Angry White and Thick

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phil V said:
I don't disagree, but it doesn't alter my original point, which is that Catholicism, rather than Islam is the fastest growing religion in the UK... etc. etc.

And my other point about the CofE being responsible for the influence Islam is allowed to have in society generally and the education system most worryingly.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want your children to be indoctrinated into a religion at school, you should have to pay for the privilege. It isn't the taxpayers job to subsidise a religion spreading fairy stories instead of teaching science and tolerance (whether that's catholicism, Islam or fundamental christianity).
Click to expand...
And you do, and they don't get a subsidy anymore than anyone else gets. If anything faith schools get less subsidy ;)

I do think schools should teach about religion, what I like in my experience with the three Catholic schools that we've dealt with is that they are very inclusive in their RE teachings, each semester it gets suplemented by teaching from another religion. It is nothing like singular indoctrination at all, and not pressure at all on any child to not question it. On the contrary it is in my experience encouraged to debate and discuss. I actually really like it. Whilst it may seem contra dictionary to my earlier views, there is method to my madness :) Without understanding what the other religions are about, what drives them etc there is no change for harmony. And the privilege of doing that is actually less funding....
 
BRASH said:
You'll have to speak to the people I've spoken to and that ain't gonna happen is it? I'm not trying to change your mind, only puting across points. I care not what you believe but I'll not be denied saying something if I wish to regardless of what you or others may think.

I've seen plenty things first hand, done plenty things and had plenty things done to me which I do not wish to share on here for a variety of reasons. Just because I don't evidence them to you don't mean they didn't happen. Lets just leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but if you wish to take part in a debate you must be willing to have your point of view queried. And providing evidence such as '
fabs said:
People have already told you of their experience of Luton, including myself, when were you last there and what specifically did you see?
Click to expand...

He has been watching ridiculous, sensationalist videos on youtube that warn of the incoming tide of Muslims - one such nonsensical video - Link to nonsense.

I really am glad that the forum is taking to task the couple of people spewing nonsense backed up by nothing more than 'my mate said...'. Thank you.
 
Queen unhappy at Sharia Legislation enforcing the wearing of headscarves by all women.

article-2321472-19AEF94F000005DC-126_308x448.jpg
 
dejongj said:
He did make that comment, yet at the same time he is still promoting natural contraception only. Whilst Muslim countries may suffer falling birth rates, in the Netherlands they run at either 4.8 or 5.3 (I can't remember) compared to 2.3 for a non-muslim and other religion sample. It is a stark difference in family size and planning.



I haven't. And to be honest Catholicism is Christianity thus the census should pick it up and demonstrate the overall increase. As I said in the local area it is not noticeable except for special occasions, another hypocracy I've got with that faith. If there was significant growth then it would be a news story...
Click to expand...

Isn't this part of the Muslim demographic myth that was disputed? It would mean 5% of the population was responsible for 50% of the babies in the Netherlands. It looks about 3 to 2 in favour of Muslims from what I've read?
 
Certainly a similar type of claim. And that muslim demographic video wasn't disputed. It was thoroughly debunked.
 
Laudrup said:
Isn't this part of the Muslim demographic myth that was disputed? It would mean 5% of the population was responsible for 50% of the babies in the Netherlands. It looks about 3 to 2 in favour of Muslims from what I've read?
Click to expand...
It's been late and just had to deal with a police incident in our area, however that isn't quite what it suggests. It was calculated that in two generations from now it will be the dominant religion. That doesn't mean that today they have to produce 50% of all babies, however considering that the size of families are larger, the increase and expansion of two generations is huge and will become bigger and bigger with every birth.
 
Rapscallion said:
Certainly a similar type of claim. And that muslim demographic video wasn't disputed. It was thoroughly debunked.
Click to expand...
What video are you referring to?

I'm talking about a parliamentary discussion that was held in early January 2015.
 
dejongj said:
And you do, and they don't get a subsidy anymore than anyone else gets. If anything faith schools get less subsidy ;)

I do think schools should teach about religion, what I like in my experience with the three Catholic schools that we've dealt with is that they are very inclusive in their RE teachings, each semester it gets suplemented by teaching from another religion. It is nothing like singular indoctrination at all, and not pressure at all on any child to not question it. On the contrary it is in my experience encouraged to debate and discuss. I actually really like it. Whilst it may seem contra dictionary to my earlier views, there is method to my madness :) Without understanding what the other religions are about, what drives them etc there is no change for harmony. And the privilege of doing that is actually less funding....
Click to expand...
Sorry but:
My point is that they should get no funding. If you want your children to be educated by a religion, you should IMHO have to pay for the privilege. That way, the nutcase religious zealots don't get to sneak in on the back of the happy clappy peace loving religious nice guys. The religious nutjobs of all persuasions are not interested in harmony. All religions have an element of evangelism, because without it they wither and die. Just like any organism, religions are predisposed to grow.
 
