Added: 2 months ago
From: LatumWay
Views: 5,878
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (451)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • At least I know that Kazakhstan is Borat.

  • youre right the uk is an islamic country, you will be islamic soon, you british used to rule the world, but now you are bowing to islam.

  • @Ryanyarb24 And you would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling statistics!

  • I went to 2 faith schools and neither of these problems you described happend

  • @MrMrpeanut94 Well A. part of the problem is that some kids weren't admitted on the basis of religion. If you did get admitted, then obviously you weren't effected. 2. Part of this involves teachers not being hired or being sacked on religious grounds - again, this won't effect you. Thirdly - so because you didn't experience any problems that means no one did?

  • "faith school" is an oxymoron

  • Just what we need, some kook who can't do his job or fulfil promises playing the religion card and making a new breed of religitards bringing with them anti progress and superstitions.

  • @jackjohnwill Take your head out of your arse, it's not illegal.

  • @Bloodlust392 Yes it is against the law to swear. A policeman can arrest you for it. I seen it happen.

  • @jackjohnwill Show me the law.

  • Comment removed

  • I used some of the points in this video on my General Studies paper 'to what extent is Britain a secular state?' THANK YOU LATUMWAY

  • @sheldonlt wooo

  • I went to a faith school and we HAD to do R.E studies in christianity for a GCSE. In one of my lessons my teacher said point blankly to me (i am bisexual) and my friend (who is gay) that "There is nothing wrong with being gay, but you must not act upon it, you cannot have sex with someone from the same gender." BUT a the brilliance of this is that the whole class went mental at her and then we walked out of the room.The vast majority of my year all left in yr11 hating everything about religion.

  • @TheUltraChimp Freedom of speech. So I say what I like. If you think what I say is wrong. What about the fact that it is actually against the law to swear and you said fuck in every sentence. Your easily wound up. Go take a pill.

  • @jackjohnwill it is not against the law to swear.

  • @LatunWay You will fail. The monarchy will stay. You will die. The monarchy will live. You will never win. So fuck you too.

  • @jackjohnwill K homeslice

  • Well put vid.The thing about religion in schools,christianity in particular has not got the hold it once had,thankfully.It would not be impractible to have it every morning as in the past,in some schools christians are a tiny minority.Faith schools should not be funded by the state,ok if you want to pay for private education.You can see the churches dying out,some being used as mosques,not be long before theres more muslims than christians.Christians still have a big say though unfortunately.

  • its more about the bible forming laws, i personally think it should be free religion but i hate when councills refuse to put up x mas decorations because its "offensive" to toher religions

  • fuck we should have listened to Hitchens and fought back against this religious bullying  before it is too late which it may already be. On the subject of Hitch, Cameron is lucky he happened to die the day before he made this speech

  • I have to wonder if you guys consider our politics as strange as we might consider yours? (i have always personally consider US. politics strange and the more i learn about UK politics the stranger it seems to get)

  • @finderfinder100 How so?

  • @LatumWay It would seem your leaders tend not to come out as Religious where our leaders have to come out to get any where. I never can seem to understand how your political parties work. The whole mix of Nobles, Royalty, Knights, and Non is confusing (at least to me). The fact that you don't have to prove how batshit crazy your are next to the other guy (look at our republicans running right now). 

  • Good Vid Latum, pretty much in line with my views. Interesting to not that by one way of measuring if a country is X religion, The US is secular and the UK Christian, and visa-versa if you change how you measure it.

    Interesting to see the stuff your monarchy comments brought out as well. As a Fellow Disestablishmentarian, but unlike you, a supporter of the monarchy (better a royalist than a monarchist, if you see the difference).

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk You might have to elaborate on the difference I'm afraid. Remember who you're talking to ; )

  • @LatumWay

    I support our current monarchy set up, in place, as it is, with the rights and protections we have in place due to 1000 years of history, a Royalist is usually defined as someone loyal to a particular set of royals. I don't support the idea of divine right to be king, or the establishment of a monarchy if I were to start from scratch. (I am not a Monarchist).

    If that makes it any clearer.

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk So you support the Monarchy because of the history?

  • @LatumWay

    No, I support the Devil I know (the current set up), over attempting to set up the UK as a republic (under current circumstances), which I consider a waste of time money and effort that I could be directing to something more useful. I also consider a monarchy useful for continuity of power, particularly during a power transfer and a useful outlet for humanities tendency to bend at the knee.

