 |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Blasphemy Laws and the Fruits They Bear: The Case of Germany
The appearance of an anti-blasphemy bill in the New York State Senate [See sidebar] raises numerous questions about what effect such a law, if passed, would have on the freedom of expression in the United States. We can look to other countries where such laws are already in place and see how the law has been applied there. Examining the use of blasphemy laws in authoritarian countries like contemporary Iran or Afghanistan or Czarist Russia would not shed much light on what is likely to happen in the American context. But many modern, “enlightened,” western democracies have such laws already in place and offer the chance of an historical testing ground. One likely place to look, Great Britain, has such a law, but it has hardly been used, a case in 1989 being the first case to go to trial in almost eighty years. [1] The German law, however, is in constant use and provides a lot of material for study. The penal code of the Federal Republic of Germany has one section of laws which were written explicitly to apply to religion. The section includes three paragraphs: §166 is the so-called “blasphemy” paragraph which will be discussed in detail here. §167 and §168 delineate the crimes of disturbing religious ceremonies (including church services and funerals) and desecrating gravesites. §168 is not without current relevance, considering recent nighttime attacks on Jewish cemeteries by racist extremists, especially in the formerly communist parts of the country. But it is clearly §166 which most angers German Atheists, skeptics and civil-rights activists. They see it as a special privilege for religions - and thus a violation of the German constitution, a weapon for the churches to use in repressing criticism, and an anachronism left over from the times of the Inquisition. Even German jurists point out in their commentaries that a law like §166 is not to be considered a matter of course in a modern, secular society. Like libel and slander laws, a law such as this limits free speech, a fundamental right. Indeed, all the §166 cases involve the issue of free speech. But unlike libel and slander laws, blasphemy laws do not protect everybody equally. This article will briefly discuss the history of §166, examine the wording of the code and its interpretation by German jurists, and go into a number of historical and recent cases in which the law has been applied. Then, a brief attempt will be made to compare the wording with the New York bill. The Legal History The German “blasphemy paragraph” goes back at least as far as 1871, the time of the first German unification, when the penal code was also unified. It was taken from the 1870 penal code of the Northern German League and has remained in place ever since, having survived the Wilhelmian monarchy, the Weimar Republic, the National Socialist “Third Reich,” and Allied occupation to become part of the body of laws now in force in the Federal Republic of Germany, the most liberal, democratic and tolerant political entity ever to exist on German soil. The wording has changed over the years, however. The original wording specifically referred to “God,” the Christian churches, their traditions, houses of worship, and ceremonies. Since the Second World War there was also enough berth for interpretation to include the Jewish religion as well. It specifically stated that “to blaspheme” (Gott lästern) was a crime and the penalty was a prison sentence of up to three years. A German commentary on the former law specifically refers to the legal protection of such elements of god as “the Holy Ghost” and “Jesus,” as well as to numerous traditions and ceremonies such as baptism, confession, the priesthood, and even the honoring of ancient and holy “relics” such as the Medieval forgery of Christ’s funeral garment still kept on display in the cathedral at Trier, Germany’s oldest city. In 1969 a significant change was made in the law during a general overhaul of the penal code. The wording was secularized so that it was no longer “God” or “his” institutions which were being defended by the law, but the public peace. The words referring to blasphemy were stricken and the code expanded to include non-religious elements, although the primarily religious orientation of the law remains apparent. The current wording is as follows: |
  
|
|
