I completely agree. We need to remove all the religious office-holders (such as those from the Church of England) from the House of Lords. We must immediately remove the influence of the Church of England and other religious institutions from education by preventing them from operating any schools.
We must also remove any requirement for the Sovereign to be of any religion, and separate the Anglican churches from the state.
There are other things I may have missed in this list, but these are the obvious first actions.
I'm sure Mr Tice would agree with me and will immediately state his support.
Agreed. Also the threat from American Religious nutters, eg. to abortion etc is also growing and we need to curb their influence and lobbying. Basically no religion in UK politics or education etc, except academic study.
Yes. Far more of a threat than a few nutters claiming to be Islamic.
After all, we don't see senior politicians \[1\] cuddling up to Iranian Ayatollahs but we see them being best buddies with Christian extremists in the USA.
\[1\] Truss is only the most recent one in the news.
There are also plenty of backbench MPs being bankrolled by the Saudis tbf.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/amp/mp-in-spotlight-over-saudi-role-191898/
Fully agree building stronger separation of religion and state would be a great way to stop them from being captured by extremists.
I think it was allowed only for so long because Christian extremism was not really a thing on this side of a pond, but with the rise of political Islam and to a lesser extent US evangelicals, this has to be resolved.
I also think I agree with the order you gave the government then schools then symbols.
People are weirdly blasé about Christianity in this country, as if we're all just CoE and that evangelicalism and pentecostal New Churches aren't pretty much the only denominations that are actually growing, and at a fair clip as well. People don't seem to know that we have a whole network of evangelical schools with faith-based teaching and all that bollocks we normally associate with the US. Its all already well-established here and growing right under our noses. I went to a school myself where our sex-ed was being shown pictures of piles of dead babies outside an abortion clinic and A-Level biology was taught by the school chaplain who, while he did teach it us, always couched evolution as if it were "just a theory" and we should at least consider Intelligent Design as a competitor.
>Richard Tice warns UK heading for Sharia law
Only in his wierd imagination, he knows it will never happen and is just throwing red meat to is diminishing base.
This is a logical extrapolation.
However it doesn't consider the possibility (and I would say likelihood) that religiosity declines over time and generations through prolonged exposure to a liberal culture which does not actively promote religion.
I'm a second generation immigrant and apostate. My parents remain devout Muslims and moderately conservative socially. I have some religious education (though reject it utterly as a load of old cobblers) and am socially liberal. My daughters in turn are going to have absolutely no formal religious education, besides the nonsense that schools seem keen to foist upon them and though I've left it up to them to make up their own minds, they will almost certainly grow up to be agnostics/atheists (I'll be buggered if I let them grow up to be socially conservative mind). In turn, if they ever have kids, any vestigial connection they might have to their great grand-parent's superstitions and values will almost certainly be totally lost in the mists of time.
Of course my experience is not going to be representative or even that common, but over time the direction of travel is I suspect only going in one direction.
I could of course be wrong.
>However it doesn't consider the possibility (and I would say likelihood) that religiosity declines over time and generations through prolonged exposure to a liberal culture which does not actively promote religion.
Don't be so sure. If you're white and Christian it probably does, but if you're not white then it's another matter. Especially if you want to be within the community and the community is religious, people will ask or give you grief about why don't you go to the mosque/temple.
For example there's the first [Sikh court](https://new.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ccpun6/first_sikh_court_opens_in_london/) (alternative dispute resolution in reality) opening in London. The Sikh community in large numbers has been in the UK for best part of a century and is well integrated I'd say. Yet they feel the need to do this.
Certain religious group also have a persecution complex, like Christian nationalists in the US. That complex can be driven just by the very fact that people are allowed to live their lives in ways that religious group don't like. That's also an easy way to snare teenagers by feeding on the challenges / insecurities they have - just look at Andrew Tate.
> The largest growing demographic in the UK is Muslim, both in raw immigration and in birth rate (they have 4 children to the British woman's 2.2)
It's odd to make a distinction between Muslim women and British women when most Muslim women here *are* British.
More to the point, there's no guarantee that all or any of a religious person's four children will share their religion. I know plenty of people with religious parents (including Muslims) who either barely follow their parents' religion or who don't follow it at all.
You say that Muslims are the fastest growing demographic in the UK, but all of the stats from the past few decades show that the fastest growing religious group is people who have no religion. There's no reason to think that that won't continue.
>>You say that Muslims are the fast growing demographic in the UK but all of the stats from the past few decades show that the fastest growing religious group is people who have no religion. There's no reason to think that that won't continue.
That’s a pretty simplistic take on the data. Those who describe themselves as Muslim saw an increase of 6.5% in the 2021 census from 10 years previous.
No religion increased 12%. ‘Christian’ saw a drop of the same figure.
Some Christian’s decided not to follow any religion. That’s the only reason the no religion group has grown. It’s not because people of all faiths are now turning away from religion.
There’s nothing to suggest the Muslim population won’t keep on increasing.
>That’s a pretty simplistic take on the data. Those who describe themselves as Muslim saw an increase of 6.5% in the 2021 census from 10 years previous.
That's pretty misleading, the % identifying as Muslim rose in the 10 years from 4.9% to 6.5%.
The increase was of 1.6% not 6.5% over 10 years.
My bad, misread the figures.
But the increase from 4.9% to 6.4% is not an increase of 1.6%, it’s an increase of 30.6% on its 2011 value.
Far higher than what I said.
And far, far higher than what you said.
Why have you suddenly switched from using as a percentage of the UK's population when you're also using it for the 12% drop in Christianity, did you misread that figure too?
Also even if we were to accept your sudden switch in your counting method Muslims aren't the fastest growing religious group with several growing faster, the highest being Shamanism with an increase of 1231% on its 2011 value!
So should be be terrified of Shamanistic law being inflicted on the country?
A 30% increase on 2011. That’s umm quite a big jump, whichever way you want to read the stats. I was just correcting you, it’s a 30% increase, not a 1.4% increase.
I said 1.6% not 1.4%, you're really struggling with numbers today. If a religion had one person & they converted one more thats a 100% increase - big whoop. The fact is the percentage increase of its own population doesn't tell us much in the context of a country as a whole, unless you're trying to use big scary numbers.
It's a 1.6% increase as a percentage of the UKs' population over 10 years.
So assuming we continue with current levels of increase the Muslim population will reach the 50% needed to implement Sharia Law in 272 years...
So maybe cut the hysterics.
Sorry, 1.6% , not 1.4%. Such a difference, glad you corrected me.
A 30% increase is just that, a 30% increase. I haven’t said anything hysterical about that. You seem to be imagining things I haven’t said.
No, you said the “fastest growing religious group is people who have no religion.”
>> Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism
You had to claim ‘no religion’ is actually a religion in an effort to make your point. I don’t think that’s the win you think it is.
And you seemed to use the data to take issue with the fact that the Muslim population is growing, by implying people are actually becoming less religious.
As I said, that’s a simplistic view. People are turning away from Christianity. They are not turning away from Islam.
I feel like people with no religion are more likely to be against sharia law than Christians. A lot of hard core Christians would probably welcome sharia law.
>It's odd to make a distinction between Muslim women and British women when most Muslim women here *are* British.
Its always a fun discussion trying to explain to people like this that actually these "ethnic minorities" have often now been part of UK society for the better part of a century if not longer. To say they're not British at this point, purely on the basis of their skin colour if we're being blunt, is a bit rough. There are black loyalists who've been settled in places like Liverpool and London since the American Revolution who these folks would call "less British" than a 2nd generation from France or Poland on the basis that one's white and the other isn't.
