|
Post by zanygame on Mar 2, 2024 14:20:20 GMT
Or the rich, or the masons, or fellow football supporters. From the young Muslims I know I'd say it was going the same way as the Christians. Lots of people putting it down as their religion but not going to the mosque more than a few times a year. Indeed which proves the point that there is a tendency. It is a strange old world. If a man says he is a Muslim the left have no idea what he believes, if a man is a member of a political party like BNP or UKIP then almost to a man the left are clear in what that person believes. The only difference is that the Muslim states exactly what he believes whereas political parties are broad churches. Yes. One is centuries old and has been interpreted differently by various different Muslims sects in different countries. The other is very current with beliefs regularly refreshed. Do you know what all those who put Christianity as their religion believe? Are they all Westborough Baptists? Jehovah's witnesses? Or even Eastern lightning?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 2, 2024 14:21:46 GMT
I don't have to. - it's throw-away as a point. The msm is mostly pro immigration, but that isn't essential to my point. Your position relies on the MSM being near universally (or overwhelmingly) anti-immigration (which it clearly isn't) and mine doesn't rely on it being mostly pro. I'd qualify that as pro immigrants that are already here. I don't think I've ever heard the BBC comment on bringing more in. Their is position is usually couched by uneven presentation of positions and what they leave out. There is certainly no feasible way they could be described as anti-immigration
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 14:31:07 GMT
Yes and all the Christians you know conform to the biblical description. To say otherwise is just plain wrong. Starting to get repetitive again. Yes we and I all want immigration slowed or even stopped. Where with disagree is what that political agenda is. I think its about money. You think its about ? As I say its about money. Because a very small number are extremists. We spent a huge amount of money watching the IRA who were Catholics, we just didn't blame it all on the rest of the Catholics. What is the biblical description they conform to? In the end it is about power which enables the accruing of money etc. You have heard of divide and rule. The idea of multiculturalism is not to enable a Multicultural society it is to ensure that societies that may act as one are divided by as many diverse elements as possible. Low level loss of law and order on occasion is a price to pay for keeping the populace at each other's throats. Islam works perfectly in this respect which is why it is largely Muslims arriving. Now we are on to small numbers being extremists and I would generally agree but small numbers guide the group in many instances. Many Nazis were not killers and were peaceable but in terms of stopping the holocaust etc they were irrelevant. The IRA were a Republican movement not specifically a Catholic movement. There were many Nationalists or Republicans in Ireland who were peaceable but in terms of their effect on the movement they were irrelevant. The power was held by the few. Since we are on small numbers if we consider the non-Muslim population of the UK the extremists who have been or are likely to be a danger are a proportion so small as to almost negligible. If we consider the Muslim population the numbers that are likely to be a danger are significantly greater as confirmed by the security services.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 2, 2024 14:31:45 GMT
I'd qualify that as pro immigrants that are already here. I don't think I've ever heard the BBC comment on bringing more in. Their is position is usually couched by uneven presentation of positions and what they leave out. There is certainly no feasible way they could be described as anti-immigration Agreed. I'd say stoically neutral. They work overtime to fight race hatred and make coloured skin every day. I guess they feel the need to.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 14:33:13 GMT
That seems to be the problem as I referred to if you claimed to be an ethnic minority ie Irish. What the distribution of anything is is immaterial, you asked what preferential treatment you could get and I outlined it. I never claimed to be an ethnic minority. I did not say you did, you asked what advantages there would be if you were and being of Irish extraction you could so be classed if you wished. I could be an ethnic minority in England as teh English can be in Scotland, these are just facts.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 14:36:29 GMT
Indeed which proves the point that there is a tendency. It is a strange old world. If a man says he is a Muslim the left have no idea what he believes, if a man is a member of a political party like BNP or UKIP then almost to a man the left are clear in what that person believes. The only difference is that the Muslim states exactly what he believes whereas political parties are broad churches. Yes. One is centuries old and has been interpreted differently by various different Muslims sects in different countries. The other is very current with beliefs regularly refreshed. Do you know what all those who put Christianity as their religion believe? Are they all Westborough Baptists? Jehovah's witnesses? Or even Eastern lightning? All have specific core beliefs. Christians do and Muslims do. The core belief of Islam encourages the outlook that Muslims are the best of people, the outlook of Christianity believes that belief will save one.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 14:39:06 GMT