§166 The Ridicule of faiths (Bekenntnisse), religious societies, and ideological groups (Weltanschauungsvereinigungen).Critics of the law consider this a harsher law than the original version for two reasons. Firstly, since “God” has been taken out and replaced by “disturbing the peace,” it is no longer possible for defendants to bring up the question of the existence of a god in the court room and put the plaintiff in the embarrassing position of trying to show exactly who has been ridiculed or why the almighty needs his rights defended in court. Secondly, as we will see below, the “public peace” is a very nebulous term which can be and is interpreted very broadly, giving religiously minded citizens and prosecutors a lot of leeway. The terminology is discussed in detail in the commentaries. The penal code specifically defines “publicly” and “spreading written material” to include some of the modern forms of media such as tape recordings, TV, and radio. German jurists define ridicule (in everyday speech, the term Beschimpfung is closer to “cursing” than ridicule) as dependent on the contents of the religion or ideology being ridiculed. That is, it is a statement which in form and content is especially insulting or injurious to the adherents of a particular religion or ideology. It does not include a general insult of “God” unless a particular religion’s god is meant. It does include making claims of fact which could cause disgrace (like referring to the Catholic church as one of the most criminal organizations in history), especially contemptuous evaluations of religious values or ceremonies, statements which are crude or profane in their expression or in their content, and finally any “especially injurious declaration of contempt.” Ridicule can also take the form of an attack on an especially honored or central figure or idea in the religion concerned. What all this has come to include will become more apparent in the case studies below. The clause about being “deemed able to disturb the public peace” is conspicuous by its absence from the New York bill. In German law, it requires that the ridicule could entail a danger to the public peace, the public peace being the general feeling of security and mutual trust in society. Thus, a guilty verdict does not require that a riot have taken place or even a fist fight or a shouting match. Public peace does mean, however, that a reasonably sensitive and tolerant citizen should not have the fear that the limits of tolerance of his or her own convictions have been overstepped. The addressee of the statements of ridicule is irrelevant. If ridicule is such that the “believer” can justifiably fear further ridicule or even action against his convictions or person on the part of a third party, the public peace has been disturbed. One more point is worth mentioning before we move on to some case studies. The commentators draw attention to the fact that this paragraph of the penal code has hardly been used at all except in defense of religions. The Catholic church, strongest in Bavaria and in the German Northwest, has been the most active in making citations. Although the commentators name numerous “world views” (Weltanschauungen) [2] which could qualify for protection such as “Humanism” and “Anthroposophy,” none of these have ever cited anyone on the basis of §166. Only two cases have involved Atheists as plaintiffs. Early Tests of the Law The number of cases this law has generated has fluctuated over years. During the culturally liberal but politically volatile Weimar period, there were over a hundred cases per year, mostly against artists and authors. The most famous case was that of George Grosz, an artist who did a number of drawings which got the attention of the pious in 1928. One became known as “Jesus in a gas mask.” It depicted Jesus on the cross wearing combat boots and a gas mask and was titled, “Shut up and serve.” Grosz’s sentence, a fine of 20,000 German Marks, was repealed, but his drawing remained verboten. The artist eventually emigrated to the United States where he could work without fear of censorship. This case made it clear that church symbols were off limits to caricature. High points since the war have been the late sixties during the “sexual revolution” and early eighties, when conservatism was on the come-back in Germany. Over the last twenty years or so, there have been an average of about thirty cases per year, almost all of them ending in acquittal or in the case being dropped. The first case to go to court after the law was changed was also one of the few cases to get wide media attention. In 1969 Karlheinz Deschner, a prominent critic of the church who has since become even more well-known for his multivolume Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (“Criminal History of Christendom”) in which he uncompromisingly unveils the crimes and hypocrisy in Christian history, gave a talk at the Bund für Geistesfreiheit (League for Free Thought) in Nürnberg. The talk encouraged people to leave the church, the main reason being the vast discrepancy between the forgiveness and mercy the church preaches on the one hand and the horror of church history on the other. In what was to be a test case for the new law and the definition of “public peace,” Bavarian public prosecutor demonstrated how the new term could be stretched. According to the indictment, the public peace had been disturbed, because many members of the audience had expressed their disagreement with the arguments presented and had applauded Christian speakers! The other examples of disturbed public peace were the negative reports in daily newspapers and, most of all, the harsh criticism of Deschner to be found in church newsletters! The “ridicule” which had caused the public peace to be disturbed consisted of such claims by Deschner that Christianity was a “plague,” that the church had not only failed to reach the high