howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
they would lose support if they do that alex. people don't like religion and politics intertwined.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
interesting comment howard
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i am totally in favour of a french style secular society keith, each to their own faith but not in schools, work places or politics.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Howard, sorry to interject on a UKIP thread but evidence appears to prove that faith schools produce better academic results. That does not mean that the children are all of the faith in faith schools.
Parents who know send their kids to faith schools because of results.
I don't know how you square that one??
How to start a revolution!!
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
how many non muslims attend islamic schools though?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
good point howard.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Now Howard, providing those schools have admission policies that are not exclusive to those faiths I don't see the argument.
It's called parental choice.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i don't have a problem with r/c and c of e schools brian as they are not that much apart and as far as i know don't go into brainwashing, usually no problem for parents and children not of the faith.
paul rightly refers to academic success in faith schools but there is the seperate issue of bringing children up in a mild form of apartheid caused by their parent's faith.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
understandable howard,but out of curiosaty i would like to see the numbers who do attend a muslim school who are not muslims,if you get my drift.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard, a Constitution is not actually politics at all.
The example that came up here of a candidate councillor preaching forced sterilisation has nothing to do with politics, but is contrary to the statutory rights of human beings, regardless of ethnic origin, religion or anything else.
There are concepts of Justice that no politics, no election, no referendum and no democracy, nor tyranny, should ever interfere with, such as the principle and right of a human being to be born, and cared for when in need, and to live within established human rights.
And the obligation of Society to ensure that these needs are seen to and put in place with decency.
I personally believe in Christian Love and Faith, hence this is the Faith to which such Constitution is subordinate.
Politics are something entirely different.
As a result, no forced sterilisation and no preaching euthanasia of people over a certain age would ever be legal, no matter how many people thought otherwise. Just imagine one reaches the age of 80 and is told: "you really ought to pass on now!"
As for the Christian Faith being taught in British schools, it is a requirement of our present Constitution and indeed is part of the Oath of Coronation, that the Christian Faith must be upheld.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
unfortunatly we see from the c of e and r/c they attempt to brainwash
and they supposed to believe in much the same but cant even get on
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,all religon is the same,they all pray/worship the same god under differant names.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
My point brian was that in reply to alexander christians also try to brainwash
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
yes kieth i saw your point,but i made another one on that.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Think my point made on the actual point made by alexander
but getting back to theoriginal post
my original prediction remains
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
humbug
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,thats bah humbug.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Well ex. UKIP'sGeoffrey Clark came second to Bryan Sweetland, Conservative candidate
Labour third with 100+ votes followed by LiDem 36
Seems they still voted for him rather have Labour & LibDem
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
A very low turn-out. And a number of people who voted by post phoning in to ask if they could revoke their vote.
Clearly these are people who had voted for the UKIP candidate.
Also, as half the votes cast were postal votes, which is exceedingly higher than the norm, we must assume that many people did not turn out to vote after the statements from the UKIP candidate.
In other words, had he not made these vile comments, UKIP would have won the election.
But it is in UKIP's credit to have disowned this candidate.
