Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BluntmanDC wrote:

bsohi wrote: The Uk is already referred to as "Londonistan" yeah?

Who the hell refereers to to the UK as LONDONISTAN

I'm no yank, and I don't much like being referred to as one. I'm a Canadian and an Indian, big difference. And it's quite a popular term even here. I know for sure that London =/= England, but it's a good sign of what's to come. And yes, I have been to London, and other places throughout England (Southall, Birmingham) as I have loads of relatives that live there.

sebster wrote:

Yes, they do. And they do this by embracing and representing the many different faiths that make up their school. There are still carols and Santa, but there’s also fesitivities recognising other religious practices.

The charge I dismiss is that Christian celebrations would be removed as they would be deemed offensive. In your example the celebrations stillgo on, as well as the celebrations of the other cultures that make up the school district. How is that a problem?

The problem lies in the fact that the religion is stripped right out of the Christian days, but come one of my Sikh holy days? Suddenly the teachers, and white folk are all ears. I'd rather keep to myself about it, but it's like white guilt or something, and they suddenly feel that they have to go out of their way to accomodate my religion, not just my culture, but my actual religion, while remove any aspects of the Christian religion out of their holy days. Diwali is still called Diwali, Gurparb is still called Gurparb. I don't disagree that all people should be celebrating with each other, but then equality should include the well established Christian religion as well. I mean, it was the founding religion of the bleeding country, no? It's the fundamental bedrock of the law.

sebster wrote: You have to respect the local culture, but in order to claim to be multicultural you also have to welcoming. I agree that a common language is good, vital even, but the reality is that not every immigrant will have great English. If you offer a visa to a bloke because your country needs engineers and he’s qualified and has good English, do you insist his wife .

I think there should be free English classes and genuine outreach efforts to get people into classrooms to learn. But I also think you should allow someone to go about living their life and interacting with government even if their English isn’t great. It’s a balancing effort.

I'm 100% in agreeance with you here mate. There are language classes available, for free as well, (at least in my municapality). But I find that most people stop making the effort once they've moved into a region with a high proportion of others of their background. What's the point of integrating into larger Canadian/American/English culture, if the local community culture is the EXACT same as it was back in India/China/Pakistan/Mexico? And that's where the BIGGEST problem lies I think, that people come in such droves, that there's no need for them to adapt.

sebster wrote:A headscarf is dehumanising? I can see the argument that a full burkha is, but there’s less than a thousand women in the whole of France that wear burkhas (the French muslim population doesn’t come from countries with burkha traditions).

And there is a difference between stopping someone wearing a cross, as you can be Christian without a piece of jewellery, and stopping a Muslim wearing a headscarf, which is a part of their religious identity. Either way its an obnoxious thing for the state to do and totally outside of what the state should be concerning itself with.

It's not for you to decide what the French government should be involved in, nor me, nor anyone else but the frenchmen who elect them. People know that France has a hard-on with secularism, taking it far beyond the seperation of church and state that advanced western countries are famous for. The ban on veils is just one step of it. Jewish boys are not allowed their caps in public schools either. As for the ban on headscarves, there's no one stopping you from wearing one down the street, just don't be expected to be allowed into public, secular institutions, with articles of religion faith visible. The case I was thinking about when I mentioned it, and I apologize for not clarifying it, was the case of the man who was denied French citizenship because his wife wore the burqa, not a headscarf, but the full out body veil. France decided that it'd rather not have people like that in their country, and that is ENTIRELY their decision to make. We can look down and tut tut them all we want, but it's their way of life they wish to preserve. Just as bad as most muslim countries declaring it illegal to convert to another religion, yeah? But I'm more in favour of the french way, because instead of promoting one religion as superiour, they denounce everyone equally.

sebster wrote:As has been pointed out, this is an invention of the US. Have you been to London? It is a multicultural city, but the idea that it can be defined by its minority Islamic population is an invention of islamaphobes.

