With Ireland's passage of blasphemy laws, I thought it would be interesting to look at the blasphemy language codified by six U.S. states that still have these types of laws on the books: Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wyoming. This article gives you links to those laws, the text, and some interesting cases that talk about blasphemy.
NOTE TO PARENTS OF MINORS: Some of the court cases cite language that may be offensive and inappropriate for children.
What is Blasphemy?
Blasphemy is in the eyes of the beholder. Realistically, it can only be defined by religion because it is religious in nature. According to Mirriam-Websters online dictionary, it's a 13th century word that means:
1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God; b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.
A MEDIEVAL CONCEPT.
The Quran warns, "Stay away from those who blaspheme Allah's names. They will be punished for it!" in Surah 7. In fact, disbelief is described as "the greatest evil." In the Christian bible, Leviticus says that blasphemers are to be killed.
24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
The Christian's New Testament goes on to quote Jesus as saying that "blasphemy against the holy spirit" is the unforgivable sin. (Mark 3:29).
Long before the United States Constitution was ratified, there were severe blasphemy and other Old Testament like laws on the books. In the 1600s, for instance, the following were punishable by death:
"The Capitall Lawes of New England," dating from 1636, were drawn by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and are the first written expression of capital offenses known to exist in this country. These laws make the following crimes capital offenses: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, assault in sudden anger, sodomy, buggery, adultery, statutory rape, rape, manstealing, perjury in a capital trial, and rebellion. Each crime is accompanied by a reference to the Old Testament to indicate its source.
Source: G. Haskins, The Capitall Lawes of New England, Harv.L.Sch.Bull. 111 (Feb. 1956).
Although they are not punishable by death, six states still have blasphemy laws on the books. Here's a brief look, with links where available so that you can see for yourself.
MASSACHUSETTS' BLASPHEMY LAWS.
In the General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 272, Section 36, we find:
Section 36. 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.
In case you're wondering, "contumeliously" is real word. It means "insolently abusive and humiliating."
MICHIGAN'S BLASPHEMY LAWS.
Michigan's blasphemy law was enacted in 1931 and has been on the books ever since. You can find it in the state penal code.
750.102 Blasphemy; punishment.
Punishment — Any person who shall wilfully blaspheme the holy name of God, by cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Cursing and swearing — Any person who has arrived at the age of discretion, who shall profanely curse or damn or swear by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. No such prosecution shall be sustained unless it shall be commenced within 5 days after the commission of such offense.
OKLAHOMA'S BLASPHEMY LAWS.
Oklahoma's statutes are not available as web pages, but you can download the statutes for viewing in your word processing program. To verify the following, search for blasphemy within Oklahoma's statutes database. Oklahoma's blasphemy laws appear to have been enacted in 1910 and include:
§21 901. Blasphemy defined.
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.§21 902. Serious discussion not blasphemy.
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.§21 903. Blasphemy a misdemeanor.
Blasphemy is a misdemeanor.
PENNSYLVANIA'S BLASPHEMY LAWS.
Pennsylvania's blasphemy law was adopted in June 1973 and was recently enforced when a film maker attempted to reserve a corporate name that the state found blasphemous (see discussion below). Not that I am saying that blasphemy laws are "normal," but Pennsylvania's version is particularly odd because it is tied into corporate names, but not speech or writing. Here's what it states:
§ 17.5. Blasphemy or profanity.
An association name may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord's name.
SOUTH CAROLINA'S BLASPHEMY LAWS.
In South Carolina, you can't use blasphemous language near a church. And you're not supposed to go to church drunk.
Chapter 17. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY
Article 7. MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES
§ 16-17-520. Disturbance of religious worship.
Any person who shall (a) wilfully and maliciously disturb or interrupt any meeting, society, assembly or congregation convened for the purpose of religious worship, (b) enter such meeting while in a state of intoxication or (c) use or sell spirituous liquors, or use blasphemous, profane or obscene language at or near the place of meeting shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, on conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than twenty nor more than one hundred dollars, or be imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year or less than thirty days, either or both, at the discretion of the court.