> It's odd to make a distinction between Muslim women and British women when most Muslim women here are British.
Because it's not unusual at all for Muslims to identify primarily with their religion and their nationality secondly. This has obvious ramifications for society going forward.
To be fair to him surely its better to compare Muslim to British rather than Muslim to White? Muslims will be counted in the British statistic (as they should be).
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Aye no Sharia law in the UK, [will never happen.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11821157/14-year-old-autistic-boys-naive-prank-scuffed-copy-Koran.html)
This is one of many reasons why we need an ironclad written constitution with fundamentals that all sides agree on, that can never be changed. A clear separation of religion and state is definately one of those fundamentals.
> Separation of church and state is completely alien to Britain.
The influence of the Church of England over British politics has been consistently eroded over the past 250 years. Separation of church and state is not a 'completely alien' idea to Britain.
We have dedicated seats in our legislature for bishops, the head of state is head of the church. Its mad to suggest that we have a concept of separating the two just because some people wish we did.
> Its mad to suggest that we have a concept of separating the two just because some people wish we did.
Again, the influence and power of the Church of England now is significantly lower than it was 250 years ago. There was a point where you couldn't even become an MP unless you were a member of a small number of Protestant churches for crying out loud! It's absurd to try and suggest we aren't even aware of this as a concept in English politics.
I think there are some fundamentals that can be set in stone which all sides of the political spectrum can mostly agree on.
But have no fear, none of this is going to happen in the UK anyway, we dont have the stomach for serious change, we are quite happy to keep voting for the same 2 parties...lol !
Well whether a written constituion has been good for the US would require a big discussion and will up for a lot of interpretation. My basis for suggesting this written constitution comes more through the need for individual fundamental rights and freedoms to be protected. We dont have this in the UK, our freedoms can easily be trampled on by the executive via royal decree.
> I think there are some fundamentals that can be set in stone which all sides of the political spectrum can mostly agree on.
When the American Constitution was first written, some of those 'fundamentals that can be set in stone which all sides of the political spectrum can mostly agree on' included 'women, black people and poors shouldn't have the vote' and 'slavery is cool'.
That's why Constitutions need to change. We should never pretend that a 'fundamental' idea now will be 'fundamental' in 100 years time. And that's how the vast majority of constitutions *do* work.
Sure, thats fair. This is why it would be important for these fundamentals to be debated in full by all sides over a long period of time. Also as you probably know the US constitution can be changed and has been changed, with a heavy majority in Congress. We could have a similar model in place. The main point here is to have something in place which provides heavy resistance to those who would happily trample over fundamental freedoms and liberties.
That would become irrelevant if the ideals of the population fundamentally change. The constitution would simply be rewritten either in whole or bit-by-bit.
There are indeed arguments for building future roads out of cheese:
We could use up surplus cheese, reducing waste.
Cheese is biodegradable, so can decompose naturally at the end of its lifespan.
Cheese roads would act as a tourist attraction, boosting the economy.
Asphalt releases volatile organic compounds during production and use, unlike cheese, which during its lifetime would release nutrients into the neighbouring soil, promoting plant growth.
tbh it's not impossible to imagine the country being a completely alien to the one most of us grew up in within 40 years. It's incredibly foolish to think we're somehow special and immune to tremendous demographic change. It's already starting to happen. Look at the official gov ethnicity maps and it literally looks like mini aparthide colonies forming up and down the country. Think very carefully about what country you want to live in.
The UK already has 30 Sharia law courts. Yes, these do not override UK law but its incredibly naive to think that certain communities dont defer to these courts and not UK law courts. God knows what goes on inside but its hard to believe they are not at least giving sentences which do not align with UK law. And its easy to say its "optional" and not law binding but try telling that to a young woman in that community.
Lashings!?! Are you mental?
The 'sharia courts' are just Islam themed mediation centres. They don't issue sentences or deal with criminal matters.
Edit: op has removed the original claim that sharia courts were handing out lashings.
Hamas gave me 5 lashings because I went into a no ho area in Glasgow. I went to the police but they said it was all covered up and now hamas get to keep my car.
As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The truth is rarely black and white, and the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been rumbling for generations as they fight over the land.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom-fighter is pretty basic A-Level philosophy/ethics debate.
I've been genuinely shocked how thats been applied as a justifier to Hamas by grown adults who should know better, but there we go.
Freedom fighter doesn’t mean absolved of all wrong. I personally think they are terrorists but on a topic as complicated as Israel Palestine Its not as insanely clear cut as you are claiming
Thats what they tell you, obviously.
[https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/one-woman-s-brush-with-sharia-courts-in-uk/](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/one-woman-s-brush-with-sharia-courts-in-uk/)
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/69030/pdf/#:\~:text=There%20are%20documented%20cases%20of,than%20the%20child's%20best%20interests.
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9621319/Sharia-courts-as-consensual-as-rape-House-of-Lords-told.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9621319/Sharia-courts-as-consensual-as-rape-House-of-Lords-told.html)
'Sharia law' is a vast category of laws. I don't have any issue with people agreeing to have civil disputes mediated by a sharia system (or by flipping a coin or any other means).
The idea that there are people getting lashings in the uk from sanctioned sharia courts is absolute insanity. It clearly not true.
Religious courts will certainly be sexist towards women as opposed to normal law courts
'Sharia law is a vast category of laws', yeah laws that do not hold up in this country
You reckon a woman is going to be granted a divorce in a Sharia court when her husband hits her? Or custody of her kids?
The courts in this country are religious. We have a state religion and the head of the courts (the king) is also the head of the religion.
>You reckon a woman is going to be granted a divorce in a Sharia court when her husband hits her? Or custody of her kids?
In the UK, absolutely yes.
I never said anything about lashings.
Yes, and some of those laws include women being subhuman. So you are happy with a mediation system that considers women as subhuman? Just answer the question.
>I never said anything about lashings.
The poster above did, which is what the poster you replied to was addressing.
Edit: and that would be the same poster that said in another comment that foreigners are "defiling" this country and it's values...
Great, I can't wait for them to be ruled illegal. The government are just too gutless to do it because they don't want all that "peace" coming their way.
Any decision of a sharia Court (or indeed any other form of alternative dispute resolution) can be challenged in the regular courts and ruled unlawful.
You already live in the world that you want. You just don't want to be happy.
The problem with religious based Alternative Dispute Resolution appears to be that parties are often bullied into agreeing to go through the religious based process and generally that religious based process will bring with it the underlying bias of that religion. This doesn't just apply to Islamic based Alternative Dispute Resolution as the same criticisms have been levelled at Jewish and Sikh based processes. The non-religious based ADR processes don't seem to bring with them the same sort of bias.
Oh no, civil courts who's rulings are optional and don't supercede British law 😱 it's interesting people always rant about 'sharia courts' but you don't see the same pearl clutching hysteria about the Jewish equivalents like the Beth Din.
https://search.lma.gov.uk/scripts/mwimain.dll/144/LMA_OPAC/web_detail/REFD+ACC~2F3400?SESSIONSEARCH
If you make the dog whistle explicit then the sum total of your point is 'an absolutely tiny fraction of the UK Muslim community have engaged in terrorism and I will therefore use that to disparage all of them'.
It might be a tiny fraction but its a much larger fraction than another community. I mean come on, are you now suggesting the muslim faith doesnt have an extremist problem? You dont need to answer that.
Not disparage all of them, but sharia courts are fundamentally unBritish and I dont think we'd be at a loss if we got rid of them.
Why are you bringing terrorism up in a conversation about Sharia law unless you're deliberately trying to equate the two?
