[MikeUt]

> attempts to prevent [prejudice] is a pretty major change from protecting the official state religion

Blasphemy laws weren't justified on the basis of protecting a religion, but to safeguard souls from being led astray into eternal damnation, or to stop the spread of harmful immoral activity. They were to serve the greater good, just like this law.

[tweetle_beetle]

I disagree that blasphemy was to serve the greater good. This implies that extreme actions carried out in the name of theology are made in good faith [sic], without ulterior motives outside theology.

Excommunication was a perfectly good threat if the aim was genuinely to safeguard souls. The ulterior motive behind the escalated punishment and law, was the potential risk of allowing people to live their lives outside the church, or as part of another religion - an existential threat to the dominance of the Catholic church as an institution.

[MikeUt]

> I disagree that blasphemy was to serve the greater good.

It was justified on that ground. That doesn't mean there was no ulterior motive.

[tweetle_beetle]

Agreed. That's more or less the basis of what I have said in all my comments in this thread. Maybe adding the word "designed" or "intended" into my comment would have made that clearer.

But this doesn't respond to the main point I was trying to make - this new law is not just a "switch from one god to another".