South Carolina is home to "Christians Against Blasphemy" whose goal is to "unite the voices of Christians, to stand against attacks against Christianity." Books and movies such as The DaVinci Code are apparently offensive. Here are the objectives of the group:
- To promote unity among Christians on adverse issues facing the church (i.e. The DaVinci Code).
- To promote unity among pastors of various church denominations and theological beliefs on various theological issues, by establishing a non-denominational ministerial alliance.
- To support and promote congressional legislations that protect the integrity of the church.
- To establish local C.A.B. chapters in various churches and local grass roots communities.
- To establish Bible institutes in local churches for the purpose of teaching the Word of God (on a college academic level) to the laity.
- To conduct seminars and workshops on issues facing the Christian community.
- To conduct theological training for potential ministerial candidates.
- To conduct city-wide crusades for winnings souls for Christ.
- To establish dialogue with municipal, county, and state officials.
- To promote voter registration and economic development among churches in various geographical locations across South Carolina.
- To establish a C.A.B. credit union for its members.
- To conduct peaceful protests and demonstrations if the adverse situation necessitates such actions.
WYOMING'S BLASPHEMY LAWS.
Wyoming's statutes appear to relate to publication of "blasphemous" material, but blasphemy is not defined. Here's the statute (you need to search at http://michie.lexisnexis.com/wyoming/ to confirm):
§ 1-29-106. Publication of indecent matter prohibited.
Nothing in W.S. 1-29-104 or 1-29-105 shall authorize the publication of blasphemous or indecent matter.
The excepted language reads:
§ 1-29-104. Publication of proceedings of governing bodies deemed privileged; exception.
The publication of a fair and impartial report of the proceedings before state or municipal legislative bodies, or before state or municipal executive bodies, boards or officers, or the whole or a fair synopsis of any document presented, filed or issued in any proceeding before a legislative or executive body, board or officer, is privileged unless it is proved that the publication was made maliciously.
§ 1-29-105. Publication of criminal and civil proceedings deemed privileged; exceptions.
The publication of a fair and impartial report of any indictment, the issuing of any warrant, the arrest of any person accused of crime, or the filing of any pleading or other document in any criminal or civil cause in any court, or of the contents thereof, is privileged unless it is proved that the same was published maliciously or that the defendant has refused or neglected to publish in the same manner in which the publication complained of appeared a reasonable written explanation or contradiction thereof by the plaintiff, or that the publisher has refused upon plaintiff's request to publish the subsequent determination of the suit or action.
BLASPHEMY IN THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS: "We dip them and drop them."
Blasphemy laws in the United States are rarely enforced; however, in 2007, a filmmaker in Pennsylvania was denied his corporate name, I Choose Hell Productions, based on Pennsylvania's blasphemy law. In reporting on this decision, The New York Times noted that blasphemy is something that is determined by religious faith. And the more complicated question is that when it comes to "blaspheming the Lord," whose Lord are you talking about?
George Kalman chose the "I Choose Hell" name because he said it is better to struggle and live in "hell" than to commit suicide. Determining whether or not this is "blasphemous" is truly subjective. Not everyone would agree with the state that this is "blasphemous." The decision to deny a corporate name based on outdated blasphemy law illustrates a crumbling wall of separation where the state determines religious standards.
An earlier case involving a Pennsylvania corporate charter took place back in 1957, when the principals of "Conversion Center, Inc." applied for a non-profit corporate charter. (130 A.2d 107 (Pa. 1957)) The somewhat entertaining court opinion reveals that the incorporators had a beef with the Catholic church and their non-profit group was being formed in order to convert Catholics. The corporate charter was initially denied, but was granted by the state supreme court on appeal.
Justice Mushanno dissented, apparently because he questioned whether the incorporators were indeed sane, responsible citizens per the state law.
In reading Mushanno's dissent, it looks like the incorporators said a few hateful things about Catholics in Court that really ticked him off. In some ways, I can agree philosophically with what he had to say, especially when considering the recent rise of Christian hate churches such as the Westboro Baptist Church and hateful preachers who advocate imprecatory prayer. The quote I like best that he cited was "We dip them and drop them." Here's part of his lengthy dissertation:
If there is one thing that the world needs less than anything else it is religious controversy; if there is one thing that the United States symbolizes more than any other thing it is religious freedom; if there is one thing that the judiciary of this country should frown upon, it is any attempt to obtain the approval of the Courts to stir up strife, discord, wrangling and violence over creed, dogma, and doctrine. Yet this Court is doing that very thing by ordering the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County to grant a charter to an organization whose incorporators are intent on unleashing the winds of intolerance, the gales of prejudice, and the forces of hate and ignorance.
