THOSE WHO had forgotten how much damage religion can do, sunk in the comfortable torpor of the Church of England or the supermarket aisles, are getting some nasty reminders. Last week a group called Christian Voice threatened a Scottish cancer charity until it agreed to return the wages donated by the cast of Jerry Springer — The Opera. Flush with their easy success, these thugs are now planning to picket abortion clinics, apeing the evangelicals in America. We’re talking threats and violence, all in the name of God. And you thought Abu Hamza al-Masri’s sermons at Finsbury Park Mosque were extreme?

Now more than ever, we need to be free to criticise religions. But our MPs think otherwise. They have passed a law against incitement to religious hatred with barely an hour’s debate, leaving it up to the Lords this month to have the courage to return the Bill to the dustheap whence it came.

Under this law, anyone who insults the beliefs of Christians, Muslims, Scientologists or any other group parading superstitions as truth will be liable to face trial on charges that carry a seven-year prison sentence. It will be a crime to utter “threatening, abusive or insulting” words about a religious group which are “likely” to “stir up” religious hatred, even if there is no intention to do so. Hence Rowan Atkinson’s concern that comedians could become even less funny in future. Hence Salman Rushdie’s fear that The Satanic Verses could be banned, or at least that enormous amounts of court time will be taken up with attempts to do so.

Ministers protest that only the Attorney-General can decide to prosecute, and that he or she will rarely do so. In other words, “give us the powers and trust us not to abuse them”. This particular refrain is getting so popular with ministers it’s surprising they have not formed a chorus line.

For a society that thought of itself as secular, there suddenly seem to be an awful lots of gods pressing for our attention. Catholics complained about the BBC cartoon Popetown until it was taken off the air. Sikh pressure has resulted in the play Behzti being banned even though it was written by a Sikh. Anglicans whinge that they are especially vulnerable to satire because they are the Established Church. Muslims seem to be developing a siege mentality that sees threats everywhere.

This resurgence of militant religion is already resulting in censorship. We do not need more. Even if few people go to jail under the new law, you and I will choose our words more carefully. Broadcasters will think twice before investigating strange cults. Politicians will no longer call for the Pope to abandon his bizarre stance on stem-cell research or for imams to condemn 9/11. (For doing just that, Muslim News has called for Margaret Thatcher to be prosecuted when the Bill becomes law.) The Director of Public Prosecutions has said that this law will “criminalise a state of mind”.

Most dangerous of all are the enormous expectations that this law has raised in parts of the Muslim community. Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, seems to envision that any “insult” or “outrageous comment” about Islam or the Muslim community would become illegal. Since this is not the Government’s stated intention, at least one minister has admitted that tensions will need to be defused after the election. This does not stop them rushing the law through, however. With the Muslim Council threatening the Liberal Democrats with the loss of 25 seats if they continue to oppose the Bill, the race for the Muslim vote is well under way.

But Muslims do not fit any more neatly into political strategists’ “mosaic” definitions than the rest of us. The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain and the Islamic Human Rights Commission have come out against this law. Many Muslims are genuinely concerned about harassment and discrimination. They feel that they are a weak minority whose voice will never be heard without distortion, in a society where fear and ignorance of Islam abounds. But many also know that the solution is debate, not silence. So there may be fewer votes in this than the politicians anticipate. The downside, however, is enormous.

We are about to unleash internecine warfare of medieval proportions. Evangelicals are plotting to bring cases against the al-Jazeera television channel, claiming that it broadcasts Islamist propaganda. The initial support of some Jews for this Bill has waned as they have seen the fervour with which some Islamists hope to turn it back on them. A church in the North East has already found itself investigated by the police for handing out leaflets seeking to convert Muslims. Under a similar law in Australia, pastor Daniel Scot was found guilty of incitement against Muslims for explaining why he had fled from his home in Pakistan. The director of the Australian Muslim Public Affairs Committee, who originally supported the law, now says that its “political correctness represents one of the most serious threats to minorities”.

Only one argument seems valid: that religions should have equal rights. Muslims can be forgiven for feeling left out when the racial hatred laws cover Jews and Sikhs, who are perceived to be clear racial groups, and the blasphemy laws cover only Christians. Rather than creating more laws, the answer is surely a bonfire of the old ones. Twelve BNP members were prosecuted last year under the Public Order Act for anti-Muslim activities. Surely that is protection enough?

A modern society should abolish all blasphemy laws. It should disestablish the Church. That would give Muslims the parity they seek; not enshrining a free-for-all persecution.

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden