[Pierre]

I love a bit of religious snobbery.

I think it's hilarious.

I think the judge interpreted it just fine, you can't have double standards as were applied in the 1970's on the same question

Lord Denning in Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697, 707 acknowledged that Buddhist temples were “properly described as places of meeting for religious worship” but he referred to them as “exceptional cases” without offering any further explanation. The need to make an exception for Buddhism (which has also been applied to Jainism and Theosophy), and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for it, are powerful indications that there is something unsound in the supposed general rule.

also the Act from the 1855 has now been superseded by European and our own equality acts.

Individuals have a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under article 9 of the European Convention. They enjoy the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of religion or belief under EU Council Directive 2000/78/EC

In regards to funding, a church needs to be funded. Should we discriminate against a new religion just because they haven't been around for a millenia to rape the land and acquire a massive property portfolio to fund themselves.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:44 ----------

Originally Posted by richard s

I always thought that if you are religious you have to believe in a supreme being/s.

Do scientologists believe in a supreme being.

Yes they do, the believe that man needs to believe in a supreme being.

I don't believe they name any particular being, or beings.

In Scientology, the concept of God is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic—the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being