Circumcision..Child abuse or parental right?

[Skelron]

Sorry for these separate posts, but I keep noticing parts of that long post that I had to address further.

For a start no problem when I look back I have several posts all after each other when written anyway

one somewhat nitpick in general. When you say you won't respond to anything comparing circumcision to sexual or physical abuse, you should realize that it IS comparable. In fact, it's BOTH.

Let me put a relatively loose analogy here:

You are physically forced to undergo painful sensations by another human being that is deliberately hurting your body against your wishes. You cannot stop them, and you have no say in what is happening. Once it's over you are left with the physical scars, (that usually completely heal), and the emotional ones that might never.

This is a fair description of rape.

You are physically forced to undergo painful sensations by another human being that is deliberately hurting your body against your wishes. You cannot stop them, and you have no say in what is happening. Once it's over you are left with the physical scars, (that NEVER heal as they are irreversible), and the emotional ones that probably exist on a very subconscious level, but as they happened at such an early age you cannot bring the memory of the event forward into your current consciousness.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how those very apt comparisons can be sloughed off as not fitting the definitions of sexual/physical abuse.

Okay see now I will feel an idiot because now I am willing to discuss the issue, because here you have explained why I may be wrong, rather than make the general statement that they are the same. I'll agree with you definition of Rape.

As to the issue of Male Circumsison in many places obviously yu are correct, it is an irreversable operation and obviously painful. The mental/emotional scars, I cannot say, and so will say that there is a fifty/fifty you are correct. actually you've given me a lot to think about, and if you don't mind I will need to think about this before I answer it fully, I am actually considering changing my view point on this issue based on your point here. things like this can take sometime with me.

As I was saying so accepting a parents right to raise a child in a manor they see fit, barring Abuse, of somekind, and assuming that they recieve real emotional support, IE they are raised in a manner that will allow them to become functional members of society that will bring no harm onto others, and accepting that the issue of Male circumsicion falls into a grey area at worst, of morallity on a par with the spanking issue, then I can only say that it is the parents option to have their child circumsised or not.

But this is not truly comparable. Can't you see that?
I know where you are coming from, really I do. The biggest difference here is that you just aren't giving enough consideration to how WRONG it is to permanently mutilate a human being for NO medical, practical reason.

The insidious thing about this discussion is the fact that it's been done to so many people for so long, it's not the most discussed issue because it's involved with SEX which until the last few decades was considered unspeakable, and because it tramps on people's religious sensibilities.

NONE of these are good reasons to defend the legality of it.

So we wake up!!!! Better late then never.

Parent's should not have the excuse of religion to commit this insult to normal body integrity. PERIOD. I can't understand how anyone can argue this. They can always get it done when they are older. By their OWN choice.

As I said your point above has got me thinking... I will not be able to repond to this right now, Except that your reasons for why this has not been discussed in the past are spot on. That this needs to be discussed is obvious by the strength and depth of feelings here in this thread.

[Skelron]

Because religion is one of those issues that the state should stay out of as much as possible, once a state starts entering into the field of religion it becomes entangled in ethical mindfields, that the more it stays out of the better.

Skelron, I could not disagree more. The problem is that religion doesn't want to stay out of SECULARISM. Religiously motivated ideas are still trying to shape the world to their views of morality and causing unimaginable harm.

Look at the AIDS crisis in Africa that is being exacerbated by the Catholic church's denouning of anything other than abstinence as a sexual relations choice outside of marriage! They don't just preach it, they actively BLOCK education of contraception.

While true in theory not true completly. The main Catholic Aid Agencies actually do not teach Condomns bad, what they do do, is refuse to give out condoms, ((CATHOD for example the official Catholic Church aid Agency for the UK and head of the Catholic's Central Aid group for Africa gives out full and accurate information on Aids, but does not give out Condoms.))

Look at George Bush promoting the same thing in America when the major studies are showing this focus on abstinence only is irresponsible and indirectly causing a much greater problem with STD's and unwanted pregnancies.

Actually I think the main problem with Bush is he is too religious, and seems to want to bring religion into the state.

