Go back
Is Multiculturalism good for Britain?

Is Multiculturalism good for Britain?

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
I'm using the term rather vaguely, please don't be so technical with me.

I apologize, for a moment I thought you were an educated human being, or at least had some degree of political literacy. my mistake.

I'll try dumb down my words from now on.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
it's a good indicator of how far your civ. has gotten.

hardly.

by the way, here's something interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/27/nyregion/crafts-uncovering-treasures-of-ancient-nubia.html

Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
does it make any difference?

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
not necessarily.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
as opposed to the virulent atheism you have in britain?

In what sense "virulent". Vociferous, perhaps, but has Richard Dawkins ever responded to an ideological disagreement with a death threat?

You should really be welcoming these other religions into your country.

Why, precisely? Is it entirely strange that a lot of Britons are willing to welcome people to their country if they want to live in what we have: a secular, democratic, liberal (in the broadest sense) society.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]as opposed to the virulent atheism you have in britain?


In what sense "virulent". Vociferous, perhaps, but has Richard Dawkins ever responded to an ideological disagreement with a death threat?

You should really be welcoming these other religions into your country.

Why, precisely? Is it en ...[text shortened]... want to live in what we have: a secular, democratic, liberal (in the broadest sense) society.[/b]
In what sense "virulent". Vociferous, perhaps, but has Richard Dawkins ever responded to an ideological disagreement with a death threat?

no, he hasn't, but I never said he did.


Why, precisely? Is it entirely strange that a lot of Britons are willing to welcome people to their country if they want to live in what we have: a secular, democratic, liberal (in the broadest sense) society.


because these people are simply expressing their freedom of religion.
now you're not making any sense, are you saying that having religious people in the uk would prevent it from being "secular, democratic, liberal society"?
also, this claim of yours is quite bizarre, in what sense is the UK "secular, democratic, and liberal" considering it has an established church, an unelected head of state, and lacks a written constitution?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
now you're not making any sense, are you saying that having religious people in the uk would prevent it from being "secular, democratic, liberal society"?
also, this claim of yours is quite bizarre, in what sense is the UK "secular, democratic, and liberal" considering it has an established church, an unelected head of state, and lacks a written constitution?
Of course I wasn´t suggesting that. It depends on the precise doctrines accepted by the individual believer.

The UK is secular because membership of the established church entails no special privileges, and because the basis of British law is not founded in any specific creed. It is democratic in the sense that it elects its governments, while its unelected head of state refrains from wielding any meaningful power. It is liberal in the sense that the general evolution of British law since Magna Carta has focused on defending the rights of the individual, and though the UK has no single written constitution, it has a formidable body of law which constitutes the equivalent of a liberal constitution.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Of course I wasn´t suggesting that. It depends on the precise doctrines accepted by the individual believer.

The UK is secular because membership of the established church entails no special privileges, and because the basis of British law is not founded in any specific creed. It is democratic in the sense that it elects its governments, while its unele ...[text shortened]... ion, it has a formidable body of law which constitutes the equivalent of a liberal constitution.
The UK is secular because membership of the established church entails no special privileges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

also, I find it hard to believe the UK is a secular state even though there's no separation of church and state.

It is democratic in the sense that it elects its governments, while its unelected head of state refrains from wielding any meaningful power.

true, but its still unelected, just like the house of lords.

It is liberal in the sense that the general evolution of British law since Magna Carta has focused on defending the rights of the individual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000

also see all the anti-terrorism legislation.

and though the UK has no single written constitution, it has a formidable body of law which constitutes the equivalent of a liberal constitution.

that is debatable.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by generalissimo
I find it hard to believe the UK is a secular state even though there's no separation of church and state.

First point about the Lords Spiritual taken. But actually, a lot of the world´s most secular countries in terms of their citizens´ attitudes have an established church. It could be argued that the first step in shifting Britain towards secularism was precisely Henry VIII´s decision to make himself head of the English church, thus asserting the supremacy of the state over the church.

true, but its still unelected, just like the house of lords.

That is true, but most countries have restraints on pure democracy of one form or another.

also see all the anti-terrorism legislation.

I said "generally" precisely to acknowledge that there had been some serious violations (of which, by the way, I´m ashamed).


that is debatable.


I´ll have to cite Wikipedia as I don´t have time right now to look further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

"The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to those of most other nations. It is therefore often said that the country has an "unwritten", uncodified, or de facto constitution. However, the word "unwritten" is something of a misnomer as the majority of the British constitution does exist in the written form of statutes, court judgments, and treaties."

Of course, we have also now signed up to a lot of the specific provisions of European law, including the Human Rights Act.

Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
No. You don't seem to pay much attention to what I write here. Why are you being so irrational?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
Thread 126749, p. 3.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
[b]what's kept ATY out of prison?
[/b]
Why do you think ATY should go to prison?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why increase funding?

when biologists want to encourage micro-organisms to produce desirable outputs, they stress the organisms through hunger, pollution, etc.

when are we going to see the productivity gains in the public sector that we've seen in the private sector since the introduction of computers?

how would funding fix the problem in your par ...[text shortened]... nderperformers? maybe a 6-week course? with refreshers every year, 3rd or 4th grade to 12th?
Are you recommending eugenics? That's what it sounds like.