Keep in mind that every culture has blasphemy laws. What you're seeing here is not the removal of blasphemy laws, but the culture's switch from one god to another.
The attempt to "cleanse the land" of what they have newly labeled as "bigotry", "racism", etc. does have what strongly resembles religious fervor, a clear definition of sin, and a clear promise of a better world and the conditions for getting there.
And there are always those pesky skeptics who make it so difficult... if only everyone would just believe.
That's a bit flippant. Of course every culture has a prevailing moral code, but blasphemy was a tool developed to prevent the rise of religious institutions that threatened the power of the Catholic church with, among other things, brutal capital punishment. After a few hundred years this basis was no longer relevant, and by the 1900s it was just used to occasionally pearl clutch in the public eye, long after the (new) church genuinely felt threatened.
However ham-fisted this new law is, attempts to prevent:
> prejudice on the basis of age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics (sometimes described as "intersex" physical or biological characteristics).
, that's to say things which you cannot choose (except religion), is a pretty major change from protecting the official state religion du jour - not just a straight swap.
> things which you cannot choose (except religion), is a pretty major change from protecting the official state religion du jour
It's a big change from protecting the official state religion du jour to protecting the official state morality do jour?
It isn't even about prejudice which will already be illegal for discrimination in hiring, etc. It's simply about saying things which might make other people feel "bad" feelings. Pretty similar to offending a religious person by saying their God is wrong. That stirs up hate too and it deeply hurts people.
> attempts to prevent [prejudice] is a pretty major change from protecting the official state religion
Blasphemy laws weren't justified on the basis of protecting a religion, but to safeguard souls from being led astray into eternal damnation, or to stop the spread of harmful immoral activity. They were to serve the greater good, just like this law.
TimTheTinker|4 years ago
The attempt to "cleanse the land" of what they have newly labeled as "bigotry", "racism", etc. does have what strongly resembles religious fervor, a clear definition of sin, and a clear promise of a better world and the conditions for getting there.
And there are always those pesky skeptics who make it so difficult... if only everyone would just believe.
tweetle_beetle|4 years ago
However ham-fisted this new law is, attempts to prevent:
> prejudice on the basis of age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics (sometimes described as "intersex" physical or biological characteristics).
, that's to say things which you cannot choose (except religion), is a pretty major change from protecting the official state religion du jour - not just a straight swap.
exporectomy|4 years ago
It's a big change from protecting the official state religion du jour to protecting the official state morality do jour?
It isn't even about prejudice which will already be illegal for discrimination in hiring, etc. It's simply about saying things which might make other people feel "bad" feelings. Pretty similar to offending a religious person by saying their God is wrong. That stirs up hate too and it deeply hurts people.
MikeUt|4 years ago
Blasphemy laws weren't justified on the basis of protecting a religion, but to safeguard souls from being led astray into eternal damnation, or to stop the spread of harmful immoral activity. They were to serve the greater good, just like this law.