standards of morality it had set for itself, but that it had become the prime example of crime in world history, and the remark that the church was probably worse than Hitler or Stalin because at least these dictators had preached the injustices they were committing. The case against Herr Dr. Deschner was eventually dropped for invalidity. A few cases from the mid-eighties are worth mentioning before we turn to more recent cases. In one, a writer for a local anti-mainstream paper in Münster was cited for a violation of §166 for a 1984 article on earlier blasphemy and censorship cases going back to the 1880s. The article was written to defend the paper in the context of an impending §166 case! The author quoted from the earlier texts and included pictures which had been subject to earlier litigation. Even though the quotes were shown as quotes - and not as statements of the opinion of the author - and the pictures used only to document the earlier cases, the Münster public prosecutor cited him. The court found one place in the text which implied that the author sympathized with the earlier defendants and was sentenced to pay 150 Deutschmarks. He appealed the case, but the higher court found him and the editor of the paper guilty and sentenced them both to a 600 Mark fine each! This case was remarkable for several reasons. For one, the sentence imposed went beyond what the public prosecutor had demanded. Secondly, the judge refused to admit any evidence used to demonstrate that the pictures and quotes were being used as documents. Thirdly, the justification of the decision was devoid of the usual legalisms and full of ideological, personal opinion. According to the judge, the criticism of the church was “angry, hateful, and without any factual basis.” With regard to the article's reference to the concordat signed between Nazi Germany and the Vatican (which is still the basis of relations between the FRG and the Catholic church), the judge called this “especially insulting,” as it “placed the Vatican in the same context as Hitler.” It had apparently become illegal to draw attention to historical facts. This is especially significant with regard to Germany where, despite the impression in the US media around the Goldhagen debate, history is talked about constantly, very openly and in a very self-incriminating manner with regard to the Nazi period. More Recent Cases The case of Birgit Römermann gets a lot of attention in the German Atheist press. In Göttingen she set up a weekly information booth promoting Lebensfreude (“enjoying life” or “life happiness”) and opposing the anti-sex influence of Christian education. She also drew attention to Christian crimes, especially the witch trials. One of her brochures included the statement: “Considering the history of the church, one is a member of one of the biggest crime organizations in the world.” She also sold two provocative stickers. One read: “A maculate contraception is better than an immaculate conception.” The other showed a crossed-out crucifix and read, “Masochism can be healed.” A passer-by bought the stickers, took the brochure and cited her. The fine of 400 Deutschmarks was later taken back and replaced with a formal warning. Frau Römermann appealed anyway, whereupon her house was searched for anti-Christian material. The higher court upheld the earlier decision. Two things are interesting about this case, the first being the reasoning of the court with regard to the “masochism” sticker: “The representation of the crucified Christ [suggests] that the passion of Christ, in contrast to the faith of the Christian churches… is not to be interpreted as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of original sin.” In other words, it had become illegal publicly to re-interpret the crucifixion! Another remarkable aspect of this case is that the defendant ended up in court again: Her speech for the defense had been photocopied and used at other information stands by anti-church groups - and had been cited for a §166 violation! By the way, the city of Göttingen revoked her right to run the information stand because, “she has obviously lost all feelings of custom and decency.” One newspaper that has had several run-ins with §166 is the Berlin Tageszeitung or TAZ. In one case, in 1987, an article was published on the topic of “theophagy” or “god-eating.” The discussion included references to the Christian tradition of communion and was accompanied by two illustrations. The Catholic bishopric of Berlin saw the satire as an offense and the attorney general took the case the court. The case ended in an acquittal, was appealed, and was apparently acquitted again. The most interesting thing about this case is that the text in question had already been published, years before, in another periodical. That didn’t stop the Catholic church protesting the publication in a daily paper, however. Another case involved a poster for a play called The Messiah, in which Jesus was depicted wearing a dunce cap and sitting on the cross-board of the crucifix. The inter-denominational movement “Christians for Truth” cited the poster, but the public prosecutor soon dropped the