tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6093114275469628673.post4247050946445237977..comments2023-06-02T17:22:43.445+01:00Comments on Luna17: David Starkey, immigration and the 'new atheism'luna17http://www.blogger.com/profile/03754650933188634442noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6093114275469628673.post-46891529916433682022011-08-19T16:41:38.781+01:002011-08-19T16:41:38.781+01:00The number of foreign-born UK residents who have a...The number of foreign-born UK residents who have a religious affiliation is not the same as the number of foreign-born UK residents who have reactionary views like supporting honour killings, exorcisms or denying medical treatment. The point is that Sanderson conflates the two categories, which is not only plain wrong but exaggerates the figures for those who hold such views. <br /><br />It also treats immigrants as synonymous with such attitudes, failing to recognise that a) some immigrants won't hold those views, and b)some non-immigrants WILL hold such views. Immigration is thus regarded as a problem precisely because it supposedly brings backward ideas into our society, which would presuambly otherwise be unaffected by such 'alien' ideas. <br /><br />Not only is this giving a 'liberal' veneer to racist and right-wing ideology, it treats attitudes that derive from a complex mix of political, idological, cultural and religious factors as purely about religion (but of course with a racialised, selective view of religion). <br /><br />The claim that immigration 'will potentially challenge the trend of secularisation' is wrong, as it assumes that having more religiously observant people undermines a secular society. It doesn't. A secular society isn't defined by what proportion of the population practises religion or has a religious faith. What might be accurate is to say it undermines a trend towards the population being atheist or agnostic or simply not religiously observant. But that's not the same as secular.Alex Snowdonhttp://luna17activist.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6093114275469628673.post-19293564498739571382011-08-19T16:20:33.605+01:002011-08-19T16:20:33.605+01:00"How curious, too, that no source is given fo..."How curious, too, that no source is given for that figure of 4.5 million. It's almost like Sanderson made it up, as it certainly has no relation to the number of socially conservative immigrants who practise religion."<br /><br />It seems to come from the IPPR report on faith in Britain:<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6799755/Study-reveals-impact-of-immigration-on-UK-faiths.html<br /><br />According to that article:<br /> <br />"According to the IPPR's "faith map" of the immigrant population, around 4.5 million of the UK's foreign-born residents claim to have a religious affiliation. Of these, around a quarter are Muslims while more than half are Christian, with Polish Catholics and African Pentecostals among the fastest-growing groups."<br /><br />and<br /><br />"The report suggests that the arrival of large numbers of immigrants will potentially challenge the trend of secularisation in the UK as they tend to be more religiously observant."<br /><br />and <br /><br />"In particular, it points to immigrants holding much more conservative views on the role of women and homosexual clergy in Christian churches."<br /><br />So it looks like Sanderson was summarising the IPPR.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6093114275469628673.post-15932849147142819632011-08-16T21:28:44.641+01:002011-08-16T21:28:44.641+01:00A very poorly worded piece from Sanderson and I ag...A very poorly worded piece from Sanderson and I agree the resemblence to Powell's rhetoric is not ill-founded. If you were to say Sanderson misuses secularism to draw an 'us and them' narrative, I'd agree with you, but I lost interest in your argument when you said the NSS 'overplay the influence of religion on society and politics in general'. I'm sorry, but where does this come from? Religion (the three big monotheisms anyway) still enjoys considerable power in matters of censorship (Jerry Springer the Opera, the Muhammad cartoons, Geert Wilders getting banned from the UK) and public policy (compulsory "independent advice" for women considering an abortion), churches and religious organisations still enjoy automatic charity status even if they run their 'charities' at a profit and non-religious taxpayers pick up the bill for faith schools. Besides, is it mere co-incidence that homophobic hate crimes have gone up in East London since the steady rise in influence of the East London Mosque?<br /><br />Both atheists and the left (I fit both categories) would be doing themselves a faviour by not making blanket statements either way and focus their attacks on officialdom, not on factionalism and wasting time inventing enemies.Cholice Ketteridgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6093114275469628673.post-48122449215311056202011-08-16T16:12:27.433+01:002011-08-16T16:12:27.433+01:00All immigrants, it seems, are indiscriminately bra...<i>All immigrants, it seems, are indiscriminately branded as bringing evil practices with them.</i><br />Er, no they're not. There may be something in your attack on the NSS, and certainly the rest of the paragraph before the bit you quote doesn't make pretty reading, but when specific national groups and associated denominations are mentioned, the description "indiscriminate" is fairly inappropriate.<br />I think your source has a bit of form for not always attacking the NSS in a way that really stands up.<br />As for the comment, women's rights organisations tend to invariably side with the employers right to prevent pornography being displayed: does that make them shit on workers'rights? <br />[Maybe you think the analogy is unreasonable, fair enough]skidmarxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6093114275469628673.post-81446212194937697382011-08-15T13:35:16.164+01:002011-08-15T13:35:16.164+01:00This article is made of win. I agree with every wo...This article is made of win. I agree with every word. I will stick an updat my article to tell those reading it to come over here. <br /><br />The NSS are also shit on workers rights. When it comes a worker who wants to wear or display anything religious, they invariably side with the employers right to enforce petty controls on their workforce. Because obviously the great injustice of this age derives not from relations getting special treatment, but from religious people getting "special treatment".<br /><br />All in all, they're a bunch of smug middle class dickheadsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com