Should blasphemy be a gosh-darned prosecutable offence?
 

My immediate motivation for starting this thread is a case which has just been tried in court in Pennsylvania. A fourteen-year-old boy has been convicted of blasphemy after posting a photo of himself in a simulated sex act with a statue of Jesus. His punishment is 350 hours of community service plus a curfew keeping him indoors after 10 PM.

Truth Wins Out has condemned this judgment in this article:
[URL]http://www.twocare.org/truth-wins-out-condemns-rogue-das-punishment-for-child-convicted-of-blasphemy[/URL]
(WARNING for those who could be offended: the article reproduces the offending photo of the boy with the statue of Jesus.)

[QUOTE][INDENT]“[COLOR=#222222]This is an outrage and a blatant violation of the United States Constitution,” said Truth Wins Out Executive Director Wayne Besen. “It’s pitiful that this man’s [the rogue district attorney's] sense of his own responsibilities is so malformed that he felt the need to go after a minor child who apparently hurt his feelings. We do hope [rogue district attorney] Higgins feels like a big man today.”[/COLOR]
[/INDENT]Higgins released a statement on the case, explaining his reasoning:[INDENT][COLOR=#000000]“I know that there are many groups that say this case is about religious rights, and quite frankly, they are right,” said Higgins in a written statement. “But it is the religious rights of the Christian organization that owns the statue and has placed it for display on their private property that have been implicated. They have every right to practice their faith unmolested. In American, we all enjoy the right to freedom of expression and the freedom to practice our religious beliefs without interference, but that right ends where those same rights of another begin.”[/COLOR]
[/INDENT][/QUOTE]Aside from this case, what are the wider issues surrounding blasphemy? Should it be an offence at all? If so, to what extent? In general, where are the boundaries between the right to freedom of expression and the requirement not to offend other people's (religious) sensibilities?

[QUOTE]Aside from this case, what are the wider issues surrounding blasphemy? Should it be an offence at all? If so, to what extent? In general, where are the boundaries between the right to freedom of expression and the requirement not to offend other people's (religious) sensibilities? [/QUOTE]Regardless of the "malformed" opinions and pretzel logic of Nino Scalia[B]**[/B] and his ilk, this case is a Constitutional abomination. The government has no business enforcing religious conformity. That such force, and waste of resources, is brought to bear on an adolescent prank, which "neither picked [anybody's] pocket nor broke [anybody's] leg" is frosting on this Inquisitor's self-righteous cake.

[B]**[/B][URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html[/URL]

Like heresy, blasphemy has no place in even minor criminal charges. That such an antiquated law is revived today is not only dead wrong, it shows just how fragile the prosecutor's beliefs and ego are.

The ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation should be taking this boy's case to appeal.
[URL]http://ffrf.org/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.aclupa.org/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.twocare.org/media-advisory-organizations-to-hold-demonstration-supporting-teen-being-charged-under-pennsylvania-blasphemy-law/[/URL]

Admitting blasphemy to be an offence implies one or more recognised religions. It is obvious that if any religion can determine what is blasphemy, anything will be a blasphemy. Another thing is that the practices of one religion can be the blasphemy of another.

Blasphemy can only exist in places where there is no freedom of religion, that is, in places where there is a unique and mandatory religion.

Jacob

The proper charges *might* have been vandalism, indecent exposure, trespassing, etc. Any of those would be appropriately punished by the curfew and community service. Methinks the District Attorney simply has a religious axe to grind and saw this defendant as an opportunity to make an example. Perhaps the one bright side of this ruling is that it will be appealed and that will encourage an evaluation of this (probably four-centuries-old) blasphemy "law" in the State or Federal appellate courts, ultimately getting the law repealed as unconstitutional.

And, everyone is absolutely right - the admission of "blasphemy" as an offense immediately implies the existence of a State-sanctioned religion. Not good.

You'd think Pennsylvania would know better. One of the tenets of the colony's founding in the 1600s by William Penn was religious tolerance and freedom. Hence the settling of the constantly-persecuted Quakers in Pennsylvania.

Religion and state need to be kept completely separate. Once upon a time, the church WAS the state and life was horrible because of it.

I agree with the vandalism / indecent exposure etc.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;384356]Religion and state need to be kept completely separate.[/QUOTE]

That is a statement of Faith. One I agree with, but still based on Faith as stated.

Please present proof that Religion and State NEED to be kept separate.

Since God does not exist, there can be no such thing as blasphemy.

[QUOTE=BudgieJane;384359]Since God does not exist, there can be no such thing as blasphemy.[/QUOTE]

Says you.... :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;384360]Says you.... :smile:[/QUOTE]

Says a lot of other people, too, including [URL="https://richarddawkins.net/"]Richard Dawkins[/URL].

[QUOTE=BudgieJane;384365]Says a lot of other people, too, including [URL="https://richarddawkins.net/"]Richard Dawkins[/URL].[/QUOTE]

It is still a statement of faith - claiming that you are sure there is no higher power assumes you have means at your disposal to make such a determination, i.e. you claim there is no "unknowable" there. See the contradiction?

Like Bohr did with quantum mechanics - "we should only speak of what we can observe or measure by some means" - all someone with a scientific bent can say is that there is no scientific basis to claim existence of a higher power. But, if (say) some kind of higher power were responsible for bringing the known universe into being in a fashion which left no imprint of the deity except in the act of existence of said universe and an apparent singularity "when all things began", such a deity would be outside of science's ability to discern.

OTOH, in the context of an allegedly secular society, shared institutions such as the law should only deal in what is knowable and provable by the best generally-agreed-upon means, which excludes religion.

[QUOTE=BudgieJane;384365]Says a lot of other people, too, including [URL="https://richarddawkins.net/"]Richard Dawkins[/URL].[/QUOTE]

Never trust anyone who says they know god doesn't exist. I'm serious when I make a statement like that.

I respect Dawkins deeply, but IMO he's taken the message too far into the unsupportable. (I understand the reasons, from a Public Relations perspective).

Contrast Dawkins with, for example, Penrose. We just CAN'T know. Accept that, and I'll listen to you.