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?

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?

Good for Gregory! He obviously thought things through.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

Yes.

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.

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.

Do you think they are the same @JadeSquid? Why?

I have a problem because no girl is allowed to wear jeans. I also went to school with plenty of Muslim girls who did not wear a hijab because nobody said they had to and they didn't want to.

Much of their heinous behaviour is condoned by law. That's why the US still allows child marriage in some places.

It's what a Christian Bishop (follower of Jesus) says in trying to grapple with the essential meaning of Jesus's teaching. I raise this because I've not seen any philosopher in the ancient world criticise slavery as an institution.
Just to address the thread title, do you think Islam should be protected from criticism or ridicule by the law or should the law protect my freedom to say what I think about it?

I'm not sure why you keep holding up extremes in the US as representative. Do you live there?
This thread is about freedom to criticise all religions in the UK without fear or favour. I see a lot to criticise.
I'm actually horrified at schoolgirls in burqas, do they do PE? How do they eat their lunch?
What faith puts such strictures on schoolgirls, not even grown women, in the UK.

@JadeSquid

The UK has never been anything like a theocracy, particularly since the time when Henry V111 invented the Church of England, to allow him to marry, divorce and execute various wives. Since that time, the church has not been in charge of anything, it was always the monarchy, up until Queen Victoria, when there was a seismic power change from monarchy to government, with the church very much in the background. Up until very recently, the church had a massive (negative) influence in Ireland. In the US even now, fundamentalist Christian groups are very active and influential in shaping politics, particularly around such issues as abortion and women's rights.

The girls not allowed to wear jeans were in exactly the same place as those who wear a burkha. It’s all good as just diversity though?

To me this highlights the use of religion not just to control, but to weaponise groups. Henry VIII took that control from the pope wrt the UK and it was a cause of bloodshed for centuries. I see the same playbook between Shia & Sunni as between Roman Catholics and Protestants, same faith, different loyalties.
At the point where it causes more division than cohesion I reject it, because I can.

You seem to have a bizarre fixation with US fundamentalists.
I'm an atheist, I have no skin in the game. However the idea that any Christian democratic country (not sects, with no authority) oppresses others on the basis of religion is nonsense.

That is about power. Secular states also go to war and cause bloodshed for centuries in order for groups/families to maintain power or gain access to resources, or to spread political ideologies (eg communism). It is the state of man.

Yes thank you. I reject it also because of the treatment of women and girls.