Muslims must integrate more

Tapioca wrote:

Separate the church from the state.

This is difficult to do in the UK, as the monarch is head of the Church Of England. Technically the monarchy is chosen by God under the UK constitution, so entirely seperating the church from the state would probably also mean becomming a republic. Religion also isn’t very important in politics in contrast to somwhere like the US that does have seperation, but you have to openly be a christian to have any real chance of getting into the higher positions.

Tapioca wrote:

Vigourous sloganry, advertising, campaigns and anti-religious sentiment.

The media would be able to do this against Christianity, but it would be difficult to get them to do this to Islam. They would just call you racist for suggesting it. There has to be other changes in society before this can be done.

Tapioca wrote:

Associate religion with occult and other defunct practices.

I think that most atheists already do this, although human nature demands some kind of beliefs. I myself have some spiritual beliefs, even though I know they are factually incorrect.

Tapioca wrote:

Vigourous review of teaching religion to children. no religious schools.

This is a weird one for me, I actually have some level of support for religious schools if they actually teach things that are factually accurate. I don’t like the idea of the state having a monopoly on education (SHR is going to call me a libertarian again now), it gives them too much power to indoctrinate children into their own ideology (be it communism, nazism or something else). I home school my children because I don’t trust the state school system to provide them with an accurate view of the world, from my own experiences and discussions I have had with other parents in the past.

Tapioca wrote:

Using the excuse of “doing it for the children” to justify all measures taken.

I’m not really a fan of this kind of logic either, it is nearly always used with the assumption that the person saying it has the ‘right’ opinion in an argument.

Tapioca wrote:

removal and dismantling of religion buildings, or to re allocate to other uses.

I disagree with this one quite strongly, many religious buildings are very old and shouldn’t be destroyed. Even if we were able to completely remove religion, these buildings should be reserved for historical use only, to teach people what used to be believed and how they practiced those religions.

Tapioca wrote:

portraying religion as an archaic negative practice best avoided, like the occult

I’m not really a fan of this either, it should be portrayed accurately. Which is nearly always negative I admit.

Tapioca wrote:

any remaining practicants likely to be ridiculed.

general consensus of intolerance to religion amongst the public.

It depends on the level and seriousness of the ridicule you are suggesting.

Tapioca wrote:

religion to children illegal.

religion for all, illegal

I think it is very dangerous to make any belief or idea illegal, those laws can later be applied to other things, like disagreeing with the government. This is what happened with state inforced atheism in the Soviet Union for example.

Tapioca wrote:

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

I don’t think there actually would be much support for this. I am an atheist, I would happily erase religion from the world if it were possible. But I don’t support most of the methods you have suggested.

Tapioca wrote:

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

I have given a basic response to your suggestion, and I am happy to go into more detail with you over it. It doesn’t really do much to deal with the current problem we are having with Islam though. It’s already illegal both to steal lorries, and to run people over. But people still do it anyway, making something illegal isn’t a fix-all solution.

draculina wrote:

making something illegal isn’t a fix-all solution.

I agree. But it is a deterrent, and it gives the law – the state – the public, the right to softly clamp down on any dissent, of which there will be increasingly little as time passes. Within a few years of our first waves of religious free children coming through, I am convinced the problems will solve itself, and we will have the political tools in place.

As I said its a very loose system and certainly needs improving, but I’m convinced it would work, probably without having to outlaw religion either.

Carrying firearms is an offence. Many people would like to carry a firearm for whatever reason, but as its outlawed, they dont, because the penalties in place are an effective deterrent.

SHR. wrote:

To be honest, I have given up on this thread because the ideological Islamophobia expressed on it, leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The anti-Muslim posts are a splodge pot of contradiction

Islamophobia and anti-muslim you say? not from me. My posts are directed at religion in general. I group Islam with all the others. As for a phobia which is an irrational fear, of religious people that wish to harm you, is all too rational in this age, which is why it must be addressed.

draculina wrote:

Tapioca wanted to outlaw religion and ridicule anyone who practices it, that is much more extreme (bigoted as you would call it) than anything I have suggested, lol.

Not quite, but good try

The thread is called “Muslims must integrate more”, which is why I was talking about Islam specifically.