SKY NEWS SURVEY: Muslim or British
Discussion
According to the results of an opinion poll (here) carried out on behalf of sky news:
46% of British Muslims think that the clerics who preach violence against the West are NOT out of step with mainstream Muslim views.
46% of British Muslims think of themselves as Muslim first, British second.
5% of British Muslims believe that the Koran justifies the bombings
OK, this survey is a sample of just 462 people, but multiply the last figure across 1.5 million British Muslims and you get 75,000 people!!!!
What can be done to integrate these disaffected people into our society and build their British identity?
>> Edited by foster3jd on Friday 22 July 07:42
46% of British Muslims think that the clerics who preach violence against the West are NOT out of step with mainstream Muslim views.
46% of British Muslims think of themselves as Muslim first, British second.
5% of British Muslims believe that the Koran justifies the bombings
OK, this survey is a sample of just 462 people, but multiply the last figure across 1.5 million British Muslims and you get 75,000 people!!!!
What can be done to integrate these disaffected people into our society and build their British identity?
>> Edited by foster3jd on Friday 22 July 07:42
catretriever said:Todays sky news vote (after 428 votes) has 83.64% of people putting nationality first, 9.81% religion, 6.54% ethic group.
I think most practising Christians would probably consider themselves Christians first and British second, so in my view that part of the poll is rather disingenuous.
catretriever said:This was not a phone in, it was an opinion poll carried out by an independent organisation on behalf of sky news, e.g. they went out and asked British Muslims their views.
As for the last bit....well it's usually only nutters that call into those things isn't it?
>> Edited by foster3jd on Friday 22 July 07:47
I think that the way that todays sky vote is going, it indicates that this "religion first" philosophy is predominant amongst Muslims, but not unique to their community.
It disturbs me that anyone can be so against their own community at any level.
My priorities are:
1. family and friends
2. my neighbours
3. my town (Sevenoaks)
4. my county/district (Kent > London & South-East)
5. my heritage (Hull > Yorkshire)
6. my country (England > Britain > Europe)
Religion doesn't even come into for me, which is probably why it is so hard for me to get my head round these fanatics.
How can attitudes be changed?
It disturbs me that anyone can be so against their own community at any level.
My priorities are:
1. family and friends
2. my neighbours
3. my town (Sevenoaks)
4. my county/district (Kent > London & South-East)
5. my heritage (Hull > Yorkshire)
6. my country (England > Britain > Europe)
Religion doesn't even come into for me, which is probably why it is so hard for me to get my head round these fanatics.
How can attitudes be changed?
chris watton said:
If anything at all needs banning altogether, it's bloody religion!
Hark at the tolerance!
Why is it that the non-religious are so much more fanatical/evangelical about their point of view than most people of faith?
I can almost see the self-righteous rage.
Religion is a force for good in the world. Men are more than capable of making evil all by themselves.
If you look to the core of most religions then they mostly constitute a fairly solid moral guide that most people would subscribe to as OK. The problems set in when one person decides to impose their interpretation of that religion on other people. It's organised religion that creates conflict, not the religion itself.
I'm no theologian by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the idea of Muslim first, nationality second is quite a core value of Islam so it's unlikely that it's going to change in any way. BUT, what is important is how people interpret it. For me, it's original intent seems to be to unite people regardless of nationality, and NOT a call to destroy the non-blievers....
...but there I go trying to impose my interpretation on you....doh!
I'm no theologian by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the idea of Muslim first, nationality second is quite a core value of Islam so it's unlikely that it's going to change in any way. BUT, what is important is how people interpret it. For me, it's original intent seems to be to unite people regardless of nationality, and NOT a call to destroy the non-blievers....
...but there I go trying to impose my interpretation on you....doh!
IvIark said:
Why is it that the non-religious are so much more fanatical/evangelical about their point of view than most people of faith?
I can't remember too many non-religious people blowing people up on a bus, so I suppose it depends how you define 'fanatical'.
I do remember though that militant atheists such as Communists, have a habit of killing priests.
foster3jd said:
I think most practising Christians would probably consider themselves Christians first and British second, so in my view that part of the poll is rather disingenuous.
Todays sky news vote (after 428 votes) has 83.64% of people putting nationality first, 9.81% religion, 6.54% ethic group.
catretriever said "practising Christians" which is not the same the whole of the country.
Although many people here were brought up with Christian values, they don't see themselves as British Christians.
JagLover said:
I do remember though that militant atheists such as Communists, have a habit of killing priests.
How many people would you say have been killed by atheists because of their religion compared to the number of people killed by a religious person because of their religion?
:foster3jd said:
What can be done to integrate these disaffected people into our society and build their British identity?
My answer would be DEPORT THEM! If you are born here regardless of your religious beliefs then you are British FIRST. If that is not the way you want to live then F@ck Off somewhere else.
If you come to live here then you play by the rules of OUR country, not the one you came from.
Would I be allowed to do what I wanted to do in Saudi for instance? Er, no I would have to follow their laws or bits would be lopped off!
IvIark said:
WW2?
Why wasn't Hitler brought up Catholic, go to a monastery school and didn't he claim he was doing the Lord's work when he killed Jews?
"by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"
I could well be wrong (apologies if I am) but I didn't think the war was religion motivated as it were?
Sure Hitler hated the Jews and tried to kill them off, but wasn't the rest of it (taking Poland, France etc) motivated by other reasons?
Anyway, getting off topic, and was just suggesting that not all violence had religion as the excuse.
Bitter'n'twisted said:
I could well be wrong (apologies if I am) but I didn't think the war was religion motivated as it were?
Sure Hitler hated the Jews and tried to kill them off, but wasn't the rest of it (taking Poland, France etc) motivated by other reasons?
Anyway, getting off topic, and was just suggesting that not all violence had religion as the excuse.
When you're talking about lunatics then there could always be other motivations but WW2 was still one of the most religiously motivated mass genocides in history.
Funniest thing I've read in ages....IvIark said:
WW2?
Why wasn't Hitler brought up Catholic, go to a monastery school and didn't he claim he was doing the Lord's work when he killed Jews?
"by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"
Hitler's problem with the Jews wasn't their faith system particularly, but rather with their racial grouping and the way in which the Jewish community influenced culture and commerce in Weimar Germany. He had it in for lots of other races as well, regardless of their religion.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff