Theoretically Debatable

SunderlandAFC wrote:

British values do NOT represent Britain at all. Britain's modern "culture" does not represent Britain at all. Everyone "fits in" into Britain's modern multicultural society, but that's why it's failing, and soon, it won't be a thing. America has a great multicultural society, though not perfect, same with Canada, but Britain has failed miserbly. Wether you like it or not, Christain or muslim, Citizen or immigrant, the government treats muslims and immigrants superior to native Brits. And the rape percentages are through the roof, and huge cultural tensions, especially in places like Sunderland, Bradford, Rotherham, Southampton, Birmingham, Leicster and Manchester. It just doesn't work. You bring all the worlds problems into 1 place. Imagine an Israeli and a Palestinian living next door. Imagine an Indian and a Pakistani living next door. Imagine a Russian and a Ukranian living next door. We've already seen examples of this like during the Gaza war, we saw cities split into 1 half 🇵🇸 1 half 🇮🇱, during India Pakistan tensions, we saw cities split into 1 half 🇮🇳 1 half 🇵🇰. At the ned of all it, near to non 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿Northern🇮🇪 flags. That is ethnic cleansing of native British people. That's why I am going to vote for either Tories, Reform or Restore Britian in 2029. I want muslims in Britain. I like muslims. I like Jews. But when Brits get treated worse than immigrants, that's a problem. I want a society which has not just 1 race, not everyone white, but at the same time not everyone muslim. I feel a right wing governemnt wont deport every single immigrant, but have enough to make it a good multicultural society, while Brits get treated well in their own country. While Muslims and Jews face less discrimination, living better lives, without becoming the majority. It makes it better for everyone.

I will reply to this rhetoric later

La Xingan Sports Association wrote:

i don't really understand how Discord itself would draw in members. Perhaps another platform but I don't know much of any.

Dw about it

Extraloria wrote:

Click to show...

Firstly, I think you’re conflating believing in Islamic rulings with wanting to impose them on British society. Nobody is arguing that Muslims should be able to take the law into their own hands and punish people. Sharia rulings, particularly those concerning homosexuality and hudud punishments, are nuanced topics that I’m happy to discuss with you separately if you’d like. However, believing in these rulings doesn’t automatically mean advocating for their enforcement in Britain. I can disagree with someone’s beliefs or actions whilst respecting their rights and living alongside them peacefully. That’s freedom of thought and religion in practice. I don’t have to abandon my Islamic values to be British.

Regarding obedience to authority, I never claimed that Islam requires Muslims to accept every societal principle without question. Islam teaches us to respect the laws of the country we live in, fulfil our obligations and respect others’ rights, within the limits of our religious obligations. My point is that I can follow the laws of Britain and respect people’s freedoms without compromising my faith. My obligations to Allah come first, but that doesn’t mean I expect everyone else to follow Islam.

As for the five British Values, I agree that they aren’t unique to Britain, but I don’t see why that makes them meaningless. They’re a framework promoted in British schools and public life. If you believe they don’t adequately represent British identity, what would you suggest instead? British culture encompasses far more than five principles, but these provide a common framework for people from different backgrounds. You also argue that they’re arbitrary because a government established them, but surely a government has a role in defining the civic principles it promotes. That doesn’t make those principles immune to criticism, and it certainly doesn’t mean every government action reflects them. In fact, these values provide a standard against which politicians can be held accountable.

You mention Christianity’s influence on British history, which is undeniable, but religious freedom and tolerance haven’t consistently been upheld throughout that history. Britain has experienced considerable social and political change, so presenting its current values as the consistent product of thousands of years of tradition isn’t entirely accurate.

Your argument about ancestry also conflates ethnicity with nationality. I’m ethnically Pakistani, but I’m British by nationality, having been born and raised here. My upbringing and experiences are part of my British heritage too. British identity isn’t restricted to Anglo-Saxon or Celtic ancestry, and British citizenship certainly isn’t conditional on it. What about people of Welsh or Cornish backgrounds? Why should someone’s ancestry determine whether they belong to the country they’ve grown up in?

You also dismiss British Values because you believe the government that introduced them was repugnant to the nation’s interests. That’s your opinion of that government, but it doesn’t establish that the values themselves are wrong. You can disagree with the government that formalised a principle whilst still agreeing with the principle itself. That’s the whole point of democracy in Britain. The government is elected to represent the people, and these values are the framework it has chosen to promote. If you disagree with them or believe the government doesn’t represent the nation’s interests, then you’re essentially criticising the democratic system through which these decisions are made.

Finally, describing Islam as an antithesis to British life because of its rulings on homosexuality, child marriage and polygamy overlooks the nuance of Islamic jurisprudence. I recognise that some traditional Islamic rulings conflict with contemporary British laws or social attitudes, but that doesn’t automatically make Muslims incapable of integrating into British society. Honour killings, for example, aren’t justified simply by attaching an Islamic label to them. We need to distinguish between religious teachings, scholarly interpretations, cultural practices and individual behaviour. Likewise, believing that something is prohibited by Islam doesn’t automatically mean advocating hostility or mistreatment towards those who do it.

