I'd considering posting this a week or 2 back but RoadKing's recent thread prompted me to start it now. I'm not expecting a lot of agreement with me but hey ho.

I don't agree with the rise of Islam in the UK.

What brought it close to home was that in the next town from me, planning permission has been approved to build a new Islamic temple with Kent's first minaret.

I cannot fathom how this got approved. I bring back the argument that if you tried to build a Christian/Hindu/Buddhist temple in an Islamic country it wouldn't be allowed (and they might even behead you for suggesting such a thing) yet the UK's desire to be tolerant of others seems to have gone way too far and is not just over-tolerant but anally tolerant, to such a degree that it's greatly abused.

How/why is this being allowed? When immigrants came to the UK following World War 2 for instance, they bent over backwards to integrate with our culture, so where has it gone wrong?

Is this a sign of things to come? Belgistan

You could have used those 2-3 weeks to check some of your facts before posting.

There are churches and synagogues in plenty of the worlds Muslim countries along with large Christian and Jewish populations.

The only place in the world where the construction of churches is expressly forbidden by a ruling Islamic state is Saudia Arabia, as it hosts the holiest sites in the Islamic faith.

Wasn't this type of response a key point of Roadking's thread?

Why?

This is not only factually incorrect, it is worrying that you think that Muslim people would behead someone for making a suggestion. Please take the time to visit a mosque and talk to some normal Muslims; the ones that make up the overwhelming majority in this country and worldwide. You might even find you like some of them and are able to understand that building a mosque does not equate to an IS takeover in Kent.

I'm not sure that integrating with "our" culture included leaving their faith behind.

I think as usual, Islam is being used incorrectly to mean fundamentalist/extremist. There should be no need to fear a mosque or the people in it. As for planning permission, it will have been granted on the basis of the current planning guidelines. It will have nothing to do with a desire to be over tolerant.

Should we expect anyone of a religion other than Christianity to renounce their religion before coming to the UK? Isn't that exactly what IS are now doing in the middle east? The whole point is, the UK is a tolerant society and I am glad it is.

I don't necessarily think we have got the balance 100% right though.

Completely agree Jim. The only thing that is slightly worrying me about the recent news is the apparent lack of support we are getting from non-radicalised Muslims. Maybe I've just missed it in the news.

Has anyone heard anything from our beloved 'Envoy to the Middle East Quartet' Tony Blair too? Maybe he's on holiday.

Glad we are a tolerant state and i have no issue's with law abiding citizen's of the UK that want to integrate also incorparting Muslims and many other Faiths religions colours and creeds but its the anti british anti soldiers anti establishments and anti what ever religion you like, that i detest! and these are the problem people! regardless of who they are

We should not tolerate the extremist views of anybody especially anyone who wants to put other peoples lives at risk!

If these extremist groups hate The UK/Europe so much why are they here why not go to a country of their choosing so that everybody can be happy!

Never quite understood why people bite the hand that feeds them!

Is this the "normal" Muslims who gathered c200k people to march through our major cities in protest at what's happening in Palestine, yet approximately c200k people less gathering to protest what's happening in Syria and Iraq?

I have no doubt many are appalled, but where's the action to mirror what they think of Israel's treatment of Muslims in Palestine?

I should add that i'm strongly anti-religion and Islam is the latest and most strident version of a hateful system of control, imo.

Haha also pretty quickly undermined my "I only come here to talk Coupes" point... oh well

JC have you fogotten about the sudanese teddy, and the 10k people who wanted that poor teacher put to death after imams denouced the naming?

That was only in 2007.

10e3 out of a world-wide congregation of perhaps 1.5e9 is hardly a huge majority.

You know my views on religion: a misanthropic system of keeping a few people in charge without having to work by fear and terror of what will happen after you die, from which children under the age of eighteen should be protected in the same way they are from other perversions.

A curse on all their houses.

BUT...

I do not make the category mistake of assuming that all muslims/christians/jews/whatevers should be judged by the behaviour of a minority. It strikes me as extremely likely that most religious people are religious by habit (as in, the English don't go to church, but the church they don't go to is CofE) and have no great belief either way.

The most cogent comment I have EVER read on the subject of religion reminds us that, in the years/months/weeks/days/hours/minutes/seconds prior to your conception, you didn't exist. You don't recall those times because there weren't any, for you as an entity. The exact same will happen after you die. You won't exist and nothing, NOTHING, will happen to you, or because of you, any more.

Unfortunately, it is what the various heads of whichever fantasy the religious choose to follow during their conscious, living days prescribe that causes so much of the tribulation, strife and division which exists in everyday life.

I'd love to.see the process that turns a normal, albeit religious, man into a terrorist who is prepared to kill. What drives them, why do they believe, what is the reward?
Does it have to be a special type of.person, or.what's the motivation? Some by power and greed and others by the belief they are doing good?

Id like to know, but they are tough questions to get answered.

It's not restricted to Islam, of course:

"Kill them all, for the Lord knoweth them that are his" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric

It's not even a religious thing - though religion seems to cast some cloak of authenticity over it. Consider the actions of Stalin, or of Pol Pot, or Mao Tse Tung, or Tchengiz Khan, or...[1] Even Hitler's pogrom was not religious other than that the religion of one group was used as an identifier (he was similarly inclined towards homosexuals, the mentally unfit, physically disabled, romany...)

There is something about some people that makes them full-blown psychopaths; unable to consider that anyone else has any feeling, any ideas and plans and dreams of their own. Fortunately (!) these days most of them prefer to climb the corporate ladder, where they can do a *little* less damage.


