If they harm no-one, why?
Purely because they are stupid. Why would you want to maintain stupidity?
As for the pork ban; it may have had a basis in the past because of climate and storage, but no longer.
I don't particularly want to maintain stupidity, but if it's hamless, and they believe it's important, why not let them carry on?
So you'll be campaigning and complaining about all the other stupid practices then?
Pagans - stonehenge, equinox etc
Catholics - confessional, abortion, contraception, sacrements, etc
Christians - communion, baptism, pilgrimages, etc
Bhuddists - meditation, mantras, mudras, etc
Judaism - circumcision, mitzvah, kosher, etc
Sikhism - kesh, kanga, kacchera, etc
Need I go on?
Or suggest to christians that baptism is not neccessary, or to catholics that confession is not neccessary, or to pagans that stonehenge is just a bunch of stones.
Yes. Why is stupidity not allowed to be contradicted merely because we must "respect the belief of others" no matter how ridiculous.
Of course you can object agianst stupidity. I've been doing enough of it.
On these particular issues, which are relatively harmless, (Except FGM, circumcision, abortion, contraception, etc.) I wish you luck but I'm out.
Before anyone suggests that I have supported FGM, that would be a complete, blatant and utter lie.
Any previous discussion has been about whether it's an Islamic practice or not. No-one on this forum has ever supported or defended it.
They made a decision based on economics. No-one was offended or potentially offended, except those that want to make racially motivated comments.
Then charge more for the speciality - either way round.
What about a school with a muslim or jewish majority? Should the non-believers not be allowed a bacon sandwich?
Is it sesnsible to introduce another layer of administration, or to remove a layer of monitoring?
I'd prefer the latter.
The non-believers can eat as many bacon sandwhiches as they like. They're just not available at school.
If I go on an aeroplane, should I complain because they have only two or three options on the menu? Pehaps I ought to insist on roast chicken, or some decent crackling with my pork, even though the options are beef or vegetarian lasagne.
[
I suspect you may reply that they should not.
Eating by democracy?
No eating by what's available, otherwise we'd all be insisting on our right to eat what we like even though it's not available/out-of-season/too expensive/not practical/not healthy, etc.