Originally Posted by noodkleopatra:
“Should work like this in my opinion: we should have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.
Why on Earth we should all dance to the tambourine of a religion or God we don't believe in is beyond me. Blasphemy laws really did do a great deal of damage for religion too, but sadly, I wonder if - in the worthwhile pursuit of harmony - we're starting to fall back into adopting it again.
Secularism can be the only way forward. Having a state religion usually goes one of two ways - it dictates everything, and the inevitable clash between freedom, human rights etc. is called into question, or you have it where it's there in name but no-one is arsed by it, even a great many of the apparent adherents (e.g. Church of England). The latter seems harmless enough until you consider the role it still plays in politics, education, etc.
Secularism is as good for religion as it is for non-religion.
The argument can be made about how good laws are introduced or influenced by religion - which is fine - but it conveniently ignores that a great many good laws were made in spite of it, and a great many bad laws were made with its blessing.
Whether laïcité is the way to go or not, well, that's up for debate. But surely, it's got to be a system that applies equally. I'm no fan of religion, but I find it utterly absurd how some would advocate the banning of religious apparel for one faith, but not another. That can't work. As soon as you issue 'preferred faiths', you're acting outside of secularism.
But certainly, religion should abide by society, and not the other way around.”
But we don't have a State religion in the UK. The Church of England is probably the majority faith here, but it isn't an
official state religion. We do not live in a Theocracy.
The title Defender Of The Faith was conferred by the Pope on Henry VIII in the 16th century and has kinda lingered ever since. It is true that the monarch is the head of the Church of England but that is more a matter of tradition, not an ecclesiastical post.
We have freedom of religion in Britain. People are free to worship whatever faith they believe in and although I have no religious belief myself, I fully accept the right of those who do to worship as they believe. This is a fundamental freedom of the British people and shouldn't be restricted in any way.
Secular law already does take priority over religious conviction, as we have recently seen in the prosecution of bakers in Belfast who refused, on religious grounds, to bake a cake with a pro-homosexual message. The ruling by the court specifically stated that religious belief, no matter how deeply held, cannot be used as an excuse to ignore anti-discrimination law.
There have been repeated attempts by clergy,through the democratic process, to obtain an exclusion from anti-discrimination law on the grounds of religious conviction and all have failed. It is quite clear that we already have a legal system based on secular principles.
Something that might be worth discussing here though is the matter of representation in the House of Lords by leaders of the major churches. The Church of England, The Roman Catholic Church, the Muslim Council of Britain, and the Chief Rabbi are all represented in the House of Lords.
Is this a good thing? Should they not be allowed to influence the law making process, or is it right to hear what they have to say when discussing proposed changes to legislation?