The Problem with Casual Blasphemy…

…is that it’s casual:

It is one of the clearest symptoms of a culture that has become, as our so emphatically is, utterly trivial at its core. We are a Paris Hilton people who clutch at the power, but not the responsibility, of gods.

Those who make blasphemous statements or issue “Blasphemy Challenges” think that something is proven when God does not strike people with lightning. But that, of course, is because they know nothing of the God they blaspheme. The punishment for sin is typically the sin itself. Blasphemy does not result in lightning, but in lightening: you become a moral and intellectual lightweight. A culture like ours is now of such gossamer insubstantiality that almost anything can blow it away.

Here is the chapter on the Second Commandment from my upcoming book Salt and Light: The Commandments, the Beatitudes, and a Joyful Life. (It’ll be out in late January, but you can pre-order it at the link):

The Second Commandment: Hallowing God’s Name

Exodus is the Greek name for the second book of the Bible. In Hebrew it is called the Book of Names. That’s because, like Catholic encyclicals, the Hebrew books of the Bible are titled by the opening words of the book. And Exodus begins, “These are the names …

It is fitting that this title be given to Exodus, since Exodus is a book in which names play a huge role, in both the way they are emphasized and the way they are strategically deemphasized. Exodus pauses to tell us the names of the two earliest pro-life heroines, Shiphrah and Puah, who saved Moses and other Hebrew boys from the clutches of the population planners of the First Cairo Conference (see Exodus 1:15–20) who said, like modern population planners, “Just enough of me. Way too much of you.” Exodus 2:10 tells us how Moses got his name—a pun on the phrase “to draw out,” which owes to his being drawn out of the Nile and which also prophesies his role in drawing Israel out of Egypt. The book even disses the villain of the piece, the most powerful man on the planet at that time, by steadfastly refusing to name him anything other than “Pharaoh.”

But the most important name comes in Exodus 3: the divine name. When the voice speaks from the burning bush and Moses rather reluctantly answers, a perfectly Jewish conversation full of wordplay and dickering takes place. What is striking about it all is how Moses manages to combine reverence and awe in the divine presence that created him with a certain audacity. He asks for proof (as if the voice from the burning bush is not enough). He wheedles and cajoles and begs to be excused. He talks God into making his brother Aaron the spokesman. And in the end he asks, “Whom shall I say sent me?”

It is a question pregnant with a significance lost on us, because we do not understand what names meant to the ancient Hebrew mind. To them, the name was a deeply sacred thing. It was not just a label slapped on a thing so that one could call it something besides a thingamajig. A person’s name expressed their essence.

So in Scripture we repeatedly find names imbued with huge significance as a sort of key to the person’s inmost being. Isaac means “laughter,” and he springs from the laughter of his incredulous and joyful parents as the long-delayed promise of a son is wonderfully fulfilled (see Genesis 21:3–7). Jacob’s name means “deceiver,” and he rips off his brother’s birthright and cheats his father-in-law out of livestock (Genesis 27; 30:25–43). And when God changes Jacob’s name to “Israel” this too is true as the deceptive Jacob is transformed over time into “he who struggles with God” (Genesis 32:28).

In other words, to know someone’s name was to know him or her. To name, or rename, someone was to effect and reflect a fundamental change in who the person was. So when God reveals his name, he is revealing himself.

We experience a tiny glimpse of that intimacy when some figure we have known or revered as an august adult presence (“Mr. Smith, the math professor”) turns to us and says, “Call me Jim.” We sense it in a negative way when somebody who should know our name forgets it. It’s hard to escape the sense that they have forgotten us.

The Covenant Relationship

God’s revelation of his name is, therefore, an invitation to intimacy. It is also a profound revelation of who he is. Other names given to God in Scripture are basically titles that tell us some of his attributes. But “I am who I am” tells us who God is in his essence (Exodus 3:14). God does not have to reveal it, and Moses certainly has no power to make him do so. Yet God does so anyway out of sheer gratuitous love, and in so doing, he enters into a relationship with Moses and Israel whereby his people can call on his name.

