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.

^ underrated comment

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.

> It's a big change from protecting the official state religion du jour to protecting the official state morality do jour?

Yes and I think I already explained how I believe that to be the case.

But to expand it to your example, how does an attempt to improve prejudiced actions against all people of faith, sexual orientation, etc. support a state institution? What is the ulterior motive and which power structure is benefitting from it? From what I can see - none. It's just a change in society's morality.

> 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.

I disagree that blasphemy was to serve the greater good. This implies that extreme actions carried out in the name of theology are made in good faith [sic], without ulterior motives outside theology.

Excommunication was a perfectly good threat if the aim was genuinely to safeguard souls. The ulterior motive behind the escalated punishment and law, was the potential risk of allowing people to live their lives outside the church, or as part of another religion - an existential threat to the dominance of the Catholic church as an institution.

> I disagree that blasphemy was to serve the greater good.

It was justified on that ground. That doesn't mean there was no ulterior motive.

Agreed. That's more or less the basis of what I have said in all my comments in this thread. Maybe adding the word "designed" or "intended" into my comment would have made that clearer.

But this doesn't respond to the main point I was trying to make - this new law is not just a "switch from one god to another".

Except Islamic blasphemy which is a hate crime.

I think that shopkeeper getting stabbed in Scotland forced a rethink.

Did it? That's interesting because plenty of other cases of Muslims killing people for blasphemy didn't seem to weaken the popular opinion that blasphemy against Islam is "hate". It could certainly be judged as "stirring up hatred". The victim of that killing might even have been guilty under this law for proselytizing a minority sect that tends to stir up hatred from the majority sect's members.

He was trying to start his own spinoff IIRC

Blasphemy still exists: it just changed subject (one can’t criticize some political movements for example) and it’s enforced by "cancelling" instead of courts. In a lot of way the present situation is worse than the previous one on that front.