case. When the attorney for the Christian group told off the public prosecutor for letting blasphemers go unpunished, he found himself in front of the judge for contempt. In 1994 a gallery in Cologne had a comic-style picture on display in the front window. It depicted a portly nun sneaking a curious peek under the loincloth of a statue of the savior while he is hanging on the cross. When the bishop of Cologne, Cardinal Meissner, cited the picture, the public prosecutor saw little chance of getting a conviction and sought to drop the case, but the court decided to prosecute. This, despite the fact that the picture had been for sale since 1986, that several thousand copies had already been sold, and that the picture had been hanging in the window of the gallery for over five months without the “public peace” being disturbed. Immediately after the case became known, numerous identical citations popped up at the district attorney’s office - indicating that the church was calling on its members to suddenly “feel insulted” and take action. The potential for this kind of manipulated mass-indignation in the USA, where so many people are on the Internet and the churches, especially the conservative churches, are so media-savvy, is, of course, enormous. For weeks, nothing happened. Then, when the public prosecutor finally moved to confiscate the picture, the move was delayed still further when it became known that the confiscation was to be filmed. A few weeks later, the gallery was searched and the picture confiscated, along with other works by the same artist. The case ended in an acquittal. In a sweeping victory for the gallery, not only did the court fail to find that the picture “ridiculed” a religion, it also failed to recognize any danger for the public peace. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, the final line of defense for the accused in such cases, did not even need to be mentioned. Then, in a move that makes it all the more obvious that the church is using §166 as a method of censorship and not to defend the public peace, the prosecuting attorney appealed. Six months later, the gallery was again acquitted. But the gallery had had to fight an 18-month legal battle and had to close one of its two stores. More typical were two cases against young writers of political brochures. In 1995, the local newsletter of a branch of the Young Social Democrats, the youth (under 30) branch of the German Social Democratic Party, carried the title “Sensation! The Pope photographed doing S&M!” The issue included two photo-montage pictures of the pope performing sex acts. The articles had to do with the financial policies of the Christian churches, the pomp of Catholic church, and the pope’s views on contraception. Numerous churches and church organizations immediately attacked the authors. The Social Democratic Party and its Young Social Democrats organization joined in the attacks and demanded that the authors leave the party. In 1996 another Young Social Democrat, this time the vice-chairman of their Bavarian branch, published an article in a Bavaria-wide school paper in which he described the crucifixes hanging in the classrooms there using the term überflüssiges Lattengustl (“superfluous crossbar-Gustav”). The issue was “hot” because the crucifixes were then being banned by the courts. The term used sounds like calling the crucifix something like “wall puppet” or “Johnny in nails” in English. A storm of protest broke over the young man, including letters to the editor and a citation for blasphemy. Interestingly, there was no reaction or indignation when the newsletter was distributed in several cities. Only later, when several Social Democrats brought the subject up at a local party meeting did anyone take notice. These cases, like the case of Birgit Römermann mentioned above, are more typical of the last twenty years, where few if any prominent figures are accused. The religiously offended choose rather to go after the small fish, usually students or editors of small newspapers, who don’t have the resources for a long legal battle. The German Atheist organization I.B.K.A. has drawn a lot of attention to the case of the rock-comedy, The Maria-Syndrome, by M. S. Salomon. The musical, which was to be performed in Trier in 1994 at about the same time as the annual display of Jesus’ supposed funeral garb, promised in the ads to “make a fuss about the topic of religion and sex” and posters showed a pregnant nun. It was about a young girl who unknowingly impregnates herself on the toilet seat where her cousin has just masturbated. The pregnant virgin is diagnosed with “Maria syndrome” and the child turns into a religious leader. The absurd story goes on to feature god in the form of a “mysteriously glowing toilet seat” and a “cousin John” as the owner of a shop for sex paraphernalia. The Catholic diocese of Trier cited the play even before it went on stage and got the local authorities to intervene and have the performance stopped the day before opening night. The law provides for preventing a crime before it happens and in this case it was considered likely that a performance would result in a §166 