Multiculturalism - Biggest Threat to Democracy

[RandFan]

Not all cultures are equal. Some really are superior to others. A culture that mutilates children and oppresses women is inferior to those that do not. Secular culture is superior to those that are dominated by mythology.

The sky is not falling, however, after making significant progress these last 200+ years, Western Liberal Democracies are being threatened by bronze age cultures (mostly those influenced by Islam).

What is ironic is that people are fleeing oppressive regimes to live in the West (not happening in reverse). And, for some odd reason many of these individuals can't make the connection that the root causes of much of the ills of their homelands lay in the culture that they want to keep alive in their adopted countries.

Why multiculturalism in the first place? Euro-centric culture, history and liberal arts created tension and divisions between whites and non-whites. Multiculturalism was a well intentioned response, the goal of which was to elevate the esteem and status of people of different races and ethnicities.

The problem, IMO, is that there was a false belief that people of European decent were inherently superior. Thanks to Jared Diamond, geneticists and anthropologists in general we now know that this is false (please see Jared Diamond's book Guns Germs and Steel). People aren't inherently different. However, because of the advantages provided by the luck of the draw and other factors, Europeans were able to evolve more successful strategies for societies to maximize happiness and prosperity.

The biggest problem with multiculturalism is that it plays into tribalism. People who see themselves as different than others tend to view others differently. Protestants are not inherently different from Catholics but they are divided along religious lines and this division has exacerbated divisions and enmity.

Some points.

While America has been a great example of Liberal Democracy it is not necessarily the best system of government or culture.
There is nothing wrong with cultures assimilating aspects of other cultures as they evolve but this process needs to be natural and not forced (I think American culture will look a hell of a lot more Latin in the next 100 years).
No system is perfect but secular liberal democracies have demonstrated time and again to be the best bet for humans.So, perhaps what we should do is simply educate people as to the truth about history and the inherent nature of humans beings and the many sins of Western Civilization as well as its good. Also teach the good and bad of other cultures. Let culture evolve naturally and not try and force it. Finally, at all costs, don't allow Sharia law into western civilization.

[MG1962]

Funny Australia has firmly embraced multiculturalism for over 30 years - I dont see any problems here.

And just remind me again, how many immigrants from how many countries made the US their home over the last 100 years?

[RandFan]

Funny Australia has firmly embraced multiculturalism for over 30 years - I dont see any problems here.I have no idea how that invalidates anything I've said. In any event.

Get out if you want Sharia law, Australia tells Muslims. (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-8-2005_pg1_2) It would seem there might just be some problems on the horizon.

And just remind me again, how many immigrants from how many countries made the US their home over the last 100 years? I'm not sure what your point is so I'm not sure how to respond. The thread is about multiculturalism and not immigration.

To the extent that immigrants have assimilated there has been cohesion.
To the extent that immigrants have not assimilated there has been tribalism, tension and enmity.

[MG1962]

I'm not sure what your point is so I'm not sure how to respond. The thread is about multiculturalism and not immigration.

To the extent that immigrants have assimilated there has been cohesion.
To the extent that immigrants have not assimilated there has been tribalism, tension and enmity.

Multicutluralism is an extention of an open immigration policy. And assimilation has always been an issue in the US - the Irish gangs from the 1830's are a prime example, only to be crushed by the later introduction of the Italian gangs in the guise of the Mafia. Then we can consider the existence of a "Chinatown" In virtually every major city in the world

[Redtail]

Not all cultures are equal. Some really are superior to others. A culture that mutilates children and oppresses women is inferior to those that do not. Secular culture is superior to those that are dominated by mythology.

The sky is not falling, however, after making significant progress these last 200+ years, Western Liberal Democracies are being threatened by bronze age cultures (mostly those influenced by Islam).

What is ironic is that people are fleeing oppressive regimes to live in the West (not happening in reverse). And, for some odd reason many of these individuals can't make the connection that the root causes of much of the ills of their homelands lay in the culture that they want to keep alive in their adopted countries.

Why multiculturalism in the first place? Euro-centric culture, history and liberal arts created tension and divisions between whites and non-whites. Multiculturalism was a well intentioned response, the goal of which was to elevate the esteem and status of people of different races and ethnicities.

The problem, IMO, is that there was a false belief that people of European decent were inherently superior. Thanks to Jared Diamond, geneticists and anthropologists in general we now know that this is false (please see Jared Diamond's book Guns Germs and Steel). People aren't inherently different. However, because of the advantages provided by the luck of the draw and other factors, Europeans were able to evolve more successful strategies for societies to maximize happiness and prosperity.

The biggest problem with multiculturalism is that it plays into tribalism. People who see themselves as different than others tend to view others differently. Protestants are not inherently different from Catholics but they are divided along religious lines and this division has exacerbated divisions and enmity.

Some points.
While America has been a great example of Liberal Democracy it is not necessarily the best system of government or culture.
There is nothing wrong with cultures assimilating aspects of other cultures as they evolve but this process needs to be natural and not forced (I think American culture will look a hell of a lot more Latin in the next 100 years).
No system is perfect but secular liberal democracies have demonstrated time and again to be the best bet for humans.So, perhaps what we should do is simply educate people as to the truth about history and the inherent nature of humans beings and the many sins of Western Civilization as well as its good. Also teach the good and bad of other cultures. Let culture evolve naturally and not try and force it. Finally, at all costs, don't allow Sharia law into western civilization.

How do you feel about the Beatles?

[RandFan]

Multicutluralism is an extention of an open immigration policy. And assimilation has always been an issue in the US - the Irish gangs from the 1830's are a prime example, only to be crushed by the later introduction of the Italian gangs in the guise of the Mafia. Then we can consider the existence of a "Chinatown" In virtually every major city in the worldI don't find your first sentence is axiomatic. Declaring something doesn't make it true. As to the rest, I honestly have no idea what your point is. Of course assimilation has always been an issue. What is your point? I don't claim easy answers. I don't claim America has been a perfect melting pot. I claim that multiculturalism causes more problems than it cures. That's it. Let culture evolve and educate people to understand that culture is artificial and that humanity transcends culture. Our similarities are far more important than our differences.

[UserGoogol]

Both multiculturalization and assimilation are bad. 99% of what we call "culture" is complete and utter nonsense. Rituals, pattern of dress, moral systems, religion, stupid stuff like that. Furthermore, that people be able to be as nonsensical as they want is of the utmost importance for people to have individual freedom. What matters is civilization: by which I mean, science and respecting people's rights. Preserve that, (and perhaps multiculturalism is failing to protect that as well as it could) and who gives a damn what the rest is? To either suggest that people should conform to the norm or that differences should be embraced for their own sake is wrong.

Of course, I admit that tribalism is bad. But there is a third option between tribalism and nationalism. Individualism: breaking society into tribes of one. I think this is both ideal, and realistically the way society is going to go. We live in the Internet age. As more and more social relationships take place on the Internet, society will become more fluid as interpersonal relationships can be broken up at a whim. In such a world, tribes will be transient things where individual people swap in and out of them on a fairly regular basis.

[RandFan]

Both multiculturalization and assimilation are bad. 99% of what we call "culture" is complete and utter nonsense. Rituals, pattern of dress, moral systems, religion, stupid stuff like that. Furthermore, that people be able to be as nonsensical as they want is of the utmost importance for people to have individual freedom. What matters is civilization: by which I mean, science and respecting people's rights. Preserve that, (and perhaps multiculturalism is failing to protect that as well as it could) and who gives a damn what the rest is? To either suggest that people should conform to the norm or that differences should be embraced for their own sake is wrong.

Of course, I admit that tribalism is bad. But there is a third option between tribalism and nationalism. Individualism: breaking society into tribes of one. I think this is both ideal, and realistically the way society is going to go. We live in the Internet age. As more and more social relationships take place on the Internet, society will become more fluid as interpersonal relationships can be broken up at a whim. In such a world, tribes will be transient things where individual people swap in and out of them on a fairly regular basis. I like your sentiment, a lot, but I can't completely agree. Then again I might not completly understand your point and we might not be that far apart.

Humans are social animals. We need to interact and we need things that helps us overcome tension and conflict. Culture facilitates this. Now, that doesn't mean that there needs to be one overriding norm. I'm sorry if I made that impression. However we need to have a number of shared values and goals. It doesn't need to be absolutely monolithic but things like family, literature, hobbies, sports, music, etc., etc.

Many of us share the love of certain types of music. Mine are eclectic and I have a wide range of friends that I share this love with. This helps bind us. Many of us like skepticism and critical thinking. That is why we are here. JREF, in its own small way, has become part of the fabric of society. It didn't take government to figure out what was good it just happened.

Just let people decide what the culture will be. There will be a culture because that is what we as social animals do.

[plumjam]

Not all cultures are equal. Some really are superior to others.
I agree very much with you on this, and applaud you for saying it. (Oops, now I've put the kiss of death on your thread.)


A culture that mutilates children
Do you include Jewish culture in this? How about general US liberal democratic culture, which circumcises a much higher percentage (79%) than, say, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea and North Korea (all under 20%).

and oppresses women is inferior to those that do not.
Agreed. Does sexual objectification and exploitation of women in capitalist liberal democratic culture count here? Or does it get a pass? ;)

Secular culture is superior to those that are dominated by mythology.
On some counts I'd agree with this, on others not. There's a great deal of mythology in secular culture too. It could be argued that secularism has just supplanted previous mythology with its own.

e.g.
Creation Myths: Natural Selection of Multiverses, Primeval soup abiogenesis, Natural selection of genetic mutations producing macro-evolution leading from a rock to a modern man.

Meaning of life Myth: no objective meaning to life, merely subjectively applicable belief that the purpose of life is to improve the situation of mankind in this lifetime via social justice, technological advancement etc..

Myth 'hadith' (i.e. propaganda supporting such myths in the popular mind): science fiction, popular science literature, certain tv documentaries, a large chunk of the education system, and finally folks... the JREF.

Afterlife Myth: living on 'through one's genes', living on 'through my mark on the world', through cryogenics (having your head severed and frozen, folks), salvation via still mythical 'Artificial Intelligence' in which your brain state prior to death gets downloaded to a computer within a robot :D

Whether people would say that this constitutes a culture dominated by myth is up for them to decide themselves.


The sky is not falling, however, after making significant progress these last 200+ years, Western Liberal Democracies are being threatened by bronze age cultures (mostly those influenced by Islam).
Sounds like fearmongering propaganda to me. Are the bushmen of the Kalahari figuring on storming Fort Benning any time soon?


What is ironic is that people are fleeing oppressive regimes to live in the West (not happening in reverse). And, for some odd reason many of these individuals can't make the connection that the root causes of much of the ills of their homelands lay in the culture that they want to keep alive in their adopted countries.
How many of those oppressive regimes are oppressive regimes thanks to the support of western liberal democracies? Quite a few are, including a lot of the Muslim regimes.

Why multiculturalism in the first place? Euro-centric culture, history and liberal arts created tension and divisions between whites and non-whites. Multiculturalism was a well intentioned response, the goal of which was to elevate the esteem and status of people of different races and ethnicities.
I don't think it was anything as high-minded as this. Look at the origins that enforce some kind of multiculturalism. It isn't in order to create an enriching cultural melting pot. It is in order to get cheap labour. A steady stream of immigrants (particularly from poorer countries) is good for those at the top end of the capitalist system in that it keeps wages down, weakens union power, and increases their profits and power.
If cultural strife is created due to this it isn't the worry of the bosses. It is left to the rest of society to pick up the tab, and create something like multiculturalism in order to deal with it.

The biggest problem with multiculturalism is that it plays into tribalism. People who see themselves as different than others tend to view others differently. Protestants are not inherently different from Catholics but they are divided along religious lines and this division has exacerbated divisions and enmity.

Would you say you are succumbing to tribalism in your fear that Islam will supplant liberal democracy?


No system is perfect but secular liberal democracies have demonstrated time and again to be the best bet for humans.
Depends what the human beings in question believe is the meaning of life.

So, perhaps what we should do is simply educate people as to the truth about history and the inherent nature of humans beings and the many sins of Western Civilization as well as its good. Also teach the good and bad of other cultures.

A fundamentalist Islamist would take a similar approach, as would a Communist, or anyone of ideological commitment. 'Let's educate those as yet ignorant brothers of ours about what is the real truth'.

Let culture evolve naturally and not try and force it.
Betraying your evolutionist mythology here ;)
What, in your view, is currently being done to force a change of culture?

Finally, at all costs, don't allow Sharia law into western civilization.
Putting aside the fact that a great deal of western civilization is derived from the Islamic Golden Age, yeah, I wouldn't want Sharia law. Do you seriously think there's any danger of Sharia law being adopted by the western liberal democracies?
(witness the reaction to the Archbish. of Cantebury recently)

[lionking]

Funny Australia has firmly embraced multiculturalism for over 30 years - I dont see any problems here.

And just remind me again, how many immigrants from how many countries made the US their home over the last 100 years?
Don't agree with you here. What has made Australia the country it is, has been the willingness of previous immigrants to assimmilate in a way which has enriched the mainstream. What we have now is a whole range of public policies and institutions which support the concept of immigrants maintaining their lifestyle (or culture if you want) in it's entirety. This has led, for example, to judges discounting sentences for violence against women because that sort of violence is tolerated by the offender's culture (I can provide links if necessary). We also have the more trivial, but far more common, instances of government bodies and companies banning ham sandwiches at luncheons in case it causes offence.

[The Painter]

Funny Australia has firmly embraced multiculturalism for over 30 years - I dont see any problems here.


Lets all move to Australia!!! They don't have any problems.

[plumjam]

Lets all move to Australia!!! They don't have any problems.

:D
I agree. I'm coming too, and inviting along the camp of gypsies from down the road.
No worries mate.

[Wolfman]

Not all cultures are equal. Some really are superior to others. A culture that mutilates children and oppresses women is inferior to those that do not. Secular culture is superior to those that are dominated by mythology.
An argument that, upon first reading, would seem to make sense. But only superficially.

Take the argument about "secular culture" vs. cultures that are "dominated by mythology". Well, fact is, this description would fit perfectly well both for atheists in the U.S., and for Christians in the U.S. Yet, when I get beyond that component, these two supposedly disparate groups actually are virtually indistinguishable on a cultural level. Have them travel to other countries, for example, and the way they act, the values they hold, etc., all tend to be virtually identical. If I were to stay away from specifically "religious" topics, it would in fact be almost impossible to differentiate the "secular" American from the American who's beliefs are "dominated by mythology".

Then consider the fact that the concept of 'democracy' was begun in a culture that was far, far more prone to being "dominated by mythology"...the Greeks had this idea at a time when they still believed in a pantheon of gods, and had lives that were dominated by superstition.

I'll develop my argument further in my following responses.
The sky is not falling, however, after making significant progress these last 200+ years, Western Liberal Democracies are being threatened by bronze age cultures (mostly those influenced by Islam).
"Bronze age cultures" <-- wow, what a dismissive, biased, and entirely untrue characterization. Actually, Islamic culture was way ahead of "Western" culture for quite some time; while Europe was suffocating under the repression of the Middle Ages, all free/independent thought was being suppressed, and most scientific research was repressed/destroyed, the Islamic nations were engaging in open and aggressive scientific and philosophic study.

And today, similarly, there are Muslims who likewise believe in things such as equality for women, substituting democratic rule for religious rule, etc.

Yet here comes Randfan, and simply declares them all "Bronze age culture". He simply ignores or discounts all evidence that don't fit within his pretty, neat, and tidy view of "how things are".
What is ironic is that people are fleeing oppressive regimes to live in the West (not happening in reverse). And, for some odd reason many of these individuals can't make the connection that the root causes of much of the ills of their homelands lay in the culture that they want to keep alive in their adopted countries.Ummmm...people are also fleeing Communist regimes -- yet Communism is an entirely "secular" system of belief. For that matter, people are fleeing from Mexico (democratic and secular), and other such nations.

Even worse is the implicit assumption you make that America's current economic domination is because of a "superior" culture. Try checking out history. Throughout history, there have been nations that dominated, and were the most powerful. The Chinese. The Romans. The Egyptians.

And...let us not forget...the Muslims.

In fact, once again, if we go back in history a little, there was a time when those who wanted freedom to pursue scientific studies, or to practice a different religion (such as Judaism), they fled to Muslim-controlled countries.

So the "argument from power" or "argument from popularity" is a shallow and meaningless one; it is extremely simple to demonstrate that there have been numerous other nations/cultures that have been in the same situation as the U.S. (economically dominant, with people of other nations trying to live there), yet having entirely different cultures.

Your viewpoint is entirely dependent upon an extremely narrow slice of history (the past 30-40 years), and upon excluding/ignoring the remaining entirety of human history.
The biggest problem with multiculturalism is that it plays into tribalism. People who see themselves as different than others tend to view others differently. Protestants are not inherently different from Catholics but they are divided along religious lines and this division has exacerbated divisions and enmity.
Now, here is where you lose me entirely.

If the "problem" with multiculturalism is that it "plays into tribalism", and caused people to see people as "different"...

...does non-multiculturalism somehow get rid of that? We divide people into different groups, and tell them, "If you will think like us, act like us, believe like us, you can life here...but if not, you have to live somewhere else, with people who think/act/believe the same as you"?

You claim to oppose how multiculturalism makes people think they are different -- yet ignore entirely the fact that every single non-multicultural culture on the planet creates far greater divisions and lines. Perhaps not internally...but certainly in how they view other nations, cultures, and races.

Let me give an example...Canadian (multicultural) culture vs. Chinese culture. When Canadians look at China, and Chinese culture, they see them as "different"; but they do not see it as such a significant difference, or a difference to necessarily be afraid of. It is not threatening, it is just different. They have this view because they've met many Chinese within Canada, and have become familiar with at least some aspects of Chinese culture. Multiculturalism within Canada 'demystifies' different cultures, to some degree.

Now, compare that with China, lets say 15 years ago, when I first came here. It was about as non-multicultural as you could get. Now, internally, I guess that one could make an argument that this helped create stability; but externally, it made them regard all non-Chinese cultures not only as "different", but also as "threatening".

Dude, we are different. And we should relish that difference, delight in the vast variety of human experience! But human history has shown one thing very, very clearly -- that cultures that are monolithic in nature almost always find other cultures threatening; whereas countries that practice multiculturalism find other cultures far less threatening, and easier to understand.

In short, you arguments work only on a very small, limited, local scale. But into a large, international perspective, what you suggest only exacerbates the perception that we're all "different", and further more that what is "different" is a threat to me.
So, perhaps what we should do is simply educate people as to the truth about history and the inherent nature of humans beings and the many sins of Western Civilization as well as its good. Also teach the good and bad of other cultures. Let culture evolve naturally and not try and force it. Finally, at all costs, don't allow Sharia law into western civilization.It is incredibly humorous to hear you talk about "the truth of history", when your own arguments and perspectives are entirely dependent upon ignoring the vast majority of human history.

[Wolfman]

I would also like to point out --

-- I am not aware of any nation that I'd consider a true democracy (or a close version thereof) that is not multicultural

-- whereas, by contrast, the vast majority of non-democratic nations are also adamantly opposed to multiculturalism

Ironically, Randfan is taking a position (arguing against multiculturalism) that virtually every Islamic religious leader in the Muslim world would agree with. Rather humorous to hear him making an argument that would be so readily embraced by dictators and despots of all stripes.

Question -- if multiculturalism is the biggest "threat" to democracy, why is it that it seems to be only democracies that practice it? And why are those democracies the most successful ones?

[Earthborn]

Not all cultures are equal. Some really are superior to others.Superior according to whose criteria?

Western Liberal Democracies are being threatened by bronze age cultures (mostly those influenced by Islam).What a silly thing to say considering that Islam didn't even exist in the Bronze Age, and was developed in Medieval times. You just wanted to say something more strongly than "medieval" didn't you?

Some movements in Islam might be fairly called medieval, but those are not the ones threatening Western Liberal Democracies. The ones that are threatening to the West are in fact political philosophies that are a direct response to modernity and to democracy. Even refering to them with the cliche "islamofascism" describes them better than calling them in one way or another "primitive".

And, for some odd reason many of these individuals can't make the connection that the root causes of much of the ills of their homelands lay in the culture that they want to keep alive in their adopted countries.A very silly thing to say. People who flee their homeland are not trying to keep the aspects of their culture alive that are causing much of the ills of their homelands.

Why multiculturalism in the first place? Euro-centric culture, history and liberal arts created tension and divisions between whites and non-whites.Not only that. Not so long ago, there were tensions and divisions between different European cultures that were so great that they lead to some of the World's most destructive wars. This was because people in some cultures considered their own cultures to be far superior to that of others, and thought the world would be a better place if theirs was spread with violence.

One of the reasons that European cultures are somewhat converging to the point where you talk about a "Euro-centric" culture is that Europe developed a multicultural attitude, an attitude that moved away from childish notions of who's best and towards ideas that all cultures have great things to bring to the table.

The biggest problem with multiculturalism is that it plays into tribalism.Tribalism means that cultures considering themselves superior over others. I don't see how promoting cross-cultural understanding and respect is going to play into tribalism.

There is nothing wrong with cultures assimilating aspects of other cultures as they evolve but this process needs to be natural and not forcedIt is a multiculturalist attitude to believe that different cultures can learn from eachother, even enrich themselves by embracing aspects of other cultures.

It should be noted however that even if such a process is natural (whatever that means) and not forced, there can be problems. Not all cultures are equally powerful, and there are many cases where people from one small community abandon much of their culture in favour of a dominant culture. Much of that culture's knowledge may be lost, even if it can benefit humanity or just be plain interesting.

Also teach the good and bad of other cultures. Let culture evolve naturally and not try and force it.These are multiculturalist attitudes.

Finally, at all costs, don't allow Sharia law into western civilization.You seem to be contradicting yourself. You want cultures to evolve naturally and not try to force anything, but apperently you want some force to prevent Sharia law into western civilisation even if large numbers of people would support it.

That is missing the point of democracy completely. If there are lots of people who believe that there should be some aspects of Sharia law encorporated into national law, then it will happen. The same happened with other philosophies; Western European countries have encorporated many aspects of Social-Democracy, classical Liberalism and Christen-Democracy in their systems. If proponents of Sharia gain significant influence, aspects of Sharia law will be mixed in with the rest. That is how democracy is designed to work.

[Dr Adequate]

I had never thought of multiculturalism as an ideology, it is simply a fact. I live in a multicultural society. This is a consequence of a liberal democracy, in which people are free to be Christians, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews (should Oliver Cromwell have let Jews into Britain? I'd love to hear your opinion) not to mention punks, goths, hippies, and so forth.

The alternative to multiculturalism would be to enforce a monolithic culture. Whose? Let's look at two alternatives: my culture and that of Baroness Thatcher. We don't share the same religion, the same political opinions, the same sexual morality, the same taste in food, the same taste in literature, the same taste in music ... what are we going to do about it? Pass a law forcing me to attend the Church of England, renounce the eating of curry, and stop listening to that strange black music with its alien African rhythms?

It can't be done, it shouldn't be done, and it doesn't need to be done. I shall change my mind about this just as soon as the Polish cafe down the road starts taking away my freedoms, and the kebab shop threatens democracy.

[gtc]

I shall change my mind about this just as soon as the Polish cafe down the road starts taking away my freedoms, and the kebab shop threatens democracy.

Start worrying (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/07/2182936.htm).

[Wolfman]

Upon further consideration...the arguments I made previously, while valid, don't really get to the root of what concerns me in Randfan's OP.

He uses fear and exaggeration to make his case.

"Democracy is being DESTROYED by multiculturalism!!!"

"Multiculturalism is equivalent to implementing Sharia law in our countries, and we sure don't want that!"

I'm a very firm believer in multiculturalism; I come from a multicultural country, and the opportunities that I had to meet people from many different cultural backgrounds, and to appreciate the differences, was fundamental to forming my world view.

Perhaps some clarifications of terms are necessary here.

I am absolutely opposed to the idea of allowing Sharia law, or any other legal/ethical system, that is in opposition to the basic principles outlined in Canadian law and constitution. And furthermore, multiculturalism does not in any way mean that we must or should do so. So the alarm bells that Randfan is sounding -- the ones that are the foundation of his fear-mongering rhetoric -- are without foundation.

Let me take Canada as an example. To me, multiculturalism in Canada means that anyone, of any background, is welcome to come and live in Canada. It is required that, as part of their responsibility in becoming Canadian, they should learn our language, history, culture, etc. (and I would support denying citizenship to those who refuse to do so). But this does not mean that they would be expected to abandon their own language, forget their own culture, or ignore their own history. So long as they met those basic minimum requirements, and so long as they adhered to the principles and laws of Canadian law, they would have the freedom to keep those aspects of their own culture that they want to.

I would have no problem whatsoever with stating that those who feel Canadian law would contradict their cultural or religious beliefs, to the point where they feel they would have to break that law, should be denied citizenship in Canada. Part of becoming a Canadian citizen is a deliberate acceptance of the laws of our country, and a willingness to abide by them. If you cannot abide by those laws, go somewhere else.

Now, I recognize that this is not the way that Canada actually does things right now, and in fact there are certain politically-correct groups that advocate things such as allowing Sharia law in predominantly Muslim communities. Or that feel that we should grant citizenship to individuals who do not learn our language/history/culture, or who have every intention of ignoring/violating Canadian law in favor of their own beliefs.

Whatever ominous specters Randfan raises to argue against "multiculturalism", those very same problems would be multiplied tenfold if we were to eliminate multiculturalism, and insist that everyone in our country must have the same language/culture/beliefs. Rather than decreasing the belief that others are 'different' from us (which is much the core of Randfan's argument), it would in fact make it more difficult to understand peoples of other cultures, and make those who are from other cultures appear even more 'different' from us.

The only way that Randfan's argument makes any sense is if he proposes some sort of plan to impose a world-wide, universal culture -- to choose one culture that is 'superior', and aggressively stomp out all other cultures, creating a hegemonic cultural monstrosity.

