Free Speech and Blasphemy

On my earlier post on Free Speech and Islam, and the importance of being able to offend people to protect the right of free speech, Blue Chi made a good point, 'What about blasphemy then?'

It is true that in some European countries Blasphemy (though you should note, usually only against the Christian faith) is, in theory, illegal, but it is usually because of very old laws that would not be used today and have just never been formally repealed. As you'll detect, I'm more in favour of the USA system, which is more liberal and you can be as blasphemous as you like.

To the question of making blasphemy illegal, my response would be:
1/ Why? I'd have thought that God was big and powerful enough to defend him/her self. What's wrong with good old lightening bolts for christ's sake?
2/ Exactly what is blasphemy? Who decides? You? Some judge? The head Mullah of Iran? Or Sudan? My crazy neighbour? How offensive do you have to be to be officially blasphemous?
3/ Which religions deserve such protection? Just the big 3 of Christianity/Islaam/Judaism? What about Mormons? Hindus? Or Scientologists? Or Moonies? Rastafarianism? Or just the one that is true?
4/ What about the intra-religious schisms? Is a Shiite follower allowed to call a Sunni an apostate and state his religion is total crap and point out the prescribed penalty for being an apostate? What about Protestants who don't agree with the Catholics that the Holy Mass transmogrifies bread into the physical flesh of Christ? Is being atheist a religion?
5/ Is legalising homosexuality blasphemous? Abortion? Sex education? Evolution? What about a really good joke about 'a Priest, A Rabi and an Immam'?
6/ What's the punishment for blasphemy? Death? Fine? Lashing?

It's a total mess of a law and of an idea.

Much better, IMHO, is that people who choose to believe in supernatural beings [or who choose to believe in an absence of supernatural beings] get a thicker skin and have faith that their god (or gods) can look after themselves. The Christians seem to have taken this approach over the past few 100 years, and thus today content themselves with peaceful protest. For example, as the Catholics did over the movie 'The last temptation of Christ' or 'The Life of Brian'. Can you imagine the reponse to a muslim version of the Life of Brian? I’d predict a serious lack of humour.

In fact, maybe it's just the atheists and the Buddhists who need legal protection, as after all, they are the only ones without an activist superpowerful god to protect them. ;-)

Similarly, some European countries make it illegal to 'Deny the Holocaust', mainly as a way of more easily controlling those pesky neo-nazis (who do admittedly have a history of acting in rather problematic ways, like shooting people and taking over the country and invading their neighbours). Again, rather than extending such restrictive laws to such dubious realms as religious protection, I would rather repeal them.

I'll repeat – I do not think that protecting everybody from being offended is a basis for controlling people's speech. And that includes religion. Any religion. Including yours Blue Chi.