Blasphemy!

The state of Pennsylvania denied a man corporate designation for his business based on its name because state law does not allow blasphemous content according to a March 20 article by Samuel G. Freedman in the New York Times.

George Kalman claims that his choice of name for his business, I Choose Hell Productions, LLC, was based on his existential view on life—life can be hellish, but it is still better than suicide. However, this name was considered blasphemous by the state of Pennsylvania under a 1977 statute that prohibits, “words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name,” in the names of corporations. The law was initially legislated in 1977 in order to regulate corporate names, in particular one man’s application wanting to name his shop the God Damn Gun Shop.

After applying for designation in 2007, Kalman filed a lawsuit against the state last month seeking to have the Pennsylvania law struck down as unconstitutional.

One could possibly rationalize that the state was trying to keep the names of its businesses more respectable (though respectability is not a compelling state interest) and less profane. However, the same policy that denied Kalman’s plan approved corporate designation for names like Devil Media, Vomit Noise Productions and Satanic Butt Slayers—all of which could be considered blasphemous and offensive.

This case is one of many cases in the United States taking on old-fashioned laws on blasphemy, many of which were created under the assumption that the U.S. was a Christian country in the more socially conservative period of the late 1800s. Most of the laws define blasphemy in Christian terms citing God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost and “Scripture,” according to the article. There is no consideration for other practicing religions or the non-religious. Such laws still exist in Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming along with Pennsylvania.

These laws were also justifiable for their time because they also condemned content containing sexual immorality, like pornography. However, laws have since been created specifically regulating pornography in the last century.

The Pennsylvania law suggests that the state government has the authority to determine what is or is not religious based on speech, while it fails to designate the standard by which it is able to do so. Legislation that assumes citizens are of a particular religion, or have a religion at all, does not offer an equal, non-discriminatory application of the law, and thus, must be revisited.

The fact that Pennsylvania was able to pass and maintain a law that suggests recognition of a particular religion in the late 20th century demonstrates that American governments are still defining the line separating church and state. While the government does have the ability to regulate content and speech that is profane and obscene, it does not have the ability to restrict proclamations or attacks on religious views.

Kalman’s intentions were not to condemn any religion, but to incorporate his own view about life into his work. However, in doing so, the state of Pennsylvania felt that he was also decrying “America’s God.”