[1]absence from this list does not imply any approval by the author.

Well Stalin, Hitler, Poll Pot, to name but a few, managed to get people to do some truly terrible things. Back then they were not called terrorists, just leaders.

Most of this horror stems from one cult or another taking an organised religion or political stance to the extreme. The right can create a perfect storm.

It's been going on since man could walk and will continue till we can't.

Hmm, a slant on my thoughts, it's the power of the leader and the human pack / group / tribe mentality that allows the manipulation and power to corrupt.

It will go on forever, as long as there is a wealth to achieve be it money, land or power. It's human nature after all.

Was it Muslim men behind the large-scale and sickening child abuse scandal that has been going on in Rotherham and other Asian dense cities?

Hooray, another feather in the cap for wonderful multi-culturalism!

When behaviour like that is clearly and expressly un-Islamic, it doesn't take a lot of thought to realise that the religion or otherwise of those involved is not pertinent. More relevant is their ability and willingness to prey on vulnerable girls. The fact that they are from communities where they are able to hide their behaviour seemingly more easily is much more due to a lack of integration (not necessarily of their own doing) than their religious views.
Similarly, there is evidence to suggest that many young jihadists are often barely literate in Islam and are far more likely to be motivated by the excitement and feeling of status it gives them among their equally-uninformed peers.

Is it any different to the 70's stars of operation yewtree fame?

I understand what you are saying, it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. I think that ethnicity of the perpetrators / predators / sick f's comes in when they only pray on little white girls, I guess it's a power trip.

I think it's naive to think these crimes are perpetrated as much by non-asians as it is asians. There have been many other gangs/groups of predominantly asian men doing this around the country, even in this smallish town of Burton on Trent. There are cases where white people have done it and are involved but the overwhelming majority are asian and generally pakistani.

Today i've listened to a number of pakistani people on radio 5 kive who have lifted the lid on their culture and they all said this is widespread although, surprisingly to me, it seems they do the same to some vulnerable asian girls too. It's apparently quite widespread in pakistan and is deeply ingrained in their pysche.

Personally i couldn't care less which race/religion is responsible, i just wish the organisations we pay to protect us and our kids weren't so hung up about offending minorities or simpering apologists and took the actions they are paid to take. Remember, this is almost certainly happening in towns and cities as we discuss this, Rotherham's 1400 girls being the latest - which they're saying is a conservative estimate.......

Of course, people have denied all sorts of atrocities throughout the ages because the truth is too unplatable and no doubt they'll want to turn away from this issue too

There are so many comments to add to that proccy but I fear I would then get banned. Glad I'd not listened to the radio 5 today...

Start with some logic - perhaps *they* are preying on young white girls because they're over-represented in the children's homes? I don't know - but I wouldn't ascribe a racial behaviour on the part of the perpetrators without a lot more information. I would also expect that they prey on girls from other backgrounds as and when they can find them.

More worrying is that this was known about by people who were supposed to be stopping it, and it was actively hidden (listen to the interview on this evening's PM) and that the people who failed to do the job at the time are now even more senior.

And people - please try to remember: there is a difference between 'some people of a particular racial/country/religious background do this' and 'all people of that group do this'.

Whats PM?

There are alot of pakistani men manipulating vunlerable girls - fact.
There are alot of eastern European men sex trafficking - fact.
There are many many other lines like this, where a majority of a crime is committed by persons from a specific background. Note I said background, nothing else.

Men of pakistani orgin have admitted its rife in Pakistan and would appear its almost cultural. Don't think your argument stands this time barnacle.

You must be applying a very specific criteria.

I think if we did away with religion full stop the world would be a much nicer place, then we could find other reasons to be crappy to each other

PM is a news and comment programme on Radio 4, 5pm weekdays.

What do you call 'a lot'? A few dozen from a population of millions is too many, but it's not 'a lot'.

And again, 'rife' is hardly a conclusive measure. Say perhaps that in certain cultures *men who already have the proclivity* are able more easily to perform these acts?

While this may be a culture problem in the perpetrators' country of origin (or family country of origin) it is not a culture problem in the UK, as witness the fact of the outcry about it.

The issue, daft as it sounds, is not with the perpetrators; they're a side line who need punishing. It's with the people who were paid to look after the safety of the kids who were abused: they need identifying and removing from similar positions. And they need some people in who are not career climbers; who care about the kids not their jobs.

Well, the issue is with both parties. And in this particular case the ethnicity of the perpetrators happens to be from one part of the world but makes it no worse than say some of our more local and caucasian church officials who have been carrying out (and allegedly condoning) similar atrocities.

Yes, I didn't express myself well.

1 - look after the kids affected, past and present
2 - find and charge the perpetrators
3 - find the people who have failed in their duties and deal accordingly
4 - worry about the ethnic breakdown if it turns out to be significant.

I can accept that view - a lot is a reasonable amount more per capita of population. I think saying "just a few dozen" when in just one town 1,400 +n victims are alleged you are playing down the damage and also the vast reaches of the problem.

I didn't listen to Radio 4 but I did pick up the 10 o'clock news (bbc) - now I was a little disheartened and annoyed. Firstly that so many people could claim that the racism card holds enough power to prevent this kind of abuse being prevented and then they wheeled out a member of the "Muslim" community. The entire report around this incident had focused on the country of origin of these men, not their (potential) religious beliefs or background. The man that was brought out instantly called them Muslim men.

That to me tarred all Muslim men with the same brush - because Catholic priests have been reported to like little boys does that mean all Catholics are the same? There are many examples of a religion and a foul act that could be repeat here.....