Report comment

Speaking as (to use a theological term) a card-carrying atheist, I find myself pondering a more general question: how far should society go in making special dispensations for those of various different religious persuasions? If my conscience forbids or requires me to do something, the law won't bend in any way to accommodate me. But if I could say that my action or inaction were dictated by religious belief, the situation might well be different.

At present, there's a definite but indistinct and variable line. We certainly don't accommodate those whose religious beliefs require them to behead infidels or throw gay people from high buildings, or carry out female circumcision, but we do accommodate (for example) those whose religious beliefs require their meat to come from animals whose throats have been cut while still alive, or to carry out male circumcision.

I'd be interested to know which way the pendulum is going to swing in the future, but at the age or nearly 82 I'm unlikely to find out. I might just live long enough to find out how the Hassall situation will develop. I'm on her side; but I guess i'm prejudiced.

I don't know