Immigrate, integrate, repeat.

Watching the debates last night made me think about my immigration opinion. The rise of parties like UKIP and, more worryingly, the BNP makes it even more important. Writing my opinions down on this will be hard, seen as my views are more coherent than foundational. They don't really rest on one premise, rather my argument rests on history and the lessons we can learn from history. Deciding where to start on this topic isn't easy.

Aristotle saw the birth and growth of the city-states like Athens and Sparta in a fairly natural way. He thought that tribes would come together and form villages, those villages would come together and form trading relationships and as they grew would form towns. Subsequently those towns would grow and those in closest proximity to each other would eventually form the Polis (city-state).

It makes me think about Scottish history. Clans that fought, then came together under different celtic, pictish and other kings. They fight and then they have a common enemy and come together and eventually they form a country which eventually becomes the Scotland we know today.

With all this in mind, I can't help but think borders are completely arbitrary. When UKIP and BNP members and supporters talk about the flood of immigrants taking their jobs, why do they think it is any worse for someone from India to take a job in your area than it is for a local migrant, someone from Glasgow say, to take a job in London? I imagine that not too long ago people in Glasgow might have complained about people coming from Kilmarnock and "taking their jobs".

I expect the answer to that point will be that the local migrant is just that, local. They are from the same country. I would like to ask then, what is so special about being from this country? Does it make you a better person? They can't honestly claim that locals are more consistently morally righteous. The only advantage I can honestly see a local person having over an immigrant is that they speak the language and have immediate experience with the culture.

For practical reasons, easier running of society and for efficiency in the workplace it seems obvious they should speak the language. I can't help but feel ignorant when I go abroad and can't speak the local language, and that's only a holiday. If I were moving abroad I'd definitely make an effort to learn the language.

Who would I stop coming into the country then? Well, I'd be much more liberal than we already are. I would require two criteria be met - they speak English, and have no criminal convictions. We don't want to look after criminals we don't have to, we don't ship our criminals abroad so we should have the right to expect other countries don't try this with us. The language thing for reasons explained above. The culture thing I don't see as incredibly important, they'll come to be familiar with it eventually.

Another Liberal Democrat!

We all agree with Nick. Awesome.

Marry me, Mr Government?

The Tories and their marriage policies, eh?

At the moment I'm not really concerned with their exact plans for marriage tax breaks. My concern is why a government, any government, interferes with religious rituals and sacraments. I believe in a separation of church and state, but let's actually explore what that means.

A separation of church and state means that the church, or some other religious institution, should not have undue influence (that is, disproportionate influence) in deciding policy. It also means that particular churches or religious institution(s) should not be the basis for creating law (choosing one particular institution is at best arbitrary and at worst the result of dogma). What it does not mean is that the law and lawmakers will cease to respect those with religious beliefs or religious institutions.

With this in mind, I start thinking about same sex marriage and then marriage in general. Most liberals would demand that same sex marriage be permitted and that the state offers this in the same way it does to heterosexual couples. I could not disagree more. It's not that I don't think the state should offer equal treatment, it's that I don't think the state should offer anything other than civil partnerships. It would be silly to suggest the state could offer baptisms, bar mitzvahs, communion or some other religious rite or sacrament so why should they offer this particular sacrament?

We can avoid the whole argument over same-sex marriage if we leave that particular decision up to individual churches, mosques and synagogues. By doing this we can let each individual community decide who get's "married" while allowing anyone not recognised by that community the recognition of the law. It means the non-religious among us don't have to engage in a religious ceremony. It also means those who do not believe in marriage but who are in a happy, committed relationship can have access to the same legal benefits currently provided by marriage (not necessarily tax breaks, but even the mundane things like speaking for a partner over the phone when dealing with utility bills etc). The marriages permitted by individual institutions would still be recognised by the government, who those institutions permit to be married is up to the separate communities.

We might anticipate the following argument against this position; if we are trying to promote equality, then are we not shooting ourself in the foot by allowing some communities to treat their members unequally? This seems like a fair objection, but consider the reply. These communities are allowed to treat their members unequally, because the members are not obliged or forced in any way to be a member of that particular community. The gay couple who want to be wed and who are members of the congregation at a particular church (which does not permit same-sex marriage) are not forced to be members of that particular church. By remaining a member of that church they consent to the unequal treatment. If they do not consent to this treatment they can join another church which would permit their marriage.

The law has no place interfering with the beliefs of individuals, where it does have a place is making sure the beliefs of one group of individuals do not interfere with the beliefs of another group.

A concrete paradox.

I don't know if this paradox has been covered elsewhere, I do little (if any?) research on the ideas I have. I prefer to dive right in and see what I can come up with on my own.

I was talking through a conversation in my head, between me and a friend. I was thinking about getting old and making plans for the future and how our attitudes influence these things. I was told growing up that my attitudes would change. I can only guess this is because as we get older we have new experiences, we have more time for introspection and can come to form new beliefs. It seems like a pretty good description of how our attitudes are formed and behave. So I'm left thinking, should we think that no attitude is concrete?

It doesn't seem to be outlandish to suggest that no belief is concrete. If we do think that no attitude is, or should be, concrete it seems we have one very obvious question: is the attitude that no attitude is concrete actually a concrete attitude. If it should happen to be a concrete attitude, then we find that the attitude (that no attitude is concrete) is actually incorrect. If it is not a concrete attitude, then we find that we have no concrete attitudes and so the suggestion that all out attitudes are not concrete seems concrete and plausible.

Answers on a postcard?