Ok, bring it on and presumably the likes of the Muslim checkout assistant who declined to process the sale of a Bible, on the ground that it was 'unclean', will feel the hand of Plod on her veiled head and shoulders?

m collins, Leeds,

Nice to see the Speech Police hard at work protecting us from <GASP!> offensive speech!

Bill, Denver, US

Doesn't Britain have separation of church and state or something like that? Oh wait! That's right. You have a state religion--Anglicanism. I suppose since it's the "state" religion the Archbishop has the right to enforce his will on the Queen's subjects whether they like it or not. This explains why my grandparents high tailed it to the "Great Satan."

Martin Smithers, Boston, Massachusetts

Any law regarding hate speech should be equally applicable to all sections of society. Religion should not have any special protection from "thoughtless or cruel" words.

Religious texts, publications and sermons should all be subject to the scrutiny of the law.

Sean, Auckland, New Zealand

The established state religion of his day thought Jesus was guilty of deliberately cruel words and deeds....

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Where's the balance here in the moderation??

The forum here is being plastered with one sided criticisms of the Archbishop. I'm quite sure many reasonable people have posted items from both sides... let us see them!

Though we see the same empty comment, expressed in slightly different ways which absolutely miss the point the Archbishop was trying to make, over... and over.

For instance, people writing about the content of ancient texts etc. miss the point when we are referring to open public debate.
Or
The merciless mocking of all superstitious mumbo-jumbo (religious and pseudo-scientific) should be an inalienable right (and considered almost a duty amongst intelligent adults) - PLEASE!!
Or
"If this man seriously believes that religions have a special right not to be offended " ... clearly the Archbishop doesn't!!!
Or
"This Archbishop is to religion what the plastic gnome is to landscape gardening."....has even the pretence of balance gone out the window?

Nathan, Inverness, UK

People should be punished for the wrong they do, not for what they say or think. I always thought that was a fundamental principle in this country. Is Dr WIlliams really proposing that we should institute some kind of police state?

Martin, Newmarket, Suffolk

Wearing a frock & having invisible super beings as friends is not enough of a valid qualification to comment upon the modern world, in my ever so humble opinion.

If I were him, I would stick to making noises of appeasement to Islamist fanatics - they at least like what he has to say.

Ian, Thringstone, England

I find the Bishop of Canterbury's speech "cruel and thoughtless" so do I get to decide what constitutes cruel and thoughtless speech.

Kalamere, Brooklyn, New York

I wonder if the Archbishop would consider the Bishop of Carlisle's comments - that last summer's floods were God's punishment for Britain's liberal attitude to homosexuality - to be “thoughtless and cruel”, especially to the families of those who died in the floods?

Matt C, London,

I am grateful to Dr Rowan Williams for re-inforcing my faith in atheism.

Geoff Harrop, Stratford, England

What about a book that claims that God told people to go into a village and kill all the males of every age, including babies, and kill all the women who were not virgins, and then rape all the girl children, including babies? Might such a book be considered blasphemous in its slander against the benevolence of the Creator?

Numbers 31:15-18

Clabber Grrl, Portland, Oregon

Having read the transcript of Dr. Williams speech on his website I get the impression that people's reaction to it (from comments on this article) is coloured more by the secular society's blunt response to a much more thoughtful article than they ackonwledge, than to the reality of what he said. Dr. Williams makes an admirable discussion of the problems a liberal society faces with regard to language that is used to demonise or offend certain groups. He is certainly not trying to call for protection for religious groups from criticism (and has many times stated there is no such need) but points out that the way language is used can have the effect of isolating communities (cf. anti semitism over the ages) and that this must be protected against. Quoting extensively from David Nash's recent work he points out that free speech as a total ideal is neither real currently nor desirable for this reason. It's a shame the secular society won't criticise it with the intelligence it deserves.

Stuart, Cambridge,

I wonder when you Brits will get around to banning Voltaire. How ironic that would be, given he had to publish in your country to avoid censors in his own. And this is not, as some assert, an illustration of the dangers of religion. It is much broader than that, encompassing certain atheists as well. It is a new Authoritarianism, going under the guise of Multi-culturalism. The Dutch foreign minister recently expressed it well, stating that the right to free speech is not a right to offend. To the contrary, the only speech that needs to be protected is, by definition, offensive speech.

Michael Happold, Pittsburgh, PA/USA

I think censoring anti-religious speech is a great idea! Let's start by purging John-the-Baptist's "You brood of vipers" speech from the New Testament!

