In the middle of the first paragraph of the blog article you'll find this definition: "Secularism is a neutral position favouring no one faith over another." Building applications will be considered on the basis of the building that is proposed to be constructed and people who are harassed, threatened with murder or potential or real victims of any other crime will continue to benefit from the police. There is nothing about secularism that would deny religious people the benefits afforded to non-religious people. Secularism is not about shutting out believers. It is about making a person's belief (or lack thereof) irrelevant to decision making.Exi5tentialist wrote:I therefore can't deduce from the references to your other work that you've given me what your rational response is to the 2 examples I gave above.
And of course secularism in England is a bit fuzzy. The government is said to be a secular democracy, but religions are actually favoured in so many ways, among them being the 26 law makers sitting in the House of Lords who were never elected to be there. They are there by virtue of being Bishops. Among them is the tax exemption for all religious institutions. Among them are various special allowances made to Hindus Muslims and Sikhs.
Come back when you're done speaking ex recto, Exi.
