Immigrants and UK Christian values

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/6989284/Bishop-Michael-Nazir-Ali-immigrants-should-accept-Britains-Christian-values.html

All new immigrants should accept Britain’s traditional Christian values and be willing to adapt to them, according to a prominent clergyman.

He also called for an end to the segregation of Muslims in British cities, which he warned provides a breeding ground for extremists.


This links in with that BNP video of the ghettos in London that many on here pretended to think was good in an attempt at being all 2010.

views?

[NettoSuperstar!]

1. most people in Britain dont have any religious views

2. We have a right to choose what religion if any we want to follow as we are a democratic country

3. All religions pretty much have the same sort of values

4. you dont need to be a Christian or religious to have values and morals

5. He shows very little insight into extremism and seems a little extreme himself

So he should **** and **** if he doesnt like it

[Crimson Dynamo]

1. most people in Britain dont have any religious views

2. We have a right to choose what religion if any we want to follow as we are a democratic country

So he should **** and **** if he doesnt like it

says the Liberal


nice

[NettoSuperstar!]

says the Liberal


nice

heheh...tongue in cheek at the end there:hugesmile:

[Wildcat!]

Is this a wind up or something?

[Wildcat!]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/6989284/Bishop-Michael-Nazir-Ali-immigrants-should-accept-Britains-Christian-values.html

All new immigrants should accept Britain’s traditional Christian values and be willing to adapt to them, according to a prominent clergyman.

He also called for an end to the segregation of Muslims in British cities, which he warned provides a breeding ground for extremists.


This links in with that BNP video of the ghettos in London that many on here pretended to think was good in an attempt at being all 2010.

views?

Yua ask for views! I dont agree of course.


BTW, what are your views on that? Do yoU AGREE?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yua ask for views! I dont agree of course.


BTW, what are your views on that? Do yoU AGREE?

he makes good points that I hope the next Government listen to.

[Wildcat!]

he makes good points that I hope the next Government listen to.


Errrrm, do you agree with him or not?

Dont bait people trying to get them to lean into some fascist opinions, just by putting it out there.
Why dont you just tell us how you feel, and if you agree, that any immigrant who gest accepted in this country should become christian?
Its a simple question. DO you agree or not? I dont of course, and I know its never gonna happen in a country like the UK, but I would love to know wweather you agree or not. Its a simple yes, or no! You posted the thread.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Wind Up central Wildcat!

[Wildcat!]

Wind Up central Wildcat!


Cmon, seriously!!! Lets just be honest with our views. At least we know what you think.
Especially if you post the thread, about something so outrageous. I like honest people, even if i dont agree with their opinons.

[Wildcat!]

Cmon dude tell us? you know, its clever to go around telling people, "oh look, this person said this (insert ridiculous fascist view)! Interesting" Thats person said that (insert ridiculous xenephobic view), dont you think thats interesting?"

How about what you say, and whats your opinion of it?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Errrrm, do you agree with him or not?

Dont bait people trying to get them to lean into some fascist opinions, just by putting it out there.
Why dont you just tell us how you feel, and if you agree, that any immigrant who gest accepted in this country should become christian?
Its a simple question. DO you agree or not? I dont of course, and I know its never gonna happen in a country like the UK, but I would love to know wweather you agree or not. Its a simple yes, or no! You posted the thread.

No one is baiting anyone. The views expressed in the article are not fascist, they are views that I would imagine are broadly sympathetic with those held in the UK.

Nothing is as simple as yes and no.

[Crimson Dynamo]

and do not call me dude. this is not Starsky and Hutch circa 1978..

[Wildcat!]

No one is baiting anyone. The views expressed in the article are not fascist, they are views that I would imagine are broadly sympathetic with those held in the UK.

Nothing is as simple as yes and no.


Thats what I thought! Coward!!!
Dont have the guts, to stand up, and show yourself for who you really are. Instead, you just do some suggestions, to test and find people who might share your embarrassing stance, that you cant own up to. Oh well!
Sorry, got no respect for you, if you dont even have an opinion.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Thats what I thought! Coward!!!
Dont have the guts, to stand up, and show yourself for who you really are. Instead, you just do some suggestions, to test and find people who might share your embarrassing stance, that you cant own up to. Oh well!
Sorry, got no respect for you, if you dont even have an opinion.
Bye!

he makes good points that I hope the next Government listen to.


for me, that is an opinion. and i did not have to resort to using words like "fascist" "xenophobe" "coward" either.

[Wildcat!]

I honestly thought, you actually had some cojones! I wouldve respected you then.

Now, I just find you sad. And I am sure everyone can see it.

Good luck with the baiting thread! :)

[Crimson Dynamo]

I honestly thought, you actually had some cojones! I wouldve respected you then.

Now, I just find you sad. And I am sure everyone can see it.

Good luck with the baiting thread! :)

I doubt you thought anything like that. You are just angry because I do not share your views and you have resorted to abuse to make yourself feel better.

I would get a dog if I were you, one like Paris Hilton has maybe?

[Wildcat!]

I doubt you thought anything like that. You are just angry because I do not share your views and you have resorted to abuse to make yourself feel better.

I would get a dog if I were you, one like Paris Hilton has maybe?


ONce again, what are those views?
Do you agree that immigrants should automatically convert to christianity, in order to be accepted as immigrants? Yes, or no?
If you cant answer, dont bother replying, cause I dont want to hear your cowardly deflections.
........
.........
........

[Crimson Dynamo]

ONce again, what are those views?
Do you agree that immigrants should automatically convert to christianity, in order to be accepted as immigrants? Yes, or no?
If you cant answer, dont bother replying, cause I dont want to hear your cowardly deflections.
........
.........
........

All new immigrants should accept Britain’s traditional Christian values and be willing to adapt to them.

[Wildcat!]

Alright! Thats an opinion. And I respect that.

and If so, I agree with you. But I find it strange, because, I have lived in Africa, the US, and The UK. And the last thing I would think about British vaules, would be christian values. I respect all the values in this country, but I dont know many people that have, such values.

But if he thinks thats what the UK is all about, good for him.

[InOne]

Christian vaules are a load of rubbish really.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Christian vaules are a load of rubbish really.

where do you get your values from?


(hint, i bet they are Christian):devil:

[InOne]

where do you get your values from?


(hint, i bet they are Christian):devil:

explain to me what they are then...

[Wildcat!]

Christian vaules are a load of rubbish really.


See, I think thats disrespectful. There are a good portion fo the world population, that practice christian values. They are not your, but I think you can see, that they promote, love and respect.
So to call them rubbish, just because its not what you believe in, is just not right.

However, I dont think I would associate the UK, with christian values. Thats my problem.

[InOne]

See, I think thats disrespectful. There are a good portion fo the world population, that practice christian values. They are not your, but I think you can see, that they promote, love and respect.
So to call them rubbish, just because its not what you believe in, is just not right.

However, I dont think I would associate the UK, with christian values. Thats my problem.

Depends what you look at as 'Christian' values really. Some of the so called values are awful.

[Crimson Dynamo]

explain to me what they are then...

my question first please

[InOne]

my question first please

Remember the Atheist 10 commandments thread? There.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Remember the Atheist 10 commandments thread? There.

that's not your values that is something you found on google. lol

[Wildcat!]

See the thing is, if I immigrate in some country, its not the religions that I worry about. I want to adhere to the values of the society. And since religion is so divided in here, thats not the thing I would focus on. I think thats silly. And ironically, it mirrors extremists.

I think we can talk about values nowadays, without bringing religion into it.

I f i went to backwards societies, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Israel, and I chose to immigrate there, I would focus mainly on their religious values, because its their law. BUt the thing is I wouldnt choose to emmigrate in a country like that.

[InOne]

Israel is quite divided though really, go to Tel-Aviv it's like being in any city, it's the settlers on the West Bank that cause the problems, those Extreme Orthadox Jews

[lily.]

Just to clarify... would all existing UK residents be forced to adhere to Christianity as well?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Just to clarify... would all existing UK residents be forced to adhere to Christianity as well?

have you not had the forms through?

maybe you are a credit risk

[lily.]

Oh, trust me, I am a credit risk.

[bananarama]

where do you get your values from?


(hint, i bet they are Christian):devil:


I get my values from Tesco's. Sometimes two for the price of one......

[Crimson Dynamo]

I get my values from Tesco's. Sometimes two for the price of one......

oops

you mentioned the T word


:nono:

[Skeptic-i]

All new immigrants should accept Britain’s traditional Christian values and be willing to adapt to them.

It really makes me laugh when today's Christians push this line. They seem to forget that Britain's traditional Christian values once denied women rights, denied non-believers the right to stand in Parliament, denied free speech and condemned non-believers and homosexuals to imprisonment and execution, etc.

Every right that both Christians and non-believers take for granted today, hasn't come about through conformity to traditional Christian values - they have come about through non-conformity(the heretics - including non-believers) who fearlessly fought for change.

Christians born today take on those new values that the heretics and non-believers bravely fought for - and assume those values are our countries 'traditional' Christian values; which, in all reality, are not.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It really makes me laugh when today's Christians push this line. They seem to forget that Britain's traditional Christian values once denied women rights, denied non-believers the right to stand in Parliament, denied free speech and condemned non-believers and homosexuals to imprisonment and execution, etc.

Every right that both Christians and non-believers take for granted today, hasn't come about through conformity to traditional Christian values - they have come about through non-conformity(the heretics - including non-believers) who fearlessly fought for change.

Christians born today take on those new values that the heretics and non-believers bravely fought for - and assume those values are our countries 'traditional' Christian values; which, in all reality, are not.

and where in the Bible, in the New Testament, does it say to do any of these things?

If a man kills someone and says he did it because Jesus told him to do so we do not condemn Christianity as a religion for murderers.

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_ChristianValues.htm

[Skeptic-i]

and where in the Bible, in the New Testament, does it say to do any of these things?

If a man kills someone and says he did it because Jesus told him to do so we do not condemn Christianity as a religion for murderers.

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_ChristianValues.htm

Wow! Talk about "Christian lite" of the modern (almost inclusive) al le carte variety. Let's ignore the misogamy, the "offence" of blasphemy, the homophobia, the condoning of slavery - and the constant damning of those who disbelieve that persists within scripture.

Hardly "Loving your neighbour" - which, within traditional Christianity, didn't extend to those outside the Christian fold.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Wow! Talk about "Christian lite" of the modern (almost inclusive) al le carte variety. Let's ignore the misogamy, the "offence" of blasphemy, the homophobia, the condoning of slavery - and the constant damning of those who disbelieve that persists within scripture.

Hardly "Loving your neighbour" - which, within traditional Christianity, didn't extend to those outside the Christian fold.

yes you are right, you have uncovered the hideous fact that Christianity is evil, oh those millions of fools...


lol at condoning of slavery, misogamy etc..:joker:

[andyman]

Lets find them witches, me and LT will hunt them down!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Lets find them witches, me and LT will hunt them down!

they are on itv at lunchtimes

[andyman]

they are on itv at lunchtimes:joker: :joker: So true.

[Skeptic-i]

yes you are right, you have uncovered the hideous fact that Christianity is evil, oh those millions of fools...


lol at condoning of slavery, misogamy etc..:joker:

Scripture condones slavery -as did Christians for more than 1500 yrs. The Bible is also misogynistic: generally portraying women negatively - accordingly establishing rules on how women must be treat.

Of course, you may find that funny today - but it wasn't funny those who lived under those conditions. It wasn't funny for who opposed those views - those who risked imprisonment for heresy/blasphemy.

[BB_Eye]

Xenophobia in the church, no surprise there.

[kcmik]

One thing in britain that everyone is priviledged too is that we are all entitled to support what religion we want. Personally, i don't believe in any of it, coz if there was a god, allah, jesus whatever, there would be NO wars, therefore peaceful and safe life for everyone. ONE thing i DONT support is freedom of speech if you dont like the way we live in this country, go back to your own country.......you have no freedom of speech here! That evil man (sorry, i dont know the blurts name) people get put in prison for not paying council tax etc, an you got terrorists like him, preaching in the street what they want to do to us! joke. He is still here, scaving off our taxes.....thats religion??????

[ange7]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/6989284/Bishop-Michael-Nazir-Ali-immigrants-should-accept-Britains-Christian-values.html

All new immigrants should accept Britain’s traditional Christian values and be willing to adapt to them, according to a prominent clergyman.

He also called for an end to the segregation of Muslims in British cities, which he warned provides a breeding ground for extremists.


This links in with that BNP video of the ghettos in London that many on here pretended to think was good in an attempt at being all 2010.

views?
"This links in with that BNP video"
All I learnt from this post is that leather dude goes to sites that show BNP videos.... what a mother *******ing surprise.
mahahaha

[Crimson Dynamo]

Scripture condones slavery -as did Christians for more than 1500 yrs. The Bible is also misogynistic: generally portraying women negatively - accordingly establishing rules on how women must be treat.

Of course, you may find that funny today - but it wasn't funny those who lived under those conditions. It wasn't funny for who opposed those views - those who risked imprisonment for heresy/blasphemy.

slavery in the first century is not the slavery that you are mistakenly getting your knickers in a twist about. Go and google slavery in Christian times.

A women discovered Jesus missing in his tomb. Women play a vital role in the early Church in Acts and throughout the NT - unheard of in these times and for the next 1900 years.

if you wish to make accusations about the Bible use examples from the Bible and not abstract comments. All your accusations are the same old ones that anyone can read on the "skeptic" websites, usually created by single guys, with too much facial hair in their basements in the US.:hugesmile:

[Crimson Dynamo]

"This links in with that BNP video"
All I learnt from this post is that leather dude goes to sites that show BNP videos.... what a mother *******ing surprise.
mahahaha

it was a link to a thread originally on DS i am afraid, sorry to ruin your conspiracy...:joker:

[ange7]

BNP changed their name to DS? thanks for the head up leather guy. You really are in the know when it comes to this stuff.

