Criticism of Islam is a protected belief

We do know this! Only you seem to see it as a detail that (I) it's not endorsed by the actual law of the country and (il) even if it were, prohibiting women from wearing trousers is just not remotely comparable to prohibiting them from going to school. Not to mention stoning them to death if they have sex outside marriage.

Yet you have a problem with girls not being able to wear jeans in a specific community in America…. Funny you didn’t talk of diversity then.

Yes.

Schoolgirls in burqas? Co-ed was it?

(Still, nice to get the chance of an education. Malala Yusafzai was shot in the head for trying it.)

I went to school with girls in hijabs and burkhas, was never any barrier for us when it came to communication or anything like that. Probably because we were living in a diverse area and wasnt raised to be hostile to people who are different to us. The fact that you won't treat someone in a hijab the same as someone without one speaks of your character, not theirs, and not their religion either.

I imagine it is very likely because the teachers and students didnt treat them like shit.

Of course it does. If a Christian country oppresses people.based on it's religious beliefs, then that's as bad as a Islamic country doing the same.

There are some Christian sects in America where they have very strict dress codes for men and women. Especially women. Girls and women cannot wear trousers. I am surprised nobody knows this. These types have had major TV deals in the past.

Yes. But that isn't what the Bible says.

So then (here's that wheel turning again) you have people who insist that only the Bible is correct and anyone who disagrees cannot be "Christian" - pass the torches. Are you suffering a witch to live ? Because if you are it's hot pokey sticks for you. What do you mean "it's a metaphor" - pass the torches.

And if you ever dare to show someone up on their knowledge of a the Bible - well they have that covered. Because (of course) Satan will trick us and only a heretic would know the bits of the Bible to that could trick the unwary. (Unless you happen to have an ordained expert to spot such underhand behaviour). I have no doubt that Islam is similar (having heard 2 housemates have an argument into the wee small hours at Uni).

Any and all religions are contingent.. However by their nature they confirm power upon an elite and power - by it's definition - is self serving and over time motivates the elite to entrench the religion that supports them.

For perspective, we have fuck all idea what our ancestors were up to 4,000BC(E)-54BC(E) (and even then the sources aren't ideal). So Christianity is very much an experiment at this point

Both countries are very religious and restrict your autonomy based on their religious affiliations. I wouldnt live in either country for the same reason.

In fact, I'm probably more likely to be able to have an abortion for a pregnancy that is going to kill me in Afghanistan than much of the US.

I remembered another Bible incest, and it's a big one, Abraham and his wife and also his sister, Sarah. That whole family did a lot of marrying in, but mostly confined it to cousins.

I'm still waiting for @JadeSquid to explain the equality sign she sets between the US and Afghanistan, and I'm sure I'm not alone in being expectant. Perhaps you could start by pointing a right that Afghan women have and US women don't? Do educate me!

Good for Gregory! He obviously thought things through.

Bishop Gregory of Nyssa 372 to 376

https://placefortruth.org/gregory-of-nyssa-a-lone-voice-against-slavery/

For Gregory, this pagan mindset had to be discarded. In fact, this division was a sin and a product of pride. “When someone turns the property of God into his own property and arrogates dominion to his own kind, so as to think himself the owner of men and women, what is he doing but overstepping his own nature through pride, regarding himself as something different from his subordinates?”[8]

Besides, Gregory points out, how can anyone put a price on a human being? “What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling the being shaped by God?

I’m not sure what your comment is referring to but maybe your example demonstrates part of the issue.

There may have been some burning of people by Christians back in medieval times but that was hundreds of years ago. Mainstream Christian views have transformed since then (despite PPs rather bizarre claims about not being allowed to wear jeans in America).

On the other hand, there is a whole list of many terrible Islamic practices that maim or kill many people and affect millions in various countries.

Some people who support those practices live here. They would quite like to import those practices and are making some headway in laying the foundations. There are already 70-80 sharia courts here. They apparently have limited ‘jurisdiction’ at the moment but we have already seen how ready the authorities are to turn a blind eye and the willingness of some to exploit that.