Indeed, that’s the entire point of God’s revelation to Moses at the burning bush. God’s purpose, which will not be thwarted, is to bring Israel not merely out of Egypt but into a covenant relationship with him at Mount Sinai. As we have already noted, a covenant is more than a contract; it is a bond of sacred kinship. Therefore, to make a covenant is to become family. So when God reveals his name to Israel, he is permitting the nation to call upon him as friend, ally, and protector.

This is a very significant step in a long process of graciously making himself vulnerable. It will ultimately lead to scourging, a crown of thorns, a buzzing cloud of flies around his naked and beaten body, and the sound of mocking taunts in his ears as he struggles for breath against the excruciating bolts of pain in his wrists and feet. Sinai is a major step forward in the drama, but it won’t really be over until the redemption wrought in Christ brings the last redeemed soul into heaven.

Because Sinai is a provisional covenant pointing forward to the new and eternal covenant in Christ, certain cautions must apply. God is making a covenant with a desperately dangerous species who will misuse every good gift he gives them, including the gift of his name. So he commands: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).

To use the name of God is a solemn thing, not to be taken lightly. To swear in his name falsely is to call Truth himself as a witness to a lie. To invoke the name in a curse against the innocent is to call him who is Justice to be unjust and him who is Life to be death. Scripture is adamant that to do this is an extremely dangerous violation of the covenant.

Likewise, to treat the divine name as a sort of lucky rabbit’s foot or abracadabra is to gravely insult the covenant, because God is God and not a genie who must make us rich or beat up our enemies at the service of our fleshly desires. He gives us the divine name so that we may know him. He will not let us use it to make him a bellhop for our pride, envy, anger, greed, sloth, gluttony, or lust.

Blasphemy Depends Upon the Sacred

These days, of course, the names of God and Jesus are taken lightly every day. Much of this is inculpable, since many people have not the slightest idea that they are involved in a covenant with God (assuming they are baptized). On the other hand, as some sectors become more aggressively hostile to God, there are silly initiatives such as the recent Blasphemy Challenge, in which some Internet atheists urge their fan base to blaspheme and challenge God to strike them dead for doing so. What things like this illustrate is that the Western mind can’t help but live in constant debt to the God of Israel. For when Westerners blaspheme, it’s always the God of Israel they blaspheme and not Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or Athena.

Here again we see that atheism, even in blaspheming, profoundly relies on ideas stolen from revelation. The blasphemer protests that God threatens his dignity as a person—never realizing that “personhood” is a concept invented by Christian theologians. The blasphemer feels the need to assert his individuality against the oppressive dictates of a nonexistent sky god—never realizing one of the “dictates” of that God is that the self is a good thing, while it is Buddhism, not Christianity, that says the goal of life is to annihilate the self. The blasphemer wants to assert the glories of sex against the God who said, “Be fruitful and multiply,” not against the gnostic demiurge who says sex is evil.

This is not to say that there is nothing sacred to your garden-variety Internet blasphemer. For instance, racial equality is a sacred thing; that’s why he doesn’t say the “N” word. The family retains some vestigial holiness, as do children. That’s why pedophilia and incest are still condemned and the crimes of Christian clerics brandished to attack the gospel. And the poor and homeless retain a certain sanctity due to the lingering cultural influence of the Defender of the widow, the orphan, and the stranger (see Deuteronomy 10:18). That’s why we do not admire those who laugh at their plight.

But our culture does increasingly admire those who laugh at God. The comedy (and the tragedy) of this is that the creators of the Blasphemy Challenge actually imagine they commit an act of courage. Invariably, they posture as though Christians will lynch them for their brave insults to God, or the irritable old gentleman in the white beard will finally lose his temper and start throwing thunderbolts. Not knowing the first thing about the One they blaspheme, they have no idea what they are talking about.

What such people don’t get is that blasphemy, like all sin, is its own punishment. It darkens the intellect, hardens the heart, and further disorders the appetites. The result, as Jesus says, is that “from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 13:12). In this case it means that a culture that blasphemes God is a culture that will soon sacrifice its lesser sanctities as well.

