|
|
Post by patman post on Apr 17, 2024 13:02:16 GMT
Current law requires all state-funded schools in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to hold daily acts of ‘Collective Worship’. In England and Wales in schools with no formal religious character this worship must be ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’. In Northern Ireland the requirement is for ‘undenominational’ collective worship. Other schools can choose their own regimes. Until the UK disestablishes the Church of England and becomes truly secular, different factions in many areas of daily life will continue to feel wronged and discriminated against… Mr. Contrarian again. The school in question teaches no 'collective worship' at all. Have another go at trying to wind up posters. I try not to repeat myself in every post, but here goes once more — I don't believe schools are the place for any religious instruction. Until the C of E is disestablished, calls for other religions to be given equal rights on the grounds of discrimination are likely to recur.
Nothing wrong with religious education where all religions are studied and compared as part of history and society. In fact, I'd say that's desirable...
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 17, 2024 13:11:12 GMT
You can bet if Labour do get in after a year or so they will seek to overturn this. I have a friend working for a Catholic school in inner London and they were forced to allow Muslims and Muslim teachers. tou think they will wait that long ? |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Apr 17, 2024 15:22:35 GMT
I agree with the courts decision for what should be obvious reasons ... the school has a policy of secularism, meaning the same rule applies no matter what your faith is.
We should be like France, where freedom of religion is observed, but where religion is barred from all state owned property, including courts, schools, town halls, universities, police stations and colleges.
The idea in France is that religion is your choice, to be practiced either at home or in your Church, Mosque, Synagogue or Temple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 17, 2024 20:44:16 GMT
So, the rule was clearly a part of school policy and yet the parents still enrolled the child and then proceeded to sue the school? Interesting
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 17, 2024 20:59:51 GMT
Mr. Contrarian again. The school in question teaches no 'collective worship' at all. Have another go at trying to wind up posters. I try not to repeat myself in every post, but here goes once more — I don't believe schools are the place for any religious instruction. Until the C of E is disestablished, calls for other religions to be given equal rights on the grounds of discrimination are likely to recur.
Nothing wrong with religious education where all religions are studied and compared as part of history and society. In fact, I'd say that's desirable...
I'll repeat again, as the court would have took this into account with its ruling, the school does not teach 'collective worship' and is secular in that way. That is the school's policy. Your strawman about the CofE does not legitimise the claims about religious discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 17, 2024 21:40:34 GMT
So, the rule was clearly a part of school policy and yet the parents still enrolled the child and then proceeded to sue the school? Interesting This is what annoys me. The parents knew the rules and yet still went ahead and then they were allowed legal aid to complain about the rules they had agreed to. The Legal Aid system is a gravy train for scum Lawyers that needs trimming back. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 18, 2024 8:19:38 GMT
So, the rule was clearly a part of school policy and yet the parents still enrolled the child and then proceeded to sue the school? Interesting This is what annoys me. The parents knew the rules and yet still went ahead and then they were allowed legal aid to complain about the rules they had agreed to. The Legal Aid system is a gravy train for scum Lawyers that needs trimming back. They engaged in concerted activism - the whole thing, including enrolling the child, was an 'operation' designed to pressure and intimidate the school |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Apr 18, 2024 9:10:42 GMT
I try not to repeat myself in every post, but here goes once more — I don't believe schools are the place for any religious instruction. Until the C of E is disestablished, calls for other religions to be given equal rights on the grounds of discrimination are likely to recur.
Nothing wrong with religious education where all religions are studied and compared as part of history and society. In fact, I'd say that's desirable... I'll repeat again, as the court would have took this into account with its ruling, the school does not teach 'collective worship' and is secular in that way. That is the school's policy. Your strawman about the CofE does not legitimise the claims about religious discrimination. But if the country was legally secular, there would be nothing for anyone to base a challenge upon when claiming that they were not allowed to follow their religion in places where it impacted or impinged on others. People wanting to follow the religion and engage in acts of worship would still be able to do so in their own establishments and homes and places rented or dedicated to such acts… |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 18, 2024 9:27:07 GMT
I'll repeat again, as the court would have took this into account with its ruling, the school does not teach 'collective worship' and is secular in that way. That is the school's policy. Your strawman about the CofE does not legitimise the claims about religious discrimination. But if the country was legally secular, there would be nothing for anyone to base a challenge upon when claiming that they were not allowed to follow their religion in places where it impacted or impinged on others. People wanting to follow the religion and engage in acts of worship would still be able to do so in their own establishments and homes and places rented or dedicated to such acts… The school is legally secular as per its policies which the Muslim parents should have already known when they enrolled their demanding little sprog. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Apr 18, 2024 9:30:39 GMT
But the school is in a country that is not legally secular. So any dispensation it has from indulging in religious practice remains liable to legal challenge…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2024 9:48:18 GMT
So, the rule was clearly a part of school policy and yet the parents still enrolled the child and then proceeded to sue the school? Interesting Islam is in permanent conflict with everything in the west. It's the nature of the beast. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 18, 2024 10:01:35 GMT
But the school is in a country that is not legally secular. So any dispensation it has from indulging in religious practice remains liable to legal challenge… We are (should be) in a country that allows secularity. You should not be legally obliged to make intrusive accommodations for the Tattoine death cult, the lollipop guild, Islam or anything else.
Everything is potentially liable to legal challenge
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Apr 18, 2024 10:54:53 GMT
But the school is in a country that is not legally secular. So any dispensation it has from indulging in religious practice remains liable to legal challenge… We are (should be) in a country that allows secularity. You should not be legally obliged to make intrusive accommodations for the Tattoine death cult, Islam, or anything else.
Everything is potentially liable to legal challenge
“Allows”? You make it appear like something dispensed at the whim of a benefactor. Following a religious belief and its legal practices should be a matter of personal choice. Having an established state religion automatically gives that religion an official status not readily open to others — eg, prayers and clergy in Parliament, a recommendation that an act of Christian worship should take pace daily in state-funded schools, trading laws linked to the Christian calendar, etc. So my belief that overall, the UK would be better off without unnecessary restrictions imposed by the arbitrary beliefs of one section of the country… |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 18, 2024 11:03:34 GMT
We are (should be) in a country that allows secularity. You should not be legally obliged to make intrusive accommodations for the Tattoine death cult, Islam, or anything else.
Everything is potentially liable to legal challenge
“Allows”? You make it appear like something dispensed at the whim of a benefactor. If i gave that impression it was an inadvertent and just a matter of language. To clarify - in the UK it is not forbidden to (for instance) ignore Islam and concentrate instead on something else (like teaching) |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 18, 2024 14:49:40 GMT
Faith is a wholly Personal Matter.
Any school in the UK that wishes for its exams to qualify as access to Further and Higher Education should be wholly secular.
The ONLY place for Religion in such schools is in either History or Religious Study (note I said "study", not "practice") classes.
In this particular case it looks like the student in question enrolled just for the opportunity for vexatious legal claims.
The court has, IMO, made the right call.
All The Best
|
|
