Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're not being very objective in this thread acin.

Horetore said christians would implement draconian laws.

PVC made a counterargument--so he was arguing in defense of Christianity. He wasn't arguing for the guilt of atheism so it wasn't guilt by association.

By making the case that the UK with a Christian majority country in the first half of the 20th century was not draconian, yes he was indeed making a counterpoint. But the second statement of including an atheistic country that was draconian isn't a counterpoint to the statement that Christians would implement draconian laws, it just counters the statement that only in Christian countries would draconian laws occur. So unless he was countering that statement (which I do not recall being said but I may be wrong there), then I must assume the only reason he tacked on that point was to simply put blame on atheists as well.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

By making the case that the UK with a Christian majority country in the first half of the 20th century was not draconian, yes he was indeed making a counterpoint. But the second statement of including an atheistic country that was draconian isn't a counterpoint to the statement that Christians would implement draconian laws, it just counters the statement that only in Christian countries would draconian laws occur. So unless he was countering that statement (which I do not recall being said but I may be wrong there), then I must assume the only reason he tacked on that point was to simply put blame on atheists as well.

That isn't a charitable assumption.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That isn't a charitable assumption.

Ok, perhaps you are right. What should have I gotten from the statement then that would have been more impartial?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, perhaps you are right. What should have I gotten from the statement then that would have been more impartial?

You should have concluded that not only Christians implement Draconian laws, and that such laws are not a direct product of relgious or specifically christian belief.

I also made the point that draco himself was not a Christian, he was a Plytheistic Athenian and I do not believe that religion played any role in the laws he implemented. Instead, he was motivated by what he believed was necessary to govern the Polis.

HoreTore's list is revealing:

Homosexual Marriage

Divorce

Abortion

Freedom of Religion

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

[Beskar]

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

I disagree with the "strong sociological argument" against 'homosexual marriage' and 'divorce'.

The fact is, homosexual couples in such a 'marriage' could adopt and foster unwanted children in a loving and secure environment. Also, there are related factors such as happiness which affects the economy and their work productivity. If anything, there is a strong social and economic argument for homosexual marriage.

As for Divorce, it is necessary. Yes, in an idea world, two people who love each other very much, marry and are joined for life. However, this is far from an ideal world. There are wife-beaters, abusers, those who cheat on their partners and a long list of things. These people break their marriage vows and severely hurt their partner. Their partner should be allowed to be divorced. Think of it as a contract.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You should have concluded that not only Christians implement Draconian laws, and that such laws are not a direct product of relgious or specifically christian belief.

I also made the point that draco himself was not a Christian, he was a Plytheistic Athenian and I do not believe that religion played any role in the laws he implemented. Instead, he was motivated by what he believed was necessary to govern the Polis.

HoreTore's list is revealing:

Homosexual Marriage

Divorce

Abortion

Freedom of Religion

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

Ok well I already knew that draconian laws don't solely come from Christians, I'm not that unreasonable. I just didn't take that meaning from your statement since I had not seen anyone directly attempt to propagate the statement that only Christians make draconian laws. So I figured that that was not the reasoning behind the statement since I (and from what Sasaki told me) figured that you were making a direct counterpoint to someone.

I also understand and recognize your draco point, I only had a problem with the statement "Soviet gov was atheist, it was draconian. What about that?"

As for the first two items on the list, I would need to read these "strong sociological arguments" towards stopping same sex couples from strengthening society by forming life long bonds towards each other in the form of marriage and towards preventing abusive couples from ending their perpetual dysfunctional relationship.

The abortion statement seems to be opinion rather then fact. I don't see how you can empirically say that a side is morally "stronger" then the other.

As for the prayer in schools, I don't know what HoreTore is getting at but if he is talking about school sanctioned and led prayer, then yes that is draconian. However, if we are simply talking about allowing kids to say prayers on their own accord without any involvement from school officials or teachers, then yeah that's perfectly fine and in fact should be protected.

[al Roumi]

Um no, I said his analysis, that a small increase respesents a decline, was incomplete because the native population (from which Churches initially draw) has been falling. So if the fall year-on-year has been arrested that means that the Churches are recruiting faster than people are leaving, and a rise means they are even recruiting faster than people a dieing.

I was not aware that the "Native" population was falling. Do you have a stat for that? AFAIK the birth rate of most social/ethnic groups is healthy in the UK.

I can appreciate that the Native proportion of the total UK population has fallen, but that's a result of a larger growth rate of "non-natives" -primarily through immigration.

The stats at the bottom of this are about the actual tally of bums on benches, not proportions of total population. Your reasoning relies on the assumption that the COE leaning ethnic population are in decline -and it is not substantiated.