That’s because a culture of blasphemy ultimately has no defenses that can ensure permanent moral values. The generation that revels in shocking its parents’ bourgeois devotion to God today will discover that its sons and daughters will gleefully shock its bourgeois devotion to children or racial equality tomorrow.  A culture of blasphemy will continue to “push the envelope” of transgression in more and ever more attempts to stab its deadened nerves back to life. It will laugh with relief today because the Old Man on the Cloud turns out not to be so scary, and it will continue “transgressing” by committing more and more outrages against fresh “taboos” tomorrow.

Don’t believe it?

  • The BBC recently ran a gooey sympathy piece on a brother and sister in Germany and their “forbidden love.” So incest is already on the table.[1]
  • NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) is making pleas for civil recognition of pedophilia as a legitimate “sexual orientation.” (Who can forbid two people from loving each other? The ancient Greeks saw it as a way of mentoring young boys. It just takes some getting used to, etc.)
  • CBS’ 60 Minutes pioneered snuff TV a few years ago by showing Jack Kevorkian offing a victim, while 24 glamorized torture chic as it depicted the hero fighting bad guys with Gestapo tactic in the name of America and apple.  It was, natch, promoted as “daring” fare.

Each fresh transgressive thrill demands something a bit tangier next time. Perhaps the day is coming when folks will watch live executions and gladiatorial combat on TV. For in the end the food of blasphemy is bread and circuses. A culture that despises the sacredness of him who is beauty, truth, and sacrificial love will eventually despise the sacredness of everything we currently take as self-evidently good and decent.

Blasphemy, like all sin, cuts a culture off from love and delivers only cheap thrills that leave us starving for true life. It makes the universe a cold, dead place. The apotheosis of this is the loneliness and coldness of hell. This is not some place God “sends” people because he’s a vain popinjay ticked about affronts to his ego. It’s a place to which people exile themselves because, despite God’s every attempt to love them (including taking a scourge, a crown of thorns, three nails, and a lance for them), they remain the pathetic sort of people who prefer to scrawl obscenities on the bathroom wall and congratulate themselves for their “courage.” Worship enlarges the soul; blasphemy makes it utterly small.

The sacredness of the name is therefore not an ancient superstition. The warning still holds, and the judgment still obtains. The judgment on a culture that takes God’s name lightly is that it becomes a lightweight culture, fit only to be taken lightly, as the Blasphemy Challengers so emphatically are. Today take God’s name seriously, as he takes you seriously.  You can do that in two simple but powerful ways.  The first is to honor God’s name by worshiping him in the sacrifice of the Mass, where the greatest act of honor to God’s name conceivable is done as the Son offers himself eternally to the Father in love and we offer ourselves as living sacrifices to the Father in and through Jesus.  There is no greater way than that to hallow God’s name and keep it holy.

In addition, we can make our act of worship an act of reparation for all the insults given to God’s name.  Jesus himself did this on Calvary when he took all the insults and blasphemies heaped upon him and said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).  We can likewise ask that even the blasphemies of the enemies of God, the cries of anguish, the confusion of the mind of fallen man, the despair, the hopelessness, the pain, and the rage of a fallen world be turned into life, blessing, peace and hope by Christ crucified and risen.  That is what the Mass is all about and that is what Jesus has been doing for two thousand years.  Today is the day he wants to do it through you.

[1] “Couple Stand by Forbidden Love”, Tristana Moore, BBC News, March 7, 2007.  Available on line at as of July 9, 2012.

"From Jonathan Liedl's piece:Hittinger defines malignant technology as “the systematic application of tools to culture, ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Hmmm... I'm having a difficult time deciding the right way to reply because I think ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Lewandowski, another sociopath Catholic who flaunts his faith - like Paul Ryan, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne ..."