ST4 said:
A town where the taxi drivers could barely speak English, where there were significantly more women in Burkhas than not...need I go on...
Click to expand...

So when were you there? I was in Luton a couple of weeks ago and I'll be there again on Friday. Not seen more than a few women in Burkhas. In any case, what is it about Burkhas that offends you?
 
fabs said:
So when were you there? I was in Luton a couple of weeks ago and I'll be there again on Friday. Not seen more than a few women in Burkhas. In any case, what is it about Burkhas that offends you?
Click to expand...

You don't really expect a direct answer? Every thread where i have asked direct questions he has always ignored those questions because he knows that he cannot answer them.

I have to say he is causing a lot of disruption in this forum, far more so than other members that are no longer with us.
 
fabs said:
So when were you there? I was in Luton a couple of weeks ago and I'll be there again on Friday. Not seen more than a few women in Burkhas. In any case, what is it about Burkhas that offends you?
Click to expand...

The burka should be banned like it is in France. Even the European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision:

"Judges at the ECHR have upheld France’s ban on the burka. The court accepted the French argument that the ban on face coverings in public, which was introduced in 2010, encouraged citizens to “live together”. France had submitted that the face “played a significant role in social interaction” and that individuals might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which could fundamentally call into question the possibility of an open, interpersonal relationship that formed “an indispensable element of community life”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Rapscallion said:
I have to say he is causing a lot of disruption in this forum, far more so than other members that are no longer with us.
Click to expand...

I hope I'm wrong in thinking you're hinting at getting someone banned from the forum. Stifling someones opinion because you don't agree with it is the whole point of this discussion. Interesting plenty of people had much to say about the EDL in the program, but not so much to say about the video I posted !!
 
Phil V said:
Sorry but:
My point is that they should get no funding. If you want your children to be educated by a religion, you should IMHO have to pay for the privilege. That way, the nutcase religious zealots don't get to sneak in on the back of the happy clappy peace loving religious nice guys. The religious nutjobs of all persuasions are not interested in harmony. All religions have an element of evangelism, because without it they wither and die. Just like any organism, religions are predisposed to grow.
Click to expand...
No need to be sorry. I don't understand what you mean. The children are getting the same curriculum and the school gets less funding than other schools with the parents making up the difference.

As I explained in a normal manner already, it is nothing like what you describe. At least not in the three schools that I've got experience with. I'm not a fan of religion myself, however I think it is good when were educated about other peoples believe systems. I also really like the idea that parents and pupils have to contribute themselves to the school.
 
ST4 said:
A town where the taxi drivers could barely speak English, where there were significantly more women in Burkhas than not...need I go on...
Click to expand...
Actually yes you do need to go on. None of those points raised are linked or evidence that sharia law is being applied nor that it is a no go area.

Heck when I went first to Glasgow I couldn't understand the taxi drivers either ;)
 
dejongj said:
No need to be sorry. I don't understand what you mean. The children are getting the same curriculum and the school gets less funding than other schools with the parents making up the difference.

As I explained in a normal manner already, it is nothing like what you describe. At least not in the three schools that I've got experience with. I'm not a fan of religion myself, however I think it is good when were educated about other peoples believe systems. I also really like the idea that parents and pupils have to contribute themselves to the school.
Click to expand...
But all schoolchildren are taught about all faiths, but faith schools are allowed to promote more specific beliefs. I appreciate some might think it's wrong that faith schools get less govt funding, but I frankly think they should get none at all.
 
Phil V said:
But all schoolchildren are taught about all faiths, but faith schools are allowed to promote more specific beliefs. I appreciate some might think it's wrong that faith schools get less govt funding, but I frankly think they should get none at all.
Click to expand...
As I said before they get less subsidy than non faith aligned schools ;) parents and carers have a direct stake in the school which brings something much more valuable than anything. The same curriculum still gets taught. So we pay more for getting the same quantity, I'm happy with that as it also allows for setting entry criteria.
 
fabs said:
So when were you there? I was in Luton a couple of weeks ago and I'll be there again on Friday. Not seen more than a few women in Burkhas. In any case, what is it about Burkhas that offends you?
Click to expand...
I've been watching that 24 Hours In Custody and the vast majority of people brought in were white. Seems like the Muslims are actually the law abiding citizens of that town. Someone has obviously been walking round there with blinkers on, looking for specific people to complain about and ignoring the real trouble makers. My assertion is obviously based on what i've seen through the media, but it's probably true and should be acted on.
 
boyfalldown said:
agree 100%. If Sharia law was used to settle civil disputes between parties who agree to settle tha way(Much like dispute resolution is used by the courts now), I'm sure thats something most people could live with?
Click to expand...

