Eric Pickles' letter seems to me to be highly counter-productive. By addressing itself officially to "Muslim Leaders" it gives the addressees a kind of spurious legitimacy, which entirely fails to grasp that they are the problem not the solution. The section asserting that "Islam is a religion of peace" is simply false; it serves only to annoy and confuse everybody. Overall the letter fails to appease the muslims (as evidenced by the reaction) whilst also failing to reassure those who are afraid of muslims (i.e. just about everybody). Instead of supporting those who give up islam, as it should, it reinforces those who continue to adhere to it. The whole exercise can only be seen as an utter failure of policy.
c'mon Pete, you expect people to just give up a lifelong belief like that?! the letter was rightly target at this who are creating much of the tension right now. Not forever past or the future, but for now. The way in which it has been received is just a narrow minded, and shows so by their reaction, as those who murdered people for simply adding cartography pen to paper.
It would seem that the Muslim Council of Britain (note not MCGB, read into that what you will), who once had official ties with HMG, is now part of the problem rather than the solution; once one concession is extracted they move on to the next. Chuka Umunna believes Muslim Values are British Values Video: Furious Chuka Umunna storms out of Sky News interview - Telegraph
he is only bettered in his arrogance by Blair and Cameron Radio 4 was reporting yesterday the finding for them came directly out of the security services budget. Seems ironic to me.
Eric Pickles' letter fails to accurately assess the problem and therefore fails to come up with a satisfactory solution. The evidence suggests that Islam will continue to take, without giving anything in return, and the moderate muslims sit back and watch. I do not hold out much hope that the Muslim community wants to solve the issues and the Muslim Council of Britain is definitely part of the problem rather than the solution.
Not 'just like that', no. Getting over a cult religion (such as Islam, Scientology, Plymouth Brethren) is difficult and challenging. The person leaving in many cases finds they suddenly have no family, no home, no money, no friends, and no job as well as maybe facing personal violence. Those brought up in a faith from childhood may have suffered physical abuse and prolonged brainwashing; they have never been allowed (let alone encouraged) to think for themselves. It is a step requiring enormous courage and inner strength, and no-one can blame most people for finding it is beyond their capacity. The point is: the government should be offering help for people trying to escape from religious oppression. Preferably practical help, but even offering moral support and encouragement would be a start. The appalling Eric Pickles, of course, does exactly the opposite.
in a Christian society where we than God and the Queen at every event. Unlikely. Agree John, it was done by a politician point-scoring and aiming to being seen to be doing, rather than taking considered and appropriate action.
I like Chuka Umunna. Every time I have seen him, he seems reasonable, articulate, bright. In the footage on the Telegraph website, the interviewer seems needlessly aggressive, wants him to comment on something he hasn't been briefed about, and it is the interviewer that ends the interview. Then someone writes that Umunna "stormed out of interview". Well, he didn't, did he? My views on Islam and religion in general are pretty clear to people, but it's nothing personal. I don't hate all Muslims by any means - in fact, on a personal level, I have no more for or against them than anyone else I meet. I think the Pope is a top guy, albeit with some bloody stupid ideas about contraception and gay marriage. It's a good debating point though: can you be a top guy if you hold some ridiculous views? Hmmm.
He's a question for the better informed: I noticed on the news or Newsnight last night that most of the people coming to pray in the mosque wore Pakistani dress. You couldn't have told that they weren't in Pakistan. I've sort of got used to this, but then you think, if these people have been in the country for years, or are even 2nd or 3rd generation, why do they continue to dress in a way that clearly badges their non-integration, unless they want to make a point about not integrating? Alternatively, it occurred to me that perhaps they wore western clothes all week, but wore more traditional Muslim garb for going to mosque. Does anyone know? It is normal to see the put-upon women wearing their bedsheets - it seems to go with the religion - but why the men? Of course, you should be able to wear whatever you want - I don't mind. But there is so much talk of "the Muslim community" (as there is also talk of "the gay community"). I see Britain as a place where there are all these "communities" which means that people identify themselves as gay, Muslim, black or whatever, instead of just being people, or even, god forbid, British. Once you are part of a minority "community", you must have a "them and us" mindset and that is never beneficial. Maybe we are the "Ducati community" and in some way not real Britons either. (Well, I'm clearly not, I can see that.)
