Leicester one of first cities in UK with no ethnic group majority - data

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 hour ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

No I'm sorry but your assumption is incorrect. As it reads is precisely what I was asking. 

Well I would never have dreamed that anyone would question that. But they do say you live and learn, and it would appear they're right.

Does that mean you believe that dark ages magic sky pixie bullshit should be part of education and lawmaking, or were you - as they also say - just asking?

[David Hankey]

On 29/11/2022 at 11:57, davieG said:

Leicester has become one of the first cities in the UK where people identifying as white are no longer the majority, the latest census data shows.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) have revealed 41% of the city described themselves as white - the lowest of any city in the UK.

A total of 51% of the city said they were white when the data was last captured by the ONS in 2011.

BBC News has spoken to four people in Leicester who have welcomed the news.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-63743309

No real surprise in this "news" as Leicester has been a very welcoming City as far back as the 50/60's.

[MPH]

 What exactly  is an ethnic British person anyway? Are we talking about a British person before the Roman invasion, the great heathen army invasion, the Norman conquest , Matilda and Henry’s invasion, Isabella and Mortimer’s unnapposed invasion, Edward the 4ths invasion,  the Germanic invasions,Viking invasions.. or do we need to go back to before the jutes, the pics invasions?

 

we’ve been invaded and conquered so many times by people groups that have all settled here,  bringing a piece of their own culture with them  yet suddenly people seem to  want to point out more modern day transitions.

 

surely people aren’t shallow enough to make this all about  skin colours? 

Edited 1 December 2022 by MPH

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

7 minutes ago, MPH said:

we’ve been invaded and conquered so many times by people groups that have all settled here,  bringing a piece of their own culture with them  yet suddenly people seem to  want to point out more modern day transitions.

And of course after all these centuries of invasions 'we' are just as much the invaders as we are the invaded. There is no 'them' any more. 'They' are us.

[Guest David Oldfields Gate]

2 hours ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Well I would never have dreamed that anyone would question that. But they do say you live and learn, and it would appear they're right.

Does that mean you believe that dark ages magic sky pixie bullshit should be part of education and lawmaking, or were you - as they also say - just asking?

I fear you are being slightly aggressive and I am not sure why. To rephrase the original enquiry with reasons why I am so intrigued could run along the lines of noting that a significant portion of all laws and education, certainly when teaching morals, is deeply rooted in religion, so to extract from it would be an undertaking that would make, say Brexit, appear trivial. Taking the basis that law is formed from a formal representation of what is right and wrong and that being down to morals and judgement and those indeed have the roots in religion it would be the re-constitution of the moral basis that would I think fascinate any law enthusiast if asked to take that history out of our entire judicial system. Morals are not proven to be inherent in a human. If we were say all bought up by our parents to believe theft from a neighbour was acceptable, the laws would recognise that as the moral centre of the majority. 

We are all familiar with the concept of Sharia law, well in reality our law system should be called Christian law as that is where most of the right Vs wrong, morals and judgements come from.

So I was very much hoping that the chap who wanted to extract the basis was perhaps involved in law, or writing or indeed government (maybe just a parent with a novel approach of making children behave) and could elaborate on why he had reached that conclusion, presumably on the basis that it was possible.

Take for instance the same argument in a Muslim country, if you extract the religion from the law, it may well be in conflict with it. That results in morals Vs government which is the quickest way to civil unrest.  Governments like religion (mainly) as they can lean on that to pass laws i.e what is right and wrong (rather than a politicians opinion), so without it to create law you would have to have concensus on the moral position, almost a vote on where the belief lies before a vote on the law itself.

I think that may have been how tribes governed before organised religion, but it was messy and bloody, hence organised religion with an accompanying text (bible or other) was an easy sell.

 

[bovril]

always surprised when progressives draw a parallel between immigration and invasion

[leicsmac]

Interesting thoughts, these. I'll give my own take here.

 

4 hours ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

a significant portion of all laws and education, certainly when teaching morals, is deeply rooted in religion, so to extract from it would be an undertaking that would make, say Brexit, appear trivial. Taking the basis that law is formed from a formal representation of what is right and wrong and that being down to morals and judgement and those indeed have the roots in religion it would be the re-constitution of the moral basis that would I think fascinate any law enthusiast if asked to take that history out of our entire judicial system.

 

This is most certainly true and it would most certainly be difficult. However, see below.

 

4 hours ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

 Morals are not proven to be inherent in a human. If we were say all bought up by our parents to believe theft from a neighbour was acceptable, the laws would recognise that as the moral centre of the majority. 

 

I'm not entirely sure this has been empirically proven. Or if it is, the morals imposed by religion are as subjective as any others.

 

4 hours ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

 

We are all familiar with the concept of Sharia law, well in reality our law system should be called Christian law as that is where most of the right Vs wrong, morals and judgements come from.

So I was very much hoping that the chap who wanted to extract the basis was perhaps involved in law, or writing or indeed government (maybe just a parent with a novel approach of making children behave) and could elaborate on why he had reached that conclusion, presumably on the basis that it was possible.

 

 

Can't speak for the person who started this off but my own thoughts are that the "moral code" imposed by religion was purely incidental in that people thought other people needed a threat from the "gods" in order to stay in line and act morally. This belief clearly does still persist in a great many places. The question is...does it really have to, when we know a great deal more about the world and about humans than we did when such religions first came into being?

 

4 hours ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

Take for instance the same argument in a Muslim country, if you extract the religion from the law, it may well be in conflict with it. That results in morals Vs government which is the quickest way to civil unrest.  Governments like religion (mainly) as they can lean on that to pass laws i.e what is right and wrong (rather than a politicians opinion), so without it to create law you would have to have concensus on the moral position, almost a vote on where the belief lies before a vote on the law itself.

I think that may have been how tribes governed before organised religion, but it was messy and bloody, hence organised religion with an accompanying text (bible or other) was an easy sell.

 

There may well be a conflict between personal belief and the law of the land if you extract religion from law, but IMO that's part and parcel of a free society: one persons freedom stops when they use it to harm or inhibit the freedom of another, which, sadly, religious law does all the time.

 

I don't actually think it would be as difficult to come to a consensus on moral behaviour without religion in policymaking as is being suggested here, (again) now that we have a far more in-depth knowledge about the world than we did when these religions first came into being. Put simply, I think that the (unproven and unprovable) threat of divine "justice" that organised religion works on no longer needs to be a motivator for moral behaviour when we have reasonable ways (though still with work to do) on administering that justice as a species as fairly as we can.

 

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand how integral personal belief is to someone; however, my own (thought-out but not proven) opinion is that organised religion being used in policymaking and as a method of enforcing law does, in the year 2022, harm more innocent people than it helps.