His problem was that blasphemy for the sake of blasphemy, or for the sole purpose of getting Christians riled up is in poor taste.  We both come from a "Blasphemy Challenge" background which had a specific purpose behind the blasphemy, and obviously accomplished the free speech aspect that "Blasphemy Day" was trying to achieve.

I personally support Blasphemy Day on the grounds that we should illustrate our right to free speech but I understand what Rook was saying.  With that said, I'm not sure if he got that there was more to it than simply uttering blasphemy.

For example: "The objective of International Blasphemy Day is to open up all religious beliefs to the same level of free inquiry, discussion and criticism to which all other areas of academic interest are subjected."

And the apostasy challenge aspect of Blasphemy Day is:

Stage One:  Become a Muslim
 

1. Take a shower to cleanse yourself of your past.  (This step need not form any part of your video submission)
2. Say "Ash-hadu an la ilaha ill Allah." - I bear witness that there is no diety but Allah.
3. Say "Wa ash-hadu ana Muhammad ar-rasullallah." - And I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
    

Stage Two:  Publicly and formally reject Islam (this is the fun part), do one of the following
 

1. Declare "I associate other gods alongside Allah" or "Allah has a material substance or a shape just like other substances or shapes".
2. An act of blasphemy, such as discarding, soiling or otherwise damaging a copy of the Qu'ran.
3. Accuse a prophet of having any kind of imperfection or deficiency (intellectual, moral, physical etc).

All four imams (founders of the four schools of Islamic law), may that illiterate fool Allah have mercy upon them, agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation.  According to them, the hypocrite and heretic who poses as a Muslim but has secretly remained an unbeliever must also be killed.
 

Fear is the final stranglehold of religion.  Help break the cycle.

Well it seemed to me through talking to Rook on the phone about moreso than his actual article that his biggest problem was that they seemed to be supporting blasphemy for the simple sake of blasphemy.  My point was that an apostasy challenge gives it actual substance, a mission or idea to use with a purpose.  It's not simply saying "God dammit" it's calculating an action of becoming a muslim and then abandoning islam thereby forcing muslims to kill you or they themselves risk damnation.  It makes one think about the ramifications of god belief moreso than if I said "fuck god."

I agree with all of that.  I guess I want to seem supportive of something like Blasphemy Day.  I don't yet see enough reason to be against it.  Far too easy for me to say, "hello mcfly, we already did that at blasphemychallenge.com."  Instead I'd like to think we paved the way for them trying a new approach, there were hundreds of people that disagreed with the Blasphemy Challenge and I still think it was a great idea, there are bound to be people against Blasphemy Day.  At least we all agree it's nice that we live in a world where we can have those disagreements.  The important thing is for us to preserve that world, or better yet: proactively chase a world in which we can be more critical.

He's worried that kids will use it as an excuse to piss on crosses or vandlize churches. And then when the media reports about it, atheist activists will complain that the media is portraying atheists as people who piss on crosses and vandilize churches.

 I come down in the middle on this, actually.  I agree with Rook that blasphemy for no purpose other than to be inflammatory is counter-productive.  There are atheists -- especially new atheists and teenagers -- who get "lolz" out of antagonizing theists, getting them angry, and making them look stupid.  The goal isn't to convert them to atheism.  It's to get laughs at someone else's expense.  I do not support such actions, even if it's true that the people they're ridiculing are stupid.

However, I think ridicule is a useful tool in situations where someone is trying to sell something ridiculous.  I'm reminded of a recent Hannity clip where Michael Moore exposes Hannity's ridiculous video of Cuban hospitals, where the camera is going through an empty, dilapidated, unused hospital.  (There are such hospitals in the U.S.)  After a good two minutes of dirty toilets and beds, there's about a ten second snippet of very ill Cubans in hospital beds.  They look like they're dying of a horrible disease.  After just long enough for very clever viewers to notice that the hospital rooms with patients are clean, modern, and well lit, we are taken back to the same footage we saw at the beginning.

It's a clear attempt to manipulate gullible viewers, and Moore does the appropriate thing.  He points out the scam, and then laughs at Hannity on national television.

So, ridicule is useful.

At this point, I neither support nor condemn Blasphemy Day because to be honest, I don't know enough about the intent of the people who started it, or the scope or constituency of the people participating.

As a blanket statement, I support constructive ridicule, denounce petulant childish ridicule, and readily admit that I'm not always able to spot the difference.

As someone who is known for snark, I can say that I don't think it's all that effective, it is however self-satisfying.