 1922. The prosecution failed.
In 1998, the Crown decided not to prosecute Te Papa museum for displaying Tania Kovats' Virgin in a Condom. In 2006, the Crown decided not to pursue blasphemy charges against CanWest, a broadcaster, for airing an episode of South Park featuring a menstruating Virgin Mary statue.
Rather than complaining of blasphemy, a New Zealander can complain of hate speech. New Zealand prohibits hate speech by its Human Rights Act 1993.
Pakistan
Among Muslim-majority countries, Pakistan has the strictest anti-blasphemy laws. In 1982, President Zia ul-Haq introduced Section 295B to the Pakistan Penal Code punishing "defiling the Holy Qur'an" with life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295C was introduced, mandating the death penalty for "use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet".
In 1990, the Federal Shari’ah Court ruled that the penalty should be a mandatory death sentence with no right to a reprieve or a pardon. This is binding, but the government has yet to formally amend the law, which means that the provision for life sentence still formally exists, and is used by the government as a concession to critics of the death penalty. In 2004, the Pakistani parliament approved a law to reduce the scope of the blasphemy laws. The amendment to the law means that police officials will have to investigate accusations of blasphemy to ensure that they are well founded, before presenting criminal charges.
However, the law is used against political adversaries or personal enemies, by Muslim fundamentalists against Christians, Hindus and Sikhs, or for personal revenge. Especially qadiani are victims of the blasphemy law. They claim to be Muslims themselves, but under the blasphemy law, they are not allowed to use Islamic vocabulary or rituals.
The Pakistani Catholic bishops' Justice and Peace Commission complained in July 2005 that since 1988, some 650 people had been falsely accused and arrested under the blasphemy law. Moreover, over the same period, some 20 people accused of the same offense had been killed. As of July 2005, 80 Christians were in prison accused of blasphemy.
Christians and Muslims in Pakistan condemned Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code as blasphemous. On 3 June 2006, Pakistan banned the film. Culture Minister Gulab Jamal said: "Islam teaches us to respect all the prophets of God Almighty and degradation of any prophet is tantamount to defamation of the rest."
United Kingdom
The blasphemy laws of England and Wales were abolished on 8 July 2008.
Blasphemy laws in the United Kingdom were specific to blasphemy against Christianity. The last attempted prosecution under these laws was in 2007 when the fundamentalist group Christian Voice sought a private prosecution against the BBC over its broadcasting of the show Jerry Springer: The Opera (which includes a scene depicting Jesus, dressed as a baby, professing to be "a bit gay"). The charges were rejected by the City of Westminster magistrates court. Christian Voice applied to have this ruling overturned by the High Court, but the application was rejected. The court found that the common law blasphemy offences specifically did not apply to stage productions (s. 2(4) of the Theatres Act 1968) and broadcasts (s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990).
The last successful blasphemy prosecution (also a private prosecution) was Whitehouse v. Lemon in 1977, when Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News, was found guilty. His newspaper had published James Kirkup's poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name, which allegedly vilified Christ and his life. Lemon was fined £500 and given a suspended sentence of nine months imprisonment. It had been "touch and go", said the judge, whether he would actually send Lemon to jail. In 2002, a deliberate and well-publicised public repeat reading of the poem took place on the steps of St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, but failed to lead to any prosecution.
The last person in Britain to be imprisoned for blasphemy was John William Gott on 9 December 1921. He had three previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing two pamphlets which satirised the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7), comparing Jesus to a circus clown. He was sentenced to nine months' hard labour.
In 1697, a Scottish court hanged Thomas Aikenhead for blasphemy. The last prosecution for blasphemy in Scotland was in 1843.
On 5 March 2008, an amendment was passed to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 abolishing the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel (common law is abolished, not repealed). The Act received royal assent on 8 May 2008, and the relevant section came into force on 8 July 2008.
United States of America
Some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws states, for example:
- . Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:
- . If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.
According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at
, unaltered in text. As late as 1939, this statute was still . But in 1972, in Maryland v. Irving K. West, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) declared the blasphemy law unconstitutional.
The last person to be jailed in the United States specifically for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838, as decided by the Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Kneeland. However, this was prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 incorporating the Bill of Rights to apply to the states and not just the federal government. From 1925 onward, the Supreme Court began a consistent application of the Bill of Rights to the states.
