The British Home Secretary David Blunkett says that he plans to repeal the blasphemy law. Most people don't know that there is a blasphemy law on the books in Britain. Nor is there any reason why they should, as it is almost never enforced. We nevertheless welcome its repeal. But there is a catch: Blunkett also plans to enact a law banning incitement to religious hatred.

We don't support religious hatred, but such a law would be a bad one. For one thing, incitement to hatred is different from the already-illegal incitement to violence. It is wrong to argue that all people with particular beliefs or skin colour or whatever ought to be killed or hurt and it should be illegal. However, there is nothing necessarily wrong with hating people who advocate tyranny, or despising those who apologise for it, provided that one does not also advocate their murder. It is also legitimate to say that particular ideas are evil – in other words to incite hatred against those ideas – again, so long as this does not amount to inciting violence against their holders.

And in all these case, it should make no difference either way if the hated people or ideas are religious. Why does the proposed law specify incitement to religious hatred? The US Constitution separates the Church and the state for good reason, they go together very badly. People seldom do evil so gladly as when they delude themselves that they are doing it for God. What is this law but a modern blasphemy law? Not blasphemy against God but blasphemy against the pseudoreligion of political correctness. A religion that puts the politeness of an argument above its truth. Freedom of speech means being allowed to say unpleasant things about religious beliefs moderated by personal judgement rather than fear of violent retribution, legal or otherwise. Like so many of Blunkett's ideas, this law would be a step backward from a free society and the proper respect for personal responsibility. We oppose it.