Race riots in England

[icehorse]

I can only go on what you've actually written here, and it seemed to be that you thought Muslim immigration was a problem in itself.

Fair enough, let me clarify...

In the US, a candidate for immigration can be denied entry if they want to undermine the constitution. I don't know if the UK has a similar rule, but they probably do.

So you ask all candidates if they support theocracy. If they say yes, they are denied. If they say no, but are later found to support theocracy, they can be deported for lying.

In other words, deny Islamists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Being a Muslim is a choice. Being an Islamist is a choice. Choices have consequences. And Islamists are the masters of division, make no mistake.

There are over 40,000 people on the UK's official terror watch list. And there are scores of Islamist groups in the UK known to be terrorist groups. (link below). Islamists tend to behave badly more than average, and all of this is not lost on the population.

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

Demonizing the adversary .. it's always in the eyes of the beholder.

You see what you see, and I see what I see.
When is a door not a door .. when it's a-jar.

 

[England my lionheart]

Obviously things aren't perfect but I think prejudice (including against Muslims) is much more of a problem than Muslims in the UK, which I don't see as a problem at all, in itself.

By far the biggest problem the western democracies face is the rise of the popularist far right, which offers simplistic non-answers to complex problems, scapegoating of minorities, prejudice, (anthropogenic) climate change denial (which threatens the whole of human civilisation), and generally promotes hatred and division.

One of the characteristics of bigotry is unreasonableness. It's unreasonable to lump all Muslims in one group and characterise them all as a problem.

What if the problem is not with Muslims but with their ideology?.

 

[icehorse]

Demonizing the adversary .. it's always in the eyes of the beholder.

You see what you see, and I see what I see.
When is a door not a door .. when it's a-jar.

So the UK's government is "demonizing" terrorists? Seems like if anything ought to be demonized it's terrorists, no?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So the UK's government is "demonizing" terrorists? Seems like if anything ought to be demonized it's terrorists, no?

Don't be silly. The blowing up of civilians (or host nation) is not acceptable anywhere in the world.

..but particularly since WWII, the bombing of cities (along with 'atom bomb') has set a
new precedent, and many people see others as hypocrites.

It's political .. as were the IRA bombing mainland UK in the 70's.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What if the problem is not with Muslims but with their ideology?.

"What if the problem is not with people who believe a particular thing, but with people's beliefs in a particular thing?"

The solution is simple: deny people entry on an individual basis if you believe they pose a genuine threat to the populace. Don't assume all people in a specific group fit that description.

See? It's super easy not to be an ethno-nationalist. Maybe try it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you ask all candidates if they support theocracy. If they say yes, they are denied. If they say no, but are later found to support theocracy, they can be deported for lying.

Not a big fan of freedom of belief, I take it.

 

[icehorse]

Not a big fan of freedom of belief, I take it.

There are already plenty of places in the world where people can live in a theocracy if they want to. They are free to believe, just not in secular states.

Why on earth would you want to mix together people who hold conflicting belief systems and values?

 

[England my lionheart]

"What if the problem is not with people who believe a particular thing, but with people's beliefs in a particular thing?"

The solution is simple: deny people entry on an individual basis if you believe they pose a genuine threat to the populace. Don't assume all people in a specific group fit that description.

See? It's super easy not to be an ethno-nationalist. Maybe try it.

Isn’t Islam an ideology though?.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are already plenty of places in the world where people can live in a theocracy if they want to. They are free to believe, just not in secular states.

Secular states are literally defined by the fact that people with lots of differing beliefs can live there freely.

"You are free to believe what you want, as long as you don't do it in a place that has freedom of belief."

Why on earth would you want to mix together people who hold conflicting belief systems and values?

What a perfectly normal, non-ethnostatist opinion to have. Because I live in a free country with a variety of belief systems and values, and I believe that's a good thing that enriches all of our lives and culture - as it has done for hundreds of years.

Also, I believe in a fundamental right to freedom of movement (within reason and law) of all people, and I believe placing unnecessary restrictions on freedom and free association is harmful - as it has been for hundreds of years.

Tell me what the benefits of an ideological ethnostate is, please.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Isn’t Islam an ideology though?.

Yes. And?

You gonna respond to my actual points? Why shouldn't we deport you for opposing the British values of fairness, equality, freedom of religion and tolerance?

 

[England my lionheart]

Yes. And?

You gonna respond to my actual points? Why shouldn't we deport you for opposing the British values of fairness, equality, freedom of religion and tolerance?

It’s nothing to do with race or nationalism,it’s an ideology that I don’t like ,I dislike communism too,I have no problem with Muslims I really just don’t like their ideology which doesn’t like me either.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It’s nothing to do with race or nationalism

Sure, whatever you say.

Meanwhile, I don't see you applying this same logic to, say, Christian fundamentalists, despite the fact that they have a much more significant and worse effect on our culture and politics. Why is that?

it’s an ideology that I don’t like ,I dislike communism too,I have no problem with Muslims I really just don’t like their ideology which doesn’t like me either.

Do you therefore believe those people should have less rights to enter, or live under, a secular state, just because they possess ideas or beliefs you don't like? Yes or no?

 

[England my lionheart]

Sure, whatever you say.

