Does the United Kingdom need to be repaired?

[Kahless]

The England that I was referring to here is the England of C.S. Lewis, Winston Churchill, and King George VI.

Would that be the same CS Lewis who was born and raised in Belfast?

[Balsiefen]

The England that I was referring to here is the England of C.S. Lewis, Winston Churchill, and King George VI.

Would that be the same CS Lewis who was born and raised in Belfast?

he proberbly ment uk but england sounds more noble (and less secular )

[Titanic]

Immigration is a fact of life, partly resulting from Britain's constant economic growth since 1993, and partly from the gap between Britain's economy and other poorer economies. Like all economically successful countries, Britain is currently sucking in immigrants. But it won't last forever - the economy will go through recession and restricted growth again, and when that happens, it will be like the 1980's, when Britain had net emigration for many years.

This will begin in 2009/2010 if the Tories come into power. They have never been good for our economy, and the New Tories are just as bad.

[Balsiefen]

Immigration is a fact of life, partly resulting from Britain's constant economic growth since 1993, and partly from the gap between Britain's economy and other poorer economies. Like all economically successful countries, Britain is currently sucking in immigrants. But it won't last forever - the economy will go through recession and restricted growth again, and when that happens, it will be like the 1980's, when Britain had net emigration for many years.

This will begin in 2009/2010 if the Tories come into power. They have never been good for our economy, and the New Tories are just as bad.

you never know, Brown might hold it together (not likely) the lib dems might take a huge majority (even less likely)

[Stopper]

Immigration is a fact of life, partly resulting from Britain's constant economic growth since 1993, and partly from the gap between Britain's economy and other poorer economies. Like all economically successful countries, Britain is currently sucking in immigrants. But it won't last forever - the economy will go through recession and restricted growth again, and when that happens, it will be like the 1980's, when Britain had net emigration for many years.

This will begin in 2009/2010 if the Tories come into power. They have never been good for our economy, and the New Tories are just as bad.

you never know, Brown might hold it together (not likely) the lib dems might take a huge majority (even less likely)

One strong possibility is a hung parliament next time. Even though I'm a Labour party member, I think that outcome would be best.

It might actually lead to a renegotiation of the electoral system. Given that Labour and the Tories got less than 70% of the votes last time, but 85% of the seats, the House of Commons is becoming less and less representative all the time.

[Titanic]

Immigration is a fact of life, partly resulting from Britain's constant economic growth since 1993, and partly from the gap between Britain's economy and other poorer economies. Like all economically successful countries, Britain is currently sucking in immigrants. But it won't last forever - the economy will go through recession and restricted growth again, and when that happens, it will be like the 1980's, when Britain had net emigration for many years.

This will begin in 2009/2010 if the Tories come into power. They have never been good for our economy, and the New Tories are just as bad.

you never know, Brown might hold it together (not likely) the lib dems might take a huge majority (even less likely)

One strong possibility is a hung parliament next time. Even though I'm a Labour party member, I think that outcome would be best.

It might actually lead to a renegotiation of the electoral system. Given that Labour and the Tories got less than 70% of the votes last time, but 85% of the seats, the House of Commons is becoming less and less representative all the time.

Yer, Labour won with 35% of the electoral vote. Even less when you consider it was only around a 60% turnout. I like the current system as it is unlikely that you wont get a mjority party. Getting a situation like in Italy where you had numerous parties in one coalition is stupid, as politics become so so slow. A Labour/Lib Dem coalition would be quite good. They normally join up anyway, like in Scotland and in my local constituency up until Thursday. I can't see Lib Dems and Tories creating a coalition, their views are too far apart.

Hopefully Brown will win some support in the coming years, and the Tory loyallists will revolt agaisnt Cameron, cus hes trying to put a smoke screen on the real Tory party, and make it seem friendly. What I find amazing is that my friend, an Indian, voted Conservative on Thursday because they have strong policies against immigration. You're a fcking immigrant ffs! Irony or what...

[Chad22342]

The entire world needs repair. America and England tend to have an unspoken fued because both feel like they are responsible for keeping this world in order but it's just too much. No matter how powerful one place gets you can't keep everything in order. That's why instead of fighting for power we should combine it instead...

[luns101]

Wow, a lot of responses to that post. This is a real chance for me to learn some new things about how the English view their own issues. I'll try to respond.

The immigration problems are nothing major or unusual, it is being played up by the conservatives to gain support, really its less than saying the usa will be run by mexicans, as for your freinds, just because their muslims doesn't mean they know what people in bradford are doing. Our culture is settling down well and, as far as i can see there is little tension at the moment (especialy now Tonys being kicked out )

OK, let's forget about the articles I've read. Are there certain areas where immigration is taking place more than others? I teach in the Coachella Valley every Tuesday, and YES...the illegal immigration problem is terrible there and in other pockets of California. I'm suggesting that the immigration issue in England will happen so slowly that it won't be viewed as a "problem", it will just seem like a natural transition. I'm not sure why Tony Blair would be blamed for immigration tension, but you can let me know since you live there.

This picture of Britain "being conquered from within" by "Islamists" is a bizarre one. You will need to elaborate further on what exactly this conquest entails - massive wholesale conversions to Islam? Adoption of sharia law? Pogroms against Christians? The mind boggles.

If it's an incorrect assertion, then so be it. But great cultures are usually conquered...err changed, from within...not from an outside force. Yes to your first 2 points, no on the 3rd.

Immigration is a fact of life, partly resulting from Britain's constant economic growth since 1993, and partly from the gap between Britain's economy and other poorer economies. Like all economically successful countries, Britain is currently sucking in immigrants. But it won't last forever - the economy will go through recession and restricted growth again, and when that happens, it will be like the 1980's, when Britain had net emigration for many years.

I understand that Ireland in particular is leading the way in that economic growth. Is that right?

Still, it isn't clear to me exactly how you, or anyone else, thinks England is supposed to "belong to Allah" one day.

Well, the way it was explained to me was that Muslims would begin to dominate villages and towns. Eventually they would insist on their own traditions within those localities. From there it would spread out like a ripple effect. Once again, I hope you know that those were not my words, but those of some of my students.

Never base your opinion from the media...

But when you see story after story on the immigration topic in England, you have to recognize that it is newsworthy. We all have to base our opinions on something! We can't just totally ignore broadcast news or print media entirely. I'm sure if there were media reports which reinforced a point of view that you supported you wouldn't brush it off.

[Guiscard]

Luns I really do think your view of England is pretty skewed. What your students are telling you is not based in reality. it may be what they're told by certain sections of the Muslim community, and it may be what certain radicals within Britain believe is a viable future, but in all seriousness those are just pipe-dreams and extremist idealism. Britain has always been, and always will be, a product of immigration. Wherever that flow of people comes from, it will always come. Huge swathes of what we see as traditional English culture is a product of immigration, be it the curry house, in language (Pukka, for example), music, art, sport...

The vast vast majority of these immigrants - (and now I'm dealing only with Muslims, as that was what your post addressed - it seemed to ignore immigrants of any other religion) - are moderate, law abiding people who want nothing more than to integrate with the local community and enjoy the full benefit of living in a prosperous civilized western country WHILST retaining their culture and tradition. There is a massive difference between wanting to keep elements of your culture, for example dress, cooking, language and even morality, and wanting to completely go against the country you have moved to.

I live in an area where I am in a pretty small minority as a white person, yet we have no calls for Sharia law or anything of that sort... We have Muslim politicians who represent the interests of the community in areas which are important, (for example in the provision of halal food in the workplace was a recent issue)... Just to give you some perspective, I live in an area of Leeds where the 7/7 bombers came from... Extremism and radicalism is a tiny tiny part of a pretty massive Muslim culture.

Obviously there are some elements of truth in the news reports you see, but those are sensationalised news reports. For every young Muslim male with a placard reading 'behead our enemies' or whatever, there are thousands of Muslims who go on marches such as those against the Iraq war or the recent Trident missile program, there are thousands who disagree entirely with the message radical Islam is giving... What do you expect them to do? Go out and hold up placards which read 'we disagree with the opinions of these radicals'??? It takes a lot to energise people into making that kind of protest. The people who go out and call for Sharia law are the people who want more than anything to make themselves heard.

Finally, the very fact that we are a secular state surely makes it much much less likely that we will instate any kind of religious law... or does your impression of secularism simply mean 'anti-Christian'?

[Titanic]

But when you see story after story on the immigration topic in England, you have to recognize that it is newsworthy. We all have to base our opinions on something! We can't just totally ignore broadcast news or print media entirely. I'm sure if there were media reports which reinforced a point of view that you supported you wouldn't brush it off.

Fair enough. It largely depends who you get the news off though. If you continually get your news from one agency, especially if you dot live in the UK, then you will tend to believe what they say word for word. Obviously living in the UK you get a bit more of an advantage as you see it first hand, but try to look at different agencies.

The problem of immigration is overblown I think. When the 10 eastern bloc countries joined the EU, 3 countries had an open door policy on immigration from these 10. The UK, Sweden and another country, one of the low countries I think. It turned out, 2 years later, then out of the whle EU these 3 countries experianced the fasted economic growth. Also, 600,000 people came here, only 450ish claimed benefits. Its ppl like the tories, the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express which spread so much immigration-hate within this country. We should be proud of immigration, not upset...

On the Ireland econmy thing, yer, they have experianced rapid growth in recent years. The peace in NI is probably one reason, but it is sorting itself out and becoming richer by the year. However, if the UK economy stagnates, it probably means Irelands economy isn going to fair too well either. UK imports over 35% of their exports, and Ireland import around 20% of their stuff from the UK. Unfortunate, as Ireland is a great country, but they are growing closer to the EU so thats good news...

[luns101]

Luns I really do think your view of England is pretty skewed. What your students are telling you is not based in reality. it may be what they're told by certain sections of the Muslim community, and it may be what certain radicals within Britain believe is a viable future, but in all seriousness those are just pipe-dreams and extremist idealism. Britain has always been, and always will be, a product of immigration. Wherever that flow of people comes from, it will always come. Huge swathes of what we see as traditional English culture is a product of immigration, be it the curry house, in language (Pukka, for example), music, art, sport...

Well, it's good to get that point of view from yourself and others here at CC then. It's good to hear that you think these people are "extreme". Most immigrants do wish to assimilate into the culture of their adoptive countries. If you were able to ascertain that a large element of any immigrants were, in fact, attempting to replace traditional English culture with their own (either incrementally or instantaneously), what would you be willing to do about it?

The vast vast majority of these immigrants - (and now I'm dealing only with Muslims, as that was what your post addressed - it seemed to ignore immigrants of any other religion) - are moderate, law abiding people who want nothing more than to integrate with the local community and enjoy the full benefit of living in a prosperous civilized western country WHILST retaining their culture and tradition. There is a massive difference between wanting to keep elements of your culture, for example dress, cooking, language and even morality, and wanting to completely go against the country you have moved to.

No disagreement.

Obviously there are some elements of truth in the news reports you see, but those are sensationalised news reports. For every young Muslim male with a placard reading 'behead our enemies' or whatever, there are thousands of Muslims who go on marches such as those against the Iraq war or the recent Trident missile program, there are thousands who disagree entirely with the message radical Islam is giving... What do you expect them to do? Go out and hold up placards which read 'we disagree with the opinions of these radicals'??? It takes a lot to energise people into making that kind of protest. The people who go out and call for Sharia law are the people who want more than anything to make themselves heard.

