"The monarch of the UK also has almost no power in the government ... Just the ability to veto legislation..."
Am I missing something? That's a huge amount of power. You don't have to use the power. The fact that you have the power will stop people putting forward legislation that they know you will veto.
(It's interesting to note that officially the UK's form of government is not a democracy but a "unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". The difference is important to lawyers if not citizens.)
"[B]y claiming the Quran as a basis for the laws of your country, you're inherently going to bias them towards Muslims."
That would be directly contrary to the Constitution (as quoted in my previous post).
Also, I don't see non-Christians being discriminated against in Western countries whose constitutions are clearly based on Christian values.
Good point about the "the 3 Abrahamic religions" being covered in the Constitution, though.
"In addition, it describes the details as being set in law, which means they're completely subject to change at any time, not an absolute right as we would consider it."
How do you make something an absolute right? You can't. Putting it in the Constitution (which declares your legal modus operandus) is the best way but even that is subject to change. The American constitution has had 27 amendments, most recently in 1992.
"As for the issue of the legitimacy of the constitution itself, the High Constitutional Court ruled it was illegitimate..."
So, unelected judges mostly appointed during a dictator's 30 year reign trump the will of the people?
"I don't believe 33% is a reasonable number to have voted on it..."
With respect, it doesn't matter what you think. The majority of people who voted were in favour of it. That's all that counts in a democracy.
If you claim there was systematic coercion, then please present some evidence and an explanation why nobody thought this was worth reporting. Otherwise, this is speculation and not relevant to the discussion.