Our Post-Satire Age
"Comment keeps getting deleted. Will try one last time...See Russell Hittinger's essay "Christopher Dawson on ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Laura B.

    psst–Mark, buddy….double check under the Blasphemy Depends Upon the Sacred section under where it says, “Don’t believe it?” in the paragraph about 24. It says, ” . . . Gestapo tactic in the name of America and apple.” Do you want pie, with that, or was he fighting on behalf of Apple, Inc.?

    Queen of the Typo here–I just would want someone to let me know.

    Say, didn’t someone predict some of this stuff?


    • Mark Shea

      Agg! Thanks!

  • keddaw

    Mark, your ignorance of the point behind the Blasphemy Challenge is painfully ironic.

    The point, such as it is, is to get people to commit the unforgivable sin, to transgress to such a degree that forgiveness is all but beyond the person. This is from both the Bible and the Catechism (to a lesser degree). It is a way to show that you have left Christianity and you are not simply ‘going through a phase’ but that you really mean it and are burning your bridges.

    I would also take exception that a voice from a burning bush should be taken de facto as the voice of God. Such parlour tricks are simple for a magician never mind the Devil, or any of the other (demi-?)gods that were believed at that time.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Of course, if there were nothing to blaspheme, the supposed point, such as it is, would be pointless. No forgiveness would be necessary since there’d be no transgression to forgive.

      You’re right about it being painfully ironic, but wrong about to whom it applies. And of course there’s the irony of the blasphemy challenge as initiation ritual into the new religion.

      • Marion (Mael Muire)

        It is in the spirit of atheism to be hateful and to destroy other people: the Soviets, the VietCong and the Chinese Communists, killed hundreds of millions with guns and gulags, and starvation. Only the realities of our present day political situation provide that twenty-first century Western atheists don’t have it in their range to wreak that kind of genocidal fury, and must limit themselves to shocking and grieving Christians with their “Blasphemy Challenge.” But the spirit is very much the same.

        Give Western atheists time . . . if we allow them to do so, they will get there.

        • keddaw

          Go back, read the Old Testament, figure out what drove people (fictional or otherwise), and God, to commit the most horrific acts possible (the flood! sacrificing your son, offering your daughters to a lustful crowd of rapists), then work out why those regimes that were ostensibly godless committed horrific acts, then tell us what it is about not believing in A GOD (or do you imagine one has to believe in your particular flavour?) that makes one tend to commit so-called bad acts over and above religious people… Then, just for fun, let us know if there is an appreciable difference between the goals, aims and policies of communist countries and what most modern atheists want from government.

          • Mark Shea

            Nothing funnier than fake atheist dudgeon about stories atheists don’t believe ever happened. And all to excuse crimes atheists know were committed in the name of atheism. Huh-larious.

            • keddaw

              Mark, Mark, Mark. You have been told time and again why atheism and crimes committed by atheists are not related.

              One can look into the apparent motives of fictional characters with about as much validity as one can with real historical figures. If people teach stories as fact or allegory what matters is the motive and the OT is pretty clear that following God’s word to commit atrocities is A-OK. The message is ‘do what God tells you no matter how bad you think it is.’ Atheism, since it is a lack of belief, has no such message. So, instead of being inciteful, why not actually point out the things that made such real-life atrocities possible: unquestioning adoration of leadership; total belief in the benevolence of a leader and a True Believer’s fervent worship of the system/party. (Remind you of anyone currently, like maybe related to the clip at the top of the page?)

              Or you can spout idiocy about how atheism causes people to commit mass murders. Your choice, real conversation with reasons and possible solutions, or demonising people of a different theological bent.

              • Yay! No True Scotsman!

              • ivan_the_mad

                “You have been told time and again why atheism and crimes committed by atheists are not related.” Repetition doesn’t make it true.

                Your understanding of the OT is terribly wrong. Your list of reasons for why such atrocities are possible is hilariously lacking and not applicable to to much of the atheist regimes of the past century. Read some Soviet memoirs. I imagine you’ll be quite surprised to see the cynicism and greed that drove people. But surprise frequently accompanies trips outside of the epistemic closure bubble.