  • @LatumWay

    When I mention the history, I am referring to the rights and protections we have thanks to that history, not just supporting something because it's traditional. For example, the monarchy has no right the pass laws, or punishment without trial, we have various bills of rights and limitations on our monarchy which overall, I'm pretty happy with.

    We have nothing like that on the parliament, due to parliamentary sovereignty, so it's not the monarchy that really causes problems for me.

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk And the ability of royals, principally Prince Charles, to meddle in our democratic process isn't a problem? No, the monarchy hasn't got much formal power, but by virtue of being a monarchy, it has, to my understanding, quite a lot of power to affect our country.

    I'm aware its not THE issue of our age, but I don't think its as minor as you seem to.

  • @LatumWay

    I'd agree it's an issue, but the meddling is one which already breaks the rules and codes. Fixing the issue wouldn't be the same as advocating for the removal of the monarchy.

    Removing the monarchy from their connections to political office wouldn't actually erode their current power that much. It's a power of introductions, connections and knowing people, something the get from wealth and status, two things unconnected to their official position, but do get from their history.

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk "I'd agree it's an issue, but the meddling is one which already breaks the rules and codes"

    Not necessarily. There are a number of legal loopholes that favours the monarchy. And things like constitutional convention don't seem to stop royals from overstepping their bounds.

  • @LatumWay

    I don't think humanity has ever found a way of stopping people with power overstepping their bounds, royals are no different to MP's or Civil Servants.

    Of course, we can replace an MP or Civil Servant when they get caught, stricter punishment for abuses might be worthwhile, but on the other hand, demanding they be apolitical their whole life isn't entirely practical when every choice and decision can be seen as political.

    I still don't see it as worth uprooting our current system.

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk "on the other hand, demanding they be apolitical their whole life isn't entirely practical when every choice and decision can be seen as political."

    I don't think that's the case. There's a difference between having an opinion and using your status and power to favour your opinion. I think that given what we've seen Charles do, accountability would not be a wasted luxury.

  • @LatumWay

    Yeah, I can see that. I recall hearing quite a few sentiments (some from sensible people) that his actions render him unsuitable for an apolitical throne, and the crown should skip to Will.

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk "I still don't see it as worth uprooting our current system."

    Do you really think it would be that much of a hassle?

  • @LatumWay

    Yes, Yes I do. If everyone agree on how to do it, what to do, and when to do it, it'd still be a hassle, but not much of one. The way the world is in actuality, yeah, removal or replacement of the monarchy, restructuring the basis of british politics, and seeing that the perceived void is not an issue.

    Yeah, I it'd be too much of hassle to be worth it.

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk But... my whole point is that I do want everyone to agree to it. I'd want the majority of people to agree that the monarchy is not good for our country before we do anything about it. That's what I'm arguing for. To get people to agree with me, so we get to that point. And even then, I don't think it would be so much of a hassle that it wouldn't be worth doing. Frankly, I see recognising the supremacy of the people as worth it no matter that the hassle.

  • @LatumWay *what the hassle.

  • @LatumWay

    In terms of recognising the supremacy of the people, would a bit of law signed by the royals saying that they are monarch by consent of the people be enough? If the will was there fore it, I'm sure they'd also sign one declaring that the people are the origin and author of their throne and that the rights of individual english people are supreme. Okay, I can't be sure sure, but I'd see it as very likely.

  • @LatumWay

    Okay, when I was saying if everyone agreed to it, I was imagining a magic snap of the fingers, where everyone goes, okay, we don't need the royals, lets replace it. The other option is the one you are following, convincing people that the monarchy is (unnecessary? don't want to put words in your mouth) and that it should be removed and replaced. The convincing people, the disputes about what, if anything to replace the monarchy with, all that is the too much hassle.... cont

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk

    cont... for something I don't think we'd see much practicable change, and I'm not convinced that the change would be preferable, what did occur.

    Worst Case Scenario, I'd see us going civil war, but more realistic scenario, I can imagine us ending up in a situation like Berlusconi, someone clinging onto power long overdue. The Monarchs don't want politicians to step into their turf :D. What I'd expect to happen is, like I said: Nothing much at all will change.

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk Debating is too much hassle?

    As per the 'supremacy of the people' law, I don't think it really amount to much. They'd still be in a position of power, still be living lives of luxury on our taxes 'just cuz', still be restricting members of the public from holding the position of head of state etc. It would seem like a hollow gesture. It wouldn't mean anything in reality. They'd still be monarchs with the ability to mess with our democracy.

  • @LatumWay

    Depending how you view the crowns estates depends on how you view their living in luxury on our taxes.

    And removing them from power seems an equally hollow gesture, if that's what we are analysing. We'd trade a single head of state changed every 10-100 years or so, for one changed fairly regularly (or not so regularly, see Berlusconi), who may or may not want to fiddle in the political system, who would have the same ability to abuse their post as the monarchy.

    :) I'm off to bed.

  • @TheBoyFromNorfolk A president would be democratically elected, accountable, cheaper, and could be anyone who earns it, rather than one particular member of one particular family, who may very well not have earned it. Presidents are not the same as Monarchs, even if they are largely ceremonial.

  • @LatumWay Presidents are OK. But democratically electing a president has it's own set of problems. It is far from a perfect system. people in this country are afraid of losing their jobs, homes, and food in this current economic predicament. And all it takes is one presidential demigod with nefarious intentions to harness that fear screw us all over. Americas time, is, finite. Even if it take another 200 years. And as long as we can feed the philosophers, we need to think of new societies.

  • This is one of the best videos I have seen in along time.

  • It would've made so much more sense for him to say 'We are a free thinking country' then he wouldn't have singled anyone out.

  • Sounds like British politicians are as self serving and mistaken as American politicians are when they say that "The ___ Is a Christian country.". In the US, it's supposed to be that we are a country which believes in "The freedom of religion." But which has been slowly and covertly perverted to mean that "Freedom of religion..,so long as you're Christian. Otherwise we may tolerate your beliefs while at the same time belittling and discriminating against you."

  • ATHEISM FOR THE MOTHER FUCKING WIN!

  • I am confused about the fact that the institutionalization of religion in school and the belief that Christianity in social aspects shape the country as a Christian country. Furthermore, I want to know if you belief England is a Christian country and what you base your theory on.what makes it a christian country? Statistics or social aspects? I think you did make confusing contradictions throughout the video. Overall, I believe faith schools should abolished and agree with your argument.

  • The UK is not a christian country, it is more like a muslim country.

  • @SAEuropeanPatriot 3% of population = majority I guess?

  • @LatumWay, 3% of Britain yet almost 100% of extremist theocrats. My aunt traveled their and complained about them.

  • @SAEuropeanPatriot Don't make me fucking laugh. The UK has had two major Islamist terror attacks in recent years, one of who killed no one but the perpetrators.

    We have had far, far more attacks and loss of life from Irish separatist groups like the IRA. If you look at all of europe, you'll see that the vast majority (and I'm talking up in the 90s percentage-wise) of attacks are from separatists, like the Basques and the Corsicans.

  • @SAEuropeanPatriot And possibly the most damaging single attack was from Anders Behring Breivik, a man who killed over 90 people because of the exact paranoia you are spouting right now.

    You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, you utter moron.

  • @LatumWay, Breivik was a zionist freemason and his attack was an inside job. I have no problem with moderate Muslims in non-European nations. I in fact support the Arab world. They just need to be secular, Baathism is the way. They have a bigger role to play then the revolution then northern Europeans. Southern and Eastern Europeans and the ones with a role to play in revolution. The only theocrats that that are a threat that plan to dominate the world are Muslim theocrats.

  • @SAEuropeanPatriot "Breivik was a zionist freemason and his attack was an inside job."

    Right. End of discussion. You are insane.

  • @SAEuropeanPatriot YOur an ignoarant fuck

    bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-162­24394

  • The other issue with faith schools that I've seen (and I worked in one for two years) is that they get additional monetary support from the diocese. Schools should not have these kinds of affiliations whatsoever. Religious people generally want their cake and to eat it too, since they're fine slapping anti-theist critics in the face with "religion is a private matter" until it doesn't suit the subject at hand.

    I personally call these people hypocritical arseholes.

  • a)English speaking Crown Countries, today, largely, across the World, is a "HARRY-POTTER" vast-majority.

    b)Any Religion has many faces across this World-because-the RichEducated Man's view of GOD is relatively Better than the PoorilletrateSuffering Man's view of the same GOD, ACROSS ANY NRELIGION IN THIS WORLD.

  • c)Colonialism in History, has left Christians of the World, in thinking the Colonists (Spaniards, French, Germans, British, Portuguese, Dutch) came to spread the Word of the True Jesus Christ, and eventually double-crossed- the Natives into colonialstates…, in reality, which was not true.

    d)To compleely ignore, and beter this situation, thinking of the present ios a better option. The WORLD IS RUNNING ENERGY DEFICIENT.

