I both see and respect the point that Joe Offer has made.

However, my problem is that whilst we could have a philosophical discussion about morality and the part religion can / cannot play in it... The fact is that when religion is used as a law totem, we are judging today by yesterday's standards. Scriptures relate to human behaviour a couple of thousand years ago, an age of superstition and defending such superstitions created the many ethnic communities.

Today, a secular take on law embraces everybody who wishes to live in a community, whether they believe in a sect, are irreligious or resent fantasy having a bearing on their lives. Religious law would be relevant if everybody in the country believed the same. As they patently don't and I would argue never should be forced to, then secular law is the only answer.

Also, I would argue that religions are fighting a rearguard action at present, as more people around the world base their judgements on more than their local preacher's direction. Communication, media and education in general make religions as we see them increasingly irrelevant. The challenge for religious leaders in planning the next couple of thousand years is not to look at numbers of adherents in order to justify a stance, but to ask if such a stance can be justified to the rest of the human race who aren't card carrying members. If not, the invaluable comfort blanket that faith can give people will wither away. There is a place for religion, many people need it, but its place is not in courts of law.