I like Mark Steyn; he's a witty and often peceptive writer. But he can be a bit sloppy with detail.
He says: "more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches."
The UK currently has a Muslim population of 1.6 million.
And a total population of c.60 million.
Assuming (a big assumption) that ALL Muslims attend mosques on Friday, then that just tops the figures for Anglican weekly communicants at 1.1 million.
Given that IIRC there are AT LEAST 3/4 million members of independent Protestant churches (by definition likely to be regular attendees) AND a million plus Catholics (what their Sunday attendance percentage is, I haven't a clue) then I'd be willing to bet big that weekly church attendance exceeds that at mosques.
So, Steyn exagerrates, but, it might be replied, look at the trend he's pointing out.
Maybe, but put that trend in a bigger frame.
Some 40% of Anglicans attend Church at least once a year, for
Drat. Word limit 
...instance, and IIRC about 70% of the adult population self-identify as 'Christian': i.e. about 28 million.
Come to that, of the 30% remaining, those who are agnostic/atheist/indifferent are not necessarily inclined to defer to religous adherents of any type.
Maybe Steyn is just mistaken re. the UK and spot on with the rest of Europe. I couldn't say.
But it seems he may be stretching just a bit to fit in with a meme that has proliferated lately; i.e. Europe is collapsing and the Muslims are taking over.
(Straight line demographics rarely work that way. On trend lines from 19th century Britain should now be populated by Irish Catholics. My paternal line ancestry notwithstanding, I isn't.)
It surely has problems (to which I presonally hope to add when the UK votes to reject the EU constitution) but doomed? I doubt it.
In the words of Adam Smith "Young man, there's a deal of ruin in a nation."
John -
I wish I could recall the article I saw that I believe Steyn pulled that stat from. I didn't question his numbers because I saw something very like them earlier on one or more sites like the Telegraph, Guardian, or the Beeb.
I am just a spectator from afar; I make no claim to have any feel for the ecemunical state of the U.K. What I do get is that their immigration/sanctuary processes are broken and the Labour Party isn't willing to address the issue.
I'd be all for a competitive, free Europe. Problem is that the EU has all the hallmarks of a socialist dictatorship in the making. That it will be by committee and not by individual is kind of a twist, but without the member states demand closer electoral controls I see no good end for anybody concerned.
Immigration and asylum has major problems.
Legal immigration is not a serious worry, at present, despite occasional press flaps; at present a lot of east Europeans, for instance. No problem there, as far as I'm concerned.
A potential issue for the future is in free movement of European citizens. At present this is a plus for the UK. Lots of talented young Europeans flock to London with its dynamic "information economy" and lower taxes. Lots of Brits buy homes for holidays, retirement and tele-commuting in sunnier climes. Win-win.
But if continental Europe suffers social upheavals and/or fails to control THEIR immigration, we may have a problem. For instance, Spain just declared an amnesty on about a million illegals. Under present rules, once they become naturalised, they are free to move to the UK. Not good.
Illegals and asylum seekers and refugees (they overlap a lot) are a problem. Under current law if the entire population of China turned up at Dover tomorrow
morning and claimed asylum, they'd have a case. Oops.
Present numbers in UK are manageable IF we move further and faster to drop the multiculti nonsense and emphasize integration. Including putting big barriers in the way of the spouse-import racket.
Labour talk about addressing the issues, but are inclined to back off to avoid annoying their more liberal supporters.
Its serious, but not critical, and a long way from being so. Yet.
On the broader isuue of the EU constitution: IT STINKS!
A good deal of it is not so much a constitution as a prescritive manifesto, which aims at entrenching the current social-welfare statist "consensus" model as a permanent aspect of European politics.
As a lefty myself, I share many of its ends. But excluding contrary political positions by fiat are not legtimate means.
Even if those parts were stripped out, the remainder of governmental mechanics is unable to resolve the tensions between the claims of state sovreignty and prerogative on the one hand, with continental institutions and their democracratisation in the absence of a European demos on the other. And ends up reposing far too much influence in the hands of the EU instutional establishment.
If this farrago passes referendum in the UK you can paint me green and call me a gherkin.
I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, sir.
Commenting by HaloScan
