Reader TTS

It is more than a decade since our well-meaning but mildly loopy, Heir to the Throne — the chap who talks to plants — floated the idea that, as monarch, he would like to be called “Defender

of the _Faiths_”, rather than “Defender of the Faith”. Not that this is a matter of choice for him. Defender of the Faith is and remains a legal and constitutional job title. (Hence the

initial caps.) It imposes an obligation on the head of state. Thus the new King Charles will be required to defend, not the Christian faith but specifically the Anglican Church —

historically to defend it against the Roman Catholic church, although we skirt discreetly around that in these tolerant times. As for me, I am a card-carrying atheist, but, whether I like it

or not, this remains a Christian country with an established church. And the monarch is the head of it. When Charles made his bid, he was politely laughed out of court. He subsequently

backed off, but though Charles lost the battle, it is becoming ever more clear that he is, alas, winning the war. He now says graciously that he will keep the title, but insists that he will

in practice defend all faiths — so there. Even so, he will find however himself in difficulty, logically as well as legally, if he tries to defend all faiths at the same time. The Church of

England, like the rest of Christianity, believes in the one God. And that Christ was the Messiah, the Son of that God. And that the only way to salvation is through Him. Religious Jews

believe that Jesus was at worst, one of many false Messiahs and at best, a much misunderstood man, if not a very silly boy, as Brian’s mum famously put it in the movie. At least one of those

two religions must be wrong. You simply can’t defend both of those positions at the same time. And what about the Prophet Mohammed? Either he was, or he was not, uniquely the Messenger of

God. As for our Hindu community: will good King Charles, as Defender of the Faith, be able to take seriously their many hundreds of gods? He is, I suppose, lucky that this country has not

acquired substantial pre-Columbian Aztec and Mayan communities. Their religions, bathed in blood, include the large-scale sacrifice of prisoners and others on the altars of their temples.

Faith, it seems, can have its downsides. And a British court has recently decided that veganism is an ethical system, “something akin to a religion”, and as such worthy of legal protection.

Creationism next? Followed perhaps by belief in the four giant turtles who support the corners of our flat earth? In spite of such problems, all of Britain’s main political parties have come

to parade the seriously “woke” view that each and every religious faith, or moral belief, however bizarre, is something to be encouraged and celebrated. Free-floating faith is good for us

and for society, and can often now trump freedom of speech. Watch your mouth or you may be found guilty of a religious hate crime. And if the thought police can’t do you for a hate crime,

the College of Policing has invented a monstrous new concept that might just trip you up: the “non-crime hate incident”. If the cops decide that you have committed one of those lawful acts,

they can and will turn up on your doorstep and tell you to watch your mouth. They may also tell your employer. And they will put your name on a blacklist, which they can show to potential

employers. Nationally the police have recorded an astonishing 120,000 of these — perfectly legal — non-crime incidents, some religious, others racial or concerning comments on “transgender

identity”. It’s scary Orwellian stuff. But it gets worse. The Crown Prosecution Service website includes religious verbal “abuse” as one of a series of hate crimes. It goes on to say that if

the “victim” or, amazingly, “any other person” perceives your remarks to be abusive, then you will have committed a religious hate crime. So be careful — be very careful — where and when

you quote some of the fruitier passages from the works of Tom Paine, Voltaire or Bertrand Russell. If I remember correctly, in _The Age of Reason_, Paine makes abusive mockery of Mary’s

attempt to tell Joseph that she is pregnant, but not by him. She hasn’t been unfaithful. Of course not. She says God is the Father. How many women in a similar situation, have come up with

some such fanciful yarn, Paine asks? Try reading that out loud at Speakers’ Corner on the Sabbath. Recently there has been at least one small sign of a fightback. In the High Court, Mr

Justice Knowles slapped down the Humberside police for blacklisting a man for re-tweeting a supposedly transphobic but perfectly legal limerick. He pointed out that this country has no

tradition of “a Cheka, a Stasi or a Gestapo”. As we mark the seventieth anniversary of Orwell’s death, let us raise a non-hateful cheer for free speech, British justice and the author who

came up with the term “thought police”.