BAN BLASPHEMY LAWS
Mediums have been prosecuted by the state for blasphemously claiming to be able to talk to the dead. People have been put to death in Muslim countries for expressing their critical thoughts about Islam and thereby blasphemously questioning the truthfulness of Islam. The Roman Catholic Church butchered millions for the blasphemies of witchcraft and heresy.
What is sacred to one religion is blasphemy to another. For example, Islam blasphemes Christianity by saying Jesus was a prophet and not God. Christianity blasphemes Allah, the God of Islam, by saying that Jesus was God. Christianity blasphemes the Muslim Prophet Muhammad by denying that he was a prophet of God and so that he was at best deluded and by calling him a sinner.
The Roman Catholic idea that the Mass is the same sacrifice as the Cross of Jesus and that the bread and wine are turned into Jesus himself to be eaten and drunk and rotted is extremely offensive to Christians. If bread becoming Jesus isn't blasphemous then shit becoming Jesus can't be blasphemous either. The Church praises the humility of Jesus in becoming like bread so he must be more humble if he becomes like shit. The Church blurs the difference between humility and humiliation for its purposes.
Christians find the Catholic adoration of Mary very insulting to the role of Jesus Christ as saviour and God.
Blasphemy laws conflict with the right of freedom of speech. The Church has used them to prevent anybody finding out that its doctrines are deceitful or from telling anybody that they are.
God cannot be harmed by blasphemy if he is omnipotent. If God is attractive as religion says, it follows that people don't insult or mock him but a caricature of him. Religion nevertheless has it in its Bibles that blasphemy must be punished by the Law. Under the Law of God given through Moses the penalty for blasphemy was a cruel death to be administered by God's people.
Religion wants blasphemers punished though religion can provide no evidence that its doctrines are true and sacred. People you can see come before a God you cannot see or prove.
As long as blasphemy remains an offence, a country cannot be considered to comprehend or fully value human rights. Religion says blasphemy is wrong. In theory, the Law can outlaw whatever it chooses as long as the action is wrong. To condemn blasphemy is to confess the Law has the right to punish blasphemy if it decides to and to make anti-blasphemy laws. Religion is dangerous.
Belief in God blasphemes the dignity of humanity. What about that for blasphemy! The believer when faced with somebody who is enduring the worst life can offer has some routes to take. He can say, "Evil is not a thing or a power. It is just good falling short of what it should be. God is not entitled to give us any more good than he gives." That implies that the suffering should be praised and compassion is bad. Instead of being horrified about the evil, we should be focusing on the good in it. He can say that suffering is somehow good or worthwhile and indeed must be when God allows it to happen and makes the forces that cause us such pain. This implies that the person either deserves to suffer, needs to be hurt so that other people may grow spiritually by helping him, or both. It calls evil good. Even if you say that we have free will and God lets us do evil that does no good at all, you are still saying the evil should have been permitted to happen. It happened for the good purpose of respecting free will. If a mother let a criminal hurt her child to respect his free will we would condemn her. We would say she was evil for putting the will of the criminal before her own and the will of the child to be cared for. It seems she could only be justified for a real good purpose that made the suffering worthwhile so that takes us back to the idea that God allows evil to produce a greater good. Why should my will to harm be put before the will of the victim to be safe? Again it can only be justified if God has a plan for my evil and is sure he can put it into effect.
A person who fails to doubt God or deny God's existence when he or she sees terrible suffering is a person who is refusing to let the horror destroy what he or she believes. To say, "Your suffering is not as bad as it looks because there is a God or may be one and we want it to stop" shows less compassion than, "If there is no God then your suffering is totally abhorrent and useless and we want it to stop." Compassion starts by acknowledging how much the person is suffering or how bad it is. The unbeliever in God who thinks there is only this life, is being far more sacrificial than a believer who believes God has a plan and evil will turn to good that makes his allowing it to happen more worthwhile. The unbeliever admits how evil it is and fights it despite not expecting a reward.
Without belief in God, there is no condoning even to the slightest degree. With belief in God there has to be some condoning. An evil person assumes a murderer had justification for what they did. Christians assume the same about their God so God is an evil dangerous filthy belief. Christians should suffer the extremes of sacrifice for others if they want to have the right to condone, to any level, suffering.
How can Christians stoop so low as to adopt belief in an all-powerful and all-good God in the face of suffering? They like to feel safe and chosen. They are being insensitive to the suffering that others face to obtain that comfort for themselves. They are arrogantly thinking they are better than the victims for they are okay or that God considers them more precious and won't hurt them or at least hurt them very much.
Secularism ignores religion and supernatural beliefs and so it refuses to enforce them or encourage them or punish those who insult them. Religion and supernatural beliefs give people more stuff to be offended by and that is bad in itself.
Blasphemy is usually defined as speaking disparagingly against the sacred. Sometimes it is defined as insulting the religious beliefs of others. Sometimes both. Jesus said we must love God with all our powers and this is the most important commandment. Loving neighbour is only second runner up. Clearly religion has to accept the definition that blasphemy is speaking disparagingly against the sacred. Insulting the believers by insulting their beliefs is not as important. To accept the definition indicates that blasphemy law should only protect one religion and not the rest. That is because what is blasphemy to one faith is sacred to another.
The onus of proof is on the offended believer to prove that they really believe. You can't accuse someone of offending your belief unless you show that you really believe first. That will require a lot of evidence and require you to be able to defend your faith eloquently and reasonably.