…
To grant a charter to the incorporators after the statements they made in open Court would be–if not an approval of the language they employed–at least an indication of judicial indifference to the expressions of blasphemy and reckless charges which came from their mouths. The images which these witnesses conjured up in their unbridled exhortations seemed in many ways pale specters rising up from the stagnant battlefields of the past–those battlefields which are encrusted with the dead blood, the savage hatreds, and the malignant ignorances of the so-called religious wars.
As I studied the record of this case I found myself wondering whether I was reading the chronicles of medieval feuds or the testimony of supposedly educated people in the Twentieth Century. Said Incorporator Albert Cameron:
'When Stephen was dying, just before he died, Stephen beheld the glory of God, and he saw the Lord, Jesus Christ, standing at the right hand of God. That refutes any doctrine of the Roman Catholic.'
Cameron went on to assure the Court that he would be present with the Lord and he would see Him. 'And that is what Roman Catholics should have, that and Jesus Christ alone. And if you really believe in Jesus Christ you won't be holding on those other things too.'
Incorporator C. G. Watson said that he lived in Johnstown where 60% of the people are Roman Catholic, but that in his church which is undenominational, 'we have approximately from twenty-five percent to one-third Roman Catholic believers that have been won to Jesus Christ.' The statement that Roman Catholics do not believe in Jesus Christ is a fair indication of the intellectual responsibility of this witness. [388 Pa. 254] Mr. Watson also said that, according to 'the Revelation, Chapters 2 and 3, the church today has failed.' How the Revelation written 2,000 years ago, could speak of the status of the churches today, Mr. Watson did not specify.
Incorporator E. M. Houser testified:
'I have seen Roman Catholic people, the same as unsaved Protestant people, need something, they need Jesus Christ; and of course as a minister of the gospel of Christ I administer Christ.'
Rev. Houser stated that 'part of the reason the church has failed' is 'because Roman Catholics do not come to Protestant churches.' Of course, Houser covers a great deal of territory when he says that 'the church has failed.' And then, just as a side line, Houser gave the Court his views on baptism. He said that baptism by immersion was fundamental, 'but not essential to salvation. It is important, that is true, but we do not consider it essential to salvation. We dip them and drop them.'
A. Scott Dunlap, one of the two proposed members of the Conversion Center, was very emphatic about his views of the Roman Catholic Church, charging it with various faults, not excluding murder. He, however, did say that he did not believe in stoning Catholics or anybody. Everything that was to be done in the Conversion Center was to be done with love.
THE FCC AND BLASPHEMY.
In 2007, Fox News sued the Federal Communications Commission over the Federal Communications Commission's determination that the broadcast of vulgar expletives may violate federal restrictions on the broadcast of any "obscene, indecent, or profane language" under 18 U.S.C. 1464; see 47 C.F.R. 73.3999 , when the expletives are not repeated. This case, Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Com'n (489 F.3d 444 (2nd Cir. 2007), 06-1760), has been dubbed "the fleeting expletives case." The case eventually found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed the FCC's "fleeting expletives" determination and that broadcasters can be held liable for them.
The lower court's opinion is an interesting read. In its opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit noted that with respect to a previous interpretation of the U.S. Code (U.S.C. § 1464, 16 F.C.C.R. 7999):
The FCC then held that the material in question was also "profane" under Section 1464. Id. at ¶ 13. The Commission acknowledged that prior decisions interpreting "profane" had defined that term as blasphemy, but found that nothing in its prior decisions limited the definition of profane in such a manner.
