|
|
Post by buccaneer on Apr 18, 2024 18:54:18 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… And what was the result of that legal challenge? If the kid wanted to pray they should have gone to a school that endorsed it. They chose the school knowing full well its policies. There is no justification here that the school discriminated on religious grounds. You are barking up the wrong tree. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 18, 2024 18:59:15 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. 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… And with the king declaring his desire to be a defender of ‘faiths’ plural not a defender of THE faith his predecessor invented tjat’s what you now have |
|