Not only is this impossible -- it would involve war, killing, and hatred on a scale that outstrips anything we see today.

And a final note -- the power and affluence that Randfan refers to in the U.S., the thing that he totes as the greatest vindication of the "superiority" of American culture -- that power and affluence are due to the fact that peoples of every nation, and every culture, felt that the U.S. was a place that they could go an not be persecuted for having different beliefs. It resulted in a wide variety of skills, experience, and ideas...one that would have been impossible had the U.S. tried to maintain itself as a cultural hegemony, excluding all those who did not adhere to a narrowly defined unicultural set of beliefs and behaviors.

[fuelair]

Superior according to whose criteria?


A very silly thing to say. People who flee their homeland are not trying to keep the aspects of their culture alive that are causing much of the ills of their homelands.

.
So, there have been no honor killings by Muslims in the US, no girl was actually heard on an FBI wiretap being killed by her (Muslim,as was she)father, no girls' bodies were recently found in a cab where they had been killed by their (Muslim, as were they)father, no girls have had cliteridectomies performed in the US as a continuation of a Muslim (esp. African same) cultural mutilation? I must be reading the wrong books/newspapers (and I do not read tabloids). [These are just examples, there are many other cases just in the US - feel free to check out Great Britain, Europe and Australia for many others]. UNLESS, of course, you are claiming that these kinds of mutilations/murders are not causing any problems in their homelands.

By the by, I do not mean to imply that Muslims are the only culture that this applies to but examples of it are high because of the ridiculousness of the two items noted. There are examples of others. Multiculturism should not be a blanket exemption from following the laws of the US (Great Britain. European countries, Australia/New Zealand, etc.) and some legal practices in the countries emigrated from need to be left behind in the countries immigrated to. That needs to be crystal clear to immigrants preferably while they are planning to be emigrants so they can make a well thought out decision.

[Sunni Man]

What I get out of most of these posts supporting multicultualism.

You want multiculturalism as long as the people comming in don't bring their culture with them.

[RandFan]

An argument that, upon first reading, would seem to make sense. But only superficially.

Take the argument about "secular culture" vs. cultures that are "dominated by mythology". Well, fact is, this description would fit perfectly well both for atheists in the U.S., and for Christians in the U.S. Yet, when I get beyond that component, these two supposedly disparate groups actually are virtually indistinguishable on a cultural level. Yes but the culture evolved in a secular democracy. That is my only point.

Then consider the fact that the concept of 'democracy' was begun in a culture that was far, far more prone to being "dominated by mythology... You are going too far afield with this and are missing my point. I don't deny that the Greeks, Romans, Americans, English and others were heavily influenced by religion.

"Bronze age cultures" <-- wow, what a dismissive, biased, and entirely untrue characterization. Actually, Islamic culture was way ahead of "Western" culture for quite some time; "Was" way ahead. Islamic culture then turned from science and now looks down on progress and enlightenment. My thesis doesn't hold that all cultures where always superior.

Let me say this again.

People are not inherently different. Genetically we are by and large the same. Many scientists now see the concept of race as anachronistic. Humans are dynamic and their societies are shaped by many influences. At this moment in time there are some cultures that are superior to others.

American culture today is far superior to American culture in the 50s.

And today, similarly, there are Muslims who likewise believe in things such as equality for women, substituting democratic rule for religious rule, etc. Very few and many of those are too afraid to speak out against those who call for the death of cartoonists. That's the problem.

Yet here comes Randfan, and simply declares them all "Bronze age culture". Communism suffered much the same fault as religious regimes because it was dogmatic and totalitarian. It cultures that value freedom of thought and expression that are superior. Those that value Liberal Democracy.

Even worse is the implicit assumption you make that America's current economic domination is because of a "superior" culture. Try reading what I wrote. America benefited from "the luck of the draw" (see Jared Diamond). Clearly our culture has much to do with our economic advantage

In fact, once again, if we go back in history a little, there was a time when those who wanted freedom to pursue scientific studies, or to practice a different religion (such as Judaism), they fled to Muslim-controlled countries. I don't at all deny this. It misses my point. Muslim culture does not engender freedom to pursue scientific studies.

So the "argument from power" or "argument from popularity" is a shallow and meaningless one... And not one that I've made.

Your viewpoint is entirely dependent upon an extremely narrow slice of history (the past 30-40 years), and upon excluding/ignoring the remaining entirety of human history. No, I only look at which cultures work. Muslim culture in the past was superior to many if not most others. If Muslim culture of today were the same I would embrace it.

...does non-multiculturalism somehow get rid of that? We divide people into different groups, and tell them, "If you will think like us, act like us, believe like us, you can life here...but if not, you have to live somewhere else, with people who think/act/believe the same as you"? False dichotomy.

Let cultures evolve on their own.

You claim to oppose how multiculturalism makes people think they are different -- yet ignore entirely the fact that every single non-multicultural culture on the planet creates far greater divisions and lines. Perhaps not internally...but certainly in how they view other nations, cultures, and races. Please to explain. This is just declared and not established. Your supporting example does, as far as I can tell, does not support your proposition.

I don't advocate eradicating cultures.
I do advocate policies that make it easier for immigrants to assimilate.
I do advocate the prohibition of any cultural practices that oppress individuals.It is incredibly humorous to hear you talk about "the truth of history", when your own arguments and perspectives are entirely dependent upon ignoring the vast majority of human history. On the contrary.

Thanks for the response.

[RandFan]

Superior according to whose criteria? Mine. I care about individuals. It bothers me when women and men are oppressed and children are mutilated.

What a silly thing to say considering that Islam didn't even exist in the Bronze Age, and was developed in Medieval times. You just wanted to say something more strongly than "medieval" didn't you? The culture, to a large degree, of Muslims predates Islam. In fact I think it actually predates the Bronze Age.

A very silly thing to say. People who flee their homeland are not trying to keep the aspects of their culture alive that are causing much of the ills of their homelands. Yes, they are.

Not only that. Not so long ago, there were tensions and divisions between different European cultures that were so great that they lead to some of the World's most destructive wars. This was because people in some cultures considered their own cultures to be far superior to that of others, and thought the world would be a better place if theirs was spread with violence. I don't at all deny this.

Tribalism means that cultures considering themselves superior over others. Not quite that simple at all.

I don't see how promoting cross-cultural understanding and respect is going to play into tribalism. That would be great if that was the end result of Multiculturalism did.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You want cultures to evolve naturally and not try to force anything, but apperently you want some force to prevent Sharia law into western civilisation even if large numbers of people would support it. Yes, some aspects of some cultures must be prohibited in Western societies. Those aspects of culture that oppress individuals and mutilate children.

That is missing the point of democracy completely. If there are lots of people who believe that there should be some aspects of Sharia law incorporated into national law, then it will happen. The same happened with other philosophies; Western European countries have incorporated many aspects of Social-Democracy, classical Liberalism and Christen-Democracy in their systems. If proponents of Sharia gain significant influence, aspects of Sharia law will be mixed in with the rest. That is how democracy is designed to work. Thus the purpose of my thread. You cannot have laws that are in direct conflict with Liberal Democracy. This is a real problem and a very real threat. The trend of immigration and oppression in western societies is a grave concern to many who were for a long time pro-multiculturalism.

It's funny how American culture is often derided and many correctly point out the many sins and failures of American culture but at the same time seem to think that we must treat with respect oppressive culture from other nations.

It's wrong to oppress people. It's that simple. Yes, that is my opinion. My conscience dictates to me that I speak out against such oppression and that I speak out in favor of Liberal Democracy.

[RandFan]

I would also like to point out --

-- I am not aware of any nation that I'd consider a true democracy (or a close version thereof) that is not multicultural

-- whereas, by contrast, the vast majority of non-democratic nations are also adamantly opposed to multiculturalism

Ironically, Randfan is taking a position (arguing against multiculturalism) that virtually every Islamic religious leader in the Muslim world would agree with. Rather humorous to hear him making an argument that would be so readily embraced by dictators and despots of all stripes.

Question -- if multiculturalism is the biggest "threat" to democracy, why is it that it seems to be only democracies that practice it? And why are those democracies the most successful ones?

This does not at all reflect my position. I believe that America will adopt Latin culture from Mexico and other nations south of the border. At some point we will evolve and will look very different from what we are now. I'm perfectly happy with that.

I don't care if European culture absorbs Muslim culture I don't see how one would prevent that. I don't think any culture is superior in all ways nor do I believe that the culture is sacrosanct.

That is NOT my point.

My point is that government should not pro-actively protect a culture. Let societies evolve naturally and prohibit any aspects of cultures that are contrary to laws protecting the civil rights of individuals.

If rednecks want to beat women and they say that is their right based on their culture, I'm sorry, that's not sufficient.

[RandFan]

I had never thought of multiculturalism as an ideology, it is simply a fact. I live in a multicultural society. This is a consequence of a liberal democracy, in which people are free to be Christians, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews (should Oliver Cromwell have let Jews into Britain? I'd love to hear your opinion) not to mention punks, goths, hippies, and so forth.

The alternative to multiculturalism would be to enforce a monolithic culture. Whose? Let's look at two alternatives: my culture and that of Baroness Thatcher. We don't share the same religion, the same political opinions, the same sexual morality, the same taste in food, the same taste in literature, the same taste in music ... what are we going to do about it? Pass a law forcing me to attend the Church of England, renounce the eating of curry, and stop listening to that strange black music with its alien African rhythms?

It can't be done, it shouldn't be done, and it doesn't need to be done. I shall change my mind about this just as soon as the Polish cafe down the road starts taking away my freedoms, and the kebab shop threatens democracy.You are making a false dichotomy and using the definition of the word multiculturalism that I'm not.

But thanks for the reply.

[Earthborn]

Mine.So you are the ultimate arbiter of which cultures "really are superior" ? Please to meet you, your Holiness.

It bothers me when women and men are oppressed and children are mutilated.Unfortunately there is considerable disagreement on what constitutes "oppression" and "mutilation", so it would help if you could define those terms and explain why your definition should be the one that counts to the exclusion of all others.

The culture, to a large degree, of Muslims predates Islam. In fact I think it actually predates the Bronze Age.According to that logic, Western culture is also a Bronze Age culture; in fact one that shares common roots with Islam.

Not quite that simple at all.It isn't, but it is a necessary condition for tribalism that the tribes consider their own culture superior over the others.

That would be great if that was the end result of Multiculturalism did.I never said anything about an "end-result" of multiculturalism. I was talking about what promotors of multiculturalism try to do right now.

Yes, some aspects of some cultures must be prohibited in Western societies. Those aspects of culture that oppress individuals and mutilate children.If you are going to advocate prohibitions, it would help if you stopped being vague and explained clearly which "aspects of culture" you are thinking of, and which ones you think are not already prohibited.

You cannot have laws that are in direct conflict with Liberal Democracy.If those laws are representative of the opinions of large numbers of people in a pluralistic and multicultural society, I don't see how they could be.

It's funny how American culture is often derided and many correctly point out the many sins and failures of American culture but at the same time seem to think that we must treat with respect oppressive culture from other nations.Your sentence is a bit messed up. Are you saying that people who often deride the failures of American culture at the same time think we must treat oppressive cultures with respect? If so, can you come with with any examples?

[Earthborn]

So, there have been no honor killings by Muslims in the US, (snip)I probably should have said "People who flee their homeland are not trying to keep the aspects of their culture alive that they perceive as causing much of the ills of their homelands."

UNLESS, of course, you are claiming that these kinds of mutilations/murders are not causing any problems in their homelands.I think such practices do cause problems, but are probably not the main problems in those countries. It usually involves minorities within those countries, and are often practices that are officially frowned upon by the country's dominant culture or even illegal.

[RandFan]

So you are the ultimate arbiter of which cultures "really are superior" ? Please to meet you, your Holiness. No. Of course not. That is clear from what I've said. I like my culture but it is likely to be displaced and I'm fine with that. I think culture should evolve and when it does it likely will take bits and pieces of other cultures with it.

Unfortunately there is considerable disagreement on what constitutes "oppression" and "mutilation", so it would help if you could define those terms and explain why your definition should be the one that counts to the exclusion of all others. ?

You are clearly not understanding me. To the extent that there is opression it is wrong (IMO) and I think it is in societies best interest to stop it. It is wrong for men to beat their wives. It is wrong to cut the labia, vulva and clitoris from little girls....

Here, watch this movie.

8MsqKXXIvPs

Is that clear enough for you?

Humans are capable of empathy. Humans can care about others. Morality has evolved in Western societies to reduce human suffering because we are capable of empathy and reasoned argument against slavery, murder, rape and oppression appeal to our better nature and we want others to be free of suffering.

Those reasoned arguments only work when people are free to think for themselves. Societies that punish those who speak out against conventional wisdom are doomed to perpetuate suffering.

Not many women in the west would choose to live under an oppresive regime yet women in such regimes long for freedom (see the women of Iran (http://forthefreedomofiran.blogspot.com/2006/06/demonstration-by-women-in-iran-capital.html)). Do you really believe that all cultures are equal? Really?

According to that logic, Western culture is also a Bronze Age culture; in fact one that shares common roots with Islam. No, because Western culture has evolved since. It is not the same. The clothes are not the same. The rituals are not the same. The attitudes toward women are not the same.

[Morrigan]

I would also like to point out --

-- I am not aware of any nation that I'd consider a true democracy (or a close version thereof) that is not multicultural

Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland are not true democracies now?
Sure, they have some immigrants. But compared to, say, North America, their populations are pretty homogeneous.

Ironically, Randfan is taking a position (arguing against multiculturalism) that virtually every Islamic religious leader in the Muslim world would agree with. Rather humorous to hear him making an argument that would be so readily embraced by dictators and despots of all stripes.
He argues against it for vastly different reasons. This sort of passive-aggressive implication that he's "just like them" is dishonest.



On some counts I'd agree with this, on others not. There's a great deal of mythology in secular culture too. It could be argued that secularism has just supplanted previous mythology with its own.

e.g.
Creation Myths: Natural Selection of Multiverses, Primeval soup abiogenesis, Natural selection of genetic mutations producing macro-evolution leading from a rock to a modern man.

Ah yes, because mainstream science is of course a "myth" on the same level as creation mythology. :rolleyes:
You fail at life.


Meaning of life Myth: no objective meaning to life, merely subjectively applicable belief that the purpose of life is to improve the situation of mankind in this lifetime via social justice, technological advancement etc..
How is this simple statement of fact a "myth"? There is no evidence that there IS an "objective meaning to life".

Betraying your evolutionist mythology here ;)
Evolution is not mythology, it is extensively documented and peer-reviewed mainstream science.

[Earthborn]

You are making a false dichotomy and using the definition of the word multiculturalism that I'm not.He's using a different definition of the word multiculturalism than you are, and I think he is using a perfectly reasonable definition.

Randfan has expressed his criticism of "multiculturalism" before and it has seemed to me that what he fears is not what most people would call "multiculturalism", but something that can be more accurately described as "pillarisation" along cultural lines; a form of informal segregation where people tend to stay within their own pillars and have little contact with people of other cultures. Randfan seems to think that efforts to help preserve minority cultures can cause this to happen.

Pillarisation is pretty much the opposite of multiculturalism as usually defined, as multicultural efforts usually involve getting people from different cultures to learn from eachother. I would also say that calling it the "Biggest Threat to Democracy" is a very serious exaggeration. While the Netherlands was once very seriously pillarised, it still had a well functioning democracy.

[RandFan]

He's using a different definition of the word multiculturalism than you are, and I think he is using a perfectly reasonable definition. His definition is simply different cultures being allowed to live together. That's not the same as actively trying to perserve cultures and allowing laws and customs that would otherwise be illegal in a society to remain.


Randfan has expressed his criticism of "multiculturalism" before and it has seemed to me that what he fears is not what most people would call "multiculturalism", but something that can be more accurately described as "pillarisation" along cultural lines; a form of informal segregation where people tend to stay within their own pillars and have little contact with people of other cultures. Randfan seems to think that efforts to help preserve minority cultures can cause this to happen.

Pillarisation is pretty much the opposite of multiculturalism as usually defined, as multicultural efforts usually involve getting people from different cultures to learn from eachother. I would also say that calling it the "Biggest Threat to Democracy" is a very serious exaggeration. While the Netherlands was once very seriously pillarised, it still had a well functioning democracy. It's a significant threat now because of large influxes of Muslims into Western cultures.

I said, "the sky is not falling" and I don't think that it is but there is significant chance of irreparable harm if steps are not taken to ensure that Western principles of freedom and Democracy are not sacrificed for Multiculturalism.

ETA: Thank you for reminding me of "pillarisation". I'm willing to concede that the intent of multiculturism isn't "pillarisation" however I think it might very well be the result.

Again, thanks.

[Dr Adequate]

His definition is simply different cultures being allowed to live together. That's not the same as actively trying to perserve cultures and allowing laws and customs that would otherwise be illegal in a society to remain. Well, that doesn't seem to be what the proponents of multiculturalism mean.

"His definition of evolution is simply changes of the genomes of lineages over time. That's not the same as fanatical support for Nazi eugenic programs."

So far as I know, the only thing that could be conceived as "laws and customs that would otherwise be illegal in a society" that have been permitted to remain, in the UK at any rate, are the methods of slaughter required for kosher and halaal meat.

[RandFan]

Well, that doesn't seem to be what the proponents of multiculturalism mean. We clearly have read different things.