  • ..THEBESTPOSSIBLE ANSWER WILL BE ROOFTOPSOLARPOWER TO ALL THE ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRIES BEFORE 2015, by MANUFACTURING SOLARPANELS IN CHINA AND INDIA AND PHILLIPINES AND LOW COST COUNRIES. THIS WILL manufacture low-costing ROOFTOPSOLARPANELS for domestic purposes, bringing down COSTTOTHERICHECONOMIES OF THE WORLD, AND POVIDING EMPLOYMENT TO POORECONOMIES, who inturn will later shift to providing rooftopsolarpanels o their own countries and follow suit, and Domestic Energy will become freeofcost.

  • You're not cool, Latumway! Not cool.

  • This shows how ignorent David Cameron is.. Christianity cannot be associated with any country, even if every citizen in the country was Christian, the UK would still not be a Christian country. Christs kingdom is a kingdom of GRACE, not RACE. Jesus kingdom is a spiritual kingdom which is not of this world. David Cameron is promoting Judaism, not Christianity. Only Old Testament Judaism associates religion with nations.

  • Christianity has shaped Britain, in the same way evolving from primates has shaped our testicles....The difference is my testicles still perform some function.

  • If it alienates the people of this country then they should go and live in another country. We are a christian country with a Monarchy that we are proud of. We are English. David Cameron for England. Yes.

  • @jackjohnwill Who is we? I'm not like you. I'm English. I was born here, I was raised here, and I intend to die here. I want this country to abolish the Monarchy because I care about this country, not because I don't. How dare you question my right to live here because I want what is best for it.

    I will not be reduced to having to defend my 'Englishness' because I do not support inherently unfair systems of government and oppressive religions. Fuck you. FUCK YOU.

  • @jackjohnwill

    I look to call you people patriotards. The kind of people whos nationalistic views are easily used against them. Loving your country does not mean loving your government, certainly not your maonrachy and loving your people does not mean treating foreigners with contempt. David Cameron is in it for his financial backers, central banking and typical Neo Con policies. Cameron is a zionist, same as Milliband. Neither hane England or Britain as their priority.

  • @jackjohnwill

    Being British is not equal to being English.

    Idiot.

  • We are a christian country. It is not our falt that we are invaded by Muslims and other religions.

    But it does not mean that we let go of our nations faith and Monarchy. You want the invaders to win. You want the invaders to wipe us out. We must hang on to what is ours and it is what makes us English.

  • @jackjohnwill Hang on a minute, Athiests like myself aren't "Invading the country" are we?

  • @jackjohnwill Who the fuck is invading? Wipe you out? What the fuck are you talking about. Who the FUCK do you think you're speaking for? Do you really think that everyone has moved to England? NO. How can you DARE refer another HUMAN BEING as an "invader"?

  • You should never have been born. You have no respect for the history of your own country.

    The Monarchy belong to us who are born in England. Have some respect or why dont you go and live in another country. Naff off

  • In an attempt to pander to a certain group of people, he's managed to alienate most of the country.

    That said, the median age of voters in 2010 were in their 50s, so politically it's not as bad a move as we think it is.

  • May Allah Guide the ignorant, Peace.

  • atheists how much luck can a life form have the earth is just the right distance from the sun it just happens to have all the right parameters for life,the earth just happens to be visually beautiful humans then evolve from a single cell organism come out of the ocean and populate the land.why are all the other planets so hostile and ugly and ours is spectacular still no sign of intelligent life anywhere.there has to be a creator the amount of luck involved for humans to be here isridiculous

  • British culture? Is this even a real thing?

  • @integralmath

    So 1000 years of History and you think Britain never developed any cultural ties? So Britain has no culture but Arab cultures do? So everywhere on Earth has culture except Britain. Britain literally did nothing for a thousand years.

    Nice going. And you claim to be some sort of an intellectual.

    Oh the fail.

  • SHITE

  • Was that a Monty Python reference? Despite the recent hate I'm seeing, I think there are some points worth thinking about here.

  • Thought I agree, the state shouldnt be teaching religon to schools. But neither should they be teaching children abouty sex and certainly not indoctrinating them to accept multi culturalism, egalitarianism, feminism and other cultural marxist ethos.

    Sadly, my fellow atheists tend to be socialistic, authoritarian, politically correct, demoralized radicals who push their own agenda into these schools aswell.

    Schools are about skills and education, not politically motivated bullshit.

  • @TikofTok Atheists tend to be authoritarian? Radicals? You are talking out of your arse.

  • @LatumWay

    I am an atheist. I was one of those radicals. An uptight pushy little butthurt atheist whinging at everything Christian. Most Athesits have replaced their views with cultural marxist ideologies aswell as Egalitarianism despite understanding Natural Selection and Evolution.