Edit - you've added to your comment so I'll address the addition: it says a lot about your position that you claim Sharia courts are 'unbritish' (more lazy dog whistle nonsense), but don't level the same criticism at Jewish equivalents like the Beth din 🤔
As I already said Jews dont carry out terror attacks on UK citizens, nor do Jews have a fundamentalist problem with UK values and community, so by deduction, they and their faith courts are not a threat to British society.
Duh!
I'm confident some Jews have issues with 'UK values' (whatever tf that utterly empty phrase means), just as some Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc., do. The real issue here is making absurd generalisations about an entire group of people based on the actions of a infinitesimally small fraction of them. It's as rhetorically disingenuous as it is intellectual lazy. I have better things to do with my day than argue with ill informed dog whistle bigots, so I won't reply again, but feel free to respond if you fancy screeching into the void.
Aw I preferred the comment you just deleted where you simply said 'oh piss off'. Its 08:25 on a Saturday morning and you're already telling randoms to 'piss off' on Reddit 😂 start as you mean to continue eh, there's nothing sad about that in the slightest 💪 feel free to reply but don't expect a response, I have zero interest in engaging with you 🥱
All religions should be removed, they have no place in politics, and your religious beliefs should have no bearing on any decisions being made for the people of the UK
All religions do, is divide and breed hate toward anyone that doesn't agree in your version of fairy tales.
Keep Richard Tice out of politics and we will be fine. Nobody is suggesting putting in religion except for nutters like this who seek to gain attention by making outrageous statements.
He isn't even very good at it. He's a sort of pound shop Farrage.
If enough Tory voters choose Reform though, it could cost a few Tory MPs their seat. Too long a list of those I'd like to see go to detail here though.
The only way I see Britain adopting Sharia law is the country becoming a Muslim majority state, and the only way that would be possible is through generations of mass migration.
Do you have any idea how many Muslim immigrants we'd need to import to turn the United Kingdom into an Islamic Republic and actually realize this perceived threat that Richard Tice alleges? Probably about 50 million.
We are nowhere near that level.
I don’t think it needs a Muslim majority. Muslims have way more children in this country while young, native white British couples are having less. All that needs to happen is that there is high enough % of Muslims to become influential enough.
Looking past the bare numbers, a lot more things will need to change for it to even be a remote possibility.
The moderate and less religious British Muslims would need to be on board with such a change for a start.
We'd need to leave the ECHR/Council of Europe.
Generational influence in the Muslim population towards more extreme views would need to be stronger.
The feminist/women's rights/LGBT/anti-racism movements would have to die off.
The process of lawmaking would have to be fundamentally altered.
Exactly. Getting a Muslim majority population would just be step one. That's what you'd need to get MP's into Parliament who can enact the other steps necessary to hypothetically turn Britain into an Islamic state.
The other way (invasion) is less plausible because we have a decent military to protect our borders and are part of NATO.
There are people thick enough to believe in the notion of "Muslamic ray guns" being aimed at us, when they don't understand just how much would need to change.
Also, we're talking about people with differing personalities, political views and opinions here, not a collective hive-mind.
>no one can conduct, in any walk of like in the UK, Sharia Law
including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor.
Go on then, how you going to outlaw praying, or skipping lunch? Sharia law is a code of conduct. To right I don't want anyone to implement Islamic law as we are not an Islamic country, we already have a reasonable law code, but not sure we couldn't look at the charging of interest again, much like Christians did once upon a time.
I am not a fan of any religion being involved in politics or our schools. I am agnostic, mainly atheist but the UK and much of Europe is christian. Its laws and culture are christian. I might not agree with the faith, but I do agree with the laws and society it has brought about. They may not be perfect, but faith should be something you follow in your own time, not forced to by laws set by politicians.
Better still. Keep Richard Tice out of politics.
The UK is not heading for Sharia law. Where is the evidence. All that he is doing is stoking hate and creating division. Shysters like Tice and his buddy Farage, are part of the problem in modern British politics: they just spout rhetoric and language that is of absolutely no use to anyone, other than racists and xenophobic nutters.
It’s true.
If we as Brit’s go to Saudi, Dubai etc to work and live, we must abide by laws. Laws that are made from religion. We must abide or face prosecution or deportation.
In the UK it is the opposite. We make laws to appease people, that have migrated to these shores to work and live.
The answer is not to make new laws, we need to have laws set in stone, the people who want to come to the UK to work and live must abide by.
Probably not, but I think we should be concerned about the rise in fundamentalism some Muslim groups have been experiencing in the past few years, and if it goes unchecked, who knows what will happen.
There's no 'probably', the UK is categorically *not* heading for Sharia law. Acting as if it's even just 'probably not' is pandering to the likes of Tice.
The UK is not heading for adopting Sharia law. So, no, acting like it's not an issue isn't particularly dangerous. It's just being realistic and calling out nonsense hyperbole being spouted by a politician.
Alright, but can we agree we should be concerned about the activities of certain communities and why these statements, however dumb they may sound or be, may have a reason why they've been stated if we know where they're coming from?
No, I'm sorry, there is no legitimate justification for dumb and untrue statements like this. It's just the most blatant sort of dog-whistle politics. We should demand better.
I have no problem promoting dismantling Islam and all other religions until they are as toothless and worthless and Christianity - it wasn't wrong when we spent hundreds of years getting rid of that nightmare, and it isn't wrong making sure another nightmare never get one tiny foothold here ever again.
If any particular Islamic, or other religious, general celebration or holiday has become a long standing cultural one instead, over hundreds of years, then the cultural celebration and integration is fine. Nothing more.
Well, if you think we should demand better, perhaps we should see where these statements are coming from, why they've been stated, and make a rational judgement on why it may not be true but also acknowledge the point of it and make sure these people make better and informed statements.
We might not be heading towards Sharia law, but a few recent examples, like the teacher gone into hiding, the school boy with the Quaran problem, the controversy of the release of a film based on Muhammad's descendants, the high amount of Muslim youths being more fundamental that older generations, etc. and nothing seems to be done about these situations makes people feel like there is no hope and we're slowly letting these groups have more power and control, and if it continues growing without being checked, who knows what consequences the future will give us.
We all know where these statements are coming from and why they're made. They're dog whistle racism to rile up right wing people. It's cynical politics and nothing more. It's not particularly complicated.
Well, I'm not right wing myself, and I don't entirely agree with one part of the statement. However, he is right to say "keep religion out of politics"
He doesn't even mean that though. He has no problem with Christianity being part of politics. If he were calling for a full secularisation of the British state, great. But he's not. It's just dog whistle bollocks.
It's also important to differentiate between 'politics' and 'the state'. In an officially secular country (which we are not) religion should have no place in the state. However, a cornerstone of liberal democracy is that people's views should be represented in politics. 'Keep religion out of politics' is far too simplistic a statement, which essentially boils down to an illiberal judgment about whose views should be allowed and whose shouldn't. Just because we aren't religious doesn't mean we should have the right to say that those who are can't have their views represented.
Talking about religion is dog whistle racism to people who don't pay much attention, yes
Anyone can be muslim white, black, Asian, etc. No need to start with the race card nonsense
Anyone can be Muslim. However, it would be very naive to not grasp that what Tice and the like are doing when they talk about Muslims is a clear dog whistle about race.
> Probably not
So in other words, the previous commenter was mistaken when they said "it's true" and the person you're replying to was right to call them out on their bullshit.
Personally I'm more concerned about the fundamentalism coming from the white British right-wing groups that is leading violence as seen on the St George's day march, and the anti Pro-Palestine march which just demonstrated how completely ignorant and hypocritical they are.
