From: max_demian@bigfoot.com 
  
 On 04/08/2025 10:24, Jon Ribbens wrote: 
 > On 2025-08-04, Jeff Gaines  wrote: 
 >> On 03/08/2025 in message <5996360858.0795274f@uninhabited.net> Roger 
 >> Hayter wrote: 
 >> 
 >>>> Yes, why should any one religion have precedence? It would refer to 
 >>>> "religion" (to be defined) rather than each specific religion. 
 >>> 
 >>> I'm rather confused; what law are you referring to that protects one 
 >>> religion 
 >>> more than another? Are you sure they just haven't been any attempts to 
 >>> persecute or whip up hatred agains members of most religions? Are you 
 sure 
 >>> that a serious threat to persecute or kill methodists would not be 
 severely 
 >>> punished in the unlikely event that it happened? 
 >> 
 >> I have pruned this, it's getting a bit long. 
 >> 
 >> The various laws relating to antisemitism protect the Jewish faith, I am 
 >> not aware of anything similar for other faiths. 
 > 
 > They don't exist for other faiths because they don't exist for Judaism 
 > either. 
 > 
 > (The only specific Jewish exemption I can think of is the Marriage Act 
 > one that says marriages "according to the usages of the Jews" are valid. 
 > It also explicitly allows marriages "according to the usages of the 
 > Society of Friends (commonly called Quakers)", which is an amusing 
 > historical artefact.) 
  
 How would that work for Quakers, who can marry themselves with no-one 
 officiating? How would their marriages be recorded? 
  
 And, apparently, Muslims often don't bother to register their marriages 
 with the civil authorities so the law doesn't apply to them. 
  
 -- 
 Max Demian 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)