Blasphemy law in the United States

Last updated

In the 20th century, the United States began to invalidate laws against blasphemy which had been on the books since before the founding of the nation [ citation needed ], or prosecutions on that ground, as it was decided that they violated the American Constitution. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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...", and these restrictions were extended to state and local governments in the early 20th century. While there are no federal laws which forbid "religious vilification" or "religious insult" or "hate speech", some states have blasphemy statutes.

Contents

Blasphemy laws

"An Act against Atheism and Blasphemy" as enacted in 1697 in "His Majesty's Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England" (1759 printing) An Act against Atheism and Blasphemy - Mass Bay Colony 1697.jpg
"An Act against Atheism and Blasphemy" as enacted in 1697 in "His Majesty's Province of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England" (1759 printing)

In 2009, The New York Times reported that Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania had laws that made reference to blasphemy. [1] Pennsylvania's blasphemy law was found unconstitutional in 2010. [2] Some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books from the founding days.

Massachusetts

For example, Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws – a provision based on a similar colonial-era Massachusetts Bay statute enacted in 1697 – states:

Section 36. Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Maryland

The history of Maryland's blasphemy statutes suggests that even into the 1930s, the First Amendment was not recognized as preventing states from passing such laws. An 1879 codification of Maryland statutes prohibited blasphemy:

Art. 72, sec. 189. If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.

According to the marginalia, this statute was adopted in 1819, and a similar law dates back to 1723. In 1904, the statute was still on the books at Art. 27, sec. 20, unaltered in text. As late as 1939, this statute was still the law of Maryland. But in 1972, in Maryland v. Irving K. West, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) declared the blasphemy law unconstitutional. [3] This law was still on the books until at least 2003. [4]

Maine

Maine's law reads as follows:

Blasphemy may be committed either by using profanely insolent and reproachful language against God, or by contumeliously reproaching Him, His creation, government, final judgment of the world, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Scriptures as contained in the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, or by exposing any of these enumerated Beings or Scriptures to contempt and ridicule, and it is not necessary for the state to prove the doing of all of them. [5]

Michigan

Michigan's law reads as follows:

750.102 Blasphemy; punishment.

Sec. 102.

Punishment—Any person who shall wilfully blaspheme the holy name of God, by cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.102 Former Law: See section 17 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5872; CL 1871, § 7707; How., § 9293; CL 1897, § 11706; CL 1915, § 15480; and CL 1929, § 16832. [6]

Secondarily, there is an "anti-profanity" law, which includes "blasphemy" elements, and reads as follows.

750.103 Cursing and swearing.

Sec. 103.

Cursing and swearing—Any person who has arrived at the age of discretion, who shall profanely curse or damn or swear by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. No such prosecution shall be sustained unless it shall be commenced within 5 days after the commission of such offense.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.103 Former Law: See section 18 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5873; CL 1871, § 7708; How., § 9294; CL 1897, § 11707; CL 1915, § 15481; and CL 1929, § 16833. [7]

Prosecutions for blasphemy

Massachusetts

The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838 (a Massachusetts case: Commonwealth v. Kneeland ).[ contradictory ] [8] From 1925, the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to all states. [9]

In February 1926, Lithuanian-American Communist Anthony Bimba was charged in Brockton, Massachusetts with blasphemy under a law passed during the time of the Salem Witch Trials more than two centuries earlier, as well as sedition. [10] A widely publicized week-long trial followed, during which Bimba's attorney likened atheism to religious belief and maintained that individuals had a right under the United States constitution to believe or disbelieve in the existence of a God. [11] Bimba was ultimately found not guilty of blasphemy but convicted of sedition, for which he was fined $100. [12]

Maine

In 1921, Lithuanian-American Michael X. Mockus was convicted in Maine. He appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine on March 25, 1921 in State v. Mockus and lost the appeal. [13]

Arkansas

The last known U.S. conviction for blasphemy was of atheist activist Charles Lee Smith. In 1928, he rented a storefront in Little Rock, Arkansas, and gave out free atheist literature there. The sign in the window read: "Evolution Is True. The Bible's a Lie. God's a Ghost." For this he was charged with violating the city ordinance against blasphemy. Because he was an atheist and therefore could not swear the court's religious oath to tell the truth, he was not permitted to testify in his own defense. The judge then dismissed the original charge, replacing it with one of distributing obscene, slanderous, or scurrilous literature. Smith was convicted, fined $25, and served most of a twenty-six-day jail sentence. His high-profile fast while behind bars drew national media attention. Upon his release, he immediately resumed his atheist activities, was again charged with blasphemy, and this time the charge held. In his trial he was again denied the right to testify and was sentenced to ninety days in jail and a fine of $100. Released on $1,000 bail, Smith appealed the verdict. The case then dragged on for several years until it was finally dismissed. [14]

Overturned blasphemy laws

New York (1952): Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson

The U.S. Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson , 343 U.S. 495 (1952) held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."

