-
Posts
-
I think any solutions lie in Secularism. First, a declared secular state, as is France, Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Canada, Holland, Sweden, Cuba, and many many more, approximately 120 other countries, even Turkey. Over the last 250 years, there has been a trend towards secularism, and approximately half the countries of the world are secular, most of Europe is.
Apart from Greece and Denmark, we are the only European country of any note to be a country with an official state religion. This fact in itself surprises me. Great Britain by remaining a Christian land is making its own problems for itself. As a christian land we must tolerate religion. Through official secularism, we can gradually play down and remove any priveliges religion gets in society. Thus, solving many issues around religion, and multi culturalism. I also think by going secular, and disposing of our own religion, Christianity, we are not foolish enough to allow another religion to come and replace it.
Hallelujah
You have described Hitler as centre-Left, drac, so your categories tend to be confusing and, dare I say, confused. I do think you’re acting in a rational manner insofar as you try to develop arguments from a set of premises. The premises aren’t totally clear, probably not to yourself if you’re normal. Most of us rely on premises which aren’t totally clear. That allows us to develop and grow as we try to clarify them, and as circumstances change. I do think you tend to be over-abstract, but generally your comments aren’t so clear a to clearly define your politics. As opposed to mine! I am a racist and a Muslim, a liberal and a communist according to various people here
If socialism is right wing to you, then you might actually be a communist, lol.
My categories are based on ecconomic policies, I don’t really see how social policies can be classes as either left or right wing, especially taking into account how accurate the horseshoe theory seems to be.
nd ISIS doesn’t need to win anyone over to their view, because their view is just normative Islam; similarly they don’t really need to recruit people either because mainstream Islamic texts do it for them.
That isn’t strictly true, as ISIS is very strongly in the Sunni branch of islam. I think a ‘normative’ version of islam would just be a literal interpretation of the Quran, without using the Sunnah or the Hadiths. Which is something that doesn’t exist as far as I know of.
Respectively disagree, it’s crucial. Allowing people who identify as Muslims to live here entails the continual acceptance of Islam within society. The continual acceptance of Islam within society means that it stays tolerated and protected; that Muslims who adhere to it remain tolerated and protected; and that the Islamisation of this country, and the wider Western world, continues unabated.
You can tollerate moderate (I don’t think a lot of people the media calles moderate actually are though) muslims without giving them a protected status. We are one of few countries that doesn’t have blasphemy laws, and should stay that way. Making practice of shariah illegal would also help, as it would encourage muslims to adopt British values instead.
And you posit war, but we’re already in a war as far as I’m concerned (albeit an internal one). Any nations that do threaten war on a people trying to rid themselves of Islam though, would be akin to somebody threatening to attack somebody else who has an infection or a form of necrosis, upon them attempting to stop it spreading through their own body. Those threatening to attack will therefore be trying to harm you just as much as the infection/necrosis is already doing, so more war it will just have to be.
I don’t think that all muslims have the potential to become radicalised, certainly some of them might do in certain situations but I don’t think a reaction against every single muslim can be justified.
Islam is an intolerant death cult of conquest and domination and it’s been fighting everything that Western civilisation is founded upon for the last 1400 years. A lot of the fighting of the crusades took place with the aim of stopping Islam spreading into Europe – it’s what thousands of men were once laying down their lives for to prevent from happening. But yet now in the modern era it’s been welcomed into the fold with open arms and labelled as something benign, despite it never even have changed.
I can see the theat that Islam poses much more than some others here do, but there are benign versions of Islam. I think thats something we can encourage (in place of conservative Islam) in this country if we can get past the media calling all critcism of Islam racist or islamophobic (a term that was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood just for this purpose).
Reformation of Islam will never come out of places like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, even Turkey is slipping back towards fudementalism. But I thinks it’s achievable here, and with any luck it might be able to spread to other Islamic countries with time. Even if that doesn’t happen we should still try for it here.
The route of avoiding conflict with Islam is reminiscent of Chamberlain’s stance towards the Nazis in WWII. The order of the day was to follow the strategy of appeasement towards a fundamentally dominating and expansionist ideology–a strategy of which did not work then, just as it will not work now. Chamberlain’s eagerness to champion co-existence along with his now infamous declaration that “there will be peace for our time”, right before Hitler then invaded Poland, should serve as a historic warning to everyone. Fortunately, the one guy who did have enough backbone to stare reality in the face, and of who possessed the courage and conviction do what was needed to be done, stood up, and he spoke a now famous quote which was just as relevant in 1939 in the fight against Nazism, as it is today in the fight against Islam:
I am fully supportive of conflict with Islam, but I would choose a different battlefield than you. As I said I think that Ideological means are enough to remove radical Islam from this country (assuming that we restrict non-intergrated muslims from comming here until we have made the muslim community reject radical members on their own), and we have enough ecconomic power to place sanctions on other Islamic countries that sponser terrorism.
Radical Islam supposes a moderate Islam, but there’s no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam and is inherently a radical ideology, and always has been.
Christianity isn’t a lot better than Islam, but there is now a moderate form of it.
There are, however, ‘Muslims’ who don’t follow it as they ought to – who are then labelled as hypocrites by actual Muslims.