Look at groups like Focus on the Family who are raising and spending millions of dollars on advertising funds to reach out to fellow bigots that might join them in an outcry against what they consider to be the "perversion" of homosexuality.

ALL of these and much much more is being propogated by religious motivations. I'm sorry, but to my mind, this bullshit of "religious freedom" has got to stop. The only reason in my mind it was written into the early laws were the fact that so many people were bamboozled into believing they were going to hell if they didn't listen to the churches, that they had to stand behind the religious hierarchies when demanding they were enshrined into law as special exceptions.

Nowadays, we deserve better. It's ridiculous to have this kind of travesty so obviously responsible for promoting hatred, intolerance, and bigotry. Exemption? Fuck, I think we should be talking about EXPULSION.

I don't know about Focus on family, but I'd disagree with your view on the matter as to why they got codified. They got codifie because of one of the basic principles of many interpretations of Democracy... The Market place of the idea, that all ideas and ideologies be given the right to present themselves to the state, and the best ideas would survive and the worst sink.

Their is a school of thought that argues that this was the true issue behind McCarthyism if the market place of ideas could be allowed to be completly open or if the state had the right to ban certain ideas. I myself come from the position it must be allowed to be open as a place of ideas, ideas of course cxan be stopped from becoming actuality, but as I said before I am considering that point in regards to Circumsicion and so am speaking at the moment purely from the osition of ideas rather than actions.

[Justforfun000]

Okay see now I will feel an idiot because now I am willing to discuss the issue, because here you have explained why I may be wrong, rather than make the general statement that they are the same. I'll agree with you definition of Rape.

As to the issue of Male Circumsison in many places obviously yu are correct, it is an irreversable operation and obviously painful. The mental/emotional scars, I cannot say, and so will say that there is a fifty/fifty you are correct. actually you've given me a lot to think about, and if you don't mind I will need to think about this before I answer it fully, I am actually considering changing my view point on this issue based on your point here. things like this can take sometime with me.

I knew you were reachable for honest discussion. I personally feel insults are used too liberally here and more often than not it just inhibits the actual process of debate. I don't blame you for digging in your heels and ultimately thrown off the track of the true argument.

Some people are truly idiots and they are asking for serious flaming, but I do wish people here would just make a little more effort to fully explain their positions in a way that might reach out to someone's understanding than to fire little barbs of technically correct, but ultimately ineffective comebacks.

[Justforfun000]

While true in theory not true completly. The main Catholic Aid Agencies actually do not teach Condomns bad, what they do do, is refuse to give out condoms, ((CATHOD for example the official Catholic Church aid Agency for the UK and head of the Catholic's Central Aid group for Africa gives out full and accurate information on Aids, but does not give out Condoms.))

I thought someone had once brought forth evidential information on this. Maybe I'm wrong. If so then I concede at this time.

Actually I think the main problem with Bush is he is too religious, and seems to want to bring religion into the state.

Definitely

I don't know about Focus on family, but I'd disagree with your view on the matter as to why they got codified. They got codifie because of one of the basic principles of many interpretations of Democracy... The Market place of the idea, that all ideas and ideologies be given the right to present themselves to the state, and the best ideas would survive and the worst sink.

Well I don't know for SURE of course, but that's why I said "The only reason in my mind"
I still think I'm probably correct as part of the reason, but I have no evidence for it. (Damn it)

[Skelron]

Okay as a example of where my mind is going at the moment, not really wanting to support anything that causes unneeded pain. I would personally support a Ban if it gave time to religious groups such as the Jews to come to terms with the Change in law. That is say a period of at a rough personal guestimate of five years, yes thats five years of children still undergoing the procedure but the change would have such a mammoth effect on the lifestyle of the people involved and such a change to a Theology that time must be given for them to adapt.

[Justforfun000]

Okay as a example of where my mind is going at the moment, not really wanting to support anything that causes unneeded pain. I would personally support a Ban if it gave time to religious groups such as the Jews to come to terms with the Change in law. That is say a period of at a rough personal guestimate of five years, yes thats five years of children still undergoing the procedure but the change would have such a mammoth effect on the lifestyle of the people involved and such a change to a Theology that time must be given for them to adapt.