Thanks,we’re agreed then.

Meanwhile, I don't see you applying this same logic to, say, Christian fundamentalists, despite the fact that they have a much more significant and worse effect on our culture and politics. Why is that?

There are currently 44,000 people on terrorist watch in the UK,90% are follower of Islam,go figure,I would ad though that proselytising religions are a problem for all of us.

Do you therefore believe those people should have less rights to enter, or live under, a secular state, just because they possess ideas or beliefs you don't like? Yes or no?

People should be able to come here if they meet the criteria to enter,a checkable work criminal and health record.

The problem occurs when that doesn’t happen and they recreate the culture they came from in the poorest areas,Birmingham for example.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There are currently 44,000 people on terrorist watch in the UK,90% are follower of Islam,go figure,I would ad though that proselytising religions are a problem for all of us.

Bit of a sidestep, there. The question is, why not call out extremism of all kinds, and why not acknowledge that there are Muslims who pose no threat to the UK? Do you accept that they exist?

People should be able to come here if they meet the criteria to enter,a checkable work criminal and health record.

I agree. I think reasonable limits on immigration are appropriate. I do not believe denying people access on the basis of religious affiliation counts as a reasonable or appropriate consideration, however, because I believe in religious tolerance and freedom of belief. If an individual poses an actual risk, that's another thing. But I don't believe in tarring all people with the same religion or background with the same brush.

The problem occurs when that doesn’t happen and they recreate the culture they came from in the poorest areas,Birmingham for example.

And what have they done in Birmingham, exactly? Be specific.

 

[England my lionheart]

Bit of a sidestep, there. The question is, why not call out extremism of all kinds, and why not acknowledge that there are Muslims who pose no threat to the UK? Do you accept that they exist?

Yes they do.

I agree. I think reasonable limits on immigration are appropriate. I do not believe denying people access on the basis of religious affiliation counts as a reasonable or appropriate consideration, however, because I believe in religious tolerance and freedom of belief. If an individual poses an actual risk, that's another thing. But I don't believe in tarring all people with the same religion or background with the same brush.

It’s a difficult one,I do not believe all Muslims are religious nutjobs but I do have a problem with what I consider a man made misogynistic Ideology,other than that people have the right to believe what they like.

And what have they done in Birmingham, exactly? Be specific.

I reverted to my earlier post,integration and culture,btw they seem to congregate in the poorest towns like Birmingham,high unemployment and like most norther towns needs investment.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes they do.

Cool. So, rather than singling out Islam in broad terms, why not adopt the more nuanced and honest position that "there are some individuals and groups within Islam who should be under greater scrutiny for immigration applications and residence, just as with many other groups"?

It’s a difficult one,I do not believe all Muslims are religious nutjobs but I do have a problem with what I consider a man made misogynistic Ideology,other than that people have the right to believe what they like.

Whether or not you believe they're misogynistic or nutjobs, do you believe they can still have the right to move to and live within the UK (within reasonable limits and laws)?

I reverted to my earlier post,integration and culture,btw they seem to congregate in the poorest towns like Birmingham,high unemployment and like most norther towns needs investment.

Okay. And are you suggesting that's a problem in and of itself? What problem are they causing by simply living in poorer areas? What are they doing, specifically, that is harmful?

 

[icehorse]

Secular states are literally defined by the fact that people with lots of differing beliefs can live there freely.

"You are free to believe what you want, as long as you don't do it in a place that has freedom of belief."


What a perfectly normal, non-ethnostatist opinion to have. Because I live in a free country with a variety of belief systems and values, and I believe that's a good thing that enriches all of our lives and culture - as it has done for hundreds of years.

Also, I believe in a fundamental right to freedom of movement (within reason and law) of all people, and I believe placing unnecessary restrictions on freedom and free association is harmful - as it has been for hundreds of years.

Tell me what the benefits of an ideological ethnostate is, please.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity. That's woke speak talking.

This has to do with values. The values that Islamists hold dear are in stark conflict with western values. I see no evidence from history that western values would be improved with a little dash (let alone a mix dash), of Sharia mixed in.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This has nothing to do with ethnicity.

Whatever you say, pal. I'll just continue to listen to you arguments about why this very specific religious group need to be denied specific rights and freedoms on the basis of their "religion/culture" which is very closely tied with their geographical and racial origin.

That's woke speak talking.

Don't use meaningless right-wing buzz phrases. It makes it obvious you aren't being logical.

This has to do with values. The values that Islamists hold dear are in stark conflict with western values. I see no evidence from history that western values would be improved with a little dash (let alone a mix dash), of Sharia mixed in.

Good thing not all Muslims want to enact Sharia law, and we don't judge individuals as a collective based on small-minded fear. Right now, the biggest political threat to the west is coming from fundamentalist Christians. Should all Christians be denied immigration into western nations? We don't want theocracy, right?

Similarly, the introduction of Christianity into many communities worldwide lead to mass deaths and more than a few genocides, and yet I doubt you'd formulate an argument regarding denying Christians access to other countries. Because they get the benefit of being judged as individuals, whereas those Muslims you hate so much must all be clumped together, right?

Tell me why it is appropriate to judge all Muslims as a collective, but not all other religious groups the same way?