It is said that ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel’.
Perhaps we should add that blasphemy is the last refuge of the desperate cleric.
My thoughts about blasphemy have been prompted by recent events in Poland as well as not so recent ones in Indonesia and others in Pakistan and so on down through the ages. The definition of blasphemy is sacrilege or disrespect for God. But it is the religious institution that defines, directly or indirectly, what that sacrilege or disrespect is.
It is interesting that religious institutions see it as necessary to protect (its) God’s reputation. Even though they claim that God is almighty and all powerful and therefore more than capable of protecting Him/itself! Indeed, one might go so far as to suggest that notion of blasphemy involves presuming to take over God’s prerogative to deal with any such sacrilege Him/ itself. The notion that God needs puny people to protect Him/itself is laughable in itself. And the notion that God might need a religious institution as an agent of retribution is no better..
So, if blasphemy is not actually about protecting God, what is it about? It seems to me it is about protecting the power and control of the religious institution which is at the heart of the application of blasphemy laws.
For me, the resort to charges of blasphemy is an attempt by religious institutions to suppress dissent when they come under challenge from individuals and/or other religions/organisations that disagree with them. Blasphemy laws are a way of striking back when the institution can not sustain a convincing argument in its defence.
A critical point is that blasphemy charges can only be prosecuted when a religious institution has the ability to apply sanctions directly itself or when the state legislates laws which apply those sanctions for it . In effect, a charge of blasphemy is about the preservation of worldly power and has nothing to do with sacrilege or respect for God.