I'm surprised that the Catholic stats are not better given the influx of Poles.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I disagree with the "strong sociological argument" against 'homosexual marriage' and 'divorce'.

The fact is, homosexual couples in such a 'marriage' could adopt and foster unwanted children in a loving and secure environment. Also, there are related factors such as happiness which affects the economy and their work productivity. If anything, there is a strong social and economic argument for homosexual marriage.

This is true, but it is merely the argument of an over-populated society. An underpopulated society would obviously want to discourge homosexuality, and in those instances the argument against homosexual marriage is sociologically stronger.

In our own society there is an argument that giving homosexual unions the sanction of "marriage" diminishes the importance of that instiution by extending it beyond those who intend to mate and propagate their line. Those very "unwanted children" you mention are a product of an unhealthily casual attitude to sex and relationships in our society - they should all by with their parents in an ideal world.

So, primarily for these reasons, I am against homosexuals having the same rights to "marry" as heterosexuals, I am not against their right to enter into a legal Civil Partnership so that both members of the couple have full rights under Civil Law.

As for Divorce, it is necessary. Yes, in an idea world, two people who love each other very much, marry and are joined for life. However, this is far from an ideal world. There are wife-beaters, abusers, those who cheat on their partners and a long list of things. These people break their marriage vows and severely hurt their partner. Their partner should be allowed to be divorced. Think of it as a contract.

I wouldn't argue divorce wasn't necessary, I would argue it is currently too easy. There should be a long cooling off period, of years, before a divorce can be granted. If you stand up and say "till death do us part" then you should have to wait an extended period before disolving the contract.

Also, as a witnessed Contract taken Under Oath, those who break their marriage vows should be charged with purjury.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The abortion statement seems to be opinion rather then fact. I don't see how you can empirically say that a side is morally "stronger" then the other.

The "no abortion" argument is morally and logically consistant throughout, internally bulletproof. The only argument for allowing abortion that is similarly consistant is the one that says you can abort up until the child draws breath. as that isn't the argument most "pro-choice campaigners use, the no argument is stronger.

As for the prayer in schools, I don't know what HoreTore is getting at but if he is talking about school sanctioned and led prayer, then yes that is draconian. However, if we are simply talking about allowing kids to say prayers on their own accord without any involvement from school officials or teachers, then yeah that's perfectly fine and in fact should be protected.

*shrug*

Prayer to the Christain God is legally mandated in Schools in England and Wales, given that the CofE still finances and runs about 75% of Primary schools that's not so surprising.

More generally, until you reach your age of majority you are the ward of an adult (usually your parents) and they have a Duty of Care which includes equipping you with the best education, practical, ethical and moral, which they deem appropriate. This, Dawkins aside, includes religion and if your Guardian wants to send you to a religious school to be brought up in that religion then they should be allowed to do so -provided that school is not abusive and otherwise equips you with the tools to be a good and righteous member of scoiety.

So banning organised prayer in schools is Draconian, as is enforcing it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is true, but it is merely the argument of an over-populated society. An underpopulated society would obviously want to discourge homosexuality, and in those instances the argument against homosexual marriage is sociologically stronger.

In our own society there is an argument that giving homosexual unions the sanction of "marriage" diminishes the importance of that instiution by extending it beyond those who intend to mate and propagate their line. Those very "unwanted children" you mention are a product of an unhealthily casual attitude to sex and relationships in our society - they should all by with their parents in an ideal world.

So, primarily for these reasons, I am against homosexuals having the same rights to "marry" as heterosexuals, I am not against their right to enter into a legal Civil Partnership so that both members of the couple have full rights under Civil Law.

Your first sentence makes no sense. It is the argument of a equality seeking society. Population makes no difference here. If the population is too much, homosexuals should marry since they can provide good families for kids and they love each other. If the population is too little they should marry because they love each other, it makes no sense for anyone to be "discouraging homosexuality" since no matter what the homosexual men are going to want to be with men and not women. Only if the population is uneducated and ignorant in that being gay is part of who you are, not a choice would they attempt to restrict gays from marrying in an attempt to "force" the gays to mate with women and have children instead.

If the institution of marriage is important because it intends to promote procreation in a stable environment rather then from two strangers having fun for one night, then the institution has been irrelevant since the birth control pill was introduced in the 1960s. Please, there is nothing special about wanting to mate and have kids. It is hard wired into our brains. You know what is special? Love, which both hetero and homosexual couples can produce plenty of it.

Your reasons are exactly what the problem is. "Arguments" taken from the Christian morals you have adhered to which you intend to instill upon the rest by government laws. You are essentially in my eyes saying, "This is what my religion views marriage as. There is an argument that homosexuals do not fulfill our requirement on what marriage is, therefore it is a strong case on denying homosexuals the right to marry."

[Beskar]

So, primarily for these reasons, I am against homosexuals having the same rights to "marry" as heterosexuals, I am not against their right to enter into a legal Civil Partnership so that both members of the couple have full rights under Civil Law.

That is mainly hair-splitting, if a church allows homosexuals to 'marry' then they shouldn't be stopped because your church says no. Civil Partnership is identical to Marriage in every respect, only difference is that it is not before a 'god', when then, in the first case, if a church marries them, then it would technically be a 'marriage' anyway and in lay-language Civil-Partnership = Marriage.

I wouldn't argue divorce wasn't necessary, I would argue it is currently too easy. There should be a long cooling off period, of years, before a divorce can be granted. If you stand up and say "till death do us part" then you should have to wait an extended period before disolving the contract.

There is also "in sickness and in health, richer or poorer" and not to cheat on your wife. It is better to be realistic than outright ban something because you have a different opinion which there are no ethical objections.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The "no abortion" argument is morally and logically consistant throughout, internally bulletproof. The only argument for allowing abortion that is similarly consistant is the one that says you can abort up until the child draws breath. as that isn't the argument most "pro-choice campaigners use, the no argument is stronger.

You haven't explained anything. You just repeated yourself and your opinion on what pro-choice opinion is the "most consistent". Why is it morally and logically consistent? Just because there is no nuance to it? just because you can sum up the anti-abortion sentiment in one sentence,: "No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."

*shrug*

Prayer to the Christain God is legally mandated in Schools in England and Wales, given that the CofE still finances and runs about 75% of Primary schools that's not so surprising.

More generally, until you reach your age of majority you are the ward of an adult (usually your parents) and they have a Duty of Care which includes equipping you with the best education, practical, ethical and moral, which they deem appropriate. This, Dawkins aside, includes religion and if your Guardian wants to send you to a religious school to be brought up in that religion then they should be allowed to do so -provided that school is not abusive and otherwise equips you with the tools to be a good and righteous member of scoiety.

So banning organised prayer in schools is Draconian, as is enforcing it.

I don't see how removing the monetary involvement of one specific church from schools in order to promote a more secular environment for all religions to be practiced in draconian. Make a law establishing a monetary separation between church and state and let the parents of the kids tell the kids what to believe (and not the school) and let it be at that. You seem to be saying that telling schools to not promote the religion of the church funding them is draconian when in reality it is fair towards the diversity of the students and you just seem to dislike the eroding influence of religion.

[rory_20_uk]

I heartily agree with Beskar (and will avoid merely repeating everything he's said).

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla's arguments appear to be the traditional religious argument of putting the cart before the horse "this is what I think, let's try and justify it".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is mainly hair-splitting, if a church allows homosexuals to 'marry' then they shouldn't be stopped because your church says no. Civil Partnership is identical to Marriage in every respect, only difference is that it is not before a 'god', when then, in the first case, if a church marries them, then it would technically be a 'marriage' anyway and in lay-language Civil-Partnership = Marriage.

Matrimony has always been between one man and one woman, there is no logical reason why that should change now because of the current fashion in sexuality.

There is also "in sickness and in health, richer or poorer" and not to cheat on your wife. It is better to be realistic than outright ban something because you have a different opinion which there are no ethical objections.

I said NOTHING about banning divorce Beskar, I'd thank you to take note of that. I said that if you break you Oath you should be punished, be it an Oath regarding Testimony, with regard to a Will, or with regard to a Marriage. I fail to see why marriage oaths are a special case in this regard.

You haven't explained anything. You just repeated yourself and your opinion on what pro-choice opinion is the "most consistent". Why is it morally and logically consistent? Just because there is no nuance to it? just because you can sum up the anti-abortion sentiment in one sentence,: "No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."

It does, "well it depends", is an intrinsically weak argument, "the life of the unborn must always be preserved and protected just as the life of the newborn" is more logically consistant - it makes more internal sense because it proceeds from a simgle principle, the sanctity of all life.

I don't see how removing the monetary involvement of one specific church from schools in order to promote a more secular environment for all religions to be practiced in draconian. Make a law establishing a monetary separation between church and state and let the parents of the kids tell the kids what to believe (and not the school) and let it be at that. You seem to be saying that telling schools to not promote the religion of the church funding them is draconian when in reality it is fair towards the diversity of the students and you just seem to dislike the eroding influence of religion.