I gotta bettah one.

Only allow the brit milah circumcision (as in the days of old where only the very tip was removed), and they had to provide local anaesthesia. Any and all complications would result in full and complete liability.

[Skelron]

I thought someone had once brought forth evidential information on this. Maybe I'm wrong. If so then I concede at this time.

Because I have made this point before I felt I better prove it even through it has nothing to do with the debate.

From The CAFOD Website

There are around 40 million people worldwide living with HIV and AIDS, and every day there are 15,000 new HIV infections. Of these, 95 per cent are in developing countries. HIV can be transmitted through:

unprotected sexual intercourse with a person who is HIV positive
injecting drugs using a syringe contaminated with the virus
mother-to-baby contact before or during birth, or during breastfeeding.
unsafe blood products or medical practices when using donated organs for transplants or blood for transfusions

((Italics Mine)) I was unable in a brief search to find the information about them teaching this the site seems to have gone through an overhaul since I last visted. still if on the actual Website they say this it would be a reason not to get the record breaking grant they have been given by a Secular organisation for combatting AIDS/HIV in Africa.

((Page Quote from CAFOD HIV (If this does not work could a Mod clean up my link, I have never been too confident of my ability to post links))

[Skelron]

[

I gotta bettah one.

Only allow the brit milah circumcision (as in the days of old where only the very tip was removed), and they had to provide local anaesthesia. Any and all complications would result in full and complete liability.

Seems fair enough even the theolgy is covered, since it is an old procedure. If this is an option then I certainly Press for this as a personal choice on the matter.

[Justforfun000]

I wonder if Jews would go for it? It's an even OLDER tradition then their current one after all.....

We could only hope.

Now moslems? That might be a different ball of wax. Anyone know?

[SirNitram]

Remember that when, like the rules as to not eating Pigs etc, Circumsicion I think, (If I am wrong correct me) entered the Jewish faith during it's time as a wondering tribe amongest the deserts, perhaps at this time, and in those conditions corcumsicion was healthier, (As mentioned it should be for not cleaning your lower regions, lack of a permanment Water source may have led to cleanliness not being as important as it is today.) since then it has entered into the culture of the people. It serves as a link back to the earliest Jews, and a link to all the hardships they have suffered.

Whoop de fuck. You know what else serves as a link to the earliest times? Killing your neighbours and eating their bodies to expand your territory. Or we could use another one out of the Jewish faith, getting your dad drunk then screwing him so his seed is carried on.

In many ways it is likely that even Athiest Jews may Circumsices as a Cultural issue, meaning this has nothing to do with religion and belief in God, despite my using the word religion. (Used only as a seperator, rather than as the exact description.)

In short, you swap out 'Religion' for 'Culture' and beleive it also deserves protection just because it's culture. What if I come from a culture where it is acceptable to eat my neighbours? Oh yea, you don't consider that 'valid'.

I suppose I should justify my use of the word Atheist Jew, as it seems a contradiction in terms, as would Atheist catholic.

In short you want us to accept mutilation in the name of a sky pixie because it's been slavishly followed for so long. Glad to know your sense of morality remains nonexistant.

[Broomstick]

The problem with getting Jews to change their customs is that there is no one central Jewish authority. This is both a strength and a weakness. A strength, because they are so de-centralized they are almost impossible to wipe-out completely. A weakness, because some of them are attempting to live as if it is 5,000 years ago, which causes problems with the modern world interactions.

The other problem is that it's awful damn hard to impose something on a religion from the outside.

I don't know how practical restoring the brit milah would be. Perhaps, in a country like the US or Canada where the Jews tend to be well-educated and not systematically oppressed by the ruling authorities you could appeal to reason - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find at least some North American Jews already returning to the practice - but in a place like Eastern Europe where Jews have been held down, oppressed, herded about, rounded up for extermination, and have not had as much access to higher learning an appeal to reason may not work, and it being something imposed from without might lead to strong resistance. Which is not to say it shouldn't be tried. Just that there's no garauntee of success. It may work some places but not others.

