blasphemy
Enable an agent to recognise, contextualise and assess claims of blasphemy without treating a community's judgement of sacred offence as an objective property of an expression.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read
Researched by: Codex
Purpose and description
Enable an agent to recognise, contextualise and assess claims of blasphemy without treating a community's judgement of sacred offence as an objective property of an expression.
Blasphemy is expression or conduct regarded within a religious tradition or community as insulting, showing contempt for, or treating irreverently its deity, sacred persons, objects, or beliefs.
It can be Record an allegation together with its sacred referent, claimant and stated grounds.; Compare assessments of the same expression across named communities and contexts.; Trace disputed wording, imagery or conduct to its original setting and available evidence.; Distinguish blasphemy allegations from related classifications such as heresy, profanity or criticism.; Identify missing evidence and route consequential or contested assessments for appropriate review.; Prepare an attributed summary with contextual quotation and handling choices suited to its audience..
Distinguishing features
A blasphemy assessment must identify what is held sacred and by whom; general offensiveness alone does not establish the classification.
The assessment concerns a perceived treatment of the sacred, whereas heresy concerns doctrinal departure and apostasy concerns leaving a faith; any overlap must be recorded separately.
Criticism, satire, quotation and scholarship require an attributed assessment rather than automatic classification as blasphemy.
An accusation, an internal religious judgement and a legal determination are distinct records that may disagree.
A work or act can receive different assessments across communities, periods and contexts, so classification must remain attached to its assessor and setting.
Scope
+ Expressions and expressive acts alleged or judged to dishonour something held sacred
+ Sacred referents and the traditions or communities that recognise them
+ Specific religious norms invoked to classify an expression as blasphemous
+ Accusations, interpretations, disputes and revisions of that classification
+ Context needed to assess intent, quotation, translation and reception
+ Reported responses and applicable handling constraints
- Religious doctrines and sacred entities considered independently of a blasphemy assessment
- Creative works, editions and physical carriers as independently managed objects
- Heresy, apostasy and unbelief without a distinct allegation of sacred offence
- Profanity or interpersonal insult without an identified sacred referent
- Complete legal proceedings, statutory models and criminal case management
- Violence, persecution and discrimination as independently modelled events
Characteristics
- Sacred referent
- Identified deity, person, text, symbol, ritual, place, object or other referent held sacred Identifies the target of the alleged offence without assuming universal sacred status.
- Sacred-status attribution
- Community, tradition or interpreter asserting the referent's sacred status Makes the normative perspective explicit.
- Expression mode
- Speech, writing, image, performance, gesture, treatment of an object, mixed or unresolved Determines what evidence and contextual detail an assessment requires.
- Alleged form of offence
- Attributed insult, mockery, irreverence, profanation, prohibited representation, other specified form or unresolved Records the claimant's grounds without assuming that every tradition recognises the same offences.
- Assessment standing
- Alleged, affirmed by a named assessor, disputed, rejected by a named assessor, withdrawn or unresolved Prevents an allegation from silently becoming an established judgement.
- Invoked norm
- Identified teaching, interpretive rule, customary expectation, institutional policy or legal provision, with source and temporal context Allows the agent to inspect the grounds and limits of each assessment.
- Intent account
- Creator-stated, claimant-attributed, inferred with evidence, disputed or unknown Separates evidence of intention from assumptions based on audience reaction.
- Assessment context
- Time, location, audience, language, circulation setting and jurisdiction where relevant Constrains the reach of a classification and identifies when reassessment is needed.
Also called
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Also registered as vr.tr.blasphemy
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 5 bundles · 9 layers · 14 findings · 26 questions.
Sacred referent and norm Establishes what is considered sacred and the specific grounds invoked for alleging offence.
Blasphemy cannot be recognised through offensive wording alone; its classification depends on a sacred referent and an attributed normative perspective.
Sacred status
Identifies the referent and the people or institutions attributing sacred significance to it.
Referent and recognising community
Record the alleged target and whose understanding of its sacred status is relevant.
- What exactly is alleged to have been dishonoured, and which community or interpreter holds it sacred? definition
- What source supports this attribution of sacred status, including any disagreement within the named community? provenance
Offence criteria
Connects the alleged treatment of the referent to a particular rule or interpretation.
Invoked religious boundary
Record the claimed threshold between permissible treatment of the sacred and blasphemous treatment.
- Which rule or interpretation is invoked, and what feature of the expression allegedly crosses its boundary? definition
- Does the invoked interpretation distinguish insult, denial, depiction, irreverence and profanation, or group them together? boundary
Expression and context Identifies the relevant words, images or conduct and reconstructs the circumstances needed to interpret them.
An isolated quotation, altered image or unexplained act may support a different assessment from its complete context.
Expression evidence
Anchors the allegation to an identifiable expression or occurrence.
Original and circulated form
Distinguish the original expression from excerpts, translations, edits and reports used in the allegation.
- Which exact passage, image feature, gesture or treatment of an object is alleged to constitute blasphemy? definition
- Is the available evidence original, translated, edited, excerpted or second-hand, and how can its origin be checked? provenance
Interpretive setting
Records communicative purpose, audience and circumstances without treating inferred intent as established.