The last U.S. conviction for blasphemy—at least that of any significance—was of atheist activist Charles Lee Smith. In 1928 he rented a storefront in Little Rock, Arkansas, and gave out free atheist literature there. The sign in the window read: "Evolution Is True. The Bible's a Lie. God's a Ghost." For this he was charged with violating the city ordinance against blasphemy. Because he was an atheist and therefore couldn't swear the court's religious oath to tell the truth, he wasn't permitted to testify in his own defense. The judge then dismissed the original charge, replacing it with one of distributing obscene, slanderous, or scurrilous literature. Smith was convicted, fined $25, and served most of a twenty-six-day jail sentence. His high-profile fast while behind bars drew national media attention. Upon his release, he immediately resumed his atheist activities, was again charged with blasphemy, and this time the charge held. In his trial he was again denied the right to testify and was sentenced to ninety days in jail and a fine of $100. Released on $1,000 bail, Smith appealed the verdict. The case then dragged on for several years until it was finally dismissed.
The US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."
Others
Blasphemy in Judaism
In the third book of the Torah, Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death", see also List of capital crimes in the Torah.
Blasphemy in Christianity
Christian theology may condemn blasphemy, as in the Luke 12:10, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable - the eternal sin. However, there is dispute over what form this blasphemy may take and whether it qualifies as blasphemy in the conventional sense.
In the time of Jesus, when Christian ideas relied upon the influence of natural authority against the then secular religious power of the Second Jewish Temple, this admonishment may be interpreted as warning against an actual reaction from the Holy Spirit in the form of a curse that can irreparably harm a person (and thus be unforgivable but not by dictate). This statement in effect establishes the importance of this aspect of the Godhead, rather than setting an arbitrary law.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has a more extensive article on .
Catholic prayers and reparations for blasphemy
In the Catholic tradition, there are specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy. 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. The Raccolta Catholic prayer book includes a number of such prayers.
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
Blasphemy in Islam
Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of any other prophet mentioned in the Qur'an. The Qur'an also states that it is blasphemy to claim that there is more than one god or that Jesus Christ (the son of Mary) is the son of God (5.017). Speaking ill of God is also blasphemy. In Islam, blasphemy is considered a sin. The Quran says "He forgives all sins, except disbelieving in God (blasphemy)". In Islam if a person dies while in blasphemy, they will not enter heaven, except if said person repented before death. However, in Islam, interjections such as "God!"; "Good Lord"; or "for God's sake" are not considered blasphemy, unless the word "God" is replaced with another name that implies worship to someone or something other than God. For example "Jesus!" or "Holy cow" are considered blasphemy because they denote worship to something other than God.
The following Qur'anic verses appear to suggest that there is no worldly punishment for blasphemy, controverting the notion that blasphemy is punishable by death:
Blasphemy and the United Nations
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), approved by the United Nations in 1948, contains articles which militate against the idea that blasphemy is a crime. Article 7 says everyone is equal before the law. Article 21 supports democracy not theocracy nor ochlocracy. Article 18 declares that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Article 19 says everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. By adopting these articles, most nations, it seems, in 1948, accepted the idea that a country did not need to protect its gods, its preachers, and its religious majority from hurt feelings.
Although most Islamic states were signatories to the UDHR, those states had not, it seems, accepted that blasphemy should be abolished because, on 5 August 1990, the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) adopted The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). The CDHRI's preamble says that Muslims are the "vicegerent of Allah on Earth" and that Allah made the Islamic community, the Ummah, "the best community." The preamble says the CDHRI is a guide from that community to humanity about "a dignified life" which, it seems, means a life lived in obedience to Shariah. The preamble states that fundamental rights and freedoms "are an integral part of the Islamic religion" and "are binding divine commands." Articles 24 and 25 of the CDHRI make all the rights and freedoms stipulated in it subject to Shariah and only to Shariah.
Shariah is not a code of law but a legal system. Countries and communities differ in their interpretation and application of the laws in that system. Nevertheless, all Islamic countries and communities condemn blasphemy. Countries and communities can find support for their actions against blasphemy and against non-Muslims in the Quran and in the hadiths.
Many commentators have said that Sharia is dangerous and intolerable. The European Court for Human Rights has declared that Sharia "is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy." The Court said:
- It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from [the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms], particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
In February 1992, Adama Dieng, secretary-general of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), delivered a statement about the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on behalf of the ICJ and on behalf of the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights. The statement said of the CDHRI:
- 1) It gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based;
- 2) It introduces, in the name of the defence of human rights, an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women;
- 3) It reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standard in effect in a number of Muslim countries;
- 4) It confirms under cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)" the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, that attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.
The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) says some limitation on freedom of speech is necessary to protect religion, but a Sharia-based limitation "is in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression, and ... is incompatible with the universal philosophy of human rights."
In 1997, the High Commissioner for Human Rights rejected the complaints about the CDHRI, and included it in A Compilation of International Instruments (vol. II (1997), pp. 478-84), a collection of documents that promote human rights. Furthermore, on 15 March 2002, Mary Robinson, High Commissioner for Human Rights, declared at an OIC symposium that "no one can deny the acceptance of the universality of human rights by Islamic States."
