Blasphemy

In criminal law. To attribute to God that which is contrary to his nature, and does not belong to him, and to deny what does. A false reflection uttered with a malicious design of reviling God. Emlyn's Pref. to 8 St. Tr. To willfully revile the Deity or sacred things. Malicious reproach of God, his name, attributes, or religion. 2 Bish. Crim. Law, § 76. In general, blashphemy may be described as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity with an impious purpose to derogate from the divine majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. It is purposely using words concerning God calculated and designed to impair and destroy the reverence, respect, and confidence due to him as the intelligent creator, governor, and judge of the world. It embraces the idea of detraction, when used towards the Supreme Being; as "calumny" usually carries the same idea when applied to an individual. It is a willful and malicious attempt to lessen men's reverence of God by denying his existence, or hia attributes as an intelligent creator, governor, and judge of men, and to prevent their having confidence in him as such. 20 Pick. (Mass.) 211, 212, per Shaw, C. J.

In English law. Blasphemy is the offense of speaking matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer, intended to wound the feelings of mankind or to excite contempt and hatred against the church by law established or to promote immorality. Sweet.

In American law. Any oral or written reproach maliciously cast upon God, His name, attributes, or religion. Co.m. v. Knee-land, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 213; Young v. State, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 165; Com. v. Spratt, 14 Phila. (Pat) 365; People v. Buggies, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 290, 5 Am. Dec. 335; Updegraph v.om., 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 406 ; 2 Bish. Cr. Law, § 76; Pen. Code Dak. § 31. In general, blasphemy may be described as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity with an impious purpose to derogate from the divine majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. It is purposely using words concerning God calculated and designed to impair and destroy the reverence, respect, and confidence due to Him as the intelligent creator, governor, and judge of the world. It embraces the idea of detraction, when used towards the Supreme Being, as "calumny" usually carries the same idea when applied to an individual. It is a willful and malicious attempt to lessen men's reverence of God by deny ing His existence, or His attributes as an intelligent creator, governor, and judge of men, and to prevent their having confidence m Him as such. Com. v. Kneeland, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 211, 212. The use of this word is, in modern law exclusively confined to sacred subjects; but blasphemia and blasphemare were anciently used to signify the reviling by one person of another. Nov. 77,t c. 1, § 1; Spelman.

The use of irreverent words in reference to the Supreme Being, such as to produce scandal or provoke violence; a malicious reviling of God or religion. Blasphemous libel: the publication of writings blaspheming the Supreme Being, or ridiculing the doctrines of the Christian religion; — not an honest denial of the truths of that religion, but a publication with intent to pervert, insult and mislead others by licentious and contumelious abuse of sacred subjects.

