It looks too much like someone's trying to sell a book to me.
Her book was apparently published last year, but even if you are correct that she is "trying to sell a book," does that automatically discredit the substance of her essay or the facts on which she relies?
In this instance, I think it does because those facts are being taken wildly out of context in order to justify a false premise.
So you accept the facts as true but you reject the "false premise" they are used to justify? What do you believe is the "false premise"?
How do you believe "those facts are being taken wildly out of context"? What do you believe is the proper context of those facts?
I am not arguing with you, but trying to understand the substance and grounds of your summary dismissal of the essay so I can learn something.
Joined: 03 Jun 2005 Posts: 7486 Location: Cape Town
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:46 am Post subject:
I dont know, the part that states about not feeling safe in the UK ? I mean if the UK isnt safe where else can you hide. Yes there are a few countries that may still be a bit safer, but not many.
Mabye Britain should not have been so ckind and closed there door long ago ?
Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 5766 Location: In UR base snifin all UR pantys
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject:
myron myron wrote:
I understand if you do not wish to elaborate.
It appeared more like a desperate attempt to create a panic view of the current situation with extremists in order to sell a few extra copies of her book, that's how the article read from a linguistic point of view.
The few facts (basically the survey results) seemed valid, but mostly there was conjecture presented as fact, which people who agree with her will take as facts much as they would a religious text (ie circular logic that it is true because it says it is). It's typical writing style of the Daily Mail, who are well known for running stories like this without any real substance.
I hope that answers your question though - I'm not out to change your viewpoint, by the same token I'm not going to share yours. Terrorism isn't new to these shores or many others, it's only new to the USA, Islam is not the source of the problems which lead people to terrorism, religion is. The only thing is that our governments are doing exactly what they want them to by step by step destroying the free society we have (the main bit about us that they don't like) as a response to them.
It appeared more like a desperate attempt to create a panic view of the current situation with extremists in order to sell a few extra copies of her book, that's how the article read from a linguistic point of view.
The few facts (basically the survey results) seemed valid, but mostly there was conjecture presented as fact, which people who agree with her will take as facts much as they would a religious text (ie circular logic that it is true because it says it is). It's typical writing style of the Daily Mail, who are well known for running stories like this without any real substance.
I hope that answers your question though - I'm not out to change your viewpoint, by the same token I'm not going to share yours. Terrorism isn't new to these shores or many others, it's only new to the USA, Islam is not the source of the problems which lead people to terrorism, religion is. The only thing is that our governments are doing exactly what they want them to by step by step destroying the free society we have (the main bit about us that they don't like) as a response to them.
I do not know enough about British politics or about how the facts translate into real life in Britain to have a "viewpoint" on Phillips' conclusions.
This is why I prefaced my posting of the Phillips essay with the following words: "I do not know enough about life in Britain today to comment intelligently on the following essay, but if the author's factual sources are correct, it would appear that the present situation is materially distinguishable from past immigration."
And this is why I invited comments from Brits who are in position to enlighten me whether Phillips is being tendentious and alarmist or is advancing a reasonable argument.
What has been said in the article is broadly correct, however, I strongly disagree about her deduction about the failure to inculcate people with religion. There is more than enough of that here already, and in my opinion it is one of the root causes of the trouble.
Muslim's in particular who do not want to integrate should be made to leave. There should not be so much religious tolerance at all; religion should be frowned upon as something divisive, intolerant and detrimental to progress. Every school in the country is full of this kind of thing, so it is no wonder why groups of youngsters are turning out as they are. My wife and I withdrew all our children from R.E lessons and “collective worship”, as is our right under the little known Education Reform Act (1988). I had more than enough of that bile when I was at school and in honesty, what good did it do? What good did it do Britain? None whatsoever.
While I am red, white and blue through and through (as may be obvious!) I can't help thinking my country has been destroyed by traitors within. As horrid as it sounds from someone of my rank, and a politics graduate, I believe Britain needs military governance for at least ten years (starting now). It does, pain me to say so.
In truth, I’m not happy about my kids living in the country, nor am I happy, but for the time we shall have to make do until such time as we can relocate (and yes, I plan to!)
If you are saying that the British government fully funds and operates schools that teach religious doctrine, I find that shocking (and I don't use that word lightly). In America, kids in public schools (meaning government owned/run) are not even permitted a moment of silent prayer, even if every single student in the school wishes to do so. A high school valedictorian (top student in the class) recently had the microphone shut off during the middle of her speech to the graduating class and was escorted off the stage for merely mentioning that her faith in God helped her persevere with her studies. Although I strongly oppose such prohibitions as repugnant to freedom of speech and religion, I do not believe government should be in the business of teaching religious doctrine, regardless what religion. I would imagine such practice can only be divisive.
It is compulsory in the UK for all schools to provide religious education from the age of 4 to 16. Normally, except in faith schools, kids are given 'options' on what they wish to study at GCSE level (that's the UK school leavers qualifications).
Obviously, English, Maths and Science are the only compulsory subjects for GCSE; the rest is up to the pupil. However, faith schools (in my opinion illegally) force their students to study RE as compulsory also. Even in non-faith schools (i.e secular state schools) all post-options students must attend a weekly lesson on RE (which for those that opt-out, is non-examined, but nevertheless compulsory)
Some schools have Sixth Forms (the rest are independent colleges) and that I believe is the UK equivalent of "High School", where advanced courses are taken before going to university or employment. It's not compulsory to go to a Sixth Form/College, but if you go to a Sixth Form despite being 16, 17, or 18 - you still have to have a non-examined lesson of RE per week! Exactly the same applies for worship. Even secular schools (with no direct religion) have to "worship". Independent colleges don't have to do so (thankfully) and universities are not affected by it.
The amazing thing is, that most schools will tell you RE and worship is compulsory and that's it. However, parents do have the right of withdraw under the Act I outlined in my other post. It is illegal for a school to refuse, but some do.
In my opinion, if more parents were aware of this right, they'd use it.
While the US example may be draconian, I do, nonetheless agree with it.
Pardon my ignorance, Colonel -- and I will understand if you tell me to look it up myself -- but I would appreciate your indulgence in clarifying a few points as to which I remain confused.
I take it that "RE" means religious education or something akin to same. In the secular schools, which religious doctrine is taught in RE then?
Are "faith schools" compulsory for certain students? If they are voluntary, then it would not seem onerous to have RE compulsory given that the student chose to go to that faith school.
Is there a faith school for every faith? Are faith schools that teach a certain faith located in areas where that faith is predominant? If so, it seems rather obvious that a Jewish or Muslim kid from a predominatly Jewish or Muslim area who attends a school with other Jewish or Muslim kids from his neighborhood/town where he learns Judaism or Islam will not easily integrate with people of different faiths as an adult.
Finally, can a Muslim attend a Jewish faith school or a Jew attend a Muslim faith school or a Christian attend a Jewish or a Muslim faith school?
Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that a government-run faith school system would foster a form of self-imposed separatism not conducive to integration into a pluralistic society.
I’m not sure how things are in the US, so I shall explain how kids are educated in the UK. It is the following:
Primary School – attended age 4 to 11,
Secondary School – attended age 11 to 16, (compulsory education finishes at 16)
College/School Sixth Form – attended 16-18
University – attended 18 +
Quote:
I take it that "RE" means religious education or something akin to same. In the secular schools, which religious doctrine is taught in RE then?
RE does mean Religious Education, its also sometimes called RS for Religious Studies.
Faith schools teach and worship their own faith – only. Which is indeed separatist and doing nothing to promote community cohesion. Secular schools teach several religions, usually Christianity (broadly), Islam and Judaism, but they only worship Christianity due to the Education Act (1944) which proscribes that all schools must worship in “a broadly Christian character”. Non-Christian faith schools are exempt however.
I would also like to make a point about atheism and agnosticism here. Atheist schools (for lack of a better term) are not permitted, which I find odd considering the UK is supposedly a tolerant, diverse and multi-faith society! Furthermore, atheism and so on is rarely mentioned, and are trivialised in RE lessons. Kids who are withdrawn from RE/worship are made to feel like “outsiders”.
