Why there must be an end to the evil of so called positive discrimination   

It is a shame that not all women feel that way

all the best urban

This is about events in Britain.

Just to clarify, are you really saying it is worse to marry one that is not Christian than to teach their children to shoot guns and bomb synagogues and persecute Jews?

all the best urban

If you marry an unbeliever there is the difficulty with children. You may want the children to go to church while your spouse may not. He may want the children to go to the temple. He may also be an atheist. And he may also think it is all right to waste your wages on gambling. (by the way, I did not know you were talking about
Britain, but I heard that the government there is becoming more anti-Christian.

By the way I said that if a couple tells that their children not to marry outside of their race or ethnic group if they are European, it is not as bad as telling their children that it is all right to bomb synagoues or persecute those of a different race. So it was not what your question asked.
For me it is wrong to marry outside your religion if you are practicing that, that is if you are on the fence, you can marry who you like, but once you start going to church, a temple, synagoue or whatever you marry in that religion.

I also figured that it is not right to say that it is wrong for white people to say to their children "you cannot marry any non-white person," and yet it is all right for non-white people to say "you can marry white a person."
I feel that the parents should have had their children removed not because they did not want their children to marry outside their color or 'race', but because they belonged to a group that advocated violence against anyone who did not confirm to their ideology and the Nazis not only were against Jews, they were against those who were Christians, Communists, people of different beliefs then they, yet the only reason the social worker took the kids away was "that their parents did not want them to marry outside their ethnic group," and the message given is that the social workers want the children only to marry someone who is non-white.
They did not say that their parents were part of a group that was known for bombing Jewish cemetaries, and do horrible things like that. If I were the social workers, I would put more emphasis on the dangerous lifestyle, their parents taking them on rides and throwing rocks at Jewish stores, beating up people of color and things like that. That would be a good reason to remove the children as they would be in danger.
Belonging to a group that advocates violence against people of another color, race, or religious belief is just as wrong as marrying outside your religion. It is all right to marry someone of a different color but like most marriages, there should be common interests. So someone can marry someone of a different ethnic group if they believe in the same way of raising children, love to go to the park on the Weekends, love long walks, etc. but if the only reason is that they want to prove they are non prejudicial, that is wrong.

Are you sure they'll let you in?

all the best urban

They have to, I am the president.

Better, thinks I, to award on merit alone. All discrimination is discrimination; positive is a misnomer.

all the best urban

Interestingly, you sound like a member of the empire not its enemy?

all the best urban

It is better to award on merit alone and I don't believe I said otherwise.

A couple of little things do puzzle me though. Firstly I am interested to know how you link any of your OP, apart from the title of course, to the issue of positive discrimination. Secondly I am curious as to how you, on the basis of my response, believe that I sound like a member of the empire - whatever or whichever that may be - rather than an enemy of empire.

"It is better to award on merit alone and I don't believe I said otherwise."

"If you can suggest any alternative methodology for dealing with discrimination within a realistically achievable time scale then go ahead. "

Granted that is not an implicit recommendation of positive discrimination but it tacitly implies that it should be accepted unless another alternative can be found. That I do not accept, since it is not a timely way of dealing with the problem but actually exacerbates the problem.

I mentioned positive discrimination because the officer having claimed discrimination to overcome the initial charges against him was 'fact-tracked' for promotion. And secondly because to have a 'Black police organisation' when a similar organisation for Whites would not be allowed is discrimination and would, presumably, be called positive.

Supporter of the empire because you defend the status quo, that was all

all the best urban