Nnnnnah see I don't think we will. I think we're gonna hold up multiculturalism for quite a while, as it's such a good thing.
A good thing? I fail to see that point. Tell me, in what way, has it been good for you or anyone else in these lands?
Broadening depth of society? Wider learning experience from difference cultures? Assuming that you don't just like classical music, which did originate in Europe, then the music you listen to has come from across different cultures. The same goes for art, drama, sports etc. I for one like to be able to share in another's culture, as to do so is to further enrich one's learning experience of the world. We are all humans and we should understand how others live.
All sounds good. Multiculturalism. Mmm. Nice. So that must also mean: ebony – and all other races, creeds and cultures – and ivory living together in perfect harmony; fresh food and water from around the globe in our shops, markets and restaurants; the music you mentioned, from drum ‘n’ bass to dub; doing really well at cricket, thanks to our Sikh spin-bowling secret weapon; top quality imported Jamaican weed; and so on.
Hell, if that’s what multiculturalism really meant – and apparently many people still think it does – few of us would have much cause for complaint. But in reality, it doesn’t mean that and it never has. Multiculturalism is a very specific political philosophy which, instead of bringing different cultures and races together in one big happy melting pot, it has the very opposite aim: to emphasise people’s differences.
Now how stupid and destructive an idea is that? You have waves and waves of immigrants coming into Britain because they like what the place stands for, and presumably it’s a lot better than wherever they’ve come from. However, instead of giving them the tools they may need to get on with and improve their lives by encouraging them to integrate with their host society, you say: “Don’t try to be British. Try to fit in as little as possible. You may earn less money. And your children may be more miserable. And society will be more fragmented. And racism will increase – but hey, at least you’ll retain your cultural pride!”
Allow me to shed some light on this matter as you seem to be rather ill-informed....and then thee groups give them the opportunity.
You make strong points I admitt to that, however what you say at the beginning can be interpretted in different ways. To say Islam is a religion of peace or not can mean different things. When you say Islam, I'm presuming that you take the word to basically mean the Qur'an. I take it to mean anyone who believes in it as well, and all the different interpretations, violent or not. In the same way with Xianity. Maybe the Bible does preach less violence, and maybe overall appears less vioent than Islam. But I am not trying to prove Islam is a religion of violence; merely trying to drive the point home that any religion whose roots extend so far back in time will have passages that we would today hold to be barbaric and will come across as violent, ie. for Islam to be seen as vioent, then so should Judaism and Xianity.
Well, Islam is a religion in which the foundations are made up from violence, intolerance, war, oppression, lying, cheating, stealing, killing, raping, etc. Whereas the Bible – meaning in Christianity – doesn’t condone these acts of behaviour. How is it possible to misinterpret “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5) and “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them” (Qur’an 47:4)?
His last name is Christ. Y'know, Jesus Christ?
That really is quite a fatal mistake. His last name
wasn't Christ; that was a name given to him, because he was 'the annointed one'. If it was his last name, then both his parents would surely have that name as well. But they weren't called Mary and Joseph Christ. In the same way Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 's first name wasn't Mahatma, as that was merely a title bestowed upon him by his followers meaning "Great Soul".
Damn. I stand corrected lol.
No. Racism is a form of discrimination based on race, and race alone. I quote Wikipedia: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races.
I know that. The clue's in the name. But I'm simply telling you that people misuse words all the time. The term racist has come to basically mean, as I said, hatred towards another group of people.
I know this is incorrect But it
is a large phallacy of democracy that many people use. In the same way that people misuse the word 'gay' or don't realise that 'aweful' actually means 'full of awe' ie. in wonder, rather than terrible.
True, which is why people should continue to retort them whenever they misuse words or just have no idea what they’re talking about.
Illegal? Explain, please…
Since you said please, I'd be happy to.
What I actually said was:
people are going to be angry when you come close to doing something almost illegal.