Use, mention and intent
Determine whether the disputed material is asserted, quoted, dramatised, criticised or otherwise presented, and attribute any account of intention.
- Is the speaker or creator endorsing the disputed content, quoting another person, depicting a fictional voice or using another identifiable framing? boundary
- What evidence supports the stated or attributed intention, and what remains unknown or disputed? provenance
- How did the audience, venue or circulation context differ between the original expression and the encounter that prompted the allegation? boundary
Attributed and contested assessment Maintains separate, attributable judgements and the boundaries between blasphemy and neighbouring classifications.
An agent must preserve disagreement and distinguish the existence of an accusation from acceptance of its grounds.
Claim and authority
Identifies who made each assessment, their claimed role and the standing of their judgement.
Assessment owner and standing
Attach each classification to its assessor, evidence, date and stated scope of authority.
- Who called the expression blasphemous, when, and in what capacity? provenance
- Is this a personal reaction, religious interpretation, institutional decision or legal determination, and who contests its authority or conclusion? boundary
Classification boundaries
Tests alternative descriptions and records disagreements about whether blasphemy is the relevant category.
Neighbouring categories and disagreement
Separate sacred-offence claims from doctrinal dissent, religious departure, general profanity and attacks on people.
- What makes this specifically an allegation of offence against the sacred rather than solely heresy, apostasy, profanity or insult to a person? boundary
- Which alternative readings, including criticism, satire or scholarship, have been offered, and by whom? provenance
- What additional evidence would justify revising, rejecting or narrowing the recorded classification? action
Responses and agent handling Records substantiated responses to an allegation and determines context-appropriate handling of the material.
An agent needs to distinguish reported consequences, institutional restrictions and audience preferences before deciding how to describe or circulate contested material.
Response and applicability
Links the allegation to documented reactions and any specifically applicable rules.
Documented consequences and rules
Record responses with their evidential standing and verify the scope of any rule invoked to constrain action.
- Which responses are documented, such as rebuttal, apology, removal, exclusion or proceedings, and which are only threatened or reported? provenance
- If a legal provision or institutional policy is invoked, what authoritative source establishes its applicable date, setting and status? provenance
- Does the evidence connect the response to the expression itself, the accusation, its circulation or another event? boundary
Representation and review
Supports accurate description, proportionate reproduction and review of consequential assessments.
Contextualised agent action
Choose how to present the disputed material while preserving attribution, interpretive context and relevant audience requirements.
- Does the task require reproducing the disputed material, or would an attributed description or limited excerpt meet the need? action
- What audience preferences, applicable constraints and unresolved translation or interpretation issues should inform presentation or specialist review? action
- How will the output make clear whose judgement is being reported and whether that judgement is disputed? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- This describes the religious and social concept, not a particular legal offense, titled work, or medium.
- The supplied domain and batch classification should be checked: blasphemy can characterize expression or conduct but is not itself a creative form.
- This is recall only; tradition-specific definitions and jurisdiction-specific rules require research.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of blasphemy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Spoken blasphemy
- Written blasphemy
- Visual representations regarded as blasphemous
- Gestures or performances regarded as blasphemous
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of blasphemy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Religious teaching and debate about acceptable treatment of the sacred
- Classification of allegedly offensive speech, writing, images, or performances
- Historical study of religious authority, censorship, and dissent
- Analysis of conflicts involving artistic expression and religious sensibilities
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of blasphemy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Presenting a community's judgment of blasphemy as an intrinsic property of an expression
- Conflating criticism of religious ideas with hostility toward religious people
- Using allegations to suppress dissent or target religious minorities
- Loss of context when translating, quoting, or circulating allegedly blasphemous material
- Threats, exclusion, or violence against people accused of blasphemy
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of blasphemy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Traditions and communities differ over what is sacred and what treatment constitutes blasphemy.
- An expression regarded as blasphemous by one community may be ordinary religious teaching or legitimate criticism in another.
- Religious judgments, social responses, and legal classifications need separate examination in each jurisdiction and historical period.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of blasphemy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- sacrilege - Sacrilege concerns violation or profanation of sacred things, places, or rites; blasphemy emphasizes insult or contempt, although usage overlaps.
- heresy - Heresy concerns doctrinal deviation from an authoritative religious teaching; it need not involve insult or irreverence.
- apostasy - Apostasy is abandonment or renunciation of a religion; it does not inherently involve contemptuous expression.
- profanity - Profanity includes taboo or vulgar language that need not target anything sacred.
- religious satire - Religious satire uses humor or ridicule concerning religion; whether it is blasphemous depends on a religious or social judgment.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of blasphemy this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
What the second pass must settle
- Does the registry intend blasphemy to cover expressive conduct involving sacred objects and places, or should some occurrences link primarily to a separate desecration model?
- Which tradition-specific terms can be mapped to blasphemy without erasing differences in their referents, criteria and authority structures?
- How should conflicting assessments within the same religious community be represented when no single recognised adjudicator exists?
- Which researched traditions make intention, publicity, speaker affiliation or audience understanding relevant to classification, and in what ways?
- Which existing Vercy models cover religious offence, expression, doctrine and legal proceedings, and where should this entry reuse their concepts?