Customer Reviews

Blasphemy: Verbal Offense Against the Sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The interesting part of the book is the way the justification for blasphemy laws morphed smoothly over the years, even as the punishment changed very little. If you go back thousands of years, blasphemy laws made a great deal of sense -- people literally believed that gods were offended by blasphemy and that they would take revenge against communities that harbored blasphemers. So blasphemy was, from the point of view of a lawmaker, no different from arson.

However, as the centuries wore on, the purported role of the Christian God in daily life became more abstract. By the 16th century the justification for blasphemy laws had become more vague: Since the religion was part of the government (in England, the focus of the book), the blasphemer was essentially advocating the overthrow of the government. A few centuries later, following the appearance of numerous alternatives to the officially sanctioned version of Christianity, the justification switched again: Blasphemy was bad because it threatened to undermine the Church/State-sanctioned oppression of poor people! During all these centuries, the punishment was often quite brutal, ranging from imprisonment to mutilation to death.

By the 20th century blasphemy laws were, not surprisingly, being used to punish homosexuals and others who deviated from the church's views on social issues (notably birth control). In England and parts of the U.S. there are still blasphemy laws on the books, waiting for the right combination of an overzealous prosecutor and someone to pick on.

A lot of this sounds eerily familiar. The U.S. started a War on Drugs in the early 1970s under the reasonable premise that certain narcotics posed a health hazard. But when research showed the health risks of drugs like marijuana and LSD to be comparatively minor, the justification suddenly changed to crime prevention, and more recently, to a component of the War on Terror (which itself started as a legitimate response to a serious problem, then morphed into a way for right-wing loons to consolidate power). There's a lesson here: The Man has no use for democracy.

Minor complaints: The book is almost entirely about England and Christianity, and it's too detailed. Unless you're writing a thesis on the topic, you don't need to read about many of the minor blasphemy prosecutions mentioned in the book. It would have been more interesting to take a wider view of the subject, which is quite interesting and relevant to current politics.

I assume from the first reviewer of this book that he hates to admit that evil has been done in the name of Christianity. He has a hard time seeing it done today, because we have a seperation of church and state. Look, this book may come as a shock to many Christian readers, but these are facts we can't deny. For example, America is a beautiful country, but in our history there is racism (KKK), the Civil War and the brutal murder of gay student, Matt Shepard. The same goes true for any other organization/country. What ever has done good, has done bad too.

This book provides a very detailed, factual account of people being killed in the name of Christianity from it's inception up to the present. You read about mennonites (anabaptists) getting executed by Protestants and Catholics, Jews being stripped of their Civil Rights, and everyone else who didn't take Jesus as their saviour. It is truly sick and stupid that the laws in those days prosecuted someone just because of a difference of opinion, espeically religious. How gruesome and brutal were Christians to people who differed with them on an opinion? Well, picture you are a Muslim, and preaching the Koran on the streets of England. First the government burns your books, since they are not pro-Christian. Second, you get whipped over 300 times until you have no flesh on your body. Third offense, you will get your tongue cut off, a "B" burned into your skin for "blasphemer", exiled or executed. Isn't that a good reason, and why our founding fathers established a seperation between church and state?

This is a good book, though very long. But, hey it's a history book, right?

Were it not for the digressions into post-modernist chic, I might be able to give a more resounding endorsement. Nevertheless, Levy did successfully acquaint the reader with the common court precedents for blasphemy in British law, while furnishing modern examples such as the 1976 blasphemy trial of a homosexual poet. Though the traditional branding, mutilation, and execution of blasphemers has stopped in modern-day Britain, Levy points out that the Anglican Church has argued for an extension of the outmoded blasphemy laws to other religions in the wake of the Rushdie affair. Rather than forego the Church of England's privileged status altogether, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed the use of government coercion to protect all flights of lunatic fancy from their deserved ridicule. Needless to say, the lack of separation of Church and State in Europe, and the diluted freedom of speech provided by speech codes (e.g. laws against the expression of unpopular speech, such as Holocaust denial) surely constitute an important area of debate as far as the limitations of freedom. At present, the only US equivalent I can think of is the attempts to mold hate crimes legislation. Though certainly justice demands proper sanctions for those who violate the rights of others, this acts to punish criminals on the basis of their beliefs rather than actions. What next? Love crimes legislation that reduce a person's sentence if the jury thought they were acting for a more socially acceptable cause?

