Living in Egypt as a foreigner has certainly opened my eyes to problems that the International Muslim community are facing which we as so called westerners have had for years.

I was horrified to hear that some Muslim medical students were rejecting certain courses due to religeous views.

There are approximately 2 million homeless Egyptian chilren living on the streets in Cairo and Alexandria, many of them from Muslim families.
It is well know that these youngsters often turn to drugs and promiscuity to survive the conditions.

These medical students are turning heir backs on their own people in the name of religeon and in the end it will justified with good Muslims versus bad Muslims.

Cairo, Egypt

Cassandra, Cairo, Egypt

With regard to Andy Brown's comments, I think the author is very aware that religion is not the source of all intolerance - she merely highlights these points because this is a faith blog, after all.
Intolerance is defined by one's own religion in it's holy books but how it is followed is completely up to the individual and his/her interpretations, hence the ability of people of any religion able to murder others in the name of their own God. it is up to the state to set the limits of this when it becomes a disruption to a national institution such as the NHS. Hippocratic oath, anyone?? As for the Sainsbury's workers - does it state anywhere that it is forbidden to touch bottles? As long as alcohol is not consumed they are still on their way to a peaceful afterlife.

Gareth, Birmingham, UK

I see a number of problems with this article...
1) It perpetuates the myth that somehow all intolerance is driven by religion. In fact atheists are as intolerant as anyone else and the politically correct 'liberals' are intolerant of anyone else who holds an alternative viewpoint.
2) It muddles up religion with politics and power etc. Northern Ireland is a classic case. The IRA never claimed to be waging a religious war (Christian jihad) but a political war against the British. To use them as an example of religious intolerance is clearly false.
3) Who defines intolerance? At what point do someones religious beliefs become intolerant? If someone believes that homosexual sex is wrong they are automatically called intolerant, in fact they may just believe it is wrong and may be far more tolerant than the gay rights activist who cannot stand someone taking an alternative view on the matter.

Andrew Brown, derby, Uk

bonas said "Unless you are a Catholic Priest, you do not possess the power to Change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Consecration of the Mass".

Are you seriously telling me that you honestly think Catholic Priests DO have the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?

Why on earth should anyone take seriously the views of anyone with such ludicrous superstitious beliefs? (and no I'm not singling out Catholics before you claim persecution - you have plenty of Protestant, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu counterparts).

Mark Allen, Nottingham,

A very valid point. The object of religion, is not to compromise a social life, or to throw obstructions in the path of prudence and practicallty.
Diversity should be promoted and celebrated, but this principle
should be subject to the aggregate benefit of society.
However, i cannot agree with the collumist in finding unreasonable, the fact that Muslim supermarket staff are let off from handling alcohol. It is not life-threatening, or anti-social, and iam sure that there would be many other staff who would not mind handling alcohol.
It should be remebered that the booze section is usually 1-2 iasles in a whole store
Any intoxicants, to a practising muslim are to be avoided, including non-consumptive activity i.e it sale, carriage etc
As Muslims beleive that intoxicants have an overall, antisocial effect on society, and from that point of veiw, wish to refrain from any assosiation with it, they should not be penalised for this
As i said it is not life threatening or antisocial.

Sub, Rossendale,

Muslims who object to treating patients on religious grounds shouldn't be allowed to be doctors. Their oath to always do the best for the patient and to take decisions on medical grounds only is a higher duty than to their god. I wouldn't let any doctor who decided on other grounds anywhere near me as he / she couldn't be trusted.

It is about time we stood up and called this for what it is: bigoted bronze-age nonsense. The same applies to any religion that seeks to limit the rights of citizens or humans generally, including Christianity.

James Bannon, Paisley, Scotland

Finally someone speaks good common sense.
Thanks very much, Ms Purves!

Rafal, London,

It is right to be tolerent of others whatever their beliefs. The reverse is too awful to contemplate. If certain people do agree with a persons sexuality they are entitled to that belief but they should hate the person. Love your neighbour I think overides these beliefs anyway but still they entitled to their belief. Otherwise we will be intolerant to them just because we thiink we know better. We woiuld force some people to live as hermits. Of course this is the line of some Atheists who have a bigoted prejudice against religion. So Tolerance should yes practised by all, not just some. Religion or any school of thought should not be a private matter just because some people find to be aborant. We live a free society and I hope thats the way it stays.

Steven, Buckhurdt Hill,

Religious belief is a private matter. Who cares what anyone believes so long as they don't drag the rest of us into it? When we do get dragged into it, we can only vote with our feet. Sainsburys. to their discredit, is afraid to take a firm line; they fear that there will be reprisals. That's the place to which some religious fanatics have brought us, with our cowardly connivance, I might add: a situation in which we have to put up with their demands while meekly accepting their disdain. Well, you can if you want to. Count me out.

anne, bournemouth,

Being a stern atheist, if I worked in a commercial retailers surely I would have no right to complain about not serving goods tied to a religion, such as christmas crackers and easter eggs.

Also being a physics mentor, i would not be allowed to refuse to teach a religious student.

ergo, why am i not allowed to practice my way of life?

Daniel, Manchester, UK

Tolerance is not a belief. It does not require some immutable set of laws laid down by an elusive figure who does not live on this planet. It is about human beings who are not committing crimes being able to live freely. To not be told that you are immoral or disgusting to others is a central tenet of tolerance. And tolerance does not mean to put up with something objectionable. It means that you appreciate that your values and ideas and morals are good enough to understand that others live good and decent lives whilst not living exactly the same as you. Disgust of criminality and paedohpiles is as common to gay people as it is to evangelical Christians and Muslims. The difference is that gay people do not equate Evangelism or Islam with paedophilia in an effort to promote their own moral superiority. That is tolerance. Evangelical Christians and Muslims cannot be said to reflect that tolerance. They are therefore intolerant.

