This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Would You Ever Accept A Muslim UK Prime Minister?

Scroll to see replies

Depends what his/her policies where. He/she could worship the flying spaghetti monster for all I care as long as they didn't force it on anyone else and stuck to the policies they ran their campaign on.

I wouldn't vote for a Muslim PM. Would Muslims vote for a Jewish leader in Pakistan?

Reply 61

Pinkhead

Original post by Thriftworks

In the origin of species he mentions 'god' 30 times, he mentions 'natural selection' 3 times.

So? I can show you a book which mentions marshmallows more than it mentions other words, what does that prove?

You might want to read these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin#Darwin.27s_loss_of_faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin#Enquiries_about_religious_views

Reply 62

Plainview

Original post by Bookie123

But lots of secular values stemmed from Christianity as this is a christian country, lots of the laws are based on the laws of the bible. Therefore, It is sort of promoting his faith. You can't pick and choose what bits are a part of the christian faith or the Islamic faith or not not, it all comes as one. Giving to charity is a part of their faiths, If he was to impose this on people, would it be so wrong? For example, if a Muslim PM tried to make everyone give 2.1% of their annual earnings, if they could afford it, to charity every year, say it was taken out as tax? This is definitely the Islamic faith. Is this wrong?

Well, I would disagree with that purely for economical reasons. But that's not the point – if a Prime Minister wants to do whatever to promote people giving to charity, in my opinion he isn't promoting his religion. If a Jewish PM said all boys had to be circumcised by law, or a Christian PM supported mandatory Biblical instruction for school children, they would be promoting their religions. You make the point that our values come from Christian values, but I would say that most people irregardless of faith can agree that murder, theft and perjury should not go unpunished, and that these values predate Christianity. There is a natural overlapping between accepted secular morality and ancient religious morality, but they obviously do not equate.

Reply 63

consumed by stuff

Just to see the look on women's faces. If they''re allowed to show their faces.

Reply 64

thunder_chunky

Original post by uob

As long as they acted in a secular manner.

This. A person can have any religious beliefs really but it should never influence major policy.

Reply 65

BusheSCFC

Original post by Bookie123

I would love a Muslim PM, if he/she was going to be a just and honest leader. If not, then no. Tony Blair was catholic..i believe, Religion doesn't bother me too much, just do a good job.

Blair converted afterwards. He was not a catholic when he was PM. PM's cannot be Catholic.

Reply 66

Thriftworks

Original post by Pinkhead

It proves that Charles Darwin still felt that religion was extremely important, there is no evidence for him renouncing theism. I'm atheist by the way

Reply 67

Bookie123

Original post by tjf8

What economical reasons?
and giving 2.1% to charity is exclusively Islamic and therefore would be imposing their religion, as it is specifically 2.1 and would be made compulsory. That would be imposing an aspect of their religion onto the British citizens.
Not values, Laws. Maybe they do predate Christianity but before Christianity was Judaism, before Judaism was monotheism, and they all preach the same message, and are the same religion. England is a christian country and it's laws were originally based on the ten commandments. People did used to kill people and find it perfectly allright, it's only an advance in morality that has said that it should be punishable. Some people even today see no wrong in killing innocents if it gets them where they want to be, in china it was morally acceptable to murder little girls, not everyone has the same moral values.

That is exactly my question, if a PM was to impose religious values, that were only for the benefit of the society, would he/she be accepted? A PM doesn't have the right to tell someone what to do with their body...that is a different matter. They have no control over that and i doubt in the religious books which do offer guidance on leadership, they don't consider what people do to their own bodies..such as circumcision. However, as a christian country, why would it be so wrong to teach Christianity and the bible to children?

Reply 68

Bookie123

Original post by BusheSCFC

Blair converted afterwards. He was not a catholic when he was PM. PM's cannot be Catholic.

Oh okay, i see, thanks for clearing that up for me :smile:

So what can PM's be? Atheist?

Reply 69

Bookie123

Original post by consumed by stuff

Just to see the look on women's faces. If they''re allowed to show their faces.

Because Muslim women and christian women in England and around the world don't show their faces. Because Muslim women and christian women are forced by their husbands and society to wear the hijab and the niqaab. Because some muslim women and christian women don't actually choose to wear it? :unimpressed:

Reply 70

BusheSCFC

Original post by Bookie123

Oh okay, i see, thanks for clearing that up for me :smile:

So what can PM's be? Atheist?

