FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Party of Islam

Jump to newest
 

By *astandFeisty OP   Couple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

It's often said that Reform will be doing Labour a favour in taking votes from the Tories.

Will the Party of Islam take votes from Labour and cancel out Reform?

There are 4m Muslims in the UK.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

Well I'm pretty sure that just like Christians and other faiths not all Muslims are going to have the same political views.

The problem seems to be when it turns from faith to fanaticism then their opinion is the only opinion.

I'm sure a Islam only political party will appeal to many but I see this as no different from having a party that allows people of only a certain colour, their policies and views are only for those who are applicable.

I'd imagine all parties involved will lose a few voters to this party as they possibly don't feel represented but I can't see them being a danger to labour or conservative,at the moment.

But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeisty OP   Couple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"Well I'm pretty sure that just like Christians and other faiths not all Muslims are going to have the same political views.

The problem seems to be when it turns from faith to fanaticism then their opinion is the only opinion.

I'm sure a Islam only political party will appeal to many but I see this as no different from having a party that allows people of only a certain colour, their policies and views are only for those who are applicable.

I'd imagine all parties involved will lose a few voters to this party as they possibly don't feel represented but I can't see them being a danger to labour or conservative,at the moment.

But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous.

"

I appreciate that not all Muslims will have the same political views but Muslim Census says the following:

In the 2019 Election, our participants voted:

71% – Labour

12% – Did not vote

9% – Conservatives

2.5% – Liberal Democrats

2% – Green Party

1.6% – SNP

1.2% – Independent

0.7% – Other

If there were an election tomorrow, our participants responded:

40% – Will not vote

21% – Independent

17% – Green Party

10% – Liberal Democrat

4.9% – SNP

4.8% – Labour

0.6% – Conservative

3.5% – Other

They cite Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine as the reason for the dramatic fall in Labour support.

With a new Party of Islam being approved will see a lot of Muslims get behind the party?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Well I'm pretty sure that just like Christians and other faiths not all Muslims are going to have the same political views.

The problem seems to be when it turns from faith to fanaticism then their opinion is the only opinion.

I'm sure a Islam only political party will appeal to many but I see this as no different from having a party that allows people of only a certain colour, their policies and views are only for those who are applicable.

I'd imagine all parties involved will lose a few voters to this party as they possibly don't feel represented but I can't see them being a danger to labour or conservative,at the moment.

But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous.

I appreciate that not all Muslims will have the same political views but Muslim Census says the following:

In the 2019 Election, our participants voted:

71% – Labour

12% – Did not vote

9% – Conservatives

2.5% – Liberal Democrats

2% – Green Party

1.6% – SNP

1.2% – Independent

0.7% – Other

If there were an election tomorrow, our participants responded:

40% – Will not vote

21% – Independent

17% – Green Party

10% – Liberal Democrat

4.9% – SNP

4.8% – Labour

0.6% – Conservative

3.5% – Other

They cite Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine as the reason for the dramatic fall in Labour support.

With a new Party of Islam being approved will see a lot of Muslims get behind the party?"

I'm not sure what Labour's stance is as they seem to be arguing amongst themselves on this.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Well I'm pretty sure that just like Christians and other faiths not all Muslims are going to have the same political views.

The problem seems to be when it turns from faith to fanaticism then their opinion is the only opinion.

I'm sure a Islam only political party will appeal to many but I see this as no different from having a party that allows people of only a certain colour, their policies and views are only for those who are applicable.

I'd imagine all parties involved will lose a few voters to this party as they possibly don't feel represented but I can't see them being a danger to labour or conservative,at the moment.

But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous.

I appreciate that not all Muslims will have the same political views but Muslim Census says the following:

In the 2019 Election, our participants voted:

71% – Labour

12% – Did not vote

9% – Conservatives

2.5% – Liberal Democrats

2% – Green Party

1.6% – SNP

1.2% – Independent

0.7% – Other

If there were an election tomorrow, our participants responded:

40% – Will not vote

21% – Independent

17% – Green Party

10% – Liberal Democrat

4.9% – SNP

4.8% – Labour

0.6% – Conservative

3.5% – Other

They cite Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine as the reason for the dramatic fall in Labour support.

With a new Party of Islam being approved will see a lot of Muslims get behind the party?