As I mentioned earlier, I make frequent trips to the UK, and I'm not American. The term Londonistan isn't used in any sort of derogatory way, and I'm sorry if it's taken as offensive. It just goes to show that it is HUGELY common knowledge that us brown folk are a huge population there. Not just Muslims as the "istan" implies, because generally people can't tell a Sikh apart from a Muslim or Hindu or Jain at first glance.

sebster wrote:The idea that a democrat vote makes something alright is incredibly dangerous. Two wolves and a sheep, and all that.

And again, that's for the Swiss to decide, and if further Muslim immigrants don't want to move to Switzerland, I'm sure they won't mourn the loss. I mean, the Swiss arent' moving to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia in great droves, and there's a reason for that, it's a hell-hole. So the swiss are doing the immigrants favours usually. And there's conditions set amongst that. I know the immigrants also do the swiss a service too, with upping the workforce and all that, but they'll still have immigrants, from other countries, quiet folks like my parents who don't want to shove anything down anyone else's throat with big gaudy buildings.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I just want to add that I don't endorse the BNP in any way shape or form, in my mind they're pretty scuzzy people. But I'm not against the idea that open door immigration is all it's cracked up too be. The preservation of the host country is one of the utmost important things I think. If the country wasn't what it was, people wouldn't have moved there in the first place!

Bsohi wrote:generally people can't tell a Sikh apart from a Muslim or Hindu or Jain at first glance.

I can. As long as they are an 'observing' Sikh, like this bloke:




What's your opinion on being allowed to carry the Kirpan on your person, Bsohi? There has been a bit of a 'to do' about it in the news, because some sikh kids wear it to school here. Some people say they shouldn't.

The Sikh kids at my school never carried kirpans, the boys instead wore a necklace with a symbolic kirpan on it.

It wasn't an issue, they had worked out for themselves that taking a dagger to school might generate some concern.

That was 20 fething years ago. Why would it be an issue now?

Oshova wrote:Sorry . . . but how much was that guy being payed to join the BNP? Why on Earth would a non-white want to support a political party that wants to kick them out of the country?

Oshova

Because as a Sikh Hindu he hates Muslims more than the whites who once bullied him? India and Pakistan are on the verge (and have been for quite sometime) of nuclear assault all because of religion.

I am a staunch centre right Tory and as such would never vote for the BNP because they have some repelant views, but lets be honest here, so does Islam. I find their inherant hatred for women, bigotry towards other religions and overt hatred and intolerance for homosexuals absolutely disgusting, and the so called 'moderate' muslims are still not doing a good job of convincing us that they are not silently supportive of or at least nonchalantly disinterested in combatting terrorism or stopping anti semetic propaganda. Lets not mince words here, i view Islam as the biggest threat to our way of life since the Nazis, and i dont think we can ever sort the issue out diplomatically. A small part of me is pleased when they blow up trains and buses, because they just help to keep on proving me right. I cant vote for the BNP because i activelly disagree with 90% of their views. But i will never chastise them for their zelous stance on Islam, or anyone for voting for them on the strength of it.

And exclusion from the Ganges basin.

There are a lot of Christians who see women as second class citizens, and are intolerant towards homosexuals. That's why the current danger of schism in the Anglican Communion.

bsohi wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

bsohi wrote: The Uk is already referred to as "Londonistan" yeah?

Who the hell refereers to the UK as LONDONISTAN

I'm no yank, and I don't much like being referred to as one. I'm a Canadian and an Indian, big difference. And it's quite a popular term even here. I know for sure that London =/= England, but it's a good sign of what's to come. And yes, I have been to London, and other places throughout England (Southall, Birmingham) as I have loads of relatives that live there.

Why are you attacking me for something i didn't say, but its great to know you bandy about racist and wholey inaccurrate terms when refering to my capital city.

facts:
Taken from the census 2001:
Scotland: 98% white
Northern Ireland: 99% white
England and Wales: 91.3% white

Taken from the 2003 pupil census, for England and Wales:
'at least three in four primary pupils, and four in five secondary pupils, still fit the description "white British".

