Time to change the subject over here and what better way of doing it that using this piece of egregious weaselling by Britain’s clerical ‘elite’.

The Church of England’s archbishops have voiced “serious reservations” over the method and timing of the government’s plans to abolish the blasphemy laws and have asked to be reassured about the central position of the Christian religion in relation to the state and society in Britain.

In a joint letter to Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, the archbishops of Canterbury and York said that although the church had signalled for 20 years that the blasphemy laws could, in the right context, be abolished, they had “serious reservations about the wisdom of legislating at this moment”.

Really? And why, pray tell is that?

The two archbishops, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, make it clear that they will not oppose the abolition of blasphemy but say the government needs to be clear as to precisely why the offence is being scrapped. They argue that it should not be seen as a “secularising move” or as a general licence to attack or insult religious beliefs and believers.

We’ve been through this one before, but to very briefly recap there is a very big qualitative difference between ‘attacking’ or ‘insulting’ religious belief and attacking/insulting religious believers - conflating these two things in an effort to preserve the constitutional privileges of the Church is both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

They say it is still too early to be sure how the new offence of incitement to religious hatred, which applies to all faiths, will operate in practice and that laws which carry “a significant symbolic charge” should not be changed lightly.

‘Significant symbolic charge’? To whom?

Okay so it clearly matters to Stephen Green of Christian Voice, who seems to think that the House of Lords’ decision to reject his appeal against the dismissal of his efforts to mount a prosecution over the BBC broadcast of Jerry Springer: The Opera will bring down the wrath of god on all of us:

It brings down the judgement of God on us all. I love my neighbour and I do not want that to happen… Christians will now have to take matters into their own hands when Christ is insulted on stage and on screen.

But then I think it’s almost universally agreed, even amongst a majority of Christians, that Green is a couple of nails short of a crucifixion - now there is a thought - and if his talk of Christians taking ‘matters into their own hands’ is likely to provoke the judgement of anyone it’s likely, in the current febrile climate, to be the judgement of the Anti-Terrorist branch that it’s worth paying Green an early morning visit - and don’t stint on the ’standard issue’.

At this rate, Green might be advised to make his next prayer one that goes something along the lines of, ‘Oh Lord, please ensure that your humble servant - that’s me, by the way - does not get mistaken for a Brazilian electrician!’

And speaking of JS;TO

The two archbishops also say that a recent high court ruling in the case of Jerry Springer: the Opera underlined the very high threshold that needed to be passed for a prosecution to proceed and the need to clarify that the existing law was intended to prevent civil strife and protect particular religious beliefs. “Having signalled for more than 20 years that the blasphemy laws could, in the right context, be abolished, the church is not going to oppose abolition now, provided we can be assured that provisions are in place to afford the necessary protection to individuals and society,” they told Blears.

Sorry?

Every assessment I’ve read of the JS:TO case, including several written by practising lawyers/barristers (apart from Green’s, obviously) agrees that the ruling in this case doesn’t just underline the high threshold needed for a prosecution, it sets the bar so high that you couldn’t get over it using Sergei Bubka, a rugby goal post and a pair of rocket-powered roller skates. (Sorry, had me a bit of an Acme moment there)

As far as the government being ‘clear as to precisely why the offence is being scrapped’ I’d have thought that the general idea that blasphemy is archaic, outdated and completely irrelevant was clear enough for anyone to be going on with, even our unhappy prelates, and instead of concerning themselves with whether this will be seen as ’secularising move’ both would be far better served by devoting their energies towards coming up with a few halfway decent reasons to justify the continuation of the Church’s constitutional and other privileges - one’s that don’t rely on grovelling to the politicos might be a start.

As Benjamin Franklin correctly observed more than 200 years ago:

When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

All of which suggests that the CofE is heading right up shit-creek without a paddle when its most senior clerics are reduced to grovelling and weaselling around the coat-tails of Hazel Blears to try and keep themselves in ermine for a few more years.