I beg to differ.
It's not the fact that we're all different and have different religions, cultures, ideas and subsequent beliefs that unites a society; far from it.
That's the hallmark of a divided society.
Quite the opposite in fact.
It's exactly what a society has in common which is the very thing that creates a cohesive society and binds it together.
It's precisely the fact everyone has the same ideas, religion and shares the same culture why a society works in the first place.
And strength is found in unity of purpose.
There is one obvious contradiction created by the people who (largely the liberal elite, for their own vested interests it has to be said), extol the virtues of 'diversity' which alludes to this very point.
These liberal P.C. zealots claim it's a good thing to have different points of view, cultures, ideas and beliefs; that somehow it all enriches a society.
Yet when it comes to a proportional representation voting system, whereby it's precisely all those very different ideas and much vaunted 'diversity' that would be represented in Parliament, they claim that there would be too much difference of opinion, too much disagreement causing continual arguments and that nothing would ever get done.
Or to put it in a slightly more succinct way, a colony of ants doesn't work in a cohesive, constructive and unified way because of 'diversity', does it now.
The question is, if ‘diversity’ is so good (allegedly) for society, why is it that for some innate reason it wouldn't be good at a governmental level of representation; after all, government is drawn from society and therefore only a microcosm of society itself.
You can't have it both ways.
Perversely, one of the down sides to all this imported ‘diversity’ has is the oppression of free speech.
Ironically enough, purportedly in the interests of 'community cohesion'.