    Modern Atheists are just as dangerous as creationists. They push far left thinking in schools aswell as politically correct policies.

  • @LatumWay

    I dont agree with faith schools but neither should we tell parents that they cant teach their children their religous views. I have even see Richard Dawkins saying that the state should intervene and tell parents that they cant teach their children religous views. It's nanny state madness. Just like Diversity, multi culturalism and pushing tolerance.

    It isn't their business. That is entirely up to the parents, not the state.

  • @TikofTok Please elaborate, I am interested.

  • @resonantdave

    On what would you like me to discuss further? I cannot see what you are replying to since the yotube changes.

  • @TikofTok I agree, schools should not discriminate. Therefore girls should get exactly the same opportunity of education as boys (FYI that's feminism), ethnic minorities should get the same opportunity of education as the ethnic majority (FYI that's multi-culturalism), in fact, everyone should get the same opportunity of education (FYI that's egalitarianism)

    So what exactly is your problem? How can you be a egalitarian AND an authoritarian, because authority requires a heirarchy.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    Thats absolute rubbish. Females have always had the same right to education as boys. Though the years of gender differing on subjects has gone. All races have been given the same education and opportunities since the 70s. That is neither multi culturalism or Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a fiath based principle that all races are exactly the same despite tens and tens of thousands of years apart adapting to radically different enviroments.

  • @TikofTok Actually from a taxonomic standpoint, races have never been seperate. There has never been any true isolation. While there may be a vast distance between Scotland and Japan for example, there is a virtually unbroken line of human habitation between the two. Wherever humans live, they mate, therefore genetic drift means that over time Scottish genetic traits will arrive in Japan, just through people fucking the people near them. That's why there is only one human subspecies.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    Of course there has. There are man seperate races and sub races. Many regions have isolated these seperate peoples, to claim all human species are the same is dreadfully ignorant and shows you lack of knowledge. I do hope you aren't one of those people who believe that skin colour is all that seperates us. Those so called unbroken lines are still divided up by nations, continents and land. Stop pushing goal posts.

  • @TikofTok Well I'm pretty much going with the scientific consensus here which is that there is no taxonomic rank lower than subspecies, and there is currently only one homo sapien subspecies. There WERE two others, but we killed them.

    Of course people all posses different inherted genetic traits that go deeper than the skin, but the division along racial lines is too neat for my liking, too perfect. History shows that our genetic inhertance is muddier and murkier than that,

  • @Beelzeboogie

    Well of course it's not perfect. Even among subsaharans, the different amounts of traits are far larger than any other race but there is still a fairly universal line in their areas. There are races, they are different, they are not the same.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    It's a false idea based upon very little science. Now this doesn't mean people should be treated differently, it's just natural selection. Multi Culturalism is an oxymoron, it is the idea that cultures can exist in the same nation. They cannot. Opposing cultures cannot co exist. They war. The only place in the world that ahs ever been even close to the multi cultural dream was Rome and they had slaves and an Empire which demanded absolute servitude to Rome.

  • @TikofTok Well they certainly can't exist in seperation either. It's not like everyone respects a national border. Human history is filled with imperialism, war for profit and genocide. Do you honestly believe that everyone having their own little spot on the globe will stop that? At some point somebody is simply going to try and invade. With multi-cultualism, you give them a hell of a lot less reason to.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    And a WELFARE state is force. By allowing people in making them citizens, you give them access to that welfare, which is paid for by taxpayers. You have ignored everything I have said, you have openly ignored the link I showed. We as the publci, pay taxes, we fund this system. Each immigrant costs far more than they put in. You can push goal posts all you want, voters have said no. If you want to live in a foreign country, move, the rest of us dont.

  • @TikofTok I simply didn't spot the link, I didn't ignore it, gimme a moment to hunt it down

  • @Beelzeboogie

    Multi culturalism is forced via mass immigration. If you had read the link I posted, it shows the Islamic push into even secular schools. You can claim certain buzzwords and twist them around to sort your deluded idea of equality but that isn't true. Intergration is forced, mass immigration is forced and it is all done without the consent of the population which has voted consistently for stricter immigration policies.

  • @TikofTok I'm sorry but I just don't see mass immigration as forceful action. Policing a border requires force, turning people away requires force, allowing people in is a passive action. Claiming that immigration is forced is fucking ridiculous, by definition it means the ABSENSE of force used to keep people out.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    When you give citizenship. You hand over welfare, incredible and EXPENSIVE rights and benefits WE have to pay for. You also give the ability to vote and to change government. This is a massive amount of force. Changing government, taking money, resources are a huge amount of force. Then again, I do not expect to find middle ground with someone who think that patriotism and nationalism are stupid. It's a varied ideal of loving ones people and country.

