'A generation of Muslims not able to go to university?' blog discussion

statistic

Nada666 wrote: »

Only half of a generation of Muslims are affected by this - the other half have always been banned from education.

Figgerty wrote: »

Why is it almost always the muslims that have problems with our law or culture. The other religions just go about their business without complaint and seem to have little problems living under our laws.

Let's replace the words muslims and repeat these sentences for some balance:

"Only half of a generation of Jews are affected by this - the other half have always been banned from education."

"Why is it almost always the Jews that have problems with our law or culture. The other religions just go about their business without complaint and seem to have little problems living under our laws"

Let's try some racialism here:

"Only half of a generation of Blacks are affected by this - the other half have always been banned from education."

"Why is it almost always the Blacks that have problems with our law or culture. The other religions just go about their business without complaint and seem to have little problems living under our laws"

Nazi Germany anyone?

jamesd

Figgerty wrote: »

If you live in NI and are denied an abortion you will have to accept that law or move elsewhere. That is what living under the laws of the land entails.

Perhaps you missed the point: that different law in Northern Ireland that overrides the general law of the land (abortion is legal) for those of specific religious beliefs. The same sort of thing can readily be done for university costs, except in the opposite direction: less restrictive rather than more restrictive and archaic.

While not generally relevant to this discussion, I'm not at all keen on specific religious groups getting the law of the land imposing those beliefs on the rest of the population. That's where excommunication and shunning belongs, not the law of the land.

Figgerty

jamesd wrote: »

Perhaps you missed the point: that different law in Northern Ireland that overrides the general law of the land (abortion is legal) for those of specific religious beliefs. The same sort of thing can readily be done for university costs, except in the opposite direction: less restrictive rather than more restrictive and archaic.

While not generally relevant to this discussion, I'm not at all keen on specific religious groups getting the law of the land imposing those beliefs on the rest of the population. That's where excommunication and shunning belongs, not the law of the land.

We are along way from student loans. Abortion is either legal or illegal in NI, I don't know as I have never lived there nor been interested in abortion. Either way you accept it, break the law or go to a country where the laws suit you.

How do those living by sharia law finance their houses and cars. They obviously borrow the money somehow and not without paying over and above the amount borrowed and taking inflation into account. The students need to discuss this dilemma with their clerics and reach a compromise or perhaps get the muslim rich men and women to provide loans under acceptable terms and conditions.

Trix3y

I would like to say that I feel it is pointless people using this site to comment should face prejudice from others when voicing their opinions, This country is still just about open to free speech,and threatening to report someone whose viewpoint you do not agree with is not respecting this freedom. As for the topic, the muslim community should I feel sort out this problem,not the government,they already have enough to do without adding another problem to their to do list.

Fire_Fox

Figgerty wrote: »

Many people of religion only go to Church/Chapel for births, marriages and deaths but they also pray at home. They would categorise themselves as Christian in a census. You do not have to go to Church to pray, a conversation with God can take place anywhere. A great number of younger people are reluctant to admit to praying as it is not fashionable to do so.

Again who is this 'we' and 'them' and 'other'?

The topic of this thread is the effect on practising Muslims, you then started whining about churches, now you want to invoke non practising Christians to support your prejudices? :rotfl:
"I have only recently found out that christians are forbidden from collecting together to practice their religion in some Muslim countries. No churches are allowed and those who want to practice their religion have to do so in private."

Plenty of Muslims pray away from the mosque, in fact IME (raised in East London, now in another heavily multicultural city) much of the five times a day praying takes place at home or private space at work. I've also never seen Christians flock to church the way British Muslims flock to mosque ... and that is largely the men and boys! Don't know a single Christian who has done a pilgrimage or fasting, tho I am sure they exist.
"Muslim sources claim the number of practicing Muslims is underestimated as many of them pray at home.[55]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...United_Kingdom


Why on earth would young Christians deny praying/ being practising in an anonymous survey??

"Not only has the number of UK adults calling themselves Christian dropped dramatically since the 2001 Census – our research suggests that it is now only 54% – even those who still think of themselves as Christian show very low levels of religious commitment:

• Only about a third of what we shall call 'Census-Christians' cited religious beliefs as the reason they had ticked the Christian box in the 2011 Census

• 37% of them have never or almost never prayed outside a church service

• Asked where they seek most guidance in questions of right and wrong, only 10% of Census-Christians said it was from religious teachings or beliefs

• Just a third (32%) believe Jesus was physically resurrected; half (49%) do not think of him as the Son of God ...

We suspected it. Recent Social Attitudes Surveys have implied it, simply because the attitudes of the population as a whole are so strongly secular. But suspecting it is not the same as evidence. Pro-religious lobbyists regularly make assumptions that the people shown as Christian in the Census support them and their agendas. We haven't made any assumptions at all. We identified people shown as Christian in the 2011 Census and asked them about their beliefs and attitudes.."
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/644941-rdfrs-uk-ipsos-mori-poll-1-how-religious-are-uk-christians

Fire_Fox

"When asked why they think of themselves as Christian, the research found that fewer than three in ten (28%) say one of the reasons is that they believe in the teachings of Christianity.

People are much more likely to consider themselves to be Christian because they were christened or baptised into the religion (72%) or because their parents were members of the religion (38%) than because of personal belief.

As many as half (50%) do not think of themselves as religious and less than a third (30%) claim to have strong religious beliefs.