I'm not sure what Labour's stance is as they seem to be arguing amongst themselves on this. "

The official party line is to support the arms trade, sorry, Israel. But they won't kick out party members who suggest that mass murdering women and children is a suboptimal approach.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeisty OP   Couple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

Doesn't matter now.

Looks like their application has been rejected.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *0shadesOfFilthMan
over a year ago

nearby


"

But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous.

"

By 2055, based on current trajectory Muslim birth rate projected to be the majority, by the end of this century the largest faith on the planet.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *4bimMan
over a year ago

Farnborough Hampshire

If it's in their manifesto that all women have to wear head coverings....

I'm all for it

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London

Labour will lose many votes for sure. But I don't think it would be enough to cause a serious dent in the next election because of the size of majority. But this party will play a role in future elections which are tight.

Having said that, a party based on a religion is the last thing the country needed. It's a backward step. I hope the party gets dissolved soon.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *idnight RamblerMan
over a year ago

Pershore

Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The fact that an Islamic Party is being formed is troubling.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *eepndarkMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

I have to agree with most posters. A party founded and based on religion is a dangerous thing. We have many historical records to back this up. We also have the Israel-Palestine long drawn out conflict to back that up as well.

Blair and Bush banged on about God whilst invading two sovereign countries.

It's simply dangerous.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The fact that an Islamic Party is being formed is troubling."

Even if they start winning a few seats in election, I will move out of the country. A country with an Islamic party having serious political power is definitely not the kind of hell I want to live in.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Well I'm pretty sure that just like Christians and other faiths not all Muslims are going to have the same political views.

The problem seems to be when it turns from faith to fanaticism then their opinion is the only opinion.

I'm sure a Islam only political party will appeal to many but I see this as no different from having a party that allows people of only a certain colour, their policies and views are only for those who are applicable.

I'd imagine all parties involved will lose a few voters to this party as they possibly don't feel represented but I can't see them being a danger to labour or conservative,at the moment.

But with the Muslim population growing all the time I'd worry that a party based on religion rather than politics could be dangerous.

I appreciate that not all Muslims will have the same political views but Muslim Census says the following:

In the 2019 Election, our participants voted:

71% – Labour

12% – Did not vote

9% – Conservatives

2.5% – Liberal Democrats

2% – Green Party

1.6% – SNP

1.2% – Independent

0.7% – Other

If there were an election tomorrow, our participants responded:

40% – Will not vote

21% – Independent

17% – Green Party

10% – Liberal Democrat

4.9% – SNP

4.8% – Labour

0.6% – Conservative

3.5% – Other

They cite Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine as the reason for the dramatic fall in Labour support.

With a new Party of Islam being approved will see a lot of Muslims get behind the party?

I'm not sure what Labour's stance is as they seem to be arguing amongst themselves on this.

The official party line is to support the arms trade, sorry, Israel. But they won't kick out party members who suggest that mass murdering women and children is a suboptimal approach. "

They don't have to lick them out as quite a few councillors have quit. I think in some cases it has caused them to loose overall control in council's

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The fact that an Islamic Party is being formed is troubling."

That is true… but for example how many times have we heard the Conservative Party wanting to stand up for Christian values….

I use to say that one policy parties didn’t work, but farage killed that idea

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance."

The UK isn't a secular country. The Head of State is also the head of the established church, and there are 26 bishops sitting in the House of Lords as the 'Lords Spiritual'.

Having said that, the UK doesn't act like a religious country, for which I'm very grateful.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The fact that an Islamic Party is being formed is troubling."

Actually just had a thought…. Wasn’t there a push to get a woman’s party going a few years ago?

Is one based on gender as bad in principle one based on religion!

Remember we do have political parties where their principal narrative is race..

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance. The fact that an Islamic Party is being formed is troubling.

Actually just had a thought…. Wasn’t there a push to get a woman’s party going a few years ago?

Is one based on gender as bad in principle one based on religion!

Remember we do have political parties where their principal narrative is race.."

Depends on what they ask for. If the women's party is about female rights instead of female supremacy, I wouldn't call it as bad though a gender based political party isn't as bad.

