褻瀆

维基百科，自由的百科全书

本條目正在從en:Blasphemy 翻譯成中文。
歡迎您積極參與翻譯與修訂，目前已翻譯10%。

褻瀆神靈(Blasphemy)是指對別人或自身宗教信仰的神靈作出誹謗的言論或冒犯的行為。

在此更廣泛的意義下，此詞曾被Sir Francis Bacon 用於他的著作《學習之促進》，當他講到〝對於學習的褻瀆〞時。許多文化不允許任何誹謗此文化所建立之宗教中的〝神〞或眾神們的言論和著作。而這些限制，在一些國家有與法律同等的力量。

The public domain 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines blasphemy as:

Blasphemy (Blas"phe*my) n. [L. blasphemia, Gr. : cf. OF. blasphemie.]

An indignity offered to God in words, writing, or signs; impiously irreverent words or signs addressed to, or used in reference to, God; speaking evil of God; also, the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of deity. When used generally in statutes or at common law, blasphemy is the use of irreverent words or signs in reference to the Supreme Being in such a way as to produce scandal or provoke violence.
Figuratively, of things held in high honor: Calumny; abuse; vilification.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a more extensive article on Blasphemy.

[编辑] 褻瀆聖靈罪

褻瀆聖靈罪是一條在普通法系國家適用的不成文法，指任何出版若有對基督教的聖靈在言語上褻瀆，即屬違法。褻瀆聖靈罪源於普通法中的衡平法，也就是源自教會的法例。根據《聖經》耶穌基督所述：「」。因此，在基督教國家，對聖靈在言語上的冒犯是一種罪行。然而，由於這是一條不成立的法例，其具體定義一直欠奉，直到1838年，英國法庭把這條罪具體限制於“保護英國教會(即安立甘宗)的信仰”。(BBC, nd)

1977年

During a private prosecution in 1977, the trial judge said blasphemous libel was committed if a publication about God, Christ, the Christian religion or the Bible used words which were scurrilous, abusive or offensive, which vilified Christianity and might lead to a breach of the peace.

1979年美國的一宗案例對這條罪的定義為：。

“A publication is blasphemous if it is couched in indecent or offensive terms likely to shock and outrage the feelings of the general body of Christian believers in the community.”

-- Whitehouse v Gays New Ltd and Lemon [1979] Crim LR 331

There has been a recent tendency in Western countries towards the repeal or reform of blasphemy laws, and these laws are only infrequently enforced where they exist. Such laws still exist in several countries, such as in Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the criminal code), Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code), Germany (Article 166 of the criminal code), Italy, The Netherlands (Article 147 of the criminal code), Spain (Article 525 of the criminal code) and United Kingdom. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees a relatively unlimited right of free speech, although some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws states, for example:

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

British author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses was seen by many Muslims to contain blasphemes against Islam, and Iranian clerical leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwah in 1989 calling for Rushdie's death (although strictly this was in response to Rushdie's claimed apostasy, not the novel's supposed blasphemy). The fatwa was not accepted universally by the Muslim Ulema as the way to deal with the problem of Rushdie's book. Some British Muslims called for Rushdie to be tried under English law for blasphemy, but no charges were laid, as the English legal system recognises blasphemy only against the Christian faith. The Rushdie case stimulated debate on this topic, with some arguing the same protection should be extended to all religions, while others claimed the UK's ancient blasphemy laws were an anachronism and should be abolished. Despite much discussion surrounding the controversy, the law was not amended.

在英國，最後一位因本罪而被判監的案例發生於1922年，案中被告John William Gott因為將耶穌與小丑一起比較而被判入獄。(BBC, nd)

Many take the view that accusations of blasphemy and anti-blasphemy legislation are examples of the special pleading logical fallacy where the chosen religion is extended protection from rational enquiry and ridicule that is not extended to other topics.