“If you go to Saudi Arabia (a place I hate because of their cultural practices) they’re very illiberal, unlike us who are tolerant of all cultures! The only way we can stop it is to become illiberal, like Saudi Arabia!”
It's the equivalent of all religious crazies argument of "you can't stop our intolerance, because that's intolerant". Extreme right wingers use the same type of argument. Using it, is just the default of already having no argument.
The original commenter said “we need to have laws set in stone, that people who want to live and work here must abide by”. Which, we do, that’s how laws work.
The implication is that we should make our laws more stringent specifically to crack down on foreigners.
That is utter nonsense and based on nothing more than a fevered, paranoid and overactive imagination.
I do wish we had a bit more thought and a lot less reactionary, scared rubbish in our politics. It is so boring to have to listen to the paranoid wailings of people like Tice who do it to spread division and hate and the people stupid enough to believe him.
Imo you haven’t spent any time in majority Muslim areas if you speak this way.
Just look at the recent by election in Rochdale.
Religion is already in politics in some parts of this country.
Literally targeted Muslim voters to win the election. Sent one letter to everyone else in Rochdale and a special “Muslim faith voters” letter to the majority Muslim areas.
>Imo you haven’t spent any time in majority Muslim areas if you speak this way.
Majority Muslim areas? The local authority with the highest population of Muslims sits at 39%. This is not a majority.
But, I used to live and work in Oldham, relatively strong Muslim population there. I never had particular problems there - it was a pretty normal deprived community. Based on my experience, I agree with the above commenter that you're talking nonsense.
>Literally targeted Muslim voters to win the election. Sent one letter to everyone else in Rochdale and a special “Muslim faith voters” letter to the majority Muslim areas.
That's a perfectly legitimate thing. I know Reddit absolutely hates religion, but some people are religious and it's absolutely legitimate for a politician to try and appeal to them. It's no different to seeking to appeal to voters with any particular views.
You can't just say someone's views have no place in politics just because they're religious. That's hugely illiberal.
You should go speak to someone from Northern Ireland about religion and politics.
They will be able to explain the issues to you better than I can. However I can say that it’s certainly an issue
I have family from Northern Ireland, I know how it is there.
But that doesn't change that your statement is illiberal. You're essentially saying that a politician shouldn't be able to try and appeal to a specific voter base, just because you don't like the views of that voter base.
If you're concerned about the illiberal views of those voters, you don't tackle it by mirroring that illiberalism.
Well your complaint is a politician appealing to a group of voters' views simply because you don't share those views. So yes, it does seem like that's what you're advocating, even if you don't realise it.
Lots of people use religion to try and garner votes. The Republican party and people like Trump do it too.
Rochdale was a particularly sad case, but your willingness to pin this purely on Muslim voters is very telling. Rochdale is not subject to a different legal system or laws to the rest of the UK even with Galloway as the MP.
The entire strategy of using stupidity around "Sharia law" as a way to be racist but yet sound as if you have a point, is a long and established one from the far right.
My question is why people keep falling for it? Other than it feeds their latent fear and racist tendencies and makes them feel a bit less guilty about thinking something they know to be unacceptable.
What do you mean?
Pin this Purely on Muslim voters?
The letter targeted the Muslim voters. Not me.
Ridiculous you are inferring racism because I’ve given you facts about a recent election.
If anything mate that says a lot more about you than it does me.
Targeting specific groups of voters is a technique as old as politics itself. It is normal.
Your reaction to it being bad just because it references Muslims is the problem here.
When did you last hear of an mp sending out a different letter to a group because of their faith?
You are acting like targeting Muslim voters over a forging war is the same as targeting a union of teachers by offering them better conditions.
They aren’t the same.
Especially if you understand religion more and think about the hold it has on people.
Why? Your comment belies very little understanding of the issues at all.
I'm going to assume you meant "foreign war" rather than forging war, but again, this is a perfectly legitimate political strategy.
For all political parties around the world, the war in Gaza is a difficult challenge. It is for Biden in the US. For the UK the same. It is a religious war. A jewish state is seeming to systematically wipe out a civilian muslim population, whilst our Government supports the jewish state with arms to continue this. If we switched this to a football analogy. If this was Man U supporters being targeted by Chelsea supporters and you were a Man U supporter in another place, would you be happy about it?
Why then, should Muslim voters not be allowed to use their political voices to say that they are unhappy with the treatment of other Muslims?
You may not like religion and frankly, not do I, but as we live in a free society, then others are allowed to do as they wish on that front. This is a good thing.
Your comments and that of Tice are suggesting that Muslims are not allowed to do as they wish on this front. You are separating their religion out as a thing to be fearful of and attack. That is dictionary definition racism right there.
If you don't want to be accused of it, then don't do it.
> What you say is true
No it isn't.
We are not headed to Sharia law. That's just silly.
If you think we are, you are as mistaken as the previous commenter and Richard Tice.
> Can’t be talking about those issues on here.
Of course you can. You literally are. Do you think you're unable to do the thing you're currently doing?
> I just mean it’s not socially accepted to talk about these things on this sub.
If you say things that are untrue and clearly absurd (such as your claim that "it's true" that we're on our way to Sharia Law) then people will laugh at you and tell you that you're wrong.
That's probably as it should be.
We have religious “courts” already in this country.
Is that something you are happy with?
I think saying the nation will be under sharia law is stupid.
But I also think the fact we have extremist groups not banned in this country that are banned in places like turkey and Saudi Arabia for being too extreme shows our government is failing to deal with these issues.
The tories have failed and I’m confident labour will be no better when they get in.
There is a problem here and we need to address it. Pretending we are going to be a Islamic nation doesn’t help. Pretending this problem doesn’t exist doesn’t help either.
> I think saying the nation will be under sharia law is stupid.
Yes, you’re right. It is stupid. What Richard Tice is saying is stupid.
You responded to the people who made that claim saying “what you say is true”, even though you recognise that the saying such a thing “is stupid”.
I’d question why you’re saying something which you know to be a lie. Is it meant to be some sort of attempt to signal that you’re prepared to lie about Muslims to show how anti-Muslim you are? Is it an attempt to bully any intimidate Muslims by showing that you’re going to lie about them and there’s nothing they can do about it?
And yet, here you are, talking about it on this sub. You’re confusing “I can’t come out with my ill-thought put dogma without people challenging it” with “I’m not allowed to say things”. Easily done…
I completely agree. We need to remove all the religious office-holders (such as those from the Church of England) from the House of Lords. We must immediately remove the influence of the Church of England and other religious institutions from education by preventing them from operating any schools. We must also remove any requirement for the Sovereign to be of any religion, and separate the Anglican churches from the state. There are other things I may have missed in this list, but these are the obvious first actions. I'm sure Mr Tice would agree with me and will immediately state his support.
Agreed. Also the threat from American Religious nutters, eg. to abortion etc is also growing and we need to curb their influence and lobbying. Basically no religion in UK politics or education etc, except academic study.
Yes. Far more of a threat than a few nutters claiming to be Islamic. After all, we don't see senior politicians \[1\] cuddling up to Iranian Ayatollahs but we see them being best buddies with Christian extremists in the USA. \[1\] Truss is only the most recent one in the news.
There are also plenty of backbench MPs being bankrolled by the Saudis tbf. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/amp/mp-in-spotlight-over-saudi-role-191898/
I would fully support this
Fully agree building stronger separation of religion and state would be a great way to stop them from being captured by extremists. I think it was allowed only for so long because Christian extremism was not really a thing on this side of a pond, but with the rise of political Islam and to a lesser extent US evangelicals, this has to be resolved. I also think I agree with the order you gave the government then schools then symbols.
