Options
Can anyone explain the benefits of increased Islamic influence in the UK?
I mean, I'd just like to know.
We are bludgeoned into accepting it as part of the wonderous multicultural experiment, shifted into top gear by the last Labour government, but I would like to know what Islam brings to the table of a country that has gone through a rapid change in the past 4 decades. What does it contribute to the progress in empowering women, acceptance of homosexuality and the legitimising of their relationships? Steps to increase animal welfare? General social progression.
I've asked this on other forums to be met with a stony silence.
We are bludgeoned into accepting it as part of the wonderous multicultural experiment, shifted into top gear by the last Labour government, but I would like to know what Islam brings to the table of a country that has gone through a rapid change in the past 4 decades. What does it contribute to the progress in empowering women, acceptance of homosexuality and the legitimising of their relationships? Steps to increase animal welfare? General social progression.
I've asked this on other forums to be met with a stony silence.
0
Comments
But, yes, increasing religious influence is never a good thing in a supposedly progressive society so I'm not going to go out celebrating the "diversity" it brings. Celebrating right wing, socially conservative ideologies isn't my thing.
None at all.
But there are a persecuted minority,so we must give them all the help they need spreading there intolerant views.
Until such a time they become the majority and we can feel all
righteous when trying to defend what rights we have left.
The story goes that a diner in Veeraswamy (Regents Street) once asked for a sauce to go with his Tikka, as he was finding it too dry. And thus the British national dish was born, firmly within Blighty.
I am a curry addict and have been for donkeys years. Other than the method of slaughter (of which I strongly disapprove), it has nothing to do with the religion, which is what I am asking about.
Also greater numbers don't equal greater culture or greater diversity either. Whether there are a thousand Muslims or a million Muslims in the UK, the culture and cultural diversity is the same.
Cameron has started talking about how much Muslims have done for this country recently, yet again refuses to elaborate. I can't really put my finger on the exact benefits I have to admit either. I have noticed Muslims collecting for charity in the high street, but it never seems to be for non Islamic related charities. Always things like help for the Pakistan earthquake victims.
We were a non Islamic country for several thousand years and were just fine, so I don't see any reason to change that.
In terms of Islam on a general level, it shares the problems that a lot of religions have in terms of homophobia, although Islam seems to have a especially unpleasant misogynistic streak. I don't think Islam is a positive influence on UK society, but then again I don't feel its fair to single Islam out, as I struggle to see how most religions have a positive influence on 21st century Britain.
Most of the problems connected with Islam are in fact more cultural problems, especially from the Asian sub continent - eg most the child sex gang stuff has been from Pakistani Muslims. UK culture is certainly preferable to their culture and I don't feel enriched from having it here in such large numbers. However you have to separate the culture from the people, as I have met many perfectly nice and reasonable people from that part of the world.
Bring back paganism I say.
I'm doing no such thing. I am simply asking a genuine question - and it applies to all flavours of Islam. Criticism of it is barely tolerated, and we are supposed to embrace it as part of the modern world, so I'd just like to be told of the benefits.
Yes, it is important to separate the culture from the religion.
What we should have done is capped immigration from all countries. Prevented communities based on a single immigrant group from forming and allowed the low numbers over a much greater period of time to integrate within English areas.
Its the one thing I agree with Ken Livingston on, apart from the Ugandan Asians, post war immigration has been severally mismanaged by all governments. Where we differ is I think the Blair government was verging on traitorous negligence in how badly they mismanage it.
I think the problem is that in recent years there have been so many immigrants from Islamic backgrounds that many of the new arrivals are existing in quite a separate sphere. Modern technology doesn't help as they can watch their own TV and our benefits system enables people to just bumble along and not integrate or even learn English.
Unfortunately we've had this large influx of people during a period of time when Islam itself is split and the fundamentalists seem to be gaining more traction than the moderates. 20 years ago it would have been rare in London to see a British Pakistani girl covering up. To be honest when I was at school in the 80s I wouldn't have known who was from an Indian or Pakistani background - that wouldn't be the case now.
Theism in general hasn't worked out too well - perhaps it's time to give secularity the reins. No religion should hold sway over a nation's people.
It is a very interesting and relevant question.
Tolerance - that would be a no.
Religous tolerance - another no.
Freedom of speech - nope
Freedom of thought - nope
Female equality - another no.
Better treatment for animals - no again.
No positives that I can see.
The only ones I could see that would benefit would be Islamic men.
Where? That's not even an Islamic dish. This wouldn't be the right not having an argument and making things up again, would it?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please try again.
And to those mentioning Christianity - yes, a lot of repression came from that also, but it is in steep decline and we have made excellent progress in shaking off it's shackles in my lifetime. Sadly, we had a fundamentalist as Prime Minister for 11 years and he expanded faith schools, so there is work to be done there.
So again I ask the question - where is the benefit in replacing it with an even more proscriptive, regressive and as Capblanca so accurately describes it, austere religion?
Of course it's a loaded question, but I'm open to persuasion if somebody can put a convincing case. If not, then the obvious conclusion has to be that it should not be welcomed. Why should we welcome something that provides no benefit to the country?
Compare that to followers of monotheistic religions and their desire to convert everyone and its clear which is the bad philosophy as far as faith is concerned.
It gives a sense of community to its followers
It gives meaning to existence to its followers
in fact substitute any religion and the above applies.
As for criticism - go to America and criticise Christianity and see how you get on.