Go to home page - diocesan shield

The Anglican Church in Tasmania                                                             Search

a healthy church...transformingLIFE

Crime of blasphemy

by Bishop John Harrower
13 February 2003

The crime of blasphemy is currently being debated in the Tasmanian Parliament.

It has been suggested that blasphemy applies only to the Christian religion1 and I would draw your attention to my comments on this subject.

Blasphemy - Definitions

a. Australian Dictionary Definition.

'Imperious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things' and 'irreverent behaviour to anything held sacred'. Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd edition.

b. Christian Definition.

'Speech, thought or action manifesting contempt for God.' The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1958. 'Hallowed be thy name' is the first petition of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2, the dis-hallowing of God's name is blasphemy.

c. Jewish Community.

The Book of Exodus sets out the People of God's special duty to hallow the name of God (Exodus 20:7) and to blaspheme that name was a terrible sin and was to be punished most forcefully (Leviticus 24:13-16).

d. Muslim Community.

The Quran states, 'They say: 'The Most Gracious Has taken a son!' Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!' Sura 19: 88-92 of the Holy Quran, with the explanatory note 2529: 'The belief in Allah begetting a son is not a question merely of words or of speculative thought. It is a stupendous blasphemy against Allah.' The Presidency of Islamic Researches, IFTA, Call and Guidance, 27/10/1405 AH.2

From the above I trust it is clear that blasphemy is a grave issue in these three monotheistic traditions and in all religions that name and honour 'God', however defined. Any action based on the advice that the current blasphemy law is discriminatory as between the Christian religion and other religions clearly fails. All religions that worship God affirm blasphemy as a wrong against God.

As a bishop of the Christian Church I believe blasphemy to be a sin against God and any judgement and punishment should be left to God, not to the state.

There are other grounds for consideration in this matter.

  1. Blasphemy gives rise to deep offence and for this reason it has been argued that including blasphemy in the criminal code is intended less to protect God's name and integrity than to guard the sensibilities of those who honour and worship God. For those people who worship God blasphemy is a grievous wrong against God and profoundly offensive, giving rise to hurt, frustration and even anger. The preservation of social harmony is an argument for holding blasphemy as an offence in our social ordering.
  2. Blasphemy weakens the basis of society. It is argued that religion is the basis of societal order and to treat religion and in particular the Godhead with contempt is an attack on the underpinnings of society. In Western democratic societies through the 20th century secularisation was seen as an inevitable and irreversible process and one consequence has been the difficulty of many of its members to grasp the rise of religious fundamentalism. If God is rarely a part of public discourse, including the media, then to blaspheme God does not occur even as an idea, let alone as a grave offence, to many Australians. Note the general public's incomprehension at the fatwa placed on Salmon Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses.
  3. The treatment of blasphemy as a crime will restrict our freedom of speech. While our social harmony may be weakened should blasphemy be decriminalised and irreverence and religious vilification increase, I believe there is a graver danger afoot. That danger is to free and honest public discourse and the imposition of a particular view of life on members of society.

While racial and religious vilification legislation are at times sited together, there is a significant difference between them. Racial vilification legislation should not prevent discourse over issues of ethnicity and race, but the regulation of religious discourse could well disallow the particular and universal claims of religious belief, including Christian and Muslim beliefs. See, by way of illustration, the quote from the Quran above which views Christian claims about God to be blasphemy . I note with approval Section 119 (3) of the current legislation, 'It is not an offence under this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever upon any religious subject.'

Clearly I urge people not to blaspheme. But along with Voltaire I would prefer to endure disrespect to my beliefs, including irreverence towards the God of my religious beliefs, than curtail the right of a person to express those beliefs: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' The fact that blasphemy is a crime under our Tasmanian legislation is potentially dangerous to free and honest conversation about deeply held religious beliefs. Religious discourse and debate is vital in a multi-religious democratic society.

A cultural aspect of this issue is the use of what is technically blasphemy, but which is a vernacular use of the divine names in anglo-saxon Australian culture. While I and many other Christians find the (mis)use of the divine names 'Jesus Christ' and 'God' to express surprise or disapproval, to be hurtful and offensive, I also recognise that this (mis)use is not meant to give offense to either Christians or to God.

In conclusion, I believe the crime of blasphemy should be removed from the criminal code and we should work towards social harmony through our own offices. A high priority must be given to the education of Tasmanians in different religious beliefs and practices. Such education should not be shy of religious difference but lead to understanding and acceptance and the capacity to hold religious difference in life and conversation with integrity and dignity.

1. Please note there is one Christian religion as defined by the Christian Scriptures and the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. The different Christian groups are called denominations, not Christian religions.

2. Although I would note that the Quran incorrectly expresses those claims: Christians do not in fact say 'God has taken a son'.

From Section 119 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 (No. 69 of 1924)
SCHEDULE 1 -

PART IV - ACTS INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL
CHAPTER X111 - Crimes Relating to Religion

Blasphemy

119. (1) Any person who, by words spoken or intended to be read, willfully publishes as blasphemous libel is guilty of a crime

Charge:

Blasphemy.

(2) The question whether any matter so published is or is not blasphemous is a question of fact.

(3) It is not an offence under this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever upon any religious subject.

(4) No person shall be prosecuted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney-General

 

 

 

 

 

Download this article as a pdf file.