The writer at Holy Blasphemy proposes a new kind of religion – one that is built upon a foundation of blasphemy, rather than a rejection of blasphemy. The site asserts that “blasphemy is a profoundly moral act”.
In support of this vision, Holy Blasphemy offers a Blasphemer’s Creed:
“1. I believe in each individual’s right to religious choice – including the right not to be religious.
2. I believe that violence, injustice, discrimination, abuse and deliberate malice is always wrong and must always be opposed, regardless of the supporting institutions or sanctifying ideologies.
3. I believe that any beliefs or organizations which cause negative effects or consequence (either on a personal or social level), do not benefit the improvement of humanity as a whole species, promote social or political instability, racial or gender-based superiority, or are found to often manifest in physical or psychological abuse, must be actively and firmly opposed.
4. I believe “tolerance” does not simply mean accepting all diverse beliefs and customs – it also means refusing to allow intolerant behavior justified by those beliefs. Being “tolerant” and accepting or ignoring terrible acts protected under an umbrella of “the right to religious freedom” is unjustifiable. Such practices, regardless of their apparent irreproachability, must be identified and disputed.
5. I believe that the Truth of all things should always be sought in and for itself: that our own ideas and views of the world must be always and constantly investigated, questioned, doubted and – if found wanting – abandoned or improved upon.
6. I believe in rational inquiry and science, an educationally open environment of creativity and curiosity, social progress and equality, the preservation of natural resources, and limitations on the amount of damage corporations are allowed to do in the name of profit.
7. I believe that the world is in an extremely precarious position, and that if humanity doesn’t change its entire modus operandi immediately, it is unlikely that our species (or any other) will survive; further I believe that the destruction of the world is not something to be desired, based on apocalyptic religious literature, and must be conscientiously avoided.
8. I believe that if there is a God, and he does not support these statements, the ethical response is not to cower in fear of his power, but to defy him in revolution – even though it may be a lost cause.”