Assuming Britain actually is a secular country- can it remain so?

[danot]

But it isn't the case though, if it were there would be far more than the 1000 polygamous marriages in the UK that the DWP refer to.

How recent is your source of information? My source is a couple years old and claims there are 2000 polygamous marriages in the UK. By the way, I'm still looking for it.

[danot]

LOL, you really do have learning difficulties don't you danot?

Why do you say that?

[boyfriday]

But my remark was relevant to the claim Halibut was making at the time. Halibut was responding to post of mine in which I claimed that the specific muslim families that I referred to as having around eight kids on average, he said that of the muslim families that he has uncounted (which is in the low hundreds) none have had more than four or five kids. To which I replied- "how many wives were there in those marriages"?

 

It's a reasonable question to ask BF.

It is a reasonable question to ask if you believe polygamy enhances the birthrate, but I think we've covered the reasons why it doesn't ad nauseum.

 

But that law cannot prevent a muslim man from exercising his right to having more than one wife under Islamic law.

..and as has already been discussed a religious marriage conducted in the UK is not legally recognised unless it's registered and if so only one such arrangement is allowed. Married men, domiciled in the UK cannot go abroad to marry someone in a religious ceremony and bring them back to the UK because they would be committing bigamy.

which establishes what?.. that I must be wrong because Halibut doesn't know of any?

It establishes that no one so far in this discussion has ever encountered a polygamous Muslim marriage, Halibut has experience of dealing with Muslim families so his observations are slightly more credible than your speculations or indeed mine.

I believe that the vast majority of muslim children raised according to Islamic law will feel obliged to marry a muslim and raise their own children in the same manner.

You're perfectly entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, but that doesn't ground your belief in fact unless you have evidence to support it. I strongly believe I'm going to win Euromillions on Friday, but sadly experience has taught me the likelihood is otherwise.

 

I also believe that the birthrate of muslims that originate from Africa and the middle east is generally higher that that of muslims originating from different regions, and higher than that of parents with alternative faiths, or no faith.

..and again if this is true, how exactly does it relate to the point you raise in your OP, without any examination of how many people this involves.

 

I gave an example earlier of a Muslim man (the athlete Mo Farah), who came here from Somalia and married a British girl and is step father to her daughter. He has no biological children himself. He is just as likely to inspire the British youths born of immigrants from the areas you speak of.

[boyfriday]

Why do you say that?

 

..because you keep ignoring the fact that a man cannot leave the UK to marry someone from abroad and bring them back to the UK as their wife.

[danot]

It's all pure speculation isn't it?

 

So far you haven't stated how many immigrants originate from these regions, or what their birthrate is, nor do you know what level of immigration from those regions will be in future years or how many will continue to adhere to Islam as the years pass.

 

Despite the claim in your OP that it isn't about bashing Islam, the serious issue raised in your OP is becoming less and less credible the more you contribute to it!

It isn't about Islam bashing, it's merely a debate about the likelihood of Islam becoming the major religion due to the increase of muslims in the UK resulting from higher birthrates, immigration and arranged marriages, polygamous or monogamous. Like I said, I consider Islam to be the fastest growing of all religions, with an steady increase of 33% every generation I don't see how you can disagree.

[boyfriday]

How recent is your source of information? My source is a couple years old and claims there are 2000 polygamous marriages in the UK. By the way, I'm still looking for it.

 

It was in the article that someone linked to earlier, it dates back to 2008

 

"A DWP spokesman said: 'There are fewer than 1,000 polygamous marriages in the UK and only a small percentage of these are claiming social security benefit."

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512043/Muslim-husbands-wife-extra-benefits-ministers-recognise-polygamy.html#ixzz1XAXXQiMq

 

But even if it is 2000 as you suggest, not all of the women will be of child bearing age and the numbers involved will hardly create enough new Muslims to challenge the fear expressed in your OP.

[sharrowman]

Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and satanists alike might realistically be expected to bend more frequently to the cultural draw of the current zeitgeist as represented so powerfully in every fraction of a second in every conceivable media than to the rather dry and serious gravity of the preacher visited at best once or twice daily.

 

Fears of a religious state in the future are, in my opinion, ungrounded.

[danot]

More speculation eh danot?

 

I heard that the Blades Business Crew are quite vociferous, they're all men full of testosterone and spermatozoa. If they defile innocent Hillsborough virgins, would all footie fans eventually be forced to support Sheffield United (not such a bad thing in my opinion) and call their children Red or Redina?

 

It's only round the corner I tell thee!

What are you insinuating BF?.. What are you comparing the thugs in you analogy to?

[mj.scuba]

To return to the OP, (now we've got the usual bleating about halal out of the way) it strikes me that the country is likely to become more, rather than less secular.

 

Funnily enough the National Secular Society are bleating about it too.

 

http://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/religious-slaughter-campaign-briefing.pdf

 

An argument often put forward by religious groups against labelling of the products of religious slaughter is that this proposal would be discriminatory and would cause prejudice. However, to uphold their objection is to discriminate against the majority of consumers, denying them any right of choice and deliberately misleading them about the source of their meat. We believe such concerns are not sufficient to deny consumers more accurate information.

 

Another reason advanced against labelling is the potential loss of income to the halal/kosher industry, making it uneconomic. This reason implicitly accepts two powerful arguments for labelling: that a material proportion of those buying meat that is not pre-stunned would not do so if they knew its source and that the quantities involved are substantial. It glosses over two further — understandably unstated — ethically dubious underlying assumptions, that:

 

1. It is acceptable to mislead the public in this way, and the legislative process should be complicit in this deceit.

2. The necessity to subsidise the religious slaughter industry is more important than informing customers that meat they buy has been slaughtered in a way that they would not like and may consider unnecessarily cruel.

 

The debate should, however, consider the impact on consumers in this regard, a significant number of whom would be alarmed to find that simply not buying or eating labelled halal and kosher meat does not mean that they have avoided it.

 

As long as religious groups retain the privilege of an exemption from legislation aimed at ensuring animals do not suffer "any avoidable distress or pain", we maintain it is only fair that consumers have the right to information that enables them to make an informed choice to avoid such products. We believe that the proposed requirement for non pre-stunned meat to be labelled fits with the current trend to inform consumers about the content and provenance of the food they buy.

[Conrod]

It isn't about Islam bashing, it's merely a debate about the likelihood of Islam becoming the major religion due to the increase of muslims in the UK resulting from higher birthrates, immigration and arranged marriages, polygamous or monogamous. Like I said, I consider Islam to be the fastest growing of all religions, with an steady increase of 33% every generation I don't see how you can disagree.

There are very worrying figures (I really can't be arsed to Google them if anybody asks but they're been in the broadsheets) comparing the current adult ethnic minority demographic to that of kids at secondary school age and primary school age which support the kind of figure you quote here.

 

Immigration in sensible measure brings in new ideas, arts and adds richness and knowledge to any culture. Immigration at the levels we have experienced, when coupled with the high birth rates of the immigrant communities, strangles existing established culture and creates huge gulfs between incompatible sections of society.