Blasphemous Content Meaning
Cortney Ruic
Blasphemy refers to an insult that shows contempt, disrespect or lack of reverence concerning a deity, an object considered sacred, or something considered inviolable.[1][2][3][4] Some religions regard blasphemy as a crime, including insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in Islam, speaking the "sacred name" in Judaism,[5] and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is "eternal sin" in Christianity.[6] It was also a crime under English common law.[7]
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.[8] By the 17th century, several historically Christian countries had legislation against blasphemy.[8] Blasphemy was proscribed speech in the U.S. until well into the 20th century.[7] 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 Scotland repealed its blasphemy laws in 2021.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.[9] As of 2019[update], 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.[10][11][12] Indian religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, have no concept of blasphemy and hence prescribe no punishment.[13][14][15]
Heresy received more attention than blasphemy throughout the Middle Ages because it was considered a more serious threat to Orthodoxy,[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 what was treated as isolated incidents of misbehavior. When iconoclasm and the fundamental understanding of the sacred became more contentious matters during the Reformation, blasphemy started to be regarded as similar to heresy.[19]
The intellectual culture of the early English Enlightenment had 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.[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 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 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, nineteenth-century American appellate courts consistently upheld proscriptions on blasphemy, drawing a line between punishable blasphemy and protected religious speech."[7]
The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were repealed in England & Wales the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. In the 18th and 19th centuries, this meant that promoting atheism could be a crime and was vigorously prosecuted.[24] 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:[20]
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 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."[27]
In the Catholic Church, there are specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy.[34] 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.[35] The Raccoltabook includes a number of such prayers.[36] 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.[37]
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.[41] 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.[42][43] 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.[44]
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.[45] During the inquisition, sects deemed heretical such as the Waldensians were also charged with blasphemy.[46]
Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam.[48][49] The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy.[50] The hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, which may include death.[50][51] 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.[52] 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.[50] 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.[53] 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.[54] 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 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.[55] 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".[56] 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'.[57]
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".[58] 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."[59]
93ddb68554