The Catholic church has never done this as well I suppose then, or there has never been some sort of inquisition (nobody would expect it) to punish people who are not ideologically pure enough.
You have described Hitler as centre-Left, drac, so your categories tend to be confusing and, dare I say, confused. I do think you’re acting in a rational manner insofar as you try to develop arguments from a set of premises. The premises aren’t totally clear, probably not to yourself if you’re normal. Most of us rely on premises which aren’t totally clear. That allows us to develop and grow as we try to clarify them, and as circumstances change. I do think you tend to be over-abstract, but generally your comments aren’t so clear a to clearly define your politics. As opposed to mine! I am a racist and a Muslim, a liberal and a communist according to various people here
If socialism is right wing to you, then you might actually be a communist, lol. My categories are based on ecconomic policies, I don’t really see how social policies can be classes as either left or right wing, especially taking into account how accurate the horseshoe theory seems to be.
no idea what the horseshoe theory is.
Economic policies are hard to classify as left- or right-wing. Public spending can be either. Both Hitler and Keynes were in favour of public spending.
Social policies can certainly be classified as right and left-wing. Try racial eugenics, or deportation of all British Muslims.
I think any solutions lie in Secularism. First, a declared secular state, as is France, Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Canada, Holland, Sweden, Cuba, and many many more, approximately 120 other countries, even Turkey. Over the last 250 years, there has been a trend towards secularism, and approximately half the countries of the world are secular, most of Europe is. Apart from Greece and Denmark, we are the only European country of any note to be a country with an official state religion. This fact in itself surprises me. Great Britain by remaining a Christian land is making its own problems for itself. As a christian land we must tolerate religion. Through official secularism, we can gradually play down and remove any priveliges religion gets in society. Thus, solving many issues around religion, and multi culturalism. I also think by going secular, and disposing of our own religion, Christianity, we are not foolish enough to allow another religion to come and replace it. Hallelujah
Tapioca, welcome to the debate.
Secularism can mean a whole variety of things – from erastianism (which is the position of the Anglican hierarchy historically) or it can mean vigorous opposition to religious activities outside a church ( as in France during the time of Ferry and then the 1905 crisis).
You seem to mean the separation of Church and state – as in Revolutionary America).
I absolutely agree with this, but I don’t see how it would deal with the problem of Muslim integration??
Perhaps you could enlighten me.
No idea what the horseshoe theory is.
The general idea is that the more extreme you get on the left / right spectrum the more similar to each other they become. (I.e. State censorship of media, abandonment of individual rights, ect).
I know that argument – never heard it called the horseshoe theory.
It’s very superficial, but I can tell you more if you want a separate thread. It takes argument away on a sidetrack.
I think any solutions lie in Secularism. First, a declared secular state, as is France, Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Canada, Holland, Sweden, Cuba, and many many more, approximately 120 other countries, even Turkey. Over the last 250 years, there has been a trend towards secularism, and approximately half the countries of the world are secular, most of Europe is. Apart from Greece and Denmark, we are the only European country of any note to be a country with an official state religion. This fact in itself surprises me. Great Britain by remaining a Christian land is making its own problems for itself. As a christian land we must tolerate religion. Through official secularism, we can gradually play down and remove any priveliges religion gets in society. Thus, solving many issues around religion, and multi culturalism. I also think by going secular, and disposing of our own religion, Christianity, we are not foolish enough to allow another religion to come and replace it. Hallelujah
Tapioca, welcome to the debate. Secularism can mean a whole variety of things – from erastianism (which is the position of the Anglican hierarchy historically) or it can mean vigorous opposition to religious activities outside a church ( as in France during the time of Ferry and then the 1905 crisis). You seem to mean the separation of Church and state – as in Revolutionary America). I absolutely agree with this, but I don’t see how it would deal with the problem of Muslim integration?? Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Of course it is all theoretical. Muslim integration would not be a problem if there weren’t any muslims. I would like to think of it as using Secularism, over a period of time, maybe 5 – 25 years depending on numerous factors, to gradually shape or coerce society to willingly and voluntarily become religion free, or to enforce it if neccessary, so that practicing religion becomes an eventual illegality, and I strongly emphasise the word gradually. So with gradual changes
- Separate the church from the state.
- Vigourous sloganry, advertising, campaigns and anti-religious sentiment.
- Associate religion with occult and other defunct practices.
- Vigourous review of teaching religion to children. no religious schools.
- Using the excuse of “doing it for the children” to justify all measures taken.
- removal and dismantling of religion buildings, or to re allocate to other uses.
- portraying religion as an archaic negative practice best avoided, like the occult
- any remaining practicants likely to be ridiculed.
- general consensus of intolerance to religion amongst the public.
- religion to children illegal.
- religion for all, illegal
- no religion in society,
- a religion free country means no muslims to integrate.
A clear and concrete secularism with intention of making religious practice illegal. Of course it wouldn’t be a bed of roses, and there will be problems, but I do think it could be achieved with the general public’s backing and support. Im sure the vast majority of British people wouldnt mind losing religion. It could even all be bundled up in a new age Brexit – Trump – Putin package with pretty sequined ribbons on it
Of course, and ideally, Religion doesn’t have to be outlawed if people can just stop doing it, or such a tiny minority are doing it it’s of no significance. The above was a very loose suggestion with room for improvements
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!