Free to agree

Johann Hari, a journalist on the London Independent, has stirred fierce controversy by defending the right to free speech and the right to criticise religions.

There were riots in Calcutta after an Indian newspaper reprinted his article, and the editor and publisher were arrested. Johann himself has received death threats and been condemned by religious fundamentalists for not showing "respect".

His opponents argue that religious ideas are unique and can't be discussed freely. Challenging any of their beliefs is "offensive", "abusive" and "prejudiced". He must keep his mouth shut and not interfere.

And what was he criticising? The stoning of adulterous women, the hanging of gay people and girls being forcibly married to their grandfathers. Practices so disgusting that any civilised person would want to end them.

But oh no, apparently he's not entitled to get angry over such barbarities because religion is a special case. If your god tells you to hang gay people, so be it. You have the right to do anything you like in the name of religion and nobody can stop you.

This claim to religious immunity is extremely dangerous. If it really takes hold and enough people support it, the long-standing tradition of free speech will be seriously threatened. Instead of being able to speak our minds, we will have to watch every word we utter, in case some religious fanatic objects and cuts our tongue out.

There is nothing "unique" about religious beliefs, nothing that sets them apart from any other kind of beliefs. They're merely ideas, to be accepted or rejected, proved or disproved, like ideas in general. And we're all entitled to do the assessing and have our own opinions.

To say we aren't is to subscribe to a very sinister political creed, the one that among other things caused World War Two. Its name is fascism.