Talk:Religious freedom in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Starting with the report from the US State Dept., which is public domain. See Talk:Freedom of religion. -- Beland 05:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In what way does the UK not satisfy the "legal definiton of freedom of religion"? I don't se how that's true. And I see no citation, so this should surely be removed. SRHCFC 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This seems dumb

I quote:

Status of religious freedom in the United Kingdom deals with the status of religious freedom in the United Kingdom.

This gives the article an incredibly dumb impression and I'll hereby remove it. --Nin 10:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

I'm really not sure about this section:

"Adoption agencies Religious based adoption agencies are prevented from applying their moral codes if they conflict with The Equality Act.[1] The Catholic adoption agencies unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a compromise that would include an exemption for religious-based agencies, which would have allowed them to continue to facilitate adoption for traditional opposite-sex parents only."

The wording is more than a little odd- saying that an organisation is "prevented from applying it's moral code" is a restriction of religious freedom is meaningless. It's not an example of religious people being banned from practising their religion or discriminted against for professing a particular religion. It's an example of a religious group operating a service in the public domain and being unhappy about some of the rules. This is a question of religious groups asking for exceptional special treatment to decide who they want to deal with when operating a public service. If anyone has any reliable sources (and I don't mean blogs) to say that this is a restriction of religious freedom, please add them. If not i'll amend or delete this section. 217.196.239.189 15:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So religious schools should also have no ability to enforce their moral codes? Based on your logic, religious thought would be limited to only exist in a church. That is an increasingly common but limited view of religious freedom. Deet 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean about ability to enforce their moral code? If their moral code including coporal punishment, no they shouldn't be allowed to. Religious groups have to obey the law like anyone else. Obviously the law should accommodate the rights of people to practise their religions and express their views, and I don't just mean in church. No-one is trying to stop the Catholic Church from expressing its that homosexuality is an abomination. But the Church is demanding the exclusive privelege of exemption from anti-discrimination legislation that is designed to protect everyone.

Minority rights are one of the key fundamentals of a liberal democracy. Should schools be allowed not to admit mixed race children as they feel the 'mixing of the races' is immoral? Is it OK if they refuse to admit the children of gay couples? What if one parent only realises they are gay later in life, should their child be thrown out because of that? Where do you draw the line?

This is definitely not a clear case of restriction of religious freedom. If it's going to be on this page, it should have some sort of reputable source to back it up, stating that this is considered to be a restriction on freedom of religion. Seanjw 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Relgious groups have to obey the law like anyone else." True, but isn't the whole point of these religious freedom Wikipedia articles to highlight when those laws conflict with the practice of religion (whether in a church, school, adoption agency, etc)? Deet 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Flemming

I added this quote from the MP Margaret Flemming (I must have spelt her name wrong). I am sorry, and i do hope this can be resolved instead of deleted.

Kindest Regards (217.42.46.119 20:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

I removed it because the MP you claim to be quoting doesn't exist. Please state a source if you want to re-insert the text. Cordless Larry 00:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)