Don't disagree with any of that Glidd, Chuka is a very "nice" guy for a self righteous champagne socialist, only problem is that he expressed the opinion that "Muslim Values are British Values".
I'm trying to work out if it would have been worse if he'd said "British values are Muslim values". I think it would have been. There is clearly a strain of Islam where its adherents really do see the religion as peace-loving, merciful, inclusive and good for society. That might even be a majority strain. It's just a pity that the other strain is so murderous and vocal. Really, if people want to do the prayers, avoid pork and alcohol and go to a mosque, I really don't care. I just get a problem when they want to do blasphemy laws, Sharia punishments and be bigamists.
Nope, traditional dress seems to be the norm in many areas of the UK. Beneficial to whom ? The cause would wither and die if there was true integration.
x=y or y=x, does it matter ? I have met and worked with some lovely Muslims, they are intelligent, educated and scrupulously polite, but scratch beneath the surface and they are Muslim before everything else. I definitely agree with the supposition that non-violent extremism is a significant part of the problem and that moderate Muslims are, at best, neutral to their cause.
Scottish smoked salmon or smokes Scottish salmon. Makes a word of difference Yet another soundbite from him which has no substance. When he first appeared on the horizon he truly seemed bright and willing to go against the grain, ie savvy but also happy to give an opinion rather than party line, ala Prescott. That has long since gone
Chuka is intelligent, articulate and photogenic; he is a master of making vacuous statements sound good; he is on message and offends few; his future is bright and nothing is going to get in the way of it. A heart on sleeve champagne socialist.
Pete, that I so on the money...I left the Jehovah's witnesses more than 17 years ago and i'd like to think I've the strength of character to have completely moved on, but some wounds never heal...
Why do groups like nuns, vicars, hasidic jews, sikhs, and muslims wear funny hats and peculiar costumes? They could easily wear ordinary clothes like most people do throughout most of the world. As you rightly say, it's only to make a point about not integrating. They want to stand out, to attract notice, to proclaim their differentiation, and to make it hard for anyone to leave their group unnoticed. Wearing fancy dress for weddings and funerals is not enough for them, it has to be every day. If somebody is rude or threatening towards a person wearing a funny costume, the rudeness or threat can be characterised as being towards the group they evidently belong to, instead of the kind of individual personal interactions everyone else experiences all the time. The group can insist on their "right" to wear their special costume, and claim to be "offended" by being required to dress like everybody else. It's a mechanism for creating topics to pick quarrels about. In general I am in favour of people being allowed to wear whatever odd costumes and silly hats they like - morris dancers, anybody? leather suits? - but I am opposed to anybody being pressurised into wearing things which turn them into a public spectacle, especially if it threatens others. Disciplined bodies like the police and armed forces are required to wear uniforms for practical reasons, and under lawful authority. Uniformed religious groups are not.
Well done and congratulations. So what help did you get from any quarter, when you most needed it? If any ...
The current pope is certainly better at PR than the ex-pope; he could scarcely be worse. Being part of a self-perpetuating, self-serving oligarchy is quite a handicap. Being lumbered with a set of idiotic, immoral doctrines left over from earlier centuries is even more of a handicap. Being the head of a monumentally corrupt, abusive organisation is probably his biggest handicap of all. In a perverse kind of way I feel some sympathy for Bergoglio's position. His job of trying to prevent the whole house of cards from falling down is quite some challenge for a guy to take on, especially at 78 years old.
Very little actually, my sister was my only reference from the past, essentially everyone I knew from my 1st 25 years disappeared. I moved away and built a new life for myself. The only "side effects" its had really is that I don't make friends easily, am completely cynical of all forms of religion no matter how pure their so called motives are and tend to bait people with strong beliefs about anything, especially if they were inherited. Oh and after my parents left me out in the desert for 5 years u have trust issues..... But apart from that I'm fine.....:Wtf::Hungry:
