I have a vague recollection that people on here have previously concluded that British values do not exist. If so, those people are clearly wrong as, if headlines (The Times today) are to believed, the "British values of liberty and tolerance" will be taught in schools from September, seemingly as part of the response to Birmingham's "Trojan Horse" debacle.

This looks set to become a minefield of definition and counter-definition. What is "liberty" - seemingly freedom to express views, for girls to express views, for religious expression but not, perhaps, to practice Islam in ways the state objects to?

When did "tolerance" become a British value? Presumably, when it became politically expedient as a way of try to keep our "multi-cultural society" from fracturing along religious/ethnic lines?

Why not "fair-play" - have the Tories at least not been hypocritical by dropping that old, alleged virtue from the repertoire of self-congratulatory "British" values and virtues?

How does Gove square his penchant for allowing self-governance of schools ("acadamies"icon_wink.gif with the fact that they have so quickly become open to perceived abuse via infiltration of governing bodies? How is that dilemma going to be policed?

How does Gove square his view that we should have more faith schools with his outrage of the effective conversion of a state school into a faith school?

If the state is going to prescribe the teaching of British values will those values change after general elections to reflect party political views? At what point does the teaching of British values become indoctrination and thereby an assault on freedom?

Assuming Gove sticks with his ideals of wresting control of as many schools as possible from local authority hands, then surely "extremist" schools will flourish more rapidly than they otherwise would? Unless the state is going to oversee the constitution of Boards of Governors? If so, in what way will that be achieved? Maybe by patronising racism in the selection process? Local white pillars of the community parachuted in to keep the local Muslims on track?

At the end of the day, isn't the issue a fundamental one? That British values (what ever they are) have largely derived, consciously and unconsciously, from our Christian past (love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, etc) and that no amount of semantic juggling can get away from the fact that there is an inherent conflict between the Christian and Muslim views of the world?

Will in the next few years we see the development of watersheds from which the first trickles of Powell's "rivers of blood" will start to flow?

Here in Birmingham (yes I'm still here - HELP!) there is, as you'd expect, a little bit of a kerfuffle at the moment about "Trojan Horses" and specifically about the one academy involved which is being threatened by its major sponsor with a withdrawal of monies, all of which I find delightfully ironic with market forces deciding whether children can be taught or not, by whom, and with what, such fun.

How much do you actually know about Islam to enable you to say that there is an inherent conflict between Christian and Muslim views of the world?

If that was aimed at me, I
was posing a question not stating an opinion or fact.

Your post states "the fact that there is an inherent conflict..." How is that statement a question?

Quote ="Euclid"How much do you actually know about Islam to enable you to say that there is an inherent conflict between Christian and Muslim views of the world?'" I'm no expert, but maybe you could open the batting by explaining how easy it is to be a Christian in, say Pakistan? Again I am absolutely no expert but according to the website www.christiansinpakistan.com/chr ... -pakistan/ Quote Under severe Islamic Religious domination, the miseries of the Christians inPakistanare enormous and visible everywhere and at every level. Although founder ofPakistanclearly said that Quote “If we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor… you are free- you are free to go to your temples mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state…”'" But the present constitution, political system and government are undemocratic. No more Democracy. Theocracy is prevailing inPakistan. Under this system, the Christians of Pakistan have neither equal political, socio-economical status, nor the equal access to available opportunities in playing a leading role in the national set-up. Though Christians believe and consider themselves to be first class citizens ofPakistan, the present political system believes the Christians are second class citizens and are practically at the lowest level. They are constantly reminded at every level that it is not their country. Constitutionally, no Christian has the entitlement to become President, Prime Minister, Chairman of the Senate, or the Speaker of National Assembly (Parliament) ofPakistan. Under the Constitutional bindings, the policies and practices have been adopted by all government and judicial functionaries to ignore and neglect the Christians every time, everywhere at all levels. People at lower level have adopted this as a law that no higher position or rank is given to any Christian.'" They could, of course, be making it all up. Or maybe the conflict is not "inherent", so that's alright, then? PS I am not a "Christian". Nor any other sky pixie based label.

Quote ="Euclid"How much do you actually know about Islam to enable you to say that there is an inherent conflict between Christian and Muslim views of the world?'" I'm no expert, but maybe you could open the batting by explaining how easy it is to be a Christian in, say Pakistan? Again I am absolutely no expert but according to the website www.christiansinpakistan.com/chr ... -pakistan/ Quote Under severe Islamic Religious domination, the miseries of the Christians inPakistanare enormous and visible everywhere and at every level. Although founder ofPakistanclearly said that Quote “If we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor… you are free- you are free to go to your temples mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state…”'" But the present constitution, political system and government are undemocratic. No more Democracy. Theocracy is prevailing inPakistan. Under this system, the Christians of Pakistan have neither equal political, socio-economical status, nor the equal access to available opportunities in playing a leading role in the national set-up. Though Christians believe and consider themselves to be first class citizens ofPakistan, the present political system believes the Christians are second class citizens and are practically at the lowest level. They are constantly reminded at every level that it is not their country. Constitutionally, no Christian has the entitlement to become President, Prime Minister, Chairman of the Senate, or the Speaker of National Assembly (Parliament) ofPakistan. Under the Constitutional bindings, the policies and practices have been adopted by all government and judicial functionaries to ignore and neglect the Christians every time, everywhere at all levels. People at lower level have adopted this as a law that no higher position or rank is given to any Christian.'" They could, of course, be making it all up. Or maybe the conflict is not "inherent", so that's alright, then? PS I am not a "Christian". Nor any other sky pixie based label.

