There was a great deal of staff discussion on this.. the definition in the rules was the best we could come up with in the time restraints..
Given that having a blasphemy rule is a given, how would you word it to be more precise in its intent and application?
Personally, I would call something blasphemy in context, because it is meant to be disrepectful, in order to dis the belief of another. For example, I say some joke about Jesus on the cross saying, "Hey, I can see my house from here!" To some, it is funny. To others, it is mocking the death of Christ, and feels disrectful, the way it would feel disrespectful to make a joke about the tragedy in Canada on the Greyhound bus.
However, Life of Brian is "blasphemy" to the Catholic Church, I would assume. It makes jokes about the sacred. However, to a lot of people, that, and The Holy Grail actually have things to say. For example, the 3 Kings bring Brian gold, frankinscense and myrhh. His mother thanks them, but tells them to leave the myrhh (?), which is used to perfume the dead, at home. They then realize that they went to the wrong stable, and take back the gifts, and give them to baby Jesus.
If someone gave you something for your son's death, wouldn't you think it a bit odd? And how could the 3 Wise men find the babe "under the star"? The city was under the star, and one has to wonder about the Disney-like vision we have of a spotlight-like star, a halo around the babe's head, the very clean stable, and the freshly laundered shephards, Mary, and Joseph.
In another scene (I'm kind of forgetting, it's been a while), Brian loses a sandal. Someone then takes the sandal, as one would take the guitar pick of a rock star, makes the sandal itself holy, and begin to build their religion around it, to Brian confusion. In Italy, there are places where they bring out body parts of the disciples, somehow, thinking it necessary to be able to see the ear or hand or whatever grotesque part is preserved, in a sense, worshipping the creation, and not the Creator, nor focusing on the soul, rather than the body, which fades away.
Blasphemy is different things to different people, because claiming something to be true, which is the very antithesis of what another believes, becomes blasphemy itself, especially when it is addressed in a mocking tone, rather than acknowledged, and simply tolerated as a different way of thinking.
I was rather surprised when I watched What the Bleep Do We Know. A Father was talking about how most people's idea of God is that man lives his life, toiling for God, trying to avoid his wrath, with the hope that he will have some reward at the end of his life. He then says that that is definitely not who God is. That is a blasphemy.
He goes on to say God does not expect us to go blindly into the world, not knowing the "correct" choice of his will (do I take this job or that job, does God want me to be a Sunday School teacher, or an usher?) but offers us endless possibilties - and all of them for us to decide, and create our own destinies.
In How to Quit Religion without Quitting God, Zender, like Christ did, I believe, dared to cause offense and blasphemy within the church, when he wrote that Church is not someplace we should go, and begrudgingly, because it pleases God, and that Churches are set up with the false idea that we go to church, because God sits up in heaven, like a king, and commands his subjects to tell him how great he is, and no one dare say otherwise, lest they experience his wrath.
On the contrary, he says, churches, with their funnel-like shapes suggesting that we must stand on our head to please God, and to get his attention, should actually be inverted, because it is not God's attention who must be gained, but God standing on his head, trying to get ours, trying to get us to find him in love by loving us, by showering us with kindness, and mercy, and boundless gifts. I walked down a street, looking at a beautiful cathedreal in Minneapolis, one that seemed to be the inverted funnel, thought about what he said, and pictured in my mind thousands of gifts coming down from the sky, and knowing that God was saying, "yes, exactly. You don't have to do anything to get my attention, or to get my love, because it already exists. I am trying to get the love of you by giving you perfect love first. That's it.
And I thought, well, that makes sense! That is "Good News", but not the Good News that is usually taught. We simply acknowledge the "necessity" of Christ's death, demanded of a harsh God, in order to award mercy to "sinners", imperfections that God is unable to even look at, because he cannot bear sin, unless one is covered in Jesus' blood, and God has "red tinted glasses" that shows us as perfect, when we really aren't.
And yet, Christ was God. Christ welcomed and loved the prostitutes and taxcollecters, who were below the "sinners" in the eyes of those who taught the Scripture. He didn't demand perfection, but offered love, which caused them to change. He offered acceptance and love, so that they could love themselves enough to care to be better, to be happier. He went to those who were rejected, and offered them his love as well.
The only ones that it bothered were the Pharisees, because it humbled them. The only time he gets angry is when people make the temple a marketplace, and make money for something that is meant to be offered as a sacrifice, not an opportunity for profit, and a shortcut.