What's the difference between that and Judge Judy or Judge Rinder on TV?
 
ST4 said:
Because they see us all as Infadels and that they wish to convert us to that religion.
Click to expand...

And the Christians have never done that? I do believe we had a pretty serious attempt over the years, especially in Africa. Jehovas witnesses at your door?
 
Laudrup said:
The burka should be banned like it is in France. Even the European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision:

"Judges at the ECHR have upheld France’s ban on the burka. The court accepted the French argument that the ban on face coverings in public, which was introduced in 2010, encouraged citizens to “live together”. France had submitted that the face “played a significant role in social interaction” and that individuals might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which could fundamentally call into question the possibility of an open, interpersonal relationship that formed “an indispensable element of community life”.
Click to expand...

I do wonder how I have to remove my crash helmet in petrol stations...

There are certain practical reasons for identification I can understand
 
Byker28i said:
I do wonder how I have to remove my crash helmet in petrol stations...
There are certain practical reasons for identification I can understand
Click to expand...
Is it that much of a problem and haven't you answered your own question? I actually hate the hassle of pulling/pushing doors to open them because I've got used to automatic doors over the years. Not only that, but once i've taken my hands out of my pockets to grab the handle, I then find I need to put my hands back in my pockets to pay for the fuel! Why cant they just take my word for it that i'll pay when I get home? It's not like I'm trying to hide my identity with a crash helmet or anything! ;)
 
Byker28i said:
I do wonder how I have to remove my crash helmet in petrol stations...

There are certain practical reasons for identification I can understand
Click to expand...

It's not a law though, it's the petrol sation owner asking you to do it. Probably so they can identify people on CCTV in the rare cases when they need to.

The argument about banning face coverings for identification purposes in public though is generally nonsense. If you don't know what a person looks like, you can't tell who they are with or without their face covered. And there is no reason why anyone needs to be identified in public anyway.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's not a law though, it's the petrol sation owner asking you to do it. Probably so they can identify people on CCTV in the rare cases when they need to.
Click to expand...

A local petrol station refused to take my money and serve me until I'd removed my helmet, as robbers apparently use crash helmets to disguise themselves. As such I tend to use drive through, pay at pump at the local asda now. It's also cheaper.
Not that we have many full burka wearers locally but I could see that possibly being an issue for them if they encounter a jobsworth such as I did that morning.

Nothing more to it than that really - an observation.
 
Steve Smith said:
And there is no reason why anyone needs to be identified in public anyway.


Steve.
Click to expand...


There are a number of reasons why people need to be identified in public not least for those of national security, criminal offenders, intelligence, ASBO type stuff, traffic issues (and offences). I'd assume this is why CCTV is so common these days. Perhaps some of the folk on here employed in such areas (police, security, cctv operators etc etc) may be able to expand on this, I dunno.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
new2me said:
I've been watching that 24 Hours In Custody and the vast majority of people brought in were white. Seems like the Muslims are actually the law abiding citizens of that town. Someone has obviously been walking round there with blinkers on, looking for specific people to complain about and ignoring the real trouble makers. My assertion is obviously based on what i've seen through the media, but it's probably true and should be acted on.
Click to expand...

Statistics are produced. Last report I saw was 2011
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ment_data/file/219967/stats-race-cjs-2010.pdf
 
Rapscallion said:
Because one will inform you with real facts, the other won't?
Click to expand...
But watching the documentary was factual. Did you know that 8 out of 10 cat owners prefer Whiskas? I learned that through watching the documentary (admittedly, it was during one of the breaks, but I'm sure there were facts on the actual show too). :)
 
new2me said:
But watching the documentary was factual. Did you know that 8 out of 10 cat owners prefer Whiskas? I learned that through watching the documentary (admittedly, it was during one of the breaks, but I'm sure there were facts on the actual show too). :)
Click to expand...

I have no doubt the documentary was factual, but you are possibly leading yourself down a dark alley by ignoring real, pure statistics in informing yourself. Embrace the breadth of information available to you to inform yourself and you will have a much more accurate view of the world.

The one key point I have picked up on this thread, there are far to many people who will lap up any 'fact' from their mates down the pub that mirrors their own view of the world, no matter how ridiculous it may be. I try and look at sources that are both supportive and contrary to my beliefs and outlook in a critical manner and also try to be very aware of a natural human tendency to be selective in the the facts I choose to accept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top