Right Wing Watch has a follow up on its report about the Slavic Center for Law and Justice, which was created by Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, and its staunch support for harsh blasphemy laws. They catch the ACLJ in a major contradiction on the subject of blasphemy laws, strongly opposing blasphemy laws in Muslim countries while lamenting the lack of them in America.
So, where does the ACLJ stand on blasphemy laws? On one hand, it is proud of its opposition in international forums like the United Nations to blasphemy laws that are used by Islamist governments to restrict religious expression. In 2011, the ACLJ said the UN’s Human Rights Committee endorsed an ECLJ-backed position that “no right exists to protect the reputation of an ideology, rather human rights belongs to individuals.”
But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel and founder of the ACLJ, has plainly endorsed blasphemy laws in America:
Joe from Rhode Island asks: In Black’s classic law dictionary, blasphemy is illegal. When did it become legal to mock a person’s faith in God?
Jay answers: Black’s is the standard of legal definitions that law students are given around the country and Black’s is still cited in Supreme Court decisions. Not only in English common law but also in most states in the USA, blasphemy was prohibited speech. Clearly, the ACLU and those who trumpet the First Amendment as a license to really degrade people have changed that and that’s an unfortunate situation. But you’re absolutely correct, Black’s Law Dictionary is right. There are many definitions like that in Black’s, but religion lacks protection in the law. Not only is religion seen as irrelevant, but religion is trivialized and even mocked. This behavior has become an accepted part of who we are as a people and in some cases the Supreme Court hasn’t been particularly helpful in that context. The composition of the Supreme Court is obviously something we’re always watching because we know that with the more conservative court obviously some of our values will be more protected. Things have changed drastically if you look at our history, and it’s not even old history. Our country is still very young, but things are very different since our founding. We’re continuing to hope here at the American Center for Law and Justice that history will continue to change in a way that protects the rights of religious people across America. This is what we’re working toward. Selection of Supreme Court Justices is critical in the interpretation of these kinds of cases.
So when Muslims want blasphemy laws, that’s outrageous because ideologies do not have rights, only individuals do. But when Christians want them, then of course that’s perfectly find because people are mocking God and that can’t be allowed. Hypocrite much, Mr. Sekulow?
Like Dispatches on Facebook: