Think Before You Vote

Dex, you may well have a diverse pedigree, but we're not talking race... we're talking religion. This country, for a long time has been a Christian country, but Christianity is not a strong religion, and i'd say is actually receding. Whereas Islam is like mother natures bacteria of religions, and thrives on criticism... and is growing at a huge rate....

This is not about the BNP... it's about churches changes into mosques, and schools having to change the curriculum to suit the changing memagraphic..

Hitting the nail squarely on the head........
 
Sponsored Links
Imam and LMB, I agree with nearly everything you've being saying, and indeed think that Powell's speech predicted things quite accurately.

Whaere I disagree with you is that I don't think that change is necessarily a bad thing. Where it involves extremism to the degree of suicide missions, religious cult-extremism and self-segregation for example, then this is dangerous and serves little useful purpose; it creates fear and mistrust.

Ultimately, we're all of the same species trying our level best to survive and protect our offspring.
 
if you think off it logicaly its physicaly imposible for muslums to form the majority off the population ;)
 
Imam and LMB, I agree with nearly everything you've being saying, and indeed think that Powell's speech predicted things quite accurately.

Whaere I disagree with you is that I don't think that change is necessarily a bad thing. Where it involves extremism to the degree of suicide missions, religious cult-extremism and self-segregation for example, then this is dangerous and serves little useful purpose; it creates fear and mistrust.

Ultimately, we're all of the same species trying our level best to survive and protect our offspring.

ha ha quite ironic that you shorten my nickname to Imam!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam .. for those that don't know ! :)
 
Sponsored Links
Whaere I disagree with you is that I don't think that change is necessarily a bad thing.
Ultimately, we're all of the same species trying our level best to survive and protect our offspring.

I accept the need to survive... that's fundamental.
However, i disagree that change isn't a bad thing.... it's a bit like the introduction of the grey squirrel and the subsequent demise of the red squirrel.. from the perspective of the red squirrel, isn't this bad?
 
However, i disagree that change isn't a bad thing.... it's a bit like the introduction of the grey squirrel and the subsequent demise of the red squirrel.. from the perspective of the red squirrel, isn't this bad?
Think this is going to become a bit of a twisty argument, but here goes...

It may well be not great for the red squirrel, but it's not the grey squirrels fault that it was introduced. Indeed, if the person who introduced the grey squirrel hadn't gone into his neighbour's garden, lived there for a while, tried to change the garden and the neighbour's way of running his own house while he was there, and then stole some things (including a few grey squirrels), then maybe that person's children and their children would have a bit more of a reasonable claim of unfair play. If you catch my drift?
 
However, i disagree that change isn't a bad thing.... it's a bit like the introduction of the grey squirrel and the subsequent demise of the red squirrel.. from the perspective of the red squirrel, isn't this bad?
Think this is going to become a bit of a twisty argument, but here goes...

It may well be not great for the red squirrel, but it's not the grey squirrels fault that it was introduced. Indeed, if the person who introduced the grey squirrel hadn't gone into his neighbour's garden, lived there for a while, tried to change the garden and the neighbour's way of running his own house while he was there, and then stole some things (including a few grey squirrels), then maybe that person's children and their children would have a bit more of a reasonable claim of unfair play. If you catch my drift?
I suspect it's like any other argument... it depends on your perspective... whether you're a red or a grey.. or even the bloke that smuggled in the grey one.... i guess arguments were never meant to be resolved?!
 
I suspect it's like any other argument... it depends on your perspective... whether you're a red or a grey.. or even the bloke that smuggled in the grey one.... i guess arguments were never meant to be resolved?!
Spoken like a true Imam, imam ;) :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
 
In my opinion religion has no place in politics. In my opinion religion has no place in society as a whole.
It's the 21st century (and yes I see the irony of how that date is calculated) and how anybody can think that an unproveable belief system can be the basis for government is beyond me. This muslims talk about his faith is akin to Blair or Bush talking about their belief in god. Supposedly rational people governing us yet still beliving that someone getting nailed to a cross 2000 years ago or coming down a hill enlightened has any relavance to today is frankly unnerving.
Still if Britain does become a muslim state I'd give it a couple of hundred years until people start to realise that it's all just ballcocks and the press is full of stories of falling mosque attendances just as church congregations are falling now.
 
In my opinion religion has no place in politics. In my opinion religion has no place in society as a whole....

Religious teachings provide (historically) the overarching morality of a society. It forms the basis of laws.

As for Muslims - their religion and it's methodology (as described in the quoran) provides both the religious beliefs AND the political methods to spread these beliefs.

All "successful" religions do - and so I fear that you cannont separate religion from politics since each presupposes the other.
 
I'm not against religion where it is simply a matter of moral laws, don't steal you neighbours ass and sleep with his wife and that sort of thing it's when politictians come out and say they have been guided by god and even worse when, in the case of the muslims at least nowadays (although the christian church were as guilty too) denounce different religious groups and actively persecute them.
But do we actually need religion to be moral? I really don't think so. I forget who said it "religion is the opioate of the masses" and just as we would try to wean a druggy off his drugs then perhaps we should try to wean the masses off their drug.
And then there's the huge amount of time and money that has been spent and the wars that have been fought all in the name of religion!
 
vote BNP get rid of the *******s :eek:

Totally agree VOTE BNP
Totally agree. Just for clarity, when they talk of "indigenous" population, how many generations/millenia are we talking about? And in fairness, we really must bring ALL the indigeous ex-pats back too going back the same number of generations/millenia. Then we can close the borders for once and for all either in or out.

Hoorah for old Blighty :idea:
 
But do we actually need religion to be moral? I really don't think so.
Think it's to do with who is the "ultimate" judge when, for example, we die

I forget who said it "religion is the opiate of the masses" and just as we would try to wean a druggy off his drugs then perhaps we should try to wean the masses off their drug.
'Twas Karl Marx, and he wasn't using the expression to attack religion - it has been much misused in that context

And then there's the huge amount of time and money that has been spent and the wars that have been fought all in the name of religion!
Think that most wars did have other motives; religion was used as a moral justification for the deaths and unpleasantries involved.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top