Indeed, many Christian practices, including regular reading of the Bible and prayer outside church services, appear to be unsupported amongst respondents self-identifying as Christian:

• One in six (15%) admits to having never read the Bible outside a church service, with a further one in three (36%) not having done so in the previous three years;

• The majority (60%) have not read any part of the Bible, independently and from choice, for at least a year;

• Around two thirds (64%) were not able to identify Matthew as the first book of the New Testament, when given only four answers to choose from;

• Over a third (37%) have never or almost never prayed outside a church service, with a further 6% saying they pray independently and from choice less than once a year; and

• Only a quarter (26%) say they completely believe in the power of prayer, with one in five (21%) saying they either do not really believe in it or do not believe in it at all.

At the same time, many who self-identify as Christian hold beliefs that some churches would consider to be incompatible with traditional Christian teaching, such as astrology and reincarnation (27% in each case), ghosts (36%) and fate (64%)."
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/644941-rdfrs-uk-ipsos-mori-poll-1-how-religious-are-uk-christians

jamesd

Figgerty wrote: »

We are along way from student loans. Abortion is either legal or illegal in NI, I don't know as I have never lived there nor been interested in abortion. Either way you accept it, break the law or go to a country where the laws suit you.

Or they can do exactly what some religious groups in Northern Ireland have done and get the law of the land modified to accommodate their religious beliefs.

The point here is that there is ample precedent in this country for religious groups getting different law to accept their practices, and in the NI abortion case, even forcing others to follow those beliefs, regardless of their own.

Picking on just Muslims because someone happens not to share their beliefs isn't a logical position. They are as entitled to have living according to their faith made possible as those groups in Northern Ireland. But preferably without also forcing others to follow the beliefs.

ian_duncan_smith

Figgerty wrote: »

How do those living by sharia law finance their houses and cars. They obviously borrow the money somehow and not without paying over and above the amount borrowed and taking inflation into account.

I own the house I live in mortgage free, paid for in cash. The house my mum lives in is also mortgage free, paid for in cash. My brother prefers the fast life and has a decent car to maintain his flash image as a successful lawyer. He lives with my mum along with his wife and two kids. He makes pretend that he has a mortgage and sets that money aside. He then lives off the money that he would have left over if he had a mortgage. The "mortgage" proportion of his income builds up until he has enough to buy an investment (non-interest based) such as a house to rent out etc. that keeps his capital safe and generates a further income stream. All of this so that his kids will not need to borrow money to meet their needs. I personally own a 50% share in a freehold reversion on a life tenancy, the tenants are elderly, and by the time my kids are old enough to need their own place it will hopefully have reverted back to me, hence there is already provision for their future housing needs. On top this we will inherit my mums house. Between us we take care of my mum and we take care of our kids, who in turn will take care of us, and even if they don't I still won't need to borrow money and nor will they. Muslims who live according to Sharia Law take care of their elders, as opposed to creating an economic burden on the state by putting them in council funded homes, and nor do we feel the need to kick our kids out onto the street to fend for themselves and claim housing benefit. Hence what you consider to be "obvious" is infact a fallacy. Why not use this money to fund your education I hear you say? Not everyone has the ready cash, you take care of your parents with a view to inheriting their property to so that you won't need to borrow.

Trix3y wrote: »

The muslim community should I feel sort out this problem,not the government,they already have enough to do without adding another problem to their to do list.

I agree, but why go out of your way to create a situation that requires resolution? The UK and USA has a historical track record of using seemingly unrelated legislation to influence immigration trends. For example the laws around drug use were introduced to help control Chinese immigration. There was a high level of opium addiction amongst chinese workers who came to the west as cheap labour building the railways etc. The logic behind making opium based drugs illegal (alcohol is far more harmful to health) rather than tax it like alcohol was that when their supply of drugs was cut off they would leave for somewhere else where they could persue their habit. They resolved it internally as a community. The Jews did the same throughout history in the face of this tactic. Now Muslims are flavour of the month when it comes to scapegoat they really need to learn their lesson fast and stop turning to the host community for solutions to problems they have deliberately thrown up for them.

lazer

jamesd wrote: »

Or they can do exactly what some religious groups in Northern Ireland have done and get the law of the land modified to accommodate their religious beliefs.

The point here is that there is ample precedent in this country for religious groups getting different law to accept their practices, and in the NI abortion case, even forcing others to follow those beliefs, regardless of their own.

Picking on just Muslims because someone happens not to share their beliefs isn't a logical position. They are as entitled to have living according to their faith made possible as those groups in Northern Ireland. But preferably without also forcing others to follow the beliefs.

Regarding the NI abortion case, the law has not been modified to accommodate religious beliefs - abortion is not (except in exceptional circumstance) legal in NI, the law that made it legal in the rest of the UK was never in place in the NI - it is not applicable to NI.

If you are referring to the recent developments regarding the Marie Stopes clinic recently opened in Belfast and the call for the law to be amended so the the NHS is the only organisation which is allowed to carry out abortions - this is not a change in the law as such, the qualifying criteria for abortion will not change, given how strict the abortion law is here in NI, I think they should only be carried out by (or at least referred by) the NHS, this is to protect doctors and patients so that everyone is assured the law is upheld.

If abortion clinics were to open in NI, they should at least have to have a licence to perform an abortion and the licensing body would have to satisfied that the clinic were aware of and in full compliance with the law.

PS - Many people who are pro-life are not religious at all - morals, ethics and respecting life are not limited to religions.

In the case of the muslim students - I don't believe interest should be charged on any student loans, however I also do not think any plans for this should be changed to suit a religious belief. The muslim community can come up with their own solution to this problem.

Should the government revise every government backed plan to suit all the different religions?

meher

but then it is almost always monumentally stupid to prop up religion and god when arguing any blessed case - be it wearing a cross at work, wearing a kara to school or solving a dilemma on interest payable loans

may it would be much for effective to question the arbitrariness of rules and policies and the solutions would be a lot more fairer for all