But a party based on Islamic ideals is definitely much worse. We already had Labour MP Naz Shah openly asking for blasphemy laws in UK. Definitely not the route I would like the country to take.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *exanthemMan
over a year ago

North

Well British Muslims feel politically homeless neither Labour( their favourite party) or Tories are serving their interest. Ironically , Muslims who live in Islamic countries feel the same way too. Their frustration is building up as Muslim Ummah leaders could not do much except giving either anti semite or pro Palestinian statements, and no one wants to take active role in this war alongside Hamas because of historic reasons. So at least they can try their best in west by exploiting the democratic process, combining their vote power to ensure Party of Islam wins a few seats in election. Normally voting is based on Ideology but changing it to religious beliefs is very dangerous, not only for other minorities but majorities as well.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Thin edge of the wedge, We are a secular country and should keep religion out of politics and governance.

The UK isn't a secular country. The Head of State is also the head of the established church, and there are 26 bishops sitting in the House of Lords as the 'Lords Spiritual'.

Having said that, the UK doesn't act like a religious country, for which I'm very grateful."

JRM votes against gay rights every time because he thinks the specific god he believes in would want him too.

Religion is fine to help individuals make personal choices. Like what hat to wear. But should have zero bearing on politics or anything that impacts public life. We need to move towards a scientific, information based decision making.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London


"We need to move towards a scientific, information based decision making."

The Nazis and the Soviets both thought they'd achieved that.

Perhaps we need a balance of science, belief and common sense/pragmatism, with an overarching general love of humanity.

More important than being right is tolerating those we believe to be wrong.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Is there any real difference between this for example and the political parties in Northern Ireland which also runs down the lines of religion

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"We need to move towards a scientific, information based decision making.

The Nazis and the Soviets both thought they'd achieved that.

Perhaps we need a balance of science, belief and common sense/pragmatism, with an overarching general love of humanity.

More important than being right is tolerating those we believe to be wrong."

We have too much belief and not enough science in politics at the moment. Climate change is an example of that at play.

It could be argued that "belief" was at play with the Nazis. They believed they were a superior race. Not a scientific principle.

Personal religious freedom is important though.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Is there any real difference between this for example and the political parties in Northern Ireland which also runs down the lines of religion "

I think so, although there are similarities. Policies based on religion, such as abortion.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.


"Is there any real difference between this for example and the political parties in Northern Ireland which also runs down the lines of religion

I think so, although there are similarities. Policies based on religion, such as abortion. "

And that has worked well for them no trouble at all

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London


"It could be argued that "belief" was at play with the Nazis. They believed they were a superior race. Not a scientific principle."

Exactly - science has the potential for abuse, whilst lending a misguided or abhorrent belief (religious, nationalist or otherwise) legitimacy.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"It could be argued that "belief" was at play with the Nazis. They believed they were a superior race. Not a scientific principle.

Exactly - science has the potential for abuse, whilst lending a misguided or abhorrent belief (religious, nationalist or otherwise) legitimacy."

Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London


"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based."

Exactly.

Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based.

Exactly.

Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific."

Probably they did.

"Scientists that agree with them" is not science. And it's basically what we have now with the likes of GBnews digging out scientists (funded by the oil industry) that agree with them that climate science isn't real.

My opinion is we need to move away from anything belief based as a decision making tool, and go back to verifiable, real life information.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeisty OP   Couple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based.

Exactly.

Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific.

Probably they did.

"Scientists that agree with them" is not science. And it's basically what we have now with the likes of GBnews digging out scientists (funded by the oil industry) that agree with them that climate science isn't real.

My opinion is we need to move away from anything belief based as a decision making tool, and go back to verifiable, real life information. "

Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London


"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks. "

Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions.

We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though.

The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means).

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeisty OP   Couple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks.

Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions.

We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though.

The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means)."

I'm not agreeing that we should be using science as a governing policy. In fact, I personally think that purely following science is a ridiculous thought.

But for that poster to say 'science which agrees with government isn't science' is bollocks. If you only see science that you agree with as 'real science', I suggest you're as bad as the flat earthers you ridicule (not aimed at you personally).

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Do you need to be Muslim to join..?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks.

Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions.

We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though.

The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means)."

Well clearly we need human morality. Not just science.

The point is, government is supposed to be here to serve the people of the country, and the decisions need to be made based on real life information, IE science.