Quote:
Are "faith schools" compulsory for certain students? If they are voluntary, then it would not seem onerous to have RE compulsory given that the student chose to go to that faith school.
Faith schools are not compulsory; all schools are voluntary to attend. I do see your point, however, by the time a child reaches the age of 14 (the age for ‘options’) that child is already able to say (to some degree) what he/she believes and thinks. These schools are the choice of parents, not the pupils. If a child attending a faith school decides they do not believe at age 14, 15 or 16 (or in the case of schools with Sixth Forms 17 and 18 ) they should not be forced into studying and worshipping against their will. (For example, if a Muslim child was forced to learn and practice Christianity there would be an almighty row, but for atheists and agnostics nobody gives a damn! Which is morally indefensible) Faith schools are still covered by the “right to withdraw” but they are the ones who will tend to pretend such a right doesn’t exist.
Quote:
Is there a faith school for every faith? Are faith schools that teach a certain faith located in areas where that faith is predominant? If so, it seems rather obvious that a Jewish or Muslim kid from a predominatly Jewish or Muslim area who attends a school with other Jewish or Muslim kids from his neighborhood/town where he learns Judaism or Islam will not easily integrate with people of different faiths as an adult.
I believe there are faith schools for most faiths (they are expanding them at present). Again, you are correct in that areas with high concentrations of a certain religion will be severed by faith schools of that religion. Nevertheless, the proposed “community schools” (which were rejected) would have seen such areas have a cross section of the community at large attend the schools.
Quote:
Finally, can a Muslim attend a Jewish faith school or a Jew attend a Muslim faith school or a Christian attend a Jewish or a Muslim faith school?
A Muslim could attend a Jewish school (and whichever combination you would like) as it would be illegal to deny them entry for that reason. However, schools are permitted to admit and reject who they wish – so they would likely be rejected under some other excuse (e.g. the school was oversubscribed, if they had special needs or learning difficulties, if they lived too far from the school’s catchment area and so on)
Quote:
Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that a government-run faith school system would foster a form of self-imposed separatism not conducive to integration into a pluralistic society.
It does indeed, and I have a recent news article which argues the same:
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 2878 Location: southern utah, usa
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject:
And I thought the educational system in the US was screwed up. God Almighty, with government mandated Religious Education, you'd think England was stuck in the dark ages. You've got more in common with Italy or Spain than you do with America.
And I thought the educational system in the US was screwed up. God Almighty, with government mandated Religious Education, you'd think England was stuck in the dark ages. You've got more in common with Italy or Spain than you do with America.
Unfortunately on this issue England is stuck in the dark ages.
Joined: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 5766 Location: In UR base snifin all UR pantys
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject:
azraelle wrote:
And I thought the educational system in the US was screwed up. God Almighty, with government mandated Religious Education, you'd think England was stuck in the dark ages. You've got more in common with Italy or Spain than you do with America.
Technically our religious education should now be a broad coverage of faiths rather than any single onw, which makes RE as much of an instruction in cultural awareness as anything else. If it lives up to that or not I'm not really in a position to comment what with me not being a secondary school teacher or a pupil.
As for collective worship - I'm not sure on that one. On one hand I know mrs m wants her to go to a faith based school, on the other I think religion is conceptually wrong. It would be pointless to send her to a faith school and then seperate her from her friends. I'd rather she was exposed to religion in order to understand why it's wrong rather than be segregated from her peers.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 Posts: 85 Location: United States
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: Vanishing England?
myron myron wrote:
Britons give many reasons for leaving, but their stories share one commonality: life in Britain has become unbearable for them. They fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the nation to the next generation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness that has swept the country faster than hoof-and-mouth disease. Officials say they do not wish to "offend" others.
I hear you Cal. Political Correctness is such bullshit.
Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers are about to be granted "amnesty" to stay in Britain. The government's approach is similar to that pursued by President Bush, who failed to win congressional approval for his amnesty plan. In Britain it appears likely to succeed. Migrants will be granted immediate access to many benefits, including top priority for council housing. Taxpayers will foot the bill.
