1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UK Muslim population 'rising 10 times faster than rest of society'

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by scorza, Jan 31, 2009.

  1. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,109

    Location: On the hoods

    I'm a Christian and I concur with that. What the state does and what the church (or any religion) does should be separate.
     
  2. SlugForAButt

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 5, 2009

    Posts: 2,436

    Location: God's own country

    Ahh, separation of church and state. The doctrine that becomes less and less possible as race and religion become bargaining chips for politiciians.
     
  3. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,544

    Location: Plymouth

    Sadly, when opinion can be used as justification for lawmaking, all sorts of bad opinion based laws result. This isn't a problem specific to religion, but a problem of constructing a political system on the fallacy that the majority is correct.
     
  4. Gaidin109

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 12, 2009

    Posts: 4,878


    I agree with is in part. Some are currently denigrating the Conservative Party due to class, statements such as "thought up on the playing fields of Eton" for example.

    Would you rather someone with the best education money can buy create policy or someone who just scrambled through a flawed state system. Sometimes the minority can be correct, the problem is one of morality, are the policies moral in nature and do they benefit the majority. That is the important question, not whether we have minority rule.
     
  5. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,832

    Location: Glasgow

    I don't see the class of the person drafting it as a particularly important criteria to determine the worth of a policy so I'd agree that pointing it out looks to be close to points scoring.

    However on a hypothetical basis I don't think there is an intrinsic benefit to policy A developed by "someone with the best education money can buy" when compared to policy B developed by "someone who just scrambled through a flawed state system". It's either a good idea and worthwhile persuing or it isn't and the class/education/financial situation of the person proposing it doesn't mean that it is more or less worthwhile in and of itself.

    Some thick people go to schools providing the "best education money can buy" and some bright people go through the "flawed state system" so in answer to the question - I'm not bothered about the background of the person.
     
  6. Gaidin109

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 12, 2009

    Posts: 4,878


    Which I think I said in the second part of my post. I thought it was obvious that was my point, the Class point was just an example of current thinking, not my own. The morality and beneficial aspects are what is important, not who thought them up.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2010
  7. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2006

    Posts: 10,064

    "Class" is a very vague term and can mean pretty much anything to anybody. I don't think anyone would categorise Alan Sugar as upper class or 2nd Viscount Stansgate (Tony Benn) as working class; nonetheless, they are probably on diametrically opposite and somewhat atypical ends of the political spectrum.

    However, I can't agree that background is unimportant. Most Politicians like most people are likely to be selfish; they will typically tend to act in the interests of the group, tribe or whatever with which they associate. In the case of someone from a privileged, wealthy, establishment background this is more than likely to result in their pursuing policies that will favour that background. I would consider it most unlikely that David Cameron would be very interested in reducing the gap between the minority rich and the majority poor.

    Sadly, I don't think that New Labour are that different . . . or even the Liberal Democrats :(


    ps - I am fascinated as to how a discussion on the "UK Muslim population 'rising 10 times faster than rest of society' has morphed into a discussion on the relationship between Education and Politics :p
     
  8. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,832

    Location: Glasgow

    It was the first sentence of your second paragraph that I was taking exception to, it looked to be creating a dichotomy that needn't exist when you'd spent the first paragraph implying that that classism wasn't a good basis for judging on.

    So by extension it would be unlikely via the logical predicates you've set out for someone from an impoverished background to give adequate consideration to the wealthier members of society?

    You might be right, background could be important but only insofar as there should be as wide a range of backgrounds represented as is possible.

    Probably not all that different but is it better if a party focuses on the majority to the detriment of minorities? Or to paraphrase the quote "you can judge a society by how it treats its minorities".

    It seemed a natural path and potentially more interesting than possibly rehashing arguments from earlier in the thread. :)
     
  9. SlugForAButt

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 5, 2009

    Posts: 2,436

    Location: God's own country

    Two completely different things mate.
    Would it be right for a democratic government not to focus on the majority of the people? The people that have voted them in! I, for one, would be very upset if I voted for party A just to find that they are going to favour party B and C's sympathisers over me.
    Are you talking party politics or immigrant status ?
     
  10. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,832

    Location: Glasgow

    The issues are separable, not necessarily separate. I didn't word it as clearly as I perhaps could have but that will almost always be the case expressing a general principle, specific situations may require a deviation from the norm.

    I don't mean that a party would or should act detrimentally to its core voters/demographic but equally in a situation where I've got the choice of voting for party A who'll do my personal interests a lot of good but be absolutely terrible for almost everyone else or party B who'll do my personal interests a reasonable amount of good and be at the minimum fair to everyone else then I'll vote for party B. How a party deals with minorities is important to me so whether it be that they're the wealthy or impoverished, religious or not etc then how they are dealt with will be an issue that I'm concerned with.

    I was taking generally to party policy although many immigrants are in minority groupings so it's an issue I'd be concerned with along with a great many others.