Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Cameron defends letter to Islamic leaders watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    100% with David Farage.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Person1001)
    It would have been more accurate and less offensive had the letter not questioned how Muslims are part of British society but instead identified extremism as the issue and how we are all in this together to tackle these issues and how Pickle, May, Cameron lend their full support to the Muslim communities who are also being victimised.
    You have not read it, have you? That is very close to what it does say.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Of course it was the right course to take.

    Utterly stupid comparison. Not a single person alive today was alive at the time slavery was abolished. By contrast, Muslim leaders have failed to stop young impressionable Muslims being radicalised and committing atrocities both in Iraq and in the UK. The radicalisation of young Muslims is an ongoing issue which Muslim leaders can and should do more to stop. The slave-trade was abolished in 1833, it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

    I don't believe this country currently has a problem with Jews and Christians integrating into our society. We certainly do with Muslims. Cameron has said again and again that Islam is a peaceful religion that is welcomed in the UK. A bit of reciprocity in getting Muslims to act in accordance with British and Western values is not unreasonable.
    This.

    Cameron's words on the matter made absolutely sense. We have a problem and mosques in Britain must do as much as humanly possible to dissuade young Muslims turning towards terrorism. The Imams must do their bit and what's more, Muslim religious communties should take more responsibility and should unequivocably want to do as much as possible to stamp out this evil perversion and prevent young minds from going down that road.

    I am disgusted by the predictable and unreassuring response from high profile Muslim leaders, on all the news channels, using this as yet another platform to avoid addressing the issues on the table and instead, speak of the dangers of reinforcing Islamophobia. It's no wonder there is a problem.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Religious beliefs are as fully protected in the UK as they could be. Anyone can believe
    anything and worship whatever god they wish, including Satan.

    Respect for any particular belief is a different matter, though. The best anyone can hope for (and expect) is respect for their right to believe whatever they wish. For instance, would you respect the religious beliefs and practices of someone who claimed to follow an ancient South American religion that involved cutting out the hearts of sacrificial victims and throwing them from the top of a ziggurat?

    No religious belief can be guaranteed respect, and many are unworthy of respect.
    No religious beliefs are partially protected by law. Laws have been enacted to protect people against prejudice, harassment and discrimination on the basis of their gender, religion, and race etc. This has been a direct result of either people suffering from such evils,or society itself recognising what's morally right. As religious tensions grow in the western world (many being a minority) it is ever so crucial that we take steps to protect religious views.

    It is of my view that all religious views, especially those concerning God, Prophets etc, should be protected by law. Yes fortunately people do. And to answer your question yes I would respect his/her views as quite simply views per se are a non-entity. The obvious exception to this is where such views result in the harming of humans. So your reference to that certain practice: I respect a persons right to believe in whatever they want, and I respect their beliefs.

    There's always a flip side to things and this is no different. If there is an overt threat to peoples lives, necessary steps should be taken and the law should be used to contain that threat. This takes precedence over religious views. The issue of respecting religious beliefs is a sticky issue. If you're not willing to respect a persons religious beliefs then you can be sure that they too will not respect what you believe in. This all boils down to whether or not freedom of expression trumps respecting religious view points. Most secular liberals(a majority) will obviously side the right to express ones self freely. If that's the case then so be it. Through your own choice you remain fully responsible for what you do/say. With great rights and freedoms comes great responsibility.

    If you're a religious person and you see personal religious views being outright lambasted, denigrated and mocked in a public medium then it is completely natural for such a person to feel under "attack" so to speak. So one shouldn't really be surprised to expect protests, counter arguments, and strong rebuttals. If you're not going to expect a response then you're living on the moon. You cannot desensitise a person's love and attachment to deeply religious views. It's not going to happen. Having said all this, publication of offensive material doesn't automatically qualify you the right to kill innocent people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    IMHO (no personal attacks please this is my opinion ) It is a perfectly reasonable letter. People can always find offence if they look for it. Frankly, Muslim leaders do need to involve themselves to try and change attitudes. By looking for offence at every corner they do actually risk undermining how British Muslims are viewed in general.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    This.

    Cameron's words on the matter made absolutely sense. We have a problem and mosques in Britain must do as much as humanly possible to dissuade young Muslims turning towards terrorism. The Imams must do their bit and what's more, Muslim religious communties should take more responsibility and should unequivocably want to do as much as possible to stamp out this evil perversion and prevent young minds from going down that road.
    Agree.



    I am disgusted by the predictable and unreassuring response from high profile Muslim leaders, on all the news channels, using this as yet another platform to avoid addressing the issues on the table and instead, speak of the dangers of reinforcing Islamophobia. It's no wonder there is a problem.
    Completely disagree. Islamophobia is on the rise and is very real. There has been a consistent bias in the media and there is proof to back this up. You need to understand western involvement in Muslim affairs has been THE dominant factor in the rise of extremism/terrorism in the world. We have propped up dictators(and still continue to do so), we have directly provided military equipment which has killed the lives of many innocent Muslims and carried out drone attacks which have killed innocents, raped/maimed/assaulted/abused innocents. Western governments still hold innocent people in prison for absolutely nothing. We is the west do not have a moral standing on such issues. The reality is that we're safe here in the UK and relatively its been like this since WW2. The reality for muslims is very different. The west carved up the Ottoman lands, we installed dictators and our corporations have benefited from the colossal amounts of natural resources from the muslim world. Oh and not to mention we're actively bombing Syria/Iraq as we speak. I've merely scratched the surface with the extent of Islamophobia/campaign against muslims. One thing to point out is that it is our governments and corporations that have been responsible, not the public. However I fear that the next decade or two things might take a turn for the worst.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    It is of my view that all religious views, especially those concerning God, Prophets etc, should be protected by law.
    Should Satan be protected with respect to Satanists?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    Should Satan be protected with respect to Satanists?
    Apologies. Should have read as "all mainstream religions."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    Apologies. Should have read as "all mainstream religions."
    That is ridiculous. You cannot protect the beliefs of one religion and not another. It would be OK to criticise a Satanist but not a Moslem or Christian.