[Crimson Dynamo]

BNP changed their name to DS? thanks for the head up leather guy. You really are in the know when it comes to this stuff.


aha

Sydney

early in morning.

either drugs or drink

post when you are straight:nono:

[ange7]

lol 12:53am ..."early morning"
hehe you even sound like ned flanders. ... though I'm not sure how many race wars he tried to start on tibb. So what's you next thread going to be "are Muslims human?"

ps love that you stared getting personal so soon. Very Christian of you.

[Skeptic-i]

slavery in the first century is not the slavery that you are mistakenly getting your knickers in a twist about.

LT, who said slavery in the first century was the same as slavery in later centuries [when Christians ruled the roost]? - I certainly made no such claim. Nor did I get my knickers in a twist by confusing the two. Of course, slavery was slightly different in earlier times; Pagans, including those of the early Roman Empire, often gave their slaves a few more privileges - including chances of bettering their situation and purchasing their freedom. Of course, there were also the Stoic philosophers[pre-christian] who outright condemned slavery as immoral. But then Christianity came along and most of the privileges - and condemnation of slavery - become lost. Increasingly, slaves had fewer rights while under Christian rule. They were forced to accept their lot in life with humility (Ephesians 6:5-8) and please their masters in everything (Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9,) - even if those masters treat them harshly (1 Peter 2:18). A result of the Christian attitude towards slavery soon made the Church the largest slave owners in the Roman Empire. As time went by, Christians[with the exception of Quakers] increasingly found more reasons to enslave others - a trend that continued through to the abolitionist movements(where Quakers, non-believers - and heretical Christians) fought for change.

LT, I could go into much greater depth for you - and discuss biblical and traditional Christian attitudes towards women. But you obviously aren't capable of serious, intellectual discussion. So I wont waste any further time with you.

[Crimson Dynamo]

LT, who said slavery in the first century was the same as slavery in later centuries [when Christians ruled the roost]? - I certainly made no such claim. Nor did I get my knickers in a twist by confusing the two. Of course, slavery was slightly different in earlier times; Pagans, including those of the early Roman Empire, often gave their slaves a few more privileges - including chances of bettering their situation and purchasing their freedom. Of course, there were also the Stoic philosophers[pre-christian] who outright condemned slavery as immoral. But then Christianity came along and most of the privileges - and condemnation of slavery - become lost. Increasingly, slaves had fewer rights while under Christian rule. They were forced to accept their lot in life with humility (Ephesians 6:5-8) and please their masters in everything (Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9,) - even if those masters treat them harshly (1 Peter 2:18). A result of the Christian attitude towards slavery soon made the Church the largest slave owners in the Roman Empire. As time went by, Christians[with the exception of Quakers] increasingly found more reasons to enslave others - a trend that continued through to the abolitionist movements(where Quakers, non-believers - and heretical Christians) fought for change.

LT, I could go into much greater depth for you - and discuss biblical and traditional Christian attitudes towards women. But you obviously aren't capable of serious, intellectual discussion. So I wont waste any further time with you.


yes, in other words you were talking crap and your finishing line is a standard forum bailout.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Why is slavery permitted in the Bible?

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

* The Bible acknowledged the slave's status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46).
* The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
* The slave was a member of the master's household (Lev. 22:11).
* The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
* The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
* The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
* The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
* When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).

The reality of slavery cannot be denied. "Slave labour played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labour force."


http://www.carm.org/questions/skeptics-ask/why-slavery-permitted-bible

[Skeptic-i]

yes, in other words you were talking crap and your finishing line is a standard forum bailout.

Certainly not. Your responses lack depth: you don't discuss what's actually being said - the above quote being an example. Really, it shows - keeping in mind your appeal to google earlier - that you have very little understanding of history. This, along with your almost belligerent attitude, shows you aren't capable of mature, intellectual discussion. So I'm not going to waste my time.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Certainly not. Your responses lack depth: you don't discuss what's actually being said - the above quote being an example. Really, it shows - keeping in mind your appeal to google earlier - that you have very little understanding of history. This, along with your almost belligerent attitude, shows you aren't capable of mature, intellectual discussion. So I'm not going to waste my time.


I wish you every success in your future employment and of course will be in touch if any vacancies arise here in the future.

yours sincerely

LT

[Skeptic-i]

Now you've copied and pasted from carm.org (proving my point above), I think I will waste a little more time:

Firstly, when discussing slavery, I was very careful not to quote the OT - had I quoted the OT, you'd have probably said "That's the OT, not the NT - Christians don't follow the OT". No, they just use it when convenient - like your post above.

Secondly, where in the bible does it say: "Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God." - it doesn't. This is nothing more than conjecture on your part. There is not one verse condemning slavery - but many supporting/condoning it.

Thirdly, "God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly." - Since when is beating slaves to the brink of death, "treating them properly" - Exodus 21:20-21 is a get out of trouble card for the slave master who beats his slave to death. Hardly beneficial for the slave.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Now you've copied and pasted from carm.org (proving my point above), I think I will waste a little more time:

Firstly, when discussing slavery, I was very careful not to quote the OT - had I quoted the OT, you'd have probably said "That's the OT, not the NT - Christians don't follow the OT". No, they just use it when convenient - like your post above.

Secondly, where in the bible does it say: "Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God." - it doesn't. This is nothing more than conjecture on your part. There is not one verse condemning slavery - but many supporting/condoning it.

Thirdly, "God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly." - Since when is beating slaves to the brink of death, "treating them properly" - Exodus 21:20-21 is a get out of trouble card for the slave master who beats his slave to death. Hardly beneficial for the slave.


The Bible roundly denounces slavery as sin. The New Testament goes as far as to put slave trades in the category as murderers, adulterers, perverts and liars (1 Timothy 1:9-10). While the Bible as a whole recognises the reality of slavery, it never promotes the practices of slavery. It was the application of Biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery not only in ancient Israel but in the United States of America as well. Israel’s liberation from slavery in Egypt was a model for the liberation of slaves in general.

Slavery in the OT was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices. Bankrupcy laws did not exist so folks would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt. Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave.



Bible answer book volume 2

[Skeptic-i]

The Bible roundly denounces slavery as sin. The New Testament goes as far as to put slave trades in the category as murderers, adulterers, perverts and liars (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

1 Timothy 1:9-10 refers to menstealers. This is not condemning slavery at all. Let's remember: slaves were bred as chattel [property/livestock] - you can't steal your OWN property [Leviticus 25:44-46 Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever.]

And to add: heathen was used as a derogatory term for foreigners, people of other nations and religions - they were considered barbaric, uncivilised, beast like. Based on a 1493 papal Bull, the Spanish jurist cited Leviticus as justification for the enslavement of Indians: "The king has every right to send his men to the Indians to demand the territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally enslave them, just as Joshua enslaved the Canaanites.” - likewise, pope Alexander VI, gave " .. full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens
and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities and other properties and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery." - Bull Eximiae Devotionis, 1493

Slavery in the OT was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial - I partly agree. I just disagree with you on the racial issue - referring you to Leviticus 25:46 (which protects the people of Israel from slavery - but doesn't protect others).

[NettoSuperstar!]

lol 12:53am ..."early morning"
hehe you even sound like ned flanders. ... though I'm not sure how many race wars he tried to start on tibb. So what's you next thread going to be "are Muslims human?"

ps love that you stared getting personal so soon. Very Christian of you.

aww welcome back

[Crimson Dynamo]

1 Timothy 1:9-10 refers to menstealers.

it may do in the KJV, which was published in 1611 but since then better and more accurate translations have been made, based on new and improved manuscript evidence and enslavers is the better English equivalent - the Greek is andrapodistes (that is, those who takes someone captive in order to sell him into slavery) - it shows that Paul considered all kinds of forcible enslavement to be sinful and a violation of EX. 20:15

[Crimson Dynamo]

"And to add: heathen was used as a derogatory term for foreigners, people of other nations and religions - they were considered barbaric, uncivilised, beast like. Based on a 1493 papal Bull, the Spanish jurist cited Leviticus as justification for the enslavement of Indians: "The king has every right to send his men to the Indians to demand the territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally enslave them, just as Joshua enslaved the Canaanites.” - likewise, pope Alexander VI, gave " .. full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens
and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities and other properties and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery." - Bull Eximiae Devotionis, 1493"


^^^are you serious?

what point are you making, apart from yes in the 15th century people in power used religion to do bad things as they do today, but then people in power will use anything to do that, not just religion. get any group of people together who hold sway and eventually they will do bad things to someone and blame in on something else.

[Skeptic-i]

LT, you made the following claims:

1) While the Bible as a whole recognises the reality of slavery, it never promotes the practices of slavery.

Your first claim was nonsense - I used Leviticus (and Ephesians 6:5-8 , Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18) to show how wrong you are. Those verses condone and encourage the practice of slavery. They DO NOT discourage the practice of slavery.

2) Slavery in the OT was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial.

Here, I was in part agreement. However, I didn't agree with the racial claim - again, I used Leviticus to show how the law protected the tribe of Israel - but not the heathen. I also give you additional information on how biblical principles were used to later enslave the Indian populous.

3) It was the application of Biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery not only in ancient Israel but in the United States of America as well.

With the additional information, I showed that it was biblical principles that influenced and encouraged slavery - not the opposite.

Of course, something else came along during the 18th and 19th centuries. They were called the rationalists and the freethinkers. They were amongst the early critics of slavery - heavily criticising the Bible and the Church. This included people like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Wendell Phillips, James Russell Lowell and Ralph Waldo Emerson. It was these people that sought to abolish slavery in the US - and it was through their efforts (along with the abolitionist movements that followed) that laws were introduced to abolish slavery.

It was non-conformity(the heretics and non-believers) to biblical standards that led to the abolishment of slavery.

Your claim that it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery is bollocks.

[Crimson Dynamo]

LT, you made the following claims:

1) While the Bible as a whole recognises the reality of slavery, it never promotes the practices of slavery.

Your first claim was nonsense - I used Leviticus (and Ephesians 6:5-8 , Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18) to show how wrong you are. Those verses condone and encourage the practice of slavery. They DO NOT discourage the practice of slavery.

2) Slavery in the OT was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial.

Here, I was in part agreement. However, I didn't agree with the racial claim - again, I used Leviticus to show how the law protected the tribe of Israel - but not the heathen. I also give you additional information on how biblical principles were used to later enslave the Indian populous.

3) It was the application of Biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery not only in ancient Israel but in the United States of America as well.

With the additional information, I showed that it was biblical principles that influenced and encouraged slavery - not the opposite.

Of course, something else came along during the 18th and 19th centuries. They were called the rationalists and the freethinkers. They were amongst the early critics of slavery - heavily criticising the Bible and the Church. This included people like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Wendell Phillips, James Russell Lowell and Ralph Waldo Emerson. It was these people that sought to abolish slavery in the US - and it was through their efforts (along with the abolitionist movements that followed) that laws were introduced to abolish slavery.

It was non-conformity(the heretics and non-believers) to biblical standards that led to the abolishment of slavery.

Your claim that it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery is bollocks.

The relationship between husbands and wives and parents and children are ordained by God from creation. Hence Paul's instruction on marriage represent the perfect will of God. . Slavery, on the other hand, is something created by human beings and does not represent God's will from creation; the Scriptures regulate the institution without commending it (the Roman institution of "bondservant" was entirely different than the institution of slavery in North America 17th to 19th century) and the evil of trafficing in human beings is condemned by the NT. Slaves were encouraged to work heartily, not primarily to please their earthly masters but as if they were working for the Lord.

I would encourage you to get a copy of the ESV Study Bible so that rather than read excerpts taken form specific atheist websites you can read whole chapters with a detailed commentary that will give you context and history.

good luck

[Skeptic-i]

So again, you avoid what's being said by posting apologia(no doubt copied from a website who copied apologia from the ESV) whose sole agenda is to soften and limit the influence Christianity had on the promotion of slavery. Of course, so far, you've not once shown that the bible discourages slavery - if anything, you shown otherwise. You also haven't refuted any of my original claims. But that's be expected.

Have a good day.

[Crimson Dynamo]

So again, you avoid what's being said by posting apologia(no doubt copied from a website who copied apologia from the ESV) whose sole agenda is to soften and limit the influence Christianity had on the promotion of slavery. Of course, so far, you've not once shown that the bible discourages slavery - if anything, you shown otherwise. You also haven't refuted any of my original claims. But that's be expected.

Have a good day.

Or you could just stop being a twit and realise that the argument you have is hysterical, been done before, has little basis in historical fact and lighten up. (and be a bit nicer) You cant win them all.

Look if you are someone's slave then don't blame the Bible just tell the call centre manager that you want to leave and pack up your stuff in a box and do one. Set yourself free from that Broadband and Home calls for £14.99 hell hole you are in and look to the future, maybe some voluntary work at your local church?

[Skeptic-i]

See, again. You're good at saying people are talking crap - but you're not good showing why.

This is how you work:

1) I disagree
2) You're talking crap
3) I win

Typical trollish behaviour. Hilarious! Enough said.

[ange7]

aww welcome back
:P hiya

[ange7]

See, again. You're good at saying people are talking crap - but you're not good showing why.

This is how you work:

1) I disagree
2) You're talking crap
3) I win

Typical trollish behaviour. Hilarious! Enough said.
you completely owned him.
When he starts with the personal attacks and frantically googles for bible quotes ( lol LT a christian? mahahaha)then that's when you've owned.
His pious Christian facade is paper thin and he uses it to justify his usually religious hate. He was way out of his element here lol.....hey LT stick to what you do best Muslim fear mongering.

[Crimson Dynamo]

you completely owned him.
When he starts with the personal attacks and frantically googles for bible quotes ( lol LT a christian? mahahaha)then that's when you've owned.
His pious Christian facade is paper thin and he uses it to justify his usually religious hate. He was way out of his element here lol.....hey LT stick to what you do best Muslim fear mongering.

http://laughcard.com/images/laughcard-brownnoser.jpg

[Crimson Dynamo]

See, again. You're good at saying people are talking crap - but you're not good showing why.

This is how you work:

1) I disagree
2) You're talking crap
3) I win

Typical trollish behaviour. Hilarious! Enough said.

http://pics.bikerag.com/Uploads/data/500/258Troll_spray.jpg


psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssss

[ange7]

awwww LeatherTrumpet... is it nap time?
I wouldn't keep bring up this thread if I were you :P

[Tom4784]

What an embarrasing thread...I'd throw in the towel LT.

My opinion on the whole thing is that Britain is a democracy, and for democracies to truly work in countries like this we can't have any religious bias. Also why make Immigrants study Christian values when it's obious that most of the reisdents of the UK don't? It's a pointless waste of time.

Immigrants knowing our culture and laws are infinitely more important then knowing a few values from a religion that's not as prominent in our culture any more.

[ange7]

http://laughcard.com/images/laughcard-brownnoser.jpg
photoshop fail.
___

good point Dezzy.
Moral codes like " do onto other's as you'd have them do to you" are universal through out many religions and societies. Forcing Christianity down peoples throats won't make people more moral... ( particular as you mentioned in such a secular country like the UK). What makes the UK great is it's democracy and the idea of inclusion that democracy grants all people. LT's religious hate and fear mongering serves to make some people feel LESS included so in that respect he and his type are the problem... not the solution.

[Crimson Dynamo]

What an embarrasing thread...I'd throw in the towel LT.

My opinion on the whole thing is that Britain is a democracy, and for democracies to truly work in countries like this we can't have any religious bias. Also why make Immigrants study Christian values when it's obious that most of the reisdents of the UK don't? It's a pointless waste of time.

Immigrants knowing our culture and laws are infinitely more important then knowing a few values from a religion that's not as prominent in our culture any more.

Your marking threads now?

if you cant spell embarrassing then don't use the word to try and scrabble for some fictitious moral ground.

[informer]

lets all just get on, if someone wants to wear a headscarf, let them! if someone wants to wear a miniskirt! let them...love and peace

[InOne]

lets all just get on, if someone wants to wear a headscarf, let them! if someone wants to wear a miniskirt! let them...love and peace

Don't mind the Hijab, just the Burka. And nothing is as simple as 'just getting on'

[informer]

bishop nazir ali is a deeply troubled man...

[Angus]

Depends what you look at as 'Christian' values really. Some of the so called values are awful.

I think a distinction needs to be made between christian values and how those values are enacted and practised by professed christians in everyday life. The same could be said about most faiths where a certain way of life is proscribed in the scriptures and teachings, but followers simply pay lip service to the values and do their own thing.

However this country IS predominantly Christian and it is christian values and compassion that have allowed so many immigrants of different cultures and faiths to settle here, sometimes to the detriment of the indigenous population who feel their own culture is compromised.

I speak as a christian who has lived for many years in the Middle East, where I had the courtesy to respect the Islamic faith and to accept laws and traditions with which I disagreed. Furthermore Middle Eastern countries do not accept criticism or dissension from foreigners living on their soil - no such thing as freedom of speech there. And quite rightly since,after all, nobody dragged me there against my will and I was free to leave at any time. I did not expect, nor did I get, any compromises for my cutural differences and perferences, and no allowances were made for my inability to speak the native language properly. No expensive translators laid on by the governments there I can assure you.

The greatest myth of this century is that multiculturalism is a good thing when it is quite obvious it is not working. Diametrically opposed cultural values can only cause civil unrest,resentment and violence amongst different ethnic groups, and I am not talking about the indigenous population, but intra-ethnic prejudice. Throwing together peoples from a multitude of different cultures does not create a multicultural society. It simply creates a society in which a multitude of cultures lead separate lives! The only way for a society to live in complete harmony is to share common goals, aspirations, beliefs and values. How on earth is this possible with so many different cultures jostling for limited resources and with different agendas? Some serious rethinking needs to be done as to how best to assimilate all cultures into society whilst at the same time respecting the indigenous population's wishes to retain as paramount its christian heritage and traditions.

So before slagging off this country that has thrown its borders open to the world, remember it is BECAUSE we have christian values that we have done so, and at least we are trying to live up to those values.

[InOne]

I think a distinction needs to be made between christian values and how those values are enacted and practised by professed christians in everyday life. The same could be said about most faiths where a certain way of life is proscribed in the scriptures and teachings, but followers simply pay lip service to the values and do their own thing.

However this country IS predominantly Christian and it is christian values and compassion that have allowed so many immigrants of different cultures and faiths to settle here, sometimes to the detriment of the indigenous population who feel their own culture is compromised.

I speak as a christian who has lived for many years in the Middle East, where I had the courtesy to respect the Islamic faith and to accept laws and traditions with which I disagreed. Furthermore Middle Eastern countries do not accept criticism or dissension from foreigners living on their soil - no such thing as freedom of speech there. And quite rightly since,after all, nobody dragged me there against my will and I was free to leave at any time. I did not expect, nor did I get, any compromises for my cutural differences and perferences, and no allowances were made for my inability to speak the native language properly. No expensive translators laid on by the governments there I can assure you.

The greatest myth of this century is that multiculturalism is a good thing when it is quite obvious it is not working. Diametrically opposed cultural values can only cause civil unrest,resentment and violence amongst different ethnic groups, and I am not talking about the indigenous population, but intra-ethnic prejudice. Throwing together peoples from a multitude of different cultures does not create a multicultural society. It simply creates a society in which a multitude of cultures lead separate lives! The only way for a society to live in complete harmony is to share common goals, aspirations, beliefs and values. How on earth is this possible with so many different cultures jostling for limited resources and with different agendas? Some serious rethinking needs to be done as to how best to assimilate all cultures into society whilst at the same time respecting the indigenous population's wishes to retain as paramount its christian heritage and traditions.

So before slagging off this country that has thrown its borders open to the world, remember it is BECAUSE we have christian values that we have done so, and at least we are trying to live up to those values.

I think I was probably on about the more hardcore values, such as the nuclear family, views on homosexuality the many Christians differ on today. I agree about the myth of Multiculturalism and clearly it does not work, but letting it happen was probably more the goverment than the church. And it's not all cultures and religions that have problems adapting. Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs ect have flourished over here, fitting in and contributing to society. And i'm talking about the immigrant Catholics, not the English ones.
The Church is at a major decline anyway, with attendances and all that, plus with the introduction of women vicars, many clergy are leaving and the younger generations are simply not interested. Also the new wave of American fundamentalist that has swept over here. But you are almost making it sound as if the Church actually has a say in what goes on in the UK today, it really doesn't, it is confused about it's own vaules and Christians are torn between all sorts of things. It could be easy to say that is has all happened because people stopped going to church or lost their 'Christian values' but that would be assuming that there was a golden age of religion, where almost everyone went to church, which is simply not true, obviously the numbers have increased but only because we've started recording them.
So the church does not and never will speak for the UK, the reason we have multiculturalism is not because of good christian values, it is because of the goverment, and the economy in the 40's 50's and 60's. Since then there has been a steady increase and we are left where we are today, a pretty much godless nation, faced with problems we never thought would arise.

[WOMBAI]

I think a distinction needs to be made between christian values and how those values are enacted and practised by professed christians in everyday life. The same could be said about most faiths where a certain way of life is proscribed in the scriptures and teachings, but followers simply pay lip service to the values and do their own thing.

However this country IS predominantly Christian and it is christian values and compassion that have allowed so many immigrants of different cultures and faiths to settle here, sometimes to the detriment of the indigenous population who feel their own culture is compromised.

I speak as a christian who has lived for many years in the Middle East, where I had the courtesy to respect the Islamic faith and to accept laws and traditions with which I disagreed. Furthermore Middle Eastern countries do not accept criticism or dissension from foreigners living on their soil - no such thing as freedom of speech there. And quite rightly since,after all, nobody dragged me there against my will and I was free to leave at any time. I did not expect, nor did I get, any compromises for my cutural differences and perferences, and no allowances were made for my inability to speak the native language properly. No expensive translators laid on by the governments there I can assure you.

The greatest myth of this century is that multiculturalism is a good thing when it is quite obvious it is not working. Diametrically opposed cultural values can only cause civil unrest,resentment and violence amongst different ethnic groups, and I am not talking about the indigenous population, but intra-ethnic prejudice. Throwing together peoples from a multitude of different cultures does not create a multicultural society. It simply creates a society in which a multitude of cultures lead separate lives! The only way for a society to live in complete harmony is to share common goals, aspirations, beliefs and values. How on earth is this possible with so many different cultures jostling for limited resources and with different agendas? Some serious rethinking needs to be done as to how best to assimilate all cultures into society whilst at the same time respecting the indigenous population's wishes to retain as paramount its christian heritage and traditions.

So before slagging off this country that has thrown its borders open to the world, remember it is BECAUSE we have christian values that we have done so, and at least we are trying to live up to those values.

Good read! Completely agree! Unfortunately many people attempt to abuse that hospitality and Christian faith! They don't want to live alongside other faiths, and show mutual respect - they want their own faith to be given prominence - they want control. You cannot integrate people like that!

[NettoSuperstar!]

I think a distinction needs to be made between christian values and how those values are enacted and practised by professed christians in everyday life. The same could be said about most faiths where a certain way of life is proscribed in the scriptures and teachings, but followers simply pay lip service to the values and do their own thing.

However this country IS predominantly Christian and it is christian values and compassion that have allowed so many immigrants of different cultures and faiths to settle here, sometimes to the detriment of the indigenous population who feel their own culture is compromised.

I speak as a christian who has lived for many years in the Middle East, where I had the courtesy to respect the Islamic faith and to accept laws and traditions with which I disagreed. Furthermore Middle Eastern countries do not accept criticism or dissension from foreigners living on their soil - no such thing as freedom of speech there. And quite rightly since,after all, nobody dragged me there against my will and I was free to leave at any time. I did not expect, nor did I get, any compromises for my cutural differences and perferences, and no allowances were made for my inability to speak the native language properly. No expensive translators laid on by the governments there I can assure you.

The greatest myth of this century is that multiculturalism is a good thing when it is quite obvious it is not working. Diametrically opposed cultural values can only cause civil unrest,resentment and violence amongst different ethnic groups, and I am not talking about the indigenous population, but intra-ethnic prejudice. Throwing together peoples from a multitude of different cultures does not create a multicultural society. It simply creates a society in which a multitude of cultures lead separate lives! The only way for a society to live in complete harmony is to share common goals, aspirations, beliefs and values. How on earth is this possible with so many different cultures jostling for limited resources and with different agendas? Some serious rethinking needs to be done as to how best to assimilate all cultures into society whilst at the same time respecting the indigenous population's wishes to retain as paramount its christian heritage and traditions.

So before slagging off this country that has thrown its borders open to the world, remember it is BECAUSE we have christian values that we have done so, and at least we are trying to live up to those values.

we are a predominately secular population and it is our educated values and HUMAN compassion (not to mention market forces) that has allowed us to accept different cultures....and WE do on the whole ALL share common HUMAN values, goals and aspirations....not really much to do with being christian at all...most religions share the same kinds of morals and values anyway

[Angus]

I think I was probably on about the more hardcore values, such as the nuclear family, views on homosexuality the many Christians differ on today. I agree about the myth of Multiculturalism and clearly it does not work, but letting it happen was probably more the goverment than the church. And it's not all cultures and religions that have problems adapting. Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs ect have flourished over here, fitting in and contributing to society. And i'm talking about the immigrant Catholics, not the English ones.
The Church is at a major decline anyway, with attendances and all that, plus with the introduction of women vicars, many clergy are leaving and the younger generations are simply not interested. Also the new wave of American fundamentalist that has swept over here. But you are almost making it sound as if the Church actually has a say in what goes on in the UK today, it really doesn't, it is confused about it's own vaules and Christians are torn between all sorts of things. It could be easy to say that is has all happened because people stopped going to church or lost their 'Christian values' but that would be assuming that there was a golden age of religion, where almost everyone went to church, which is simply not true, obviously the numbers have increased but only because we've started recording them.
So the church does not and never will speak for the UK, the reason we have multiculturalism is not because of good christian values, it is because of the goverment, and the economy in the 40's 50's and 60's. Since then there has been a steady increase and we are left where we are today, a pretty much godless nation, faced with problems we never thought would arise.


The Church for me is merely the symbol of organised religion, whereas Christianity is a way of life. I live by christian values, the main one being
"Do unto others as you would be done by". That basically encompasses what christianity stands for in my view.

You are correct that mass immigration has been a result of political manipulation and ideology which has resulted in a fractured society in which cultures are living independently of each other and far from integrating are drifting further apart. How on earth was it ever considered possible for cultures that subjugate women and condemn homosexuality could co-exist happily with a culture that promotes women's rights and sexual equality? Furthermore the necessity to learn the English language in order to facilitate integration, and promote better understanding has been completely overlooked, and the provision of interpreters and translators has only resulted in immigrants excluding themselves from the ability to blend in with the indigenous population.

Again you are correct that over the centuries many cultures have successfully integrated into society, but this has been because they have been willing to embrace their host culture and assimilate it with their own. The recent influx of immigrants seem unwilling to do so and indeed are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to demand favoured treatment, which only causes resentment not only amongst the indigenous population but also amongst other more historically established immigrants.

Failure to think through the consequences of an open door policy have led us to the brink of anarchy in this country. I don't think it's too far fetched to state that multiculturism has resulted in most people in this country living in a constant state of fear and suspicion since no common ground has been established between the different communities.

As a christian (not a church goer) I treat people with respect and consideration, and would hope that they will reciprocate in the same way. Sadly this has not always been my experience.

[InOne]

The Church for me is merely the symbol of organised religion, whereas Christianity is a way of life. I live by christian values, the main one being
"Do unto others as you would be done by". That basically encompasses what christianity stands for in my view.

You are correct that mass immigration has been a result of political manipulation and ideology which has resulted in a fractured society in which cultures are living independently of each other and far from integrating are drifting further apart. How on earth was it ever considered possible for cultures that subjugate women and condemn homosexuality could co-exist happily with a culture that promotes women's rights and sexual equality? Furthermore the necessity to learn the English language in order to facilitate integration, and promote better understanding has been completely overlooked, and the provision of interpreters and translators has only resulted in immigrants excluding themselves from the ability to blend in with the indigenous population.

Again you are correct that over the centuries many cultures have successfully integrated into society, but this has been because they have been willing to embrace their host culture and assimilate it with their own. The recent influx of immigrants seem unwilling to do so and indeed are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to demand favoured treatment, which only causes resentment not only amongst the indigenous population but also amongst other more historically established immigrants.

Failure to think through the consequences of an open door policy have led us to the brink of anarchy in this country. I don't think it's too far fetched to state that multiculturism has resulted in most people in this country living in a constant state of fear and suspicion since no common ground has been established between the different communities.

As a christian (not a church goer) I treat people with respect and consideration, and would hope that they will reciprocate in the same way. Sadly this has not always been my experience.

Ahhh yes, well the golden rule applies in most religions really. It has to be said alot don't seem to follow it though. Also yeah, I agree alot of different cultures have been willing to embrace because they are alot like our own, their values anyway.
We as a society have either been too lenient or lazy, probably a bit of both and we have not really seen it coming or expected it to happen. Britian has been seen as an easy way of life, people say they do the jobs 'Britons don't want to do' when in acutal fact it's because they are willing to work more hours for a lot less pay. Also I agree with what you said about learning English, it should be a must, but some barely speak and neither do the kids, which make it alot harder for schools.
I really think as a society we have become far too PC, too scared to speak our mind, taught to respect cultures without question and no matter what they do. Which of course is ridiculous, also the media creating folk devils and moral panics which divert us from the real issues. Maybe i'm so blunt because I live in the City, i've seen it all happening first hand, i've been to many cities where it is happening. It's hard to know who's fault it is really, everyone blames everyone, I really don't know what it going to become of Britian, but at the moment it's looking pretty bleak.

[arista]

Don't mind the Hijab, just the Burka. And nothing is as simple as 'just getting on'


Bang On Right
InOne.

[arista]

"Maybe i'm so blunt because I live in the City,"

No a Breath of Common Sense
we have Mrs.Netto going on with her Pointed Finger.
So we need Balance.


France is setting a better way
with some give and take.


Life In The City.

[InOne]

"Maybe i'm so blunt because I live in the City,"

No a Breath of Common Sense
we have Mrs.Netto going on with her Pointed Finger.
So we need Balance.


France is setting a better way
with some give and take.


Life In The City.

Indeed so, people say our opinion is misinformed or uneducated, yet they're upper middle class people who live in quaint little villages. Those overactive students annoy me as well, they give the wrong people the right press.

[Angus]

Correction we ARE a predominately secular population and it is our educated values and HUMAN compassion (not to mention market forces) that has allowed us to accept different cultures....and WE do on the whole ALL share common HUMAN values, goals and aspirations....not really much to do with being christian at all...most religions share the same kinds of morals and values anyway

I would agree with you to the extent that human compassion is not exclusive to christianity, but the point I was making was that this country has historically always been predominantly christian and it is undeniable that the Church and State have always had a strained relationship. Whilst other cultures do of course share common HUMAN values, the political and social expressions of those values do not always translate into tolerance of other cultures and faiths, and in fact often try to surpress any alternative views or criticisms. Some immigrants from those more oppressive cultures often bring with them those intolerant attitudes which do not sit well with the host society. To deny that there are cultural tensions and dissidence in society is dangerous and blinkered and so far has prohibited positive government intervention to promote integration rather than segregation.

[NettoSuperstar!]

I would agree with you to the extent that human compassion is not exclusive to christianity, but the point I was making was that this country has historically always been predominantly christian and it is undeniable that the Church and State have always had a strained relationship. Whilst other cultures do of course share common HUMAN values, the political and social expressions of those values do not always translate into tolerance of other cultures and faiths, and in fact often try to surpress any alternative views or criticisms. Some immigrants from those more oppressive cultures often bring with them those intolerant attitudes which do not sit well with the host society. To deny that there are cultural tensions and dissidence in society is dangerous and blinkered and so far has prohibited positive government intervention to promote integration rather than segregation.

evidence that this is widespread and the norm amongst "other" cultures and faiths?...Christianity (or the followers of) has historically been pretty damn intolerant too!

[WOMBAI]

evidence that this is widespread and the norm amongst "other" cultures and faiths?...Christianity (or the followers of) has historically been pretty damn intolerant too!

We are not talking about historically - we are talking now!

[Angus]

evidence that this is widespread and the norm amongst "other" cultures and faiths?...Christianity (or the followers of) has historically been pretty damn intolerant too!


I have lived for many years in countries with oppressive governments and regimes so I think I am competent to speak from experience regarding the attitudes ingrained in the cultures of such countries, particularly towards women, and visitors from the West. Western values and practices are seldom tolerated in any way, shape or form. Few, if any, concessions are made towards those of other cultures and beliefs. As a westerner in such circumstances, I did the prudent and courteous thing living in someone else's country and did my best to integrate which included learning the language and embracing their culture.

All I'm saying is that it is commonsense for migrants to any country, not just the UK, to try and assimilate themselves into the culture of their chosen land, which does not mean abandoning their own beliefs and culture, but finding a way to coexist with the indigenous population, as well as migrants from other countries.

[NettoSuperstar!]

I have lived for many years in countries with oppressive governments and regimes so I think I am competent to speak from experience regarding the attitudes ingrained in the cultures of such countries, particularly towards women, and visitors from the West. Western values and practices are seldom tolerated in any way, shape or form. Few, if any, concessions are made towards those of other cultures and beliefs. As a westerner in such circumstances, I did the prudent and courteous thing living in someone else's country and did my best to integrate which included learning the language and embracing their culture.

All I'm saying is that it is commonsense for migrants to any country, not just the UK, to try and assimilate themselves into the culture of their chosen land, which does not mean abandoning their own beliefs and culture, but finding a way to coexist with the indigenous population, as well as migrants from other countries.

1.We shouldnt and never will be as intolerant as some other countries, and the oppression of people in other countries has feck all to do with the religion itself...religious interpretation and the power it holds is another thing. ALL religions have different interpretations held by different groups.

2. Most people from different ethnic backgrounds and cultures in this country dont have a problem with "our" values and secular democracy (infact the majority having been born here they are part of the "we" and "our") and fit in just fine whatever their religion or lack of it...if there are those that disagree with what they see as different values to the rest of us, then I would rather they had the right to disagree than to be opressed and punised for thinking differently (unless they are hurting others in the process). This isnt a country where only christians get a say in whats right and wrong, plenty of different races and cultures are born into the UK, times are changing, this is a globalized world and white ethnocentric people and christians will just have to get used to that fact and educate themselves to the realities and stop the fear mongering that goes on about other cultures. The struggle for womens rights, equal rights for all, compassion for others and tolerance etc are universal accross all cultures. Ditto intolerance

3. There is no idigenous genetically and culturally distinct population of Britain we have always been changing and assimilating with other cultures, cuts both ways.

Definition of religious intolerance:

•Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected;
•Spreading hatred about an entire group; e.g. stating or implying that all members of a group are evil, behave immorally, commit criminal acts, etc.;
•Ridiculing and belittling an entire faith group for their sincerely held beliefs and practices;
•Attempting to force religious beliefs and practices on others against their will;
•Restricting human rights of members of an identifiable religious group;
•Devaluing other faiths as worthless or evil.
•Inhibiting the freedom of a person to change their religion.


Seems like a lot of religious intolerance towards muslims coming from a minority also, as bad as any intolerance from the minority of muslims that preach the same...seems like we have intolerance from a minority on both sides...most people in the middle (from all cultures) can see it for what it is

[NettoSuperstar!]

We are not talking about historically - we are talking now!

Oh there are plenty of Christians who are intolerant today...Westborough Baptist church, sarah "ignorant and intolerant" Palin and the growing number of evangelical christians in american politics influencing or attempting to influence policies...(and thats got little to with the religion itself its the interpretation)


The role of US evangelists in Uganda's 'kill the gays' bill http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/the-role-of-us-evangelists-in-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-20100111-m2lf.html


Cannot believe your comment in the other thread either "most sex/violent cimes are committed by black/asian/muslim men...erm yeh if your Daily Mail reader you might have that impression but if you actually look at the statistics in depth you'll see your talking absolute bollocks!!...do you still maintain your not racist after that comment?

[arista]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2010/1/27/1264615289093/Daily-Mail-Indulge-Daily--001.jpg

Netto nothing wrong with the Daily Mail
infact it is now made for you as well.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/28/daily-mail-targets-women

[NettoSuperstar!]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2010/1/27/1264615289093/Daily-Mail-Indulge-Daily--001.jpg

Netto nothing wrong with the Daily Mail
infact it is now made for you as well.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/28/daily-mail-targets-women

Lol, it will never be made for me until they stop pandering to bigots

[sooty]

do you still maintain your not racist after that comment?

She is not racist.
Wombai is just seriously concerned about this country.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Wombai is just seriously concerned about this country.

blaming ethnic minorities for everything is ridiculous

[Angus]

blaming ethnic minorities for everything is ridiculous

I agree.
The blame lies squarely with the government that has allowed, even encouraged, immigration on an unprecedented scale, but have not put in place adequate measures or funding to ensure that there are sufficient resources to cope with the numbers - where are the all the additional houses, doctors, dentists, schools, jobs etc for the burgeoning population? The competition for the limited resources available is what causes the tensions and resentments within society. If there were enough of everything to go around a lot of the frictions that exist between communities would disappear.

[arista]

I agree.
The blame lies squarely with the government that has allowed, even encouraged, immigration on an unprecedented scale, but have not put in place adequate measures or funding to ensure that there are sufficient resources to cope with the numbers - where are the all the additional houses, doctors, dentists, schools, jobs etc for the burgeoning population? The competition for the limited resources available is what causes the tensions and resentments within society. If there were enough of everything to go around a lot of the frictions that exist between communities would disappear.


Yes and Stinking New Labour will be Kicked Out.

[WOMBAI]

blaming ethnic minorities for everything is ridiculous

Sick to death of you and a few others making such constant allegations - some of you accuse others of being politically correct about certain issues - but are actually being so yourself over race. Facts are facts - drawing attention to said facts does not make someone racist. I dare say many are reluctant to say it because of fear of being called racist, and I understand that, but I will not bow down to that. It is ridiculous.
Below are a couple of paragraphs from an article in the telegraph for which I have included the web address - read before you just blindly and hysterically call me a racist:

"The truth is, violent white-on-black crime is a rarity in Britain, by comparison – although white-on-Asian crime is rather less so. The overwhelming bulk of violent street crime in London is committed by young black men, and in numerous cases against white people, although one would not impute a racial motive; the statistics suggest that young black male criminals are quite happy to stab or shoot anybody who hoves into view with either a bulging wallet, a mobile phone or an assumed reflection of disrespec’ in their eyes.

Apologies if this offends – but that’s how it is. At most, the African Caribbean population of London is about 12% of the whole. But black males are responsible for nearly 60% of arrests for robbery – and the overwhelming majority of gun crime, most of it black-on-black violence."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/10062027/Rod_Liddle_bravely_tells_the_truth_about_knife_cri me/

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/181/18105.htm

[ange7]

Wombai your looking toolish.
If immigrants come to a country they'll live in the poorest communities which have higher crime rates. Can you see how crime has a link to lower socio-economic areas and therefore if that area has high proportion of asians etc then the asian crime stats will be high. ARe there other factors?... sure there are, access to education, feeling disenganged politically, rasist fear mongering, lack of cultual integration and repect etc... that's an endless list. YOU choose to link crime with their race/religion and ignore all else. You blindly quote the facts that you like and willfully ignore all else as you try to reduce complex problems to things that don't hurt your brainz.
The telegraph link as a fact to back up you hate was hilarious and sad at the same time Well done.
ps mate I doubt Netto gives two *****s what your "sick of". What a noob way to start a post but don't despair... ARISTA is on your side ( kiss of death lol)

[WOMBAI]

Wombai your looking toolish.
If immigrants come to a country they'll live in the poorest communities which have higher crime rates. Can you see how crime has a link to lower socio-economic areas and therefore if that area has high proportion of asians etc then the asian crime stats will be high. ARe there other factors?... sure there are, access to education, feeling disenganged politically, rasist fear mongering, lack of cultual integration and repect etc... that's an endless list. YOU choose to link crime with their race/religion and ignore all else. You blindly quote the facts that you like and willfully ignore all else as you try to reduce complex problems to things that don't hurt your brainz.
The telegraph link as a fact to back up you hate was hilarious and sad at the same time Well done.
ps mate I doubt Netto gives two *****s what your "sick of". What a noob way to start a post but don't despair... ARISTA is on your side ( kiss of death lol)



Of course there is a link with lower socio-economic conditions/areas - but equally there are many other cultures living in the same conditions. But despite being in the minority certain groups are commiting the highest percentage of crime. Figures speak for themselves. I don't deny other contributing factors - but they do not excuse these groups of people from behaving the way they do. Sticks and stones mate. Calling people 'sick' for highlighting certain issues - is just a pathetic attempt at intimidating people from doing so. Couldn't give a ***** what you or netto think! :joker:

"Conclusion—the nature and extent of overrepresentation

92. We can say with greater certainty that the patterns of offending vary between different ethnic groups than that the level of offending varies significantly. While it is unclear whether young black people commit more crime of all types than young people as a whole, it does appear that they are more likely overall to be involved in certain types of serious and violent crime, including gun crime.

