The leader of the Anglican Church, Rowan Williams supports the idea of dumping the Blasphemy laws and even talks sense about the environment. It’s been a bit embarrassing to be occasionally recommending the Archbishop’s words, on an atheist blog.

So, it should come as something of a relief to find him spouting absurdity in a lecture in which he discussed some alternatives.

“The legal provision should keep before our eyes the general risks of debasing public controversy by thoughtless and, even if unintentionally, cruel styles of speaking and acting,” he said. (from Ruth Gledhill in the Times)

OK, There is far too little thought in the world. So, criminalising thoughtlessness may be the way to go….

(I may be being intentionally cruel here.)

I’ll give the Archbishop the benefit of the doubt. I’ll translate “thoughtless” into “insensitive,” as I assume he meant, and I’ll even treat it as a serious argument for a moment.

He is calling for laws that would be far worse than the Blasphemy laws. Despite the activities of a few minority Christian pressure groups, these laws are only enforced, every few decades. They are generally regarded as ludicrous “legacy” laws, the legal system’s equivalent of the Atari.

Certainly, the established Anglican Church – which they are designed to protect – is none too keen to go to court over every taking of the lord’s name in vain. (Any of that and they’d swiftly find themselves disestablished.)

The replacement that Dr Williams is suggesting wouldn’t even have the Olde Worlde charm of the Blasphemy Laws. They would just be thought crime laws. Which could criminalise more or less anything.

Imagine someone chatting away to a stranger on a bus about their puppy’s latest funny actions. Seems harmless enough. That couldn’t be considered thoughtless by anybody?

Well, what if the other person’s dog has just died. Or they have a crippling dog phobia?

Their right not to be unintentionally hurt could hardly be the basis of law. So is the law to be confined to beliefs?

Well, what if the hypersensitive bus companion believes that keeping a pet dog is a cruel enslavement of another species?

What if the (increasingly conceptually eccentric) bus companion even believes that he/she is the incarnation of a dog-spirit and regards the dog-owner’s drone as an insult to their own ancestral heritage and most deeply held values?

Ha, chatty dog-lover. You would have no defence in any of these cases, as Dr Williams includes unintentional cruelty.

It is barely possible to think of any thought or action that wouldn’t offend somebody. The average person probably gives so much offence in the course of a day that it’s a wonder that so many noses remain unbroken.

And insensitivity can only be defined by the person who feels they have been offended. I work with some people who are so sensitive that a slightly preoccupied look can be interpreted as a sign that they are hated to the very core of their being. (And that’s before I give vent to the string of random computer-directed cuss-words that could easily get me diagnosed as having a terminal case of Tourette’s.)

There is more and more pressure to give undeserved respect to any and every crackpot set of beliefs. It’s presented as if the right to argue with people is somehow disrespectful, rather than the most genuinely respectful. way you can relate to others.

Do as you would be done by, and so on. If you like the idea that people are humouring your stupidity – because you are too fragile to face the truth or too dangerously fanatical to allow an alternative opinion – then legal protection of everyone’s delicate sensitivities is fine. If you prefer to see yourself as a thinking being, you just have to accept that other people will not always share your beliefs.

Listen, offended people. Feeling offended is just a feeling. It doesn’t give you automatic rights.

Learn to stand up for yourself and to fight back like a civilized human being. Learn to communicate, ffs. Learn to disagree. Learn to welcome challenges to your beliefs. Learn to express anger…..