What did the FCC define as blasphemy? The U.S. Code is unclear. In 1972, the Arizona Court of Appeals referred to the definition of profanity in previous FCC rulings when it determined the constitutionality of a criminal case involving the use of profanity over the telephone (Baker v. State, 494 P.2d 68 (Ariz.App. Div. 2 1972), 2 CA-CIV 1163):
It [profanity] has long been used by the federal government in the regulation of radio broadcasts. See Karp v. Collins, 310 F.Supp. 627 (D.N.J.1970), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Kugler v. Karp, 401 U.S. 930, 91 S.Ct. 933, 28 L.Ed.2d 210 (1971); Duncan v. United States, 48 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1931).
…
Profane means irreverence towards God or holy things, speaking or spoken, acting or acted, in manifest or implied contempt of sacred things; blasphemous; as, profane language, profane swearing. It means any words importing an imprecation of divine vengeance or implying divine condemnation, so used as to constitute a public nuisance. Duncan v. United States, supra. We believe that, in the context of a statute which requires that the profane language be used with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass and annoy or offend, the word 'profane' is not vague.
Petitioner contends that proscribing 'profane language' abridges his freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He cites no cases to uphold this contention. It is not the mere use of profanity which is subject to punishment but only profanity uttered over the telephone with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend. We cannot conceive that the State is abridging anyone's religious freedom by prohibiting him from making the type of telephone call prohibited by the statute.
The key, at least according to Arizona's judiciary, seems to be intent. Clearly, this definition of profanity is outdated.
BLASPHEMY AND "SACRILEGIOUS" LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Although "blasphemy" has shown up in court cases recently, blasphemy laws are generally unenforceable. That's because of the 1952 United States Supreme Court ruling in Joseph Burstyn, Inc., v Wilson (343 U.S. 495 (1952), 522). At issue in this case were provisions of the New York Education Law which forbade the commercial showing of any motion picture film without a license and authorized the denial of a license on a censor's conclusion that a film is "sacrilegious." The court held that "sacrilegious" interpretations were unconstitutional based on freedom of speech and of the press under the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In 2001, three residents in Indiana tried to stop the Fort Wayne campus of Indiana University-Purdue University, a state institution, from allowing a performance of Terrence McNally's play Corpus Christi. The case found its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Linnemeir v BD of Trustees of Purdue University (260 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2001), 01-3002. The play was deeply offensive to Christians because, in the words of the Court,
The play, scheduled to begin its run on August 10, depicts Jesus Christ as a homosexual who has sexual relations with his disciples, and the movants argue that by presenting the play the university will be violating the First Amendment by publicly endorsing anti- Christian beliefs. The play is indeed blasphemous, although that apparently was not the intention of McNally (who is himself homosexual), according to his preface to the published version. Whatever his intentions, most believing Christians will be shocked and offended to hear one of Christ's disciples yell to Christ on the cross, "Hey, faggot! If I was the son of God I wouldn't be hanging here with my dick between my legs. Save us all if you're really Him." That is not an untypical passage.
The university had printed a disclaimer in the playbill that the university did not endorse the message of the play. In ruling against the plaintiffs, the Court wrote:
The contention that the First Amendment forbids a state university to provide a venue for the expression of views antagonistic to conventional Christian beliefs is absurd. It would imply that teachers in state universities could not teach important works by Voltaire, Hobbes, Hume, Darwin, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Yeats, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, John Dewey, and countless other staples of Western culture. It is true that a public university that had a policy of promoting atheism, or Satanism, or secular humanism, or for that matter Unitarianism or Buddhism, would be violating the religion clauses of the First Amendment. County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 610-11 (1989); School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11 (1961); Brooks v. City of Oak Ridge, 222 F.3d 259, 266 (6th Cir. 2000); Church on the Rock v. City of Albuquerque, 84 F.3d 1273, 1279 (10th Cir. 1996); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 635 n. 6 (1981) (dissenting opinion). But that is not charged; and so the controlling principle is that the amendment "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma . . . . '[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.'" Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106-07 (1968), quoting Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 505 (1952). "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine." Id. The student whose project it is to produce Corpus Christi to satisfy the requirements of his major is of course not an employee of the university, let alone a part of its management; he was not told to put on this offensive play– it was his own idea; and there is no evidence that if the play attacked some other religion, the university authorities would have forbidden it. In short, there is no evidence that the university is hostile to Christianity.
