People of the book should not have any more freedom, freedom of expression/assembly than say, environmentalists/big bang postulators, or those for who, the equally unproven theory of evolution, is their zealot's bible!
Rhrosty.

As an atheist I favour toleration of religious belief. Toleration of religious belief has as a corollary tolerance of no religious belief.

Rhosty,
The Theory of Evolution is unproven only to the equivalent extent that the Theory of Gravity, or Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or the theories on which the computer you use to comment on this item, are unproven.

All medical and biological research is based on acceptance that the Theory of Evolution, based on environmental selection and mutation, is a first class working explanation of what has happened over times past and what will happen in times to come.

You could read the story of the experiment conducted by Dr. Richard E. Lenski, Michigan State University. That experiment puts the Theory of Evolution beyond reasonable (arguments sustained by evidenced based reasons) doubt.

Enjoyed the article, thanks for the stimulating read... it is always a good sign in a review when I feel confident of understanding the arguments as though I had read it - the book that is - entirely.

The proposed definition for all religions is particularly useful and helps me justify my inner dialogue of changing the phrase 'my religious belief' whenever someone uses it to, 'my opinion'.

Plus, there is a strange 'religious fervour' rule of inverse proportion. The more emphatically or compulsorily a religion imposes itself upon people, societies, states and the rules of law seems merely to demonstrate a decreasing validity of its tenets and claims.

"If matters of religious conscience deserves toleration, then they do so because they involve matters of conscience, not matters of religion."

The problem for individuals and states is not the 'matters of conscience' until they are expressed as 'matters of action'.

The article assumes that rights, or human rights, are whatever the state says they are.

To name this belief is to see that it is inconsistent with the notion of rights as an enforceable rule of just conduct. It merely asserts that might is right, which is the opposite of an ethical rule, and therefore no basis for human rights.

Therefore I think that, to have a sensible discussion of human rights, there needs to be a prior definition of what and why they are, as well as a definition of the state and why it should be regarded as the fountain of moral goodness, a dubious assumption; otherwise we'll find that there's a "human right" free to ice-cream, a human right to violate person and property for certain purposes as long as it's done by the state, and so on.

Put another way, the article is asking whether the state should use its coercive monopoly to arbitrarily privilege some people as against others on the ground of religion. While it should seem obvious that this is inconsistent with, and opposite to, the concept of human rights, on the other hand, this moral absurdity is implicated in all the state's other administrations of human rights.

Owing to its nature as a coercive monopolist, the state can and often does have an interest in provoking conflicts in society, which it then intervenes in to settle in its own favour and whichever group it suits it to favour.

Worse still, there is nothing stopping the outcome of such conflicted interventions from being declared to be "human rights".

'All medical and biological research is based on acceptance that the Theory of Evolution, '

such ignorance Foyle. Just fits your narrow narrative of life. Don't do 'science' such a disservice.