In 2016, Irish politician Danny Healy-Rae in their parliament said “God above is in charge of the weather and we here can't do anything about it".

We need less of that kind of nonsense.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Earth is in total control of her own weather and there is absolutely NOTHING we mortals can do to change that fact.

To even think we can (control weather) is beyond nonsense, it's ridiculous....!

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.


"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks.

Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions.

We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though.

The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means).

Well clearly we need human morality. Not just science.

The point is, government is supposed to be here to serve the people of the country, and the decisions need to be made based on real life information, IE science.

In 2016, Irish politician Danny Healy-Rae in their parliament said “God above is in charge of the weather and we here can't do anything about it".

We need less of that kind of nonsense.

"

"Careful now"

"Down with this sort of thing"

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks.

Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions.

We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though.

The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means).

Well clearly we need human morality. Not just science.

The point is, government is supposed to be here to serve the people of the country, and the decisions need to be made based on real life information, IE science.

In 2016, Irish politician Danny Healy-Rae in their parliament said “God above is in charge of the weather and we here can't do anything about it".

We need less of that kind of nonsense.

"Careful now"

"Down with this sort of thing""

3

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London


"Earth is in total control of her own weather and there is absolutely NOTHING we mortals can do to change that fact.

To even think we can (control weather) is beyond nonsense, it's ridiculous....!"

We all know which religion really controls the weather...

At least according to the politicians Trayon White & Marjorie Taylor Greene.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Earth is in total control of her own weather and there is absolutely NOTHING we mortals can do to change that fact.

To even think we can (control weather) is beyond nonsense, it's ridiculous....!

We all know which religion really controls the weather...

At least according to the politicians Trayon White & Marjorie Taylor Greene."

Excellent examples of the kind of batshit crazy bollocks that people in power believe over real life information.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford


"I have to agree with most posters. A party founded and based on religion is a dangerous thing. We have many historical records to back this up. We also have the Israel-Palestine long drawn out conflict to back that up as well.

Blair and Bush banged on about God whilst invading two sovereign countries.

It's simply dangerous."

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks.

Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions.

We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though.

The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means)."

Agree with you that governance has a lot to do with moral philosophy than with science. Moral philosophy tells us what we want in the form of priorities. But science/analytics tells us whether we can achieve what we want and if we can achieve it, the way to achieve it and the sacrifices we need to make to achieve it.

But governments bending science to achieve their will is different. It happens when scientific institutions are not free from government control.

Moral philosophy varies from country to country and they all respond differently to different situations. This is why the dream of a world government with a universal code of morality will always be that - a dream.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford


"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks.

Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions.

We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though.

The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means).

Agree with you that governance has a lot to do with moral philosophy than with science. Moral philosophy tells us what we want in the form of priorities. But science/analytics tells us whether we can achieve what we want and if we can achieve it, the way to achieve it and the sacrifices we need to make to achieve it.

But governments bending science to achieve their will is different. It happens when scientific institutions are not free from government control.

Moral philosophy varies from country to country and they all respond differently to different situations. This is why the dream of a world government with a universal code of morality will always be that - a dream."

Name an Islamic government with morality values close to British values

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks.

Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions.

We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though.

The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means).

Agree with you that governance has a lot to do with moral philosophy than with science. Moral philosophy tells us what we want in the form of priorities. But science/analytics tells us whether we can achieve what we want and if we can achieve it, the way to achieve it and the sacrifices we need to make to achieve it.

But governments bending science to achieve their will is different. It happens when scientific institutions are not free from government control.

Moral philosophy varies from country to country and they all respond differently to different situations. This is why the dream of a world government with a universal code of morality will always be that - a dream.

Name an Islamic government with morality values close to British values"

That's exactly what I am saying. Different cultures have different moral values. I personally prefer the current Western moral system and would leave the country the moment an Islamic party becomes powerful. Science only helps governments achieve what they want. Science doesn't give us morality.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London


"Different cultures have different moral values. I personally prefer the current Western moral system and would leave the country the moment an Islamic party becomes powerful. Science only helps governments achieve what they want. Science doesn't give us morality."

What could possibly go wrong with an Islamic party gaining traction in a western country?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Science is science. To say that because you don't agree with a particular, that science isn't science is bollocks.

