I was waiting for that one as soon as I posted my last!

(still, can't be too choosey as you get older eh Frum?)

Well, I am a lawyer, so that puts me in a more informed position than an ex-journalist, or whatever it is.  I've done a quick bit of research on this point, and found an appropriate stance articulated elsewhere.

Respect for all religions is guaranteed in our law - as long as the religion in question has a 'figurehead', i.e. Christian God bloke good / animist fuzzy cloud spirits bad.  But if any particular cause self-defined as a 'religion' causes no active or default harm to other people (objects have not yet come into it) as defined in english law, then they should be allowed on their merry way. 

But if you believe in any of it, you're a moron. 

But whatever your religio-spiritual take on things, digging, or lifting the turf at a scheduled ancient monument might well count as disturbance, which is prohibited by law. Before you can start doing such things you need written permission from the Secretary of State.

I look forward to organicfairy organicfairy (so good they named her twice?) letting us know about her organisation having such consent. 

Since the perpetrators of this act were clearly satanists, the local mob should have had the foresight to emplace stakes within the stone circle fire before proceeding to burn these weirdos, whilst prodding them with pitch forks. Just like the good ol days.

Of course if these freaks had the backing of shareholders and an obscene profit margin to protect, then they would be quite entitled to build huge electricity pylons on the sight, as in the case of the beauly to denny powerline which will trash many ancient sites.

> But if any particular cause self-defined as a 'religion' causes no active or default harm to other people (objects have not yet come into it)

Any law dealing with religion should only address the non-physical, since religion is by nature a conceptual, and not a physical issue.  There's plenty of other law protecting people and physical objects.

> Respect for all religions is guaranteed in our law  

> But if you believe in any of it, you're a moron.

Hmmm... an interesting juxtaposition of comments...

I'd be interested in what you think is the relevant statute law that guarantees respect, though...

arrr mr captain surrr, i was only trying to be funny...

it's true i'm a lawyer, and some of the principles in there were also true way back when i qualified (don't know if the law's moved on yet) - but it's always been a mix of concept and physical.  E.g. you can get done for intending to do something (concept) even if you haven't done it yet (physical).  And religions' harm to others can be conceptual (incitement to hatred), or physical (human sacrifice).  either will get you into hot water with the secular authorities, organic or not.

respect being my term for not dicking about interfering with other's lives, rather than a postive effort to admire something...

As far as I'm aware, there's no law against being a moron.

If there was... there wouldn't be many folks on the streets! 

The point I was trying to make is that human sacrifice, or digging up turf, or damaging religious relics or buildings is already covered by a wide selection of law, common and statute.  Human sacrifice = murder, for instance.  We don't allow people to volunteer for euthanasia, so I'm pretty sure we don't allow them to volunteer for sacrifice...

Of course, just because I suggest that law covering religious issues should deal only with conceptual matters, this is not the same as saying that law dealing with conceptual matters must be religious law...

dear mr captain,

most of our current burden of conceptual matter law is based on an outmoded victorian phase of christianity, and mostly protestant at that.  explains why brits as a national type are so repressed - our every whim has already been legislated against by Nanny.

you're right about the wide range of property protection - in this specific case the turf is covered (it should sue) - but the law also contains mitigating and aggravating factors.  i.e. if you rip up the turf because you're an idiot, you'll be in trouble.  but if you rip up the turf because you're a religious idiot, and in the process upset some idiots from a different religion, well then you're in double trouble, whatever the turf feels about it.  Which is where most idiots spend most of their time anyway.

Barack OBazza wrote (see)

... Since the perpetrators of this act were clearly satanists...  these freaks ... etc

Parky Again wrote (see)

i still resent being called a moron. especially by a lawyer.

Those ancient Mayans were a resourcful bunch though.

They had a ceremony called `The Mayan fire ceremony Gay wedding '(not legally binding) held on a beach in Acapulco. Only $10.500, a bargain

right that's it. teddy's left ear has just flown out of the pram.

i wonder what his eyes taste like. will they provide more of a choking hazard than apoplexy?

Parky,

 All you need to do is return to the language of your forefathers, then people will only be calling you a carrot!

(Not that it will make you feel any better I suppose!)