I haven't witnessed a whole lot of chastisment of the "radicals" in general. Instead, what I've seen is a move towards trying to "understand" why they murder innocent people. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the peace-loving muslim immigrant community to rise up against the radical elements within England. Silence only emboldens the radical groups. It does require courage to take a stand and hopefully there will be people willing to rise up to that challenge.

Finally, the very fact that we are a secular state surely makes it much much less likely that we will instate any kind of religious law... or does your impression of secularism simply mean 'anti-Christian'?

With a few exceptions of when tyrannical leaders are in charge, laws are based on either religious or moral principles...it's just a matter of which standard. Since secularism can be defined as a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations, it should equally discriminate against all. In practicality, it's probably not possible though.

The question now is, which direction is England choosing to go in? I know you live in Leeds, but are you noticing any general trends? Help me out here.

[luns101]

It largely depends who you get the news off though. If you continually get your news from one agency, especially if you dot live in the UK, then you will tend to believe what they say word for word. Obviously living in the UK you get a bit more of an advantage as you see it first hand, but try to look at different agencies.

The problem of immigration is overblown I think. When the 10 eastern bloc countries joined the EU, 3 countries had an open door policy on immigration from these 10. The UK, Sweden and another country, one of the low countries I think. It turned out, 2 years later, then out of the whle EU these 3 countries experianced the fasted economic growth. Also, 600,000 people came here, only 450ish claimed benefits. Its ppl like the tories, the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express which spread so much immigration-hate within this country. We should be proud of immigration, not upset...

On the Ireland econmy thing, yer, they have experianced rapid growth in recent years. The peace in NI is probably one reason, but it is sorting itself out and becoming richer by the year. However, if the UK economy stagnates, it probably means Irelands economy isn going to fair too well either. UK imports over 35% of their exports, and Ireland import around 20% of their stuff from the UK. Unfortunate, as Ireland is a great country, but they are growing closer to the EU so thats good news...

Good post. Thanks for helping me learn a little bit more.

[SKETRS]

So What I'm getting is, Luns View is skewed but when you give your views of USA yours are not. The we the UK are always right syndrome, Down with the evil americans. FO

[Stopper]

Still, it isn't clear to me exactly how you, or anyone else, thinks England is supposed to "belong to Allah" one day.

Well, the way it was explained to me was that Muslims would begin to dominate villages and towns. Eventually they would insist on their own traditions within those localities. From there it would spread out like a ripple effect. Once again, I hope you know that those were not my words, but those of some of my students.

Well, Guiscard and Titanic have said a lot already, but just to add, this particular paragraph reminds me of certain (right-wing) commentators in the UK, who have attempted to raise fears of an Islamic take-over of Britain or Europe.

Apart from the fact that most Muslims do not insist on imposing their own traditions (as a side point, one issue that DID arise was one of the lack of state Islamic schools - which is a fair one, given the number of state-sanctioned CoE and Catholic schools in this country: Britain clearly isn't all that secular), it just isn't clear to anyone how any form of Islam is supposed to "take over" the country in any way, shape or form. Muslims simply do not, and will not, even with continued immigration, have the sheer numbers.

They are in a very small minority - and this is the real problem - it is not that Muslims are likely to take over the country; it is that they are such a weak presence, that they are easily victimised by the media with implausible and outlandish stories of "dhimmification", and so on.

Wow, a lot of responses to that post. This is a real chance for me to learn some new things about how the English view their own issues. I'll try to respond.

BTW, at least two of the people who responded to you (including me) were not English by any measure whatsoever. Not that it bothered me, because I didn't raise it, Kahless did - but it's probably best just to replace "England" with "Britain" or "UK". Until Scotland gets its independence...

