Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 13:23:13 GMT 1
I'll rephrase the question then .
Does anyone want themselves ot their children to live in a country where religion dictates the law of the land ?
|
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 13, 2015 13:37:06 GMT 1
Those who think it is ok that the spread of islam in the uk is acceptable . And yes Ted I see you as one of the main culprits . Which is a shame as you come across as a decent intelligent guy most of the time . Interesting. So does someone stop being decent & intelligent as soon as they disagree with you? The term apologist derives from Platonic philosophy & generally referred to people who used evidence to defend their (often religious) stance. So to be an apologist for Islam, you'd really have to be a Muslim first and furthermore base your position on evidence (as opposed to for example Sophists at the time who used cheap phrases, polemic and rhetoric to win arguments rather than actually prove anything). See where I'm going with this? Anyway your definition of apologist is a bit of a nonsense. Where in the debate has anyone said that the spread of Islam is a reality, true, false, acceptable, unacceptable??? The debate is originally about the rights of people to  their gods in a way they choose at a football match & has moved into understanding & misunderstanding around cultural norms, behaviours and problems. Now, what I am really an apologist for is tolerance, decency, fairness, equality, etc. Aren't they generally seen as traditional British values? Or are you an apologist if you apply those values to Muslims as well? |
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 13, 2015 13:42:53 GMT 1
I'll rephrase the question then . Does anyone want themselves ot their children to live in a country where religion dictates the law of the land ? I think you'll find we do. The MPs Oath for example says: "I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God." We have a Monarch who we are led to believe sees herself as selected by God to hold the position she does. She is head of an established Church that are entitled to a block of seats in our legislative upper chamber. In court you have to swear on a Bible by & large. We have Christian religious schools all over the country that operate selective systems to protect their status & performance. I agree with you that we should have a secular state, so what's your plans for all the above? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 13:48:52 GMT 1
Absolutely not DeepSpace I like to hear other viewpoints , thats why I ask the questions .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 13:50:19 GMT 1
I'll rephrase the question then . Does anyone want themselves ot their children to live in a country where religion dictates the law of the land ? I think you'll find we do. The MPs Oath for example says: "I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God." We have a Monarch who we are led to believe sees herself as selected by God to hold the position she does. She is head of an established Church that are entitled to a block of seats in our legislative upper chamber. In court you have to swear on a Bible by & large. We have Christian religious schools all over the country that operate selective systems to protect their status & performance. I agree with you that we should have a secular state, so what's your plans for all the above? Yes you could abolish all of that for me . |
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Mar 13, 2015 14:08:29 GMT 1
Those who think it is ok that the spread of islam in the uk is acceptable . And yes Ted I see you as one of the main culprits . Which is a shame as you come across as a decent intelligent guy most of the time . There is no axe to grind with Islam, Islamism is the problem. Often confused by those on either side of the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Rigodon on Mar 13, 2015 14:22:52 GMT 1
Those who think it is ok that the spread of islam in the uk is acceptable . And yes Ted I see you as one of the main culprits . Which is a shame as you come across as a decent intelligent guy most of the time . Do you know how many countries in the world are considered Muslim majority? And what figure it is in comparison to those which are run entirely by Sharia law? The main 'culprits' of which we've either battered to shit recently / we are quite happy to ignore the human rights violations and to sell arms to - or simply go for a luxurious 5* holiday. I reckon they've probably beheaded more people than ISIS have in the last 18 months too. You can actually be a christian and drink booze in Turkey, Syria and quite a few other Muslim countries without getting beheaded you know... If you are so scared of being outnumbered, I'd worry about the Chinese. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 13, 2015 16:07:08 GMT 1
I don't think we'd ever have sharia law for the obvious reason that the vast majority of muslims living here are moderate and wouldn't want it.
But looking at population changes and the ongoing, ever increasing fundamentalism of their religious belief, I think its inevitable that we will eventually have a government that operates around general ( extreme) right wing muslim principles and beliefs. Uk will technically be a muslim state by the end of this century- thought that for a long time and as much as I want them to, no ones ever given me a decent argument why that won't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 13, 2015 16:33:56 GMT 1
Here's what I hope you might think is a decent argument:
I actually think that there is an ongoing Westernisation rather than fundamentalism of the young Muslim population. Of course "Muslim wears jeans & listens to non-religious music on a smartphone" doesn't grab the headlines the way another one heading off to Syria might do. Even bringing it back on topic for a bit, you see young Asian lads in particular, but even some families at football now (not many, but some) which you rarely did even a few years ago.