On the other hand, the Jews can also be remarkably pragmatic. They might well settle for a brit milah from the mohel at 8 days, then encourage the boys to go "all the way" when adult. But at least it would be an adult making the big choice, not something forced on an infant.

[Edi]

Icehawk, you're a fucking moron, for reasons Mike and Keevan have already stated. Being circumcised means you have been damaged, and damage is real. Your personal preference and indifference to what you have lost without even knowing do not change that in the least.

As for the effects of circumcised vs uncircumcised condition, here's a personal account of what it means: I happen to have been circumcised as an adult for reasons of medical necessity that I'm not going to go into (and expect a "Fuck you!" as answer to any queries, by way of warning, it's none of your business), but the net effect of it was that I lost half to two thirds of sensitivity there, and a corresponding lessening of intensity of the pleasure when masturbating or having sex. In addition to that, it's less comfortable than being uncircumcised, even several years after the operation. Not to mention that it's easier to get infections as well because the glans is exposed all the time.

Now is there anybody here who is still going to claim it's not damaging a person to circumcise them? Anybody want to cite health reasons for elective circumcision? Circumcisions performed out of legitimate medical necessities (which are rather few) are okay, but others aren't.

Edi

Anyway as to this if this is indeed the point I cannot answer it, partly as too little is revealed here to address for instance you say you have suffered a large noticable drop in the pleasure youy recieve however, as the entire procedure is a result of medical reasons and you, for reasons I respect don't want to go into it, I cannot tell if this drop is a result of the medical reasons the procedure, a mix of the two, or just personal interpretation, IE subjective rather than Objective account.

Too little? Sorry, but I don't think so. You should know well enough what the procedure of circumcision entails, and I had that done to me? What more do you need to know? I had the most sensitive skin areas of penis removed and as a result of that my glans has keratinized, so there is nothing subjective about the loss of sensitivity. The medical procedure is objectively known to reduce sensitivity. As for how much the intensity of pleasure has lessened, that does have a subjective component to it, but it is far eclipsed by the objective loss of sensitivity. Not as many nerves that register a pleasurable sensation == objectively less pleasure. And I can tell you that the underlying medical reasons that made circumcision a necessity for me had nothing to do with the lessening of pleasure, but the circumcision that was required in order to take care of them did. Finally, like Justforfun000 said, it's insulting in the extreme that you presume to tell me that I'm just imagining that loss of pleasure. The rub here is, I know what it's like both cut and uncut, I know how much the difference can be, you don't, and you have no way of answering that. But obviously it's impossible to get any sort of meaningful concession out of you.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Okay as a example of where my mind is going at the moment, not really wanting to support anything that causes unneeded pain. I would personally support a Ban if it gave time to religious groups such as the Jews to come to terms with the Change in law.

That is fucking stupid. These people believe in 3000 year old dogma. They will never come to terms with a change in the law. The point remains that great pain is being inflicted upon infants, totally unnecessary invasive surgery is being performed on their genitals, and the only reason this practice continues is religion and tradition, neither of which justify jack shit. Don't be an asshole; religious people do not have some special right to circumvent or ignore laws until they can "come to terms" with them.

That is say a period of at a rough personal guestimate of five years, yes thats five years of children still undergoing the procedure but the change would have such a mammoth effect on the lifestyle of the people involved and such a change to a Theology that time must be given for them to adapt.

"Must" be given? Care to back up this bullshit?

[Skelron]

[ But obviously it's impossible to get any sort of meaningful concession out of you.

Strange have I not pretty much moved away completly from my position except for saying that time should be given to allow people to adapt. I would say this is a meaningful concession...

In fact I would say that that is a huge concession.

Anyway I have a point from Wong to answer which I shall do in a seperate post when I have had time to gather my thoughts about the point.

[Skelron]

["Must" be given? Care to back up this bullshit?

In what way, in that it is rare for a Law to be passed to come into effect the very next day, it is safe to assume that the governments and States of the world accept the principle that time is granted for people to understand and come to terms with a change in the law.