[Guiscard]

Well, it's good to get that point of view from yourself and others here at CC then. It's good to hear that you think these people are "extreme". Most immigrants do wish to assimilate into the culture of their adoptive countries. If you were able to ascertain that a large element of any immigrants were, in fact, attempting to replace traditional English culture with their own (either incrementally or instantaneously), what would you be willing to do about it?

I really don't believe I can answer that question because I don't believe in some mythical 'Britishness' that CAN be eroded. As I said before, our culture is simply the culmination of all the immigrants who have moved into the British Isles over the centuries. A new and drastic wave of immigration is just a massive change in culture. Its a very fluid thing,a nd I'm pretty relativistic in general. I do believe in heritage and certainly elements of our current 'white' culture should be preserved, and I'd fight to do that, but it really is a reasonably ridiculous hypothetical, because if a group was systematically trying to wipe out 'traditional' culture as you see it, there'd be a whole lot more going on in terms of political and economic change, and I'd certainly be fighting to preserve our freedoms and law and order if that were under threat.

I haven't witnessed a whole lot of chastisment of the "radicals" in general. Instead, what I've seen is a move towards trying to "understand" why they murder innocent people. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the peace-loving muslim immigrant community to rise up against the radical elements within England. Silence only emboldens the radical groups. It does require courage to take a stand and hopefully there will be people willing to rise up to that challenge.

This certainly is a major issue. I wasn't arguing that moderate Islam should not do more to supress the radical element, and indeed I do believe they should. I was simply trying to illustrate how the elements you seem to think may be eroding our 'traditional' British culture are only a very very small minority. The government, the wider community and the Muslim community all need to play their part in tackling extremism in all its forms, and whilst Moderate Muslim groups are taking significant steps towards this I think its gonna take a pretty wholesale re-conditioning of the mindset of some young Muslim men. Everyone loves a cause, and I think whilst we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan and keep supporting America's seemingly war on Islam then they have a pretty massive cause. The government needs to do more, the wider community need to do more in terms of integration and tolerance and the Muslim community need to be more active in making it perfectly clear that radical Islam has no place in the UK.

With a few exceptions of when tyrannical leaders are in charge, laws are based on either religious or moral principles...it's just a matter of which standard. Since secularism can be defined as a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations, it should equally discriminate against all. In practicality, it's probably not possible though.

I'm afraid that although I can see what your getting at, it really isn't true at all. It may seem like Christianity is persecuted in secular society whilst other religions are given laws which protect their status and encourage tolerance, but that really isn't the case. At least not in the UK. The laws about religious schools apply to all religions, you swear oaths on whatever Holy Book is applicable... If anything, there are still remnants of Christianity which set it ABOVE the rest, not below... The Monarch as the defender of the faith is purely the defender of Anglicanism over any other religion. If you can find me a concrete example from the UK of Christianity being discriminated against and another religion being promoted in the same context then I'll take it all back, but I strongly doubt you can.

The question now is, which direction is England choosing to go in? I know you live in Leeds, but are you noticing any general trends? Help me out here.

General trends? No not really. I don't know what kind of 'trends' you expect to be present... It is highly unlikely that even the majority of the Muslim community are gonna come into contact with extremist Islam, and Leeds is a pretty big melting pot of races and cultures anyway. There's the same racism in the southern areas, linked with BNP activism, there's still crime on the estates... No real change other than a revitalised city centre which has successfully clawed back the local economy from the death throws of Northern industry, and the immigrant community forms a significant part of the vibrant, exciting and successful city. We have a pretty equally mixed council representing the three major parties (although the Conservatives and Lib Dems control it).

[luns101]

BTW, at least two of the people who responded to you (including me) were not English by any measure whatsoever. Not that it bothered me, because I didn't raise it, Kahless did - but it's probably best just to replace "England" with "Britain" or "UK". Until Scotland gets its independence...

Yeah, I thought about that actually. In the absence of a consensus I had to use some kind of term. It just sounded weird to call everyone a UKer. The people I used to work with in San Diego said they didn't care whether I called them Brits or not so I went with that.