As they grow older there is evidence (as there is in any community) that their views become more conservative but that just manifests itself as a desire to do what previous generations did: preserve language, culture, identity, etc., not grab a gun & head off to sunnier climes.
Even population monitors that might be sympathetic to those anxieties (Migration Watch for example) don't appear to indicate anything like a Muslim majority over the period that it is reasonable to forecast (I'm happy to be corrected if anyone has a link). Over anything other than the relatively near future though trends become meaningless as you have to just assume that what has happened before will keep on happening, which is rarely true. To some degree the religious balance of the country is likely to be maintained due to the easier movement of Europeans that appears to cause concern in other quarters.
So, I think your fears are unfounded. Yes culture, values, demographics, communities, religion all change over time but it was ever thus. I think what harms people is jumping straight to extreme scenarios rather than just trying to understand how people are and tend to operate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 13, 2015 17:13:22 GMT 1
sadly no it doesn't.
I think what you say very much applies to other immigrant groups such as Sikhs, Hindus, Afro-Carribean, eastern europeans etc.
Don't see any signs of that will to integrate in muslims though. You hardly ever used to see a burka, now you drive through Dewsbury and practically half the women are wearing one. You couldn't ask for a more visual statement of insular relgious fundamentalism in deliberately avoiding integration. I sense a more dogmatic approach to their religion and culture in all sorts of ways.
3rd or 4th generation in and there is still no mixed faith marriages, no lessoning of the grip their religion has on them.
As far as population growth is concerned, the number of muslims roughly doubles every 15 years and has since the late 60s. With birthrates and immigration that shows no sign of abating, whilst at the same time the birth rates of other demographic groups continues to fall.
Its the combination of those 2 paragraphs that makes me think it will happen, whether its an extreme scenario or not.
Guess Ill be long gone before Im proved right or wrong, but it concerns me what kind of britain the grandkids will grow old in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 13, 2015 17:17:04 GMT 1
This seems to have swayed miles away from the football related OP, so would probably be better off over on Off Topic maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 13, 2015 17:23:15 GMT 1
I'll probably just shut up now like I said I would about 3 pages ago :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 13, 2015 17:30:10 GMT 1
I tried to do that, but discussions like this tend to lure me back in.
|
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Mar 13, 2015 17:53:34 GMT 1
the percentage of muslims when asked about the slaughter in France who said they did not condone it, 'BUT'....
was a real eye opener, or should have been..
if 'moderates' can see something such as this as an terrible over reaction, 'but'... you certainly have a problem..
once you accept that the reaction is hideous but should have been expected and could, at a bit of a push even be legitimate you move into a very dark area..
If drawing cartoons and being generally a smart arse about all religions and world leaders is a legitimate reason to be executed then we do have genuine and real time fears, founded quite legitimately.
btw, I don't think insulting someone because you are allowed to is free speech if all you are aiming to do it to insult or provoke.. to be fair to the French cartoonists they insulted everyone at one time or another and having read some of their stuff it was occasionally thought provoking instead of just 'provoking' but in equal amounts they were just obnoxious without purpose at times..
the problem arises when you start with laws to stop it and then that law becomes a swiss army knife law and is used to stop anyone saying anything that someone else may find insulting or offensive, it becomes thought Policing..
|
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 13, 2015 18:00:21 GMT 1
the percentage of muslims when asked about the slaughter in France who said they did not condone it, 'BUT'.... was a real eye opener, or should have been.. if 'moderates' can see something such as this as an terrible over reaction, 'but'... you certainly have a problem.. once you accept that the reaction is hideous but should have been expected and could, at a bit of a push even be legitimate you move into a very dark area.. If drawing cartoons and being generally a smart arse about all religions and world leaders is a legitimate reason to be executed then we do have genuine and real time fears, founded quite legitimately. btw, I don't think insulting someone because you are allowed to is free speech if all you are aiming to do it to insult or provoke.. to be fair to the French cartoonists they insulted everyone at one time or another and having read some of their stuff it was occasionally thought provoking instead of just 'provoking' but in equal amounts they were just obnoxious without purpose at times.. the problem arises when you start with laws to stop it and then that law becomes a swiss army knife law and is used to stop anyone saying anything that someone else may find insulting or offensive, it becomes thought Policing.. What were the percentages, and is there any analysis of what the "buts" were? You've jumped quite quickly from an acknowledgement they found it hideous to legitimacy there. I suspect that what a lot were saying was that they felt upset by the cartoons, felt there should have been some legal protection maybe but still condemned the action. That seems a reasonable position whether or not you agree with it? |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Mar 13, 2015 18:16:55 GMT 1
condemming with a 'but'....
the arguments are all 'moot' because its faith not facts..
we can alter our indigenous faith laws and have been able to nullify the first commandment for sometime now without a violent backlash.. these faiths have not been able to add a 'but' when these changes occurred.
now is the time for this country to say without any back sliding or watering down that everyone here abides totally to the law of the land and the laws involving religion are being done away with..those that cannot live with that without adding a 'but' to their affirmation on it cannot be here..that goes for all 'faiths'...