    Which is one reason why you cannot protect any of them, of course.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    Apologies. Should have read as "all mainstream religions."
    That is offensive to other religions that don't get special treatment. They are all ideologies with none objectively truer than the other and you are essentially subjugating them because you don't like them.

    What makes 'mainstream religions' more worthy of respect and protection by the law than less mainstream religions?

    If you demand judicial protection of religions it includes all religious ideologies, so you have to argue for Satanism and Rastafarianism too. What qualifies something as mainstream by the way, is it based on followings? There are only ~15 million Jews worldwide so is Judaism not mainstream?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    What makes 'mainstream religions' more worthy of respect and protection by the law than less mainstream religions?
    It is called the "Eat excrement - 100 billion flies can't be wrong" doctrine.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That is ridiculous. You cannot protect the beliefs of one religion and not another. It would be OK to criticise a Satanist but not a Moslem or Christian.

    Which is one reason why you cannot protect any of them, of course.
    I disagree. This is a knee-jerk reaction to the current hostile environment mainstream religions/people are in. Such an enactment would be pragmatic given the predicament we're in. I personally disagree with Satanism and I see it as a cult really. But thats besides the point. If Satanists find themselves under intense scrutiny, say in comparison to Muslims/Christians, then they have every right to appeal to the law givers of their country. Given the current state of the world though I'd say they're in heaven.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    That is offensive to other religions that don't get special treatment. They are all ideologies with none objectively truer than the other and you are essentially subjugating them because you don't like them.

    What makes 'mainstream religions' more worthy of respect and protection by the law than less mainstream religions?

    If you demand judicial protection of religions it includes all religious ideologies, so you have to argue for Satanism and Rastafarianism too. What qualifies something as mainstream by the way, is it based on followings? There are only ~15 million Jews worldwide so is Judaism not mainstream?
    See above post.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    See above post.
    That still doesn't respond to what I asked you though...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    That is offensive to other religions that don't get special treatment. They are all ideologies with none objectively truer than the other and you are essentially subjugating them because you don't like them.

    What makes 'mainstream religions' more worthy of respect and protection by the law than less mainstream religions?

    If you demand judicial protection of religions it includes all religious ideologies, so you have to argue for Satanism and Rastafarianism too. What qualifies something as mainstream by the way, is it based on followings? There are only ~15 million Jews worldwide so is Judaism not mainstream?
    Mainstream in a sense that the religions of Islaam, Christianity and Judaism to an extent dominate the worldwide media attention and scrutiny in the form of insult, and slander. These three sibling three faiths are constantly being attacked by mockery, insult and denigration. There are several other factors such as terrorism, foreign policy and numbers of followers, but they are of less importance tbh.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    Mainstream in a sense that the religions of Islaam, Christianity and Judaism to an extent dominate the worldwide media attention and scrutiny in the form of insult, and slander. These three sibling three faiths are constantly being attacked by mockery, insult and denigration. There are several other factors such as terrorism, foreign policy and numbers of followers, but they are of less importance tbh.
    You really haven't thought this through, have you? You make it illegal to criticise or mock a Christian for believing that a man can be resurrected, but a Hindu could be mocked for having the same belief.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You really haven't thought this through, have you? You make it illegal to criticise or mock a Christian for believing that a man can be resurrected, but a Hindu could be mocked for having the same belief.
    I have thought this through. Criticism is fine by all means. But it has to be in the form of a civil discourse. I'm against insult per se. It's wrong period.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    I have thought this through. Criticism is fine by all means. But it has to be in the form of a civil discourse. I'm against insult per se. It's wrong period.
    Offence is taken, not given. How would your law work if a Moslem is offended by a statement that Mohammed was a slave-owning and selling mediaeval warlord who had sex with little girls who probably faked the Koran in order to impose rules of behaviour on his subjects? That isn't insulting, but he might take offence.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Offence is taken, not given. How would your law work if a Moslem is offended by a statement that Mohammed was a slave-owning and selling mediaeval warlord who had sex with little girls who probably faked the Koran in order to impose rules of behaviour on his subjects? That isn't insulting, but he might take offence.
    Borderline. One who makes those points should be willing to discuss further why he/she believes so. If he/she isn't then he should refrain from doing so. As this would take that person beyond the pale of a civil discourse. Neutrality is key. Thats my take on it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    Borderline. One who makes those points should be willing to discuss further why he/she believes so. If he/she isn't then he should refrain from doing so. As this would take that person beyond the pale of a civil discourse. Neutrality is key. Thats my take on it.
    Well my reason for stating that would be that it us true. The only opinion in that was that Mohammed invented the Koran and why, and I would expect most UK residents to agree with me.

    So challenging beliefs would be a no-no, then. Galileo's scientific advances wouldn't have taken place and fundamentalist Christians and Moslems who believe humans didn't evolve could not be substabtially challenged, not even by co-religionists.

    What a dismal and oppressive world that would be.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.