Let me get one thing clear right from the start, I don't approve of religious persecution, I fully support people's right to believe anything they want to believe in and to express that belief individually and collectively. That is the basis of my tolerance of religion, it is the same as my tolerance of opera singing, rap music and the call for the reintroduction of capital punishment. I am a tolerant man, I tolerate people being different, and wrong. I don't regard religion as something special that generates extra rights.

It makes no sense at all to say that you can have extra rights if you can demonstrate that you need to do certain things because you hold irrational and otherwise unsupportable views and beliefs and it is because those views cannot be rationally explained that they need to be given priority over rationally held views and beliefs and over irrational views not shared by people who group themselves together because of their shared beliefs. The only sensible and fair approach is to give freedom of belief, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly to everybody unless such freedoms generate a very clear threat to the freedoms, rights and safety of other people. It should not be necessary or relevant to prove that somebody holds opinions and views of an irrational religious nature in order to qualify for any freedoms. Why should religion be special?

Why should the state pay to indoctrinate children in the religion of the parents? Why should the state even allow such a thing to happen in the precious time a child has to be taught all the skills necessary for modern life? There would rightly be an outcry if state schools were used to condition children into being socialists, libertarians, criminals, layabouts or racists. People would rightly laugh off the suggestion that the children of tax-paying racists should be able to expect the state to provide a racist education for their racist children. We would be offended at the very idea that the children of racists should be expected to be brought up by the state as racists and protected from any views that might challenge the attitudes of their parents.

Can you imagine a teacher saying that racists believe that white people are superior to other races and should be given priority treatment by the state and that such racist views should be respected because they aren't rational, that they should not be challenged and racists and their children should never be made to feel uncomfortable for holding or expressing such views in any way which they see fit?

But why is it OK to assume that because a parent is Muslim or Catholic that the school should be expected to ensure that the child is educated to be Muslim or Catholic and shielded from views or questions which might adversely affect the results of that indoctrination process? No school expects that it is perfectly reasonable to ensure that the child of a stupid or criminal parent be brought up to be themselves stupid or criminal. No school would even entertain the idea that because the parent is a farmer that the child be brought up with the expectation of becoming a farmer and so be protected from any form of teaching which would open up other possibilities and options.

What is it that makes religious attitudes and views so special? Is it perhaps the recognition that these are views which are held irrationally, without logical justification and are often defended with irrational and implacable violence? Is it perhaps that people respect religions in the same way they respect deadly snakes they haven't managed to grasp firmly behind the head or stomp on? That kind of respect isn't genuine and sincere.

Of course it isn't just religion that isn't challenged in schools. Minority cultures of certain types are fostered and encouraged. Teachers will challenge the idea that a child follows his father into a life of petty theft and trading beyond the reach of the taxman, unless of course the child is a traveller, in which case to attempt to do so would be seen to be culturally insensitive. The culture and family traditions of twee ethnic minorities are to be respected and nurtured by the school, within limits. Where are those limits? I trust that no British school would allow the concept of measuring family honour by virginity and a refusal to allow “their” girls to be seen with boys of another race or religion to be allowed to go unchallenged. But what about arranged marriage and genital mutilation of either sex? Why draw the line to allow those practices to be seen as above debate and examination?