Asians from the Indian subcontinent form the second largest ethnic group in schools. They account for more than 7% of primary children and 6% of secondary pupils. Children of Pakistani origin are the biggest Asian group in primaries, but Indians outnumber Pakistanis in secondaries. Primary schools now have more black African pupils than black Caribbean children, however, there are similar numbers from both ethnic groups at secondary level.

Despite Britain's quarter century membership of the EU, and the recent influx of asylum seekers from Eastern Europe, only 2% of pupils are from "other white backgrounds".'

Taken from the 2007 census estimates for London
Whites: 69%
White British:57.7%
Indian subcontinent and the middle east:13.3%
Indian:6.6%

Taken from the 2001 census, for religous groups in London
Chistian (any denomination):58.2%
Non- religous:15.8%
Musim (any denomination):8.5%
Hindu (any denomination):4.1%
Jewish(any denomination):2.1%
Sikh (any denomination):1.5%
Buddist (any denomination):0.8%
Other:0.5%
No response:8.7%



So as you can see your poor insight in to how things are actually happening, shows up in your use of 'Londonistan'. You don't even need to go to a single geography class to learn this, so you have no excuse for your prejudice.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are a lot of Christians who see women as second class citizens, and are intolerant towards homosexuals. That's why the current danger of schism in the Anglican Communion.

That's not the same and you know it, and not to mention Christians to not see women as second class citizens. Fringe groups may, but to say a lot, or even close to a majority, see it that way is just flat out wrong. Even if a church does not believe women should be ordained, which many women believe as well, does not relegate women to status of second class. Also, we may not approve of homosexuality, but again the vast majority of Christians don't propose going out and lynching them. True, I am a fairly conservative Anglican, but I find your statements to be incredibly unrepresentative and over simple.

I know a lot of atheists who hate women.

JEB_Stuart wrote:That's not the same and you know it, and not to mention Christians to not see women as second class citizens. Fringe groups may, but to say a lot, or even close to a majority, see it that way is just flat out wrong.

The word 'lot' does not imply majority, or anything close to majority. It just means "a considerable amount", and it certainly seems worth considering the fact that there exist Christians who treat women in consistence with what we define as second-class citizens. It doesn't matter if that treatment is religiously motivated or not.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Even if a church does not believe women should be ordained, which many women believe as well, does not relegate women to status of second class. Also, we may not approve of homosexuality, but again the vast majority of Christians don't propose going out and lynching them. True, I am a fairly conservative Anglican, but I find your statements to be incredibly unrepresentative and over simple.

The mistreatment of women under Islam is about as relevant to Koran as the mistreatment of women under Christianity is relevant to original sin.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not clear what this means in terms of their overall programme. The vote was taken by a quorum of 300 but surely can't be popular with the wider party.

"We'll take take the (blacks) and (Chinese), but NO IRISH!"

dogma wrote:The word 'lot' does not imply majority, or anything close to majority. It just means "a considerable amount", and it certainly seems worth considering the fact that there exist Christians who treat women in consistence with what we define as second-class citizens. It doesn't matter if that treatment is religiously motivated or not.

I know, that is what I said. I referenced his use of the words "a lot" because it is A)incredibly undefined and vague, B)extremely misleading, almost to the point of being intentional and C)I was trying to nip it at the bud by pointing out that it isn't a substantial number or anywhere close to that. The only groups that do that are fringe groups, not anything close to mainline Christianity.

dogma wrote:The mistreatment of women under Islam is about as relevant to Koran as the mistreatment of women under Christianity is relevant to original sin.

Huh? What does that have to do with my post? I was commenting on KK's comparison of Christian degradation of women to Islam's. I merely used the ordination of women as an example, because it is specific to the Anglican Communion, which he brought up. Of course the treatment of women isn't really tied to the Koran or Christian Scripture, but that is the point he was implying.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I know, that is what I said. I referenced his use of the words "a lot" because it is A)incredibly undefined and vague, B)extremely misleading, almost to the point of being intentional and C)I was trying to nip it at the bud by pointing out that it isn't a substantial number or anywhere close to that. The only groups that do that are fringe groups, not anything close to mainline Christianity.

I completely disagree with you, and I question your notion of 'mainline' Christianity on the same grounds you questioned KK's use of the word 'lot'. Which, honestly, isn't misleading at all. Its vague in the same sense that 'some' is vague.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Huh? What does that have to do with my post? I was commenting on KK's comparison of Christian degradation of women to Islam's. I merely used the ordination of women as an example, because it is specific to the Anglican Communion, which he brought up. Of course the treatment of women isn't really tied to the Koran or Christian Scripture, but that is the point he was implying.

No it isn't. That implication isn't implicit in what he said. He simply said there exist Christians who degrade women, he did not say that they do so due to their faith.

dogma wrote:I completely disagree with you, and I question your notion of 'mainline' Christianity on the same grounds you questioned KK's use of the word 'lot'. Which, honestly, isn't misleading at all. Its vague in the same sense that 'some' is vague.

That's fine, disagree all you want. The fact of the matter is that the two religions are not comparable in their treatment of women.

dogma wrote:No it isn't. That implication isn't implicit in what he said. He simply said there exist Christians who degrade women, he did not say that they do so due to their faith.

Uh, no that is exactly what he said. His discussion of the Anglican Communion is why I brought up the issue so specifically. To declare, "A lot of Christians treat women as second class citizens," and then follow it up with, "That's why the current danger of schism in the Anglican Communion," seems to be a reference to their faith.

Since you would like me to quantify "a lot" I will refer to the Nigerian Church, a branch of Anglicanism with 25 million adherents. The primate of Nigeria is certainly uncomfortable with gay priests, and one must assume he has the support of a majority of his flock. 25 million is about as many Anglicans as there are in the UK, probably more in fact as the population of England is only about 41 million.

That is an attempt to quantify 'a lot'. It isn't a negligible number and doesn't represent a small fringe group. Roman Catholicism is also against women or gay priests.

The question of whether disallowing gays and women from being priests is justified by religious beliefs is arguable. If one behaviour or principle is justified by it being a religious belief, then why not a different one?

I do think it is very wrong to label all Muslims as violent homophobes and part of my purpose was to show that homophobia is not a product simply of Islam.

I do not think Christians are bigots. It is worth noting that Nigeria also has a large Muslim population, and apply some principles of sharia law.

What I believe is that some people have tendencies to be misogynistic or homophobic, probably due to upbringing and cultural background. They carry these beliefs forward and use religion or other reasons to justify them.

JEB_Stuart wrote:That's fine, disagree all you want. The fact of the matter is that the two religions are not comparable in their treatment of women.

Yes they are. They are both religions, and some of their adherents mistreat women to some degree, therefore they are comparable. Even if one or the other didn't mistreat women, they would both be comparable under the common auspice of religion.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Uh, no that is exactly what he said. His discussion of the Anglican Communion is why I brought up the issue so specifically. To declare, "A lot of Christians treat women as second class citizens," and then follow it up with, "That's why the current danger of schism in the Anglican Communion," seems to be a reference to their faith.

Not necessarily. It need not be anything more than an instance of culture leading to varying interpretations of doctrine.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Why are you attacking me for something i didn't say, but its great to know you bandy about racist and wholey inaccurrate terms when refering to my capital city.

Whoah whoah whoah, we all need a breather. I didn't mean for anything I said to sound like an attack. The manner and style of my writing are not very conducive to conveying my tone and attitude. I never meant for anything I said to strike you as offensive, or anyone else for that matter. If I've come off as offensive and hostile, I apologize completely. But in my defence as well, I don't think I've been bandying about racist terms either, and I meant no disrespect to London, which really is a world-class city.

BluntmanDC wrote:

facts: etc etc etc

You fail to look at the rate of growth of said population groups. It's well known phenomenon that new immigrants bring over the cultural mentality of having larger families. If White-British people were capable of restoring and renewing their population themselves there'd be no need to take in immigrants. But it's a fact that developed nations have some of the lowest birthrates among their native 'white' populace.

BluntmanDC wrote:So as you can see your poor insight in to how things are actually happening, shows up in your use of 'Londonistan'. You don't even need to go to a single geography class to learn this, so you have no excuse for your prejudice.