PSF, London, UK

Putting aside all the verbosity about religion, it's simple really. Anyone applying for a job, or considering studying for a profession, should at the outset raise any concerns with the recruitment people, who should make clear what the work involves for it to be done properly and in the interests of the customer/client/patient. Anyone not prepared to do what the job demands should not be employed in that capacity.

Barry, Wallington, UK

Tolerance spans much more than just religion, but it is always religion we are told to tolerate. Why?

If I say I hate all gays because I'm a Christian, that's OK.

If I just say I hate all gays, then I'm a bigot (and rightly so).

We must absolutely stop allowing hatred and misinformation from those who claim "legitimacy" from "god".

Camilla, Burnley,

I agree with David Richards that the refusal to sell alcohol is not an act of intolerance. It does, however, demand disproportional tolerance from others to take up a job in a shop that sells the stuff and then and then refuse to do what is my job there.
If I can't stand the smell of fish I don't accept a job in a fish shop.

Armin Lotze, Lübeck, Germany

So Muslim staff who wish not to handle alcohol in accordance with their beliefs are guilty of intolerance?

One wonders what definition of tolerance is being applied here. Are people only to be regarded as tolerant so long as they do not act on their beliefs?

David Richards, London, United Kingdom

The bible teaches that it is wrong to commit a wrong in order to try to effect good but rather one shoudl do good to defeat evil. IAccordingly, if the comments concerning some errant archibishop in africa are true, he certainly does not represent the Faith.

Simon , Birmingham, UK

I see a number of problems with this article...
1) It perpetuates the myth that somehow all intolerance is driven by religion. In fact atheists are as intolerant as anyone else and the politically correct 'liberals' are intolerant of anyone else who holds an alternative viewpoint.
2) It muddles up religion with politics and power etc. Northern Ireland is a classic case. The IRA never claimed to be waging a religious war (Christian jihad) but a political war against the British. To use them as an example of religious intolerance is clearly false.
3) Who defines intolerance? At what point do someone’s religious beliefs become intolerant? If someone believes that homosexual sex is wrong they are automatically called intolerant, in fact they may just believe it is wrong and may be far more tolerant than the gay rights activist who cannot stand someone taking an alternative view on the matter.
4) The whole tone of the article was a little intolerant… don’t you think!

Andrew Brown, derby, Uk

What words of wisdom. Here in Australia, I despair about our reconciliation process that allows hatred of whites to be accepted when i can see on the tv the horrors of living on a mission. Luckily, i get to read your article and it gives me a little bit of hope for the future.

jeffrey graves, dundathu, queensland, australia

Blimey,Bonas 50, in his reply has underlined just what you have been talking about! Long live the heroic spirit of John Noyes ,& the neighbourly support ofhis sensible friends & fellow villagers,Catholics & Protestants all those years ago.

dominic brennan, wimbledon, UK

As a Hindu, I am shocked to read about some Muslim medical students putting religion ahead of their professional obligations. Failing them and making them repay any public funds used for their training is a slap on the wrist. Legislation must be in place to severely penalize those employed in critical public services, who bring religion into their work. This is not an Islamophobic reaction; on the contrary, the actions of Muslim extremists (such as these students) are mostly responsible for causing (equally insane) Islamophobia. Extremists hoping to use tolerance as a cover for their insanity, don't deserve any of it.

Pradeep Navaratnam, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Most articles on 'religious intolerance' have become a by-word for their racism against Muslims, usually along the lines of 'If you Muslims don't like it in this country then go back home' which is pretty much what the playground racist bullies used to say to me when it was about us 'Pakis' who were born here. Nowadays, the racists can use a new word ('Muslim') and mean exactly the same thing.

But thank Allah for small mercies, because hey presto - we have an acknowledgement that religious beliefs are not just about Muslims, but do encompass others as well.

Having said that, I don't buy into Purves' argument about Sainsburys because this is is all about market economics. If a certain number of checkout operators are disruptive to business then people will vote with their feet and avoid these businesses. Likewise for doctors who can't perform their duties. This is not about giving in to something, because what people opt not to do is not conditional upon others liking it.

Bilal Patel, London, UK,

Bonas, you shame your own faith, whatever it is.

Ms. Purves, thank you for this intelligent and most timely essay. It was much appreciated. Unfortunately we don't get too many people looking to clear the air by speaking good common sense..

Thank you!

Jenny Perry, Harmony, RI, US

some may argue that no person, wether catholic or protestant, has the power to transmute. Maybe that is where the truth lies ?

Jason, Central Coast ,

One part of the article is true. No host is the Body of Christ in any ceremony by any minister or priest who is not Catholic. The only ones who received the power to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood were the Apostles at the Last Supper. And Popes and Bishops and Priests who followed the long line of succession are still the only ones to receive the power at ordination. If no one likes this , go back to Henry the viii and his unwillingness to accept the Catholic Church's teaching re: divorce. Because his wife couldn't conceive, he insisted he be given a divorce. Of course the Church refused, so Henry started his own church, The church of England. So that is where the truth lies. Unless you are a Catholic Priest, you do not possess the power to Change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Consecration of the Mass. A Tridentine Mass, I might add.

bonas 50, Sussex, N.J. USA