I also don’t understand why you treat contemporary Western morality as the ultimate standard against which every religion must be judged. British social attitudes have changed throughout history, so why should the current prevailing attitudes automatically determine what is morally right? As a Muslim, I believe that Allah’s guidance takes precedence over human opinions where they conflict. That doesn’t mean I cannot respect the law, fulfil my responsibilities as a citizen or treat people who disagree with me fairly.

Ultimately, Islam is a religion and Britain is a nation. I can be a practising Muslim and a British citizen without treating my religion as subordinate to every prevailing cultural attitude. You don’t have to agree with my beliefs, but disagreement alone doesn’t make peaceful coexistence impossible.

Your distinction between believing in Islamic rulings and advocating their legal enforcement is conceptually valid, however, it does not address the underlying normative question which is that if these beliefs have undertones or subsections of proponents that advocate for morally incompatible beliefs can remain cohesive members of our society without causing social division amongst other cultural, religious or ethnic groups. The absence of an intention to legislate a religious doctrine or view does not establish that the doctrine is compatible with liberal Western values. Freedom of religion entails the right to hold religious beliefs; it does not entail that those beliefs can be regarded as morally justified.

As I mentioned in my previous response, Islam teaches that respecting laws is conditional. Islamic sources do not establish an unconditional duty of obedience to a secular authority. They establish a qualified duty towards divine authority and obedience towards Allah. The laws of Britain are a combination of common law, statute law, constitutional principles and historically influential sources such as Roman law and religious traditions, without these, there would be no foundation for the laws upon which Britain's judicial system relies.

The British values are a vague collection of political liberal principles that do not represent Britain's national identity and historical development as a whole. The requirements to be part of a nation is to be tied to it through blood; and no political value can categorise one's national identity, as they are explicitly tied to an ancestral right to the land one inhabits. I would propose a system where A. you need to have an ancestral tie to the nation B. one needs to culturally preserve elements C.ethnic and racial solidarity D. National sovereignty where supranational organisations such as the WHO, UN, WTO and the EU are eliminated from influence. These are principles which represent the overall significance of British heritage and culture, rather than a list of arbitrary political values which can be held at any moment by anyone.

Religious freedom hasn't been upheld in most Western countries until the Industrial Revolution where the Empire facilitated people to intermix and ideas to collaborate with each other at a rapid fashion. Christianity is the cornerstone of that idea. Traditions, customs and a shared culture have allowed that political change to happen, providing the historical continuity and collective identity upon which Britain's institutions have developed. Political institutions do not emerge in a cultural vacuum; they are shaped by the inherited values, social conventions and the historical experiences of the people that they govern.

My argument does not at all conflate ethnicity with nationality, since the origins of nationality can be traced back to the emergence of the historical formation of communities bound by shared ancestry, traditions, customs, language and collective memory. However, citizenship may establish a person's formal membership of a political jurisdiction, but it does not erase the distinction between legal status and ethnic heritage. I am ethnically Somali, I belong to a tribe, speak three languages (English, Somali and Arabic) and share customs with my countrymen that I do not share with people in the West or anywhere outside of Somalia. That same criteria (language, ethnicity, culture) should be applied to everyone in Britain as a way of discerning their loyalties. Also, both Welsh and Cornish people are Celtic, everyone knows that.

So-called British values were imposed onto the native British people so they could be distinguished from ethnic people, where they would be forced to follow a set of arbitrary values to merely believe that other ethnic groups can share the same status as they do in their nation state. Essentially, at one point, every single country in the world was an ethno-state. White people are the only group of people that are forced by globalist organisations such as the EU and UN to accept an unfettered amount of both legal and illegal immigrants to the point their own native people fail to find a school place for their children, hospital beds for their elderly, jobs for the young, university places for the students. Overall, this arbitrary definition of what it means to be British, which was very well known since the start of the 18th century with the Acts of the Union in 1707, causes communities to be torn between their ethnic identity and so-called paper nationality.

For your argument which posits that my argument overlooks the nuance of Islamic jurisprudence, my rebuttal would be something along the lines of: although Islamic jurisprudence encompasses considerable diversity and, the existence of the rulings themselves does not eliminate the tensions between traditional rulings, that is to say, the majority of Islamic rulings and fiqh, and liberal democratic principles. Islamic rulings state that, for example, on polygamy, a man can have up to four wives, which is antithetical to liberal and moral legal principles.

More importantly, I never claimed that Western morality is infallible. I believe that secular laws, regardless of the prevailing religious tradition in a nation or continent, should take precedence over religious rulings which have no foundation but scriptural rulings that do not fit with the modern perception of how a society should be governed. Sharia law can conflict with the manner in which you follow British laws and regulations, as they rely on different principles, precedents and foundations. You can have your own private beliefs, however, the majority of what Islam proposes is incompatible with British tradition or customs as they have evolved through centuries of gradual, incremental change.

“what’s a spoiler?”

Alstratzkon wrote:

“what’s a spoiler?”

Lmao

This is not for me bye

It was fun

June 2024-October 16th 2026

Dupplessist Quebec wrote:

June 2024-October 16th 2026

Oh damn ok

Bye friend.

Dupplessist Quebec wrote:

June 2024-October 16th 2026

Awww, goodbye!

Made it so that you guys could talk on the NS ARGs region, idk why the global default doesn't allow other regions to talk on the rmb with regions they have embassies with, lol