Again, wowsers, I apologize for having incited you to this level. I hope we can continue talking in a calm and respectful manner. And btw, I originally heard the term in the UK, while being picked up from the airport, by my -white- cousins (half british/half indian). "Welcome to Londonistan!"

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The Sikh kids at my school never carried kirpans, the boys instead wore a necklace with a symbolic kirpan on it.

It wasn't an issue, they had worked out for themselves that taking a dagger to school might generate some concern.

That was 20 fething years ago. Why would it be an issue now?

That's a compromise of their religion. The whole point of having a kirpan is to be able to defend those around you. You can defend yourself with a dagger, not with a symbolic dagger. But the point wasn't that compromises could be made, I agree with that. France's deal is -staunch- secularism. NO religious symbols allowed. NONE.

My other point was that Diwali is still called Diwali, Kwanzaa is still called Kwanzaa. Teachers will loudly declare "HAPPY DIWALI!" etc etc. But NEVER EVER will they say "Merry Christmas!" You'll have written on chalkboards, "Merry X-mas" or "Happy holidays!" and that's what I view is HUGELY unfair to the Christians. All because the Christians have bent over backwards to accomodating immigrants.

Hellfury wrote:

Oshova wrote:Sorry . . . but how much was that guy being payed to join the BNP? Why on Earth would a non-white want to support a political party that wants to kick them out of the country?

Oshova

Because as a Sikh Hindu he hates Muslims more than the whites who once bullied him? India and Pakistan are on the verge (and have been for quite sometime) of nuclear assault all because of religion.

Sikhs aren't Hindus. Just letting you know, some people I know get quite irritated at that. It's akin to calling all Christians Jewish, because Jesus was originally a Jew. Our first Guru (think prophet) was born into a Hindu family, and began having his own ideas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And JEB, Dogma, let's avoid painting specific religions as bad/good. Let's try and keep it about multiculturalism in general?

bsohi wrote:The problem lies in the fact that the religion is stripped right out of the Christian days, but come one of my Sikh holy days? Suddenly the teachers, and white folk are all ears. I'd rather keep to myself about it, but it's like white guilt or something, and they suddenly feel that they have to go out of their way to accomodate my religion, not just my culture, but my actual religion, while remove any aspects of the Christian religion out of their holy days. Diwali is still called Diwali, Gurparb is still called Gurparb. I don't disagree that all people should be celebrating with each other, but then equality should include the well established Christian religion as well.

Yeah, but gradual stripping of religion out of Christian holdiays has nothing to do with government nor any kind of PC movement, and everything to do with people not wanting to go to church. Christmas, to me, has always been about family and playing cricket in the backyard, because that's where my values lie.

I can see your point about an exaggerated respect for other cultures, but I really don't see it being that significant an issue. It's really nothing more than the effect of a thing being unfamiliar.

I mean, it was the founding religion of the bleeding country, no? It's the fundamental bedrock of the law.

Nah, the legal bedrock of the law is centuries of secular progress based around reason and decency, modified by practical necessity. The new testament isn't a guide for running a state, and the morality of the old testament isn't part of our society, at all. Look at the ten commandments, there's a couple we follow like don't kill (or murder, yes I read the other thread ) and don't steal, but those are basic parts of every society. There's a few more that are respected but kept out of legal code, such as respecting your folks and not cheating on your wife. The last few are actively rejected by Western society, such as having one God above all else - we pride ourselves on our secular governmen. The one against desiring your neighbour's property isn't just ignored it's actively rejected - our capitalist, aspirational society is built around coveting other people's stuff.

I'm 100% in agreeance with you here mate. There are language classes available, for free as well, (at least in my municapality). But I find that most people stop making the effort once they've moved into a region with a high proportion of others of their background. What's the point of integrating into larger Canadian/American/English culture, if the local community culture is the EXACT same as it was back in India/China/Pakistan/Mexico? And that's where the BIGGEST problem lies I think, that people come in such droves, that there's no need for them to adapt.