An Act of Parliament was stricken down in 2006 that attempted to follow up the 2005 Anti-Racism Act. Some people, many Muslims, complained that Jews ans Sikhs were covered by this act as they were strictly a race as well as a religion, even though they are not really seen as this by today's standards any more. So the Government attempted to pass this Anti-Religion Act in 2006 which gave extra cover to some religions. But this was stopped because challenging race is not something that is made out of choice, you are born into a race and can't change. Religion is a belief, and so it is acceptable to challenge it, as you are so rightly proving. However, had the act been passed, what you are doing would still not be illegal, but is starting to get towards the edge of that distinction. Thus, you are coming close to doing something that was almost illegal.
I cannot believe that it’s almost illegal to criticise. To criticise is not to incite. I would be for irradiating Islam as a religion, but not the people. I’m using one of my God given rights – freedom of speech – and soon we could all face persecution for this? Next debating will be illegal, because you’re challenging people’s opinions, which might hurt their feelings…
Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I picked it up, as if you’re being more pessimistic towards Christianity than Islam. Anyway, moving on to my next point…
I only have experience to work from, and personally, I know more Christians that would be deemed dangerous by society that Muslims. Now maybe that's because I don't know
that many Muslims, but that's the only experience I have.
That’s definitely the reason why you know of more violent Christians than Muslims. Almost everyone I know has been Baptised, which does mean they are considered Christian, but they may not follow the Religion or even have read the Bible.
So what you’re trying to tell me is that Islam is actually a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists?
I mean that "a tiny minority of extremists" have used Islam as a cover for their attacks on the West. However, even if they
are drawing their power and confidence from genuine scripture of the Qur'an, most Muslims are not that fanatical; they wouldn't die in a car bomb for their faith, as they disapprove of how their religion has been branded by people like you as a Religion of Violence.
[/quote]
Well, as I’ve already demonstrated in earlier posts, and this one, Islam is unique among the religions of the world in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system that mandates the warfare against unbelievers. But as usual, some claim that I’m trying to make people think that every Muslim is a terrorist, and that your Arab or Pakistani convenience store worker is secretly plotting the violent downfall of the UK. Needless to say, this is arrant nonsense. But it does indicate that some clarification is needed. This would usually be a long, verbose point to try and make and let people understand, but I’ll try and keep this as concise as possible. In the first place, the fact that warfare against unbelievers is not a twisting of Islam, but is repeatedly affirmed in the Qur’an, the Hadith, the example of Muhammad, the rulings of every school of Islamic jurisprudence, does not make every Muslim a terrorist. There are several principle reasons for this. One is that because the Qur’an is in difficult, classical Arabic, and must be read and recited during Muslim prayers in that language only, a surprisingly large number of those who identify themselves as Muslims have scant acquaintance with what it actually says. Despite the fact that the media continue to interchange the words “Muslim” and “Arab,” since most Muslims worldwide today are not Arabs. Meaning even modern Arabic, much less classical Qur’anic Arabic is forign to them. A Pakistani Muslim once proudly told me that he had memorised large section from the Qur'an and that he planned to buy a translation one day so that he could find out exactly what it was saying. There are a few more reasons if you’d like to hear them, but like I said, I’ll try and keep this part concise.
The government and media are eager to find these moderate Muslims everybody has heard of. Their desperation has increased, but their standards have declined. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to find Muslim leaders who have genuinely renounced violent jihad and any intention, now or in the future, to impose Sharia on non-Muslim countries.
The Moderate Muslims that you speak of; while their theological foundation is weak, many are heroically labouring to create a viable moderate Islam that will allow Muslims and non-Muslims to peacefully coexist. They are to be commended, but make no mistake: This moderate Islam does not exist to any significant extent in the world today. Where Muslims to coexist peacefully with non-Muslims, as in central Asia and elsewhere, it is not because the teachings of jihad have been reformed or rejected; they have simply been ignored, and history teaches us that they can be remembered at any time.
Debating Online Forums
Author
