Should U.S. states be allowed to enforce modern blasphemy laws?

[SolitarySolace]

A society has the right to recognize that public blasphemy against God or Christianity is not just “ordinary disagreement,” but an attack on the moral and religious foundation that shaped much of our civilization. At the founding, some states treated Christianity as part of the public moral order, and I do not think that history should be dismissed as automatically tyrannical.

That said, I would not support vague laws that punish honest theological disagreement, private unbelief, or respectful criticism. The line would need to be narrow and aimed at public, malicious, contemptuous attacks on sacred things — not at forcing belief.

I understand current First Amendment doctrine would likely reject laws like this today, but as a matter of principle, I do think states should have more authority to defend public moral order than modern secular liberalism allows.

At the time of the U. S. founding, some states had laws punishing blasphemy or speech considered contemptuous toward Christianity. Do you support or oppose allowing states to enforce blasphemy laws today?

Yes

No

[strateguy632]

usually no, but NOW we can't offend certain groups, so equally can't offend christians.

[Cidknee]

Yep! They should for christianity and Judaism. But not any other religion.

[SofaKingsMart]

Why is that?

[Cidknee]

Because i say so.

[Cidknee]

And the rest are false gods anyway.

[SofaKingsMart]

@Cidknee
You just demonstrated why I could never be a Christian.
I lack the arrogance.

[Cidknee]

But loaded with the ignorance. I know you mattress boy.

[SofaKingsMart]

@Cidknee

“Mattress boy?”
😂🤣😂🤣
Was that meant to be an insult?

Gonna call me a big doody head next?

[Screenwriter]

We are not a theocracy and since there is freedom of religion, there could be no consistency about what would constitute "blasphemy."

Goddamit could be construed as blasphemy. What is considered blasphemy to Muslims would be different from what is blasphemy to Christians and Christians are not the sole religion in America. That would also be different from blasphemy to Jews, and I have no idea what is blasphemy to Buddhists, Confucionists and other religions.

This would be far too difficult to enforce and purports a bias toward Christian views. A bad idea in a demovraxy that allows freedom of and from religion.

[MisterWack]

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech all the way which includes religious and non religious, fictional and factual, opinion and facts, etc.

Blasphemy is objective. Christianity is Blasphemous to other religions and vice versa, so since you can’t have an established religion in this country (The Founders) then everything would remove religion which goes against The Founders too.

Umbrella policy to allow everyone’s free speech to be heard rather than silence those that trigger you.

[yellowsombrero]

I am Christian and unless someone gives me some logical reasons, I wouldn't support laws like that.

The Old Testament shows us how serious sin is and that penalty for sin is death.

In the New Testament we see religious leasers bringing cases to Jesus of people who had sinned and under the moral law should be put to death. His response was not putting those people to death, but having mercy and admonishing them to turn from those ways of living.

Jesus explains that forgiveness is available for blasphemy against God through Him.

There are people in our country who do not believe in God. Christianity is not based on forcing anyone to follow the faith. We don't need the government overseeing our lives in that way.

[Cidknee]

I think he's speaking about how so many are attacking Christians and our religion as being racist and bigots against homosexal and other sexual perversion.

[yellowsombrero]

@Cidknee I looked into blasphemy laws a but more. Unless I'm not understanding, it seemed like if someone spoke against Christianity. I saw where there might be a $50 or $100 fine.

I don't think blasphemy is ok, but I also don't want the government policing our words. You begin to take away freedoms from people iIf you criminalize speaking against Christianity, you also open the door for criminalizing religious speech and ideas.

For instance, pastors preach against idolatry--worshipping any other god--which includes other religions or atheism or agnosticism. You would have those groups lining up for the same protections.

This is not an issue that we want the government involved in. Our government cannot reliably deal with a number of issues already. If we start passing laws like this, then we eventually get to the place where we cannot even criticize the government or leaders without being fined or maybe a greater penalty.

[236color]

We are a secular nation. Faithfulness to one religion can be Blasphemy in another. The first amendment, maintains that government not get involved. Christian Nationalist want to use the power of government to tip the scale in their favor, but the law is not on their side, and I am very glad of that.

It is because of views like the ones you espoused that I am NOT a Christian. You might be able to force people to mouth the words and go through the motions, but news flash, you can't make us believe. Sorry bunky.

[Tamera952]

Of course not. As if they don’t already have bigger issues and problems right now. Since religious beliefs are subjective, therefore blasphemy is subjective, and what a waste of time that would be to try to enshrine any of that sh*t in canonized objective law. It’s a fools errand, and not something modern developed countries need to worry about, Only theocratic authoritarian societies like Saudi Arabia or elsewhere take that silly stuff seriously.

