Fergus, That is, seriously, no way to start a comment. I don’t know who you are directing your swearing at, but do you honestly think that it helps the discussion? You are entitled to your opinion as others are entitled to theirs. There is no need for insults.

However, times change. I think it’s good to share a culture. I like to share in other cultures, and I’m happy to share my culture with others. So long as there’s a bit of mutual respect going round, no problem.

A variety of different religions? Hm, let’s go for Christianity. Is that Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Church of England? Presbyterian or United Reform? Or what about Methodist? Sure I’ve missed a few out there - sorry guys, no offence intended.

Without any doubt, one culture, one religion is essential, and it must be enforced through the legal system.

And that is Blairism - politically-correct capitalism.

Thanks, but I think I’ll opt for diversity.

It is better for a country if there is a variety of different religions

This also brings to mind the question of how much, if any, distinction there is between religion and ‘customs and traditions.’

Assuming there is no significant distinction intended, I would say that the correct answer, though I would prefer to be a moderate on this debate, is that it is better to share customs and traditions.

Religious diversity, while not automatically destined to cause strife in a country, has the potential to create great harm, partially as the result of the close connection people feel to their religion. There would exist reasons, at least to some people, for animosity, having to do with perceived sacrileges and religiously inspired discriminations, among other failings of mutual respect and tolerance that a person could, I suppose, name.

I do not oppose religious diversity, as I believe peoples’ freedom in such matters surpass what might be the logically probable negative outcomes of not having a single and overwhelmingly popular religion. But I shall not be disingenuous; where accord in traditions and customs exist, the potential for societal harm is lower than in religiously diverse nations. What might come, though, is, as a result of less immersion in a diverse cultural setting, a weaker than what might be called normal level of tolerance, sympathy and understanding by the peoples of homologous soceties. Such peoples would have a cultural understanding deficit. That could affect foreign relations and peace negotiation a great deal.

But, within country, and putting the negative consequences pertaining to outward relations aside, I do feel soceties are inherently safer without diversity of religion, as religions contain within them elements, or peoples interpretations of them, that give people reasons to hate and abuse.

(Click here if you dare)