Is the UK under threat from decades of immigration policy?

FoxEye · 5 Sep 2014 at 12:44

Dj_Jestar said:
That's presumptuous as well. How do you know that anyone is going to do that and not decide to do whatever the majority want, irrespective of their own beliefs and faith?

Answer: You don't. You are presuming.

A truly religious person puts his religious law above secular law.

A person who votes against the position of his religion because his constituents wanted it is not truly religious. In fact it's very hard/impossible for a truly religious person to enter secular government in the first place. True adherents do not make compromises. They do not breach divine law.

If your allegiance is to secular authority first and your religion second, you aren't a true follower. Is this not apparent?

bloodiedathame · 5 Sep 2014 at 12:47

Mynight said:
What law would that be?

Don't be a dick. Would be the law.

Mynight · 5 Sep 2014 at 12:55

bloodiedathame said:
Don't be a dick. Would be the law.

I would completely support that law

.

Simple yet effective

.

Sliver · 5 Sep 2014 at 12:57

bloodiedathame said:
Don't be a dick. Would be the law.

Most of us would end up in prison then. Everyone is a dick sometimes.

Tuppy_Glossop · 5 Sep 2014 at 12:59

bloodiedathame said:
Don't be a dick. Would be the law.

Send everyone called Richard to prison ?

RedDanDoc · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:04

Mynight said:
What law would that be?

Sod's

Xordium · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:12

jas72 said:
would this mean that if you follow religion then you cannot assume and political power?

Of course not. The second part of my post addresses that specifically - if religions have sufficient popular support then they should be able to leverage towards their ideals. If they don't have the popular support they should not be given state funding to achieve that.

elmarko · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:16

FoxEye said:
A truly religious person puts his religious law above secular law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The Running Man · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:16

Sharlaw said:
No. The UK is built on centuries of global immigration and integration.

But now we can see it, study it, stop it. Are you suggesting we should ignore this now just because things beyond our control happened in the past ?

Craterloads · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:17

FoxEye said:
A truly religious person puts his religious law above secular law.

A person who votes against the position of his religion because his constituents wanted it is not truly religious. In fact it's very hard/impossible for a truly religious person to enter secular government in the first place. True adherents do not make compromises. They do not breach divine law.

If your allegiance is to secular authority first and your religion second, you aren't a true follower. Is this not apparent?

Actually law of the land you reside in is the prevalent one.

FoxEye · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:21

elmarko said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

So you're saying there are no religious people who obey religious law over secular law. Let the reader decide, then.

Either that or you're saying that obeying religious law is not an essential component of being religious.

To which everyone who adheres closely to their religious texts will disagree vehemently.

Sliver · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:24

Xordium said:
- if religions have sufficient popular support then they should be able to leverage towards their ideals.

That's a very dangerous ideology. It leads to Theocracies, and history shows that not a single Theocracy has ever been good for it's citizens.

The US constitution is by far the best form of democracy that any country has ever drawn up. The separation of church and state is crucial in protecting minorities within a society. A truly great society needs to be pluralistic and inclusive.

When you have a Theocratic state, minorities are always persecuted and bloodshed ensues. Religion is fine right up to the point it becomes bound to politics.

Xordium · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:25

FoxEye said:
So you're saying there are no religious people who obey religious law over secular law. Let the reader decide, then.

Either that or you're saying that obeying religious law is not an essential component of being religious.

To which everyone who adheres closely to their religious texts will disagree vehemently.

Didn't that Jesus chap ask people to looks who had a likeness on the coins they were carrying. Now I accept only 1 out of the big 3 say he was part of the trinity but he was quite clear on that point wasn't he. To Caesar what is owed to Caesar.

elmarko · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:26

FoxEye said:
So you're saying there are no religious people who obey religious law over secular law. Let the reader decide, then.

Either that or you're saying that obeying religious law is not an essential component of being religious.

To which everyone who adheres closely to their religious texts will disagree vehemently.

I never implied there are none, I wasn't the one speaking in absolutes & declaring that highly religious people will always put there religion over the laws of the land.

I'm saying that almost all religions are open to a degree of interpretation & flexibility (pending in the individual, the religion & the reasons behind it). You can follow the texts perfectly within the confines of subjective interpretation of those texts & use it to justify either following the law of the land, or not.

There is simply no singular version for anybody to follow dogmatically, due to the number of allegorical stories, conflicting commandments within the texts themselves & vague statements open to interpretation.

Xordium · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:29

Sliver said:
That's a very dangerous ideology. It leads to Theocracies, and history shows that not a single Theocracy has ever been good for it's citizens.

If the popular will is for a theocracy would you enforce a dictatorship to stop the popular will from being maintained thereby creating the very situation you claim to want to stop.

What you have said there is anti-democratic. If the majority of citizens follow one religion then surely they should be allowed to lobby for things in the interest of their religion.

Sliver said:
The US constitution is by far the best form of democracy that any country has ever drawn up. The separation of church and state is crucial in protecting minorities within a society. A truly great society needs to be pluralistic and inclusive.

No point telling me that is there if you had read what I have posted.

Sliver said:
When you have a Theocratic state, minorities are always persecuted and bloodshed ensues. Religion is fine right up to the point it becomes bound to politics.

And the same again there is no point telling me that.

The Running Man · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:31

Exactly so why would we want to invite a muslim majority into the uk?

Xordium · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:32

The Running Man said:
Exactly so why would we want to invite a muslim majority into the uk?

Good question and something I am afraid I can't answer. However, I am not actually aware we have asked for that have we?

The Running Man · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:34

Okay then, no we haven't but that is what we are doing.

So the question is how do we stop it or reverse the trend?

Sliver · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:36

Xordium said:
No point telling me that is there if you had read what I have posted.

And the same again there is no point telling me that.

Well pardon me all over the place for expressing an informed opinion. Clearly I'm way out of line and have no business replying to any of your posts.

Dj_Jestar · 5 Sep 2014 at 13:38

FoxEye said:
A truly religious person puts his religious law above secular law.

A person who votes against the position of his religion because his constituents wanted it is not truly religious. In fact it's very hard/impossible for a truly religious person to enter secular government in the first place. True adherents do not make compromises. They do not breach divine law.

If your allegiance is to secular authority first and your religion second, you aren't a true follower. Is this not apparent?

Now you've strayed back into prejudice.

Also the president of the US must be sworn in on a bible, as must the prime minister. Hardly secular.