Pennsylvania (2010): Kalman v. Cortes

The Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted a blasphemy law in 1977, [15] that forbade corporations from incorporating names containing words that "constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing, or that profane the Lord’s name." In 2007, filmmaker George Kalman had filed a limited liability company named I Choose Hell Productions, LLC. [16] A week later he had received an unsigned letter explaining that his application was rejected because his company’s name could not “contain words that constitute blasphemy.” In February 2009, Kalman filed suit to have the provision against blasphemy struck down as unconstitutional. During the trial, Kalman explained that at one point he had become suicidal and felt he had to choose between death and hell. [17] This became the inspiration for naming his film company, stories that he would tell about how to choose life. On June 30, 2010, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Bayslon of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a 68-page opinion, ruled in favor of Kalman, finding that Pennsylvania's blasphemy statute violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [18] [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oath of office</span> Official promise by a person elected to public office to lawfully fulfill its duties

An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before assuming the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or organization. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremony connected with the taking up of office itself, or it may be administered privately. In some cases it may be administered privately and then repeated during a public ceremony.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Profanity</span> Socially offensive form of language

Profanity, also known as cursing, cussing, swearing, bad language, foul language, obscenities, expletives or vulgarism, is a socially offensive use of language. Accordingly, profanity is language use that is sometimes deemed rude, obscene, or culturally offensive; in certain religions, it constitutes sin. It can show a debasement of someone or something, or be considered an expression of strong feeling towards something. Some words may also be used as intensifiers.

Blasphemy is a speech crime and religious crime usually defined as an utterance that shows contempt, disrespects or insults a deity, an object considered sacred or something considered inviolable. Some religions regard blasphemy as a religious crime, especially the Abrahamic religions, including insulting the prophet Muhammad in Islam, speaking the "sacred name" in Judaism, and the "eternal sin" in Christianity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quebec French profanity</span> Profanities in Quebec French

Quebec French profanities, known as sacres, are words and expressions related to Catholicism and its liturgy that are used as strong profanities in Quebec French and in Acadian French. Sacres are considered stronger in Canada than the foul expressions common to other varieties of French, which centre on sex and excrement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sacrilege</span> Violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object, site or person

Sacrilege is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object, site or person. This can take the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things. When the sacrilegious offence is verbal, it is called blasphemy, and when physical, it is often called desecration. In a less proper sense, any transgression against what is seen as the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege, and so is coming near a sacred site without permission.

Laws prohibiting blasphemy and blasphemous libel in the United Kingdom date back to the mediaeval times as common law and in some special cases as enacted legislation. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2021. Equivalent laws remain in Northern Ireland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jesus wept</span> Verse in the Gospel of John describing Jesuss reaction to the death of Lazarus

"Jesus wept" is a phrase famous for being the shortest verse in the King James Version of the Bible, as well as in many other translations. It is not the shortest in the original languages. The phrase is found in the Gospel of John, chapter 11, verse 35. Verse breaks—or versification—were introduced into the Greek text by Robert Estienne in 1551 in order to make the texts easier to cite and compare.

In Christian hamartiology, eternal sin, the unforgivable sin, unpardonable sin, or ultimate sin is the sin which will not be forgiven by God. One eternal or unforgivable sin, also known as the sin unto death, is specified in several passages of the Synoptic Gospels, including Mark 3:28–29, Matthew 12:31–32, and Luke 12:10, as well as other New Testament passages including Hebrews 6:4–6, Hebrews 10:26–31, and 1 John 5:16.

Thomas Aikenhead was a Scottish student from Edinburgh, who was prosecuted and executed at the age of 20 on a charge of blasphemy under the Act against Blasphemy 1661 and Act against Blasphemy 1695. He was the last person in Great Britain to be executed for blasphemy. His execution occurred 85 years after the death of Edward Wightman (1612), the last person to be burned at the stake for heresy in England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oath More Judaico</span>

The Oath More Judaico or Jewish Oath was a special form of oath, rooted in antisemitism and accompanied by certain ceremonies and often intentionally humiliating, painful or dangerous, that Jews were required to take in European courts of law until the 20th century. More Judaico is Latin for "according to Jewish custom."

Sacrebleu or sacre bleu is a French profanity used as a cry of surprise, irritation or displeasure. It is a minced oath form of the profane sacré dieu, "holy God", which is, by some religions, considered a profanity, due to one of the Ten Commandments in the Bible, which reads "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."