Having it already assumed that this is the case then, and when we are talking about a change that would have such ramifactions, it seemed logical without considering the other alternatives that such a long time would be needed for a change that effects such a sensitive issue. Such consideration I am sure is not without precedent.

I can only hope this answers your question but maybe I am missing something?

There was another point I'd like to adress a more basic one, that of Secular states and legal exceptions. It is not the case that merely inserting a Legal exception for a religion makes a state no longer secular or would show a state entering into religion. In theory and as a wide principle, while avoiding at the moment this particular example there are examples of such situations in most Secular states, for Example America grants Tax Relief to religious groups, and in the UK Certain Religious groups are exampt from wearing Helmets when riding a Motorbike. In these two cases the state makes exceptions based on the grounds of religion, without ceasing to be a Secular state, or entering into the realms of religion.

[SirNitram]

What stopped these people from adapting at the same pace of the rest of society, exactly?

[Darth Wong]

["Must" be given? Care to back up this bullshit?

In what way, in that it is rare for a Law to be passed to come into effect the very next day, it is safe to assume that the governments and States of the world accept the principle that time is granted for people to understand and come to terms with a change in the law.

If a law against female circumcision is passed, it typically goes into effect immediately. Got any better arguments?

Having it already assumed that this is the case then, and when we are talking about a change that would have such ramifactions, it seemed logical without considering the other alternatives that such a long time would be needed for a change that effects such a sensitive issue. Such consideration I am sure is not without precedent.

I can only hope this answers your question but maybe I am missing something?

Precedent != justification. Got any better arguments?

There was another point I'd like to adress a more basic one, that of Secular states and legal exceptions. It is not the case that merely inserting a Legal exception for a religion makes a state no longer secular or would show a state entering into religion.

And your reasoning for this statement is ...?

In theory and as a wide principle, while avoiding at the moment this particular example there are examples of such situations in most Secular states, for Example America grants Tax Relief to religious groups, and in the UK Certain Religious groups are exampt from wearing Helmets when riding a Motorbike. In these two cases the state makes exceptions based on the grounds of religion, without ceasing to be a Secular state, or entering into the realms of religion.

"Appeal to common practice" fallacy. Those practices do, in fact, represent assaults upon secularism by religious special interest groups. What part of "secular" do you not understand?

[Skelron]

Secular state is a state in which one religion is not dominant, nor connected directly into the running of the state. NOT a state where religion is non-existent.

From PolDictionary1

secular - not connected with religion or the sacred, as, for example, a secular education would be one that is not based on religious teachings or principles.

secularization - the process of becoming secular; the separation of civil or educational institutions from ecclesiastical control.

Cambridge Dictionary

secular [Show phonetics]
adjective
not having any connection with religion:
We live in an increasingly secular society, in which religion has less and less influence on our daily lives.
secular education
a secular state

secularism [Show phonetics]
noun
the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country

secularist [Show phonetics]
noun [C], adjective

secularize, UK USUALLY secularise [Show phonetics]
verb [T]
When something is secularized, religious influence, power or control is removed from it:
He claims that Western secularized society makes it difficult to live as a Christian.

No where in the meaning does it say that Religious needs cannot be taken into account rather that Religion should not dominate, nor one be favoured over the other, if for example a law was passed stating that all must become Christian it would end a Secular state.

The Uk is a secular state despite the CoE sitting in the House of Lords, as the Lords Spiritual, because the law does not favour one religion or another, it does however consider the implications that a law passed may have on a religious group, any religious group, and where possible would attempt to ensure it does not unduly discriminate against that group. As it would do in any other case where the will of the Majourity may act against the needs of the Minority, since the point of Democracy is not just to ensure that the wishes of the majourity are placed into law but to ensure the protection of the interests of the Minority...

Still you have a point, the example of Tax Breaks was badly chosen, but the Sikh Helmet one is not. In this case the will of the majourity would have adversly efected the needs of the minority, although this is clearly a different issue than the one of Circumsion, in that the choice to not wear a Helmet would only effect your own life.