93. The level of young black people's involvement in these crimes, and the overrepresentation of young black people in the system overall—which may reflect other factors also—represents a serious crisis for sections of black communities and for some young people of a mixed ethnic background. Nowhere was this more strongly pointed out to us than by those working with and representing those communities themselves. Lee Jasper, Director of Equalities and Policing at the Greater London Authority, told us "we have, quite literally, a crisis in the black community among our young, black people."[131]

94. The variations between the nature and extent of young black people's involvement in the criminal justice system compared to that of other young people suggest that there are likely to be some specific factors in young black people's experience that need to be tackled—and that policies which do not take into account these differences are likely to be ineffective."


http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/181/18105.htm

[ange7]

?? zzzz read my post and save the rant... where did I call you sick? Where did Netto call you sick? The "pathetic attempt at intimidating" is actually you misreading and then working it into your victim fantasy.
The "sick of" quote came from what YOU champ.

your links
"it does appear that they are more likely overall to be involved in certain types of serious and violent crime, including gun crime. "

No one argued against this... question is why. Your repeating of the "facts" that none dispute doesn't move the debate anywhere. Why are crime rates amoung young disaffected black or asian youth disproportionally higher? Your post points to cultural, race and religion..." the facts don't lie" you said. Mate surely you get there are way more factors at work here and writing off a whole group of people based on something as simple as that smacks of racism. Attempts made at looking into the bigger picture you write off as an example of me making excuses for why crime by blacks is ok. I want to understand it like you do but unlike you I don't jump at simple answers served to me by the daily mail and the telegraph.
ps the laughing clown emoticon seems desperate when you try to convince us the you "don't give a *****"....especially in light of the fact that you sooo don't give a ***** that you wrote me an essay complete with a bibliography :P.

[WOMBAI]

?? zzzz read my post and save the rant... where did I call you sick? Where did Netto call you sick? The "pathetic attempt at intimidating" is actually you misreading and then working it into your victim fantasy.
The "sick of" quote came from what YOU champ.

your links
"it does appear that they are more likely overall to be involved in certain types of serious and violent crime, including gun crime. "

No one argued against this... question is why. Your repeating of the "facts" that none dispute doesn't move the debate anywhere. Why are crime rates amoung young disaffected black or asian youth disproportionally higher? Your post points to cultural, race and religion..." the facts don't lie" you said. Mate surely you get there are way more factors at work here and writing off a whole group of people based on something as simple as that smacks of racism. Attempts made at looking into the bigger picture you write off as an example of me making excuses for why crime by blacks is ok. I want to understand it like you do but unlike you I don't jump at simple answers served to me by the daily mail and the telegraph.
ps the laughing clown emoticon seems desperate when you try to convince us the you "don't give a *****"....especially in light of the fact that you sooo don't give a ***** that you wrote me an essay complete with a bibliography :P.

Yes, I misread the sick bit, although never accused netto of saying that, was just referring to the previous post. I consider my wrist slapped for that.

As for the rest - I just highlighted the fact that certain minority groups appeared more involved in certain crimes than others. For that I got called racist. That is what I rightly object to. I was right in that - so to call me racist for stating facts is incorrect - and is just certain people using emotive language to deter people from stating such facts. Netto is always accusing people of being racist - she has her own agenda for that!

I don't profess to know all the reasons behind why certain groups are commiting a greater proportion of certain crimes - that area is a minefield and needs further investigation by the right people - fact is just they are! Are people not allowed to state such facts because they don't sit well with some people on here!

The fact that other groups who have the same socio-economic disadvantages are not behaving in the same way suggests to me and many others that there is a cultural aspect involved. This needs to be addressed, not ignored.

[NettoSuperstar!]

You choose to look at one particular area of crime , the one that appears to have a hign proportion of black people...hmm ok. Well also if you look furthur into the actual statistics you'd see that black males are 8 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white males and more likely to be convicted compared to like for like crimes committed by white males and with fewer previous convictions....not to mention the prevalence of black people in poor deprived areas and the associated problems, drugs, lack of education and so on as mentioned by Ange

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/nov/26/young-black-men-policing-prisons

http://www.smartjustice.org/yprace.html

[arista]

"ARISTA is on your side"


Ange do not put me in that bag,
I stand Alone
it may be how you suffer your life
in that Down Under nation.
Not me.

[WOMBAI]

You choose to look at one particular area of crime , the one that appears to have a hign proportion of black people...hmm ok. Well also if you look furthur into the actual statistics you'd see that black males are 8 times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white males and more likely to be convicted compared to like for like crimes committed by white males and with fewer previous convictions....not to mention the prevalence of black people in poor deprived areas and the associated problems, drugs, lack of education and so on as mentioned by Ange

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/nov/26/young-black-men-policing-prisons

http://www.smartjustice.org/yprace.html

Because that particular area of crime is one of the worst kinds - where people get killed! And I did read the statistics you mention, doesn't change the fact that certain minority groups are more responsible for violent crime including gun crime. If they are a minority group - how come they are most responsible for that type of crime? They are not the only group living in those conditions - so as far as I can see, that does not excuse it!

[ange7]

"ARISTA is on your side"


Ange do not put me in that bag,
I stand Alone
it may be how you suffer your life
in that Down Under nation.
Not me.
lol wha?
back in your box loopy McLoopLoop.
ps
"bang on right" means you agree with someone right?

[ange7]

Because that particular area of crime is one of the worst kinds - where people get killed! And I did read the statistics you mention, doesn't change the fact that certain minority groups are more responsible for violent crime including gun crime. If they are a minority group - how come they are most responsible for that type of crime? They are not the only group living in those conditions - so as far as I can see, that does not excuse it!

gawd. you talking round and round, repeating yourself.zzzz For the 3rd time none disagree that crime among disadvantaged minorities is higher than the average. This isn't news to anyone so slamming that on the table with the phrase "here are da facts" isn't getting you the win. It's like your arguing with yourself and then patting yourself on the back. Here's the point.... your using THAT fact to back up your point. My question is what is your point? Have the ballz to say it. Are you saying that Asians or Muslims are naturally "bad" or do you agree with us that there are MANY factors on both sides that have led to the situation being what it is. Your point about "other" disadvantages minorities not being involved in crime is a massive fail. It suggests that it must be something specifically about asian or muslim culture or religion. That's why you come across as racist. Follow through with your argument because stating the obvious is a waste. Other minorities have been in the UK longer and have settled and don't have the stigma of "muslim" attached to them. It's an unfair and stupid comparison. Here in Australia in the 60's Greeks and Italians were the target of racism, accused of and had higher crime rates and were ghettoised. 15 years later they were accepted, moved out of the few suburbs they lived in and spread out through the city as they became more affluent... crime rates for Greeks and Italian went way down to the nation average. In the 70's the same thing happened with Vietnamese arrivals , and again in the 80's with the Lebanese, 90's South Americans, 00's Somalis, Sri Lankans and Afghans. Your comparison doesn't take into account that over time a society will at first "tolerate" and the respect and love new cultures. Comparing minorites totally ignores that point. What matters...is the general society welcoming or is it filled with retarded racist co*kwits that have loser lives and need to blame their failures on someone else.
Ps You keep saying that anyone with a view other than yours must be trying to "excuse" crime. This is a cheap and nasty shot and makes you look desperate for a "win". Just think it through.... isn't a topic as huge as this worth a little more thought or do think it just has a simple answer?

[WOMBAI]

gawd. you talking round and round, repeating yourself.zzzz For the 3rd time none disagree that crime among disadvantaged minorities is higher than the average. This isn't news to anyone so slamming that on the table with the phrase "here are da facts" isn't getting you the win. It's like your arguing with yourself and then patting yourself on the back. Here's the point.... your using THAT fact to back up your point. My question is what is your point? Have the ballz to say it. Are you saying that Asians or Muslims are naturally "bad" or do you agree with us that there are MANY factors on both sides that have led to the situation being what it is. Your point about "other" disadvantages minorities not being involved in crime is a massive fail. It suggests that it must be something specifically about asian or muslim culture or religion. That's why you come across as racist. Follow through with your argument because stating the obvious is a waste. Other minorities have been in the UK longer and have settled and don't have the stigma of "muslim" attached to them. It's an unfair and stupid comparison. Here in Australia in the 60's Greeks and Italians were the target of racism, accused of and had higher crime rates and were ghettoised. 15 years later they were accepted, moved out of the few suburbs they lived in and spread out through the city as they became more affluent... crime rates for Greeks and Italian went way down to the nation average. In the 70's the same thing happened with Vietnamese arrivals , and again in the 80's with the Lebanese, 90's South Americans, 00's Somalis, Sri Lankans and Afghans. Your comparison doesn't take into account that over time a society will at first "tolerate" and the respect and love new cultures. Comparing minorites totally ignores that point. What matters...is the general society welcoming or is it filled with retarded racist co*kwits that have loser lives and need to blame their failures on someone else.
Ps You keep saying that anyone with a view other than yours must be trying to "excuse" crime. This is a cheap and nasty shot and makes you look desperate for a "win". Just think it through.... isn't a topic as huge as this worth a little more thought or do think it just has a simple answer?

I have already said in one post that I do believe there is a cultural aspect to it. I am not saying that any group is naturally 'bad' - more use of emotive language to inflame the debate and attempt to justify your views - but it does have more to do with environment and what people become used to - evidence does suggest that, for instance, certain groups ie Jamaicans - who come from countries with violent cultures, with lots of gangs, and less law and order, bring that way of life to our streets. And something does need to be done about it - we don't want more violence, we have enough of it already.

How does my point that other disadvantaged groups, including poor, uneducated whites, not acting in the same way - equal a fail in your book. You explain that - just stating fail in itself is pointelss, useless and proves nothing. And how does saying that culture can affect behaviour make someone racist? Surely that is a fact! Seems to me you live more in an idealistic world than a realistic one. Different cultures have different ways of doing things, different ways of thinking about things and can be used to a completely different way of life to us. I strongly believe that if people live in another country, whether by choice or circumstance, they should respect that country's way of life and abide by their rules and regulations - it is not a god-given right to be there.

And you can take your patronizing, know-it-all attitude and stick it where it hurts! I guess I better prepare myself for a barrage of racist allegations then!

[arista]

"take your patronizing, know-it-all attitude and stick it"


Yes Down Under Ange7
take that.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Because that particular area of crime is one of the worst kinds - where people get killed! And I did read the statistics you mention, doesn't change the fact that certain minority groups are more responsible for violent crime including gun crime. If they are a minority group - how come they are most responsible for that type of crime? They are not the only group living in those conditions - so as far as I can see, that does not excuse it!

They are not neccasarily more responsible either, more likely to be arrested and convicted yes and more likely to live in poverty and deprivation, the same kinds of things happen in all poor deprived areas, white aswell...The only agenda I have is to balance out yours

[ange7]

"I have already said in one post that I do believe there is a cultural aspect to it" yes you did... but I didn't. Your not getting that the example I used re Australia's migrant intake. People from all of these cultures at one time or another had higher than average crime rates during the initial intake which tailored off after a decade or so as they were accepted. That each of these diverse cultures initially had THE SAME problems points to a other factors of acceptance and tolerance from the society as a whole rather than them coming from "countries with violent cultures". This example answered you point about other disadvantaged groups but you missed it. It's not uselful to compare one group that has been in society for 50 years to a group of migrants from another country that has come more recently? Then you added the example of "uneducated whites" ( jeez are like 60 years old... that's cold) ... here your not comparing like with like given that anglo/celtic working class are NOT routinely discriminated against etc. Their experiences of what it means to be British and in the UK is way too different to be able to make any usable argument.

"And how does saying that culture can affect behaviour make someone racist"
dude that's you arguing with YOU again. When did I say culture CAN"T influence behaviour? WHen did I say you were racist... dude are you reading my post or just projecting some other argument where you got labelled a racist onto me? While I'm at it don't act like I'm patronising you just because I disagree with you. This persecution complex of yours where your the victim and I'm the evil guy inflicting a "barrage" sounds like that sad act lady sov "don't patronise me!!". Just argue your point mate " there's a good boy" :P.

"Different cultures have different ways of doing things, different ways of thinking about things...etc"
Not so different... we're all humans and if it's a hard ask to respect other cultures then buddy that boat as long since sailed. ( I am convinced your 60 years old). Multicultualism works but it takes an effort to learn and be curisous about other cultures. It's a two way street and yeah some immagrants feel left out, they get rubbished and mocked and naturally feel more of a connection to their homeland and resentful of the UK. That's not a failing on their part but a failing on UK society. eg If some extremist Imams can fool a group of brumy ( spelling?) asian boys who had never even seen a quran in their lives to blow up innocent people in buses and trains then what does that say about UK society? No I'm not condoning 7/7 you noob, I'm saying what else can UK society learn from it? Why was it so easy for these imams to turn them? Why did these kids feel like there was no place for them in today's UK?. Clearly they were meatheads and easily fooled but why were they so up for it? It was becasue they were on the outer from day one and they knew it and felt it. In a shop, on the street, on tibb... they'd feel it and know it.... daily. If you guys want multiculturalism to work ( and you have ZERO choice in that) then make an effort instead of writing off whole cultural segments of your population with Arista's daily mail logic. That sh*t is good for selling papers but not for much else.