"His definition of evolution is simply changes of the genomes of lineages over time. That's not the same as fanatical support for Nazi eugenic programs." Not a clue.

So far as I know, the only thing that could be conceived as "laws and customs that would otherwise be illegal in a society" that have been permitted to remain, in the UK at any rate, are the methods of slaughter required for kosher and halaal meat.I'm certainly not talking only about the UK, however there are attempts at this time to bring Sharia law (for reasons of multiculturalism) into England. Sorry you were not familiar with it.

GOfU7wskFdg


Sharia law may result in 'legal apartheid' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nsharia110.xml)

Lord Carey and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor rebut the call of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.
Please to let me know if you require any more links.

Thanks

[RandFan]

GOfU7wskFdg

From the video:

There is a clash of civilizations. There is a clash between a civilazation based on god's law who believe that sovernty and supremcy belong to god and who want to live under the sharia who believe that authority should be in the hands of Muslims and those who believe that man should continue to rule acording to his whims and desires.

...

And as Muslims we believe that one day the whole world will be dominated by the Sharia law.

[JoeEllison]

He's using a different definition of the word multiculturalism than you are, and I think he is using a perfectly reasonable definition.

Randfan has expressed his criticism of "multiculturalism" before and it has seemed to me that what he fears is not what most people would call "multiculturalism", but something that can be more accurately described as "pillarisation" along cultural lines; a form of informal segregation where people tend to stay within their own pillars and have little contact with people of other cultures. Randfan seems to think that efforts to help preserve minority cultures can cause this to happen.

Pillarisation is pretty much the opposite of multiculturalism as usually defined, as multicultural efforts usually involve getting people from different cultures to learn from eachother. I would also say that calling it the "Biggest Threat to Democracy" is a very serious exaggeration. While the Netherlands was once very seriously pillarised, it still had a well functioning democracy.

Yeah... something's not right with his definition. What makes his RandFan's position so ridiculous is that he's an American, and America has no uniform "culture" that needs preserving. We're multicultural here, all over and more or less naturally, and so far the threats to democracy haven't come from that aspect of American life.

[RandFan]

Yeah... something's not right with his definition. What makes his RandFan's position so ridiculous is that he's an American, and America has no uniform "culture" that needs preserving. We're multicultural here, all over and more or less naturally, and so far the threats to democracy haven't come from that aspect of American life. Let me try again to clarify.

I don't find my personal culture sacrosanct. I expect my culture to be superseded. America will look more and more Hispanic in the coming years. That's just fine by me.
I don't believe American culture is monolithic. America is very diverse and that is a very good thing. America is also, to some extent, blending. I celebrate Cinco de Mayo, eat Mole and love home made tamales. I'm not alone by any stretch of the imagination. Great aspects of culture, if left alone, will survive.
My "definition" of multiculturalism includes the attempt to preserve aspects of some cultures that are detrimental to Liberal Democracy.I hope this helps. If not please ask me and I will try and further explain my position.

RandFan

[Dr Adequate]

Not a clue. Compare it with the first paragraph of your post.

I'm certainly not talking only about the UK, however there are attempts at this time to bring Sharia law (for reasons of multiculturalism) into England. Sorry you were not familiar with it. I am. I think you may have missed the point. No-one is going to replace British law with sharia law, nor was that what the archbishop was proposing.

[Dr Adequate]

My "definition" of multiculturalism includes the attempt to preserve aspects of some cultures that are detrimental to Liberal Democracy. Yes, well, that seems to be the problem right there. That's just not part of the actual definition.

Here's wikipedia, OK, not the world's greatest source, but I'm suffering from a violent attack of laziness:

"The term multiculturalism generally refers to a de facto state of both cultural and ethnic diversity within the demographics of a particular social space. [See, that's what I said.]

Some countries have official, or de jure, multiculturalism policies aimed at preserving the cultures or cultural identities — usually those of immigrant groups — within a unified society. In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct cultural and religious groups, no one culture predominating."

Now even if you take "multiculturalism" in the second sense, that doesn't imply trying to preserve such hallowed traditions as "honor killings" or clitoridectomy, and in practice does not include them.

[RandFan]

Compare it with the first paragraph of your post. I sincerely apologize for being thick. I still don't have a clue. You need to realize that some of us are a bit below your intellect and I say that with all sincerity and due respect. Could you be a little more direct?

I think you may have missed the point. No-one is going to replace British law with sharia law, nor was that what the archbishop was proposing. For the third time. I don't claim that the sky is falling. I don't think we are in any immediate danger of the fall of Western Democracy. More importantly, I certainly never suggested that the archbishop was proposing anything of the sort. That's not the point. The point is that multiculturalism has the potential to bring Sharia into Western Democracies. What will be the final result of that I don't know. I do know that it is the intent of those who wish to bring Sharia into the West sincerely wish to vanquish Democracy. There is no controversy about that.

[RandFan]

Yes, well, that seems to be the problem right there. That's just not part of the actual definition. ? By your own source it would seem that it is.

Some countries have official, or de jure, multiculturalism policies aimed at preserving the cultures or cultural identities — usually those of immigrant groups — within a unified society. In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct cultural and religious groups, no one culture predominating."

Now even if you take "multiculturalism" in the second sense, that doesn't imply trying to preserve such hallowed traditions as "honor killings" or clitoridectomy, and in practice does not include them. Do you know what Sharia law is? *Did you know that honor killings occur in Western civilizations and AIU, they are at time ignored by the media and the authorities because of multiculturalism?

*ETA: I'll try and find support for the last sentence.
** I'll withdraw this claim for the moment.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You seem to be judging multiculturalism based on the most extreme outliers, which most advocates wouldn't even include under multiculturalism. Most practices of multiculturalism are rather ordinary and help democracy (IMO). In the field I studied it in, education, multiculturalism is practically a necessity, and it helps us teach all students effectively.

And it is rather silly to proclaim some cultures to be "better" than others. Some just have a few ideas (or lack a few ideas) that fit your values more than others.

[mijopaalmc]

I have only skimmed the thread, so for give me if my question has already been answered.

Does ethnic holidays days (e.g., Tet, St Patrick's Day) in communities where those ethnic groups predominate represent the "Threat of Multiculturalism"?

[RandFan]

You seem to be judging multiculturalism based on the most extreme outliers, which most advocates wouldn't even include under multiculturalism. Most practices of multiculturalism are rather ordinary and help democracy (IMO). In the field I studied it in, education, multiculturalism is practically a necessity, and it helps us teach all students effectively. That's certainly a possibility. My criticism is based in large part on folks like Ayan Hirsi Ali and other critics of multiculturalism. Some of those critics used to be in favor of multiculturalism but have changed their mind based on influence of Muslim culture in the west.

And it is rather silly to proclaim some cultures to be "better" than others. Some just have a few ideas (or lack a few ideas) that fit your values more than others. I don't think it is silly at all. Most of us are capable of empathy. Most of us care about the well being of others. When you understand that these some cultures are often very brutal and oppressive to women then one can objectively say that for those who value human life and liberty Western culture is superior.

I gotta say Tsukasa, I find this type of argument very disappointing. That would be the equivalent of saying that those who argued against slavery and for women suffrage were silly because to do so was simply arguing for things that fit their values. I reject that. The arguments against slavery and for woman suffrage were effective in the long run because we as humans are capable of empathy and if we are allowed to think for ourselves and are not under the pressure of a totalitarian regime or an oppressive culture we are more likely than not to chose life and liberty for ourselves and others.

[RandFan]

I have only skimmed the thread, so for give me if my question has already been answered.

Does ethnic holidays days (e.g., Tet, St Patrick's Day) in communities where those ethnic groups predominate represent the "Threat of Multiculturalism"?:) No. Not at all. Bring it on.

I think that my position and the position of those who have argued against me position are actually very close.

I'm for immigration.
I'm for freedom of choice to not assimilate.
I'm for individualism.
I don't believe any culture is sacrosanct and I don't expect mine to exist beyond a few generations (and that is perfectly fine).
There is good and bad in all cultures (though to be sure, not all cultures are equally good and bad).
I think culture should be free to evolve without the interference of government.
I think some cultural practices should be prohibited including honor killings, genital mutilation, wife beatings, etc.Good question, thank you.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That's certainly a possibility. My criticism is based in large part on folks like Ayan Hirsi Ali and other critics of multiculturalism. Some of those critics used to be in favor of multiculturalism but have changed their mind based on influence of Muslim culture in the west.

Well the stuff you bring up about women being oppressed is hardly unique to Islamic culture, and most multicultural practices hardly deal with anything so extreme. Also, the views and practices that oppress women in a certain culture are merely one subset of that entire culture. If a culture oppressed women, invented key theorems in mathematics, and was theocratic, would it be "better" or "worse" than a culture that was severely classist, had invented practically nothing worthwhile, and was a republic?

