Suff wrote:Workingman wrote:A secular legislature could quite easily have pointed out that the laws were for one and all and would be applied.
You are, of course, assuming that a secular argument would reach a logical conclusion..
Not really. What I am saying is that governance based on one the rules of one particular sect leaves it open to attack from all other sects. That in turn leads to exemptions for some sects/religions based on their religious beliefs. The masses then argue that if exemption is OK for one it is OK for all, which in turn leads to divisions in society and laws coming into disrepute.
The law states that animals are to be slaughtered in a certain humanitarian way, yet two religions are exempt. The most implacable of those religions has forced meat slaughtered in a different way into our schools just in case one of its followers happens to bite into a pie where the animal was stunned before being killed rather than it having its throat slit and hung up to dry.
The law states that I cannot walk down the street carrying an offensive yet the followers of one religion are allowed to do so, for to prevent them would be against their religious beliefs.
Both laws are seen as "Christian Laws" by these other religions and therefore open to attack. Were they truly secular laws no such attacks could take place.
And to make things clear: I am not against religions working in society - that is what they are supposed to do. They should not, however, be involved in civil law making and the Bishops should be removed from the House of Lords.
