The assumption by UK resident Jews and Muslims that all native people are christian – by default

The assumption by UK resident Jews and Muslims and other religious types, that all english persons are presumed to by christian by default. Once when I was about 17 I met a muslim man aged about 50 on a train who tried rather laboriously and rather presumptively to explain, that I being a British Christian and he a muslim were largely compatible from a religious cultural perspective, being that I don’t like to debate with the wilfully ignorant believers of religious fiction, I did not dissuade him of this fallacy, as I didn’t consider being british the exploration of such matters and making him aware of his own fallacious beliefs expressed on a train to be conducive with relaxing travel. Looking back on it, I should not have amicably let him travel onward with such delusions, I should have expressed to him quite clearly the real nature of british christianity of which he was making presumptions, and that in fact any religio-cultural mashup religions are in my opinion largely incompatible with british culture in general, Christianity in Britain at that time he expressed his opinion was about as dangerous as tennis or any other pacified innocuous hobby and that he and I had in fact, had very little in common at all, what with Islam’s general belief in prostration and the submitting of ones intellect to a fictional non existent gods will, was in fact incompatible and abhorrent to me as a british person. I let him carry on his journey in ignorance of such understanding, due to the amicability of the english nature, a civilised quality that has proven disastrous in the face of mass immigration from cultures that do not understand some of the subtelty’s of english nature and presume that apparently passive amicability to be an open invitation? which it is not.

Mr Hugo Rifkind of the times in a recent article he wrote … titled >

“Suddenly it feels uncomfortable to be a Jew”

ones retort to such a title as a non religious person might be, that it should as a human being in general … feel uncomfortable … to be religious in any form, being that religion is a fiction and a massive metaphorical hair shirt.

He stated when talking about the school he attended in his youth ? no doubt a fee paying ? boarding school – and such schools are further grist to the mill of social divide and money providing unbalanced reward and benefit in life, toward specific wealth classes, and he the embodiment of it perhaps, as if any such evidence were needed, spoke fourth and propounded …

“the only other non-Christian pupil was a guy two years up and he was a Buddhist”

note the use of “non-Christian” ? did he conduct a survey ? as though he imagines by default all english people are by default “Christian” ? as though for those english people who were not religious at all, its somehow still acceptable behaviour in terms of english people to by default declare, categorise, class or lump them together as christians without proof or analysis ?

The blindness of understanding on his part, which is also a blindness that other religio-cultural groups in the UK and abroad make- muslims included, is to fall for … and imagine without warrant / assume that english people in general, and by default are to be ‘imagined’ or to be considered as christians ? perhaps in part to make there own fictitious religious stances, seem more sane and palatable – as though we all of course are carrying around our own variant burden of religious fictitious belief – however weakly held – thereby justifying religion as a whole- poppycock and presumptuous.

as though they cannot really conceive of others who are not denominationally tied at all to some form of ‘religion’ and also not conceiving that culturally identity and religion, need not be bound together at all? Their own religion being a religio-cultural mashup, they presume all other religions to be so also, and all people mandatorily ascribable to religion in some form if only weakly? This is an ignorance and a prejudice that religious people often display, without further examining the reality or complexity of the situation or history.

It might be better to state and make it clear for all religiously indoctrinated people living in Britain, who have immigrated into our culture in the last 64 years, that prior to mass immigration from the 50’s onwards, christianity in british culture was in permanent decline and enigmatically heading toward the wonderful state of being not much different from say a gentle kind of ‘religious national trust’ type scenario, a lovely collection of historical buildings and harmless gentle rituals and practices that we would sustain if only for the purpose of a sense of unifying historical remembrance of times past, rather than any form of active religious fervour. And those people who sent their children to ‘nominally labelled’ christian schools, did so not out of any religious belief or fervour, but because nearly all schools in Britain originated or were perhaps founded even from some sense of historical christianity, which was now largely just ‘a remnant label’, hymns were sung in my youth by lots of children in lots of schools countrywide, who did no longer conceive of themselves as christians nor had any interest in it. And christianity in schools It was nowhere near as mind washing as say they DUA for instance that muslim children are forced to conduct at almost every active moment of their existences or the monotonous mantra of “god is great” that may accompany the slightest moment in islamic life.

The lords prayer in my school was rote like read at meal times, out of some sense of unbroken tradition for traditions sake, hymns like ‘the morning has broken’, and its happy clappy shite 70’s cousin “he’s got the whole world in his hands” were sung not because of belief or faith, but because as a child one follows such knowingly propagandist rubbish, for need of wanting an education and getting one, whether the included guff is believed in or not, in the case of C of E Christianity, it was water of a ducks back to feign, to those that cared and apingly recite some selection of words to soothe the extreme minority, that still had any belief in such historically half dying flawed bible parables, Christian Religion had become merely a decorative background dressing. The other major difference being that Christianity was merely a religion and not a religio-cultural mash up, the important process of separation between church and state having started along time ago and being almost wholly complete before mass immigration. Unlike so many of these more dangerous and divisive religions in my opinion – import religions never seem to quite grasp this distinction in their endless search for religious equality with pacified christianity.