[ange7]

"take your patronizing, know-it-all attitude and stick it"


Yes Down Under Ange7
take that.
aww the jolly green troll furthering the debate as usual.
You still angry because I called you Loopy McLoopLoops. Don't read too much into that :P

[arista]

aww the jolly green troll furthering the debate as usual.
You still angry because I called you Loopy McLoopLoops. Don't read too much into that :P


No that Means Nothing as a Term
Not a Problem

Down Under Ange7

[WOMBAI]

"I have already said in one post that I do believe there is a cultural aspect to it" yes you did... but I didn't. Your not getting that the example I used re Australia's migrant intake. People from all of these cultures at one time or another had higher than average crime rates during the initial intake which tailored off after a decade or so as they were accepted. That each of these diverse cultures initially had THE SAME problems points to a other factors of acceptance and tolerance from the society as a whole rather than them coming from "countries with violent cultures". This example answered you point about other disadvantaged groups but you missed it. It's not uselful to compare one group that has been in society for 50 years to a group of migrants from another country that has come more recently? Then you added the example of "uneducated whites" ( jeez are like 60 years old... that's cold) ... here your not comparing like with like given that anglo/celtic working class are NOT routinely discriminated against etc. Their experiences of what it means to be British and in the UK is way too different to be able to make any usable argument.

"And how does saying that culture can affect behaviour make someone racist"
dude that's you arguing with YOU again. When did I say culture CAN"T influence behaviour? WHen did I say you were racist... dude are you reading my post or just projecting some other argument where you got labelled a racist onto me? While I'm at it don't act like I'm patronising you just because I disagree with you. This persecution complex of yours where your the victim and I'm the evil guy inflicting a "barrage" sounds like that sad act lady sov "don't patronise me!!". Just argue your point mate " there's a good boy" :P.

"Different cultures have different ways of doing things, different ways of thinking about things...etc"
Not so different... we're all humans and if it's a hard ask to respect other cultures then buddy that boat as long since sailed. ( I am convinced your 60 years old). Multicultualism works but it takes an effort to learn and be curisous about other cultures. It's a two way street and yeah some immagrants feel left out, they get rubbished and mocked and naturally feel more of a connection to their homeland and resentful of the UK. That's not a failing on their part but a failing on UK society. eg If some extremist Imams can fool a group of brumy ( spelling?) asian boys who had never even seen a quran in their lives to blow up innocent people in buses and trains then what does that say about UK society? No I'm not condoning 7/7 you noob, I'm saying what else can UK society learn from it? Why was it so easy for these imams to turn them? Why did these kids feel like there was no place for them in today's UK?. Clearly they were meatheads and easily fooled but why were they so up for it? It was becasue they were on the outer from day one and they knew it and felt it. In a shop, on the street, on tibb... they'd feel it and know it.... daily. If you guys want multiculturalism to work ( and you have ZERO choice in that) then make an effort instead of writing off whole cultural segments of your population with Arista's daily mail logic. That sh*t is good for selling papers but not for much else.

"It suggests that it must be something specifically about asian or muslim culture or religion. That's why you come across as racist."

You did state that saying that culture can affect behaviour sounds racist as the above quotation shows!

I am getting it, as you put it - the Australian migrant point - but the gun crime is too crucial to wait for years to resolve. A lot of people can die in ten years. You seem to blame eveything on government and government policies - but people do have individual responsibilty for their actions - you can't always pass the buck!

Why is it also in your view the responsibility of the host population to accept those coming into the country as opposed to those coming in making more of an effort to adapt to their host country and assimilating into that country's way of life. You seem too biased the other way to me!

Can you be a bit more succinct in your replies - haven't got the energy to read your novels today, you noob!

[ange7]

"It suggests that it must be something specifically about asian or muslim culture or religion". jesus mate lol? what's up with you? again you said that... but I didn't. It's my summary of YOUR view not mine. Read the post ffs.
"You seem to blame eveything on government and government policies" oh really.
"Why is it also in your view the responsibility of the host population to accept those coming into the country" ... you invited them. When you did you didn't add pre-conditions .... you didn't need to since 99% of immigrants are law abiding and DON"T come from cultures that see British standards as foreign. That's just you and the daily mail.
"but people do have individual responsibilty for their actions" Obviously... again you seem to want to present my argument as a defense of criminals. Nah I defending the majority of immigrants who you love to lump together because it makes hard topics much much silmpler for you to work through.
"Can you be a bit more succinct in your replies - haven't got the energy to read your novels today, you noob! "
mahahaha 3 paragraphs has tired you out .... awwww you poor lil'victim you. hehe Struggle on champ.

[Vicky.]

Then you added the example of "uneducated whites" ( jeez are like 60 years old... that's cold) ... here your not comparing like with like given that anglo/celtic working class are NOT routinely discriminated against etc.

It sounds an awful lot like you are blaming the crimes on racism in the first place? You assume far too much if this is what you were trying to say.

If not, I apologise.

[NettoSuperstar!]

It sounds an awful lot like you are blaming the crimes on racism in the first place? You assume far too much if this is what you were trying to say.

If not, I apologise.

In part institutional racism is a part of it, black males are more likely to be stopped, white males are more likely to be cautioned than black men (for the same offences). Black men are more likely to be convicted and given harsher sentences for the same offences, even when they have fewer previous convictions then their white counterparts...aswell as being marginalised in society. Its not blaming the crimes on that, its just facts that make up why black men are over represented in the justice system. Theres another study which I cant find that suggests the level of crime is more even accross cultures according to offenders self reports.

[WOMBAI]

"It suggests that it must be something specifically about asian or muslim culture or religion". jesus mate lol? what's up with you? again you said that... but I didn't. It's my summary of YOUR view not mine. Read the post ffs.
"You seem to blame eveything on government and government policies" oh really.
"Why is it also in your view the responsibility of the host population to accept those coming into the country" ... you invited them. When you did you didn't add pre-conditions .... you didn't need to since 99% of immigrants are law abiding and DON"T come from cultures that see British standards as foreign. That's just you and the daily mail.
"but people do have individual responsibilty for their actions" Obviously... again you seem to want to present my argument as a defense of criminals. Nah I defending the majority of immigrants who you love to lump together because it makes hard topics much much silmpler for you to work through.
"Can you be a bit more succinct in your replies - haven't got the energy to read your novels today, you noob! "
mahahaha 3 paragraphs has tired you out .... awwww you poor lil'victim you. hehe Struggle on champ.

"If some extremist Imams can fool a group of brumy ( spelling?) asian boys who had never even seen a quran in their lives to blow up innocent people in buses and trains then what does that say about UK society?"

Just maybe that says more about the boys and their home and cultural influences than it does about UK society!

Seems you blame everyone - but the individuals that actually commit the crimes. You blame government, government policies, residents of the UK, UK culture - everybody barr those that commit the actual crimes! I hold people personally accountable for their actions and don't believe in passing the buck. Whatever external influences come into play - ultimately the individual is responsible for their own actions. Unless they lack mental capacity - they know right from wrong!

Sorry - but I don't buy into your minority group criminals are innocent victims theories - maybe I am just not the bleeding-heart type!

[Vicky.]

In part institutional racism is a part of it, black males are more likely to be stopped, white males are more likely to be cautioned than black men (for the same offences). Black men are more likely to be convicted and given harsher sentences for the same offences, even when they have fewer previous convictions then their white counterparts...aswell as being marginalised in society.

That I can understand. I would imagine black males are more likely to be stopped, purely because of the stigma surrounding it all...and people believeing they commit more serious crimes...because of statistics...because of the reason for the higher statistics...its a vicious circle.
And quite unfair tbh.

That wasnt my point though, seemed ange was trying to blame the actual CRIMES on racism. Not on the individual who committed them. Thats what i meant.

[Shasown]

You have to love the UK government and its policy of bringin in new laws simply to be seen to be doing something and yet most of them are simply rehashes of existing legislation, particularly on racism and terrorism.

And the best thing is the Great British Public buy into it.

Its trying to get us all to buy into the multicultural Britain they would so dearly love us to believe exists.

[informer]

Nazir Ali should be hung..

[ange7]

It sounds an awful lot like you are blaming the crimes on racism in the first place? You assume far too much if this is what you were trying to say.

If not, I apologise.
I said it was one of many contributing factors that lead to higher than average crime rates among young black or asian youth. Nowhere did I say that those crime rates among this group was solely due to racism. Do you agree with the Wom that years of entrenched racism has nothing to do with it?

[ange7]

Wom: "for instance, certain groups ie Jamaicans - who come from countries with violent cultures, with lots of gangs, and less law and order, bring that way of life to our streets."

These kids are mostly 2nd and sometimes 4th generation brits... ie born in uk. What gangs from Jamaica are you rambling on about you douche?... the worst that can happen to you if you find you self in Kingston is you get roped into a cricket game with a 3 inch spliff out of the side of your gob. Lol of all the violent countries that immigrants are coming from YOU pick Jamaica ...lolz. Kids in the UK involved in pushing up crime rates were mostly born in the UK and their parents were born their too. Something happens to a SMALL NUMBER of them WHILE in the UK.

[ange7]

"You did state that saying that culture can affect behavior sounds racist.. "
nah making it the single factor as you try to do sounds racist.
"culture can affect behaviour" doesn't NOT equal " immigrant culture is the MAIN reason for higher rates of crime among black or asian youth".
That culture affects behaviour is obvious ( that's the definition of culture ie the different ways that groups of people do similar things). Your taking that and saying “well then THAT's why that asian guy robbed that old man” or “THAT's why that muslim kid half my age beat me up last Tuesday”. Funnily enough when an Anglo kid robs an old man you probably don't attribute THAT to the criminals culture though do you?

[ange7]

Ange: "If some extremist Imams can fool a group of brumy ( spelling?) asian boys who had never even seen a quran in their lives to blow up innocent people in buses and trains then what does that say about UK society?"

Wom: "Just maybe that says more about the boys and their home and cultural influences than it does about UK society!"

yeah maybe…but not knowing their details I'd never dare judge and have a say on that....but on the other hand UK society does have elements who are racist, no doubt, so I can have a say about that.
… what it does say is racism helps extremist find recruits among Muslim kids. If these kids weren't marginalised at every turn but were accepted and respected (and not just "tolerated") then when extremist come knocking they'd be told "nah I'm not buying that the UK hate us... p*ss off". You think this doesn't happen? Remember the Islam4UK. What do you think that was about? It was designed to get them more publicity but more importantly more recruits. They wanted to turn moderate muslims into extremist by inflaming racial hate against muslims. They made NO plans to get the march happening like setting a date or asking for permission form local governments. It was all design to get their heads on TV and up the racism against moderate muslims. Pissing off racists and rednecks means more abuse for moderate everyday muslims which would push them towards those extremists movements. Kind of the same thing rednecks do on Tibb really. When some like Inone says "Islam is the plague on the UK" this plays straight into Islam4UK hands because it means more moderates feeling like that don't belong in the UK. A statement like that would get a thumbs up from Choudary.

[ange7]

Wom:"Seems you blame everyone - but the individuals that actually commit the crimes. You blame government, government policies, residents of the UK, UK culture"

I've never said this nor EVEN typed the word “government”. I've said the problem of higher crime rates among some asian and black youth had many contributing factors one of which was racism... something you repeatedly denied. If simply seeing that factors that contribute to the issue are many and varied and then taking the time to point them all out means that I'm a "bleeding-heart" in your eye's ...fine.
" residents of the UK, UK culture". You seem to think you speak for the majority but sorry bro...you're not ... since you don't even believe in basic britsh principles of equity and respect. Your in the minority bro and you hate it :P

[ange7]

You have to love the UK government and its policy of bringin in new laws simply to be seen to be doing something and yet most of them are simply rehashes of existing legislation, particularly on racism and terrorism.

And the best thing is the Great British Public buy into it.

Its trying to get us all to buy into the multicultural Britain they would so dearly love us to believe exists.

It doesn't exist? Mate it exist whether you like it or not, it's currently British policy. Britain is a multicultural nation no matter how deep under the covers you choose to hide. Multiculturalism is about lessening social friction. It's about encouraging immigrants to keep their identity, history and cultural and to share that with the rest of society. Obviously your perfect in every way so you don't need to learn anything from other's , especially those from other cultures but luckily your in the minority their.... so oops...sux to be you.. The "government" ( lol the way you write it sounds like it's some evil organization) is voted in by THE PEOPLE …. and that's who want multiculturalism. If parties thought there were votes in halting multiculturalism then they would have made it one of their policies in the hope of either getting or staying elected. Note how that HASN'T happened. I suggest you join the BNP or the english defence league ie ( BNP lite) who at their last march all shouted "WE HATE MUSLIMS".
So if you hate multiculturalism than what policy would YOU prefer? Should all immigrants assimilate and deny all their cultural, their history, their identity and spend their remaining years in the UK living a lie? Or do you agree with Arista's solution that immigrants should be electronically tagged and monitored to make sure they don't get up mischief. ( lol what a wingnut!) Maybe your solution is to send them all "back to where they came from"? Well...which is it mate? According to you the government has everyone fooled except for you (omg lol) so what's the alternative?