                • keddaw

                  The point, ivan, was that even with God(s) people can commit atrocities – belief in and of itself is no barrier to such acts. On the flip side, lack of belief is absolutely NOT a driver to commit atrocities, but neither is it a barrier.

                  However, the other list of things I mentioned ARE drivers to commit and/or approve of atrocities when committed by a system/leader you blindly approve of.

                  So, ivan and mark, would you not rather discuss the psychological danger signs that lead people to approve of dangerous leaders and/or commit terrible acts and what we can do to ward it off, or would you rather carry on the stupid idea that a non-belief in god(s) somehow makes a human being more likely to commit terrible acts?

                  Dr. Eric – Dr? ahhh, acupuncture. You don’t know what the scientific method is, you don’t know what medicine is, so why on earth would anyone expect you to know what a fallacy is?

                  • ivan_the_mad

                    “carry on the stupid idea that a non-belief in god(s) somehow makes a human being more likely to commit terrible acts?” I never posited that. I took issue with your statement “You have been told time and again why atheism and crimes committed by atheists are not related.”

                    As for your unkind words to Dr. Eric, they’re an insult, and a classic ad hominem fallacy. Perhaps you should think more before writing, you might look less foolish.

                    • keddaw

                      No ad hominen, just an insult (although truth may be a defence) at someone throwing around fallacies incorrectly.

                      “I never posited that.” No, but the thread does contain Marion saying, “It is in the spirit of atheism to be hateful and to destroy other people” and Mark saying, “all to excuse crimes atheists know were committed in the name of atheism” so please forgive me for making the comment to people in general and not making that clear.

                      So, to all, non-belief does not magically make people worse or more likely to do ‘bad’ things. Belief does not make people better or less likely to do ‘bad things’. People are people and the belief in magic, superstition, fairies, angels, Santa or gods does not make them behave better or worse. Certain mindsets do.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      Please look up ad hominem fallacy. What you wrote to Dr. Eric is the textbook definition.

                    • keddaw

                      ivan, pedantry insists, it would be a textbook example not a textbook definition, if it were, which it isn’t. He didn’t make an argument so I am not attacking him rather than his argument.

                      But, if I must, the No True Scotsman fallacy is when someone says that someone doing X cannot be a real member of a group because that group doesn’t do X. However, in my writing nowhere did I claim that atheists didn’t do bad things, and nowhere (Mark) did I excuse any bad things done by atheists. All I did was claimed that a lack of belief in the supernatural is not a driver to commit bad deeds.

                      If anyone wants to claim otherwise then provide evidence greater than X was an atheist and did something bad. Unfortunately driving out religion isn’t a particularly atheist thing to do, many religious peoples have done exactly the same with people of different beliefs.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      I don’t think it’s pedantry there, I used the wrong term. It should be textbook example.

                      “ahhh, acupuncture. You don’t know what the scientific method is, you don’t know what medicine is, so why on earth would anyone expect you to know what a fallacy is?” Sorry, keddaw, but “You practice acupuncture? You do not know what medicine is”, never minding the rest of the accusations of ignorance, is an ad hominem fallacy, textbook example. If you weren’t attempting to draw that relationship, then your statement was nonsense.

              • Mark Shea

                Yes. I’ve heard, time and again, from atheists who are a) in denial and b) utterly socially maladroit that murderous atheists regime who deliberately targeted and killed millions in the name of atheism were not really doing that. It is an impressive display of the social and affective retardation that afflicts the atheist community. It is not evidence of anything else. Refusal to believe manifest bullshit from atheists on my part does not constitute a triumph of truth on your part. You guys have oceans of blood on your hands.

                • keddaw

                  “You guys?” What are you on about? Is a non-belief in something somehow a way to group people together?

                  Your mindset is dangerous. You call out Obama for his misdeeds, yet when I suggest that we look at the mindset of many of his supporters/apologists for reasons why societies (and ostensibly good people within them) allow such actions to occur, and escalate, you ignore it and try to blame a lack of belief in a deity. Which makes one wonder how the German people were able to do such things as they were not particularly godless. Perhaps it isn’t to do with a belief in a supernatural power after all… Perhaps it is to do with a certain mindset, one that we should be on the lookout for and try to argue/educate people out of (if possible).

