Criticism of Islam is a protected belief

[theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15272771/Criticism-Islam-ruled-legally-protected-belief-man-banned-fined-thousands-pounds-social-media-posts.html

I wasn't able to find the judgment. There'll be a hearing in February but it's not clear to me whether claimant's beliefs have already been tested for Grainger compliance. Either way, the tribunal will (also) have to address objectionable manifestation (Bananarama doctrine).

I've raised it here because of the parallels with Forstater. It's a constant refrain of TRAs that permitting Forstater belief is tantamount to attacking GR as a protected characteristic. They do not understand secularism (or the SC ruling).

Of course the situation is not the same insofar as Islam has not been written into our law and Muslims don't expect the rest of us to follow its rules.

Article 9, anyone?

In a secular society, any person of faith should be free to lobby for law changes inspired by that faith.

Indeed. It's a hallmark of being a liberal democracy. I totally agree.

And it's up to government to resist,

Why "resist" ? They could be very sensible changes that many in society would support. I don't care where your goof idea comes from, if it's a good idea (same with my politics).

The whole point is the delicate balance between the mass and the marginal.

A true democracy would be nice should recognise that as best it can.

I'm not sure I see a problem with that, even as a Rawlsian. If abortion is unavailable, at least exposure, rather than outright infanticide, gives the child a chance.

It's projecting to assume that 'love thy neighbour' was intended to extend to unwanted neonates. Sure, that's where we've ended up, for various reasons, and I'm glad of it. But I don't think you can give Jesus the sole credit.

Ok I see.

Better not to use the term 'British Isles' at all, but certainly not outside the period the English were attempting to colonise Ireland.

The first Irish king to be baptised was Óengus mac Nad Froích (430-489) of Munster, baptised at Cashel by Patrick.

Have you read the bible?

Christianity was around in Britain waaaaaaay before 600AD and Augustine (I am guessing that's the PPs drift).

Obviously it was suppressed (well, you'd have to) but when Augustine rocked up at Canterbury to convert the "Angels" (and religious jokes never really got much better) they kept on knocking on doors saying "can we tell you about Jesus ?" to be met with "What about him ? We've been worshipping him for centuries).

Of course Celtic Christianity elevated women and allowed them to be priests. Now I am not saying that is why it's not "remembered" but it does seem a tad misogynistic.

Which one ?

Oh and thank you for explaining that.
Funny enough it’s only recently that I have started seeing BCE and wondered what it meant.

I agree that majoritarianism is an issue. It's not enough just to take a poll. That's why we invented human rights: to protect the margins.

It's a quirk of English, I suppose.

Weirdly it's one fundamental part of British history the flagshaggers haven't gotten in a lather about. Which considering how passionate they are about history (sorry, "history") odd.; It's almost as if they are thick as pigshit.

I suppose it feels a lot better finding a new point of detail to argue than admitting to oneself you have no arguments.

People understand clearly the concept of British Isles, I am not doing a scientific presentation, I am giving an opinion on MN (while on the go and on a mobile) that suddenly veered into general history. British Isles will do just fine 😋

So no response to being called out over your ridiculous and frankly disgusting comparison of the US to Afghanistan and your condoned that you would be similarly restricted to Afghan Winn and shock, horror not be allowed to wear jeans in America?? All in your quest to ‘own the Christian’s’ or something.

Do you understand that it is not ok or democratic to have a law that outlaws criticism of any religion? And that currently there is only one religion whose representatives are demanding that?

Every single page, aloud so no skipping, from the start of Genesis to the end of Revelation. Catholic bible, so including the 7 books Luther excised. No paedophilia, no other incest.

Do you understand that it is not ok or democratic to have a law that outlaws criticism of any religion?

A lot of people think that "democracy" means "rule of the majority".

It doesn't.

It means "rule of the people". Subtly different.

People understand clearly the concept of British Isles

There are at least three possible concepts; the most familiar two are Great Britain and the islands around it, fine; or an expression of English imperial over-reach, accepted by most of the Scots and the Welsh (who are Brittonic). That version is unacceptable and it is offensive to apply it to Ireland, where it is not used.

You might call it child marriage....Or just marriage

Indeed, which is why Patrick, son of a Deacon, evangelised here after he was kidnapped by iris slavers.

Mentioning slaves of course reminds us that slavery is totally fine in by the bible Christianity (and the commandments give specific details on how you should treat your male and female slaves, just to be safe).

Well it's a good job we can criticise it then and are protected by the law in doing so.
3 cheers for the Enlightenment and democracy. No cheers for for blasphemy laws or Islamic exceptionalism.

You keep down your rabbit hole 5 steps removed from the original debate, it’s the only thing you have left, enjoy 😉

Thanks you, I have been thinking this for several pages.

I suspect in a place like the UK, the majority of people who object to completely unlimited abortion up to birth are not especially religious, or even not religious at all.

It's interesting what some of the policy points are that some think constitute a litmus test for being allowed to participate in society.

Totally unrestricted abortion? A rarity in any western country, even the most secular. On;y tangentially related to any specific religious belief.

Same sex marriage? Are people's memories so short they believe that homophobia is the only reason some don't think same sex marriage is a good idea?Presumably they don't remember that it wasn't even overwhelmingly supported in the gay community for a long time, which suggests that maybe there were other reasons for that perspective.

I also think it's odd to equate positions like the Catholic perspective, which says that all sex should be potentially reproductive, with "homophobia." Not noticing presumably it also disallows a heck of a lot of heterosexual sex people have and has nothing in particular to do with fear of anyone.

And where does living in a country with some very religious people, as well as people of many other religions or no religion, who are totally free to leave their religion, become the same as living in a country that is a theocracy?

The original debate seemed to be British people slagging off foreigners and religious reversible.

As a foreign religious believer I am in no way removed from that when I question allegations, point out errors, and protest at deeply offensive language.

Slavery is an interesting one. In the letter to Philemon, Paul indicates that the Christian slave Onesimus should return to his master, but also that the master, a Christian himself, should treat Onesimus as his brother. As so often, one would love to know how it worked out.

The Bible doesn't criticise any particular economic structures. It just says that everyone in them, at every level, is human and equally loved by God.

You’re winding yourself up into a proper OTT tantrum, but you do you

afaik, with neither the Dalai Lama nor the Emperor of Japan now combining temporal and spiritual power, the only countries that could be described as theocracies, in that the clergy form part of the government by right, not by election, are Iran and the UK.

On a day to day level, one of those is fairly secular, one of them is absolutely not.