|The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State|
|Welcome||Contents||What's New||Search this site||
View Our Stats
Visitors since 7/15/1998
|Links||Webrings||Guest Book||Contact Us|
|This site is eye friendly: Use your browser's view options to increase or decrease font size|
Commonwealth v Abner Kneeland, 37 Mass. (20 Pick) 206 (Sup. Ct. Mass. 1838) is cited 5 times in The Myth of Separation (Blasphemy case)
Major claims by Barton in his publications:
From The Myth of Separation, page 58-61, Barton writes:
This case also involved an attack against God and Christianity, but unlike the previous cases, these attacks had been published. Not surprisingly, the publisher claimed "freedom of the press" in his defense. The legal indictment against him was for "willfully blaspheming the holy name of God" and for a public disavowal of Christ. The indictment revealed his published statements:
An interesting term was used in the indictment, a term unknown to contemporary courts when used in connection with God:
"Libel" is a familiar term when used concerning other persons. It means to intentionally declare things about them that are false and would publicly injure their reputation or expose them to public ridicule. Such attacks on individuals were, and still are, illegal and subject to litigation. Yet, in previous years, attacks on God and Christ fell. under the same laws constructed to protect reputations: the laws against libel.
The defendant explained to the court the reasons his conviction should be overturned. First, he claimed he did not deny a belief in God; he was a pantheist and only denied the belief in a God; he felt that everything was god. Therefore, he asserted no law had been broken. Second, he argued that the law under which he was convicted had been superseded and overturned by the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom. Lastly, he believed the laws against blasphemy were a violation of the freedom of the press. He felt the Constitution:
The court addressed the defendant's first argument, that he had broken no law:
In general, blasphemy [that is, libel against God] may be described, as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity . . . to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. It is purposely using words concerning God ... to impair and destroy the reverence, respect, and confidence due to him... . It is a wilful and malicious attempt to lessen men's reverence of God by denying his existence, or his attributes as an intelligent creator, governor and judge of men, and to prevent their having confidence in him.
The court reviewed the history of blasphemy laws in America from 1646 until the then current 1782 version of the law. After summarizing the intent of each of those laws and establishing their legal validity, the Chief Justice upheld the jury's verdict finding the defendant guilty of blasphemy and libel. Having disposed of the defendant's first position, the court addressed the issue of the constitutionality of the law:
The court showed how that Massachusetts laws against blasphemy were compatible with similar provisions in the constitutions of other states whose constitutions also granted religious freedom, and thus were constitutionally valid laws:
The court lastly addressed the "freedom of the press" issue raised by the defendant and concluded that there was much that could not be protected by "freedom of the press":
According to the argument .. . every act, however injurious or criminal, which can be committed by the use of language, may be committed . . . if such language is printed. Not only therefore would the article in question become a general license for scandal, calumny and falsehood against individuals, institutions and governments, in the form of publication ... but all incitation to treason, assassination, and all other crimes however atrocious, if conveyed in printed language, would be dispunishable.
Legal analysis and writing by Lee Edwards, Esq.
Facts: Defendant, a pantheist who published the Boston Investigator, was convicted of blasphemy after publishing descriptions of various Universalist beliefs. He himself denied the divinity of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and miracles. The trial court sentenced him to three months in jail.
Issue: Was Defendant's blasphemy conviction barred by the Constitution of Massachusetts?
Answer: No. Conviction and sentence affirmed.
Comment: This case was decided prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment or during the period of the de facto establishment of Protestant Christianity. (See Rob Boston, Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State, Prometheus Books Buffalo N.Y. (1993) pp 77-92.)
Similarly, he [Barton] is deceptive in the Kneeland case when he refers to "the Constitution". Readers will assume that the reference is to the United States Constitution, however Kneeland was decided under the Massachusetts Constitution.
Query: Does Barton really believe that pantheists who attempt to persuade others that their beliefs are correct may constitutionally be imprisoned for blasphemy?
Research and commentary by Susan Batte, Esq.
Blasphemy: I took a look at West's digests of cases, both state and federal from the beginning to 1976. The beginning was the late 1600's.
|Late 1600's to 1896||17 cases digested|
|Set II||1896 to 1906||1 new case digested|
|Set III||1906- 1916||3+ new cases digested*|
|Set IV||1916-1926||1 new case digested|
|Set V||1926- 1936||1 new case digested|
|Set VI||1936- 1946||1 new case digested|
|Set VII||1946- 1956||No new cases digested|
|Set VIII||1966- 1976||5 new cases digested|
|*(I'm missing part of the Blasphemy section)|
So we are talking about approximately 29 cases that were prosecuted for blasphemy in this country in an 300 year period of time. (There were probably that many and more in a 50 year period of time in England in the 1700's and 1800's)
1 case holds that state blasphemy statutes violate the U.S. Constitution's religion clauses. The others for the most part hold no blasphemy violation to have occurred.