io Denying the being or providence of the Almighty, or contumelious reproaching of Christ; also, profane scoffing at the holy scripture, or exposing it to contempt and ridicule.ii "Denny u Lyon, 38 Pa. 101 (1860); German Building Association v. Sendmeyer, 60 id. 67 (1866). = Sweesey v. Kitchen, 80 Pa. 160 (1876), Agnew, C. J. s Allen V. Withrow, 110 U. S. 128-29 (1884), cases. ■■Bank of Pittsburgh v. Neal, 33 How. 108 (1859); Angle V. N. W. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 93 U. S. 338-39 331, 337 (1875), cases. « Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How. 360-61 (1857), oases; Michigan Bank v. Eldred, 9 Wall. 651-52 (1869), cases; l OlU. S. 572; 46N. Y. 325. = City of Lexington v. Butler, 14 Wall. 295 (1871). '3 Kent, 89; Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 466 (1666), Chase, C. J. « 3 Kent, 90. » 2 Pars. Contr. 563, 723. Maliciously reviling God or religion.! An offense at common law. The reviling is an offense because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society... The people of the State of New York, in common with the people of this covmtry, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author o£ these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but even in respect to the obligations due to society is a gross violation of decency and good order. The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with maliciou^j and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Wicked and malicious words, writings and actions which go to vilify t^ose gospels, continue, as at common law, to be an offense against the public peace and safety. They are inconsistent with the reverence due to the administration of an oath, and, among other evil consequences, they tend to lessen, in the public mind, its religious sanction.^ A malicious and mischievous intention is the broad boundary between right and wrong. This is to be collected from the offensive levity, scurrilous and opprobrious language, and other circumstances. The species of the offense may be classed as: 1, denying the being and providence of Grod; 2, contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ; profane and malevolent SGofiftng at tha scriptures, or exposing any part of them to contempt and ridicule; 3, certain immoralities tending to subvert all religion and morality. It is not necessary to the exercise of liberty of conscience and to freedom of religious worship that a man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of his country. It is open, public viU'flcation of the religion of the country that is punished, not to force conscience by punishment, but to preserve the peace by an outward respect to the religion of the country, and not as a restraint upon the liberty of conscience.^ Consists in blaspheming the holy name of God, by denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government, or final judging of the world. 3 This may be done by language orally uttered, which would not be a libel, but it is not the less blasphemy if the same thing be done by language written, printed, and published, although when in this form it also constitutes the offense of libel.' Speaking evil of the Deity with an impious purpose to derogate f rooi the divine majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the 1 People V. Buggies, 8 Johns. 'ggS-gS (1811), Kent, C. J. = Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & E. 406, 408 <Pa., 18a4),^Duncan, J. love and reverence of God. Purposely using words concerning God calculated and designed to impair and de^troy the reverence, respect, and confidence due to Him, as the intelligent creator, goyernor and judge of the world. A willful and malicious attempt to lessen men's rever^nce of God, by denying his existence or his attributes as an intelligent creator, governor and judge of men, and to prevent their having confidence in Him as such.i Blasphemous libeL The publication of writings blaspheming the Supreme Being, or turning the doctrines of the Christian religion into contempt and ridicule. 2 Does not consist in an honest denial of the truths of the Christian religion, but in "a willful intention to pervert, insult, and mislead others by means of licentious and contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects." 3 The fullest inquiry, and the freest discussion, for all honest and fair purposes, one of which is the discovery of truth, is not prohibited. The simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in the existence and attributes of a supreme, intelligent being, upon proper occasions, is not prevented. It is the design to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being, and to destroy the veneration due Him, that is intended.* See Christianity; Profanity; Eeligion. BLAS'riNG. See Nuisance. If a volimtary act, lawful in itself, naturally results in injury to another, the doer must pay all damages which are the proximate consequence of the act, regardless of the degree of care eiercised.* See Negligence.

[Lat. blasphemia, from Gr. blasphemia, evil speaking or reviling.] In criminal law. An offence against religion, either by denying the being or providence of God; or by contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Christ; or by profane scoffing at the holy scripture, or exposing it to contempt and ridicule; Christianity being part of the laws of England. 4 Bl. Com. 59. 4 Steph. Com. 233, 234. 2 Hume on Crimes, 568. In the United States, also, the Christian religion is received as part of the common law, and to revile it publicly and blasphemously, or to blaspheme its author is an indictable offence. 8 Johns. R. 290. Thacher's Crim. Cas. 346. 11 Serg. & Rawle, 394. Story, J., 2 Howard's R. 127, 198. Wharton's Am. Crim. Law, 4, 586. 20 Pick. R. 206. Shaw, C. J., Id. 213. The use of this word is, in modern law, exclusively confined to sacred subjects; but blasphemia and blasphemare were anciently used to signify the reviling by one person of another. Nov. 77, c. 1, § 1. Spelman.

crim. law, is to attribute to God that which is contrary to his nature, and does not belong to him, and to deny what does. This offence has been enlarged in Pennsylvania, and perhaps most of the other states. 11 Serg. & Rawle, 394. In England all blasphemies against God, the Christian religion, the holy scriptures, and malicious revilings of the established church are punishable by indictment, 1 East, P. C. 3; 1 Russ. on Cr. 217; and in France before the 25th of September, 1791, it was blasphemy also to speak against the holy virgin and the saints, to deny one's faith, to speak with impiety of holy things, and to swear by things sacred. Merl. Rep. h. t. The law relating to blasphemy in that country was totally repealed by the code of 25th of September, 1791, and its present penal code, art. 262, enacts that any person who, by words or gestures, shall commit any outrage upon objects of public worship, in the places designed or actually employed, for the performance of its rites, or shall assault or insult ministers of such worship in the exercise of their functions, shall be fined from sixteen to five hundred francs, and be imprisoned for a period not less than fifteen days nor more than six months.