I don't think it is silly at all. Most of us are capable of empathy. Most of us care about the well being of others. When you understand that these some cultures are often very brutal and oppressive to women then one can objectively say that for those who value human life and liberty Western culture is superior.

Yes, our Western society is free from oppression :rolleyes: . But our values of "human life and liberty" are hardly objective, and could be judged as cultural artifices of our own. And it is silly to compare and judge two entire cultures by only looking at one metric.

I gotta say Tsukasa, I find this type of argument very disappointing. That would be the equivalent of saying that those who argued against slavery and for women suffrage were silly because to do so was simply arguing for things that fit their values. I reject that. The arguments against slavery and for woman suffrage were effective in the long run because we as humans are capable of empathy and if we are allowed to think for ourselves and are not under the pressure of a totalitarian regime or an oppressive culture we are more likely than not to chose life and liberty for ourselves and others.

That analogy is hardly apt. I could say that your position would be like the abolitionists saying that since European culture had produced slavery, they must reject all of European culture, common law, music, language, etc.

Look, most multiculturalist theorists (Or at least the ones I've talked to) would say that we should go accept the other cultures up to, but not including, the point that they violate human rights. After that, we intercede.

Of course, personally, I don't think there are objective human rights, and I think our notions of them are just as culturally contrived as the opposing culture's views. But that is what they say.

[RandFan]

Well the stuff you bring up about women being oppressed is hardly unique to Islamic culture... Never said it was. Clearly though, right now, one of the worst cultures to be in at the moment, for a woman, is Muslim.

If a culture oppressed women, invented key theorems in mathematics, and was theocratic, would it be "better" or "worse" than a culture that was severely classist, had invented practically nothing worthwhile, and was a republic? That would be interesting but sadly these are only theoretical and the very real cultures that I am talking about don't fit your scenarios.

Yes, our Western society is free from oppression :rolleyes: . But our values of "human life and liberty" are hardly objective, and could be judged as cultural artifices of our own. And it is silly to compare and judge two entire cultures by only looking at one metric. I never said our Western society is free from oppression. That is the classical strawman. If you go back and read what I've written I've acknowledged as much. My point is that one culture has less oppression than the other.

It's a very important metric. What value are any other metrics if you have no rights?

It is a near universal trait for humans to not want to suffer.
It is a near universal trait for humans to not want to be oppressed.
It is a near universal trait for humans to feel empathy.
Objectively, a culture that minimizes suffering and oppression is better for those citizens.This is not difficult stuff here.


That analogy is hardly apt. Saying that it is not apt does not make it so. It's actually a great analogy because these are talking identical things. I chose them for a reason. Women suffrage was an attempt to empower women. Ending slavery was about freeing people from opression.

I could say that your position would be like the abolitionists saying that since European culture had produced slavery, they must reject all of European culture, common law, music, language, etc. Non sequitur. This simply doesn't follow for a number of reasons. Chief of which is that I've not advocated rejecting anything but Sharia law, genital mutilation, honor killing and the negative aspects of Muslim culture. Please to show me where I've advocated rejecting Muslim culture?

Look, most multiculturalist theorists (Or at least the ones I've talked to) would say that we should go accept the other cultures up to, but not including, the point that they violate human rights. After that, we intercede. Theory is not resolving the very real problems that are occurring right now as a result of Muslims in Western societies demanding that Sharia law be allowed.

I don't see the point of theory when we are experience the problems in real time. It kinda makes the theory moot.

Of course, personally, I don't think there are objective human rights, and I think our notions of them are just as culturally contrived as the opposing culture's views. There are no objective human rights! I don't believe in any such absolutes.

Premises:

The vast majority of us would like to be free of suffering and to be free of oppression.
The vast majority of us can feel empathy.
Citizens who are free of oppression and are free of suffering make for better and more productive citizens.
Citizens who do not witness suffering and oppression in others are more likely to be emotionally healthy.
Objectively, it is better for societies to be free of oppression.Conclusion: Cultures that give equal rights to citizens are better than those that don't.

[RandFan]

One more thing.

HDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) (Human Development Index) is the normalized measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standard of living, and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or an underdeveloped country. It is also used to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.

One can predict, based on culture, one's HDI. Check it out. That is an objective standard. Now, you can assert things all day long but in the end the things that humans want, life and well-being, are demonstrably best found in cultures that value freedom and seek to minimize suffering.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Never said it was. Clearly though, right now, one of the worst cultures to be in at the moment, for a woman, is Muslim.

Debatable. I rather worry about American teenage girls :p .

That would be interesting but sadly these are only theoretical and the very real cultures that I am talking about don't fit your scenarios.

:rolleyes: Way to dodge. The point was that looking at only one metric to judge two distinct cultures is silly, and it is hardly even possible to judge one culture as "superior" to another using multiple metrics.

I never said our Western society is free from oppression. That is the classical strawman. If you go back and read what I've written I've acknowledged as much. My point is that one culture has less oppression than the other.Again, using realistic example this time, if one culture is moderately sexist, classist, and racist, and the other one is really sexist, but not so racist or classist, which one is "superior"?

It's a very important metric. What value are any other metrics if you have no rights?
It is a near universal trait for humans to not want to suffer.
It is a near universal trait for humans to not want to be oppressed.
It is a near universal trait for humans to feel empathy.
Objectively, a culture that minimizes suffering and oppression is better for those citizens.This is not difficult stuff here. That is fine, though I think "feel empathy" is rather extraneous. Except you went on to say that one culture was "superior" to another and that multtculturalism would lead to the downfall of society.

Saying that it is not apt does not make it so. It's actually a great analogy because these are talking identical things. I chose them for a reason. Women suffrage was an attempt to empower women. Ending slavery was about freeing people from opression.Except that's where the analogy ended, because they didn't engage in a culture war.

Non sequitur. This simply doesn't follow for a number of reasons. Chief of which is that I've not advocated rejecting anything but Sharia law, genital mutilation, honor killing and the negative aspects of Muslim culture. Please to show me where I've advocated rejecting Muslim culture?You are using non sequitur incorrectly :p .

You said that multiculturalism, not human rights violations, would lead to the downfall of liberal democracy. It was kinda your title.

Theory is not resolving the very real problems that are occurring right now as a result of Muslims in Western societies demanding that Sharia law be allowed.

I don't see the point of theory when we are experience the problems in real time. It kinda makes the theory moot.Again, way to miss the point. The point was the most multicultural advocates (if you get caught up with the word "theorists") agree with you. Most implementations of multiculturalism are to prevent oppression of those with different cultural backgrounds and generally improve life for everyone in a pluralistic society. I haven't seen anyone mainstream arguing for enforcing Sharia law under the guise of multiculturalism.

Here, let's try another analogy. NAMBLA proclaims that sexual "relations" with children should be legal under the banner of sexual orientation inclusion and the GLBTQ movement. What you are are doing is proclaiming that the GLBTQ movement is going to destroy society.

There are no objective human rights! I don't believe in any such absolutes. That's good.


Premises:
The vast majority of us would like to be free of suffering and to be free of oppression.
The vast majority of us can feel empathy.
Citizens who are free of oppression and are free of suffering make for better and more productive citizens.
Citizens who do not witness suffering and oppression in others are more likely to be emotionally healthy.
Objectively, it is better for societies to be free of oppression.Conclusion: Cultures that give equal rights to citizens are better than those that don't.You're conclusion doesn't follow. You didn't establish that the best way to remove oppression and suffering was to grant equal rights, or what comprises "rights". Perhaps the best way is a Christian Socialist Revolution, an Anarchist Revolution, a Maoist Communist Revolution, etc.

And don't forget, they want to relieve suffering to. They just have a few more premises, like that certain behaviors angered a vengeful God ;) .

Yes, it is okay as long as you are defining "better" in a strictly utilitarian perspective. You, however, claimed general "superiority". And again, there is a lot of other types of oppression out there; and you are just taking just one, making a comparison, and making a broad judgment of superiority and proclaiming the failure of multiculturalism.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

One more thing.



One can predict, based on culture, one's HDI. Check it out. That is an objective standard. Now, you can assert things all day long but in the end the things that humans want, life and well-being, are demonstrably best found in cultures that value freedom and seek to minimize suffering.

Hmmm...


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Flag_of_Qatar.svg/22px-Flag_of_Qatar.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Qatar.svg) Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar) ▲ 0.875

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg) United Arab Emirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates) ▲ 0.868

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg) Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia) ▲ 0.812Gee, they must not be Muslim.

Also, I think I am remembering something... Correlation... and something about causation?

[mrbaracuda]

After a quick go at reading the thread I came to the conclusion that you like multiculturalism, unless/except for certain elements (foremost muslims it seems) that come in, don't adapt to the new society and try to actively undermine and destroy the system you live in.

Is that correct?