Science, as a basis for government, is a pretty scary thought. And decisions will always be underpinned by a philosophy. We're not talking round Earth vs flat Earth here, we're talking "should we kill cripples and old people" because it's more efficient and makes room for more productive people? As soon as we say "no, that's horrible" we're departing from "science" and entering philosophy. That philosophy will be subjective. Science might then a way of distancing the philosophy from the actions.

We see this vividly in decisions made by NICE - who will live, who will die, who will get medication, who will not. Of course in this instance the science is arguably a good thing. It isn't always, though.

The only thing that can work is humanity + a "good philosophy" (whatever that means).

Agree with you that governance has a lot to do with moral philosophy than with science. Moral philosophy tells us what we want in the form of priorities. But science/analytics tells us whether we can achieve what we want and if we can achieve it, the way to achieve it and the sacrifices we need to make to achieve it.

But governments bending science to achieve their will is different. It happens when scientific institutions are not free from government control.

Moral philosophy varies from country to country and they all respond differently to different situations. This is why the dream of a world government with a universal code of morality will always be that - a dream.

Name an Islamic government with morality values close to British values"

To do that you have to define "British Values".

Which is impossible. One person's answer will be completely different to the next. Don't forget nearly 4 million British people are Muslims.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,


"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based.

Exactly.

Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific.

Probably they did.

"Scientists that agree with them" is not science. And it's basically what we have now with the likes of GBnews digging out scientists (funded by the oil industry) that agree with them that climate science isn't real.

My opinion is we need to move away from anything belief based as a decision making tool, and go back to verifiable, real life information. "

So a qualified experienced scientist you don't agree with is not a scientist?

The GB news scientists are not funded by the oil industry,they are independents.Who are the climate change 'scientist' funded by? And who funds the 'scientists' the BBC wheeled out during COVID? Example,the laughably titled professor Neil Ferguson who only knows one number,half a million,a man with over 20 years experience of being wrong about every virus,from Foot and Mouth to SARS,funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"Their belief that they were the master race wasn't science based. It was belief based.

Exactly.

Then they promoted scientists who agreed with them and locked up those who disagreed, presenting their belief as scientific truth. They probably even succeeded in deluding themselves that they were being scientific.

Probably they did.

"Scientists that agree with them" is not science. And it's basically what we have now with the likes of GBnews digging out scientists (funded by the oil industry) that agree with them that climate science isn't real.

My opinion is we need to move away from anything belief based as a decision making tool, and go back to verifiable, real life information.

So a qualified experienced scientist you don't agree with is not a scientist?

"

No, where on earth do you get this idea from?


"

The GB news scientists are not funded by the oil industry,they are independents.

"

I don't know who all their "scientists" are. But they've had some cranks funded by the fossil fuels industry on for sure


"

Who are the climate change 'scientist' funded by?

"

There's literally thousands of them, funded by universities, NASA, different agencies and all kinds of different funding world wide. What kind of question is this?


"

And who funds the 'scientists' the BBC wheeled out during COVID? Example,the laughably titled professor Neil Ferguson who only knows one number,half a million,a man with over 20 years experience of being wrong about every virus,from Foot and Mouth to SARS,funded by the pharmaceutical industry."

Not sure what this bit at the end has to do with anything?

Science itself has no agenda. It's simply " the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"Different cultures have different moral values. I personally prefer the current Western moral system and would leave the country the moment an Islamic party becomes powerful. Science only helps governments achieve what they want. Science doesn't give us morality.

What could possibly go wrong with an Islamic party gaining traction in a western country?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned"

You should have seen the anti-LGBT protests in Canada

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"

Name an Islamic government with morality values close to British values

To do that you have to define "British Values".

Which is impossible. One person's answer will be completely different to the next. Don't forget nearly 4 million British people are Muslims. "

Not sure what British values are, specifically. But many Western liberal values are opposite to Islamic values.

One clear example is freedom of expression, which has taken a hit all over Europe, thanks to Islamic immigration. US is probably the only country that has managed to maintain it, thanks to the first amendment. Sweden is fighting hard. Not sure how long they will be able to keep those rights, given the recent terror attack. Denmark already gave up and are passing laws to ban insults to religions. I don't even want to talk about the situation in UK. The Batley school teacher incident, Wakefield child incident, Cinemas taking down Lady of Heaven film and the list goes on.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out. "

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices..."

