-6

Let's suppose a Hindu finds it blasphemous to compare the Vedic god Indra to a demon in the Avesta.

Or a Christian finds it blasphemous to see Jesus being called a prophet instead of a son of God. 

I can give similar examples for Buddha, followers of Baal, etc.

So, a person files blasphemy on that book in court. Chances are, nothing happens. 

If nothing happens, then if a new religion like pastafarianism Or xyz religion started to blaspheme other gods and call these blasphemous works their religious scriptures. Would judicial reaction be the same as no interference being the same as freedom of scripture, or will the new scriptures by XYZ religion be banned? 

What could be argument given from both sides in courts ?

What does law of United States say about it?

5
  • 3
    I would assume that for example the US and Saudi Arabia handle this very differently. Maybe add the juristiction you ask about?
    – nvoigt
    Commented May 16 at 12:05
  • @nvoigt can a general law for worldview be asked??
    – user56689
    Commented May 16 at 12:06
  • 4
    You can ask what the laws all over the world are, but the question is, does it help you any in your current situation, to know what the law in Sweden or North Korea says about it? If you add a juristiction, you will probably get better and more focused answers.
    – nvoigt
    Commented May 16 at 12:12
  • 1
    Religious laws are explicitly nonexistant in some jurisdictions (e.g. "You can not have laws other than that enacted by the state!"), in others religious law is enforcable law (Sharia states), in others again both exist... And freedom of religion is something that exists or not in many states! This is totally unfocussed.
    – Trish
    Commented May 16 at 13:07
  • 3
    The United States has freedom of religion in the constitution which makes it hard to have blasphemy laws let alone ban a religion.
    – Joe W
    Commented May 16 at 13:26

3 Answers 3

5

The first amendment of the US Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For this reason there are no blasphemy laws in the United States. If one were passed somewhere it would be ruled unconstitutional if any attempt was made to enforce it.

1

It varies

Blasphemy is not a criminal offence under Australian federal law, but the de jure situation varies at state and territory level; it is currently not enforced in any Australian jurisdiction. The offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in English common law were carried over to the Australian colonies and "received" into state law following Federation in 1901. The common-law offences have been abolished totally in Queensland and Western Australia, when those jurisdictions adopted criminal codes that superseded the common law. In South Australia, Victoria, and the Northern Territory the situation is ambiguous, as the local criminal codes do not mention blasphemy but also did not specifically abolish the common-law offences. In New South Wales and Tasmania, the criminal codes do include an offence of blasphemy or blasphemous libel, but the relevant sections are not enforced and generally regarded as obsolete.

Notwithstanding, when it was an offence, it only applied to blasphemy against the Church of England because every other religion is not real.

0

Whoever publicly [...] demeans the religious of philosophical creed of another person in a manner suitable for disrupting the public peace shall be punised with prison up to three years or a fine.
§166 StGB (1), my translation, my emphasis.

The law recognizes that insulting a religion has a special potential for disturbing the public peace, more so than insults against a philatelists' society or even a soccer club. Hence §166, where one might think that §130 is sufficient. But the key here is that the court must find that the insult was be made in a way to provoke a breach of the peace, simply writing "I don't think so" is not punished.