'blasphemy' has been removed from statute law here, there are no 'buts'...
the state has intervened time and again with faith laws because our citizens needed their 'firm hand and guidance?', lets see how they do on all the faiths...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 18:25:12 GMT 1
condemming with a 'but'.... the arguments are all 'moot' because its faith not facts.. we can alter our indigenous faith laws and have been able to nullify the first commandment for sometime now without a violent backlash.. these faiths have not been able to add a 'but' when these changes occurred. now is the time for this country to say without any back sliding or watering down that everyone here abides totally to the law of the land and the laws involving religion are being done away with..those that cannot live with that without adding a 'but' to their affirmation on it cannot be here..that goes for all 'faiths'... 'blasphemy' has been removed from statute law here, there are no 'buts'... the state has intervened time and again with faith laws because our citizens needed their 'firm hand and guidance?', lets see how they do on all the faiths... When has anyone not said that? I struggle to see the problem in someone saying, for example, "I condemn the Charlie Hebdo attacks, but found the cartoons offensive". To do otherwise seems very much a Thought Police argument. |
|
|
|
Post by otium (EPBS) on Mar 13, 2015 18:37:49 GMT 1
Try opposing religious stupidity then. If i was a genuine Pastafarian you would consider me an idiot but if i pray to Mecca and believe in martyrdom, Jihad and winged, flying horses i am clearly sane and don't need mocking! I really do not see a blind bit of difference. Religion is nonsense for the nonsensical. I agree with you on that, although you have to realise that Atheism is as much an act of faith as any other theism. You can't prove there isn't a god any more than Theists can prove there is. I can't remember the exact quote but someone said that if there's 100 different religions in the world then by definition a minimum of 99 of them but possibly 100 are wrong. For me though it's about making the case that people are basically people wherever you look. Once we start applying different rules to different demographic cohorts we have a problem. Target people that are bad because they are bad. Simples. Incidentally Oti, is this your real identity? No, atheism is not faith. It is a deep seated personal, science/mathematical belief that there is no God. I am an athiest ...but there is a minute possibility i am wrong in my assumptions. 66% of people believe aliens have visited the Earth...the chance of this having occurred in the 4 million year lifespan of this planet is something approximating zero...as it is with some all-powerful deity having created us. Real identity? Only in the sense i am real with a username. |
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 13, 2015 18:42:47 GMT 1
condemming with a 'but'.... the arguments are all 'moot' because its faith not facts.. we can alter our indigenous faith laws and have been able to nullify the first commandment for sometime now without a violent backlash.. these faiths have not been able to add a 'but' when these changes occurred. now is the time for this country to say without any back sliding or watering down that everyone here abides totally to the law of the land and the laws involving religion are being done away with..those that cannot live with that without adding a 'but' to their affirmation on it cannot be here..that goes for all 'faiths'... 'blasphemy' has been removed from statute law here, there are no 'buts'... the state has intervened time and again with faith laws because our citizens needed their 'firm hand and guidance?', lets see how they do on all the faiths... In other words, you can't produce either the stats or an analysis of the 'buts'? |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Mar 13, 2015 18:53:16 GMT 1
they are not asking if they found the cartoons offensive.. its an added 'but'...
the slaughter of unarmed cartoonists in the name of their religion is the question yes/no...tick one..
the murder of gays by ISIS and the slaughter of women and children using religion as a reason is a yes/no answer, there are no 'buts'...
I find all sorts of things offensive, loaded questioning is one of them. But in this case it did actually reveal the worrying deep seated mind set...
|
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Mar 13, 2015 18:58:17 GMT 1
deepspace..
