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?

Yes, the energetic derailing by PPs who wish to obscure that point and use whataboutery to take the focus away from the rollover g to stop us is informative.

I don’t see why they would find it so controversial to be able to treat and criticise all religions equally.

It is important for the freedom of any society that all religions (and belief systems more generally) can be criticised and challenged.

It is also important that the aspects of the belief systems that are being challenged actually exist, relate to a specific defined belief and are not being mis-attributed or invented by the critic. I am prepared to believe there are sub-groups within American Christianity whose female members do not wear trousers, but suspect they are very small and niche. Amish. Maybe Mennonites - who else?

It is important for the freedom of any society that all religions (and belief systems more generally) can be criticised and challenged.

The hallmark of real science is that it actively welcomes challenges. If you can prove it wrong then brilliant, because it means we have to carry on looking.

The hallmark of woo is it actively avoids challenges and engineers a framework that cannot be challenged.

Nice!

Do you live in Far Fetched? Or maybe Long Trolling?

Religion can't be proved wrong. It also can't be proved right, because it isn't science. It derives from belief.

Yes, and you can't reason them out of it, much to the frustration of poor old Richard Dawkins.

It's important to know which beliefs are metaphysical and unfalsifiable though, so we don't make the mistake of basing laws on them (looking at you, GRA).

I don’t see why they would find it so controversial to be able to treat and criticise all religions equally.

The $64,000 question.

Nobody’s saying any other religion should have an elevated status and be protected from criticism, including the established Church. We’re just saying there should be a level playing field and NO religion should be above reproach or criticism.

Apart from the chilling effect on free speech and democracy which would make giving Islam a special status in this way a complete no-no, surely any religion worth its salt can cope with a bit of challenge without melting down like a recalcitrant toddler.

They're just not very bright. They see that Muslims are hated, so they think Something Must Be Done.

They didn't learn the lesson from antisemitism.

Sometimes but not always criticism of Israel's actions is a proxy for Jew-hatred.

Sometimes but not always criticism of Islamic and Islam-adjacent cultural practices is a proxy for Muslim-hatred.

We have perfectly good laws to enable criticism of ideas and policies without encouraging hate (brief summary: play the ball, not the man). We don't need more.

Good Lord.
The church I attend intermittently - I'm not a regular - is in a small rural parish. The organist is gay. His partner is a churchwarden. One of the members of the PCC is gay. The organist's family also attend church. I think I am correct in saying that his nephew is gay, but I could be wrong there.

Nobody seems remotely bothered by this state of affairs.

A friend of mine is a churchwarden in an urban parish. She was very upset recently when their director of music moved. He was gay, too.

I'm not sure we're living on the same planet.

Are the single-sex environments inclusive of men who say they are women?

You can prove religion ‘right’ in the sense that you can show that the events referred to have some historical basis. The belief comes in when choosing what significance that has to you, personally.

And we operate mostly on belief rather than proof. When I choose to stand around in the rain waiting for a bus, I don’t have any proof it’s going to turn up until I actually see the bus.

We can also prove lots of things without science - the entire series of employment tribunals we are currently following are trying to prove the plaintiffs’ case using methods that predate modern science. Legal proof as opposed to scientific proof. You could probably prove that Elizabeth I owned a particular necklace without reference to science - historical proof. Science is not the be-all and end-all of proving things; it’s one of many tools. A powerful one, but not the only one.

PE was generally single sex my day but not a single sex environment. If we were on the field it was likely so were the boys doing their sport. If in the hall then boys may be too or walking through. If in a swimming pool then the lifeguard may be male. And in all circumstances outside changing rooms there may be PE teachers. So if religious belief required a girl to cover up either a Burka in the presence of men then that would have extended to PE.

You couldn't effectively do PE in a burqa, it inhibits normal activities let alone exercise. Pp started talking of 'modest' clothing, which we've seen when Islamic countries allow women's sport, they're obviously a long way from a burqa. I struggled to take pp seriously, but I can believe at this point that there are schools in England where girls are veiled, and I don't think that's good for many reasons.
I watched a Stacy Dooley doc about Luton and she niqabbed up with some young girls who seemed to enjoy the attention in the same way as pushing school uniform rules. The niqabbed woman who called Stacy an unwrapped sweet dropped on the floor because she wasn't covered was a bit unpleasant, but everywhere has it's arseholes.
I prefer to see people's faces, it's jarring not to, but hey it saves on sunscreen, and is probably quite anti-aging.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Trans ideology is not secular, because it's doctrine-based rather than empirical.