BLASPHEMY & COEXISTENCE
I chose to look at the complex/entangled coexistence issue, focusing on just one aspect : the evolution of the concept of blasphemy.
« (…) blasphemy, like heresy, is a crime relative to a fixed set of beliefs to which people are obliged to adhere under pain of criminal sanctions. » (Ref.: Religion in Scots Law)(*) This set of belief is aknoledged in law.
The Humanist Society Scotland commissioned a research on the subject of religion & belief in public life. The link to their report (full & summary) is available below (**). One of the chapters is about blasphemy. I used some citations from their work, which are identified with an (*).
I find interesting to study the evolution of the relations between mainstream religious belief and the laws of the state. The study of the HSS helps to understand the process of change in this respect.
During the reign of Charles II, in the year 1661, a law against blasphemy has been introduced :
« Act against the cryme of blasphemie : Our soverane lord and estates of parliament, considering that hitherto ther hath been no law in this kingdome against the horrible cryme of blasphemie; thairfor, his majestie, with advice of his saids estates, doth heirby statute and ordaine that whosoever heirafter, not being distracted in his wits, shall raill upon or curse God or any of the persones of the Blessed Trinity, shall be processed befor the chieff justice and, being fund guilty, shall be punished with death. »
Later, William II introduces a scale of sanctions, which softened the law.
Let’s have a look at what the Edinburg Parliament registered in the year 1695, during the reign of William II :
« Act against blasphemy. (…) his majesty, with advice and consent forsaid, statutes and ordains that whoever hereafter shall in their writing or discourse, deny, impugn or quarrell, argue or reason, against the being of God, or any of the persons of the blessed trinity, or the authority of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, or the providence of God in the government of the world, shall for the first fault be punished with imprisonment, (…) And for the second fault, the delinquent shall be fined (…). And for the third fault, he shall be punished by death as an obstinat blasphemer. (…) »(*)
In a country where almost everybody suscribes to a Christian belief, and where the king is supposed to have received his legitimacy from God, a set of christian-based rules and laws helps to maintain a stable society…
In the year 1843, the discussion of the law of blasphemy in Scotland before the High Court helped to move forward with the concepts.
« The law of Scotland gives every man the right of regulating his faith OR NOT by the standard of the Holy Scriptures, and gives full scope to private judgment, regarding the doctrines contained therein (…) » (*)
Nevertheless, « (…) who publish opinions “contrary to the known principles of Christianity,” (…) MAY BE lawfully called to account, and proceeded against by the civil magistrate. » (*)
In practice, what is now considered wrong is the intention behind the words/works :
« The questions to be determined are, whether the works (…) were published (…) with the INTENTION (…) of vilifying the Holy Scriptures and Christian religion.” » (*)
« The Lord Justice-clerk, in his charge of the jury, was at pain to point out that printed works which “deny the truth and authority of the Holy Scriptures and Christianity” were not in and of themselves blasphemous, but rather blasphemous works were those which were not “of fair and serious speculation or argument upon these sacred topics, but such as indicated an obvious intention to bring them into ridicule and contempt” » (*)
Nowadays, many different kinds of beliefs can be found within each modern society :
« The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 defines “RELIGIOUS GROUP” as meaning persons defined by their adherence to their “religious belief, or LACK OF religious belief”. » (*)
In Europe, most ‘religious groups’ believe in the existence of SUPERNATURAL elements (Gods, souls, afterlife, miracles, etc), and most people having a ‘lack of religious belief’ believe that there are only NATURAL elements in the universe.
In Europe, this distinction is quite interesting if we consider -for once- the point of view of the Atheist :
For an atheist, the belief in the existence of supernatural elements is perceived as some kind of insult to human reason. And it can be felt like a blasphemy with regard to their ‘fixed set of natural beliefs’ which happen to be also consistent with the word of most of the laws of the state.
Today, « (…) it can be stated that blasphemy is no longer prosecuted in Scotland. Although not in desuetude, any such prosecution would probably contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. »
« It may be that the common law crime of blasphemy in Scots law could simply be abolished by statute, the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel having been abolished in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. » (*)
In 2015, in Alsace, the representatives of different faiths (Catholics, Protestants, Jewish, Muslims) asked for the abrogation of the offence of blasphemy… But a complaint has been lodged against the Femen for « profanation ».
Blasphemy has become some kind of obsolete concept within complex modern societies.
But ‘living together’ implies courtesy. And courtesy excludes intention to get unnecessarily unpleasant.
Yet, one now can expose some unwelcome concepts in order to illustrate one’s views.
In the meantime, in different countries, some groups (more than others) managed to obtain legal frameworks for freedom of expression for other concepts which, by some aspects, could be felt similar to blasphemy.
Jean P. Ciron (may 2016)
(*) Callum G Brown, Thomas Green and Jane Mair, Religion in Scots Law: The Report of an Audit at the University of Glasgow: Sponsored by Humanist Society Scotland (Edinburgh, HSS, 2016)
(**) FULL REPORT :
(**) SUMMARY REPORT :
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
