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?

The UK is a theocracy, shuuuuure 😂
No mention of the Vatican though??
For someone so erudite and such a stickler for details and precision, I am surprised at the oversight, but finding colonialism and offense in everything must take a fair amount of your time and brainpower, you give a good show though

What the? That is a mad take I agree.

No, just by the awareness that after a certain point a foetus becomes a baby and that taking a life is an act which has moral weight.

I've had terminations and have certainly felt that as a heavy burden - even in the early stages of pregnancy. As a woman, you are not separate to the life growing inside of you, and the instincts to feed and to nurture can kick in very early. To seek to terminate/kill and yet feel the opposite urge at the same time is certainly a moral quandry.

This has got nothing to do with organised religion, but more the wisdom of one's own soul/spirit and the profound instinct of one's own body.

From my experience and in my opinion criticism of a religion, or any ideology, occurs when there is clear evidence of harm linked to some aspect of the faith.

Religions that don’t have much aspect of harm within them don’t receive criticism.

And in many religions, Islam in particular, there’s an overlap between cultural practices and what is part of the religion for specific historical reasons. I’ve been reading up recently about the burka for example and it’s a cultural tradition stemming from certain areas of the Islamic world. And other Islamic cultures and traditions and scholars do not subscribe to it, some even eschewing head coverings for women.

I found it very interesting to read about when France introduced the veil ban - it was slowly over a couple of decades, initially working with parents.

the impact was measurable in that Muslim girls began achieving more academically and in future careers, without it.

so it should be considered appropriate to politely and respectfully criticise such a practice, have the debates etc.

obviously this is more clear cut for fgm (and it’s important to note that fgm also occurred in Victorian western Christian cult for a while). I also have issues with circumcision, though obviously it can be a medical procedure that has to happen in later life for some teen boys.

Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism attract much less criticism. Obviously Judaism is very varied in the way it is practiced.

trans ideology wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t phenomenally harmful from all angles.

Most of Europe it is 12 weeks at most, and only beyond that in exceptional circumstances.

• 10 weeks: Croatia, Portugal, and Slovenia
• 11 weeks: Estonia
• 12 weeks: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Slovakia
• 14 weeks: France, Romania, and Spain
• 18 weeks: Sweden
• 24 weeks: United Kingdom and the Netherlands (in practice, 22 weeks)

We call it 'child marriage' because we have a concept of moral boundaries and of healthy boundaries in general, and that there can be inbalances of power which mean that some groups require additional protections. Minors being one of them.

BC means Before Christ.
BCE: Before Common Era.

No king was baptised and no prophets of Islam occurred before Christ was allegedly born!

AD: Anno Domini (Year of our lord)

The first archaeological evidence and credible records showing a community large enough to maintain churches and bishops date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD.

610 AD is 7th century.

That's your view of your pregnancies.

It most definitely is. Do you have an alternative perspective on my pregnancies?

"Religions that don’t have much aspect of harm within them don’t receive criticism."

Name some.

"the impact was measurable in that Muslim girls began achieving more academically and in future careers, without it."

Was that because teachers and students treated them better?

"Obviously Judaism is very varied in the way it is practiced."

And Islam isn't?

No, because they are your pregnancies. Do you have an alternative view of my pregnancies? Or her pregnancies? Or hers?

It was you who made the initial point. You were trying to make out that the only moral imperative about abortion must come from a big man in the sky. I suggest that humans have an innate moral instinct, and that the body has its own wisdom. Perhaps yours doesn't?

You could include the Vatican, though its population is less than 1,000.

But the UK, yes. Bishops sit by right in the House of Lords, there is a State church, and your King (an hereditary monarch, who succeeded his mother and will be succeeded by his son) is the head of that church. Nowhere else does that.

You said:

"No, just by the awareness that after a certain point a foetus becomes a baby and that taking a life is an act which has moral weight."

That speaks of all pregnancies.

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.

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.

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

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.

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’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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.