Assuming that questioning the Word of God (the Bible) might be considered blasphemy, Leviticus 24:16. You might argue that it isn't, but if whatever group in power doesn't like you for some reason then you could have a problem.
Concerning the other rather harsh mandated penalties, why do you think they are bad?
Because I personally don't think death is appropriate in those cases. Not only are they mainly what I would consider moral and not legal issues, but they also force a larger surrender of personal rights in favor of government rights concerning ones own life than I am willing to give up.
I'm by no means a libertarian, but I believe laws, and the established punishments for breaking them, should be devised using a more logical reasoning system. One more in keeping with the magnitude of how a given criminal act damages others. Some might warrant a restriction of privileges, others might be a matter for civil restitution. And while I can envision some crimes, such as murder, as being so grievous as to warrant the surrender of life, nothing on that list meets this definition to me.
Not to mention that the more casually death is applied, the easier it is for someone with an ulterior motive to conceivably twist common actions to construe that someone committed a crime worthy of death. I joked about it previously, but look to the more fundamental Islamic governments for some excellent examples of this.
Concerning the other rather harsh mandated penalties, why do you think they are bad? . . . Because I personally don't think death is appropriate in those cases . . .the established punishments for breaking them, should be devised using a more logical reasoning system.
Can you articulate why you believe this? Why would it be illogical to punish someone harshly for being caught breaking a taboo?