(An aside: One of the reasons only a limited number of people use this forum is that too often in the past the substance of the arguments has given way to discussing personalities, questioning motives and personal abuse. It really does put people off.)1 House of Lords. As you say there are people of many backgrounds in the Lords. I will not defend the appointments system. What I am asserting is that a system which takes one sect of one religion and reserves an exclusive number of places for that sect's nominees is giving that sect of that religion an undue influence in our legislative process to the extent that people who are not members of that sect of that religion are being downgraded as citizens. Arguments about the relative lesser importance of the Lords seem to me to be irrelevant. I am further asserting that any attempt to extend such a system to other religions would be to downgrade still further those citizens who are members of none of the groups. I am not saying that there should be no Christians or Jews, or members of any other religions in either of our legislative chambers. Of course there will be because they are spread throughout the population and they will be there for their other qualities. I am saying there should not be places especially reserved for them.Or to put it another way. Suppose that once upon a time the tall people were in control. When they relinquished control they decreed that thereafter they, the 6' 2"s and over, could choose from among their own group twenty of their number to have specially reserved seats in the legislature. Tall people would still be able to get in in all the same ways as everybody else, but these are to be additional seats because tall people are special. Do I really need to spell out the rest of the arguments showing how this discriminates against the shorter people?. Pick any group you like (or perhaps don't like) and substitute them in. Is it acceptable? And if the advantaged group is one that you feel positively or neutral towards today, try thinking about tomorrow. It is fundamentally anti-democratic for any group to have a built-in extra weighting in the legislature.2 Schools. I agree that a major explanation for the numbers of church schools is historical. (It would take too much space here to go into the absurd process by which the state has almost entirely taken over their funding but still allows the churches to keep control.) I have looked at some DfES statistics - primary schools only - for January 2000 and January 2006. They support your contention that there are now fewer church schools, but this is because, for demographic reasons, primary schools of all types are closing. But the proportion of primary schools which are church schools has risen, albeit slightly. Pupil numbers might be more interesting than school numbers but I haven't had a chance to look at those. What will be concealed within the school totals is numbers closing and numbers opening. The contention that there are no new church schools because it is so expensive is, however, wrong. The churches (certainly the C of E and the RC) are very keen to open schools (or take over existing ones) where they are permitted to do so and they only have to produce 90% of the capital cost and almost none of the running costs. I shall report back in a couple of weeks what has really been happening on the church school front. Incidentally, just under two thirds of our primary schools are non-faith, not "an overwhelming majority".3 Employment law. How very odd to think it is not relevant to me because I (you assume) would not want to work for a religious organisation. The point here is that we have laws to, among other things, protect all individuals. Are you not concerned to protect people other than yourself? Or do you only want to bother legislating for the protections that you personally want to take advantage of?4 Since Sikhs and motor bikes have been mentioned by Dan Evans I shall add to my list. I find it perfectly acceptable for Sikhs to make representations that a turban should be an acceptable substitute for a crash helmet. A suggestion like that can go into the decision making process. What isn't acceptable is the law as it now stands which says "a requirement imposed by regulations under this section shall not apply to any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" (Road Traffic Act 1988)In other words, you can have two identical looking people dressed identically and doing identical things but one is breaking the law and the other is not. The only difference is their religion. That is not equality before the law.
Tom Beaton ● 6799d