[Angus]

It doesn't exist? Mate it exist whether you like it or not, it's currently British policy. Britain is a multicultural nation no matter how deep under the covers you choose to hide. Multiculturalism is about lessening social friction. It's about encouraging immigrants to keep their identity, history and cultural and to share that with the rest of society. Obviously your perfect in every way so you don't need to learn anything from other's , especially those from other cultures but luckily your in the minority their.... so oops...sux to be you.. The "government" ( lol the way you write it sounds like it's some evil organization) is voted in by THE PEOPLE …. and that's who want multiculturalism. If parties thought there were votes in halting multiculturalism then they would have made it one of their policies in the hope of either getting or staying elected. Note how that HASN'T happened. I suggest you join the BNP or the english defence league ie ( BNP lite) who at their last march all shouted "WE HATE MUSLIMS".
So if you hate multiculturalism than what policy would YOU prefer? Should all immigrants assimilate and deny all their cultural, their history, their identity and spend their remaining years in the UK living a lie? Or do you agree with Arista's solution that immigrants should be electronically tagged and monitored to make sure they don't get up mischief. ( lol what a wingnut!) Maybe your solution is to send them all "back to where they came from"? Well...which is it mate? According to you the government has everyone fooled except for you (omg lol) so what's the alternative?

The alternative is a society where immigrants assimilate, and adapt to the UK culture, hopefully enriching it and being enriched by ours. Since this is an English speaking nation, learning the language should be a priority since it facilitates integration, sharing of ideas and concepts. Sharing a common language is the single most unifying factor since it enables us to communicate.

Embracing and understanding their cultures is what immigrants ask us to do, so surely it is not unreasonable to request them to have the courtesy to embrace ours, and to request that they respect our religions, heritage and history, as we are now required by law to do of theirs. There is no requirement I am aware of for any immigrant to deny their own culture, customs or language unless they are in contravention of the laws of the UK.

Over the centuries England has welcomed immigrants from all over the world, and our rich cultural heritage is a testament to the input of many other cultures. What I find difficult to understand is why multiculturalism has been interpreted by some to mean living as separate communities within society. That is what causes divisions, misunderstandings and suspicions.

[Shasown]

It doesn't exist? Mate it exist whether you like it or not, it's currently British policy. Britain is a multicultural nation no matter how deep under the covers you choose to hide. Multiculturalism is about lessening social friction. It's about encouraging immigrants to keep their identity, history and cultural and to share that with the rest of society. Obviously your perfect in every way so you don't need to learn anything from other's , especially those from other cultures but luckily your in the minority their.... so oops...sux to be you.. The "government" ( lol the way you write it sounds like it's some evil organization) is voted in by THE PEOPLE …. and that's who want multiculturalism. If parties thought there were votes in halting multiculturalism then they would have made it one of their policies in the hope of either getting or staying elected. Note how that HASN'T happened. I suggest you join the BNP or the english defence league ie ( BNP lite) who at their last march all shouted "WE HATE MUSLIMS".
So if you hate multiculturalism than what policy would YOU prefer? Should all immigrants assimilate and deny all their cultural, their history, their identity and spend their remaining years in the UK living a lie? Or do you agree with Arista's solution that immigrants should be electronically tagged and monitored to make sure they don't get up mischief. ( lol what a wingnut!) Maybe your solution is to send them all "back to where they came from"? Well...which is it mate? According to you the government has everyone fooled except for you (omg lol) so what's the alternative?

Think you missed the point I was making, let me explain it in little words and easy phrases then maybe you can get your tiny mind round it.

The government (incidentally elected by what % of eligible voters?) have this refreshing policy of bringing in new legislation to meet anything their advisors believe has raised public concern, instead of dealing with the concern using current legislation already available. Recent anti terror laws and incitement to cause terrorism, amongst others springs immediately to mind.

As for me hating muslims, where did you draw that conclusion from? I just love your unnecessary and verbose replies, please continue.

[InOne]

Seems some idiots on here don't know the difference between race and religion. Muslims don't class themselves as a race so why do you class them as one?

[ange7]

Seems some idiots on here don't know the difference between race and religion. Muslims don't class themselves as a race so why do you class them as one?
mahahaha
awww "idiots" .... losing your cool their bro hehe. Don't worry ... I won't report in fear of missing out on this fun.
Seems some fair minded gentlemen who disagree with me think that they aren't racist trash because "technically" they define their hate as religious and not racial.... therefore they contend it's actually islamophobia instead of racism. lol I stand corrected but the BNP and the KKK would welcome you either way... so bro it's kind of a mute point but well done anyway

[InOne]

mahahaha
awww "idiots" .... losing your cool their bro hehe. Don't worry ... I won't report in fear of missing out on this fun.
Seems some fair minded gentlemen who disagree with me think that they aren't racist trash because "technically" they define their hate as religious and not racial.... therefore they contend it's actually islamophobia instead of racism. lol I stand corrected but the BNP and the KKK would welcome you either way... so bro it's kind of a mute point but well done anyway

So wait???????????? You still didn't answer anything lol

[ange7]

Think you missed the point I was making, let me explain it in little words and easy phrases then maybe you can get your tiny mind round it.

The government (incidentally elected by what % of eligible voters?) have this refreshing policy of bringing in new legislation to meet anything their advisors believe has raised public concern, instead of dealing with the concern using current legislation already available. Recent anti terror laws and incitement to cause terrorism, amongst others springs immediately to mind.

As for me hating muslims, where did you draw that conclusion from? I just love your unnecessary and verbose replies, please continue.

"let me explain it in little words and easy phrases then maybe you can get your tiny mind round it."
oooh yeas pleaze...I can haz lernz from you? What does verbose mean? :P ... oh you mean like you using the word verbose?

"The government (incidentally elected by what % of eligible voters?"
point?...democracy relies on people feeling connected and "in the loop". The fact that in the UK that isn't the case doesn't mean the current elected government has no mandate. They do champ and neither party think tearing down the policy of multiculturalism has any widestream backing among the electorate. ( not sure of other parties...you'll need to tell me what the BNP's policy on multiculturalism is :P ) If they did think a move like that would have a majority backing ( and they were extremely cynical) then one of the major parties would have done so. This is me REPEATING myself to you. ( zzzz) You can't claim that the majority of uk public want to chuck this policy based on some **** viewer mobile phone polls. We haz a democracy not a reich :P

That the government flip flops to buy votes isn't news to anyone... that was your main point but ... no **** sherlock. I focused on your anti multiculturalism stance and the strange conspiracy theorist attitude you have to "the government"...( oooo scary!!).
Answer the quest a ask you in my last post. Multiculturalism creates problem?... what problem do you think it creates and what alternative would you like to see? Is there even a problem or is this a beat up? Please speak really slow for me cuz youz iz soooo brainy.

[ange7]

So wait???????????? You still didn't answer anything lol
Your a racist, fear monger with wayyy too much time on your hands ... 13000 post in 5 months...bro?. It's 5:30 am over there and you need some zzz ( 4.49pm here.... ooo nearly time to go home from my JOB!!!)
:P
pleasure as always

[ange7]

The alternative is a society where immigrants assimilate, and adapt to the UK culture, hopefully enriching it and being enriched by ours. Since this is an English speaking nation, learning the language should be a priority since it facilitates integration, sharing of ideas and concepts. Sharing a common language is the single most unifying factor since it enables us to communicate.

Embracing and understanding their cultures is what immigrants ask us to do, so surely it is not unreasonable to request them to have the courtesy to embrace ours, and to request that they respect our religions, heritage and history, as we are now required by law to do of theirs. There is no requirement I am aware of for any immigrant to deny their own culture, customs or language unless they are in contravention of the laws of the UK.

Over the centuries England has welcomed immigrants from all over the world, and our rich cultural heritage is a testament to the input of many other cultures. What I find difficult to understand is why multiculturalism has been interpreted by some to mean living as separate communities within society. That is what causes divisions, misunderstandings and suspicions.

Agree with that accept these lines...
"There is no requirement I am aware of for any immigrant to deny their own culture" ... correct... under current multicultural policies .... but under forced integration that isn't so true.
"multiculturalism has been interpreted by some to mean living as separate communities within society."
That immigrants become ghettoizing isn't the fault of multiculturalism. It happens when immigrants feel more safe living among them selves rather than more broadly through out a city. There are also economic consideration... newer arrivals to a city aren't going to have their pick of areas to live. This isn't anyones definition of "multiculturalism". There are streets in Sydney where you'd think you were in Hong Kong or Rome... they are wonderful. But 20 years ago when immigrant from asia and Europe were being hammered these areas were ghettoize and not pretty. Today now that those immigrant have been accept and are now an important part of Sydney culture those street are seen as "cosmopolitan" etc. Racism, intolerance, stupidity and fear are the problem.... not multiculturalism.
"Embracing and understanding their cultures is what immigrants ask us to do, so surely it is not unreasonable to request them to have the courtesy to embrace ours"
This is tricky here because I'm wondering if your talking assimilation or do you mean that some immigrants don't embrace the UK. What aspects of UK culture do you feel that immigrants aren't embracing but ought to. And is it a minority? eg extremist Imams hehe. ... but that isn't the case on the whole is it?

[Angus]

Agree with that accept these lines...
"There is no requirement I am aware of for any immigrant to deny their own culture" ... correct... under current multicultural policies .... but under forced integration that isn't so true.
"multiculturalism has been interpreted by some to mean living as separate communities within society."
That immigrants become ghettoizing isn't the fault of multiculturalism. It happens when immigrants feel more safe living among them selves rather than more broadly through out a city. There are also economic consideration... newer arrivals to a city aren't going to have their pick of areas to live. This isn't anyones definition of "multiculturalism". There are streets in Sydney where you'd think you were in Hong Kong or Rome... they are wonderful. But 20 years ago when immigrant from asia and Europe were being hammered these areas were ghettoize and not pretty. Today now that those immigrant have been accept and are now an important part of Sydney culture those street are seen as "cosmopolitan" etc. Racism, intolerance, stupidity and fear are the problem.... not multiculturalism.
"Embracing and understanding their cultures is what immigrants ask us to do, so surely it is not unreasonable to request them to have the courtesy to embrace ours"
This is tricky here because I'm wondering if your talking assimilation or do you mean that some immigrants don't embrace the UK. What aspects of UK culture do you feel that immigrants aren't embracing but ought to. And is it a minority? eg extremist Imams hehe. ... but that isn't the case on the whole is it?

There have always been areas in the UK that are to some extent "ghettoised" for the reasons you give, i.e. that it is natural for immigrants of an ethnic group to gravitate towards each other since they share predominantly a common language. This often happens when English people live and work abroad, forming their own ex pat community and seldom venturing outside it.
For example, I have cousins who have lived in Spain for over five years who don't speak a word of Spanish, and whose days revolve around mixing with the tight knit ex pat community in Almeria where they live. Because they do not speak the language, this hinders communication and integration with the Spanish community in which they live. When one of them was ill at Christmas they had to hire an interpreter to go to the hospital with them! They live in a country in which they feel separate and uninvolved with their local community because they have no means of communicating.

I maintain that the single most unifying factor in any society is to speak a common language because it facilitates communication, understanding and sharing of ideas. Therefore, I think the learning of English (certainy enough to get by with) is an important tool for all immigrants and more should be done to give them access to learning it. A basic understanding of English will enable immigrants to feel more in control and not dependent on interpreters, it will facilitate interaction with others outside their ethnic group, and promote mutual respect between people. As regards your comment about racism, intolerance and stupidity, I would point out that it is not a one way street - there is often inter-racial and inter-religious intolerance and again I emphasise that the fault often lies with the inability to communicate with each other. Without learning English how else would you suggest we communicate?

As regards the lack of housing which forces many immigrants into certain less salubrious areas of the country, this is not an experience unique to new arrivals from abroad. There is now a sharper divide than ever between the haves and have nots, and there are many areas of the UK that are economically out of reach of not only immigrants but vast numbers of the indigenous population. Not all English people live in nice houses in nice areas.

My main criticism of multiculturalism is not the presence of immigrants in the UK but the government's lack of foresight and planning in the provision of sufficient housing, schools, hospitals, doctors etc, in other words the infrastructure of society has not exponentially expanded to accommodate the numbers. The ongoing scramble for a share of the limited and often inadequate resources that are available is what causes the resentment, and feelings of marginalisation and unfairness, and I'm talking between ALL communities.

[WOMBAI]

Wom: "for instance, certain groups ie Jamaicans - who come from countries with violent cultures, with lots of gangs, and less law and order, bring that way of life to our streets."

These kids are mostly 2nd and sometimes 4th generation brits... ie born in uk. What gangs from Jamaica are you rambling on about you douche?... the worst that can happen to you if you find you self in Kingston is you get roped into a cricket game with a 3 inch spliff out of the side of your gob. Lol of all the violent countries that immigrants are coming from YOU pick Jamaica ...lolz. Kids in the UK involved in pushing up crime rates were mostly born in the UK and their parents were born their too. Something happens to a SMALL NUMBER of them WHILE in the UK.

"Something happens to a small number of them while in the UK" - just sounds like more excuses to me? More likely has something to do with home environment and culture!

[Shasown]

[QUOTE=ange7;2954336. I focused on your anti multiculturalism stance and the strange conspiracy theorist attitude you have to "the government"...( oooo scary!!).
Answer the quest a ask you in my last post. Multiculturalism creates problem?... what problem do you think it creates and what alternative would you like to see? Is there even a problem or is this a beat up? Please speak really slow for me cuz youz iz soooo brainy.[/QUOTE]

Multiculteralism can create problems whether perceived or real. A lot of it is down to trust or lack of it and tolerance. You will notice from the post you took umbrage at, I didnt say multiculteralism doesnt exist couldnt exist or shouldnt exist, I simply said "Its trying to get us all to buy into the multicultural Britain they would so dearly love us to believe exists." If the government put as much money into breaking down the barriers that do exist as they put into spin telling us these barriers dont exist, then we would be well on the way to a harmonious multicultural society we could be proud of.


