A Case Against Blasphemy

Before formulating arguments about why blasphemy laws never work, before outlining the decisive points in favor of unfettered free speech, before launching into lectures about censorship and cancelations, separation of church and state, rights and freedoms and liberties, hypocrisy and hysteria, gather those excellent points, pack them tight, then set them aside. Before even reaching the decision of best, most practical enforceability, truth and necessity must first be asserted.

A strong case has been made that the Founding Fathers of the United States never considered blasphemy laws in writing the First Amendment protections of free speech, because it wouldn’t have entered their minds to do so. No matter how religious someone was at home, religion held strong enough sway over the culture that the government needn’t interfere where society would regulate behavior on its own. The blatant disregard for the Divine rampant in society today was unimagine then, not least because reverent regard for the Divine is vital to upholding the world they made.

So, while it may not have been constitutionally illegal to blaspheme, no one who wanted to remain in good standing and company would consider such a derisive act in public. And sometimes that’s all it takes to ensure the desired outcome, as historical precedent has reliably shown.

Eventually, blasphemy laws were passed and enforced on a governmental level, and there’s plenty of places that may still officially have them on the books. We’ve moved so far as a society that we no longer pay attention to those that remain, so they linger unenforced. We’ve more pressing issues to deal with these days, or so we’re told.

Yet, what if our more pressing issues can be traced in large part to our laxity in regard to blasphemy? And, if not the language itself, then to the same cause at the root of both acceptance of blasphemy and the rest of the societal ills at present. For one thing is certain, neither government nor standing nor company is enough anymore to entirely enforce word choice in most circles. The only circumstance where such efficiency is ever seen is in regard to social constructs around the imagined oppressed of the day. This perversion is an accurate reflection of what results when public displays of religious irreverence are no longer considered blasphemous, let alone tolerated, ignored, celebrated. The result of this is that unassailable protection of natural rights is intentionally subverted and directed toward malicious ends.

Free speech absolutists are quick to counter with the case of satirist George Carlin, who was arrested in Wisconsin in the seventies for a routine that was ultimately deemed “indecent.” For many, his case is absolute proof against blasphemy laws, made all the easier if they actually agree with what he said, let alone laugh at it. The laughter part is important, for comedy and satire have proven time and again to be among the greatest weapons the populace can wield against the government. Only a free people can mock their ruling class without fear of repercussion, and the persecution of comedians, or any well-liked entertainer, isn’t usually well-accepted in a liberty-minded society.

Except, blasphemy isn’t aimed at the current government, but at G-d, Who exists beyond any mortal systems. Moreover, blasphemy isn’t the same as comedy, as even the religious and the wider umbrella of believers have jokes that include G-d. The difference is the same as jokes from family members and from outsiders, namely the affection underlying the tone of the former. For non-believers or so-proclaimed atheists, jokes about G-d are usually a euphemism for mockery, belied by the sour notes of jadedness, bitterness, disdain, even anger they can’t entirely hide beneath the laughter. Such comedy does not stem from a desire to share amusement but an excuse to belittle what they don’t truly know or understand or simply find agreement in their contempt. Thus it falls under the blasphemous, not least because the result is not to free speech but to lessen the image of G-d in the eyes of the beholder.

Blasphemous displays are not “fresh” or “edgy” or “freeing” or “empowering” or “complex” or any other manner of progressive mangled label breathlessly used to validate the degenerate. As the law against blasphemy has existed thousands of years, so has the cause for it. To say, the law wasn’t made as a preemptive forewarning of a possible future, rather, the law was established for past, present, and future, because some things about the human condition don’t change, but are merely repackaged over time.

The law against blasphemy first appears in its most definitive form as the third of the Ten Commandments given by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai. Anyone who believes in the advantages of displaying the Ten Commandments and the necessity of teaching their precepts to all ages should immediately realize that the Third Commandment is not to be overlooked or modified when confronted with manmade free speech protections.

The argument against codifying the Third Commandment into secular law, beyond those of absolute free speech and separation of law from religious influence, is the inevitable conclusion that no other person is harmed in the act of blasphemy. It’s just speech after all, and my right to say it doesn’t negate your right to not listen. Or so we’re told.

Except, does blasphemy really harm no one when it chisels away at the very foundation of our exalted system of governance?

As the point has been made before, rights cannot be separated from their Source, which, as stated by the very same Founders who sought to protect free speech, come from capital C Creator. Thus, a right isn’t a right unless the Creator with a capital C wills it to be. The same Creator who gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, the third of which clearly prohibits blasphemy as “taking the L-rd’s name in vain.” This includes cursing, disrespecting, and all other manner of language or act intended to demean or discredit Him. Among the numerous, natural rights given to man, Creator with a capital C did not grant a right to blaspheme Him. Quite the opposite.

