blasphemous libel: what if those cartoons were about God?

If those Danish cartoons outraged Christians by denigrating God, would that have been as acceptable as outraging New Zealand Muslims by denigrating their prophet if such material was published in New Zealand.

Not too many people realise that blasphemy is a crime in New Zealand. However, nobody can be prosecuted for blasphemy without leave of the Attorney General. The last, and only time the law was used was in 1922, where there was no conviction.

The last person to have been sent to prison for blasphemy in Britain was John William Gott who was jailed in 1921 after ridiculing Christ for entering Jerusalem "like a circus clown astride the backs of two donkeys". Tame, compared to Piss Christ, Virgin in a Condom, Last Temptation of Christ, Popetown, etc.

Blasphemous libel protects against the publication of material which exposes the Christian religion - as opposed to just God - to scurrility, vilification, ridicule and contempt. The material must have the tendency to shock and outrage the feelings of Christians. However there is a defence in New Zealand law: "It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject."

The Crimes Act does not mention God, just blasphemous libel. It is understood to refer to God, but could there be a day when it extends to putting down gods of other religions, such as Allah, or prophets such as Mohammad? Part Seven of the Crimes Act refers to crimes against religion, not crimes against Christianity.

However, our Bill of Rights Act notes that

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

So this, presumably, means that newspapers can publish offensive cartoons, does it not? If so, what if God was the subject of these cartoons? Would those responsible be charged with blasphemous libel or will the freedom of speech provisions in the Bill of Rights be a defence?

I guess that will be up to the Attorney-General to decide. I have no idea why the Catholic Church refuses to pursue a blasphemous libel charge against C4 now, rather than merely complaining to the Broadcasting Standards Authority in May.

Question: Do you have to belong to a religion to be charged and sentenced for blasphemy of that religion?