I should be allowed to establish "The Christian School of Saint Sidwell of Devon" and run it along lines which are compatable with Christian Faith, including prayer. If parents send their children to my school I should not have to worry about being accused of "prejudice" because of this. my school does what it says on the Tin, and provided I cannot be shown to be negligent (i.e. I start teaching creationsim alongside evolution) then I should be allowed to carry on unmollested.

As I said, banning prayer in school is as Draconian as enforcing it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think you missed the 20th and 21st century there.

He did say since the times of feudalism, so why would I only look at the most recent two centuries?

Yes, Thomas Hobbes does represent all atheists (of that time). What a great argument.

And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.

"No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."

The fact is the pro-life movement (outwith the fringe that want abortion at any point before birth) puts pragmatism before being "morally or logically consistent". For example, they don't provide a cut of point where you can say that the baby suddenly becomes 'alive' or 'human', and so in effect everything is a grey area, which is not good when it comes to dealing with the right to life.

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

Which is why any Humanist, be they secular or Christian should be against abortion.

[Beskar]

Which is why any Humanist, be they secualr or christian should be against abortion.

I see no reason to be against abortion, only reason to disapproval of it.

The solution is strong advocation of birth-prevention methods such as the pill, condoms, the snips and tying knots in the tubes. Unfortunately, some churches disapprove of these methods altogether. You would think they would have sense and go "Do not have sex before marriage, but if you are going to do it, make sure you shrink-wrap it". Some churches even argue even when married, not to use condoms or the pill, so you end up with your wife keep on getting pregnant.

Only main objections I have is around 20 or so weeks into the pregnancy. Because if you was going to have an abortion, you would have it as soon as possible (within the first 3 months or so where you don't even look pregnant), not at the point when the child can survive independently.

[al Roumi]

Matrimony has always been between one man and one woman, there is no logical reason why that should change now because of the current fashion in sexuality.

Nonsense. Homosexuality is ancient.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nonsense. Homosexuality is ancient.

Um, "homosexuality" didn't exist until about 200 years ago, prior to that same-sex relationships and man-woman relationships were delinated differently. For example, almost all the "Ancient homosexuals" including the lesbian poet Sappho were married and had children.

The current fashion is to say "you are X sexuality and you have no choice about that", this despite the fact that both history and current research seem to suggest that at least some people do have a choice. the truly criminal part about this, in my view, is what it does to bisexuals, who end up being stigmatised because they don't fall neatly into one camp; women labled "gready" or men told they "aren't proper Gays".

That's real bigotry, and it's far worse that the old bigotry against homosexuals because we claim to be a tollerant and fair society, whatever that means.

[Beskar]

Um, "homosexuality" didn't exist until about 200 years ago, prior to that same-sex relationships and man-woman relationships were delinated differently. For example, almost all the "Ancient homosexuals" including the lesbian poet Sappho were married and had children.

The current fashion is to say "you are X sexuality and you have no choice about that", this despite the fact that both history and current research seem to suggest that at least some people do have a choice. the truly criminal part about this, in my view, is what it does to bisexuals, who end up being stigmatised because they don't fall neatly into one camp; women labled "gready" or men told they "aren't proper Gays"..

I did a very good post in a different topic about this. Very good post as in, I was proud to have posted it at least.

[HoreTore]

And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.

Uhm, where did I make this "absolute argument"? Because all I can remember was making the claim that personal freedoms have gone up and christianity ha gone down over the last few centuries. I never stated that some atheists didn't try to limit freedoms or that some deists didn't help expanding them.

Also, 17th century you say? When slave trade was at its height and every christian country joined the race for the rightto murde and exploit native populations around the world? And the century where a third of germany was killed because of religious intolerance?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I did a very good post in a different topic about this. Very good post as in, I was proud to have posted it at least.

That doesn't anything to this topic though, does it?

[Beskar]

That doesn't anything to this topic though, does it?

Neither did your post, hence why I redirected to a different topic where it was covered if you was interested in being reminded. I didn't know the various labels and concepts of sexual conduct was responsible for the UP in England and Wales.

[al Roumi]

Um, "homosexuality" didn't exist until about 200 years ago, prior to that same-sex relationships and man-woman relationships were delinated differently. For example, almost all the "Ancient homosexuals" including the lesbian poet Sappho were married and had children.

Again, your "evidence" and example is neither exhaustive or conclusive, but massively subjective by reason of your own views.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Uhm, where did I make this "absolute argument"? Because all I can remember was making the claim that personal freedoms have gone up and christianity ha gone down over the last few centuries. I never stated that some atheists didn't try to limit freedoms or that some deists didn't help expanding them.

