Blasphemy legalised

Did I gather that at last the so-called 'Blasphemy Laws' were struck out of the rulebook this week?

The laws' purpose (according to the Parliamentary debate) was effectively to protect the essential tenets of the Established Church from slander and thus prevent civil strife. It was ineffective because it never defined what the essential tenets were. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York supported its abolition because they said (as I understand it) its essential purpose was the prevention of civil strife and we now have other legislation relating to religious discrimination and religious hatred that does this far more effectively.

My own MP, Evan Harris, proposed abolition in the Commons and thought the House would be impressed that Richard Dawkins ("who is much admired") supported it. Given that the entirely unadmirable Dawkins enjoys insulting religious believers with a relish it seemed a chancy tactic and betrayed an anti-religion agenda. His list of supporters included all the currently fashionable well-known religion-bashers in the UK. Whether the Archbishops' support was a disappointment to him I don't know.

What I find distressing is not so much people like Dawkins *insulting* religious beliefs as their wilfully *misrepresenting* them, claiming that the 'Aunt Sally' they've set up is the truth. That's the real insult. But just as insult and misrepresentation undermine work for justice and peace, so can laws that try to protect ideas rather than people. So good riddance to the Blasphemy Laws anyway.