Our laws are only as good as our level of enforcement. If we allow a parallel sharia ‘legal’ system to be established, the boundaries will keep being pushed further and further until our legal system is fatally undermined.

There are many Muslims who have come to this country to get away from the extremist practices. They want to live quietly and harmoniously alongside with us in mutual toleration. We would be letting them down as well as ourselves if we allow criticism of any aspect of the religion to be shut down.

There are always going to be extremists pushing and weaponising our laws against us, we can’t allow ourselves to be silenced - then they will win.

That’s not a theocracy, though. The Vatican is a theocracy because priests are also the government.

The UK is not a theocracy because priests only have a ‘seat at the table’. Last time I looked, King Charles wasn’t ordained, nor was there any requirement for him to be ordained.

A situation where a lay member of the state church is also its head is a means of keeping the church under lay/state control. Very different from the church running the state.

The legend is that Onesimus became a bishop. There was a bishop of that name historically, but it’s not known whether it was the same man.

Yes. It’s interesting how determined some PPs are to derail this thread and consistently refuse to acknowledge the point.

Angela Rayner spent time fawning embarrassingly over Muslim groups and pushing forward their agendas. Keir Starmer regularly meets with muslim groups and makes them huge promises, yet Muslims are only 6% of the population.

From the article linked below:

“The Labour Party is supporting the creation of a new Muslim leadership group intended to become the primary point of engagement between Keir Starmer’s government and Muslim communities in the UK, Middle East Eye can exclusively reveal.
A draft document setting out plans for the network seen by MEE describes its core objectives as including “to influence public policy in a way that safeguards and promotes the rights of British Muslims”, and “to influence the media debate around Muslims in Britain”

www.middleeasteye.net/news/new-muslim-group-supported-labour-aims-challenge-mcb

We cannot let our own government curtail our free speech and ability to criticise religions - especially when certain aspects of Islam are utterly incompatible with our society.

Using words like "harm" demonstrate the circularity of arguments.

Christians burned people alive with the logic that it saved peoples souls. Obviously like all aspects of religion it was used to oppress women, but it wouldn't have happened without the belief it was preventing harm.

It’s bizarre anyone would claim it’s us and Iran, what’s the motivation?

A theocracy is a governmental system in which a supreme deity is considered the ultimate authority guiding civil matters. Only one modern nation, Iran, is widely considered to be a theocratic republic.

No it isn't we have separation of church and state. We have no blasphemy laws, we do not criminalise apostates.

The subject of this thread has nothing to do with abortion or which religions are best. It's a huge judgement in favour of the right to freedom of speech about religions. No blasphemy laws in this country.

It effects very little of the way England functions. But that has not stopped people using the term on this thread as though there were any other theocracies anywhere.

Technically it is. Nowhere else has the same church/state entanglement.

You presumably know why our monarch is the head of a church his ancestor created. It's a matter of little significance in today's England, though I'd prefer no significance.

I'd be surprised if no other country at all does it (bypassing Vatican) but can't be arsed to check. Places like Iran and Israel overthrew monarchs to install theocratic leaders, iirc. The UK is not a theocracy.

Was that because teachers and students treated them better?

This is an interesting question. I wonder if the study looked at the reasons why? I can imagine there are multiple reasons why girls/women might achieve more when they are not veiled. Aside from the physical restrictions, I imagine that there is also a social element. It seems likely that girls who are not obligated to cover their faces can communicate / interact / develop social relationships more easily. Also it can't be easy for a teacher to meaningfully connect to students whose faces are covered even if they aren't prejudiced against students on the basis of their religion. I guess there could also be all sorts of prejudices at play, for example, perhaps an assumption that veiled girls will not be entering into the world of work anyway. I don't think I've ever seen a veiled woman in a work situation even in places where women routinely wear veils (in the UK). I think ultimately veils are a barrier to communication and social interaction and that will obviously impact both the woman and those who might interact with her in different ways.