I think Billy Bragg summed it up perfectly on twitter:

[iA ruling elite that refuses to define #BritishValues for fear of being forced to uphold them[/i

Pakistan does not represent all of Islam any more than the Branch Davidians represented all of Christendom. The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make is that sweeping statements about rather complex issues don't tend to increase understanding of those issues.

I would have thought the issue is a very simple one namely the non-integration of many immigrants, children and grandchildren of immigrants into our society. Unless something changes, and fast, the future will not be nice.

Isn't Christ considered to be a prophet by Muslims? Just not on the same level as Mohammed?

Most religious conflicts seem to be more cultural rather than anything really to do with the religion.

I think that's a really good point. There are a lot of cultural and tribal factors besides the religious aspect

Which is why "multi-culturalism" was a misguided mantra. Without integration, we will get bloodshed. As Simon Jenkins put it in article this evening, Gove's obsession with faith schools (but Gove doesn't seem sure about Muslim ones!) creates divisions and risks building a Northern Ireland-type situation here.

Out of interest, Mr. Dally, how many people that you would regard to be other to you and your culture do you know well?

By well, I mean the names of their children, if they have any, you perhaps have shared food with them, maybe discussed the arts?

It think it does, many orders more. Branch Davidians were a tiny sect, surely you are not trying to compare compulsory national religions with minority closed sects? That's just not valid.

I don't need to start listing other countries where any religion other than Islam is inherently in conflict. That would be pretty much all of them, from Iran/Iraq through Saudi etc. It isn't helpful to pretend that this conflict, which is irreconcileable, doesn't exist.


Seriously?

To borrow Sandra's idea, I would be curious to know of your first hand experience of Muslim countries?

I would never suggest that Muslim countries are perfect, but my experience of Jordan, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi was certainly different from that regularly portrayed in the British (and American) media.

I'm sorry you missed the point of my comparison earlier.

Not entirely sure what the first sentence means. But I do know non-native Brits well and in the terms you state (although why would I talk about the arts?. Indeed, given how few people, other than family, I would claim to know well I would guess we're talking quite a high percentage of those!

I don't see how that would be relevant. I know a lot about conditions on the Moon, or Mars, and could look up and find out a million times more, but have never been. Are you casting doubt on what the Pakistani Christians say about their situation in the link I posted? Would I have to have been a Christian living in Pakistan before I can accept that what they say is accurate? Do you have grounds to dispute what they say?

Are not the global experiences of entire sectors of a population of more relevance to this discussion than the limited and isolate experiences of one person, whether tourist or otherwise, which is not much more than anecdotal?


I'm not aware of what picture you think is "regularly portrayed" as you don't say, nor how this differs from your experience. I am sure that the experience of Western tourists and workers is in many cases OK and equally that it is not representative of what conditions apply to the native population, all the more so away from the main business and tourism areas.

Sorry you find personal experience to be so irrelevant.

and you have evidence of this....?

Interesting article today: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... equal.html

Interesting article today: www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... equal.html

That's a laugh. If you ever state what this personal experience actually is, then an opinion on its relevance could be formed. In what way does your unexplained personal experience make the self-explained situation of Pakistani Christians any better?

I have lived and worked in the Middle East. You, apparently, get your information from the internet. I have experience and you have a computer.

You must have been busy.


For goodness sake. If you truly are the oracle of all Middle Eastern knowledge, yea verily will I worship at your sacred feet, bathed in the glow of your infinite wisdom and knowledge of all things Middle Eastern cos you've been there for a bit, unworthy though I clearly am, if instead of pointless, pompous self-aggrandisement you would just address the fsckin question?

When you say "lived" were you living in and amongst the indigenous population, socialising, shopping, etc etc or were you like a couple of friends of mine "living" in a company compound with all requirements provided ?

I freely admit that my views on "living" in the middle east are based on those who pioneered "living" in the middle east in the 1970s when they were drilling for oil though, it may be different now that people don't have to get their hands dirty anymore and the locals have acquired more status.

Jerry, for the most part I was living on the border of the Indian quarter in Abu Dhabi, near the old Gold Souk. I suspect things have changed a bit over the years. I had time to chat with a lot of construction workers from the sub continent. They certainly don't lead a luxurious life but they make a lot more than they can at home. I also spent free time in the Souk with the locals, work time with various security and police officers, officials and politicians. I was training their officers and officials in investigation, interview/interrogation techniques, threats from organised crime and so on. They were, in my experience, friendly and open minded, but I certainly hadn't realised how deep their religion runs through their lives. As I try to explain the rather testy Aardvark, it seemed to me very different to the stereotypical portrayal of both Arabs and Muslims our media presents us with.