Blasphemy is a victimless crime because blasphemy depends on there being a God. There may, in fact, be a God, but that God is mutually exclusive to all the other false gods. Blasphemy against 999,999 false gods not only has no victim, it may postively assist those who are caught in the deception of those gods. Even in the context of blaspheming the true God, which is a very low statistical likelihood, because he either does not exist, no victim (possible positive outcome of helping others out of deception), or he DOES exist, and you are the only possible victim of Judgement. If that God is the Christian God, who is Triune, the only thing that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, so thats only 1 in 3 persons of the true God (if Christian), that would actually cause lasting victimhood and judgment. In short, if its a non-existent god, no victim, potentially positive. Many potential gods would not care, or be above, or aloof from blasphemy. If its the Christian God, it must be specifically directed to 1 specific of the three persons of the Godhead. All of those conditions must be met for blasphemy to render you a victim. 1. A God must exist. 2. The God you blasphemy must be the one that exists. 3. That God must care that you blasphemed. 4. For Christians its still 1 in 3. ... Thats a lot of conditions to be met for blasphemy to matter. And it might. But statisically, thats stacked against it.

My opponent brings up anger and division in a community, but this presumes anger, division and hurt feelings are bad. This is not self-evidently true. Anger and division and hurt feelings are often responses to growth and challenge, which blasphemy is one form. Per my last argument, if one is believing a false god, which is statistically likely, if there is one, or if there is none, then those feelings and division are the birth pangs of freedom of conscience which will allow the person to shake off deception.

Appealing to feelings again does not prove the point. People getting their feelings hurt is not victimhood. Its also not victimhood if its true. If people are closing shops because of fallout from a cartoon, we know what thats referring to.. the solution is not to shut up and allow an emotionally tyrannical religion to cause you to live in fear for insulting it, the solution is to absolutely drive home the point that such fear itself is not from God, or any God that ought to be worshipped. A God that needs defending like that is not worthy of worship.

Is my opponent describing a realistic common experience of people living in fear or whole communities getting drawn into fights over someones comments? Certainly not common. But who is causing the victimhood of those people? The words of the blasphemer, or the zealots who are responding in such a way as to harm their neighbor? It is not the blasphemy, but the zealot who is causing the victim. I say this as a religious person myself.