You used a specific example to suggest a general rule, and I even pointed out that was you said was "generally speaking". While I'm sure we both agree that Christians/atheists can both be pro/anti-freedom/progressiveness etc, I reject your claim that there is a correlation between the influence of Christianity and the existence of oppressive regimes.

For example, nowhere was the influence of Christianity stronger than amongst the more radical Protestant denominations, and yet these were the groups that led the charge in the development of individual liberty/contractarian government/democracy etc. This suggests that your general rule is incorrect from a historical perspective (and you did appeal to history and not just modern society, going back to "feudalism").

Also, 17th century you say? When slave trade was at its height and every christian country joined the race for the rightto murde and exploit native populations around the world? And the century where a third of germany was killed because of religious intolerance?

Because the 20th century was so much better when atheism was predominant...

And before you rush to the old "but they didn't do those things in the name of atheism", it's worth pointing out that the Thirty Years War wasn't a holy war as such, but rather a political conflict influenced by/divided along religious lines. In much the same way that Hitler (it's a Godwin, so deal with it) and Stalin didn't do what they did in the name of atheism, their respective ideologies were heavily influenced by atheism and the ideas that were at the time associated with it (social Darwinism etc).

[Tellos Athenaios]

But that was my whole point Rhyfelwyr: it is often overlooked that if there are a few centuries in which religion is `dominant' then right now these would have to be numbered 20th and 21st....

[Rhyfelwyr]

But that was my whole point Rhyfelwyr: it is often overlooked that if there are a few centuries in which religion is `dominant' then right now these would have to be numbered 20th and 21st....

So you are saying the 20th/21st centuries are the high points of the influence of religion?

I don't deny Christianity tends to be oppressive today, I just wanted to show that historically this wasn't the case.

[Beskar]

And before you rush to the old "but they didn't do those things in the name of atheism", it's worth pointing out that the Thirty Years War wasn't a holy war as such, but rather a political conflict influenced by/divided along religious lines. In much the same way that Hitler (it's a Godwin, so deal with it) and Stalin didn't do what they did in the name of atheism, their respective ideologies were heavily influenced by atheism and the ideas that were at the time associated with it (social Darwinism etc).

Hitler was against atheism and is a Christian. (Linked his faith to Catholicism too)
Stalin didn't actively promote atheism in anyway and infact, reintroduced the Orthodox Church to Russia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So both Hilter and Stalin were Christians! Hitler also called the Jews 'Christ Slayers'.

History just came back and bit your ignorance in the behind. Know your history before you make such wild assumptions.

Even then, Atheism is still not predominate, so your claims as such are false. Catholicism was still far more dominate, which is why both Hitler and Mussolini had dealings with the Catholic church, even then in Russia, the Orthodox Church returned in force and the Russian Patriarch was reformed under Stalin.

There has never currently been a time where atheism has or is predominant. It is only predominant in intellectual circles currently and a few of the younger generation which hasn't been exposed to the same dogma of the past.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think Atheism predominates in a younger generation, I think that ignorance and willingness to believe the current fashion do. Most of the abuse I get for just being Christian, as opposed to being pro-life, or unwilling to sanction homosexual relationships in Church, comes from people in their early 20's.

If that's the positive affect of atheism it isn't very positive.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So you are saying the 20th/21st centuries are the high points of the influence of religion?

I don't deny Christianity tends to be oppressive today, I just wanted to show that historically this wasn't the case.

Of influence of religion. I do not even make the connection between “Christianity” and “oppression” just yet for two reasons:

1) When actual oppression does occur there tends to be a fair amount of “giftwrap this sordid powergrab with a religious ribbon and people will buy it” going on. So how much of that is truly in the spirit of a given religion, how much of it is carried out for religious motives and how much of it is simply carried out under the pretext of religious motives? My estimates would err on the pretext side of motives, rather than on the spirit of the faith side (which no two believers ever seem to agree on anyway).
2) Influence and oppression are not equal, more importantly oppression is not the only way for influence of religion to manifest itself. In the context of the late 20th and now 21st century it is telling that people seriously doubt whether or not Pakistani muslim sects are compatible with British society, when in the 19th and early 20th century everything was all good as long as you were loyal to the British Empire and the British armed forces were adjusted to be more accessible to people of different faiths than the CofE in order to employ Pakistani soldiers. In fact, the British Empire built mosques and special military burial sites to accommodate their Pakistani forces during the Great War.

On the other hand there's a lot of almost reactionary response toward things like the pill and similar issues which makes you wonder what happened to the quality those faiths exhibited in earlier times to adapt to their host culture and integrate rather than attempt to beat it out of the host culture.