Criticism of Islam is a protected belief

Education is an interesting word isn't it? To some people it means teaching what to think, to others it means teaching how to think.
When everyone is on the same page there is perhaps less strife, but complacency has it's dangers.

Not sure education is a protection against it though.

I should add, a contented populace can be complacent but a stressed populace can be leveraged to action.imo of course.
Exactly. Can I pinch that.

All it needs is a charismatic leader and an unquestioning populace. Limit education, stir in a bit of superstition. Jobs a good'un.*

Apologies for a less intellectual approach than pp who have given me a fascinating rabbit hole to scurry down at my leisure.

I should add, a contented populace can be complacent but a stressed populace can be leveraged to action.imo of course.

Nicotine? Caffeine (ld50 is 150-200 mg/kg I think). Alcohol & Sugar (some people could argue).
Define drug.

Yes.

Look at something like assisted death. People have all kinds of reasons for thinking it is a good or bad idea, and are totally within their rights as citizens to vote, lobby, etc, on those principles.

Similarly, if a movement arose that said that people unable to work, maybe due to age, or infirmity, or infants, were no longer fully human and could be discarded by society, and most people came to believe it, it would become reflected in the law in all likelihood.

I'm not sure how anyone defends the idea that only religions have "belief systems."

Where do you get his idea that secularism has anything to do with prioritising emperically based beliefs?

Secularism is about the state not adhering to one particular religious worldview and imposing it formally. I'd add, in modern times, that will necessarily also include non-religious worldviews, totalizing perspectives like Marxism, or even logical positivism which is where you get the elevation of empiricism as the only real knowledge.

This is still never going to result in a society that doesn't fundamentally reflect the beliefs, of all kinds, of the voting citizens. The point is that it is the people and their beliefs that determine, and to some extent negotiate, the worldviews of the society, rather than state institutions imposing them.

That's just someones attitude baked into law. same as a religious belief.
What? It's gone through a democratic process. Some religious beliefs also become law eg thou shalt not kill.
Secular is just a method for living in plural multi faith/belief societies allowing freedom of thought and belief within a balance of the common good. Everyone gets to express their beliefs.
Humanism is a belief system so is veganism. Both protected by the law.

There is a set of people who seem to think that everything is subject to scientific proof. They don't, for example, understand how historical proofs are made and try and subject historical statements to a scientific model, which is ridiculous. Richard Dawkins himself, in the past, has been guilty of this.

I think perhaps people don't learn enough about how we know things. It seems like it should be quite a basic topic, particularly for anyone going on to higher education.

Which dangerous drug? There are strict laws around the sale and advertising of drugs that do not seem to be being upheld.

But, in a secular society, there is no role in the process for non-empirical beliefs - metaphysics, magic, supernatural beings, gender identity theory, Lysenkoism, the withering away of the state, etc, etc. Article 9 ECHR specifically forbids the state to impose such beliefs.

And yet (to pick an example) we allow a dangerous drug to be free advertised and sold whilst at the same time locking up people for making and selling drugs.

That's just someones attitude baked into law. same as a religious belief.

Yes, empiricism alone is not enough to devise a morally 'correct' governance.

(hand shoots up)

"Whose morality ?"

(waits for answer)

But secular does not mean empirically based. We still enforce a morality system in secular life.

Surely fear of god is not a secular belief. Fear of other consequences perhaps. Interpretation of scripture doesn't require faith in it I suppose.
Forced teaming is often used. Identity politics divides right up until it needs the numbers to hammer home it's point.
Nevertheless, we can and do challenge these things, time, money and dedication permitting.
Religion (and cultural practice of it) should be no exception.

being anti-abortion and contraception is not confined to religious authorities. Women (and children) had it hard in Romania under Ceausescu.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770

Fear of god in a young mind, interpretation of scripture to justify terror, forced teaming of followers to create a power base.

That is not restricted to religion though. The same can be said about secular beliefs/ideologies such as trans ideology.

Maybe you are referring to me? Someone who has had two terminations, and who supports the right to choose - but who also retains humanity, along with a moral sense that is rooted in the human experience, and particularly in the human female experience.

No, I didn't suggest that abortion is always a trauma, but it can be a very difficult decion and yes, sometimes a trauma - for the reasons I've given.

You just don't want to acknowledge any subtlety at all in pursuit of hammering home your fixed, un-nuanced ideological viewpoint.

I was brought up in a faith and know, as friends, people from various faiths. In some way we understand each other. I've seen positive things done in the name of many faiths and I can see that many people draw great comfort and support from it.
I am also profoundly aware of the negative aspects. Fear of god in a young mind, interpretation of scripture to justify terror, forced teaming of followers to create a power base.
I would reflect that the weekly worship many of us grew up with, the reflective silences in a peaceful place surrounded by community, a few belting hymns ( good for the soul ) and some human company, was beneficial to mental health and wellbeing in a way we now label 'mindfulness.' Even the stroll in the fresh air to get there was unconsciously beneficial.

As pp has said, I agree our lives are driven by belief and faith more often than proof, for some people it gets them through the day, it makes them vulnerable. For the sake of social cohesion, what's taught in places of worship needs scrutiny.

I believe in God and am a practicing Catholic. I like the fact that my religion has internal coherence and a literature (in the bible and the tradition of the church) that stretches back thousands of years.

I don't need its truth to be scientifically provable fact.

Almost all the women at Mass wear trousers.

Empirically proved? Sure.

And religion certainly has strong experiential elements. But it's not unique in that, you could equally say that we can't prove familial love is real. But we wouldn't try to talk about it in those terms, that would be missing the point.

But metaphysics is closer to mathematics than science and there are types of proofs used there. And people talk about ethics or epistemology as a philosophical topic.

The realm of things that can be proven in a scientific sense is quite small, most important things aren't like that, but no one thinks that means they aren't important/worthwhile/convincing/etc.

So if no one chooses to keep it alive, is it then not really alive?

How long would such a state last, perhaps throughout our lives? If the wider community no longer recognises us, we aren't human?

There are certainly people who have made this kind of argument before.

It's a scientific statement.

You'd be hard pressed to find a biologist who didn't think a salmon egg didn't contain a life, or a fetal hippo wasn't alive.

It's only humans with ideological agendas that go so far out of their way to argue that being alive is defined by their subjective feelings, and self-interest.

I'll also say that if anything ever pushes the citizens of the UK toward a less permissive view of abortion, it will be activists pushing the view that being pro-choice necessarily means thinking that abortion up to birth is entirely without moral weight.