                • keddaw

                  And does “you guys” include Buddhists, Hindus, Pantheists and others who don’t believe in your particular brand of supernatural? Or is wrong belief okay but non-belief is evil?

                • keddaw

                  And let me add this, “Atheist” is not a label people should wear. Were it not for the ubiquity and power of religion I, for one, would not even consider it descriptive of me. My libertarian tendencies drive my opinions and view on what public policy and private actions should be, atheism plays no part. This means any state that tries to impose upon its citizens any form of belief, or non-belief, is an enemy of mine. So your idea that, because the collection of superstitions that a regime denies happens to be similar to the set of things I don’t believe in, I am somehow responsible for its actions, or a danger to replicate its mistakes, is misguided, badly thought out, illogical and utterly deluded.

                  The whole us-vs-them of ‘my special branch of theology’ (or religious belief in general) vs. atheism is crazy. I have much more in common with your views than an Imam in Pakistan or a Buddhist in Tibet, yet you think that a simple thing like a non-belief in supernatural events marks me out as more different than either of those two? That I cannot understand.

                  • Mark Shea

                    Yeah. So why are you telling *me* this. Go tell it to your buddies who bray the label for themselves incessantly. Love the blame-shifting. “I do this because *you* make me do it.” Grow up, dude.

                    And I presume that your religious conversion to radical individualism, wherein you bear no relationship to or responsibility for the ocean of blood shed by people who think just like you also extends to Christians and you will stop the blood libel of holding modern Christians responsible for the crimes of their ancestors?

                    • keddaw

                      “So why are you telling *me* this. Go tell it to your buddies who bray the label for themselves incessantly.”

                      Because, and this is the key point, they are NOT my buddies. They tend to be leftist, statists with whom I would disagree on the majority of things our governments do. They apologise for Obama’s murders, they want the state to implement policies that are both illiberal and counter-productive (e.g. minimum wage) and on many issues of actual import I would agree with you more than them. What we agree on is that the supernatural is bunk. Which leads to … nothing. But not believing in nonsense (and most religions are nonsense, even if one is correct) does not inform one’s political opinions or one’s views on rights or human value. Your suggestion that it does does you a disservice, I thought you were better than that.

          • J. H. M. Ortiz

            Actually, as I (subject to correction by the Church) read Genesis 22.2, God did NOT command Abraham to KILL his son: “God said, ‘Take your only son Isaac whom you love and … OFFER him as a holocaust ….'” God thus commanded Abraham to DISPOSSESS HIMSELF of Isaac, to surrender his “ownership” of his son, by presenting him entirely to God. Once Abraham had effected this interior act of self-surrender, God FORBADE him to kill him.

    • J. H. M. Ortiz

      “Keddaw” is right, I think — and for the reason he gives — that a voice from an unconsumed burning bush is not in itself a definitive proof of a divine source. But in the Catholic Church’s teaching as I understand it, the one “unforgivable sin” is the FINAL impenitence of refusing the last grace divinely offered at the point of death.

  • Cephas

    Mark, I was mostly perplexed and turned off by all your political/apolitical rants leading up to the Great Ballot Cast of 2012, but this is a gem! Looking forward to your book!

  • Glenn
    • Maggie

      Oh I really hope this is THE Glenn and if it is I really enjoyed your piece of art in response. And this also makes me so happy that you either know of or know personally Mark Shea please have him soon on your show. Thanks again for what you do and work for. And if this is isn’t the Glenn I think it is sorry for the confusion and I have seen this story it is just sad.

      Thanks 🙂

  • Rosemarie


    Someone tell me again about how conservatives made up all that stuff about Obama supporters treating him like the Second Coming of Christ.

    • kenneth

      Actually most of us consider him to be the second coming of P.T. Barnum!

      • ivan_the_mad

        Then you were jipped. Instead of General Tom Thumb, you got the lame stand-in of General Patraeus.

  • southcoast

    Which way to the Egress?