Joe Doakes, Horseheads, NY

gordon w, Dicot, England may like to know that there is in fact no line in the Qur'an calling for the death of gay people. Like the Bible it says sodomy is gainst God's laws but it does not lay down a punishment - that is in Shariah, worked out by the legal schools. Also any punishment can only be carried out if there are four witnesses to the act of penetration (like seeing a pen gong into a pot) or unless you make three confessions in front of eligible witnesses (two sane, adult, Muslims each time). So unless you go in for public sex shows, or obscene and public descriptions of your private life, you are pretty safe under Islamic law. Not that the media woul have you know that, of course. So we don't need to clip the Qur'an to make you happy.

RW, London,

I thought I better comment before it's illegal for me to do so. If this man seriously believes that religions have a special right not to be offended and doing so should carry an official sanction then he is proof that chrisitian morality - just like every religious morality - hasn't evolved in order to keep up with it's secular equivalent.
Unfortunately, this seems symptomatic of a wider shift in this country where by many groups feel they should have a right not to be offended and we need it stated clearly that such a right is unsustainable as its to subjective and too restrictive on everyone else's liberties.
Maybe a written constitution setting out as much and a formal seperation of church and state is needed so men such as Rowan Williams finally get the message. This is a secular country and, more importantly, its the 21st century.

David Slade, Leicester,

'Thoughtless or cruel' words

I'm all for it, when I hear a preacher talk about homosexuality being a sin, or mothers murdering their babies through abortion, I will be sure to report the offended to the police.

....or would “'thoughtless or cruel' words", be except from the legislation, if said in the name of religion?

John Erissson, blackpool, lacs

Your article doesn't include the actual; text of the archbishop's speech, so I'm not certain whether these words are an accurate description of his or not, but you state that he wants to stigmatize and punish behaviours "that have the effect of silencing argument".

If this is really what he said then I am stunned. I don't think there's any more oft used attempt to silence argument than to say "you can't criticise that its my religion". Hence he seems to arguing against himself here.

Religion should not be a barrier to free speech. If your worldview / beliefs / morals / whatever are not good enough to stand up to free rational critical enquiry, then why should anyone take them seriously.

Mark Allen, Nottingham,

The merciless mocking of all superstitious mumbo-jumbo (religious and pseudo-scientific) should be an inalienable right (and considered almost a duty amongst intelligent adults) - particularly when such rubbish is spouted by people with beards who want to curb free speech (and by extension free thought).

There should be no defence for the sensibilities of these people (only the defence of their bodies and their rights to believe whatever nonsense they like - so long as they don't foist it on others like some drunk-hostess with stale bread sticks at a funeral) - verbal-defenestration is the only solution.

Father Ignatius Brown, London, UK

This Archbishop is to religion what the plastic gnome is to landscape gardening. f

F Kimbal Johnson, Louth,Lincs, uk

I am appalled. What we need is not protection FOR Religions but protection FROM religions. Some Religions have very questionable standards of morality and ethics and Doctrines and practices which are against EU and UK law. Many people believe in a Supreme Being, a personal God but this is not sanction for religious doctrine or these people would be attached to a religion and in my view discrimination in the UK against those not attached to a religion has almost reached the level of a hate crime. The Codex Siniaticus (the original New Testament in the British Museum) provably contained no Christmas story, no Virgin Mary and no Resurrection and certainly Genesis has been totally rewritten from earlier myths. The prophecy of Isaiah was provably originally written in the present text and not a prophecy at all. The modern Bible is a construct and may itself be thought a blasphemy. Our modern secular system of law is far more moral and just than any ancient system and belief is not fact.

Keith Budden, Rayleigh, England

I'm afraid Dr Williams' latest demand for special treatment for religion is rather pathetic, but fits in with the current malaise in society brokered by organised religion. Religions demand the right not be be discriminated against because of their beliefs, while simultaneously demanding the right to discriminate against others, because of the same beliefs. And so too here, where the Archbishop claims his beliefs merit protection while other beliefs do not. He is to be protected from harsh words and thoughts, but people who have no religious belief are not to be protected from him.

All the evidence from history is that society needs protection from religious beliefs, not the other way round.

I fear many ordinary Anglicans will despair at this latest snivelling from their boss.

rgrey, edinburgh, UK

When is this silly man going to back to wherever he came from. ? He looks like a 60's hippy, and talks like one. I feel sure he ' feels' our ' pain', and every other anodyne utterance from the Bible of ' feeling '.

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx

Rowan Williams' words have just wounded me very deeply - I am stricken to the core of my being.

He carelessly had no thought at all for my feelings, and that is just cruel. He should NOT be allowed to say such things.

I *demand* that Rowan Williams be immediately arrested and sent to jail. Also he should pay me for my sorrow and my sufferings. A lot. If they need to take his house away to pay the fine, so be it - because I am the victim here.

