The problem here is an equivocation of the word 'belief'.
In common parlance we would use 'belief system' to point towards religious belief.
So we might agree that atheism is a position on a single issue, but I would still not say atheism itself is bound up in a belief system of any kind, there may be some commonly associated ideas, but these are not necessary for atheism, and certainly not themselves a belief system in an meaning of the term other than simply a set of ideas.
To call atheism a belief system is to call being Lib Dem a belief system or a fan of ice hockey a belief system, it renders the word meaningless as it is universally applicable.
Tynan, I already explained this point. The law protects beliefs systems. It does not say that atheism or veganism is a belief system. But the guidance recognises that atheism may be a key part of a belief system for some atheists. To the extent that a person has such a belief system, the guidance suggests it is protected by the Bill.
It does not in anyway set up rights or benefits for persons on a categorical basis.
So the complaint that atheism is not necessarily a belief system is to miss the point, because the law only kicks in where there is such a belief system.
Tynan, I already explained this point. The law protects beliefs systems. It does not say that atheism or veganism is a belief system. But the guidance recognises that atheism may be a key part of a belief system for some atheists. To the extent that a person has such a belief system, the guidance suggests it is protected by the Bill.
It does not in anyway set up rights or benefits for persons on a categorical basis.
So the complaint that atheism is not necessarily a belief system is to miss the point, because the law only kicks in where there is such a belief system.