I believe the stats are on the bbc website somewhere..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 23:19:43 GMT 1
What a stupid comparison. Breivik was one individual nutter, who targeted his victims for political reasons, religion had nothing to do with it. He was not thousands of religious nutters who want world dominiation and to wipe out all non believers. I don't think you fully understand Jihad do you? On the day of the attacks, Breivik electronically distributed a compendium of texts entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, describing his far-right militant ideology.[11][12][13][14] In them, he lays out a worldview encompassing Islamophobia, support for "far-right Zionism"[11] and opposition to feminism.[15][16] The texts call Islam and Cultural Marxism "the enemy", argue for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism and advocate deportation of all Muslims from Europe based on the model of the Beneš decrees.[17][18] Breivik wrote that his main motive for the atrocities was to market his manifesto.[19] So he was politically and religiously motivated. Check your facts. He didn't kill Muslims did he? He killed far left political white people you muppet. Go hug another tree and bang your head against it as hard as you can. Maybe instead of devoting your life to apologising for anyone who could be classed as an ethnic minority, how about asking their community to do a bit more to stop extremism? You know, like Muslim parents blaming the UK Police for not stopping their own children from joining extremist terrorist organisations? At what point are the parents not responsible? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 0:40:58 GMT 1
I don't think we'd ever have sharia law for the obvious reason that the vast majority of muslims living here are moderate and wouldn't want it. But looking at population changes and the ongoing, ever increasing fundamentalism of their religious belief, I think its inevitable that we will eventually have a government that operates around general ( extreme) right wing muslim principles and beliefs. Uk will technically be a muslim state by the end of this century- thought that for a long time and as much as I want them to, no ones ever given me a decent argument why that won't happen. Hey Captain- have you read Fukuyama - the end of history. I think you'd enjoy it. I did my thesis around it in my final year. Essentially looking at the dissipation/dilution of religion & the ever advancement of capitalist secular ideals. There's your argument and it's full proof. Decades of evidence all around the globe. This period of 'extremism' is an anomaly and it won't last. It isn't really growing it just seems so due to the media and certain political weak regimes in the Middle East. It's also been part created by the west's action in Iraq where we created a vacuum of power. Like certain African states this has enabled minority groups to get a stronghold. It won't last. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 0:59:02 GMT 1
On the day of the attacks, Breivik electronically distributed a compendium of texts entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, describing his far-right militant ideology.[11][12][13][14] In them, he lays out a worldview encompassing Islamophobia, support for "far-right Zionism"[11] and opposition to feminism.[15][16] The texts call Islam and Cultural Marxism "the enemy", argue for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism and advocate deportation of all Muslims from Europe based on the model of the Beneš decrees.[17][18] Breivik wrote that his main motive for the atrocities was to market his manifesto.[19] So he was politically and religiously motivated. Check your facts. He didn't kill Muslims did he? He killed far left political white people you muppet. Go hug another tree and bang your head against it as hard as you can. Maybe instead of devoting your life to apologising for anyone who could be classed as an ethnic minority, how about asking their community to do a bit more to stop extremism? You know, like Muslim parents blaming the UK Police for not stopping their own children from joining extremist terrorist organisations? At what point are the parents not responsible? Look it's ok to be wrong, it doesn't make you any less of a man. Read his ideology again. I don't know who you're referring to as 'apologist' tree hugger. They're just red top, silly generalisation which mean nothing. Why would I ask a community to defend something which doesn't reflect anything they believe in. I don't know if you know any Muslims but I do and I can assure you they are equally as disgusted by murder as anyone else I know. Do they take to the streets to campaign? No they go to work, gym, shops like everyone else. Your example about the parents, well I haven't read about it but sounds like what many parents might do- blame others, not that that's right. None of their other children have extremist views apparently though and the families are in shock. The girls in question were seemingly acting off their own back having been groomed probably. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 14, 2015 1:09:04 GMT 1
I don't think we'd ever have sharia law for the obvious reason that the vast majority of muslims living here are moderate and wouldn't want it. But looking at population changes and the ongoing, ever increasing fundamentalism of their religious belief, I think its inevitable that we will eventually have a government that operates around general ( extreme) right wing muslim principles and beliefs. Uk will technically be a muslim state by the end of this century- thought that for a long time and as much as I want them to, no ones ever given me a decent argument why that won't happen. Hey Captain- have you read Fukuyama - the end of history. I think you'd enjoy it. I did my thesis around it in my final year. Essentially looking at the dissipation/dilution of religion & the ever advancement of capitalist secular ideals. There's your argument and it's full proof. Decades of evidence all around the globe. This period of 'extremism' is an anomaly and it won't last. It isn't really growing it just seems so due to the media and certain political weak regimes in the Middle East. It's also been part created by the west's action in Iraq where we created a vacuum of power. Like certain African states this has enabled minority groups to get a stronghold. It won't last. I hope so. Not sure about saying 'it isn't growing' , when it clearly is though. Suppose time will tell whether its an anomaly or not. Logic, tolerance and basic human progression do tend to go out of the window when religion is deeply ingrained IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by bluestripe on Mar 14, 2015 1:18:48 GMT 1
