Legislating blasphemy

by Gunther Simmermacher · February 12, 2010

Blasphemy: we know the definition profaning the sacred but there seems to be little consensus about when exactly the sacred is profaned.

Take the new Irish blasphemy law which came into effect on January 1. It defines blasphemy as the publication of matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion. Blasphemers can be fined up to 25,000 euros (R260,000).

The injunction to be respectful towards religious believers is commendable, of course, provided the same level of respect is applied to those of other beliefs and none. But what is grossly abusive and insulting to one believer may well provoke no more than a shrug of the shoulders from another.

The self-appointed protectors of the faith may well declare their blind outrage at an artwork of Jesus made of chocolate which might be eaten (imagine that, eating Jesus! Oh, wicked blasphemy). Other Catholics, no less concerned for their faith, would take no offence here, unless disrespect was actually intended, or even discern in it a meaning of theological benefit.

And sometimes the professional sentinels of the faith just can’t help themselves. William Donohue, the president of the US Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has voiced his indignity over so many matters of innocuous nature that it is virtually impossible to take his complaints seriously, even when they are pertinent, as sometimes they must be. The man has cried sacrilege too many times.

Last month, Dr Donohue’s pietistic alarm was set off by the Givenchy collection for 2010/11, of all things.

The designer, Riccardo Tisci, had announced that he took inspiration for that seasons mens wear collection from his Catholic roots and from other religions: priests stark black and white frocks, brown Franciscan robes, layered rabbinical suits and so on the most chic way, the most pure way of dressing, according to Mr Tisci.

Dr Donohue was on alert, and found something in the world of fashion that upset him: gold-coloured crown of thorns necklaces. It was disturbing enough to see pictures of men wearing this item over a shirt, but to feature a bare-chested model donning it was contemptible, he said.

Far more contemptible things are happening in the world of high-fashion than an individual of uncertain state of dress wearing jewellery, of course. Still, Dr Donohue is not wrong when he says that the Crown of Thorns that Jesus wore is a very serious statement in Christianity, and it is not fair game to trivialise its meaning.

Dr Donohue, however, does not know the mind of the designer or wearer. Perhaps the crown of thorns necklace has a particular significance, making a statement in keeping with the designers stated faith. Unless Dr Donohue had ascertained that a religious symbol was being deliberately trivialised or otherwise misused with a view to offend and clearly he didnt he should have held his fire. His objection was rich in bias and impoverished in charity.

And in all things, he should not presume to speak in every Catholics name. He certainly has no mandate to speak in mine.

Which brings us back to the Irish blasphemy law, against which a campaign was launched. The idea of the campaign was that its presumably atheist opponents would commit mass blasphemy. Say rude things about God, quote blasphemous passages that kind of thing. Helpfully, an outfit called Atheist Ireland compiled a list of 25 such quotes. It comprises the usual suspects, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. It also includes, with a somewhat loose application of context, Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-OConnor.

With rich symbolism, Jesus tops the list. After all, Jesus was hauled before the Sanhedrin on charges of violating a blasphemy law.

Some of the 25 quotes are offensive to the believer, of course. We don’t like to be mocked for our faith. But we dont win any arguments by silencing the hecklers. When we do that, we become mere bullies.

Religious believers, like anybody else, must be legally protected from hate speech and discrimination. But there is a difference between dismissive comments about transubstantiation and discriminatory polemic against against religions.

The cruel irony is that the fact of Ireland’s blasphemy law helps bolster the case for the draconian blasphemy law in Pakistan, which is being used to oppress the Christian minority there. And it might be invoked to justify attacks on churches in Malaysia because a Catholic newspaper there uses the word Allah for God, which some Muslims find offensive.

Blasphemy often is subjective. It requires no legislation. And I’m sure that God the Almighty manages to roll with the blasphemous punches, because if we thought he couldn’t, our faith would rest on some very shaky ground indeed.