What would I like to see, people educated to accept that their way isnt necessarily the only correct way and that accepting other cultures can benefit everyone.

Still waiting to see something to show why I hate Muslims or is that all you can do, throw in invalid points to inflame arguements? Is that what you get off on?

[arista]

New Labour Multiculteralism has created problems.


They will soon be kicked Out Of Power.
Then this Nation can get it's own values back.

[Crimson Dynamo]

New Labour Multiculteralism has created problems.


They will soon be kicked Out Of Power.
Then this Nation can get it's own values back.

what nation, England?

[Vicky.]

Do you agree with the Wom that years of entrenched racism has nothing to do with it?

Well...yes. You cant blame everything on the past/racism. If it turned out that whites caused more crime, what excuse would you use then? Oh yes, none...it wouldnt matter then would it?

Plus, if we are so horribly racist...why move here in the first place? and am speaking only of those who werent born here...obviously.

[Angus]

Well...yes. You cant blame everything on the past/racism. If it turned out that whites caused more crime, what excuse would you use then? Oh yes, none...it wouldnt matter then would it?

Plus, if we are so horribly racist...why move here in the first place? and am speaking only of those who werent born here...obviously.


Exactly! If the UK is so racist and treats immigrants so dreadfully it does beg the question why so many are beating a path to our borders often across several continents and countries, and often at risk to life and limb?

[Shasown]

Exactly! If the UK is so racist and treats immigrants so dreadfully it does beg the question why so many are beating a path to our borders often across several continents and countries, and often at risk to life and limb?

Our open and accepting people, freedom of speech and to practice the religion of your choice, but most of all our generous benefits system that pays things like Child Benefit and Working Tax/Child Tax credits even if your children are resident in a different EU country.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Exactly! If the UK is so racist and treats immigrants so dreadfully it does beg the question why so many are beating a path to our borders often across several continents and countries, and often at risk to life and limb?

haha...what to go on the dole and sponge of us?? or perhaps because they live in terrible places where they face mortal danger on a daily basis or they cant get work to feed their families!...you, me all of us would be doing exactly the same as them in their position, we were just born lucky! If you had more knowledge and understanding of immigrants/asylum seekers you wouldnt be saying these things, I guarantee...and theres never any mention of the overwhelming contribution to society, they do the jobs Brits wont get out of bed for, The NHS for one would collapse without them..http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/18/nhs60.nhs2 .not to mention the contribution to the arts, culture, music...

[Shasown]

haha...what to go on the dole and sponge of us?? or perhaps because they live in terrible places where they face mortal danger on a daily basis or they cant get work to feed their families!...you, me all of us would be doing exactly the same as them in their position, we were just born lucky! If you had more knowledge and understanding of immigrants/asylum seekers you wouldnt be saying these things, I guarantee...and theres never any mention of the overwhelming contribution to society, they do the jobs Brits wont get out of bed for, The NHS for one would collapse without them...not to mention the contribution to the arts, culture, music...

So why travel across numerous safe countries where they could have easily and safely settled in one of the first safe countries they encountered then?

Local economists up here reckon the influx of migrant workers/immigrants has one major effect, keeping the average standard of living down, by their willingness to work for extremely low wages. Consequently some local employers tend to hire them as opposed to local workers.

The NHS collapsing as your example isnt a particualr good one, if unneccesary adminstrative, middle and higher management posts were thinned out, wages equivalent to that earned in the private sector would be more in parity and the recruitment and retention rates in the NHS would be greatly improved.

[Crimson Dynamo]

haha...what to go on the dole and sponge of us?? or perhaps because they live in terrible places where they face mortal danger on a daily basis or they cant get work to feed their families!...you, me all of us would be doing exactly the same as them in their position, we were just born lucky! If you had more knowledge and understanding of immigrants/asylum seekers you wouldnt be saying these things, I guarantee...and theres never any mention of the overwhelming contribution to society, they do the jobs Brits wont get out of bed for, The NHS for one would collapse without them...not to mention the contribution to the arts, culture, music...

which specific countries do you mean. i dont think you mean any European ones?

[NettoSuperstar!]

which specific countries do you mean. i dont think you mean any European ones?

Im talking abour asylum seekers, most migrant workers from europe come here to work...and do work

[NettoSuperstar!]

So why travel across numerous safe countries where they could have easily and safely settled in one of the first safe countries they encountered then?

Local economists up here reckon the influx of migrant workers/immigrants has one major effect, keeping the average standard of living down, by their willingness to work for extremely low wages. Consequently some local employers tend to hire them as opposed to local workers.

The NHS collapsing as your example isnt a particualr good one, if unneccesary adminstrative, middle and higher management posts were thinned out, wages equivalent to that earned in the private sector would be more in parity and the recruitment and retention rates in the NHS would be greatly improved.

Bollocks, thats the tory answer to everything, thin out middle management etc, it wouldnt answer any problems...and most local workers would rather sponge off the state than do the jobs most migrant workers do, theres very little evidence of people losing out on work because of migrant workers. What are you suggesting Shasown, asylum seekers come here to sponge off the state?

[Shasown]

Im talking abour asylum seekers, most migrant workers from europe come here to work...and do work

How do these asylum seekers get here?

How many other safe European countries do they cross overland in order to arrive at our sanctuary and what do we provide that those other countries dont?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Im talking abour asylum seekers, most migrant workers from europe come here to work...and do work

from which countries?

[NettoSuperstar!]

How do these asylum seekers get here?

How many other safe European countries do they cross overland in order to arrive at our sanctuary and what do we provide that those other countries dont?

Opportunity, theyre more welcome here not shunted off into camps District 9 style, some speak reasonable English, family ties...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Bollocks, thats the tory answer to everything, thin out middle management etc, it wouldnt answer any problems...and most local workers would rather sponge off the state than do the jobs most migrant workers do, theres very little evidence of people losing out on work because of migrant workers. What are you suggesting Shasown, asylum seekers come here to sponge off the state?

"and most local workers would rather sponge off the state than do the jobs most migrant workers do"

where does that sweeping statement come from?

[NettoSuperstar!]

from which countries?

Africa, Burma, China etc

[NettoSuperstar!]

"and most local workers would rather sponge off the state than do the jobs most migrant workers do"

where does that sweeping statement come from?

Well tis true a lot of the time...more true than your sweeping statements

[Shasown]

Africa, Burma, China etc

Yeah but how do they get here from Africa?

Overland through Spain and France.

Why not settle in Spain or France then?

From Burma, China etc? Overland though a shed load of other countries where they would be safe, maybe not as well provision but safe.

Open your eyes and see the wood in amongst the trees FFS.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Yeah but how do they get here from Africa?

Overland through Spain and France.

Why not settle in Spain or France then?

From Burma, China etc? Overland though a shed load of other countries where they would be safe, maybe not as well provision but safe.

Open your eyes and see the wood in amongst the trees FFS.

Actually most end up in camps (District 9 style) in neighbouring countries who then help them move on to various countries around the world, they do settle in France Spain Norway Netherlands all over, not just here

[Shasown]

Actually most end up in camps (District 9 style) in neighbouring countries who then help them move on to various countries around the world, they do settle in France Spain Norway Netherlands all over, not just here


So they end up in fictional camps in neighbouring countries, could you clarify where these camps and countries are?

You wouldnt by any chance mean camps like that at Sangatte near Calais would you?

[NettoSuperstar!]

Camps in Thailand on the border with Burma, various places in Africa...and yes sangate, not fictional at all and theyre often moved from place to place before settling anywhere

[Shasown]

Camps in Thailand on the border with Burma, various places in Africa...

Oh and then they get beamed to UK shores, without going through any other country. I see now thanks for the clarification.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Oh and then they get beamed to UK shores, without going through any other country. I see now thanks for the clarification.

Smart arse, they dont all come to the UK and they dont all come here to sponge off the state, most are more than willing to work.

[Shasown]

Smart arse, they dont all come to the UK and they dont all come here to sponge off the state, most are more than willing to work.

Even so, yes they are willing to work here, but unwilling to settle and work in god knows how many safe countries en route from wherever to here.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Even so, yes they are willing to work here, but unwilling to settle and work in god knows how many safe countries en route from wherever to here.

Yeh plenty are willing to settle in various places all round the world, in fact Im sure most of them would rather stay where they were bloody born if they had the option

[Angus]

haha...what to go on the dole and sponge of us?? or perhaps because they live in terrible places where they face mortal danger on a daily basis or they cant get work to feed their families!...you, me all of us would be doing exactly the same as them in their position, we were just born lucky! If you had more knowledge and understanding of immigrants/asylum seekers you wouldnt be saying these things, I guarantee...and theres never any mention of the overwhelming contribution to society, they do the jobs Brits wont get out of bed for, The NHS for one would collapse without them...not to mention the contribution to the arts, culture, music...

I have made no mention of anyone sponging off the state - I am genuinely curious why some refugees travel vast distances to reach the UK, bypassing other much nearer safe (some would even say safer) countries, and then proceed to insult us and slag us off because they don't like our culture, way of life etc. I would not emigrate to Saudi Arabia for instance, and then complain about the restrictions placed on me there because I'm a woman.

As regards the contribution made to the UK by the majority of immigrants and refugees, that is undeniable because most just want to work and make a better life for themselves and their families, and by doing so have made the effort to integrate. However I do not subscribe to your view that ALL immigrants and refugees contribute positively to UK society because that is blatantly untrue.

[NettoSuperstar!]

I have made no mention of anyone sponging off the state - I am genuinely curious why some refugees travel vast distances to reach the UK, bypassing other much nearer safe (some would even say safer) countries, and then proceed to insult us and slag us off because they don't like our culture, way of life etc. I would not emigrate to Saudi Arabia for instance, and then complain about the restrictions placed on me there because I'm a woman.

As regards the contribution made to the UK by the majority of immigrants and refugees, that is undeniable because most just want to work and make a better life for themselves and their families, and by doing so have made the effort to integrate. However I do not subscribe to your view that ALL immigrants and refugees contribute positively to UK society because that is blatantly untrue.

No not all do obviously but the people your on about are a minority

[Angus]

No not all do obviously but the people your on about are a minority

Yes, I agree, but unfortunately the minority who come here to scrounge or cause trouble seem to get disproportionate attention and headlines to the vast numbers who come to the UK with no other agenda than to work hard, contribute and make a good life for themselves.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Yes, I agree, but unfortunately the minority who come here to scrounge or cause trouble seem to get disproportionate attention and headlines to the vast numbers who come to the UK with no other agenda than to work hard, contribute and make a good life for themselves.

Yer I know and it causes outrage and uneccesary tensions and innocent people get caught up in it

[Vicky.]

"and most local workers would rather sponge off the state than do the jobs most migrant workers do"

where does that sweeping statement come from?

Indeed. If anyone said that about the immigrants...netto would be up in arms...but its ok to say it about the british...says it all really :rolleyes:

[NettoSuperstar!]

Indeed. If anyone said that about the immigrants...netto would be up in arms...but its ok to say it about the british...says it all really :rolleyes:

Yeh cos the "British" arent a minority who will suffer the consequences of what I said

[WOMBAI]

Yeh cos the "British" arent a minority who will suffer the consequences of what I said

They are only a minority because they choose to live in a different country - not complicated! Minority does not equate to victim - which is the very PC way you choose to look at it!

[Vicky.]

They are only a minority because they choose to live in a different country - not complicated! Minority does not equate to victim - which is the very PC way you choose to look at it!

Agreed. 100%

[NettoSuperstar!]

They are only a minority because they choose to live in a different country - not complicated! Minority does not equate to victim - which is the very PC way you choose to look at it!

Oh ok ignore the history of racism lol...its not pc its just a fact, minority groups suffer the consequences of being stereotyped, majority groups dont...pc lol

[andyman]

Hey I'm sure the BNP if voted in would feed your lust for the Final Solution.

[InOne]

Why in any issue to do with race or immigrants are the BNP always brought up?

[Vicky.]

Oh ok ignore the history of racism lol...its not pc its just a fact, minority groups suffer the consequences of being stereotyped, majority groups dont...pc lol

But again, if we are so racist, and people feel so ostracised...why come here?

Plenty other places to go, if they need to move to safer grounds...for whatever reason

If you move to another country, you adapt to their way of life/laws etc. Thats it. If you cant do that, tough really.

[Shasown]

But again, if we are so racist, and people feel so ostracised...why come here?

Plenty other places to go, if they need to move to safer grounds...for whatever reason

If you move to another country, you adapt to their way of life/laws etc. Thats it. If you cant do that, tough really.

Boy you got that wrong what should really happen is the country you move to adopt your laws and customs to make you feel at home.

Then when Sharia Law has been implemented, women have become second class citizens and have to wear the burka. The country you move to eventually becomes the same as the one you left......

Oh dear, its time to move on again.

[NettoSuperstar!]

But again, if we are so racist, and people feel so ostracised...why come here?

Plenty other places to go, if they need to move to safer grounds...for whatever reason

If you move to another country, you adapt to their way of life/laws etc. Thats it. If you cant do that, tough really.

Most people do adapt quite happily

[Vicky.]

Most people do adapt quite happily

Not denying they do.

But those that dont...should get a grip or go elsewhere.

Its really that simple

[NettoSuperstar!]

Not denying they do.

But those that dont...should get a grip or go elsewhere.

Its really that simple

fair enough lol...and I am talking about the likes of Andy choudary etc not just anyone in a Burhka

[Vicky.]

fair enough lol

:shocked: Good god, did we just agree on something?!

[NettoSuperstar!]

I dont disagree with much you say just some bits