America has that problem too. Its a disgusting thing.
The Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, called the policy a "stealth amnesty." Again, in a comment reminiscent of the debate in America, Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said: "This is yet another example of the Alice in Wonderland world of human rights. If you break British law for long enough, you acquire rights not penalties."
[size=12]LOL. Isn't that the truth. [/size]
British media have carried stories about an Italian immigrant who murdered a schoolteacher and was sentenced to life in prison. He is about to be released after serving just 12 years. The government wants to deport him to Italy, but a combination of British human rights legislation and European Union law are making it impossible to do so. This does not bode well for deporting Islamic terrorists who call for the overthrow of the government and incite young people to acts of violence.
Abraham Lincoln said no nation can exist half slave and half free. Neither can a nation be sustained if it allows conditions that result in mass emigration, while importing huge numbers of foreigners who come from backgrounds that do not practice assimilation or tolerance of other beliefs. When one factors in the high number of abortions (one in five pregnancies are aborted in England and Wales), the high birth rates of immigrants (15 times those of white Britons), it doesn't take a population expert to predict that the days of the England we have known may be numbered. The problem for Britain and the United States isn't just the change in demographics. It is the reluctance of both countries to inculcate the beliefs, history and, yes, religious ideals, which made our nations so successful that others wanted to come and be a part of them. The difference between many of the current immigrants and those of the past is that the previous ones wanted to become fully American or fully British. The current ones, in too many cases, would destroy what makes our countries unique. And the "leaders" of Britain and America refuse to stop it.
The greater tragedy is that the people of Britain have little say in any of this, so they are taking the road of last resort. They are leaving. [/size]
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the forthcoming book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America"
I will add my thoughts on the dynamic Thomas describes and the conclusions he draws with respect to the United States.
I am interested in my British friends' views on Thomas' observations and conclusions with respect to Britain generally and England particularly.[/quote]
Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 2636 Location: Outa here
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject:
myron myron wrote:
Although America’s problem is different from England's both in kind and in degree, it remains an existential problem. If new immigrants to America refuse to assimilate and are not required to do so, America will eventually lose its distinct ethos. The result will be regression to a Third World society resembling the countries the new immigrants were so eager to escape.
I was reading some interesting writings by a chap called Gildas, not so long ago.
He was concerned about a load of immigrants to Briton who were refusing to assimilate. The Britons TRIED to require them to do so - but alas those warlike Saxons got the better of them. The Saxons threw them back to the sea ... and the sea threw them back to the land.
And yes - the Anglo-Saxon culture we then got WAS very different from the Romano-British culture that we had had before. And no doubt those poor Britons thought it a regression. Over the channel in Gaul, Sidonius wasn't all that impressed with the incomers' culture, either.
But it is that culture, not the Romano-British culture, which is the common cultural heritage of modern Britain and America (allowing, of course, for a few other overlays of incoming people like the Danes, the Normans, the Hugenots, and of course in America all those German protestants ...)
Let's face it, even Damien Hurst couldn't pickle a culture. Cultures change over time. New cultures arrive. Sometimes they assimilate and integrate, sometiems they don't. When they don't, sometimes they displace what was there before, and sometimes they don't. It's not a problem. It's a historical process. It was happening long befoe we trod this earth, and it will continue to happen long after we have departed.
Not to mention the masses of Scots that emigrated from Scotland to America carrying the fruits of the Scottish Enlightenment with them.
Scots also emigrated in vast numbers to England. They carried new economic, social, political and religious ideas with them and totally changed the cultural landscape of England. It didn't seem to bother the English much then and in hindsight England seems to have done okay out of the change.
There was a similar hysteria about Catholism in the British Isles during the 16th Century as there is about Islam in the 21st. I'm not saying that some of "them" aren't out to get "us". I think that most muslim residents of Britain are glad to be part of a society that is prosperous, stable, peaceful and liberal and a few have issues that I think have more to do with their being religious fanatics (and therefore madmen) than it has to their particular religion.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