  • David Cameron has not got a clue what he is talking about as usual. He is one of these stupid Tory dicks that lives in the past and lies for a living. Anybody who takes anything he says seriously should seek medical help.The UK is not a Christian country as the vast majority of the people who live here never go to church and do not pray to any God. Cameron thinks it is 1860 still.

  • @zrdragon1

    Fail. The UK is fairly christian and has based its values on a chistian mentality. Most of the west has. I myself am an Athesit, I dont think our government should have a religous doctrine but I fully support the ideal of our country basing itself upon christianity. Radical atheists like you aswell as zionist fucks like Cameron and Milliband are the problem. Not church goers.

  • @TikofTok More Fail. You are obviously some racist joker without a clue. Have fun typing crap on youtube.

  • @zrdragon1

    >2011

    >calling anyone who opposes faith based politically motivated ideals like multi culturalism, racists

    I seriously hope you stop playing the race card. It's a fucking joke. Now either grow up and debate me or kindly piss off back to your anti intellectual bunker of stupidity and emotional frailty.

  • T'was messed up it was. :(

    

  • Non denominational schools, they are actually quite scarce, growing up both my schools primary and secondary; were in fact religious, 'praying' was compulsary in both. In 6th year; our relgion retreat took survey upon our arrival and discovered that only three people, myself included were actually atheist, with agnostic being first and theist second. I suppose my biggest reaction was the fact that near 120 young males ages 17-19 in early 2009, no more than 3 would admit a disbelief in god. :(

  • YOU GONNA BE SORRY WHEN ISLAM RULZ IN UK ! PROTECT YOUR RELIGION OR YOU GONNA END LIKE COUNTRIES WHO ARE UNDER CHARIA LAWS

  • @theash3s Oh no! Not Charia Law!

  • @theash3s Oh you mean Sharia law. Actually not all Arab countries allow sharia law, take Libya for example, Ghadaffi actually had a system not unlike the UK, free education, free healthcare and EQUAL RIGHTS for women, OMG ! Well that was up until the UK and USA decided to get rid of Ghadaffi. The first thing the rebels did when they got into power was impose Sharia Law on the entire population. You could find that out for yourself in 5 minutes on youtube mate.

  • @theash3s : why does there have to be a threat to t he faith? do you feel that the only way Islam can be taken up is by violence?

  • Unfortunately we Americans are incredibly uniformed/misinformed on current events in the United Kingdom, its quite sad really.

  • @gerbs96 world*

  • Look into who actually funds individual uk based faith schools and where they recieve their textbooks from, it certainly aint the state, before passing your supposedly well inform criticisms. Any teaching of sexuality in schools Is not only wrong but has been proven to be detrimental to society whereby the teaching of religion, providing there Is a suitable cut off point, Is just the opposite. Faith based opinions, such as yours, are valueless.

  • @ToleranceIsGay er. try watching the video. he opposed schools being filled with religion.

  • @ToleranceIsGay So much stupid, so little time.

    To care.

  • I admit, I don't know as much about UK politics and culture as I think I should. Videos like your's here, though, I think do a good job in helping us folks over on this side of the rock to get some insight, though.

  • What a bunch of CRAPOLA

  • @freedomluchador care to expand on that

  • @IFE10M The UK is a country that in the name of God and queen/king annihilated billions of folks... That is a bunch of crapolAAA!

  • @freedomluchador either you didn't watch the video or you didn't understand it.

  • @freedomluchador ITS ALL RELIGIONS , even in Islam you find kings in the name of Islam like in Morocco / Saudi / Jordain/ Kuwait / Bahrain

  • Comment removed

  • The Vatican has pretty much HIJACKED education in the U.K..

    They buy the schools- only employ staunch catholic teachers / staff and they're funded by The State indefinitely..

    It's really disgusting that this is accepted in our culture, it's basically free brainwashing- forcing kids to go to a church- I went to a catholic primary school- it was more about accepting religion and praying all day than learning anything.. I got in allot of trouble too- because I told the other kids God isn't real.

  • That's BS about the old people. When you ask old people in Britain what religion they are, they think you are asking what religion they were born into. It doesn't mean they practice or even believe in a religion

  • @ManNorthern That was the problem with the latest census available figures. The BSAS asked people what religion they were, with no (or at least less) ambiguity about whether it was implied that it was the one they brought up in.

  • The Guilds from the Middle Ages (later became the Freemasons) had more impact on Britain than any other organizations (The Guilds started a strike for better pay and conditions during King Edward's ("Longshanks") rule in the 13th century. Longshanks caved and got his castles built. Thus began the union/workers' influence on Britain, and the Royals' symbiotic dependance/subservience to the people. That is why Britain had a Parliament long before America was even thought of.

  • @ManNorthern

    You can also look to Longshanks use of Paid men in addition to feudal levies, and this continues, particularly under his grandson, and then Henry the Vth. The Rise of the Longbow and the changing power dynamic of military strength, with a prosperous middle class as a support for limited monarchy and the ability not to have it be absolute is another factor into why we have an old parliament, and still have a very old monarchy.

  • All religious holidays in Britain were Celtic/Driud/Pagan holidays before that.

  • Atheism is the fastest growing belief. In the future, religions will only be practised by the eccentric.

  • @RuggyBurnstead

    More fail. Islam is the fastest growing belief structure. Britain is slowly turning Islamic, simply by birth rates. Not just Britain, Europe as a whole. Western Liberal values will be crushed by the voting majority of muslims. Personally I find it funny how a people who once threw off the shackles of their masters and conquered the world now let people in by the millions and even pay them to do it.

    Londoner here. We're going to burn. I get a front row seat.

  • @TikofTok I disagree totally. More and more people are adopting liberal views, for instance think about how attitudes towards gay people have changed. It has gone from being illegal, to near-equality. And you reference how Britain is becoming Islamic simply from birth rates, but you do not mention how many people of Islamic heritage later come to reject the right-wing beliefs associated with Islam.

  • @RuggyBurnstead

    If they rejected those cultural views, then our media and police wouldnt have to hide the rising number of honour killings, we wouldnt have terrotist bombings. A week back, a woman wouldnt have been decapitated and a white native wouldnt have been beaten and called a ''white slag.'' I dont care what you do behind closed doors, I care about what my taxes go to and what kind of policies my government pushes. Polices which are detrimental to every Brit.

  • @RuggyBurnstead

    Our birth rates have plummeted. We cannot repalce our older population and we are being replaced by non British foreigners with oppsing cultures. It isn't diffiuclt to understand that importing people who have needs to a welfare state will cost more than they put in. It also isnt difficult to realize that native low birth rates and high foreign birth rates will lead to a decline in native populations. I live in Multi kult London. Reality speaks volumes.

  • Was he channeling Rick Perry? 

  • @Karmajin29 Quite possibly. Are Muslims the dominant demographic group in Portsmouth? Southampton? Truro? Exeter? Bournemouth? Brighton? Colchester? I doubt it. That's ignoring Scotland and Wales of course. When you get down to it the UK isn't just London, Birmingham and Manchester.

    10 years ago the Muslim population was less than 3%, now it's less than 5%. That's still a pretty big increase but it's not the fucking doomsday scenario that some people would like it to be.

  • @Beelzeboogie That's a 66% growth rate, which means that within 50 yrs there will be a 60% majority of muslims, and that's if we accept the official lie figure of 5% muslim.

    It's a joke that anyone who professes to be atheist sits back & snipes about the effectively defunked religion of christianity while a far greater danger looms up like some drooling wolf.

    But it's a joke with teeth when those same people actively seek to protect Islam from criticism & aid it.

  • @scoocheeful

    That's the problem i find with my fellow atheists. They replace their religon with an entirely different ideology. Look at this.

    blogs . telegraph . co . uk/news/damianthompson/1001259­81/when-islam-met-the-diversit­y-industry/

    Diversity, multi kult etc has replaced christian views and values. Given a choice, I would prefer the christians to this.

  • @scoocheeful Yeah but population growth isn't exponential. If you apply exponential growth to a population year on year then that means that EVERY member of a population is giving birth including children, the elderly and y'know, MEN. It means that the people of this population reach sexual maturity within a year and are immortal. And that they have at least one child every year that they are alive.

    Needless to say 66% isn't actually as scary as it sounds.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    Becoming a minority in your homeland isn't scary? The statistics show that by 2020, only a small % of the children born in places like Birmingham will be British. That is terrible. You cannot possibly think you can replace the population of a people and think it will just work. The nation itself doesn't exist, its culture, its people are gone. Immigrants who are broguht up on foreign cultures will not perpetuate who we are. Noone would accept this.

  • @TikofTok I was simply saying that it is statistically impossible to replace the existing population given CURRENT immigration and birth rates. In order to do that, you would need significantly more than the 66% increase shown by the census data.

    Hey, if they MASSIVELy ramp up the immigration rates then I will shit myself. As it stands, I feel that people are predicting a doomsday secenario which isn't possible given current trends.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    Current numbers show that white children in Birmingham will be less than 50%. By 2020, it will be less than a quarter. I live in London, I already am a minority. I went to school as a minority and it was far from pleasent. We are becoming a minority, this WILL continue to happen. You will keep turning a blind eye. Some people even think this is a good thing. HA HA HA. Stupid white progressive suburbanites have no idea.

  • @TikofTok Mate you are making a lot of assumptions, I am not a suburbanite, I WAS up until I was 18 but I went to school in the inner city and i've lived in an Urban center for the last 10 years. Please let's keep this on the same level here, I'm trying to avoid making assumptions about you as much as possible, the least you could do is respond in kind.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    I went to a North London school. It was, one of the best around in the early 90s but they decided to ''enrich'' the school with Diversity and by the time I went there, it became the worst school in London. I have seen crime rates soar, they have been growing ever since the 60s. They will get worse. Southern England is a giant multi cultural experiment that is on the verge of exploding. It will explode. It is its natural course.

  • @TikofTok Well let's be honest here mate, you may want to bust out your Dickens novels if you have them, but London has not generally been doing all that well in the crime or squallor or urban decay areas for quite some time now.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    Crimes rates from 1901 to 2000 have been well documented. Though it is difficult to completely document, murder is concrete and far easier to track. Homicide rates doubled since the 60s. We had very little gun control in the early 20th century and very, very few deaths from guns. Communities were stronger, united. There was far less crime, tension. Look at Japan. Homogenus nations work better. It's a simple fact, Races, cultures help out their own.

  • @TikofTok Japan is an interesting case study now that you bring it up. It only unified as a single nation in 1987 when the Meiji government formed what was then the Empire of Japan. And they only achieved cultural homogeneity by... well to be honest forcing people from the RyuKyu islands for example to stop using their native language and start speaking the language of the Yamato people, the dominant ethnic group in Japan. Before then, you couldn't describe them as homogenous at all.

  • @Beelzeboogie Sorry, Sorry, that should say 1887. 1987 would be fucking ridiculous, my bad. Should have proofread that.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    Sorry if I appeared a bit unfair earlier. You seem mixed up in differing views. Im fairly sure those views are not concrete and could swing either way given the right arguments. Understandable. No matter how much you or I wish races and cultures would get along, they wont. And it only leads to seperation or annhilation. The world isnt going to run out of arabs, subsaharans or east asians anytime soon. But we might and it we practically let it happen.

  • @TikofTok Well I'd like to think that if we could get into a longer discussion you would think that my views were well-researched but I accept that there may be inconsistancies that I am unaware of. There's no point in having a debate from an entrenched position, so yes I could be wrong.

    I don't think we'll run out of ethnic brits anytime soon, theirs 65 million in the UK alone and that doesn't take into account the number of expats around the world.

  • @TikofTok Japan and China are pretty far from ethnically homogenous. It's just cultural dominance by the Yamato Japanese and the Han Chinese respectively, that makes it appear that way.

    So basically, it's not really ethnicity or race that determines wether a people are united. It's wether they FEEL united that makes the difference.

  • @Beelzeboogie

    Mono culture is of course far more important than mono ethnicity/race. But Japanese do not accept outsiders, not in the way we do. Japan has major problems but certainly nothing to do with crime or lack of community spirit. Also, those ethnicities are very close together. It's not a mix up of Anglos, Arabs and subsaharans, all with completely different cultures. We will be like Bosnia in a few decades. You know this cant work. It's insanity.

  • Cameron is as Christian as the Vatican, where values such as hoarding wealth, idolatry and status are pursued. As for the idiots banging on about Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are from the same God, but given we live on planet Earth, people will twist what's good to suit themselves and spread hatred in the process, look at politics or law, or human history... Forget the church, look at how Jesus (P.B.U.H.) lived his life, giving and sacrificing for the poor and weak, Cameron benefits.

  • nice vid

  • It is a secular country with a Christian heritage, just like almost every country in Europe, and just like Turkey is a secular country with a Muslim heritage.

  • @blackmichael75 Have you been listening? The UK is not a secular country.

  • @LatumWay Maybe not in law, but in practice it is. It is ipso facto secular. Almost no-one goes to church, and religion is not significantly involved in politics, the role of the monarch is largely ceremonial. The same as most other European countries.

  • @blackmichael75 Yes, socially it is secular.