Kathryn, as I see it, the issue is not one of religious freedom, but religious privilege. The law may or may not be foolish, and it may or may not be drawn too widely, but once it has passed it should apply to all. What I cannot understand is why adherents to one particular belief, in this case Roman Catholicism, should be exempted from its requirements. To say that this is a matter of conscience may well be true, but where do we stop? Do we say that Quakers (who hold, just as sincerely, to pacifism) should be able to avoid paying that portion of their taxes that relate to the war in Iraq, or that atheists can opt out of that part of their taxes that are affected by the tax breaks that are given to parochial schools.

You have to remember that in England this question is made even more acute by the increasing demands on the part of Islamic radicals that Muslims should also be subject to, or exempt from, certain laws on the grounds of their faith. That’s what Cameron is getting at, and that’s what many churchmen in Britain (who seem to be lurching towards some sort of unholy (so to speak) alliance with Islam’s enforcers) are choosing to ignore.

Dividing a nation up into confessional slices is a recipe for disaster, Cameron is right to warn against it. Stephen Pollard has more on this here.