<i>Commonwealth v. Kneeland</i>

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Abner Kneeland was an 1838 Massachusetts state court case, notable for being the last time a court in the United States jailed a defendant for blasphemy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blasphemy Act 1697</span> English legislation

The Blasphemy Act 1697 was an Act of the Parliament of England. It made it an offence for any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, by writing, preaching, teaching or advised speaking, to deny the Holy Trinity, to claim there is more than one god, to deny the truth of Christianity and to deny the Bible as divine authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Lee Smith</span>

Charles Lee Smith was an American atheist and white supremacist author and activist widely known for being the last successful conviction for blasphemy in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blasphemy law</span> Law prohibiting blasphemy

A blasphemy law is a law prohibiting blasphemy, which is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. According to Pew Research Center, about a quarter of the world's countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy laws or policies as of 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain</span> One of the Ten Commandments

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is the second or third of God's Ten Commandments to man in the Abrahamic religions.

In Ireland, "publication or utterance of blasphemous matter", defamatory of any religion, was a criminal offence until 17 January 2020. It was a requirement of the 1937 Constitution until removed after a 2018 referendum. The common law offence of blasphemous libel, applicable only to Christianity and last prosecuted in 1855, was believed to fulfil the constitutional requirement until a 1999 ruling that it was incompatible with the constitution's guarantee of religious equality. The Defamation Act 2009 included a provision intended to fill the lacuna while being "virtually impossible" to enforce, and no prosecution was made under it. The 2009 statute increased controversy, with proponents of freedom of speech and freedom of religion arguing for amending the constitution. After the 2018 constitutional amendment, a separate bill to repeal the 2009 provision and residual references to blasphemy was enacted in 2019 by the Oireachtas (parliament) and came into force in 2020. The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which includes religion among the characteristics protected from incitement to hatred, remains in force.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Act to Restrain Abuses of Players</span> 1606 English censorship law

The Act to Restrain Abuses of Players (1606) was a censorship law passed by the English Parliament, and introduced fines for plays which 'jestingly or profanely' used the names of God or Jesus. Plays written after 1606 avoided such terms as a consequence of the act, and new editions of older plays removed profane words. Some scholars have argued that the Act had an important influence on the revision and publication of the plays of William Shakespeare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anthony Bimba</span>

Antanas "Anthony" Bimba Jr. (1894–1982) was a Lithuanian-born American newspaper editor, historian, and radical political activist. An editor of a number of Lithuanian-language Marxist periodicals published in the United States, Bimba is best remembered as the defendant in a sensational 1926 legal case in which he was charged with sedition and violation of a 229-year-old law against blasphemy in the state of Massachusetts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael X. Mockus</span>

Michael X. Mockus was a Lithuanian-American Unitarian minister. Mockus is remembered for having been convicted in nationally publicized trials for having violated archaic Connecticut and Maine state laws prohibiting blasphemy as a result of his public challenges of certain points of orthodox religious belief.

References

  1. Freedman, Samuel G. (20 March 2009). "A Man's Existentialism, Construed as Blasphemy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 September 2017. Retrieved 4 September 2009.
  2. Kalman v. Cortes, 723 F. Supp. 2d 766
  3. "Blasphemy Laws" in Gordon Stein, editor, The Encyclopedia of Unbelief, p. 61. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1985.
  4. Maryland Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook (Longwood: Gould Publications, 2002), Art. 27, section 20. Blasphemy.
  5. "State v. Mockus". Atlantic Reporter. 1921. Archived from the original on 2022-07-06. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
  6. "Michigan Legislature - Section 750.102". Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-06-22.
  7. "Michigan Legislature - Section 750.103". Archived from the original on 2021-12-08. Retrieved 2021-06-22.
  8. "Kneeland, Abner" in Gordon Stein, editor, The Encyclopedia of Unbelief, pp. 379–380. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1985.
  9. "Blasphemy" in Tom Flynn, editor, The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, p. 147. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007.
  10. Jennifer Ruthanne Uhlmann, The Communist Civil Rights Movement: Legal Activism in the United States, 1919–1946. PhD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles, 2007; p. 110.
  11. William Wolkovich, Bay State "Blue" Laws and Bimba: A Documentary Study of the Anthony Bimba Trial for Blasphemy and Sedition in Brockton, Massachusetts, 1926. Brockton, MA: Forum Press, n.d. [1973]; p. 75.
  12. Wolkovich, Bay State "Blue" Laws and Bimba, p. 114.
  13. Theodore Schroeder (1919). Constitutional Free Speech Defined and Defended in an Unfinished Argument in a Case of Blasphemy. Free Speech League. p.  454. Mockus blasphemy.
  14. "Smith, Charles Lee" in Gordon Stein, editor, The Encyclopedia of Unbelief, pp. 633–634. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1985.
  15. 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §1303(c)(2)(ii)
  16. 723 F. Supp. 2d 766
  17. Kalman v. Cortes Archived 2011-06-01 at the Wayback Machine , 723 F. Supp. 2d 766
  18. Kalman v. Cortes Archived 2011-06-01 at the Wayback Machine , 723 F. Supp. 2d 766.
  19. See amicus brief, filed 12/24/09 for Case No. 2:09-cv-00684, accessible at https://jmp.sh/N28dBN3 Archived 2022-07-06 at the Wayback Machine .

Further reading