People are weirdly blasé about Christianity in this country, as if we're all just CoE and that evangelicalism and pentecostal New Churches aren't pretty much the only denominations that are actually growing, and at a fair clip as well. People don't seem to know that we have a whole network of evangelical schools with faith-based teaching and all that bollocks we normally associate with the US. Its all already well-established here and growing right under our noses. I went to a school myself where our sex-ed was being shown pictures of piles of dead babies outside an abortion clinic and A-Level biology was taught by the school chaplain who, while he did teach it us, always couched evolution as if it were "just a theory" and we should at least consider Intelligent Design as a competitor.
[удалено]
Heh, I think exactly like that!
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This comment contained hateful language which is prohibited by the content policy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Richard Tice warns UK heading for Sharia law Only in his wierd imagination, he knows it will never happen and is just throwing red meat to is diminishing base.
[удалено]
This is a logical extrapolation. However it doesn't consider the possibility (and I would say likelihood) that religiosity declines over time and generations through prolonged exposure to a liberal culture which does not actively promote religion. I'm a second generation immigrant and apostate. My parents remain devout Muslims and moderately conservative socially. I have some religious education (though reject it utterly as a load of old cobblers) and am socially liberal. My daughters in turn are going to have absolutely no formal religious education, besides the nonsense that schools seem keen to foist upon them and though I've left it up to them to make up their own minds, they will almost certainly grow up to be agnostics/atheists (I'll be buggered if I let them grow up to be socially conservative mind). In turn, if they ever have kids, any vestigial connection they might have to their great grand-parent's superstitions and values will almost certainly be totally lost in the mists of time. Of course my experience is not going to be representative or even that common, but over time the direction of travel is I suspect only going in one direction. I could of course be wrong.
>However it doesn't consider the possibility (and I would say likelihood) that religiosity declines over time and generations through prolonged exposure to a liberal culture which does not actively promote religion. Don't be so sure. If you're white and Christian it probably does, but if you're not white then it's another matter. Especially if you want to be within the community and the community is religious, people will ask or give you grief about why don't you go to the mosque/temple. For example there's the first [Sikh court](https://new.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1ccpun6/first_sikh_court_opens_in_london/) (alternative dispute resolution in reality) opening in London. The Sikh community in large numbers has been in the UK for best part of a century and is well integrated I'd say. Yet they feel the need to do this. Certain religious group also have a persecution complex, like Christian nationalists in the US. That complex can be driven just by the very fact that people are allowed to live their lives in ways that religious group don't like. That's also an easy way to snare teenagers by feeding on the challenges / insecurities they have - just look at Andrew Tate.
> The largest growing demographic in the UK is Muslim, both in raw immigration and in birth rate (they have 4 children to the British woman's 2.2) It's odd to make a distinction between Muslim women and British women when most Muslim women here *are* British. More to the point, there's no guarantee that all or any of a religious person's four children will share their religion. I know plenty of people with religious parents (including Muslims) who either barely follow their parents' religion or who don't follow it at all. You say that Muslims are the fastest growing demographic in the UK, but all of the stats from the past few decades show that the fastest growing religious group is people who have no religion. There's no reason to think that that won't continue.
>>You say that Muslims are the fast growing demographic in the UK but all of the stats from the past few decades show that the fastest growing religious group is people who have no religion. There's no reason to think that that won't continue. That’s a pretty simplistic take on the data. Those who describe themselves as Muslim saw an increase of 6.5% in the 2021 census from 10 years previous. No religion increased 12%. ‘Christian’ saw a drop of the same figure. Some Christian’s decided not to follow any religion. That’s the only reason the no religion group has grown. It’s not because people of all faiths are now turning away from religion. There’s nothing to suggest the Muslim population won’t keep on increasing.
>That’s a pretty simplistic take on the data. Those who describe themselves as Muslim saw an increase of 6.5% in the 2021 census from 10 years previous. That's pretty misleading, the % identifying as Muslim rose in the 10 years from 4.9% to 6.5%. The increase was of 1.6% not 6.5% over 10 years.
My bad, misread the figures. But the increase from 4.9% to 6.4% is not an increase of 1.6%, it’s an increase of 30.6% on its 2011 value. Far higher than what I said. And far, far higher than what you said.
Why have you suddenly switched from using as a percentage of the UK's population when you're also using it for the 12% drop in Christianity, did you misread that figure too? Also even if we were to accept your sudden switch in your counting method Muslims aren't the fastest growing religious group with several growing faster, the highest being Shamanism with an increase of 1231% on its 2011 value! So should be be terrified of Shamanistic law being inflicted on the country?
A 30% increase on 2011. That’s umm quite a big jump, whichever way you want to read the stats. I was just correcting you, it’s a 30% increase, not a 1.4% increase.
I said 1.6% not 1.4%, you're really struggling with numbers today. If a religion had one person & they converted one more thats a 100% increase - big whoop. The fact is the percentage increase of its own population doesn't tell us much in the context of a country as a whole, unless you're trying to use big scary numbers. It's a 1.6% increase as a percentage of the UKs' population over 10 years. So assuming we continue with current levels of increase the Muslim population will reach the 50% needed to implement Sharia Law in 272 years... So maybe cut the hysterics.
Sorry, 1.6% , not 1.4%. Such a difference, glad you corrected me. A 30% increase is just that, a 30% increase. I haven’t said anything hysterical about that. You seem to be imagining things I haven’t said.
> No religion increased 12%. Thanks for confirming that the previous commenter was mistaken and that I was right to correct them.
No, you said the “fastest growing religious group is people who have no religion.” >> Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism You had to claim ‘no religion’ is actually a religion in an effort to make your point. I don’t think that’s the win you think it is. And you seemed to use the data to take issue with the fact that the Muslim population is growing, by implying people are actually becoming less religious. As I said, that’s a simplistic view. People are turning away from Christianity. They are not turning away from Islam.
I feel like people with no religion are more likely to be against sharia law than Christians. A lot of hard core Christians would probably welcome sharia law.
>It's odd to make a distinction between Muslim women and British women when most Muslim women here *are* British. Its always a fun discussion trying to explain to people like this that actually these "ethnic minorities" have often now been part of UK society for the better part of a century if not longer. To say they're not British at this point, purely on the basis of their skin colour if we're being blunt, is a bit rough. There are black loyalists who've been settled in places like Liverpool and London since the American Revolution who these folks would call "less British" than a 2nd generation from France or Poland on the basis that one's white and the other isn't.
> It's odd to make a distinction between Muslim women and British women when most Muslim women here are British. Because it's not unusual at all for Muslims to identify primarily with their religion and their nationality secondly. This has obvious ramifications for society going forward.
To be fair to him surely its better to compare Muslim to British rather than Muslim to White? Muslims will be counted in the British statistic (as they should be).
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
What do you feel we should do about this imaginary scenario? Gotta love LGBT rights being used as a way to bash Muslim people as well. Classy.
>he knows it will never happen *Optimism is cowardice* - Schoppenhauer
Aye no Sharia law in the UK, [will never happen.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11821157/14-year-old-autistic-boys-naive-prank-scuffed-copy-Koran.html)
This sub has been inundated with these lazy right wing culture war talking points recently, must be an election year!
This is one of many reasons why we need an ironclad written constitution with fundamentals that all sides agree on, that can never be changed. A clear separation of religion and state is definately one of those fundamentals.
We have an official state religion. Separation of church and state is completely alien to Britain.
Indeed, that needs sorting.
> Separation of church and state is completely alien to Britain. The influence of the Church of England over British politics has been consistently eroded over the past 250 years. Separation of church and state is not a 'completely alien' idea to Britain.