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *wosmilersCouple
over a year ago

Heathrowish


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?"

Probably referring to issues of sexual preference, identity and Liberal attitudes.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London


"Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?"

The existence of this website?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?"

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”"

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll

And we have Christian bishops in the house of Lords, Britain certainly is not a secular country and some religions retain a formal role. This is going to cause more issues in the future as the balance of religious belief in the country changes. Be much better if we separated church and state.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
over a year ago

Border of London


"And we have Christian bishops in the house of Lords, Britain certainly is not a secular country and some religions retain a formal role."

Like the monarchy, the country tolerates them because it's safe to ignore and laugh at them. Should they really start throwing their weight around or should blasphemy/anti-royalist sentiment become legislated against and be properly enforced, their days would be sharply numbered.

If a majority of the country wanted to vote in a party that proscribed blasphemy, there would be a civil war.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean. "

There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal.

This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean.

There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal.

This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression."

Out of 50 Muslim majority countries.

Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice.

I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean.

There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal.

This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression.

Out of 50 Muslim majority countries.

Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice.

I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice?"

11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey.

I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace.

As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean.

There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal.

This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression.

Out of 50 Muslim majority countries.

Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice.

I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice?

11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey.

I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace.

As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term? "

Ah standard anti immigration rant.

Crack on.

Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeisty OP   Couple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean.

There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal.

This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression.

Out of 50 Muslim majority countries.

Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice.

I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice?

11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey.

I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace.

As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term?

Ah standard anti immigration rant.

Crack on.

Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians. "

Anti immigration is not the same as anti being overrun by Islam.

Did you know November is islamophobia awareness month here in the UK? Guess who started that? I wonder which other religions have an awareness month?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *0shadesOfFilthMan
over a year ago

nearby

It’s not our lifestyle choices we need to worry about, it’s there’s

A political party characterised by a head chopping religion is dangerous as is increasing birth rate (6% of uk population / 10% of births). Anyone in doubt of the prophets intentions go read the Quran.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean.

There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal.

This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression.

Out of 50 Muslim majority countries.

Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice.

I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice?

11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey.

I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace.

As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term?

Ah standard anti immigration rant.

Crack on.

Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians. "

If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points.

You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean.

There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal.

This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression.

Out of 50 Muslim majority countries.

Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice.

I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice?

11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey.

I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace.

As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term?

Ah standard anti immigration rant.

Crack on.

Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians. "

Typical reply that doesn't refute any of the points I made. Of course, label it as anti-immigration. If you are allowing immigration of a group of people with over 50% of them wanting to make homosexuality illegal, over a period of time, they will have enough political power to actually make it illegal.

I see that you have already brought in Tories into the argument. There are levels to it. Being pro-gay rights, being pro-gay rights and even legally recognising gay marriage but not wanting this topic to be brought up in schools, being pro gay rights but not happy with legal recognition of gay marriage, wanting homosexuality to be illegal, wanting homosexuals to be killed.

If you cannot even see that difference, it's hard to argue with you.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean.

There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal.

This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression.

Out of 50 Muslim majority countries.

Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice.

I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice?

11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey.

I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace.

As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term?

Ah standard anti immigration rant.

Crack on.

Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians.

Typical reply that doesn't refute any of the points I made. Of course, label it as anti-immigration. If you are allowing immigration of a group of people with over 50% of them wanting to make homosexuality illegal, over a period of time, they will have enough political power to actually make it illegal.

I see that you have already brought in Tories into the argument. There are levels to it. Being pro-gay rights, being pro-gay rights and even legally recognising gay marriage but not wanting this topic to be brought up in schools, being pro gay rights but not happy with legal recognition of gay marriage, wanting homosexuality to be illegal, wanting homosexuals to be killed.

If you cannot even see that difference, it's hard to argue with you."

It’s all pretty academic. In time simple demographics says that Muslims will become the majority in the Uk and across much of Europe.

At the moment Labour needs the Muslim vote in big cities, but in time as the Muslim vote expands all parties will have to pander to it.

