The United States does not have any laws prohibiting blasphemy, which is defined as speech or expression that is irreverent or disrespectful towards religion. The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, even if that speech is critical of religion. However, some states do still have outdated blasphemy laws on the books that are no longer enforceable due to Supreme Court rulings. Additionally, there have been some attempts to pass new anti-blasphemy laws at the state and federal level in recent years, but none have succeeded so far.
Quick Summary
Here is a quick summary of whether the US has blasphemy laws:
- The US does not have any federal laws prohibiting blasphemy or sacrilegious speech.
- The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, including the right to criticize or satirize religion.
- However, some states still have outdated and unenforceable blasphemy laws on the books.
- There have been some attempts to pass new anti-blasphemy laws, but none have succeeded.
- The Supreme Court has ruled that blasphemy laws are unconstitutional.
History of Blasphemy Laws in the US
Although the US does not currently have federal blasphemy laws, some states did enact prohibitions on blasphemy during the colonial and early statehood periods. Massachusetts passed an anti-blasphemy measure as early as 1646. By the early 19th century, many states, particularly in New England, had enacted laws punishing blasphemy or profanity against God and religion.
These early blasphemy statutes were rooted in the religious dominance of Christianity at the time and were intended to protect and preserve Christian morality. The laws made it a crime to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ or to curse or revile God or the Bible. Punishments ranged from fines to corporal punishment like whipping or sitting in the stocks.
By the early 20th century, prosecutions and convictions under state blasphemy laws had tapered off as they fell out of favor. The Supreme Court began chipping away at the validity of these laws in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1952, the Court ruled in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson that laws banning sacrilegious content in films violated freedom of speech protections.
The final blow came in the 1952 case Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson, where the Supreme Court essentially invalidated blasphemy laws by ruling that laws banning sacrilegious content in films violated freedom of speech protections.
Key Supreme Court Rulings
Here are some key Supreme Court rulings related to blasphemy laws:
- 1952 – Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson – Ruled that laws banning sacrilegious films violated free speech.
- 1968 – Epperson v. Arkansas – Struck down state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution.
- 1971 – Lemon v. Kurtzman – Established the “Lemon test” for laws regarding religion.
- 1992 – R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul – Ruled hate speech laws targeting religious expression were unconstitutional.
These rulings made clear that blasphemy laws were unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment. As a result, prosecutions under state blasphemy statutes came to a standstill, even if some laws technically remained on the books.
Current State Laws
Today, there are still several states that have anti-blasphemy laws on the books despite their unenforceability. These outdated laws remain because legislatures simply have not gotten around to repealing them in light of changed social attitudes and constitutional protections. According to the First Amendment Center, here are some current state laws related to blasphemy:
- Massachusetts – Prohibits “blasphemy against God, either cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world.”
- Michigan – Makes it a crime to use “any contemptuous, irreverent or profane language” in reference to religion.
- Oklahoma – Bans “profanely curs[ing] or damn[ing] or swear[ing] by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost.”
- South Carolina – Prohibits “blasphemy against the Almighty God.”
- Wyoming – Criminalizes “blasphemy against God or corruption of public morals.”
While still on the books, these laws would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional if challenged in court today. In some states, there have been efforts to try and formally repeal the obsolete blasphemy laws, but there has often been resistance from legislators who see it as unnecessary or fear being portrayed as anti-religion.
Recent Attempts at New Blasphemy Laws
While no new anti-blasphemy laws have been enacted, there have been some recent efforts to pass state or federal laws prohibiting certain types of speech offensive to religion. For example:
- In 2019, a bill was introduced in the Mississippi legislature that would make it illegal to say in public that “God does not exist.” It did not end up passing.
- In 2017, a Missouri state legislator introduced a bill that would make it a class A misdemeanor to “purposely ridicule, mock, deride, or satirize [the] religious beliefs of another person.” The bill failed to pass.
- In 2005, a federal bill was introduced called the Public Expression of Religion Act that would have prohibited discrimination against religious expression. Critics argued it could potentially allow for prosecutions of alleged blasphemy. The bill did not make it out of committee.
Civil liberties groups have consistently opposed these types of legislative proposals on free speech grounds. It seems unlikely that any new anti-blasphemy laws could survive First Amendment scrutiny given the strong constitutional protections for freedom of expression on matters of religion.
Blasphemy Laws vs. Hate Speech Laws
It is important to distinguish blasphemy laws from hate speech laws in the US. While blasphemy laws seek to protect religion itself from criticism or insult, hate speech laws aim to protect people from threats or discrimination based on their race, religion, gender identity, or other characteristics.
The Supreme Court has ruled that laws specifically targeting blasphemy or sacrilege are unconstitutional. However, the Court has said that laws prohibiting true threats and incitement against religious groups can be permissible if they meet certain standards.
For example, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Supreme Court struck down a municipal hate speech law that prohibited cross burning and other expressions that “arouse[] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” The Court said the law was unconstitutional because it targeted particular fighting words based on their content related to religion.
However, hate speech laws that do not target a specific ideology or topic of speech may be upheld if they satisfy the strict scrutiny test. Any laws restricting free expression must further a compelling government interest in the least restrictive way possible.
International Blasphemy Laws
While the US does not have blasphemy laws, such statutes are fairly common around the world. Here is a look at some notable countries that prohibit blasphemy:
| Country | Blasphemy Law Details |
|---|---|
| Denmark | Section 140 of the penal code criminalizes mocking or insulting religious beliefs. |
| Germany | Section 166 of the criminal code outlaws blasphemy “in manner capable of disturbing the public peace.” |
| Greece | Article 198 of the criminal code prohibits public “malicious blasphemy” against religion. |
| Pakistan | Section 295-C criminalizes “defiling name of Prophet Muhammad” with life imprisonment or death penalty. |
Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are among the harshest, with severe punishments for offenses like desecrating the Quran. Human rights advocates say such laws are often abused to persecute religious minorities. Some countries like Canada, England, Malta and New Zealand have moved to repeal their blasphemy laws in recent years.
Social Consequences vs. Legal Consequences
It is also important to note the distinction between the social consequences and legal consequences of blasphemous speech. Even without blasphemy laws, speech deemed blasphemous or sacrilegious may still result in non-legal backlash like boycotts, employment loss, or other social stigma.
For example, while the comedy film Life of Brian faced protests and bans in various areas upon its 1979 release, there was never any criminal prosecution for blasphemy. Instead, the controversy resulted in economic losses for some theaters that refused to screen it along with heated public debate.
So while the First Amendment generally protects blasphemous speech from legal prohibition, it does not shield speakers from public outrage or economic reprisal. Individuals and private groups remain free to condemn expressions they find blasphemous, even as the law itself remains neutral.
Conclusion
In summary, while a number of US states have old blasphemy laws still on the books, there are currently no federal laws prohibiting blasphemy or sacrilegious speech toward religion. The First Amendment provides robust protections even for speech and expression that some may find offensive or irreverent toward religious sensibilities. The Supreme Court has made it clear that any attempt to criminalize criticism or offense toward religion would be unconstitutional under current interpretations of free speech rights.
At the same time, blasphemous speech is not immune from social disapproval or economic consequences. But because of America’s strong free speech traditions, it is unlikely that the US will enact prohibitions on blasphemy similar to those found in certain other parts of the world.