I am unaware of any Law passed ever that has gone into effect immediatly, they may be passed to go into effect with all due haste, but I have no knowledge of a law anywhere that has had immediate effect, if you can provide a link to such an example in either UK, Canadian or American Law, I will accept my mistake.

[Skelron]

I hope I post this tidying of my above point in before anyone responds to it.

Anyway, a Secular state A.) does not need to have no consideration for religious groups to be Secular rather A.) it must not consider one group over and above another that is, it must treat all equally, and equal to how it would treat a Non-religious interest group.

Further it must Treat a religious group in the same maner it treats another Non-Religious group and must in Democracy at least, have the same respect it is expected to treat all Minority's. Religion is entitled to the same protections as non-religious organisations. Due to the wide reaching interests of religion, in that in it's organised form it is often Charity, social center, Cultural heritage and more roled into one. It can seem as through they gain more protections than non-religious organisations, but it may or may not actually be the case. (A further more in depth analysis than I am willing to do would be needed I think to have a definite answer here.

And I think I have lost where I was going with this... Oh yes, A Secular society does not need to ignore the interests/needs of Religion Totally simply treat them with the same respect as it treats other Minority interests. ((Assuming the religion is Minority etc))

[Keevan_Colton]

Skelron, even your own fucking defititions dont support your assertion there.

not having any connection with religion

That does not mean NOT favouring one religion over another it means NOT favouring any religion AT ALL.

[Darth Wong]

No where in the meaning does it say that Religious needs cannot be taken into account rather that Religion should not dominate, nor one be favoured over the other, if for example a law was passed stating that all must become Christian it would end a Secular state.

You're full of shit. What part of "not having any connection" between state and religion do you not understand? Special state privileges for religion are a FUCKING CONNECTION, moron.

The Uk is a secular state despite the CoE sitting in the House of Lords, as the Lords Spiritual, because the law does not favour one religion or another, it does however consider the implications that a law passed may have on a religious group, any religious group, and where possible would attempt to ensure it does not unduly discriminate against that group.

No, the UK is not a secular state, but it has a highly secular population. Conversely, the US is theoretically a secular state, but it has a highly religious population. Ultimately, the theoretical constructs mean little when the population will simply override them.

As it would do in any other case where the will of the Majourity may act against the needs of the Minority, since the point of Democracy is not just to ensure that the wishes of the majourity are placed into law but to ensure the protection of the interests of the Minority...

Still you have a point, the example of Tax Breaks was badly chosen, but the Sikh Helmet one is not. In this case the will of the majourity would have adversly efected the needs of the minority, although this is clearly a different issue than the one of Circumsion, in that the choice to not wear a Helmet would only effect your own life.

It is not a "need" to be an idiot and refuse to wear a helmet.

I am unaware of any Law passed ever that has gone into effect immediatly, they may be passed to go into effect with all due haste, but I have no knowledge of a law anywhere that has had immediate effect, if you can provide a link to such an example in either UK, Canadian or American Law, I will accept my mistake.

Gay marriage was pronounced legal in Canada. Gay marriages were being performed the next day. How much more "immediate" do you need, for fuck's sake?

[Skelron]

Okay I was unaware of the gay marriage Law, as I said you provided a law and I'll accept my mistake.

Still wong I would point out that your claim as the UK while technically true, would be viewed as not being accurate. The status of the Lords Spiritual is one of those idosycracies of the UK system, and does not remove from it being a secular state

As I already said the key factor is not that Religion is ignored and all it's interests automatically ruled against but rather that it be treated in the same manor as any other Minority is treated within the Nation.

I suppose the best way to explain it is, assuming that Minority group A.) Has a specific interest that is effected by a law passed, and assuming this group would have it's rights to pursue the lifestyle they want. (And that said lifestyle is not something that is obviously harmful to the general well being of the state or others) it would have the right to pursue said interest regardless of it being a religion or not.

That is the fact it is for religious reasons is not a factor only the strength of the feeling attached to the need. Religion draws upon strong feelings in unique ways but the general principle could be applied in a Secular state outside of the religious connection.