What a stupid comparison. Breivik was one individual nutter, who targeted his victims for political reasons, religion had nothing to do with it. He was not thousands of religious nutters who want world dominiation and to wipe out all non believers. I don't think you fully understand Jihad do you? You're wrong. Breiviks appealed to the 'demise' of protestant Christianity in the face of 'Islamification', attacking the youth wing of a tolerant political group was a part of what he saw as protecting his religion from Islam. I'm simply opposing those who conflate the views and actions of who you rightly call 'nutters' with the millions of non-violent muslims around the world. And yes I fully understand Jihad. I oppose Islamo-fascism. Breivik seems to have had a religious motive, but he is a white Christian Norwegian who primarily killed white Christian Norwegians. It would lack context if there was widespread apologies from white Christian Norwegians or wider Europeans to other nations and faiths. As I understand it, he was also largely a lone wolf. If you asked European Christians if they supported or had sympathy for his motives, I suspect you would be looking at much less than 1% support / sympathy. Equally there are many murders of Muslims by other Muslims as the long list early in the thread illustrates. No I would not expect condemnation from the Muslim community as a message to other faiths / nations. It wouldn't make sense. I personally do find it very worrying that, for example, * 27% of Muslims in this country have "some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks" on Charlie Hebdo. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31293196. * I don't recall Muslim women ever wearing burqas when I was growing up, but yet I drive past a school most days in Bradford where perhaps 1 in 3 women dropping their kids off are wearing them. And I never get used to it. I find it unsettling and disappointing, both at the same time, the latter because I feel it is a step backwards in terms of living harmoniously together On the flipside, I come across lots of Asian men and women in the workplace and I don't really notice the ethnicity at all, which is really the ideal if we think about it. And if we could somehow get more Asians coming to watch Town (and we somehow need to at some point as Asian children represent 20% of total child population in Kirklees) , then it would be a sign of improved integration and maybe less burqas and threads like this! |
|
|
|
Post by Giggity on Mar 14, 2015 12:44:11 GMT 1
It was refreshing to hear Farage speak sense this week. There are a section of Muslims out there that want to kill us. Don't know why so many people want to ignore that.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 14, 2015 14:11:48 GMT 1
It was refreshing to hear Farage speak sense this week. There are a section of Muslims out there that want to kill us. Don't know why so many people want to ignore that. Yet again more polemic and rhetoric that ignores common sense. Of course there are people out there that want to kill us for ideological reasons. THAT IS NOT IGNORED; in fact there is a sophisticated (but not infallible) system at local level that keeps tabs on people like that. In terms of risk to your life, I'd say you need to be proportionately a lot more worried about people with severe mental health & personality disorders wandering around poorly supervised due to failings in and cuts to Probation for example. I'd say statistically speaking you are probably thousands of times more likely to bump into a mentally disordered (& probably white) offender than you are to encounter a suicide bomber. That's before you even start thinking about all the other far more prevalent risks to your life that are out there. But the likes of Farage continue to get cheap shots by playing on fears that are not based on the proportionality of the threat. |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Mar 14, 2015 20:36:10 GMT 1
why would the dangerous mental patients on the street be mainly white? other than there are more whites than other groups at this time? the murders committed by mental patients over the last few years, if I remember rightly, were mainly,NOT committed by white males?  a number were Asian but I feel the most were Africans...followed possibly close behind by east europeans. they may have been described as Britsh something or other or naturalised or asylum seekers etc... but not white british... agreed the amount of seriously self inflicted mental heath disorders has ballooned due to over use of drugs and alcohol, added to the fact that nobody is really expected to cope anymore without first being 'failed' by the nhs.. |
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 14, 2015 20:55:39 GMT 1
First I referenced MDOs not mental patients. Not really the same thing as anyone in the field will complain endlessly to you about. In fact the most seriously mentally disordered are amongst the least likely to get a service. And its a sad but true fact that if you are black you are more likely to be presumed to be violent and barred from services than a white person exhibiting the same behaviour so in a way you are right on that point. However I said probably on the basis that percentage wise most probably are white. Certainly they make up a statistical majority of MAPPA Level 2 & 3/Cat 2 cases. My primary point though was that you are far more likely to encounter a poorly supervised violent offender than be caught up in a terrorist attack. Both though in reality are statistically highly unlikely to happen to most people for the simple reason the overwhelming majority of the population of all races and religions generally are not violent people.
|
|
their gods in a way they choose at a football match & has moved into understanding & misunderstanding around cultural norms, behaviours and problems.