violation. Beforehand, complaints had already gone into city hall from the public who had seen the posters. This case is interesting for several reasons. First of all, none of those responsible for deciding whether or not to forbid the performance had ever seen the play or even the script. Secondly, the mayor responsible for the decision was a member of Opus Dei, the arch-conservative Catholic order. Thirdly, the cancellation of the performance was one week before a local election and the conservative party, the Christian Democrats, stood to profit from the local popularity of the decision, something the censors knew all too well. Fourthly, the state court later upheld the decision and the musical has, to this very day, not been performed, even though the entire text is available on the Internet. The group performing the piece came upon the idea of selling tickets to The Maria Syndrome in the form of membership cards for the “Club for the Heartless,” Only people without religious feelings would be admitted. Members would then be given free admission to the performance. The local authorities conveniently forbid public advertising for members-only performances, however, so the group gave up on that option as well. Only two cases have involved an Atheist as plaintiff. In 1995, during a memorial service on the 50th anniversary of the fire-bombing of Dresden, the bishop of that city said, “Whoever kills God will find it all the easier to kill people.” An Atheist cited him. The case was dropped after a short, two-week investigation. The court argued that “... Atheism in and of itself is not a world view. A world view in the sense of §166 includes only world views which find meaning in the world and of man’s place in it without reference to religion such as Marxism, materialism, humanist idealism, existentialism, or Anthroposophy. Atheism as such is... only defined by the rejection of the existence of God without that necessarily implying anything about the meaning of the world or man's place in it.” The court went on to point out that Atheists don’t need to fear being insulted or discriminated against anyway, as Germany is a secular society! This case obviously left the door wide open to any and all attacks on Atheism without fear of recourse by way of §166. In a similar case, an Atheist accused Archbishop Dyba from the archdiocese of Fulda, one of Germany’s most notoriously conservative clerics, of violating §166 by saying that, “Godlessness always leads to ruin” in an ecumenical church service. The court dropped the case, arguing that his remarks were obviously made in the context of and in reference to the Nazi regime’s policy of creating a “new man” and thus could not be referring to Atheism in general. A law like §166 can also be used as a weapon. In 1996 Ernst Seler, the man who was responsible for fighting the Bavarian school system for years to get the crucifixes removed from public classrooms - and winning - was cited for saying, in an interview, that the crucifix that some demonstrators were carrying reminded him of “an erect penis, but a dead one.” He has appealed the warrant to pay 1,200 Deutschmarks (about $700). In Bavaria it can be expensive to fight for your rights. One recent case involved a prison sentence. In 1996 a photographer made pictures of “Adam and Eve” on the altar of the Cologne cathedral. Two models, dressed only in fig leaves, posed long enough for several pictures to be made before church officials pounced on them and stopped the shooting. The Catholic church started a press campaign in the context of the desecration and the letters to the editor were later used in the trial to demonstrate the danger to the public peace posed by the photographer. He was sentenced to a four-month suspended sentence and a 3,000 Mark fine. The two models got off with fines. Attempts to Change the Law Only one case involving the Internet has come to attention. An advertisement for a T-shirt depicting a crucified pig was cited by the Diocese of Regensburg. The public prosecutor reached the conclusion, however, that the Internet ad was not accessible to a wider public and was therefore not in violation of §166. This is interesting in light of possible future interpretations of what is meant by “public” or “written material.” This case lead to an attempt by conservative members of the Bavarian branch of the Christian Democratic Party, the Christian Social Union, to move to have §166 made more severe. They wanted to have the “in a manner deemed able to disturb the public peace” clause removed from the law. Their initiative - the third attempt by Bavarian conservatives to change the blasphemy law since 1986 - failed in parliament. Only one recent attempt, if it can be called that, has been made to have the law scratched entirely from the penal code. In 1995 a member of the left-wing Green Party fraction of parliament made the suggestion at a press conference. He was immediately accused by the conservative Bavarian minister of justice of trying to “undermine the values of democracy.” There was nothing close to a majority in parliament for such a move and the initiative was dropped, apparently due to lack of interest by