Of course I am not privy to the court evidence, but it seems unlikely that there was any “blasphemy” at all, in the sense of attacking Islam, Allah, or any of the principal personalities of that religion. It just seems that Mr Lloyd asked them to turn the noise down and might, quite reasonably, have got a little agitated when the mob challenged his right to do so. The evidence is, of course, all one sided, there being no one who dared to speak up for him. It is unlikely that Mr Lloyd would ever dream of saying a bad word against his own faith.

But why should there be an offence of blasphemy at all? Why should we be terrified of the might of the law for saying what we think? Is the religion so weak that it cannot be sustained by argument and needs extraordinary protection? Laws restrictive of political freedom of speech indicate a weak and fearful administration, terrified of the overthrow of its power. Laws restrictive of religious freedom of speech similarly indicate a weak and fearful faith, terrified that people might wake up to its absurdities.

Some people, as they approach old age, become more religious, remembering their wild and misspent youth and hope to add credit to their spiritual account before facing the unknown terrors or delights of the afterlife. Others come to their senses and realise that the whole edifice of religion is a fantasy concocted by the human brain out of fear of its own mortality.

For forty years I stood, bowed and prostrated, patiently listening to and reciting words I could barely understand, which praised a seventh century warlord and his imaginary celestial friend. All this in an enclosure packed with other people in a proximity that would be unbearable in the street or on public transport. Fairytale confections of architecture, which we have the bare-faced cheek to call the house of God, spring up like mushrooms in Indonesia – places where we spend our time flattering our collective imaginary friend and setting out our telepathic demands. And yet we don’t need, and have never needed, this time-wasting performance to be grateful for our lives and to gain inner peace and tranquillity. We have merely to walk among the trees and listen to the rustling of the breeze in the leaves, to walk beside a mountain stream and to hear its rush and gurgling or to look up at the silence and vastness of the night sky. We don’t need to be grateful to anyone, least of all a vindictive and jealous god whom we have made in our own image. We just need to be grateful intransitively and be happy to be alive. We just need to enjoy our existence for its own sake. That instinctive gratitude and happiness springs out of us when we do not drown it in all the cacophony of ritualistic praise – especially when the cacophony is enhanced by loudspeakers.

The only purpose, it seems to me, of religion is to maintain a group identity and to provide the comfort and feeling of support that membership brings with it. The danger and trouble with group identity is that it is exclusive. It implies the need to either bring others in or to struggle against the aliens who have the audacity to remain outside. It has been the cause of war and conflict throughout the ages – and it still provides the spark that drives the evil viciousness of the FPI and their ilk. Religion is the only subject which separates children in Indonesian schools. It is a system of Apartheid promoted and enforced by the state. It makes a mockery of “Bhinneka tunggal ika.”

Now why should it be wrong for me to say this? I do not hurt anyone. Indeed I care deeply for everyone and hate no one. I might, I hope, challenge people to examine the beliefs and doctrines they have inherited from their families and have had indoctrinated into them in school and mosque and church, but what is wrong with that?

I am an infidel, an apostate and a blasphemer. All terrible crimes according to the self-righteous power-mongers of religion and a state which is terrified of their power. I am unrepentant and see no reason to return to the foolishness of my past. I am proud and happy to have come to my senses at last. I have committed no crimes in the conventional sense and try my best to participate willingly and enthusiastically in the life of my community. What have I done wrong and why should I, and others who think the way I do, be afraid of state or religious intimidation? In some countries I would be put to death by the state. Even here, there are those who would try to kill me for my thoughts.

Luke Gregory Lloyd is, however, none of these things. All he wanted was some quiet and got his house severely damaged for his pains. Even in the bizarre, distorted world of Islamic justice, that is not blasphemy. I am a blasphemer. He is not.

Didikarjadi, what you say on ohter matters is quite right, but how dare you question the motives of anyone for deciding to accept or reject any belief! The fact that you also associate age and ethnicity with his decision is unfairly discriminatory. Why should you be suspicious of anyone's motives?

Unfortunately it is true that the laws of Indonesia do REQUIRE anyone who wants to marry to publicly profess the same belief as the person they want to marry. Living together without marriage is socially unacceptable in this "pious" nation. That creates a situation where it is impossible not to lie and be a hypocrite unless, by chance, you happen to accept the other person's family doctrine. The easiest way out is persuade yourself that it is the right thing to do. You can hardly blame the victim of this religious compulsion. Nevertheless, we do not know, and neither should we presume to question, Mr Lloyd's motives.

This guy, a hero in my book, should never have been prosecuted at all, let alone sentenced to a single day in jail.

The real mischief makers were the people who trashed his house, and very nearly him. Yet none of them have been brought to justice.

Blasphemy has no part in the law of a modern society. Everyone should be free to criticise any religion without fear. If there is any blasphemy going on it is the ghastly noise emanating from the mosques, especially during Ramadhan and at the Eids, which disturb everyone and distort into painful noise something which Muslims claim is the beautiful word of God.

To speak up against cacophony in the name of Islam is surely a Muslim's duty. There is supposed to be no compulsion in religion, and yet people of every faith and none are compelled to suffer from the drums and loudspeakers which were never part of Islam before the twentieth century.

It is time we all spoke up for a quieter Indonesia and against all forms of religious intimidation.

This man must be set free and fully compensated now.

I would never condone what this man did, if in-fact he did was has been claimed, although Rp 200 million worth of damage done to his property by a frenzied mob, does somehow seem punishment enough. He definitely looks a bit dodgy. I am always suspicious of the motives when ageing white men find Islam, usually at the same time as finding a young Muslim friend.

However, what I question is a law that prosecutes one old white guy for violating a religious ceremony in a Mosque, but has never lifted a finger to protect the rights of other faiths, when their ceremonies and their places of worship are viciously attacked by Muslims?

Perhaps somebody has an explanation, because from where I am standing, it seems that the laws of Indonesia are biased and discriminatory, and frankly, quite shameful.