Blasphemy laws?

[clairobscur]

After reading the “Last temptation of christ” thread, I wondered about that : Are there laws against blasphemy in the US?

(I posted this on the GD, since I’ll have some other questions if there are indeed such laws)

[tracer]

I’ll betcha there are a lot of old city and state anti-blasphemy laws on the books, but if any of them were actually enforced in this day and age they’d get overturned as violating the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause faster than you can say “Jesus was a pantywaist!”

[clairobscur]

Thanks…Actually, I was thinking about federal and currently enforced laws. So I gues I got my answer.

[MEBuckner]

Whoever wilfully 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. – General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 272, Section 36

Blasphemy consists in wantonly uttering or publishing words, casting contumelious reproach or profane ridicule upon God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Holy Scriptures or the Christian or any other religion.

If it appears beyond reasonable doubt that the words complained of were used in the course of serious discussion, and with intent to make known or recommend opinions entertained by the accused, such words are not blasphemy.

Blasphemy is a misdemeanor. – Oklahoma State Statutes, §21-901, 902, and 903.

Every person who commits blasphemy shall be imprisoned for not more than two (2) months or be fined not more than two hundred dollars ($200). – Rhode Island General Laws, 11-11-6

(It does not appear that Rhode Island ever bothers to define what “blasphemy” actually is.)

Note that a law is not necessarily enforced merely because it is still on the books. Also, if a law is struck down by the courts–as opposed to being actually repealed by the legislature–I believe it will generally remain “on the books” even though it cannot be enforced, until and unless the legislature actually gets around to repealing it. If a statute isn’t being enforced, and especially if it’s actually been ruled unconstitutional, there may be little incentive for the legislature to repeal it, since–or at least so the argument would go–nothing is really being harmed by having the law sit there and collect dust, and doing something which appears to be “coming out in favor of blasphemy” (or sodomy, or what you will) may offend some minority which still likes laws like that.

[TheeGrumpy]

Blasphemy consists in wantonly uttering or publishing words, casting contumelious reproach or profane ridicule upon God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Holy Scriptures or the Christian or any other religion.

How nice of Oklahoma to include “and the rest” in the definition. The problem with this, and any other open-ended blasphemy law, is that it would criminalize the advancement of one religion by the deprecation of another. For example, a Christian wishing to entice Catholics to become “born again” dare not cast aspersions on their allegiance to the Vatican, a la Jack Chick. Such rhetoric would be considered contumelious (arrogantly disrespectful) against the Catholic Church (and its ostensible grounding in the above mentioned Holy Scriptures).

More bizarrely, what about those who decry the “religion” of secular humanism? I say, slap the cuffs on 'em!

[gobear]

Sounds like high time to bring back the rack, the strappado, and the stake. Burn the blasphemers, God damn it!
[sub]Hey, what’s with the torch? Why are you tying me to this stake? Is that kerosene I smell? Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow!
[/sub

[Kimstu]

MEB: *(It does not appear that Rhode Island ever bothers to define what “blasphemy” actually is.) *

We know it when we see it. Seriously, I’m a little surprised that that’s on our books, because we were founded specifically as a “lively experiment” in the formal separation of church and state. However, a lot of this stuff probably snuck in in the post-Roger Williams days.