1. Blasphemy and its legitimacy in democratic society.
Since pre-history there has been a proliferation of gods and hence a need to name them. When
Judaismabandonedthe manyinfavourof the one (about4,000 yearsago),this ‘one’godneededno
name and thus it was deemedblasphemoustopronounce that name - YHVH or Yahwehor Jehovah.
Since ancient/classic Hebrew has no vowel marks nikkud (the Arabic in the Qu’ran has no ḥarakāt),
no-one knowshowitshouldbe pronounced.Tosay‘god’thereforeacknowledgedandconfirmedyour
belief in ‘the one god’.
What startedasan offence against‘god’hasbecomeaperceived offence orinsultagainstpeoplewho
believein agod(s) or a religionora sacredobject. Theocraticgovernmentsdonotrecognise the right
to free speech or its advantages. In Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for instance, almost anything can be
takenas blasphemous, resultinginmanyinfringementsonHumanRightsincludingimprisonmentand
death. But indemocracies,the UN Council of Human Rights(2006) upholdsthe rightsof all,including
those of otherreligions,non-religiousandatheist.A ‘sacredgood’cannotbe exclusivetoreligion,and
religiouspracticesmay be deemedequallyoffensivetoanatheistwhovaluesfreespeechandHuman
Rights as ‘sacred’.
‘…it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against
one or certain religions or belief systems,ortheir adherentsoveranother,or religious
believers over non-believers.’1
In multi-cultural, democratic societies misunderstandings often lead to the isolation of minority
groups, creatinga subculture of victimisation andperceived lackof respectand insult. The historyof
democracyteachesrespectforitsmembersasreasonable,thinkingpeople,entitledtotheiropinions
butnot immunityfromoffence. Thisclashof ideologiespresentshumankindwithadilemma –where
to draw the line betweenwhatisthe legitimate use of ‘free speech’lawsandso-called‘hate speech’
(deliberate incitement to discrimination and violence)? At the present time, the line is somewhat
blurred and liberal progressives,byallowing‘hate speech’ againstthe secular, insidiouslyundermine
the legitimate political condition of democratic society.
Voicing an opinion that questions the beliefs of an individual or group can denote respect for that
individual/group’sautonomy asan equal memberof society.Anexample would be - supportfor the
Palestinians is respecting and honouring the Jewish people who died in the Holocaust, by
anathematisingthe segregationandpersecutionof a group because of religionor race, eventhough
this may perceived as an attack on Zionists in Israel.
Resolution16/18: ‘…combating intolerance,negativestereotyping andstigmatization of,
and discrimination,incitementto violence,and violenceagainstpersonsbased on religion
or belief.’2
It may seem inconceivable to some that a ‘blasphemer’ can legitimately be demonstrating respect
towardsagroupthroughthismeans3
andmarks religiousblasphemy asacrime, non-transferable from
a theocracy to a democracy.There is no moral right for an atheist,orthe adherentof any religion,to
refrain from interrogating another’s definition of the ‘sacred’.
1 Submission to the UN Human Rights Council:14th Session of UPR WorkingGroup 2012
2 UN Human Rights Council:Article19 Briefingnote 2015
3 Dacey, Austin: The Future of Blasphemy.New York 2012