other members. The most recent case of §166 censorship to appear in the German Atheist press involves a radio broadcast. In April of 1998, a text called “Our Little Bible Lesson” was read on the air in Unna. It made fun of numerous things, including the “Christian nail festival”; Jesus Christ, helper of the weak-minded; the brotherly love of “full-time, professional Christians”; and criticized the role of the Catholic church in Europe during the fascist period. In August a citation signed by twelve people was filed. The signatories - who had taken four months to find each other and formulate their indignation - claimed the broadcast had called for hate of national groups (a crime in Germany) and had insulted their religion in a manner deemed able to disturb the peace. In addition to several insulting passages, the mention of historical facts connecting the pope to fascist regimes was listed on the resulting indictment among the punishable elements in the program. The two speakers were sentenced to one month’s pay each and the program director to two months’ pay. The case has been appealed. What these case studies do not reflect is the effect that very existence of such a law has on discourse about religion. These are some of the cases that went to trial. But how many ideas, books, works of art - brilliant, good, bad, and tasteless - were never attempted or published because of the threat of litigation? The high rate of acquittals demonstrates that the German wording is fairly “toothless” in the German legal context. But the threat of having to spend money on a lawyer and time in court is real enough. It is worth bearing this is mind while we discuss the wording of the New York law. The wording and the precedents will not be read by most people interested in criticizing religion. But every potential critic will stop and think about what he or she is writing and only the most daring will resist watering it down to avoid a trial. New York versus Germany A major difference between the New York bill (S2167) and the German law is the emphasis the former puts on religion. It even goes as far as to define “deity.” Thus, it is more similar to the older German version. But note that the defense some of the accused used in Germany before 1969 - trying to argue in court against the existence of god or his need for special legal defense - is not likely to be permitted under the New York wording. Deity is defined in such a way that actual existence or attributes are not at issue. Thus, the New York bill has the religious wording and focus of the older German law without all the legal options the German law provided. The secularized German version specifically refers to the defense of the public peace and goes out of its way to include secular ideologies, while the New York bill seeks to defend religious convictions directly. Parts of the accompanying justification for S2167 read much like the German law, however, referring to the need to protect the members of religious groups from attacks which “frustrate society itself,” a clause not unlike the German “public peace” clause. But the same justification also seeks to prevent religious “oaths” from being “undermined,” a statement with very broad implications. Thus, one could argue that the bill seeks to prevent any discourse which could call any or all religious convictions into question, even the mention of historical or scientific facts which cast doubt on revealed “truth.” This could, theoretically, be used to justify even the silencing of religious discourse as soon as any statement is made publicly which conflicts with any other religion. After all, saying “Jesus is Lord” on television would “undermine” Islamic teachings. But if we stick to the wording of the law itself, the implications are somewhat less severe and seem to be close to how the newer German law has been used in practice over the past thirty years. The German law has never been used to defend a secular viewpoint, so the religious emphasis of the American law is not very relevant for the comparison. It has come to be used more to suppress mockery, satire, obscenity or open contempt of religion than to suppress historical, scientific or logical reasoning against religion. (To keep these out of the mainstream media, other methods are used, primarily self-censorship under the pressure of the churches.) Generally, it is a mocking cartoon, a coarsely worded slogan or a lewd portrayal of sex in a religious context, and not the publication of facts or arguments against belief or critical of religious institutions which have led to legal action. Indeed, there are numerous books on the German market, as there are in the United States, which are very explicit in their attacks on all aspects of religion, even harsh attacks on the Bible itself. I have not searched through any legal archives, but the literature on the subject does not reveal many uses of §166 to suppress sober, diplomatically worded argumentation or history. There have been exceptions, however, as several cases mentioned above have shown. But these exceptions have not stopped the truth getting out in some form. Karlheinz Deschner’s books, for