I've found the only people that don't learn the language are those don't interact much with greater society - typically housewives. Anyone who wants to work and get ahead in their job will need to develop English, and that’s only more true for the next generation. It’s actually a big reason I'm in favour of making government schools as inclusive as possible, I really don't want migrant kids forming their own private schools and reducing their interaction with society at large.

It's not for you to decide what the French government should be involved in, nor me, nor anyone else but the frenchmen who elect them.

I'm not French so yeah, I don't vote on it. But just because something is passed democratically it doesn't make it the right thing.

People know that France has a hard-on with secularism, taking it far beyond the seperation of church and state that advanced western countries are famous for. The ban on veils is just one step of it. Jewish boys are not allowed their caps in public schools either. As for the ban on headscarves, there's no one stopping you from wearing one down the street, just don't be expected to be allowed into public, secular institutions, with articles of religion faith visible. The case I was thinking about when I mentioned it, and I apologize for not clarifying it, was the case of the man who was denied French citizenship because his wife wore the burqa, not a headscarf, but the full out body veil. France decided that it'd rather not have people like that in their country, and that is ENTIRELY their decision to make. We can look down and tut tut them all we want, but it's their way of life they wish to preserve. Just as bad as most muslim countries declaring it illegal to convert to another religion, yeah? But I'm more in favour of the french way, because instead of promoting one religion as superiour, they denounce everyone equally.

Determining who does and doesn't enter the country is quite different from changing the rules on the people who've already entered, no?

I have no problem with a country deciding that a certain cultural value is not compatible with their values, and rejecting that person. But once you allow someone in and they start making a life for themselves, they are entitled the basic rights of that society. You can’t just change the rules down the track.

As I mentioned earlier, I make frequent trips to the UK, and I'm not American. The term Londonistan isn't used in any sort of derogatory way, and I'm sorry if it's taken as offensive. It just goes to show that it is HUGELY common knowledge that us brown folk are a huge population there. Not just Muslims as the "istan" implies, because generally people can't tell a Sikh apart from a Muslim or Hindu or Jain at first glance.

You might not have meant Londonistan in a derogatory sense, but it is frequently used in that way. A fairly common trick of the racists these days is to conflate multiculturalism with Islamic invasion - they talk about increasing mosques and applications for Sharia law one minute, and then about white people being a minority in whatever country the next. The trick, of course, is to conflate tensions with the Islamic community with the demographics of all minorities.

Londonistan is part of that. London is a multicultural city, in calling it Londonistan they're pretending all migration is Islamic.

And again, that's for the Swiss to decide, and if further Muslim immigrants don't want to move to Switzerland, I'm sure they won't mourn the loss. I mean, the Swiss arent' moving to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia in great droves, and there's a reason for that, it's a hell-hole.

There's an assumption implicit in there, that the poverty in a country is a reflection on the people that live there. I don’t agree with that, and it certainly seems dubious given how many immigrants go on to great wealth in their new countries.

So the swiss are doing the immigrants favours usually. And there's conditions set amongst that. I know the immigrants also do the swiss a service too, with upping the workforce and all that, but they'll still have immigrants, from other countries, quiet folks like my parents who don't want to shove anything down anyone else's throat with big gaudy buildings.

Yeah, I have no problem with a society setting conditions on immigration. I have no problem with saying that an immigrants traditions are irrelevant when considering genital mutilation. I just can’t see how minarets have anything at all to do with protecting culture – they don’t impact the lives or culture of the majority at all.

]Oh, I just want to add that I don't endorse the BNP in any way shape or form, in my mind they're pretty scuzzy people. But I'm not against the idea that open door immigration is all it's cracked up too be. The preservation of the host country is one of the utmost important things I think. If the country wasn't what it was, people wouldn't have moved there in the first place!

I think immigration is conditional, I think it always has been and it always will be. I think that’s very different to introducing unnecessary laws motivated out of a fear of some kind of invasion that just isn’t happening.