Reviewers too often let their personal beliefs get in the way of their reviews, in which case they are not reviewing the book at all but merely spouting a belief. This book, written by a serious historian and First Amendment scholar, is an incredible resource for the history of blasphemy and heresy laws in Western civilization. It is not anti-Christian, unless exposing Christianity's true history is anti-Christian (which I suppose it could be, to a Christian!). It goes back to the ancient Greeks and Hebrews and gives a very objective account of the laws and attitudes. Particularly valuable are the sections about early American blasphemy laws, which prove once and for all that the U.S. was not created by or for religious freedom; each group had its own "true belief," and anything else was not only false but punishable by law.
If Christians cannot take their own history straight up, perhaps they should think about that, especially when they get to uppity about instituting their beliefs into law today. Otherwise, this is a brave and important book, full of valuable information and worth the read of anyone who is interested in religion and law--and how dangerous it is to mix the two.

Leonard Levy's book titled BLASPHEMY is a well doucmented book re the history of blasphemy persecutions and trials. Levy made clear that a defintion of blasphemy was an any affront against the sacred. He also states that one man's blasphemy can be another man's "true religion." Another important lesson is that those who are often persecuted in one generation were often those who are persecutors with a vengence in another generation.

Levy began this book with brief mention of punishments among some of the ancients such as the Ancient Hebrews and the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Hebrews developed a religious system of strict monotheism which, at least in theory, tolerated no deviation. Levy commented on what may be considered blasphemy among the "enlightened" Ancient Greeks. For example, Plato's (427-347 BC) dialogue, THE APOLOGY which dealt with the trial of Socrates, stated that one of the charges against Socrates was that he did not believe in the Athenian gods and corrupted the Athenian youth. Levy made clear that blasphemy has a very old history.

Much of Levy's book dealt with English History. As early as the reign of Henry II (1154-1189), serious penalties were ordered against alleged blashphemers. During the Grand Assize of 1166, Henry thundered loud condemnations and severe penalties against those accused of blashphemy. One man was put to death for converting to Judaism after falling in love with a Jewish woman. As an aside Sir Walter Scott's IVANHOE is a good novel along similar lines.

Levy dealt with English blasphemy trials during Reformation England. The false notion that somehow the Reformation brought freedom of religion is easily undermined in this book. For example, when Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603) came to power, one of her first acts was to order four Baptists to be burned to death at the stake. James I (1603-1625)was constantly attempting to eradicate Protestant dissenters from the English Realm including Puritans, Presbyterians, and Baptists. According to Levy the list could be much longer.

After the English Revolution of the 1640s, Levy informed his readers that the situation did not improve. Oliver Cromwell (1598-1653)tried to grant some religious toleration except for Catholics. Yet, religious passions among Puritans and other dissenters were so strong, that in trying to please almost everyone, Cromwell pleased practically no one. Those who had been persecuted now wanted to persecute almost everyone else.

Even with the Restoration of the Stuarts in 1660, the situation did not improve. Those who held dissenting views were still perseucted often by over zealous religious maniacs and royal prosecutors. Heavy fines, imprisonment,and the death penalty were imposed on those considered heretics and blasphemers. Only when James II (1685-1688)was ousted did blasphemy prosecutions begin to abate. William and Mary had to agree to the English Bill of Rights and The Act of Toleration (1689)to please Parliament to become King and Queen of England. This reduced but did not end blasphemy trials in England.

As late as 1819, the English had blasphemy trials. One such trial that occured between 1817-1819, dealt with William Hone who proved to be a feisty defendant Levy informed readers that some of those tried for Blasphemy were alert men who often befuddled the prosecutors and the judges. Readers should note that British jurists argued that Thomas Paine's (1737-1809)books and essays were blasphemous.

Levy's book also dealt with blashphemy trials in Colonial America and thereafter. For example, between 1659-1660, four Quakers were executed by Massachusetts' Puritans. Some of the Southern Anglicans imposed punishment on those who were not members of the Church of England. Yet, but 1800, most Americans were indifferent if not tolerant to whatever was consider blashphemy. During the 19th. century there were very prosecutions for blashphemy. However, during World War I and immediately thereafter, some overzealous prosecutors prosecuted such cases. One example that might be considered the Scopes Trial in 1925.

Levy concluded this book with a few ridiculous British and U.S. cases in recent history. Levy also mentioned the case of Salman Rushdie who is under a death penalty from some Moslems. Rushee's book is in bad taste, but those who condemned to death could very well have improved the sale of his book.

Some readers may ask the relevance of this book. The fact is that some political pundits and office holders are trying to make political points by arguing for condemnation of what they consider heresy and blasphemy. Some have accepted endorsements of those who over the years have argued for the outlawing of Catholicism. Religious views are supposed to a litmus test for public office. However, when someone from the Netherlands was arrested during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and asked about his religious views, he curtly replied that his religious views were none of the Queen's business.

Levy's book BLASPHEMY is a well documented book with an excellent bibliography. Levy is considered, and rightly so, to be in a class by himself re Constituional History and Legal History. This book is detailed,and readers should give themselves time to read it. Yet, a careful reading of this book is worth the effort.