I don’t usually blog about religion, but I was a little taken aback by what I heard yesterday.

It would seem that Cherie Booth – judge, wife of the former prime minister and a noted Catholic – passed a lighter sentence on a Muslim man specifically because he was devoutly religious, a fact that she referenced twice in her judgement.

So are we supposed to infer from this that if he had been atheist or agnostic he would have received a harsher sentence?

She said “You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.” But if he did indeed ‘know better’ because he was religious, couldn’t it be argued that he should have received a harsher sentence because he was ‘more aware’ of the unacceptability of his actions? If she believes his faith is enough to stop him acting this way again, then why didn’t it stop him acting like this in the first place?

If I was the person whose jaw he’d fractured I think I’d feel a little cheated of justice by this ruling.