I think it's Church if england only. I'm pretty sure it is anyway. I'm just definite you cannot be in the royal family or be PM etc. If you're Catholic.

Reply 71

Pinkhead

Original post by Thriftworks

It proves that Charles Darwin still felt that religion was extremely important, there is no evidence for him renouncing theism. I'm atheist by the way

I honestly don't know how you read that page and found no evidence for him renouncing theism. If anything, he seemed to be an agnostic atheist or deist in that he didn't deny the existence of god and didn't believe in a personal one/one that required him to follow doctrines. Theism is a narrow belief system and Darwin clearly wasn't happy to adhere to something like that.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

Reply 72

consumed by stuff

Original post by Bookie123

Most that live in secular societies do have a choice, your right. So you continue to be unimpressed yet curious.

Reply 73

GeneralStudent95

Original post by BusheSCFC

I think it's Church if england only. I'm pretty sure it is anyway. I'm just definite you cannot be in the royal family or be PM etc. If you're Catholic.

There is no constitutional prerequisites for becoming a PM as you suggest. The monarch could select any individual she wants but constitutional convention dictates that individual must be a member of parliament, command the support of their party and, in general terms, have won the general election to such an extent they can command a majority in the Commons, however minority governments are possible RE; James O'Callahans Govt which fell in 1979

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 74

Bookie123

Original post by consumed by stuff

Most that live in secular societies do have a choice, your right. So you continue to be unimpressed yet curious.

Yes and the ones that live in Islamic societies, a lot of them also have a choice. Until you go to an Islamic society, for example Tunisia where NO ONE wears hijab, the country that is 99% Muslim, don't make claims about people "forcing" hijab because it's just ignorance. Until you speak to a muslim woman and she tells you directly to your face that she feels forced and you find out that this is the majority, then don't because there are many that say they have chosen to do it. Even in the Islamic countries. I am not denying some people are forced, but it is not in the islamic religion to force women to do anything. It is in the culture of some muslims but it is not in Islam. Don't conflate the two.

Original post by Bookie123

My bad I didn't know that in a country where homosexuality is illegal, women had so much freedom.

Reply 77

Plainview

Original post by Bookie123

What economical reasons?

That is somewhat irrelevant to this thread.

and giving 2.1% to charity is exclusively Islamic and therefore would be imposing their religion, as it is specifically 2.1 and would be made compulsory. That would be imposing an aspect of their religion onto the British citizens.

I was not aware that donating 2.1% of your income to charity was an Islamic idea. If it is, and if a muslim PM were to support nationalising this as law, then I would be against them. Put promoting charity in a vague sense is not promoting one's religious beliefs, as I've said.

Not values, Laws. Maybe they do predate Christianity but before Christianity was Judaism, before Judaism was monotheism, and they all preach the same message, and are the same religion. England is a christian country and it's laws were originally based on the ten commandments. People did used to kill people and find it perfectly allright, it's only an advance in morality that has said that it should be punishable. Some people even today see no wrong in killing innocents if it gets them where they want to be, in china it was morally acceptable to murder little girls, not everyone has the same moral values.

Well, we had the crusades and all that as well, so I would say that laws forbidding murder are of secular construction anyway; religion does little to help in this regard, despite pretending to. So take a law that is undoubtedly Christian: the forbidding of gay sex. If a Prime Minister were to try to enact this law, I would not support them, because it is a law that promotes the teachings of their faith while going against conventional secular wisdom in this country. As I've said, if you imagine two fields of overlapping morality (and laws, whatever), one for ancient religions and one for modern secular wisdom, I wouldn't have a problem with a PM promoting those that fall into both categories, but I would with them promoting those that are only religious. Of course I am talking about imposition; everyone should have the right to practice religious beliefs if they want to.

A PM doesn't have the right to tell someone what to do with their body...that is a different matter. They have no control over that

The government forbids me from taking illegal drugs, and forbids a 17 year-old from getting a tattoo.

However, as a christian country, why would it be so wrong to teach Christianity and the bible to children?

In my opinion? Because it's tantamount to brainwashing (I'm talking about teaching kids that the Bible is the word of God and the teachings contained are true, not the education of the children about the Bible as an optional view of the world and as a religious belief that some people hold). But maybe society would think differently (we are, as you say, a Christian country after all, in at least a nominal sense), although I highly doubt there would be support for mandatory religious instruction for school kids.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 78

kunoichi

Aslong as they dont bring religion into running the country.

Something like religion which has no proof to back it up should have no influence on how a country is run.