A Secular state does not IGNORE religious issues, it simply does not add extra value due to the issue being religious, but rather it being a strongly held Value. (Yes that may sound very much the same, but the differance is I hope important. In that the importance does not come from it being religious, but from it being an interest of a Minority whose rights must be protected in a Democracy.)

That the particular example included not wearing a helmet is irrelevant it shows that a Secular state can pass laws that take into account the needs of Religious organisations. (Or if you want to argue Wong, a Non-secular State with Secular people. Seeing as how Sikhs are not repersented by the Lords Spirtual only the CoE is.)

[Keevan_Colton]

Okay I was unaware of the gay marriage Law, as I said you provided a law and I'll accept my mistake.

Still wong I would point out that your claim as the UK while technically true, would be viewed as not being accurate. The status of the Lords Spiritual is one of those idosycracies of the UK system, and does not remove from it being a secular state

As I already said the key factor is not that Religion is ignored and all it's interests automatically ruled against but rather that it be treated in the same manor as any other Minority is treated within the Nation.

I suppose the best way to explain it is, assuming that Minority group A.) Has a specific interest that is effected by a law passed, and assuming this group would have it's rights to pursue the lifestyle they want. (And that said lifestyle is not something that is obviously harmful to the general well being of the state or others) it would have the right to pursue said interest regardless of it being a religion or not.

That is the fact it is for religious reasons is not a factor only the strength of the feeling attached to the need. Religion draws upon strong feelings in unique ways but the general principle could be applied in a Secular state outside of the religious connection.

A Secular state does not IGNORE religious issues, it simply does not add extra value due to the issue being religious, but rather it being a strongly held Value. (Yes that may sound very much the same, but the differance is I hope important. In that the importance does not come from it being religious, but from it being an interest of a Minority whose rights must be protected in a Democracy.)

That the particular example included not wearing a helmet is irrelevant it shows that a Secular state can pass laws that take into account the needs of Religious organisations. (Or if you want to argue Wong, a Non-secular State with Secular people. Seeing as how Sikhs are not repersented by the Lords Spirtual only the CoE is.)

Skelron you twit, the CoE is tied with the government of the UK, and in fact here, sedition is still actions against the interest of the state OR the church. We just happen to be mostly secular people.

[Skelron]

Skelron, even your own fucking defititions dont support your assertion there.

not having any connection with religion

That does not mean NOT favouring one religion over another it means NOT favouring any religion AT ALL.

Indeed perhaps nor does it say Ignoring Religion, a Secular state must still protect the interests of a Minority if it wants to remain what we call Democratic...

Religions groups can and do make up Minoritys... a Secular Democratic State is obligated under it's right to call itself DEMOCRATIC, to respect and protect those interests as much as possible. It may mean exceptions in Laws etc to allow people to continue in their chosen lifestyle etc. Of course the state has the right to decide that a chosen lifestyle is wrong but this is a right to be excercised in a democracy in the exception rather than the rule. (EG it can say Child Abuse is wrong, even if you are Culturally broiught up to believe in it, but not not wearing a Helmet. ((I know of no cultures that would say Child Abuse is okay... I simply used it as an example as I knew someone would bring it up otherwise))

As I said the secular state should not favour the religion because it is a religion... but because it repersents the needs of a minority.

[Skelron]

Skelron you twit, the CoE is tied with the government of the UK, and in fact here, sedition is still actions against the interest of the state OR the church. We just happen to be mostly secular people.

Did you know that the queen still has to pass any laws, that she can refuse any laws passed should she wish to? Did you know that It's the queen that decides when parliament shall break up and a General Election be called, not the Prime Minister?

Oh wait no... thats a tradition that will never actually be enforced, much as the Sedition law will never have the section on the Church enforced, hence why at degree level it is taught that the UK is a secular state, not a state with a Secular people. (Also please note that a Secular people does not = an atheist people but a people of a mix of religions to such a degree that no one religion can be said to be dominate.... Hmm not an absence of religion but an absence of a dominate religion anyway)