Is G-d so fragile that a few choice words could hurt Him? Does it take one scribble of the pen to fell His Mighty name? No, this is for us. Blasphemy isn’t simply about words or actions, but what they represent and intend, in addition to the conditions which allow them to prosper. As clearly outlined in our founding documents, freedoms and liberties are natural to man, but only because the Creator made it so. In other words, as has been said by many of our founders, belief in that gift from the Creator is necessary to protect all that gift entails from the predations of government and malicious or negligent actors.

Chipping away at that belief undermines the entire system these freedoms are predicated upon, so blasphemy isn’t merely the case of someone saying something somewhere sometime. Rather, blasphemy, its intent and allowance, is an attempt to undo the foundations of our very freedoms by disconnecting them from their Source through belittlement and disdain. History has shown plainly that irreverence is a vital tool in toppling the currently established, for where something is no longer deemed sacred, neither is its protection. If someone can freely treat Creator with a capital C in such manner, then what compels anyone to protect and value what He has given us? What preserves its natural sanctity if it’s been reduced through negligence and degradation?

Blatant blasphemies aside, there are subtler ones which have settled comfortably into common usage that go largely unremarked upon. Ones so common, people would balk or jeer to hear them labeled blasphemous, but we should be attuned to weeding them out on a personal level nonetheless. For example, the depiction of angels as anything from models to literary love interests to cherubic cupids, anything other than the Divine messengers they are, borders on the blasphemous for its mundaning of the spiritual. Even though often at surface, anyone speaking of regarding someone inspirational or aspirational as an “idol” is another example of normalizing terminology that should cause any truly G-d fearing to recoil.

And though many don’t want to hear it, the idea that anyone could partake of this world without acknowledging the Maker and Owner is a different kind of blasphemy. As with the lie of “My body, my choice,” humanity has cemented the idea into common conscience that this world is ours simply because we were born into it. Does that logic extend to any other sort of ownership? Even the claim that conquering invokes ownership is based upon the takers taking what was already taken. Do humans get to invoke squatters’ rights over Earth when we had no part in our arrival upon in?

The truth is the world was given to man, but that fact only stands when recognizing it’s not only a part but the middle of the sentence. Consider, Earth was given to man by whom and for what? Answering that question not only reveals the truth underlying our entire existence, but also explains why any attempt to obscure, misconstrue, or undermine it approaches the blasphemous.

You may vigorously deny such a drastic view, you may expound upon scientific theories that validate your perspective that reality is otherwise, but in honest, unadorned truth, can you really claim to be the only one foolhardy enough to stubbornly remain an atheist in a foxhole? In moments of extreme relief, crisis, suffering, gratitude do you not invoke His name, even unwittingly? Do you invoke nothing? Does that really feel right? If yes, then where do your natural rights come from? Should we give credit to our fondly mislabeled Pluto? If rights are manmade, then they are not natural, for not all men agree on what those rights are or should be.

How far we must go to preserve the sanctity of our reverence for the Creator is a topic for the next part of the debate, and a worthy one to reach as well, but the principle must be, along with a desire to adhere to it, that we cannot profess to value one thing while also allowing for the undermining of what gives that value any status or meaning at all. We cannot despair at those who despair of the world around them, while simultaneously promoting the cause for its ruin and calling it a right.

Clear the mind of all other thoughts for a moment and consider a world where blasphemy is once again enforced, even only on a societal level. What first disappears in this scenario? Anything we need for the furtherance of our civilization or merely things done and words said just for the sake of proving they can be? Think then on what else changes when the Creator is respected as He should be. How many issues of the day, how many policies are affected where at least an outward respect for the Creator is mandated by the populace? What restraints reappear around the intrusions and excesses of government? How does political rhetoric change when blasphemy is no longer tolerated for the civilization destroying force that it truly is? How do the streets, celebrations, art, literature, music, clothing, et al, look when blasphemy is no longer permitted? Are we truly worse us off, knowing as we do now, where our leniency has led?

Taking all these points to their final conclusion results in the ultimate, undeniable truth that it is absolutely, fundamentally impossible to be pro-human and also anti-G-d, let alone blasphemous or derisive of Him. Any other claim can be reasoned to a dead end. Human life is only significant because He has deemed it to be. To say, our belief in the sanctity of human life should be reflected in how we treat life’s Creator. Anything that may infringe upon that, anything which may chip, chisel, or crack that sanctity is, in a word, blasphemous. Thus, blasphemy is not about mere rights and speech but the first line of attack to the foundation upholding civilization.

Instead of wasting time on pushing the boundary of disregard as far as it will go, better to make a concerted effort to focus on that which will strengthen society and better life instead, starting with praise and gratitude to the Creator, Who gave us this life and the rights that allows us to live it best.