Justice Coffey wrote a lengthy dissent that considered, among other things, "viewpoint discrimination."
In this case, we are faced with a clash in the balancing of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and academia's interpretation of the freedom of speech clause. I am fully cognizant that college campuses play a vital role as a forum for the free exchange of ideas, as well they should.
However, should this court allow the Ft. Wayne campus of Indiana University/Purdue University (IPFW) to stage a performance of Corpus Christi, it states a clear message that we will, with a wink and a nod, tolerate government-sponsored attacks on religion. Allowing the university to stage the play would open the flood gates for anti-religious speech where any religion (be it Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) could be the target of the vile and hateful speech that is from this date forward sanctioned by the government.
It is interesting to note that the State of Indiana is one of only six states in the country, which to date has failed to enact hate crime law legislation.
…
Closing our eyes to the blatant state- sponsored hostility to Christianity portrayed in Corpus Christi would legitimize and might very well lead to and possibly incite other forms of "hate speech" directed at ethnic minorities, other religious groups, women, and even those in the gay community. Christianity is no less deserving of protection from state-endorsed attack than are any of these groups, and the decision today, in my view, fails our constitutional duty to protect all segments of our cherished, diverse society from religious hostility.
WHERE THINGS STAND; A CALL TO REPEAL BLASPHEMY LAWS.
The American Humanist Association has called for the repeal of all blasphemy laws, writing:
"Laws prohibiting blasphemy are a relic of the Middle Ages and are blatantly unconstitutional," declared Mel Lipman, a constitutional lawyer and president of the American Humanist Association. "Blasphemy is a purely religious offense and hence the sole concern of religious organizations and their own members. By contrast, those people without religion, or who have religious beliefs that don't condemn blasphemy, shouldn't be affected."
This seems like a good idea to me. In the meantime, the ACLU has filed on behalf of filmmaker George Kalman, who was denied the corporate name "I Choose Hell Productions" in Pennsylvania. APP reports that the suit seeks undetermined damages and the use of the name. I have not been able to find a reported decision, so I am assuming that this case may still be pending.
Over in Oklahoma, home of Sally Kern and her "morality resolution," the state has blasphemy laws on the books. However, its legislature was not able to not stop Richard Dawkins from speaking at the University of Oklahoma, despite introducing some resolutions condemning Dawkins. Nonetheless, some state lawmakers asked for an indepth investigation of the speech. What the legislature has done with this information is unclear. Greg Lukianoff, the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), has not been able to get an answer.
On the other side of the coin, a majority of Christians polled in a Christian-oriented poll felt that Christians should speak out against blasphemy in the media. There were thoughtful responses in the poll, however. Someone named David wrote, for example,
The way to answer this quiz depends on the intentions of the people doing the speaking out against. If the intention is to take a moral stance, say "we believe that entertainment should have less blasphemy", and boycotting the offensive products, then I'm all for it. If you're actually pushing to censor someone else's words based on your beliefs, I really can't condone that.
In my opinion, blasphemy laws are draconian laws that are based on faith, not reality or common sense. Interpreting them is subjective and certainly should not be a function of government. Our case law is clear that these types of laws are in violation of the Constitution. We can choose whether we want to read something, watch a "blasphemous" movie or go to a play. It's all choice.
Check out the UNEXPLAINABLE STORE - Lots of freebies, bonuses and more. -
The link opens in a new window so you can satisfy your curiosity and return to this page!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Great post, good job there, I love it! I bookmarked your blog for future reference, I am too busy to go through them one by one now, but thank you for the post!
Very informative article. I'm really shocked to see this so many laws on blasphemy. What do we do however to someone violating these laws. In these day & age, I think we can not seek punishment since Christians would cry out love your enemies & do good to those who persecute you.
Thanks for your comment, Claire! I think enforcement would be deemed unconstitutional, although the Pennsylvania case is kind of interesting as it was enforced this late in the game.
Hi, I'm Kardoman, a student of law from Indonesia. This article really help me on my thesis since my thesis is about blasphemy law. Thank you so much..
Kardoman Tumangger´s last blog ..Catatan Kuliah “Hukum Hak Asasi Manusia”