In twenty years time when there is an attack on Israel the UK and Europe will stay silent. In fifty years time the UK and Europe will be supporting the attack on Israel.

Western liberals naively think that fundamentally everyone wants to be just like them given the chance, but by the time they realise their mistake it will be too late.

Frankly there is no way that a weak and decadent liberal Western culture is going to be able to stand up to the discipline and dedication of Islam.

And of course it’s not the West’s political right who will have much to fear from Islam, it will be Islam’s liberal running dogs who are in for a shock.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *wosmilersCouple
over a year ago

Heathrowish

We have to be wary of losing our freedoms but also wary of this becoming a 'Rivers of Blood' moment in the forum.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"It’s inevitable that eventually the UK and much of Europe will become Islamic. It’s just demographics.

The irony of course is that the Western liberals who have been so keen on bringing about this end and all of their pet causes will get wiped out.

Turkeys voting for xmas, does spring to mind when I see some of the groups that protest in favour of people and countries that have a religious upbringing that does not tolerate their lifestyle choices...

Do you have an example of the "lifestyle choices" that you are referring to?

Literally hundreds of examples, you know that though, surely?

Or are you trying to play “gotcha”

No, just wondering what you mean. But if you prefer to have a pop at me instead of answering. That's fine, we can just leave it without knowing what you mean.

There are 12 countries in the world which have capital punishment for homosexuals, 11 of which are Islamic. Most people there agree with it because that's what the religion reaches them. When we did a survey in 2016, over 50% of British Muslims said they wanted homosexuality to be illegal.

This site wouldn't exist if we are going to follow Islamic cultural values. I am pretty sure most people understand which lifestyle choices are incompatible with Islam. Not to mention, other liberal values like freedom of expression.

Out of 50 Muslim majority countries.

Still, people don't let that stand in the way of their prejudice.

I've no idea what any of this has got to do with the OP, does this political party stand a chance of gaining power and putting these principles into practice?

11 of them have capital punishment. Most other countries have other kinds of punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Less than 10 countries of them have legal status for sexual intercourse between homosexuals. Most of them are countries where the religion is not seriously practiced, like Kosovo and Turkey.

I personally know of a Turkish gay guy who moved to UK because he is scared of the level of Islamic immigration in Turkey and as an ex-Muslim, he believes that Gay rights will not survive in an Islamic nation. But don't let any of these facts get into your way of love for the religion of peace.

As for why it's related to the post, if you allow more and more immigration of people with views like this. They will develop enough political power to actually make changes. Naz Shah asking for blasphemy laws, an Islamic party trying to participate in the elections are symptoms of what would happen. Over 50% or Muslims on UK wanted to make homosexuality illegal. What exactly do you think will happen in the long term?

Ah standard anti immigration rant.

Crack on.

Long term I expect more Tories vote against gay rights than other politicians.

If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points.

You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing. "

If you're unable to discuss the topics and just play the player instead of the ball it's pointless. It's a shame because you always used to articulate points that were interesting, if contrary to my own.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points.

You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing. "

**********************************************

You know, on consideration......

I suspect others on the forum know these 'tactics', I've been there myself once or twice and the standard modus operendi when challenged is to cry the 'victim'...., or 'play the ball, not the man'....., 'have a pop at me'....., 'I was insulted'....., 'Telling lies about me'...... etc., etc., etc...

The green arrow is a very useful feature, if anyone has fifteen or twenty minutes to spare.

It's pitiful.

That said, it's completely irrelevant, given the platform (such as it is....!)

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"We have to be wary of losing our freedoms but also wary of this becoming a 'Rivers of Blood' moment in the forum."

In case you didn't notice, we already lost some freedoms

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
over a year ago

Gilfach


"We have to be wary of losing our freedoms but also wary of this becoming a 'Rivers of Blood' moment in the forum."


"In case you didn't notice, we already lost some freedoms "

Go on then, what legal freedoms have we lost so far?

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes

Although this application was refused, they have the right to appeal so may go down that route. According to what I read, it would not have been the first Islamic party in this country. It appears there was the Islamic party of Britain, year's ago. They say that homosexuality needs treatment and homosexuals put to death. I believe they have disbanded now but if enough of the population are of the same opinion these days or in the future then it's not impossible for them to gain real power

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *ostindreamsMan
over a year ago

London


"We have to be wary of losing our freedoms but also wary of this becoming a 'Rivers of Blood' moment in the forum.

