David Cameron's speech on Islamic extremism and the implications for JWs

by Mickey mouse 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  besty

  I think the WTS would do whatever - and I mean whatever - it takes to keep charitable status.

  Firstly the business model is taxpayer subsidised donations + free labour + tax free investment returns = property empire.

  And secondly it could wake up a lot of thinking JW's knowing that society at large doesn't see them as a 'proper' religion or charity with quantifiable public benefit.

  The risk of sunlight revealing their underlying business model is too great - they would rather open soup kitchens and other community initiatives....
• 

  wobble

  Cameron is as good at speaking out of both sides of his mouth as the WT is.

  This morning on the news they said that the GB government is looking to not be beholden to the Europoean Court of Human Rights, what has got up their nose is being told that Prisoners have the right to vote.

  This Right Wing Government only wants to respect Human Rights when it suits them.

  I think we should, on the charitable status thing, not single out the WT , but encourage the Government to make the religions only have seperate charities whose books are vetted most vigourously, at the moment there is so much room for fiddling, if there wasn't the WT would not be a charity as we know, but many other religions and quasi-religious bodies are dodgy too.
• 

  Married to the Mob

  Cameron, Clegg and co are better than the idiots that were in there before. I am not a massive fan of the LIBCON but more than I am of the labour nightmare and I think that they are making some hard choices due to the bad plans put in 5+ years ago.

  But every uk government is good at talking out of both sides of its mouth.

  What is interesting about the religious freedom is that in the uk it doesn't extend to the work place and is being trumped by discrimination. Recently there have been a couple of cases where government adoption services and relate staff have been dismissed and gone to tribunal for religious discrimination. In both cases the employee was dismissed for not providing service to clients who lifestyle conflicted with the employee's religious view point. (homosexuality).

  In both cases the claims were dismissed as the judge ruled that the claiments needed to look past their own religious viewpoints.
• 

  leavingwt

  Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah

  A prominent voice in Canada’s Muslim community said British Prime Minister David Cameron was “spot on” when he insisted British multiculturalism has failed.

  And just like Britain, Canada’s will fail, said Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah.

  He said Monday that, like Britain, Canada has been too tolerant in allowing Muslim immigrants to settle into closed communities, some of which preach Islamic values and a hatred toward the West.

  “The Canadian multicultural model has failed, as the British model has,” said Fatah. “When first generation (Muslims) are more loyal to Canada than the second generation, then we have sufficient evidence to say that multiculturalism has failed.”

  Citing the Toronto 18 terrorist plot as an example of the extremism that can result from ethnic isolation, Fatah said he hoped Canada can “pick up on” the points Cameron made in a controversial speech on Saturday.

  While speaking at a security conference in Germany, Cameron called for an end to Britain’s “passive tolerance” of divided ethnic communities. He also said beefing up was needed in the prevention of extremism.

  Fatah said Canada’s Liberal and Conservative governments push a tolerant, passive form of multiculturalism as a way of preserving votes.

  . . .

  http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/02/07/17188881.html
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Isn't he basically arguing that adherence to national identity should be stronger than any other facet of our identity?

  I took it differently. I took it as him saying that "preferential" treatment ends up being harmful and should go out the window.

  Preaching adherence to a national identity seems just too damned...nationalistic. It's just like another religion.

  As for removal of charitable status, here in the US it has been a tool for muzzling political expression in religious organizations going back 60 years to Lyndon B Johnson (who cynically enacted it to stifle opposition speech).

  Remove the charitable status, and you will remove the means for silencing such expression. This is a double edged sword.

  By the way, we here in the US are bemused when we watch, in the UK, the way Christians are deprecated in the public sphere while backs get bent over in reverse for Muslims.

  BTS
• 

  besty

  As for removal of charitable status, here in the US it has been a tool for muzzling political expression in religious organizations going back 60 years to Lyndon B Johnson (who cynically enacted it to stifle opposition speech). Remove the charitable status, and you will remove the means for silencing such expression. This is a double edged sword.

  I'm not clear on exactly what your position is with this BTS?

  My position is any organization (religious/political or combo) is free to espouse whatever views they want.

  Just don't use my tax dollars to subsidise it.

  Thats why a stringent public benefit test is required, which includes a holistic view on the positive/negative effects of the organisation.

  CAFOD - ok. Covering up child rape - not ok. Overall public benefit? hmmmmm.....

  And the WTS - IMHO- fail the UK public benefit test as extant JW's are not 'the public' and the vast majority of their 'public benefit' work is designed to recruit new members....they don't even have a CAFOD to wave...
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I'm not clear on exactly what your position is with this BTS?

  I really don't have a position. What I said is what I said: Here in the US, charitable status has advantages for those that want to control expression. If a religious outfit is deemed to cross into political expression, it gets threatened with a removal of 401c status.

  As for a public benefit test--that exists in the eye of the beholder. Neither of us might like some of the the outcomes.

  BTS
• 

  trevor

  Cameron is saying that although Britain is made up of many races and religions what makes us united as a people is our nationality.

  Nationality is inherently a political unity. For unity to exist it must be the strongest or most prominent bond. It is all a trick of the mind, but for a multicultural nation to live in harmony, it is self evident that without a strong sense of national identity it will not hold together as a nation.
• 

  besty

  charitable status has advantages for those that want to control expression.

  Charitable status is a financial incentive to perform public good - nobody argues with that.

  If that charity decides that some of its objectives are political then - IMHO - it should solicit non-taxpayer sources for funding those aims. Further, if that 'charity' has non-political but otherwise objectionable aims or non-quantifiable public benefit then it should not be taxpayer subsidised.

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2324265.ece
• 

  BurnTheShips

  then it should not be taxpayer subsidised.

  Charitable status does not meet the definition of "subsidy." Let's at least keep our terminology accurate.

  BTS