Buce Posted 3 December 2014 Posted 3 December 2014 Why would you assume that and how is it relevant? I think it's a reasonable assumption, given that most politicians identify themselves as such; and it's relevant because it goes against core Christian values, such as compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves.
Webbo Posted 3 December 2014 Posted 3 December 2014 I think it's a reasonable assumption, given that most politicians identify themselves as such; and it's relevant because it goes against core Christian values, such as compassion for those less fortunate than ourselves. I don't think it's reasonable at all, most British politicians don't make an issue of religion. If he'd said" I bet they're muslims" which is just as likely, he have been accused of racism. If it had been done by atheists would it be more acceptable? It's a ridiculous assumption based on nothing but prejudice.
Buce Posted 3 December 2014 Posted 3 December 2014 I don't think it's reasonable at all, most British politicians don't make an issue of religion. If he'd said" I bet they're muslims" which is just as likely, he have been accused of racism. If it had been done by atheists would it be more acceptable? It's a ridiculous assumption based on nothing but prejudice. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the ones who made the law were muslims: how many muslim ministers do you know? In the last census, 59% of the population identified themselves as Christian; you can extrapolate from that that approximately 390 MPs would view themselves as Christian, and, therefore, his assumption is statistically valid.
Webbo Posted 3 December 2014 Posted 3 December 2014 It would be ridiculous to suggest that the ones who made the law were muslims: how many muslim ministers do you know? In the last census, 59% of the population identified themselves as Christian; you can extrapolate from that that approximately 390 MPs would view themselves as Christian, and, therefore, his assumption is statistically valid. It's a Labour council in London, I think it's fair to assume there are ethnic minority councillors. Just because someone identifies themselves as christian doesn't mean that they are active, church going, practicers.
Buce Posted 3 December 2014 Posted 3 December 2014 It's a Labour council in London, I think it's fair to assume there are ethnic minority councillors. Just because someone identifies themselves as christian doesn't mean that they are active, church going, practicers. Actually, Webbo, I suspect we are arguing at cross purposes: I can't open the link Oz posted, but I think it's that which Steven was refering to, not the original topic.
Webbo Posted 3 December 2014 Posted 3 December 2014 Actually, Webbo, I suspect we are arguing at cross purposes: I can't open the link Oz posted, but I think it's that which Steven was refering to, not the original topic. You might be right, I apologise for the misunderstanding but I still think Steven is talking out of his backside.
Buce Posted 3 December 2014 Posted 3 December 2014 You might be right, I apologise for the misunderstanding but I still think Steven is talking out of his backside. No apologies necessary, mate. That's several minutes of our lives we'll never get back.
Merging Cultures Posted 4 December 2014 Posted 4 December 2014 I don't think it's reasonable at all, most British politicians don't make an issue of religion. If he'd said" I bet they're muslims" which is just as likely, he have been accused of racism. If it had been done by atheists would it be more acceptable? It's a ridiculous assumption based on nothing but prejudice. I agree with you Webbo. A persons professed religion is largely irrelevant. Many people do not observe their religion properly, and many are unfortunate to be brainwashed and are given a false understanding of their religion. Someone's professed religion is often just based on their family history but means nothing about how they actually live their lives. It also doesn't mean that everyone who professes that religion behaves in the same way. In a line of enquiry, such with the grooming gangs, I can see why it would be relevant, for the enquiry to understand points of contact between the men, but it isn't about the religion. In this case, religion is not relevant. As a side note, anyone can be any religion, so it wouldn't be racist. It would be more religious bigotry than racism.
Webbo Posted 4 December 2014 Posted 4 December 2014 I agree with you Webbo. A persons professed religion is largely irrelevant. Many people do not observe their religion properly, and many are unfortunate to be brainwashed and are given a false understanding of their religion. Someone's professed religion is often just based on their family history but means nothing about how they actually live their lives. It also doesn't mean that everyone who professes that religion behaves in the same way. In a line of enquiry, such with the grooming gangs, I can see why it would be relevant, for the enquiry to understand points of contact between the men, but it isn't about the religion. In this case, religion is not relevant. As a side note, anyone can be any religion, so it wouldn't be racist. It would be more religious bigotry than racism. Again, nobody is saying all Muslims are rapists. The argument was about the authorities turning a blind eye because they were Muslim.
Merging Cultures Posted 4 December 2014 Posted 4 December 2014 Again, nobody is saying all Muslims are rapists. The argument was about the authorities turning a blind eye because they were Muslim. I agree, and again why religion shouldn't have been relevant. Remove it from the discussion and there is no fear of being accused of being racist/a religious bigot. Different thread though
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.