Kilkrazy wrote:Since you would like me to quantify "a lot" I will refer to the Nigerian Church, a branch of Anglicanism with 25 million adherents. The primate of Nigeria is certainly uncomfortable with gay priests, and one must assume he has the support of a majority of his flock. 25 million is about as many Anglicans as there are in the UK, probably more in fact as the population of England is only about 41 million.

Thank you for the clarification. I certainly underestimated the numbers in Father Akinola's flock. I just find it very hard to have a discussion when it is reliant on such vague terms.

Kilkrazy wrote:That is an attempt to quantify 'a lot'. It isn't a negligible number and doesn't represent a small fringe group. Roman Catholicism is also against women or gay priests.

So, I am against gay priests as well, although I don't really mind women priests, but that doesn't relegate them to second class citizen status.

Kilkrazy wrote:The question of whether disallowing gays and women from being priests is justified by religious beliefs is arguable. If one behaviour or principle is justified by it being a religious belief, then why not a different one?

Its not a matter of merely being a homosexual that bars one from the priesthood, it is a matter of being a practicing and unrepentant homosexual. It is fairly, and by fairly I mean very clear, what is and isn't acceptable in terms of morality for members of the Church.

Kilkrazy wrote:Since you would like me to quantify "a lot" I will refer to the Nigerian Church, a branch of Anglicanism with 25 million adherents. The primate of Nigeria is certainly uncomfortable with gay priests, and one must assume he has the support of a majority of his flock. 25 million is about as many Anglicans as there are in the UK, probably more in fact as the population of England is only about 41 million.

The guy is called 'primate'? Huh.

sebster wrote:The guy is called 'primate'? Huh.

As are all presiding Bishops of the Churches that form the Anglican Communion.

bsohi wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

facts: etc etc etc

You fail to look at the rate of growth of said population groups. It's well known phenomenon that new immigrants bring over the cultural mentality of having larger families. If White-British people were capable of restoring and renewing their population themselves there'd be no need to take in immigrants. But it's a fact that developed nations have some of the lowest birthrates among their native 'white' populace.

The reason why birth rates are lower is because people in developed nations live longer, medical census' have show that non-whites, especially bangladeshi and middle-eastern populations in England and Wales have a lower standard of health and will die earlier.

Immigration isn't about keeping the population of the country increasing (we could run the country far more easily with significantly less peaple) its about keeping the working population at a constant level

The reason we need immigration is because we have a surplus of unskilled/skilled in areas that have no application to britains commercial benifit, immigrants fill the skilled labor areas that are missing or do the menial tasks (such as cleaning) that the unskilled white unemployed think are beneath them.

The population of muslims (i zoned in on this due to the fact that stan was added onto the end of london) is small especially when you consider a large portion of the muslim population in britain is made up of non-middle easterners

It takes one or two generations for immigrants to change their old country habits.

You don't see the smart young asian women of modern Britain knuckling down in the kitchen and bedroom to produce a series of babies and delicious family meals.

They are well educated and want careers and a western lifestyle. That's why there is the problem with the honour killings and stuff.

JEB_Stuart wrote:As are all presiding Bishops of the Churches that form the Anglican Communion.

Well that's a thing. Given the Anglican church is big in Africa, and the history of race and the use of... well... that's a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BluntmanDC wrote:The reason why birth rates are lower is because people in developed nations live longer, medical census' have show that non-whites, especially bangladeshi and middle-eastern populations in England and Wales have a lower standard of health and will die earlier.

And women's rights and equal opportunities. Which are of course tied to education and wealth. Once women have the ability to enter society on an equal footing they become more than baby factories.

sebster wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:As are all presiding Bishops of the Churches that form the Anglican Communion.

Well that's a thing. Given the Anglican church is big in Africa, and the history of race and the use of... well... that's a thing.

Are you seriously suggesting that a highly ranking title in the Anglican Church is a monkey joke?

It was first created and used by white Europeans, so its not like they invented it for Africa

Primate simply means first.

It is used for apes and monkeys because under outdated concepts of evolution they were considered the foremost in evolutionary development.

Kilkrazy wrote:to produce a series of babies and delicious family meals.

The more I hear about the food in the UK the more frightened I become.