I sympathise with those who feel that they have been sullied. I appreciate the feeling that the guilty in this case should be held up to public opprobrium. I am sure that Rabbi-Sol is perfectly genuine and justified in his outrage at the fraudsters and thieves. But why do I feel that I have to keep emphasising that, when I go on to discuss other perfectly genuine concerns?

It will seem morally repugnant to many that they who were (if they were, and were not wilfully closing their eyes) wholly unaware that they were eating food that was proscribed by their religion should be regarded as in any way guilty. Offences of strict liability are rightly regarded by most legal systems as extreme measures.

It will also seem morally repugnant to many that a whole set of persons - including they who not only are under no moral guilt (see above) but even they who have themselves not eaten such food at all - should be required to atone. It is quite definitely wrong to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty (unless there is a very very good public policy reason as in the case of employers' vicarious liability for the torts of thier servants committed in the course of thier employment).

To take Marion's example, should a person tricked into eating human flesh be punishable for cannibalism? Should their parents or children who did not eat human flesh be punishable for cannibalism?

I note above that even different factions of the religion in point do not agree that the relevant china dishes need to be destroyed or given away. Maybe there are some who would say that metal dishes can (as they in fact can) be sterilised without heating to red heat.

How should we judge a religion that requires its followers to harm themselves and/or to make payments to the infrastructure or members of the infrastructure of the religion for things that those followers have not done or for which those followers have no guilt?

There are a number of religions that we rightly criticise for fundamentalism. In this sense I mean, by fundamentalism, the belief or assertion that texts and prohibitions of the religion are literally true and must be literally obeyed, despite their impossibility or irrationality (or, in some cases, not the present case, inherent evil). Even small requirements by a religion that are irrational are the thin end of the wedge in this respect, and they need to be tested to see whether they ought to be changed.

I have been thinking about all this at least partly (apart from my inherent pedantry) because I am currently having a bit of a crise de confiance in a moral belief system with which I am myself involved, and I do not know whether I will be able to continue with it, despite the much good work it does, because of irrationalities that I see within it. I respectfully suggest that ritual cleansing requirements need to be examined in the light of knowledge and reason, and if appropriate discarded. If they do no good and may lead to harm should that not be so?