[katiesmuff]

Absolutely NOT any American who totally worships and believes that we should, should themselves be arrested and removed from the US to a place more suited to their beliefs such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries.

[bolverk]

I suggest that you look at what has happened here in the UK when blasphemy laws were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland in 2024, but they still exist in Northern Ireland, although they are not actively enforced. These laws historically protected only Christianity and have been criticized for stifling free speech.

[AviatorTom]

Definite NO... That would violate a key American principle... Separation of Church and State.

It would also be difficult and arbitrary to enforce. What some might consider blasphemy, others might consider freedom of speech.

[Twalli]

If we were to, we have to apply it to ALL religions. That's impossible. We weren't founded as a Christian nation, and the freedom of religion means that all religions need to be respected. It's almost impossible to not blaspheme against one religion because you believe in another.

[Just_Ken]

Problem with blasphemy laws like hate speech laws is who decides what it is?

[SolitarySolace]

That is a fair concern. I would not support vague laws punishing private unbelief, honest theological disagreement, or respectful criticism of Christianity.

Where I think the state has a legitimate role is when anti-Christian speech crosses into threats, intimidation, harassment, or language bordering on violence toward Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant. At that point, it is not merely someone disagreeing with theology; it becomes a public-order issue.

So I understand the “who decides?” concern. The line would need to be narrow and clearly defined. But I do think Christian communities should have some protection from openly malicious speech that encourages hostility or violence against them.

[Just_Ken]

What you are missing is the application of the law. We have hate speech laws in Britain but they only apply when its deemed hate speech by white Christian Hetrosexual usually make but sometimes females. Recently a white 18 year old man was stabbed and his attacker accused him of a racist hate crime and the police arrested him, he bled to death in handcuffs.
There were anti immigrant riots after a 3 young girls were stabbed to death at a Taylor Swift party and a 40 year old woman was arrested for hate speech because she livestreamed what was happening in fbook.
To date Britain has more arrests for anti government posts on social media than Russia.

[yellowsombrero]

We already have protections for being threatened or harassed.

[SolitarySolace]

@Just_Ken That is exactly why I think the line would have to be narrow and clearly defined.

I would not want America to copy Britain’s broad hate-speech model, where enforcement can become selective or political. My point is not that ordinary criticism of Christianity should be punished.

My point is that Christians should receive the same protection as anyone else when speech crosses into threats, intimidation, harassment, or incitement to violence. The danger is vague enforcement; the principle is equal protection.

[SolitarySolace]

@yellowsombrero That’s fair, and I should clarify: I’m not talking about punishing ordinary blasphemy, private unbelief, or criticism of Christianity.

My concern is when anti-Christian speech crosses into threats, intimidation, harassment, or rhetoric that borders on violence against Christians. At that point, the issue is no longer mere disagreement with religion; it becomes a public-order and equal-protection issue.

And if those protections already exist, then the real question is whether they are applied consistently. Where are those protections when hostility toward Christians is ignored, excused, or treated as politically acceptable depending on who holds power?

[darkcloud1945]

Just a question for you. What would give the state the right to impose your religious views on me or anyone else? ALSO, the separation of church and state comes into play. My answer is NO NO NO NO. We are not in the Middle Ages

[Chazmatazz269]

Nope. That would be a clear violation of the spirit of separation of church and state.

[NathanDavis]

not even god himself enforces religion... but you will?

[TonyMetal___86]

Maybe someone will tell me now that i don't get to have an opinion about it because i'm not a U. S citizen nor living there, but yes i agree!

[Pohjolan]

Why just talk about christianity?

Some hippies chakra crystals should get equal protection as your invisible sky friend if you want to go down that route.

[888theGreat]

No, because each religion has different standards. if you favor one religion over the others , you no longer have freedom of religion. God is the punisher not people.

[genericname85]

no because that violates the principle of secularity. the separation of state and church.

[Snakeyes7]

No, it doesn't matter what religion or othoxody you follow. It's never ok to have laws like that.

[msc545]

Now, when it comes to the responsibility of the state to enforce religious laws, things tend to go to hell in a hurry (no pun intended).

[Staximus]

Christianity is like a politically correct cult

[cranberrycattoystory]

Absolutely NOT. Not in a secular, democratic world.

[Nuday77]

As a Christian, this is not acceptable. TBH this more like something Muslims do.

[exitseven]

I beleivein the FirstAmerndment

[DonaldDarko]

What happens if Muslims demand it too?

[beefcakebradybatson]

NO !!!