[luns101]

I really don't believe I can answer that question because I don't believe in some mythical 'Britishness' that CAN be eroded. As I said before, our culture is simply the culmination of all the immigrants who have moved into the British Isles over the centuries. A new and drastic wave of immigration is just a massive change in culture. Its a very fluid thing,a nd I'm pretty relativistic in general. I do believe in heritage and certainly elements of our current 'white' culture should be preserved, and I'd fight to do that, but it really is a reasonably ridiculous hypothetical, because if a group was systematically trying to wipe out 'traditional' culture as you see it, there'd be a whole lot more going on in terms of political and economic change, and I'd certainly be fighting to preserve our freedoms and law and order if that were under threat.

Then we have come to the point of the whole thing, haven't we? I don't think that your country's traditions, laws, and culture are mystical. I certainly don't think of that hypothetical as being ridiculous. You have admitted that there are elements within the muslim communities that are being very outspoken about not assimilating...unchecked and unchallenged, they could quite possibly grow into something more powerful. It is heartening to hear that you would not allow your country to be overrun if her freedoms were threatened.

In our country, we decided not to enforce our immigration laws and look the other way for many years. We are now paying the price for that. Those of us who want to finally enforce our laws are being labeled as "uncompassionate and racist". It is also not exclusively a "right-wing" issue as people from both sides of the political aisle are concerned.

I wasn't arguing that moderate Islam should not do more to supress the radical element, and indeed I do believe they should. I was simply trying to illustrate how the elements you seem to think may be eroding our 'traditional' British culture are only a very very small minority. The government, the wider community and the Muslim community all need to play their part in tackling extremism in all its forms, and whilst Moderate Muslim groups are taking significant steps towards this I think its gonna take a pretty wholesale re-conditioning of the mindset of some young Muslim men. Everyone loves a cause, and I think whilst we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan and keep supporting America's seemingly war on Islam then they have a pretty massive cause. The government needs to do more, the wider community need to do more in terms of integration and tolerance and the Muslim community need to be more active in making it perfectly clear that radical Islam has no place in the UK.

Good to hear...looks like we're almost in complete agreement on this one. I would take issue with the labeling of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as a war against Islam.

If you can find me a concrete example from the UK of Christianity being discriminated against and another religion being promoted in the same context then I'll take it all back, but I strongly doubt you can.

1. Samantha Devine was not allowed to wear a cross at the Robert Napier School located in Kent earlier this year despite the fact that Muslims are allowed to wear turbans and other religious symbols sacred to them. Devine is a devout Catholic. The school tried to make the excuse that it was a health issue.

2. Last year, Nadia Eweida, a check-in employee of British Airways was suspended for wearing a cross. She was told it was because of uniform violations. However, British Airways does allow Muslim employees to wear hijabs & turbans.

[Guiscard]

You have admitted that there are elements within the muslim communities that are being very outspoken about not assimilating...unchecked and unchallenged, they could quite possibly grow into something more powerful

Now I never said they were unchecked and unchallenged. Radical Islam is very much challenged, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE it could in any way threaten to 'overwhelm' the UK. I simply said more could be done. Anyway, I was referring mainly to specifically violent extremism. You seem to have the idea that this element is pretty large and getting bigger. As I said before, it is a small element in the Muslim community and even if it increased a hundred fold there would never be any chance of 'taking over' our culture. You seem to have invented some kind of racial culture 'war' where there really isn't one. Even if you went to speak to the more radical Muslims, most would say they want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, to stop interfering in the Middle East and to stop backing America. Islamic law and society in Britain is nothing but a pipe-dream which nearly ever radical would see as unachievable, whatever your students in America say.

1. Samantha Devine was not allowed to wear a cross at the Robert Napier School located in Kent earlier this year despite the fact that Muslims are allowed to wear turbans and other religious symbols sacred to them. Devine is a devout Catholic. The school tried to make the excuse that it was a health issue.

