I am not a fan of any governmental institution of religion. As an American, I fully appreciate my right to exercise, or not, the faith of my choice. I do not think that blasphemy laws can survive in a pluralistic, nominally secular society. I believe this because, as Ms. Moller points out, blasphemy is a result-oriented determination and turns entirely on the religion of the insulted. This may be the only saving grace, if you will, if the misguided attempts to institute "blasphemy" laws succeed in various contries.

I am a Christian. Whatever Thomas-like doubts we hold, and however we disagree in the exercise of the faith, all Christians must accept the premise that salvation is ONLY available through the acceptance of Christ. There is no other path. Therefore, to a Christian, Islam is, strictly speaking, as much blasphemy as aethism. They are both denials of the soverignty and supremacy of Christ. My entire congregation blasphemes (if you're muslim) every Sunday because we do not accept mohammad as a prophet, he is not in our testament and has no bearing at all on our spiritual life.

If these stupid and dangerous laws are passed, I fully believe they will be used against the imans who seek them as much as the imans will use them against their detractors. Someone is always willing to be the fly in the honey-pot; after all, an Italian sued a priest last month on the argument that Christianity itself is a fraud.

I do not believe that blasphemy laws can survive in a society without a state-instituted religion, and this is what we must beware of. I am thankful that, here in the USA, the courts would not allow such a law to survive if our politicians were weak enough to pass such. I hope and trust that, if such an act were proposed, the ACLU would find the same spine that allowed it to sue and defend the rights of neo-NAZIs to march through a jewish neighborhood and that it would again defend the inaliable right of citizens to insult our peers and blaspheme -- after all, one person's blasphemy is another's dogma.