I don't have to. - it's throw-away as a point. The msm is mostly pro immigration, but that isn't essential to my point. Your position relies on the MSM being near universally (or overwhelmingly) anti-immigration (which it clearly isn't) and mine doesn't rely on it being mostly pro. I'd qualify that as pro immigrants that are already here. I don't think I've ever heard the BBC comment on bringing more in. The BBC refer to several parties and attitudes as being anti-immigrant yet none are anti immigrant to varying degrees they wish to control immigration. So the basic language used in the BBC is false in this respect. Why would that be.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 2, 2024 14:43:45 GMT
They aren't bought in to create division. That's a possible bonus. They are bought in to 1, grow GDP 2, push house prices up. Its about the value of land. THe more people, the more valuable the land. Landed gentry rule this land. I disagree. I think it was a name given to a natural occurring effect to make it seem OK. Just like Brit enclaves in Spain, so Pakistanis do the same in the UK. People who lived in the areas began to feel alienated in their own towns as shops and high streets got taken over. The government tried to sell the idea that these enclaves were Ok, inventing the word multicultural. Its only small numbers of Muslims as well.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 2, 2024 14:47:15 GMT
Yes. One is centuries old and has been interpreted differently by various different Muslims sects in different countries. The other is very current with beliefs regularly refreshed. Do you know what all those who put Christianity as their religion believe? Are they all Westborough Baptists? Jehovah's witnesses? Or even Eastern lightning? All have specific core beliefs. Christians do and Muslims do. The core belief of Islam encourages the outlook that Muslims are the best of people, the outlook of Christianity believes that belief will save one. Your knowledge of modern Muslims is sadly lacking. But more importantly you ignore the fact that most Muslims do not obey the Koran religiously. Anymore than do Christians obey the bible.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 2, 2024 14:47:50 GMT
Their is position is usually couched by uneven presentation of positions and what they leave out. There is certainly no feasible way they could be described as anti-immigration Agreed. I'd say stoically neutral. I don't agree that they are stoically neutral on this matter, they just express their position non-explicitly. An example of this might be regular and weepy articles on the difficulties experienced by (say) immigrants or asylum seekers , but no focused examination at all (or very little) of the immigration related costs experienced by non-immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 15:24:12 GMT
They aren't bought in to create division. That's a possible bonus. They are bought in to 1, grow GDP 2, push house prices up. Its about the value of land. THe more people, the more valuable the land. Landed gentry rule this land. I disagree. I think it was a name given to a natural occurring effect to make it seem OK. Just like Brit enclaves in Spain, so Pakistanis do the same in the UK. People who lived in the areas began to feel alienated in their own towns as shops and high streets got taken over. The government tried to sell the idea that these enclaves were Ok, inventing the word multicultural. Its only small numbers of Muslims as well. Well like CO2 it has negligible effect at 100 parts per million but a significant effect at 1000 parts per million. So at 0.01% we do not have a problem worth mentioning at 0.1% we have disaster staring us in the face. Both are very small numbers and we are looking at with over 30,000 on the watch list we are at 3% which would effectively be a lost cause in terms of CO2. As you agree small numbers can have an overtly larger impact.
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 2, 2024 15:25:49 GMT
I never claimed to be an ethnic minority. I did not say you did, you asked what advantages there would be if you were and being of Irish extraction you could so be classed if you wished. I could be an ethnic minority in England as teh English can be in Scotland, these are just facts. The advantage of belonging to a group statistically more likely to be unemployed?
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 15:27:30 GMT
All have specific core beliefs. Christians do and Muslims do. The core belief of Islam encourages the outlook that Muslims are the best of people, the outlook of Christianity believes that belief will save one. Your knowledge of modern Muslims is sadly lacking. But more importantly you ignore the fact that most Muslims do not obey the Koran religiously. Anymore than do Christians obey the bible. We are back to the beginning I said we know what Islam says, you are saying that what it says is of no consequence as people have different interpretations, I would agree as a general rule but the difference is in what faiths say.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 15:31:42 GMT
I did not say you did, you asked what advantages there would be if you were and being of Irish extraction you could so be classed if you wished. I could be an ethnic minority in England as teh English can be in Scotland, these are just facts. The advantage of belonging to a group statistically more likely to be unemployed? Are the Irish diaspora in the UK more likely to be unemployed
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 2, 2024 16:06:15 GMT
Agreed. I'd say stoically neutral. I don't agree that they are stoically neutral on this matter, they just express their position non-explicitly. An example of this might be regular and weepy articles on the difficulties experienced by (say) immigrants or asylum seekers , but no focused examination at all (or very little) of the immigration related costs experienced by non-immigrants. As I said. Support for those already here. I don't put immigrants and asylum seekers in the same box, they are very different.
|
|