Judaism and the Muslim faiths both have extensive inbuilt laws sufficient, to supplant and found internalised societal structures including enough governance to acclaim their own courts, law and rulings as superior and pre-eminant over that of the host cultures governance, laws and rules covering almost every apsect of those who belongs lives, how to dress, food, gathering etc etc – really – everything.

British Christianity was never in ‘recent history’ ever so gauche as to be so fully declarative of its own religious laws to super-mand parliaments laws or democracy, as it had been largely and effectively neutered through successive events in history, like the unifying influence of the reformation which broke the papal italian mafia and the divisive segregative influence of all the various enumerate variants of christianity, and the founding of parliament which thankfully further diminished religious influence in british peoples lives, these events pacified most power inherent in british christianity, putting it by 1950 – firmly in the backseat in England. Tis a pity these import religions were incapable of understanding this sufficiently, to understand why there religions are very different in substance to so called british christianity. British christianity had been moderated to a gentle past-time only of historical significance but little else, making it particularly suited as background layer of semi cultural unifying blandness, and thats how a religion should be … ideally, for it ‘not’ to be potentially divisive and dangerous, ie neutered – wholly a peaceful, largely passive – culturally unifying and open to and inclusive of all joiners. Without blood requirements as in judaism’s maternal lineage etc, though that inclusivity of course has proven to be its own weakness, in terms of how the open nature of christianity, and has most often served in the last 40 years merely as a landing platform/bridgehead to dilute british people culture in the english urban centres, for foreign immigration has reinforced the re-activation and re-invigoration of an older more fervent and less subtle forms of British christianity, and congregation-ally is now most often manned by largely foreign people that have swollen attendances and flocks in what is now effectively a form of masonic lodge in disguise for supposed minority import groups, to benefit themselves and lobby from, to attain extra political sway, beyond the natural democracy of one person one vote that should have permanently replaced religious influence many moons ago.

Hugo also writes >

“I was the only Jew at my Edinburgh boarding school. Honestly. The only one.”

what is his implication ? that this was an issue ? or just an irrelevant fact ? or that there should have been a prescribed number of jews ? or the subconscious implication might be that this was in some way a fault, a flaw or a problem ? I could mention that there are many many jewish and other faith schools to this very day that only cater for jewish or specific religiously denominated children in Britain and select on the basis of faith stamford hill near me clear evidence of this – something I find abhorrent in the modern age and yet there is no outcry about the divisiveness of religiously denominated schools – with segregative pupil selection ? Religious Inclusiveness is not something those who wield that word most often for their own benefit and to batter english culture with, seem to bother to operate themselves ‘inclusivity wise’ as regards their own religious schools, no that is something that state nominally christian or non denominational schools have to worry about – inclusivity ?, though this subtlety eludes such religious segregation-alist’s most often.

he also writes >

“behind the rising tide of antisemitism”

as though its a given or fact? rather than a subjective viewpoint or perhaps that criticism of jewish zionist behaviour or Israel could ever be ‘well founded’, it is by default and somehow automatically the hot devil of racist “antisemitism” and must constantly be declared as such ? I guess post the war and the jewish role of victim, Jewish culture in general has grown unaccustomed to hearing or taking criticism of any kind ? and the direct connection between the decline of the largely westernised civil integrated and gentle non zionist proportion of the jewish cultural group in this country, has coincided seemingly with a necessitous increase of criticism, levelled at israel and zionism in general, as a direct result of observable actions and behaviour ?

I could go on but the intellect of Hugo, as demonstrated in the first three visible paragraphs, that rubs provocatively like Rose-hip down the front of the Times paywall – is very much in question.

sadly the journalistic industry is riddled with pseudo intellectual academic class striving, educationally privileged religiously denominated, parent pushed do well types, pontificating they’re views from the pulpit of the press, conveniently ignoring the undemocratic nature of press amplification that they’re individual opinions attain in this process, and far in excess from a ‘being heard’ perspective that democracy, offers to the ordinary voter, in fact dangerously so and often for the worse in my opinion.

Newspaper website paywalls mean newspaper audiences will be more class niche than ever before.

£6 a week for access to the Times or £80 a year ? Surely this must have an impact on who the newspapers readers are, and if the print edition goes completely then. ultimate the only class that can justify the weekly expense or yearly will be a very narrow class of people, to some people £6 per week would be better spent on bills or food undoubtedly ? therefore paywall subscriptions must be furthering the divisive-ness in terms of which class a papers audience is? and when he print edition dies it will only get worse. I find myself unable to comment in any form – social media etc on articles behind a paywall, which is also a form self selective censoring in the sense, that the only audience that can criticise output is that which can afford to read it. Even if you buy the print edition you wont be able to comment on the online version of an article ? pfff joy joy. They have to get profitable to survive but what the journalistic landscape will look once we’ve got there will be another matter ? £80 a year isn’t so bad TBH for the quantity, but who need or wants 365 editions of daily news ? can you customise the site to remove unwanted content theres a question does paying get rid of all advertising ? lots of questions, most of which the draw of the times isn’t worth investigating. leaving mr rif kind as the case in point to raise this point unchallenged in a recent article of his.