example, which are no less harsh than the text he was tried for in 1969, can be ordered in any bookstore and are on display in enough bookstores to be noticed. But the law does make it far more difficult than it should be to get such facts on prime-time TV. Any hint of mockery or sarcasm and the walls could come tumbling down. It is interesting to note, however, that the Monty Python film The Life of Brian which is used to justify the American law did not cause a stir in Germany and was not cited. Provided S2167 is applied strictly according to its own wording, similar results can be expected here, the difference being perhaps that more Protestants than Catholics would be likely to use the law. But again, the justification for the New York law makes it apparent that a broader, even more oppressive use of the legislation is intended. Ultimately, the laws themselves are similar enough. The two contexts are very different and should be considered at least worrisome for Americans. In Germany, section §166 of the penal code has meant less room for maneuver and less flexibility in criticizing or attacking religious convictions or institutions and, together with other factors, helped to give religions the advantage in the public sphere, but an advantage which has not slowed the decline in church membership and participation over the past thirty years. In the United States on the other hand, where clear criticism of religion as such (and not just religious institutions) is also virtually absent from the media, where religious TV, radio and print media are far more prominent than in Europe, with religious belief stronger than ever and with religion starting a come-back in the public schools and government, such legislation would only serve to accelerate the general trend toward the end of secular government. It would further undermine the basis of tolerant, liberal society. Of all the aspects of modern, liberal society, only religion seems to need special protection from free speech. Indeed, science, art, and politics thrive on free speech and sports and leisure are at least ambivalent about it. Laws protecting individuals and institutions against libel and slander are in place for everybody. But the inability of religious viewpoints to withstand close scrutiny or serious argumentation means they eventually have to call on the long arm of the law to remain standing indefinitely in the arena of public discourse. Works Consulted Der Fall Deschner. Oder: Wer die Kirchenpresse ärgert, stört den öffentlichen Frieden? Dokumentation zum Prozeß gegen Karlheinz Deschner wegen Religionsbeschimpfung. Vorgänge 4/1971. 119-123. Dreher, Eduard; Maassen, Hermann: Strafgesetzbuch mit Erläuterungen und den wichtigsten Nebengesetzen. C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: München und Berlin, 1959. Lenckner, Theodor; Cramer, Peter; Eser, Albin; Stree, Walter: Strafgesetzbuch. Kommentar. C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung: München, 1997. Neumann, Ulfried; Schild, Wolfgang: Nomos Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch. Bd. 2. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft: Baden-Baden, 1995. Reinsdorf, Clara and Paul (Ed.): Zensur im Namen des Herrn. Zur Anatomie des Gotteslästerungsparagraphen. Alibri: Aschaffenburg, 1997. This includes essays by the Reinsdorfs, Martin Budich, Roland Seim, Gunnar Schedel, and Michael Schmidt-Salomon. Vultejus, Ulrich; Baeger, Edgar: Enzyklika für die Freiheit der Religionskritik. Humanistische Union, 1989. Zirker, Hans: “Gotteslästerung oder Freiheit der Kunst? Religiöse Empörungen in säkularer Gesellschaft.” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte. 1991. 345-359 In addition, the Web page of the IBKA (International League of Non-religious and Atheists) and several issues of their political magazine Materialien und Informationen zur Zeit were also consulted. Part of the IBKA Web-page is in English. Check it out: http://www.ibka.orgThanks also to Kristina Stockwood of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression for writing me about the Canadian law. 
Mark R. Hatlie is a member of American Atheists and a native of Manhattan Beach, California. He has lived in Germany for eleven years and is now writing a dissertation at the Institute of Eastern European History at the University of Tübingen.
NOTES: [1] In Canada, a “blasphemous libel” law is rarely used and is worded very differently from the laws discussed here. It punishes only attacks which “have as their sole object the outraging of the feelings of every believer in a religion. An attack on the clergy or a doctrine of the church is not blasphemous libel.” Extra wording explicitly permits critical discourse on religious subjects. ![[back]](../../backarrow.gif){kind=small}
[2] The German Weltanschauung is given here and in other places the translation “world view.” There is no English equivalent for Weltanschauung. According to one commentary, the term refers to a system which seeks to answer ultimate questions about the world and its origins without reference to a divine being, the precepts of which system are considered higher than and binding for the follower.
|