2. Last year, Nadia Eweida, a check-in employee of British Airways was suspended for wearing a cross. She was told it was because of uniform violations. However, British Airways does allow Muslim employees to wear hijabs & turbans.

I don't buy either of those as representative examples. Firstly, I take issue with the fact that Hijabs for Muslim women and Turbans for Sikh (not Muslim) Men are actual religious commandments, whereas wearing a crucific is not. There is no religious requirement to wear a crucifix.

Anyhow, in the case of the girl:

Samantha argued: "Everyone says they believe in God by going to church, but I believe in him my own way.

"If I've got a problem, I always get it [the crucifix] and talk to it, and I feel that helps me."

Paul Jackson, deputy head teacher at the non-denominational school, said it was a health and safety issue.

"We haven't told her she can't wear the crucifix... she could wear a lapel badge to show her commitment to her religion," he said.

Kent MP Ann Widdecombe, herself a devout Christian who wears a cross, said she found that to be a "reasonable compromise".

"The school has said she can wear her symbol... so it's not actually preventing her from displaying a cross or a crucifix," Ms Widdecombe said

.

And as for BA,

British Airways says all jewellery and religious symbols on chains must be worn under the uniform.

But it makes an exception for Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs because they cannot be covered up.

The airline says: "British Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. These items can be worn, underneath the uniform."

What you see here is a secular society which allows people to obey proper religious codes without it impinging on others. If a Sikh turban could be worn under the clothes then it would be enforced. Anyway, I believe BA simply gave in in the end and now staff can wear a lapel badge of their favoured religion should they wish.

Anyhow, things like that happen occasionally and I'm afriad it is in now way peculiar to Christianity. A Muslim teacher was recently sacked from a secular school for refusing to remove her veil when teaching... Muslims face discrimination in all walks of life, especially since 9/11, and I'm afraid if you think Christians are getting an 'harder time', as it were, then you're sorely mistaken.

[Jenos Ridan]

Welchmen, Irish and Scots are the REAL Brits. The English are either Normans or Saxons.

As for Fixing any nation, I'll lets the Brits and English figure it all out.

[luns101]

You have admitted that there are elements within the muslim communities that are being very outspoken about not assimilating...unchecked and unchallenged, they could quite possibly grow into something more powerful

Now I never said they were unchecked and unchallenged. Radical Islam is very much challenged, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE it could in any way threaten to 'overwhelm' the UK. I simply said more could be done. Anyway, I was referring mainly to specifically violent extremism. You seem to have the idea that this element is pretty large and getting bigger. As I said before, it is a small element in the Muslim community and even if it increased a hundred fold there would never be any chance of 'taking over' our culture. You seem to have invented some kind of racial culture 'war' where there really isn't one. Even if you went to speak to the more radical Muslims, most would say they want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, to stop interfering in the Middle East and to stop backing America. Islamic law and society in Britain is nothing but a pipe-dream which nearly ever radical would see as unachievable, whatever your students in America say.

The intent of the ellipsis was to create a pause and I thought you knew that I was saying that if they were left unchecked their ideology could grow and spread. If the radical Muslim community is small and unable to do any real harm to the UK, I'll take your word for it. I'm learning as much as I'm giving out opinions here.

1. Samantha Devine was not allowed to wear a cross at the Robert Napier School located in Kent earlier this year despite the fact that Muslims are allowed to wear turbans and other religious symbols sacred to them. Devine is a devout Catholic. The school tried to make the excuse that it was a health issue.

2. Last year, Nadia Eweida, a check-in employee of British Airways was suspended for wearing a cross. She was told it was because of uniform violations. However, British Airways does allow Muslim employees to wear hijabs & turbans.

I don't buy either of those as representative examples. Firstly, I take issue with the fact that Hijabs for Muslim women and Turbans for Sikh (not Muslim) Men are actual religious commandments, whereas wearing a crucific is not. There is no religious requirement to wear a crucifix.

