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") 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?

Euclid wrote: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 http://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.

Euclid wrote: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 http://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:

A ruling elite that refuses to define #BritishValues for fear of being forced to uphold them

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.