Religious trends and our religious future [UK]

From The Church of England Newspaper:
If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this…

At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local. A Muslim Home Office adviser, for example, was responsible for Baroness Scotland’s aborting of the legislation against honour killings, arguing that informal methods would be better. In the police we hear of girls under police protection having the addresses of their safe houses disclosed to their parents by Muslim officers who think they are doing their religious duty.

While men-only gentlemen’s clubs are now being dubbed unlawful, we hear of municipal swimming baths encouraging ‘Muslim women only’ sessions and in Dewsbury Hospitals staff waste time by turning beds to face Mecca five times a day — a Monty Pythonesque scenario of lunacy, but astonishingly true…

The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates…

That is very interesting. As history has shown us, a group doesn’t have to constitute a majority of a society’s population in order to be the dominant group of a society. Hopefully that isn’t occurring in the United Kingdom but I’ve never really been an optimist.

Not a lot of ‘Muslim ate my hamster’ mileage in this thread, I would have thought.

So, eventually, there will be more practicing Muslims than practicing Anglicans or practicing Catholics in a country where a very small proportion of the population bother attending any kind of religious service - and that’s continually declining.

Wow, what amazing news.

Instead of ending your post with sarcasm, you could provide us with a link or two from a credible source that shows mosque attendance is declining. It might also be helpful to provide some proof that observance of the five daily prayers and religious practices like Ramadan are also declining.

That would be a terribly insightful post and riposte, except I’d said nothing whatsoever about Muslims attending anywhere.

You state very clearly in your post that attendance at any kind of religious service is on the decline and then sarcastically dismiss the article gilliam posted. I only ask that instead of providing sarcasm, which adds no value to a discussion, you provide us with a credible source of information backing up your claims. Specifically, I was interested in Islamic religious observance, since that is the subject of this thread. If you don’t want to do that, just say so.

If every one of the UK’s Muslims turned up at Mosque on a Friday, there would still be only 1.6 million of them out of 60 million. If the country is becoming less religious and those that remain Christian can’t be bothered to practice their religion, there are still only 1.6 million Muslims.

Rather than adding value to the discussion by getting cross about me not telling you how many Muslims go to Mosque on Friday, why not add value to the discussion by spending the time you’re doing so more profitably by bothering to find out yourself?

I know it must be terribly annoying when people don’t add value to the discussion by getting cross about the naughtiness of Muslims and how they’re about to take over the whole world but there it is.

We should respect others whether they are the majority or the minority. What goes around comes around. If we do not treat them with respect now and when they are a majority they will see no reason to treat us with any.

1.6 million out of 60 million is not a majority, there may soon be more of them in attendance at mosque on Fridays than Anglicans at Church on Sundays, or Catholics at Church on Sundays but there are still only 1.6 million of them.

This thread is like the ‘Mohammad is the most popular boys name in the UK’ thread we’ve had here - it tells you nothing other than that Muslims have very little imagination when it comes to names but gets the ‘Muslims ate my hamster’ people very excited.

Do you really believe that relatavistic response? Do you see no qualitative difference between the way minorities are treated in Islamic societies/governments versus how they are treated in secular societies/governments?

Hint: Proclaiming the Good News publically in Islamic countries is not allowed. Conversion to the Truth is a death sentence in some Islamic tyrannies.

Islam is not just a religion; it weds itself through its theology to political governance. Even as a minority there are already cases of Sharia courts and different treatment under the law. In America we have footbaths being installed, a religous construction paid for by my tax dollars (I’ll need to cite this–I believe it was an airport.)

Treat everyone out of respect, because you are a Christian and created in the image of God, not because you expect something in return. And be careful what you mean by respect, because if it is religous indiffeence, we’ve lost our way.

Kaninchen, your mockery and belittling only serves to shut down conversation about the issue. Is that what you want?

An end to 'Gay Evolutionist Muslim threw my hamster in a footbath paid for by my tax dollars!" threads?

As if!

Reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan. If we insist that they must be Christian to have equal rights in our country how are we different than them? And as Christians we are supposed to be different. They have every right to build mosques and have equal time in a free society regardless of what they do to Christians in theirs.

Britain isn’t becoming a Muslim country, it’s becoming a secular country. Correction, it IS a secular country, but the Church of England can’t bring itself to wake up and admit it.

We might not have Muslims converting to Christianity in droves, but I certainly know a few who have converted to drinking, eating bacon and having casual sex.

Fundamentalism, Christian or Islamic, is a symptom of people rallying round a sinking ship of moral certainty in a sea of post-modern confusion, not a sign of religious growth.

I can understand the casual sex, but what is wrong with drinking as long as it is not excessive? And eating bacon? Really.

I think these things were mentioned as examples of how nominal Muslims are being secularized. The implication is that Muslims are adapting to Britain, rather than taking over and installing a radical government.

Hamsters are so last century. If you are going to insist on having a hamster today, it needs to be super-sized to be respectable.

Doing so makes them harder to eat, if nothing else.

Nowhere did I insist that one has to be Christian to have equal rights. I am calling you to recognize a fundamental difference between a tyrannical religous-political structure and one (Christianity) that allows and celebrates freedom.

Its terribly depressing to even have to make the argument given the overwhelming evidence of shattered lives and how the Good News of Jesus Christ is strangled in Islamic societies throughout the world.

GJ, do you recognize a qualitative difference between Islam and Christianity that leads you to the conclusion that Christianity has the fullness of the Truth? Not just in faith, but in substance of teachings?

I really don’t see the difference between tax dollars subsidizing a footbath and tax dollars subsidizing the Ten Commandments on a public building. I’m not against either one.

Again, that’s a different question, albeit a REALLY GOOD question.

I’m not going to harass you (I’m borderline doing that now,) I just am asking people to see the qualitative differences between the two systems of thought (three if you wish to count secular humanism)

I tend to think that if we won’t promote Chrisrtianity within government, no religion should be promoted or funded at all. If the government allows free unrestricted pornography (see other thread) then self destructive behaviour is tolerated, if we allow murder of the unborn then there is no right to life. With such a wicked government–while still being the best of bad choices in government**–perhaps **it is better if government is not allowed to fund anything religous at all and leave public education at the level of three 3 "R"s and civics.

startribune.com/local/17406054.html?location_refer=Bios

As the citizen of a country in which nearly all immigrants are Christian, westerners, to-wit Hispanics, I can only say that if, indeed, England, Italy, et al are soon to become Islamic, we should welcome those Europeans when, and if, the time comes for them to flee Sharia law.

But I will also say that the few Muslims I know are extremely secular if one measures that by, e.g., alcohol and bacon consumption and non-observance of just about everything else that’s Islamic.

One Muslim friend of mine had dinner, complete with drinks, with a former Israeli Prime Minister and a Muslim who is now head of state in a Muslim country. No publicity, of course, and I won’t name names, but I understand that all enjoyed the occasion. Not all Muslims are radical Sharia law people.

Now you’re talking. The government here should not promote any religion because it was intended to. Over there they have a different history. They have as much right to a theocratic government as we have to a democracy. We can’t go and imperialistically enforce a democracy on them. We can only try to demonstrate by example how it is better.

Of course I can argue the right to life on no religious grounds at all. It is no coincidence that the right to life came before liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can’t have any other rights without the right to be born first. How’s that for a secular defense against abortion?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.