I think you're really splitting hairs here and skirting the issue. Both individuals were trying to have symbols of their faith which helped support them in life without evangelizing others. They were treated unfairly. You're willing to justify one and not give the benefit of the doubt to the other.

Samantha argued: "Everyone says they believe in God by going to church, but I believe in him my own way.

"If I've got a problem, I always get it [the crucifix] and talk to it, and I feel that helps me."

Paul Jackson, deputy head teacher at the non-denominational school, said it was a health and safety issue.

"We haven't told her she can't wear the crucifix... she could wear a lapel badge to show her commitment to her religion," he said.

Kent MP Ann Widdecombe, herself a devout Christian who wears a cross, said she found that to be a "reasonable compromise".

"The school has said she can wear her symbol... so it's not actually preventing her from displaying a cross or a crucifix," Ms Widdecombe said

.

But she was made to change the symbol which gave her comfort. That was wrong. And the idea that a cross is a health or safety issue is silly. I'd tell Paul Jackson to stop hiding behind the lead contamination argument.

British Airways says all jewellery and religious symbols on chains must be worn under the uniform.

But it makes an exception for Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs because they cannot be covered up.

The airline says: "British Airways does recognise that uniformed employees may wish to wear jewellery including religious symbols. These items can be worn, underneath the uniform."

What you see here is a secular society which allows people to obey proper religious codes without it impinging on others. If a Sikh turban could be worn under the clothes then it would be enforced. Anyway, I believe BA simply gave in in the end and now staff can wear a lapel badge of their favoured religion should they wish.

Yes, I read the same. Which shows me that they knew that their original decision was wrong, and also discriminatory.

Anyhow, things like that happen occasionally and I'm afriad it is in now way peculiar to Christianity. A Muslim teacher was recently sacked from a secular school for refusing to remove her veil when teaching... Muslims face discrimination in all walks of life, especially since 9/11, and I'm afraid if you think Christians are getting an 'harder time', as it were, then you're sorely mistaken.

Yes, and it's terrible. Where did that story take place on the Muslim teacher getting sacked? I don't know if I would say Christians in England are getting a "harder time of it", but the more the secular movement grows there, I believe you will be seeing more and more cases like the ones I've just cited.

[Titanic]

I think you're really splitting hairs here and skirting the issue. Both individuals were trying to have symbols of their faith which helped support them in life without evangelizing others. They were treated unfairly. You're willing to justify one and not give the benefit of the doubt to the other.

They were not treated unfairly. Firstly, the crucifix is not compulsary in Christianity. The Hijab and Turban in Islam and Sikhism is. Thats the main difference. Secondly, the crucifix can be covered and removed from sight, the Hijab and Turban cannot.

And the idea that a cross is a health or safety issue is silly. I'd tell Paul Jackson to stop hiding behind the lead contamination argument.

Thats just the way the peopel are going. They're suing for anything, so the councils have to remove anything that can cause harm. I read a story once that if children wanted to play conkers at school they had to wear safety glasses.

Yes, and it's terrible. Where did that story take place on the Muslim teacher getting sacked?

I heard about this one as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6179842.stm

[Balsiefen]

is it me or is luns' argument shrinking, it seems to have changed from Muslims will take over britain to muslim culture might take over britain to there might be an increace in radical mulims to a airport worker wasn't allowed to wair a necklace.

[Dmunster]

Why do you people hate America?

[flashleg8]

Why do you people hate America?

See the American thread in Flame wars for a good taste!

[luns101]

is it me or is luns' argument shrinking, it seems to have changed from Muslims will take over britain to muslim culture might take over britain to there might be an increace in radical mulims to a airport worker wasn't allowed to wair a necklace.

It's just you. If you've followed the progression of the argument you'd see that I was asked certain questions which changed the nature of the debate.