Fred Farkle, Burbank,

Gavin, the results of the 2001 census , when 72% declared themselves christians, had little to do with religion, more to do with peope identifying their ethnic group. More recent surveys indicate that perhaps 50% of Britons have no religious belief, and although they may not subscribe an annual fee to the National Secular Society or the British Humanist Association does not mean they support the continuance of preferential treatment or exemption from the law being granted to people just because they happen to have a religious belief

Godfrey, York,

What is the good Archbishop going to do about RELIGIOUS texts like the Koran and the Bible which have plenty of "cruel and thoughtkless words"?

For instance, take me, a Hindu.

From my viewpoint the repeated vituperation, to put it midly, in the Koran against "idol worshippers" is hugely offensive. The Bible has quite a lot of such incitement, too.

So what about it, Archbishop? Are you prepared to have the Koran and the Bible censored?

A little less self-righteous hypocrisy from you would be verty welcome, I think.

Ganpat Ram , London , UK

A reading of even the last few paragraphs of the speech itself will perhaps indicate that this is a consideration of how society can work, rather than a suggestion for complete protection of religion.

It certainly doesn't seem to be as clear-cut as is implied, nor does it appear in my reading to attempt to justify the reaction to Salmon Rushdi, or to the Danish cartoons, but rather asks questions around reactions to the reaction, and those stirring trouble in the middle of it,

"the intention to limit or damage a believer's freedom to be visible and audible in the public life of a society is plainly an invasion of what a liberal society ought to be guaranteeing"

This paragraph seems to give a crux of his argument, that an 'argumentative democracy' is a valuable thing, including even angry argument, but that when this reaches the point where minorities feel unable to be themselves in that community, a bridge has been crossed, and could be attended to in preparing legislation

Anyone?

Steve, Birmingham, UK

And...here is the truth - culled from this website:

In 2005, Pavel M., a Romanian prisoner serving 20 years for murder, sued God, founding his claim in contract. He argued that his baptism was an agreement between him and God under which, in exchange for value such as prayer, God would keep him out of trouble

Nick
Wallington/UK

Nick Nalladorai, Wallington, UK

And how, pray, would you define "thoughtless and cruel", or, indeed, either of those on its own? It's unworkable, Archbishop, I'm afraid, and you're going down the road to censorship. There may be moral objections to someone who wantonly slags off religious people just because they're religious, and does it with thoughtless use of taboo words and so forth, and they can be tackled by ridicule and/or public censure. I don't hold with religion, but respect everyone's right to subscribe or not subscribe. Where I draw the line is when people want to threaten freedom of expression just because someone has criticised religion or a religionist's views on something. Gor heaven's sake, don't give the government ideas - it's repressive enough.

Andy Armitage, Hebron, Whitland, West Wales, UK

I notice that yet again we have an authoritative quote from Mr Sanderson of the National Secular Society. As this group seems now to be regarded as so important on these matters, does that mean they have managed to get their national membership over the 8,000 mark?

We must always bear in mind that the national census of 2001 revealed that about 78% of British people consider themselves to have a religion.

Gavin Reid, Beccles, Suffolk

Perhaps Archbishop Williams and his fellow faith leaders should start the ball rolling to punish 'thoughtless and cruel' styles of speaking by deleting from publication those parts of the Bible, Koran and other religious texts which explicitly call for the killing of gays, Jews, and non-believers. No leadership like example, is there?

gordon w, Dicot, England

Dr Williams will do well to remember his comments after the Tsunami which cast doubts about the veracity of his belief. .

How can we frame laws to protect 'beliefs and assumptions" just because they have been presumed to be 'true' for yonks. If we can have laws to protect our freedom to believe in myths, then we must have equal protection of our freedom to disprove those myths!

Nick - Wallington/UK

Nick Nalladorai, Wallington, UK

The Archbishop should think of more important topics , such as , " How to save the planet earth from our polluting ways." He appears to be only concerned about people problems. What about all the other god created creatures he continues to omit from his religious thinking process and godly protection?.

Jim Wills, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Dr Williams has succeeded in illustrating the dangers of religion to civil life and freedom in ways people like Richard Dawkins never did.

The idea of today's wooly minded excuses for Priests ruling on free speech is about the most dangerous thing I can imagine.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA

Dr Williams has succeeded in illustrating the dangers of religion to civil life and freedom in ways people like Richard Dawkins never did.

The idea of today's wooly minded excuses for Priests ruling on free speech is about the most dangerous thing I can imagine.

I have generally been a sceptic on assertive secularism, but now I see their point. Religion, especially in the hands of the those who value "nice" speech above free speech, really does poison everything.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USAI have ge