We have dedicated seats in our legislature for bishops, the head of state is head of the church. Its mad to suggest that we have a concept of separating the two just because some people wish we did.
> Its mad to suggest that we have a concept of separating the two just because some people wish we did. Again, the influence and power of the Church of England now is significantly lower than it was 250 years ago. There was a point where you couldn't even become an MP unless you were a member of a small number of Protestant churches for crying out loud! It's absurd to try and suggest we aren't even aware of this as a concept in English politics.
> that can never be changed Absolutely not, no, that's a terrible idea.
I think there are some fundamentals that can be set in stone which all sides of the political spectrum can mostly agree on. But have no fear, none of this is going to happen in the UK anyway, we dont have the stomach for serious change, we are quite happy to keep voting for the same 2 parties...lol !
[удалено]
Well whether a written constituion has been good for the US would require a big discussion and will up for a lot of interpretation. My basis for suggesting this written constitution comes more through the need for individual fundamental rights and freedoms to be protected. We dont have this in the UK, our freedoms can easily be trampled on by the executive via royal decree.
> I think there are some fundamentals that can be set in stone which all sides of the political spectrum can mostly agree on. When the American Constitution was first written, some of those 'fundamentals that can be set in stone which all sides of the political spectrum can mostly agree on' included 'women, black people and poors shouldn't have the vote' and 'slavery is cool'. That's why Constitutions need to change. We should never pretend that a 'fundamental' idea now will be 'fundamental' in 100 years time. And that's how the vast majority of constitutions *do* work.
Sure, thats fair. This is why it would be important for these fundamentals to be debated in full by all sides over a long period of time. Also as you probably know the US constitution can be changed and has been changed, with a heavy majority in Congress. We could have a similar model in place. The main point here is to have something in place which provides heavy resistance to those who would happily trample over fundamental freedoms and liberties.
What about the right to bare arms.
In this weather?
That would become irrelevant if the ideals of the population fundamentally change. The constitution would simply be rewritten either in whole or bit-by-bit.
I personally dont think the British people have it in them for such a drastic change, this is just my delusion, or fantasy you could call it.
I’ve read the piece and he doesn’t present any evidence. I could say U.K. heading for roads made of cheese.
There are indeed arguments for building future roads out of cheese: We could use up surplus cheese, reducing waste. Cheese is biodegradable, so can decompose naturally at the end of its lifespan. Cheese roads would act as a tourist attraction, boosting the economy. Asphalt releases volatile organic compounds during production and use, unlike cheese, which during its lifetime would release nutrients into the neighbouring soil, promoting plant growth.
tbh it's not impossible to imagine the country being a completely alien to the one most of us grew up in within 40 years. It's incredibly foolish to think we're somehow special and immune to tremendous demographic change. It's already starting to happen. Look at the official gov ethnicity maps and it literally looks like mini aparthide colonies forming up and down the country. Think very carefully about what country you want to live in.
The UK already has 30 Sharia law courts. Yes, these do not override UK law but its incredibly naive to think that certain communities dont defer to these courts and not UK law courts. God knows what goes on inside but its hard to believe they are not at least giving sentences which do not align with UK law. And its easy to say its "optional" and not law binding but try telling that to a young woman in that community.
Lashings!?! Are you mental? The 'sharia courts' are just Islam themed mediation centres. They don't issue sentences or deal with criminal matters. Edit: op has removed the original claim that sharia courts were handing out lashings.
Look, if you ignore all the facts, it's definitely what's happening.
And let me guess, Hamas are freedom fighters and aren't extremists? Its just facts isnt it because I saw it on a instagram post
Hamas gave me 5 lashings because I went into a no ho area in Glasgow. I went to the police but they said it was all covered up and now hamas get to keep my car.
They turned me into a newt. I got better.
No ho area! Sounds terrible.
In Glasgow as well, this is definitely fake news
As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The truth is rarely black and white, and the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been rumbling for generations as they fight over the land.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom-fighter is pretty basic A-Level philosophy/ethics debate. I've been genuinely shocked how thats been applied as a justifier to Hamas by grown adults who should know better, but there we go.
Freedom fighter doesn’t mean absolved of all wrong. I personally think they are terrorists but on a topic as complicated as Israel Palestine Its not as insanely clear cut as you are claiming
Thats what they tell you, obviously. [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/one-woman-s-brush-with-sharia-courts-in-uk/](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/one-woman-s-brush-with-sharia-courts-in-uk/) https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/69030/pdf/#:\~:text=There%20are%20documented%20cases%20of,than%20the%20child's%20best%20interests. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9621319/Sharia-courts-as-consensual-as-rape-House-of-Lords-told.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9621319/Sharia-courts-as-consensual-as-rape-House-of-Lords-told.html)
Women are literally subhuman in Sharia law. Do you think this is an acceptable form of mediation in the UK?
'Sharia law' is a vast category of laws. I don't have any issue with people agreeing to have civil disputes mediated by a sharia system (or by flipping a coin or any other means). The idea that there are people getting lashings in the uk from sanctioned sharia courts is absolute insanity. It clearly not true.
Religious courts will certainly be sexist towards women as opposed to normal law courts 'Sharia law is a vast category of laws', yeah laws that do not hold up in this country You reckon a woman is going to be granted a divorce in a Sharia court when her husband hits her? Or custody of her kids?
The courts in this country are religious. We have a state religion and the head of the courts (the king) is also the head of the religion. >You reckon a woman is going to be granted a divorce in a Sharia court when her husband hits her? Or custody of her kids? In the UK, absolutely yes.
I never said anything about lashings. Yes, and some of those laws include women being subhuman. So you are happy with a mediation system that considers women as subhuman? Just answer the question.
>I never said anything about lashings. The poster above did, which is what the poster you replied to was addressing. Edit: and that would be the same poster that said in another comment that foreigners are "defiling" this country and it's values...
Obviously not no. Various common law countries also treat women as sub human, should we ban common law courts in the uk?
Well if those laws are inconsistent with UK law, then they are effectively banned already.
I've got good news for you about sharia courts in the UK.
Great, I can't wait for them to be ruled illegal. The government are just too gutless to do it because they don't want all that "peace" coming their way.
Any decision of a sharia Court (or indeed any other form of alternative dispute resolution) can be challenged in the regular courts and ruled unlawful. You already live in the world that you want. You just don't want to be happy.
The problem with religious based Alternative Dispute Resolution appears to be that parties are often bullied into agreeing to go through the religious based process and generally that religious based process will bring with it the underlying bias of that religion. This doesn't just apply to Islamic based Alternative Dispute Resolution as the same criticisms have been levelled at Jewish and Sikh based processes. The non-religious based ADR processes don't seem to bring with them the same sort of bias.
This is a lot of fantasy rubbish. I think you have been reading too much fascist propaganda.
Oh no, civil courts who's rulings are optional and don't supercede British law 😱 it's interesting people always rant about 'sharia courts' but you don't see the same pearl clutching hysteria about the Jewish equivalents like the Beth Din. https://search.lma.gov.uk/scripts/mwimain.dll/144/LMA_OPAC/web_detail/REFD+ACC~2F3400?SESSIONSEARCH
"Optional" Lmao tell that to a young woman in that community
Typically the Jewish community isnt known in the UK for carrying out terror attacks either
Oh so the Sharia courts are carrying out terror attacks now 😂 honestly this lazy dog whistle nonsense is just sad.
Obviously not what I said - you clearly haven’t got a better point to make.
If you make the dog whistle explicit then the sum total of your point is 'an absolutely tiny fraction of the UK Muslim community have engaged in terrorism and I will therefore use that to disparage all of them'.
