blasphemy

Blasphemy is the use of reference to one or more gods in a manner considered objectionable by the relevant religious authorities. 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 disbelief or disapproved beliefs, or ridiculing religious figures or symbols. In some countries, these restrictions have the force of law, and may use the terms blasphemous libel, defamation of religion, vilification of religion, and religious vilification. "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.

History

The word "blasphemy" came via Middle English blasfemen and Old French blasfemer and Late Latin blasphemare from Greek βλασφημέω, from βλάπτω = "I injure" and φήμη = "reputation". From blasphemare also came Old French blasmer, from which English "blame" came.

Compare "euphemy"^{[dubious – discuss]}, which is a little-used word meaning "describing something as better than it is", as in euphemism.

Blasphemy laws

This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (July 2009)

Countries use blasphemy laws to victimize non-members of, and dissident members of, the ruling sect or cult. Countries with a state religion are the most punitive users of blasphemy laws. Some countries have a law which substitutes for a blasphemy law or which complements it. Such a law may forbid "religious insult" or "religious vilification" or "hate speech."

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

The satirical Alexamenos graffito is believed to be the earliest known representation of Jesus.

Christian theology condemns blasphemy. One verse from the Bible that directly concerns the sin reads as follows:

In addition, it is spoken of 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.

Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious, or even the most serious, sin by the major creeds and Church theologians.

• Thomas Aquinas says that “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. … it is called the most grievous sin, for as much as it makes every sin more grievous.”^[1]
• The Book of Concord calls blasphemy “the greatest sin that can be outwardly committed”.^[2]
• The Baptist 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.”^[3]
• The Heidelberg 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”.^[4]
• The Westminster 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.”^[5]
• Calvin found it intolerable “when a person is accused of blasphemy, to lay the blame on the ebullition of passion, as if God were to endure the penalty whenever we are provoked.”^[6]

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a more extensive article on blasphemy.

Catholic prayers and reparations for blasphemy

In the Catholic Church, there are specific prayers and devotions as Acts of Reparation for blasphemy.^[7] 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.^[8] The Raccolta Catholic prayer book includes a number of such prayers.^[9]

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.^[10]

Writer Salman Rushdie was accused of blasphemy and subject of a fatwā issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in February 1989.

Blasphemy in Islam

Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of Muhammad or of any other prophet mentioned in the Qur'an, or to claim that there is more than one god or that Jesus Christ (the son of Mary) is the son of God (5.017), or to speak ill of God, or to depict any of them in image.

Blasphemy and the United Nations

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2009)

This section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. See the talk page for details. (July 2009)

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 blasphemy.

Although most Islamic states are member states of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which makes binding provisions similar to the mentioned provisions of 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 Sharia. 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 Sharia and only to Sharia.^[11]

Sharia 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.^[12]

Some 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.^[13]

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.^[14]

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ)^[15], a Christian legal advocacy group, 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."^[16]

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."^[17]

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.^[18]

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'.^[19] Each year between 1999 and 2006, the Commission approved very similar resolutions about protecting religions in general and about protecting Islam in particular.^[20]

In 2005, Yemen introduced a resolution entitled 'Combating Defamation of Religions' in the General Assembly (60th Session).^[21] 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.^[22] 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.^[23]

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.^[24] 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.^[25]

On 18 December 2007, the General Assembly voted on another resolution entitled 'Combating Defamation of Religions'.^[26] 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.^[18]

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.”^[27] The High Commissioner presented the report on 5 September 2008.^[28]

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 ....”^[29]

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 ^[30] 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.^[31]

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.^[32]

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'.^[33] 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.^[34]

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.^[35]

On 26 March 2009, the UNHRC passed a resolution, proposed by Pakistan, which condemned the "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation by a vote of 23-11, with 13 abstentions. The resolution stated that "Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence" and that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." Supporters argued that the resolution is necessary to prevent the defamation of Islam while opponents argued that such a resolution would restrict freedom of speech.^[36][37]

In May 2009, the Council of Europe's Venice Commission issued a legal opinion that blasphemy should not be illegal. ^[38]

At the UNHRC's twelfth session (Autumn 2009), the United States and Egypt introduced a resolution which condemned inter alia "racial and religious stereotyping."^[39] The OIC's representative on the UNHRC, Zamir Akram (Pakistan), said, "Negative stereotyping or defamation of religions was a modern expression of religious hatred and xenophobia."^[40][41][42] The UNHRC adopted the resolution without a vote.^[40]

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.^[43][44]

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Blasphemy

• Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
• Eternal sin
• Heresy
• Impiety
• Minced oath
• Profanity
• Sacrilege
• Gerard Reve
• Victimless crime
• Apostasy
• Verbal offence

References

Further reading

• Maledicta: The International Journal of Verbal Aggression (ISSN US 0363-3659)
• Levy, L. Blasphemy. Chapel Hill, 1993.
• Comprehensive academic study comparing global legal approaches to blasphemy in light of the Jyllands-Posten controversy
• 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: The Blasphemy Challenge
• A More4 news film report on how insulting the prophet Mohammed in Pakistan is a capital offence, and defiling the Koran carries life imprisonment.
• review of laws relating to blasphemy and sacrilege in various jurisdictions
• Catholic Encyclopedia - Blasphemy
• Jewish Encyclopedia - Blasphemy