I think the concept of blasphemy is archaic and obsolete in light of the free speech and expression as mandated by law in our Constitution.
Still the concept for Muslims, if enacted by U.N. international law, would put Danish Newspapers and Danish Cartoonists in the category of criminals. I cite the recent hubbub regarding the image of Mohammed as a terrorist depicted in a Danish cartoon.
Terrorism and blasphemy are in the eyes of the beholders. The Global Town Square should be neutral in the enforcement of blasphemy concepts across national borders which also usually reflect national local feelings or religious local beliefs.
I think it inappropriate that the local minority Muslims in Denmark made an international issue over the cartoon. A minority has no right to impose privileged or entitled status of private religious opinion on the majority.
Perhaps in a more civil world, the occasion to insult will be reduced in the interests of respect of the rights of others both locally and internationally.
Thomas Aquinas says that “it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one's neighbor. … it is called the most grievous sin, for as much as it makes every sin more grievous.” WikipediaOf course, in the recent Texas School Book deal to replace Aquinas for Jefferson is a poor choice IMHO. Aquinas is really a very abstract medieval theologian and obsolete on many of his opinions. Banning Jefferson in Texas will only excite, entice the curious to find the father of modern revolution and enlightenment.
Regarding the above image of a censored in France and Italy clothing advertisement in 2005, I take exception to it being banned in the name of Blasphemy.
The Last Suppers
BBC News:I find that the DaVinci Code the book, while a pile of myth and speculation, opened a true door not to enlightenment but in opening the mind up to all the possibilities of ancient myth and how it all could have been rewritten differently especially in the New Testament that is.
France's Catholic Church has won a court injunction to ban a clothing advertisement based on Leonardo da Vinci's Christ's Last Supper.
The display was ruled "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", by a judge ......
The authorities in the Italian city of Milan banned the poster last month ......
Italy's advertising watchdog said the ad's use of Christian symbols including a dove and a chalice recalled the foundations of the faith and would offend the sensitivity of part of the population.
The Catholic Church used a similar argument against the advert, which also shows two of the apostles embracing a bare-chested man in jeans.
"When you trivialise the founding acts of a religion, when you touch on sacred things, you create an unbearable moral violence which is a danger to our children," said lawyer Thierry Massis.
"Tomorrow, Christ on the cross will be selling socks."
With the current meltdown in the Vatican over cover-ups and conspiracy over sex abuse crimes worldwide, the concept of private “church” matters (the way these crimes were treated) comes into question with the “infallibility” invoked in this covering up of crimes against children.
Getting back to the DaVinci Code, what would the world look like if women had been the predominate sex throughout history?
Getting back to the Vatican scandal, I think this image above from 2005 is more appropriate now with the image of an aroused and or prostitute male figure in place of the John/Mary figure of the DaVinci Code’s interpretation of DaVinci’s Last Supper mural.
Even more appropriate in the symbolism of that john/mary/prostitute image is that modern image being embraced by the Peter figure of that famous original icon image and with Judas’ legs intertwined in the whole mess.
Any good Christians feeling betrayed these days, as if by Judas, but instead by the Chair of Peter?
Blasphemy is not always a crime especially if it tells or depicts the Truth.