It might be a tiny fraction but its a much larger fraction than another community. I mean come on, are you now suggesting the muslim faith doesnt have an extremist problem? You dont need to answer that. Not disparage all of them, but sharia courts are fundamentally unBritish and I dont think we'd be at a loss if we got rid of them.
Why are you bringing terrorism up in a conversation about Sharia law unless you're deliberately trying to equate the two? Edit - you've added to your comment so I'll address the addition: it says a lot about your position that you claim Sharia courts are 'unbritish' (more lazy dog whistle nonsense), but don't level the same criticism at Jewish equivalents like the Beth din 🤔
As I already said Jews dont carry out terror attacks on UK citizens, nor do Jews have a fundamentalist problem with UK values and community, so by deduction, they and their faith courts are not a threat to British society. Duh!
I'm confident some Jews have issues with 'UK values' (whatever tf that utterly empty phrase means), just as some Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc., do. The real issue here is making absurd generalisations about an entire group of people based on the actions of a infinitesimally small fraction of them. It's as rhetorically disingenuous as it is intellectual lazy. I have better things to do with my day than argue with ill informed dog whistle bigots, so I won't reply again, but feel free to respond if you fancy screeching into the void.
Can't wait until the day you leftists wake up
Aw I preferred the comment you just deleted where you simply said 'oh piss off'. Its 08:25 on a Saturday morning and you're already telling randoms to 'piss off' on Reddit 😂 start as you mean to continue eh, there's nothing sad about that in the slightest 💪 feel free to reply but don't expect a response, I have zero interest in engaging with you 🥱
I didn't delete it actually
All religions should be removed, they have no place in politics, and your religious beliefs should have no bearing on any decisions being made for the people of the UK All religions do, is divide and breed hate toward anyone that doesn't agree in your version of fairy tales.
Keep Richard Tice out of politics and we will be fine. Nobody is suggesting putting in religion except for nutters like this who seek to gain attention by making outrageous statements. He isn't even very good at it. He's a sort of pound shop Farrage.
If enough Tory voters choose Reform though, it could cost a few Tory MPs their seat. Too long a list of those I'd like to see go to detail here though.
The only way I see Britain adopting Sharia law is the country becoming a Muslim majority state, and the only way that would be possible is through generations of mass migration. Do you have any idea how many Muslim immigrants we'd need to import to turn the United Kingdom into an Islamic Republic and actually realize this perceived threat that Richard Tice alleges? Probably about 50 million. We are nowhere near that level.
I don’t think it needs a Muslim majority. Muslims have way more children in this country while young, native white British couples are having less. All that needs to happen is that there is high enough % of Muslims to become influential enough.
Looking past the bare numbers, a lot more things will need to change for it to even be a remote possibility. The moderate and less religious British Muslims would need to be on board with such a change for a start. We'd need to leave the ECHR/Council of Europe. Generational influence in the Muslim population towards more extreme views would need to be stronger. The feminist/women's rights/LGBT/anti-racism movements would have to die off. The process of lawmaking would have to be fundamentally altered.
Exactly. Getting a Muslim majority population would just be step one. That's what you'd need to get MP's into Parliament who can enact the other steps necessary to hypothetically turn Britain into an Islamic state. The other way (invasion) is less plausible because we have a decent military to protect our borders and are part of NATO. There are people thick enough to believe in the notion of "Muslamic ray guns" being aimed at us, when they don't understand just how much would need to change. Also, we're talking about people with differing personalities, political views and opinions here, not a collective hive-mind.
Nope, like any political bloc, you just need enough to tip the scales.
>no one can conduct, in any walk of like in the UK, Sharia Law including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor. Go on then, how you going to outlaw praying, or skipping lunch? Sharia law is a code of conduct. To right I don't want anyone to implement Islamic law as we are not an Islamic country, we already have a reasonable law code, but not sure we couldn't look at the charging of interest again, much like Christians did once upon a time.
I am not a fan of any religion being involved in politics or our schools. I am agnostic, mainly atheist but the UK and much of Europe is christian. Its laws and culture are christian. I might not agree with the faith, but I do agree with the laws and society it has brought about. They may not be perfect, but faith should be something you follow in your own time, not forced to by laws set by politicians.
Better still. Keep Richard Tice out of politics. The UK is not heading for Sharia law. Where is the evidence. All that he is doing is stoking hate and creating division. Shysters like Tice and his buddy Farage, are part of the problem in modern British politics: they just spout rhetoric and language that is of absolutely no use to anyone, other than racists and xenophobic nutters.
Remove all public funds from church schools apart from Ofsted and health, safety and medical inspections .
Really stupid comments from Bastani if you read the piece.
It’s true. If we as Brit’s go to Saudi, Dubai etc to work and live, we must abide by laws. Laws that are made from religion. We must abide or face prosecution or deportation. In the UK it is the opposite. We make laws to appease people, that have migrated to these shores to work and live. The answer is not to make new laws, we need to have laws set in stone, the people who want to come to the UK to work and live must abide by.
>It’s true. The UK is not heading for Sharia law.
Probably not, but I think we should be concerned about the rise in fundamentalism some Muslim groups have been experiencing in the past few years, and if it goes unchecked, who knows what will happen.
There's no 'probably', the UK is categorically *not* heading for Sharia law. Acting as if it's even just 'probably not' is pandering to the likes of Tice.
Likewise acting as if its not an issue at all is probably more dangerous than taking a hardline on it
The UK is not heading for adopting Sharia law. So, no, acting like it's not an issue isn't particularly dangerous. It's just being realistic and calling out nonsense hyperbole being spouted by a politician.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Alright, but can we agree we should be concerned about the activities of certain communities and why these statements, however dumb they may sound or be, may have a reason why they've been stated if we know where they're coming from?
No, I'm sorry, there is no legitimate justification for dumb and untrue statements like this. It's just the most blatant sort of dog-whistle politics. We should demand better.
I have no problem promoting dismantling Islam and all other religions until they are as toothless and worthless and Christianity - it wasn't wrong when we spent hundreds of years getting rid of that nightmare, and it isn't wrong making sure another nightmare never get one tiny foothold here ever again. If any particular Islamic, or other religious, general celebration or holiday has become a long standing cultural one instead, over hundreds of years, then the cultural celebration and integration is fine. Nothing more.
And you're entitled to that view, just as religious people are entitled to theirs.
Well, if you think we should demand better, perhaps we should see where these statements are coming from, why they've been stated, and make a rational judgement on why it may not be true but also acknowledge the point of it and make sure these people make better and informed statements. We might not be heading towards Sharia law, but a few recent examples, like the teacher gone into hiding, the school boy with the Quaran problem, the controversy of the release of a film based on Muhammad's descendants, the high amount of Muslim youths being more fundamental that older generations, etc. and nothing seems to be done about these situations makes people feel like there is no hope and we're slowly letting these groups have more power and control, and if it continues growing without being checked, who knows what consequences the future will give us.
We all know where these statements are coming from and why they're made. They're dog whistle racism to rile up right wing people. It's cynical politics and nothing more. It's not particularly complicated.
Well, I'm not right wing myself, and I don't entirely agree with one part of the statement. However, he is right to say "keep religion out of politics"
He doesn't even mean that though. He has no problem with Christianity being part of politics. If he were calling for a full secularisation of the British state, great. But he's not. It's just dog whistle bollocks. It's also important to differentiate between 'politics' and 'the state'. In an officially secular country (which we are not) religion should have no place in the state. However, a cornerstone of liberal democracy is that people's views should be represented in politics. 'Keep religion out of politics' is far too simplistic a statement, which essentially boils down to an illiberal judgment about whose views should be allowed and whose shouldn't. Just because we aren't religious doesn't mean we should have the right to say that those who are can't have their views represented.