In 1999, at the instigation of the OIC, Pakistan brought before the Commission on Human Rights a resolution entitled 'Defamation of Islam'. The purpose of the resolution was to have the Commission stand up against what the OIC claimed was a campaign to defame Islam.
Some members of the Human Rights Commission put forward amendments that called for the protection of all religions. Consequently, the Commission adopted a non-binding resolution entitled 'Defamation of Religions'. Each year between 1999 and 2006, the Commission approved very similar resolutions about protecting religions in general and about protecting Islam in particular.
In 2005, Yemen introduced a resolution entitled 'Combating Defamation of Religions' in the General Assembly (60th Session). 101 states voted in favour of the resolution.
In March 2006, the Human Rights Commission, with 47 members, became the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The Council approved a resolution entitled 'Combating Defamation of Religions', and submitted it to the General Assembly. In the General Assembly, 58% (111) of the member states of the United Nations (192 states) voted for the Resolution; 28% opposed it; 14% abstained. Russia and China, permanent members of the UN Security Council, voted for the Resolution.
In April 2007 (4th session), the UNHRC adopted a resolution which was entitled 'Combating Defamation of Religions' and which was much like the preceding resolutions on that subject. Russia, Cuba, and China voted with the majority (24 countries), which favoured the resolution.
In August 2007, the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council, Doudou Diène, reported to the General Assembly "on the manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights." Among other recommendations, the Special Rapporteur recommended that the Member States promote dialogue between cultures, civilizations, and religions taking into consideration:
- (a) The need to provide equal treatment to the combat of all forms of defamation of religions, thus avoiding hierarchization of forms of discrimination, even though their intensity may vary according to history, geography and culture;
- (b) The historical and cultural depth of all forms of defamation of religions, and therefore the need to complement legal strategies with an intellectual and ethical strategy relating to the processes, mechanisms and representations which constitute those manifestations over time;
- ...
- (e) The need to pay particular attention and vigilance to maintain a careful balance between secularism and the respect of freedom of religion. A growing anti-religious culture and rhetoric is a central source of defamation of all religions and discrimination against their believers and practitioners. In this context governments should pay a particular attention to guaranteeing and protecting the places of worship and culture of all religions.
On 18 December 2007, the General Assembly voted on another resolution entitled 'Combating Defamation of Religions'. 108 states voted in favour of the resolution; 51 voted against it; and 25 abstained. The resolution required the Secretary General to report to the sixty-third session of the General Assembly on the implementation of the resolution, and to have regard for “the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world.”
In 2008, the UNHRC passed another resolution about the defamation of religion. 24 members were in favour; 9 were opposed; 14 abstained.
On 27 March 2008, the UNHRC requested that the High Commissioner for Human Rights compile a report on “relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions.” The High Commissioner presented the report on 5 September 2008.
On 28 March 2008, the UNHRC asked its Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to bring to the Council's attention all instances of racism and blasphemy. In the words of the resolution, the Rapporteur is to “report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination ....”
Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, addressed the UNHRC on 19 September 2008. He delivered the report prepared by Doudou Diène. The report called on Member States to shift the present discussion in international fora from the idea of "defamation of religions" to the legal concept: "incitement to national, racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence," which was grounded on international legal instruments.
On 12 and 13 November 2008, the United Nations convened a special session of the General Assembly to foster support for a global law against blasphemy.
On 24 November 2008, during the Sixty-third Session, the General Assembly's Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian & Cultural) approved a resolution entitled 'Combating defamation of religions'. The resolution requests "the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session." 85 states voted in favor of the resolution; 50 states voted against the resolution; 42 states abstained.
On 18 December 2008, the General Assembly adopted the draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/63/430/Add.2) by a recorded vote of 86 in favour, 53 against, and 42 abstentions.
Contemporary usage
In contemporary language, the notion of blasphemy is often used ironically, as a form of hyperbole. As an example, one might express that doubting Wikipedia as a good source of information is blasphemous. This usage has garnered some interest among linguists recently, and the word 'blasphemy' is a common case used for illustrative purposes.
See also
Further reading
- Maledicta: The International Journal of Verbal Aggression (ISSN US 0363-3659)
- Levy, L. Blasphemy. Chapel Hill, 1993.
-
- Dartevelle, P., S Borg, Denis, Ph., Robyn, J. (eds.). Blasphèmes et libertés. Paris: CERF, 1993
- Plate, S. Brent Blasphemy: Art that Offends (London: Black Dog Publishing, 2006) [ISBN 1904772536]
External links
- The Rational Response Squad:
- .
- - Blasphemy
- - Blasphemy
|
