Should laws outlawing blasphemy be introduced across the United States?

There are a large number of debates on this site that devout Christians may find insulting, and some of the arguments posted by atheists may even shake their faith in the very existence of God Himself.

Is the increasing lack of respect for God and the Church damaging American society and, if so, does Christianity need protection under the law?

Should individuals that use words which are scurrilous, abusive or offensive, or which vilify Christianity, God, Christ, the Christian religion or the Bible be liable to prosecution?

Since it is not clear that such laws would be contrary to the First Amendment - for example, Massachusetts has a blasphemy law which clearly inhibits free speech - perhaps we could leave the Constitutional arguments to one side and discuss the principles of the matter instead?

My view is that there is nothing sacred about any religion and, therefore, Christianity should not enjoy an elevated status under the law and that those blasphemy laws that do currently exist should be repealed.

Hello. Before we begin I must deal with all of the formalities... erhem... Thank you for starting this debate and I look forward to an exciting blah diddy blah blah.

I hate formalities, don't you?

Now that that's out of the way, let's get this show on the road!

(Just for the record, this isn't a resolution, it's a question. Read the debating tips R3. The resolution in this case would be "Laws outlawing blasphemy should be introduced across the US."

I must define a word for clarity:

Merriam-Webster as

blasphemy as: "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God"

"Since it is not clear that such laws would be contrary to the First Amendment - for example, Massachusetts has a blasphemy law which clearly inhibits free speech - perhaps we could leave the Constitutional arguments to one side and discuss the principles of the matter instead?"

I accept this term and full-heartedly accept it's conditions.

"My view is that there is nothing sacred about any religion and, therefore, Christianity should not enjoy an elevated status under the law and that those blasphemy laws that do currently exist should be repealed."

My opponent establishes Christianity as an agreed upon religion and I accept this as well.

Clearly we see that showing "... lack of reverence for God" would mean disobeying His words. In this case, we shall assume one of the more common theisms, Christianity (My opponent, as stated above, is speaking in the terms of Christianity which is the agreed upon religion). By disobeying God's laws, you are showing a lack of reverence for Him.

There are many laws against these blasphemies such as murdering, adultery, stealing, etc. We see that by these laws being passed, Blasphemies are found to be outlawed.

For the logic and reason you've seen above, you must vote PRO.

Thanks,
-EG

Hello and thanks for joining the debate. Thanks also for referring me to the "Tips" page – it was useful and I now realise that posing a question rather than making a statement can be misleading and lead to ambiguity. I fear that this may have been the case here, as you seem to be arguing my point of view!

You wrote:

"There are many laws against these blasphemies such as murdering, adultery, stealing, etc. We see that by these laws being passed, Blasphemies are found to be outlawed."

I agree, hence there is no need for blasphemy laws!

As I am arguing Con, i.e. laws outlawing blasphemy should NOT be introduced across the United States, I should just like to take this opportunity to add my twopennothworth:

Because blasphemy laws necessarily imply that Christianity has a moral superiority over other faiths and atheism, they equate to the Sharia Law system of government which operates in non-secular Islamic states and are, therefore, directly at odds with the system of government of a secular country like the US.

That said, if it is the case that the title of this debate and my opening arguments were, in any way, misleading, please indicate this in your response and take it as read that I duly concede.

If it does, indeed, transpire that I have mislead my opponent I would ask all members cast to their vote in favour of Pro in order that his win ratio is not adversely affected due to my ineptitude.

Thank you!

Thank you for an exciting debate thusfar. Let's keep it up!

"Because blasphemy laws necessarily imply that Christianity has a moral superiority over other faiths and atheism, they equate to the Sharia Law system of government which operates in non-secular Islamic states and are, therefore, directly at odds with the system of government of a secular country like the US."

Not at all. As you'll see below, the views of Christian morals are one's that society SHOULD instill upon it's people. For the record, people are idiots. The only way to keep us from clubbing one another to death is by upholding morals that are beneficial to society as a whole.

""There are many laws against these blasphemies such as murdering, adultery, stealing, etc. We see that by these laws being passed, Blasphemies are found to be outlawed."

I agree, hence there is no need for blasphemy laws!"

What you are saying is that not only do blasphemy laws no longer need to be introduced but the one's already existing should be taken away?

In your statement:

"I agree, hence there is no need for blasphemy laws!"

I will assume, for the sake of debate, that you mean we no longer need and currently do not need to add blasphemy laws.

That being the case, we have no need for laws against

Rape, adultery, murder, polygamy, theft, false testimonies, etc.

If you were to take away these laws which have become widely known as fact, We see our government would become somewhat resemblant of an Anarchy. While that might please certain members of the voting community, we see that the laws you surmise as "(having) no need for) then you are promoting a lawless society. Christian values are set in place because they are the morals that society is taught. Not because Christianity is regarded any higher than any other religion, but because the morals they uphold are one's many would agree with. I have always said: "Morals are subjective." This is true.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, where do your morals lie? Will you vote for the debator who sides with lawlessness and antiesteblishment? Or will you vote for the debator who is keeping firm the beliefs as well as the politics of blasphemy laws.

For the reasons and refutations above, you vote PRO.