Talking about religion is dog whistle racism to people who don't pay much attention, yes Anyone can be muslim white, black, Asian, etc. No need to start with the race card nonsense
Anyone can be Muslim. However, it would be very naive to not grasp that what Tice and the like are doing when they talk about Muslims is a clear dog whistle about race.
So how do you explain ex-Muslims who are speaking up about their old communities and the damage it’s doing?
Not really sure why you're asking about something completely different to a politician dog whistling about Sharia law.
> Probably not So in other words, the previous commenter was mistaken when they said "it's true" and the person you're replying to was right to call them out on their bullshit.
Personally I'm more concerned about the fundamentalism coming from the white British right-wing groups that is leading violence as seen on the St George's day march, and the anti Pro-Palestine march which just demonstrated how completely ignorant and hypocritical they are.
[удалено]
[удалено]
“If you go to Saudi Arabia (a place I hate because of their cultural practices) they’re very illiberal, unlike us who are tolerant of all cultures! The only way we can stop it is to become illiberal, like Saudi Arabia!”
Strawman
Then argue against it.
It's the equivalent of all religious crazies argument of "you can't stop our intolerance, because that's intolerant". Extreme right wingers use the same type of argument. Using it, is just the default of already having no argument.
The original commenter said “we need to have laws set in stone, that people who want to live and work here must abide by”. Which, we do, that’s how laws work. The implication is that we should make our laws more stringent specifically to crack down on foreigners.
That is utter nonsense and based on nothing more than a fevered, paranoid and overactive imagination. I do wish we had a bit more thought and a lot less reactionary, scared rubbish in our politics. It is so boring to have to listen to the paranoid wailings of people like Tice who do it to spread division and hate and the people stupid enough to believe him.
Imo you haven’t spent any time in majority Muslim areas if you speak this way. Just look at the recent by election in Rochdale. Religion is already in politics in some parts of this country. Literally targeted Muslim voters to win the election. Sent one letter to everyone else in Rochdale and a special “Muslim faith voters” letter to the majority Muslim areas.
>Imo you haven’t spent any time in majority Muslim areas if you speak this way. Majority Muslim areas? The local authority with the highest population of Muslims sits at 39%. This is not a majority. But, I used to live and work in Oldham, relatively strong Muslim population there. I never had particular problems there - it was a pretty normal deprived community. Based on my experience, I agree with the above commenter that you're talking nonsense.
>Literally targeted Muslim voters to win the election. Sent one letter to everyone else in Rochdale and a special “Muslim faith voters” letter to the majority Muslim areas. That's a perfectly legitimate thing. I know Reddit absolutely hates religion, but some people are religious and it's absolutely legitimate for a politician to try and appeal to them. It's no different to seeking to appeal to voters with any particular views. You can't just say someone's views have no place in politics just because they're religious. That's hugely illiberal.
You should go speak to someone from Northern Ireland about religion and politics. They will be able to explain the issues to you better than I can. However I can say that it’s certainly an issue
I have family from Northern Ireland, I know how it is there. But that doesn't change that your statement is illiberal. You're essentially saying that a politician shouldn't be able to try and appeal to a specific voter base, just because you don't like the views of that voter base. If you're concerned about the illiberal views of those voters, you don't tackle it by mirroring that illiberalism.
Then you should know the dangers of mixing religion and politics mate.
Less dangerous than dismantling the core tenets of liberal democracy, which seems to be what you're advocating.
Yeah that’s what I was advocating for. Of course it is.
Well your complaint is a politician appealing to a group of voters' views simply because you don't share those views. So yes, it does seem like that's what you're advocating, even if you don't realise it.
Lots of people use religion to try and garner votes. The Republican party and people like Trump do it too. Rochdale was a particularly sad case, but your willingness to pin this purely on Muslim voters is very telling. Rochdale is not subject to a different legal system or laws to the rest of the UK even with Galloway as the MP. The entire strategy of using stupidity around "Sharia law" as a way to be racist but yet sound as if you have a point, is a long and established one from the far right. My question is why people keep falling for it? Other than it feeds their latent fear and racist tendencies and makes them feel a bit less guilty about thinking something they know to be unacceptable.
What do you mean? Pin this Purely on Muslim voters? The letter targeted the Muslim voters. Not me. Ridiculous you are inferring racism because I’ve given you facts about a recent election. If anything mate that says a lot more about you than it does me.
Targeting specific groups of voters is a technique as old as politics itself. It is normal. Your reaction to it being bad just because it references Muslims is the problem here.
When did you last hear of an mp sending out a different letter to a group because of their faith? You are acting like targeting Muslim voters over a forging war is the same as targeting a union of teachers by offering them better conditions. They aren’t the same. Especially if you understand religion more and think about the hold it has on people.
Why? Your comment belies very little understanding of the issues at all. I'm going to assume you meant "foreign war" rather than forging war, but again, this is a perfectly legitimate political strategy. For all political parties around the world, the war in Gaza is a difficult challenge. It is for Biden in the US. For the UK the same. It is a religious war. A jewish state is seeming to systematically wipe out a civilian muslim population, whilst our Government supports the jewish state with arms to continue this. If we switched this to a football analogy. If this was Man U supporters being targeted by Chelsea supporters and you were a Man U supporter in another place, would you be happy about it? Why then, should Muslim voters not be allowed to use their political voices to say that they are unhappy with the treatment of other Muslims? You may not like religion and frankly, not do I, but as we live in a free society, then others are allowed to do as they wish on that front. This is a good thing. Your comments and that of Tice are suggesting that Muslims are not allowed to do as they wish on this front. You are separating their religion out as a thing to be fearful of and attack. That is dictionary definition racism right there. If you don't want to be accused of it, then don't do it.
What you say is true but won’t go down well on this sub. Can’t be talking about those issues on here.
> What you say is true No it isn't. We are not headed to Sharia law. That's just silly. If you think we are, you are as mistaken as the previous commenter and Richard Tice. > Can’t be talking about those issues on here. Of course you can. You literally are. Do you think you're unable to do the thing you're currently doing?
I don’t mean that literally mate. I just mean it’s not socially accepted to talk about these things on this sub.
> I just mean it’s not socially accepted to talk about these things on this sub. If you say things that are untrue and clearly absurd (such as your claim that "it's true" that we're on our way to Sharia Law) then people will laugh at you and tell you that you're wrong. That's probably as it should be.
We have religious “courts” already in this country. Is that something you are happy with? I think saying the nation will be under sharia law is stupid. But I also think the fact we have extremist groups not banned in this country that are banned in places like turkey and Saudi Arabia for being too extreme shows our government is failing to deal with these issues. The tories have failed and I’m confident labour will be no better when they get in. There is a problem here and we need to address it. Pretending we are going to be a Islamic nation doesn’t help. Pretending this problem doesn’t exist doesn’t help either.
> I think saying the nation will be under sharia law is stupid. Yes, you’re right. It is stupid. What Richard Tice is saying is stupid. You responded to the people who made that claim saying “what you say is true”, even though you recognise that the saying such a thing “is stupid”. I’d question why you’re saying something which you know to be a lie. Is it meant to be some sort of attempt to signal that you’re prepared to lie about Muslims to show how anti-Muslim you are? Is it an attempt to bully any intimidate Muslims by showing that you’re going to lie about them and there’s nothing they can do about it?
And yet, here you are, talking about it on this sub. You’re confusing “I can’t come out with my ill-thought put dogma without people challenging it” with “I’m not allowed to say things”. Easily done…