Christ, when you really look at it, was a radical, offended the Pharisees by not washing his hands before he ate, by telling people that forgiving someone 7 times is nothing, and that it should be 70 times that, that the rich man, in love with his physical possessions and his status in the eyes of man, must deny them, but will usually have a difficult time entering the Kingdom, even if he were dragged. He accused the teachers of the Scribes and Pharisees, the ones seen as holier than others, as priests are often seen today, as being not workers of God, but workers of Satan, who actually closed the doors to the Kingdom willingly, and then blocked others from entering, by misleading them unknowingly, following their egos, rather than humbling themselves. When Simon questioned Jesus being the son of God, due to his reception and welcoming of the prostitute washing his feet, he humbled him by showing that it was she who had a greater love for him in her demonstration of her humilty and servitude, than Simon did, who taught the law of God, but did not show the love to the God whom he claimed to love when he was in his presence - that he had been shown up by the love from a prostitute, someone whom he thought himself far greater than, and wouldn't even lower himself to speak to her. He chastized his disciples when they prevented the children from coming to him, because it is like children that we must become, and look to them for their goodness and purity and lack of judgement of others, their simplicity to simply love each other, and respect one another. He took power away from those who had it, and gave power through love and hope to those who had none. He rewarded the woman who gave her last 3 pennies, while condemning the rich man's love of wealth, the opposite of what we value still today. He reached out to the rejects: the lepers, the prostitutes, the tax collecters, and was rejected by those who claimed to know the scriptures so well, and cursed them and challenged their authority. He took scripture of vengence: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and commanded that rather than repaying harm with harm, to repay curse with blessing, wrong doing with forgiveness even before it is asked, and break the chain of harm. He told the holders of all the laws, who valued them so highly, while completely misunderstanding their point, making them burdens upon people rather than guides, that one simply need to love God, and love your neighbor, and all of the precious laws are fulfilled, something that the law people could understand easily, rather than need to seek the authority of another. He had disciples that were everyday people, fisherman, and even tax collectors, and tolerated even Thomas' doubt. He said that the greatest shall be the least, and the least shall be the greatest, in effect, turning the society, and their understanding of God, and their status, completely upside down.
As a result, they plotted to kill him to stop him.
He was a blasphemer, but only because he spoke the truth, and they didn't want to hear it. He showed those who believed themselves better of their own sin, those who judged the woman about to be stoned that they held no authority. Jesus, who had no sin, chose not to stone her, but to forgive her, and to tell her to sin no more. He demonstrated mercy, and forgiveness, compassion for her for those who condemned her, and thought themselves right to end her life.
I believe that were Jesus walking around today, the same thing would happen. He would challenge people like Pat Robertson, who gains wealth using fear, calling gays "the enemy" and threats to goodness, families, children, even the safety of the nation itself. He would question those who seem to believe someone is somehow better than they are, simply because they have studied the bible, and wear a collar, when there has clearly been shown a breakdown with the molestation charges, ignored to maintain the Church's holy and good reputation, a white washed tomb. And I think he would confront those who gleefully claim that they are going to heaven, while the other is going to hell, demanding to know why it makes them happy to condemn others to endless punishment when they know that God loves the world, not just the saved, and that Christ came to heal the sick, not the well. They should be joining him, not celebrating the ultimate demise of the neighbor, and in so, risk God's compassion for such a selfish heart.
I think that blasphemy can be good, as Christ clearly showed, but it must be done in love, with clear conviction, humility, and a true concern about the welfare of one's neighbor as much as, if not more than, one's own. In other words, one must take off their crown, as Christ did, humble themselves before the lost, and serve them, humble themselves to them, and act in love. Only when one can do that, when one can see his neighbor as himself, be he sinner or non, Christian or non, can he really become Christ, and heal others with that love.
Even today, the challenge and question of authority of The Pope, of The Catholic Church, a Pastor, or even a lay Christian, who is asked to humble themselves in love, to acknowledge that those they consider "sinners" are also loved by God, to be happy about that instead of resentful, to make Christians synonamous to the same love that Christ demonstrated, is blasphemy to many. In the same way, it takes the religion, and one's ego, and turns in on it's ear.
Were this a few hundred years ago, like Christ, i would be burned at the stake for suggesting simply that God loves all of us, something that the ego hates to hear, or that we should humble ourselves to God and others, rather than strive for power to control others, wealth to be the envy of others, or status, so that we can believe what isn't true - that we are above another, in the eyes of man, and in the eyes of God. To believe such a thing is a true blasphemy, because man has created God in his own image.