Asking such a very simple question does not mark one a fundamentalist. It's an absurd remark either way you cut it. By this standard, Plato could be considered a fundamentalist, since he noted the dangers of allowing the defaming of the sacred to the long-term stability of the state.
Originally Posted by Mystic Tater
And in American law, as I've been noting in the Church vs State thread, this was the understanding throughout much of the early Republic. One famous example was People v. Ruggles, which upheld a conviction on blasphemy on the grounds:
"The free, equal, and undisturbed, enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right....
...Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognisance of those offences against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment, or to any particular form of government, but are punishable because they strike at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties."
The latter bolded parts touches upon some of Plato's arguments on the matter btw. Freedom of speech does not mean a free for all, which in the end actually trivalizes and demeans such a freedom.
Freedom of speech and conscience are born out of the free will given to us from God, who is the father of the order of being. So to claim such freedom is more sacred than its author doesn't make much sense. Even from a legal positivist perspective, freedom of speech is given simply because the state allows it - but even then freedom of speech is not necessarily sacred in itself, but less sacred above everything else.
Hence my question.