In case you didn't notice, we already lost some freedoms

Go on then, what legal freedoms have we lost so far?"

Legally not, practically we have lost. Can you draw the forbidden picture in public and live your life as you did before? The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Or can you do anything with the Quran at all? If the police are going to watch an autistic kid's mother to beg forgiveness to a bunch of religious nutters for the kid damaging a book, after the kid received death threats, we have lost the rights already.

Not to forget that the Lady of heaven movie was taked down from some cinemas because some groups found it offensive.

The problem is that police in this country focus more on de-escalation instead of focusing on individual rights. So instead of tackling the people who threaten violence, they take the easy way out by just taking away other people's right to expression. The result is we have de-facto blasphemy laws in the form of street laws.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Legally not, practically we have lost. Can you draw the forbidden picture in public and live your life as you did before? The Batley teacher is still in hiding. Or can you do anything with the Quran at all? If the police are going to watch an autistic kid's mother to beg forgiveness to a bunch of religious nutters for the kid damaging a book, after the kid received death threats, we have lost the rights already.

Not to forget that the Lady of heaven movie was taked down from some cinemas because some groups found it offensive.

The problem is that police in this country focus more on de-escalation instead of focusing on individual rights. So instead of tackling the people who threaten violence, they take the easy way out by just taking away other people's right to expression. The result is we have de-facto blasphemy laws in the form of street laws."

********************************

Well said, thank you.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *iman2100Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

Any political group that wishes to goven based on a faith in the teachings if an imaginary friend, as promulgated by selfserving clerics, represents a threat to our democracy because they have already suspended their grasp of reality. And to goven effectively you need a grasp of reality.

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points.

You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing.

**********************************************

You know, on consideration......

I suspect others on the forum know these 'tactics', I've been there myself once or twice and the standard modus operendi when challenged is to cry the 'victim'...., or 'play the ball, not the man'....., 'have a pop at me'....., 'I was insulted'....., 'Telling lies about me'...... etc., etc., etc...

The green arrow is a very useful feature, if anyone has fifteen or twenty minutes to spare.

It's pitiful.

That said, it's completely irrelevant, given the platform (such as it is....!)"

PILE ON ALERT

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *astandFeisty OP   Couple
over a year ago

Bournemouth


"If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points.

You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing.

**********************************************

You know, on consideration......

I suspect others on the forum know these 'tactics', I've been there myself once or twice and the standard modus operendi when challenged is to cry the 'victim'...., or 'play the ball, not the man'....., 'have a pop at me'....., 'I was insulted'....., 'Telling lies about me'...... etc., etc., etc...

The green arrow is a very useful feature, if anyone has fifteen or twenty minutes to spare.

It's pitiful.

That said, it's completely irrelevant, given the platform (such as it is....!)

PILE ON ALERT "

One person replying to another is not a pile on. Behave yourself

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"If I was you I would try and take a wider view and stop trying to back people into phobic corners to score points.

You play this game regularly and then go on to blame others for attacking you, like you did me, and you know very well you I didn't I called you out for trying to play a game instead of discussing.

**********************************************

You know, on consideration......

I suspect others on the forum know these 'tactics', I've been there myself once or twice and the standard modus operendi when challenged is to cry the 'victim'...., or 'play the ball, not the man'....., 'have a pop at me'....., 'I was insulted'....., 'Telling lies about me'...... etc., etc., etc...

The green arrow is a very useful feature, if anyone has fifteen or twenty minutes to spare.

It's pitiful.

That said, it's completely irrelevant, given the platform (such as it is....!)

PILE ON ALERT

One person replying to another is not a pile on. Behave yourself "

No they were jumping into a conversation between two people to then have a go at one of them. PILE ON

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
 
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Maybe it is best not to assume who someone else is talking about. ( post removed )

It is probably also best that the digs at other users don't make it to the forum so people can't make assumptions of who it is about.

If you can't debate without taking every comment as a personal slant or the other side of the coin, attack people instead of discuss the post, then please don't post at all

 (thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately
back to top