[Cincinnatus]

You want cultures to evolve naturally and not try to force anything, but apperently you want some force to prevent Sharia law into western civilisation even if large numbers of people would support it. That is missing the point of democracy completely. If there are lots of people who believe that there should be some aspects of Sharia law encorporated into national law, then it will happen. The same happened with other philosophies; Western European countries have encorporated many aspects of Social-Democracy, classical Liberalism and Christen-Democracy in their systems. If proponents of Sharia gain significant influence, aspects of Sharia law will be mixed in with the rest. That is how democracy is designed to work.

If that happens I'll take the minority who don't want it and proclaim war on the majority that do. Then I'll incorporate allies into my minority. And Once I win. Guess what? We won't have to worry about it. Warfare is something in history which has captured kingdoms. Putting down a uprising for sharia law would be an easy task.

But since america already has Secular law, Sharia law has no place in democracy. Not even in subculture. While secular law is not perfect. It is least inhumane compared to Sharia law. Thus, Sharia law, must never be implamented in democracy. Infact, Sharia law like slavery should be abolished.

[Cincinnatus]

am absolutely opposed to the idea of allowing Sharia law, or any other legal/ethical system, that is in opposition to the basic principles outlined in Canadian law and constitution. And furthermore, multiculturalism does not in any way mean that we must or should do so. So the alarm bells that Randfan is sounding -- the ones that are the foundation of his fear-mongering rhetoric -- are without foundation.

Let me take Canada as an example. To me, multiculturalism in Canada means that anyone, of any background, is welcome to come and live in Canada. It is required that, as part of their responsibility in becoming Canadian, they should learn our language, history, culture, etc. (and I would support denying citizenship to those who refuse to do so). But this does not mean that they would be expected to abandon their own language, forget their own culture, or ignore their own history. So long as they met those basic minimum requirements, and so long as they adhered to the principles and laws of Canadian law, they would have the freedom to keep those aspects of their own culture that they want to.

I would have no problem whatsoever with stating that those who feel Canadian law would contradict their cultural or religious beliefs, to the point where they feel they would have to break that law, should be denied citizenship in Canada. Part of becoming a Canadian citizen is a deliberate acceptance of the laws of our country, and a willingness to abide by them. If you cannot abide by those laws, go somewhere else.

I completely agree with this point. Only substitute canada for America.

Real Multicultural Islamic nations should be the goal. In Granada this type of real Multicultural muslim nation thrived. Their only problem was Dhimmi status which would have been analogous to America's inequality in the 1950's.

[Damien Evans]

:D
I agree. I'm coming too, and inviting along the camp of gypsies from down the road.
No worries mate.

No worries, we already have a nice house set up for you alongside the magnificent Todd River, prime real estate...:D

[Dr Adequate]

I sincerely apologize for being thick. I still don't have a clue. You need to realize that some of us are a bit below your intellect and I say that with all sincerity and due respect. Could you be a little more direct? I must be having an obscure day. You complained that my definition of multiculturalism isn't yours, I parodied it with a creationist-style complaint that my definition of evolution isn't his.

For the third time. I don't claim that the sky is falling. I don't think we are in any immediate danger of the fall of Western Democracy. More importantly, I certainly never suggested that the archbishop was proposing anything of the sort. That's not the point. The point is that multiculturalism has the potential to bring Sharia into Western Democracies. Well, not really. Introducing Sharia law isn't the same as, say, putting up Diwali lights. For one thing, that would be monoculturalism. No-one, in the name of multiculturalism, is going to introduce a system that tells you what you can eat and drink and wear and do in your free time.

[Dr Adequate]

? By your own source it would seem that it is. No, you said "the attempt to preserve aspects of some cultures that are detrimental to Liberal Democracy".

This is like defining conservationism to be "the attempt to preserve species detrimental to human health". That definition would not follow from a definition of conservationism as the attempt to preserve species, especially as in practice there is no such thing as the Campaign To Save The Guinea Worm. (Well, actually there is (http://www.deadlysins.com/guineaworm/index.htm), but it's a joke.)

In the early stages of the destructive campaign against the innocent Guinea Worm, the environmental movement faced a choice: to speak out against the killing, or remain silent and permit a living species to be eliminated forever. As defenders of the integrity of our natural world, their choice should have been clear. Yet the environmental movement chose to nestle up in the rich, warm pockets of the Guinea Worm killers and turn a blind eye to the environmental catastrophe taking place around the world. Only the Save the Guinea Worm Foundation continues point the finger of blame at the Guinea Worm-destroying forces of the United Nations.

[Cincinnatus]

^ Here is one way they could do it.

In Germany's July, 1932, elections, 63% of the voters cast their ballots against the Nazis. By the November elections, the anti-Nazi vote was even larger. Yet Adolf Hitler was able to achieve dictatorial power only four months later on March 23, 1933, in part because his storm troopers like the militant gangs controlled by the fundamentalists were willing to murder their opponents.

Khomeini's works advocate vigorously converting or murdering all those who do not embrace Allah's holy meme. Then they urge a holy war on the nations of the West.

"The ayatollah wrote, "Any nonreligious (i.e. non-Islamic) power, whatever form or shape, is necessarily an atheistic power, the tool of Satan; it is part of our duty to stand in its path and to struggle against its effects. Such Satanic power can engender nothing but corruption on earth, the supreme evil which must be pitilessly fought and rooted out. To achieve that end, we have no recourse other than to overthrow all governments that do not rest on pure Islamic principles, and are thus corrupt and corrupting, and to tear down the traitorous, rotten, unjust, and tyrannical administrative systems that serve them.... If Islamic civilization had governed the West, we would no longer have to put up with these barbaric goings-on unworthy even of wild animals....[Western governments are] using inhuman laws and inhuman political methods... Misdeeds must be punished by the law of retaliation: cut off the hands of the thief; kill the murderer instead of putting him in prison; flog the adulterous woman or man. Your concerns, your 'humanitarian' scruples, are more childish than reasonable."

[RandFan]

The point was that looking at only one metric to judge two distinct cultures is silly, and it is hardly even possible to judge one culture as "superior" to another using multiple metrics. Given that most people would place life and liberty high on their list of priorties they are rather important metrics.

Again, using realistic example this time, if one culture is moderately sexist, classist, and racist, and the other one is really sexist, but not so racist or classist, which one is "superior"? I don't know. I'm not saying that a determination couldn't be made but this simply doesn't equate.

That is fine, though I think "feel empathy" is rather extraneous.
Not at all. The argument fails without it. If we don't care about each other then it doesn't matter.

You said that multiculturalism, not human rights violations, would lead to the downfall of liberal democracy. It was kinda your title. Yes because multiculturalism allows for human rights violations.

Again, way to miss the point. The rhetoric is lost on me I assure you. You can skip it.

The point was the most multicultural advocates (if you get caught up with the word "theorists") agree with you.
I don't care if they agree with me I agree with what works. Good intentions won't solve the real world problems and that is what you keep ignoring.

[sidetrack]You're conclusion doesn't follow. You didn't establish that the best way to remove oppression and suffering was to grant equal rights... Hardly controversial. It's rather difficult to oppress someone who has the right not to be oppressed.

Yes, it is okay as long as you are defining "better" in a strictly utilitarian perspective. Since most of us value life and well being above everything else (we spend so much time trying to aquire it) I hardly think it controversial.

Let me ask you, of what good are any other metrics if citizens don't have freedom and well-being? Any thing else is pretty much secondary.

[RandFan]

Hmmm... I can't believe that you think this is in your favor. These are some of the richest nations on earth per capita and they don't even rank in the top 30. That's pretty bad.

Also, I think I am remembering something... Correlation... and something about causation? Clearly culture isn't the only predicter but I don't think even you would completly dismiss culture as a contributing factor, right?

But tell me, what are the primary factors? Politics? If so then I'm affraid we are back to culture. I don't think you are going to be able to seperate the significance of cultural influence but I'd be interested to know your ideas.

[RandFan]

No, you said "the attempt to preserve aspects of some cultures that are detrimental to Liberal Democracy". I will grant that my wording was poor and that it isn't the intent but it does appear to be the result. It is an unintended consequence.

[RandFan]

After a quick go at reading the thread I came to the conclusion that you like multiculturalism, unless/except for certain elements (foremost muslims it seems) that come in, don't adapt to the new society and try to actively undermine and destroy the system you live in.

Is that correct? That's pretty close, yes. I do question the efficacy of governmental programs to pro-actively assimilate groups.

I think we should teach the truth including the fact that Europeans enjoyed the luck of the draw (see Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel) and that many of the policies of Western society have been racist and that there have been many positive contributions to civilization by non-Western societies. Yes, this is what many term as multiculturalism.

[RandFan]

Well, not really. Introducing Sharia law isn't the same as, say, putting up Diwali lights. For one thing, that would be monoculturalism. No-one, in the name of multiculturalism, is going to introduce a system that tells you what you can eat and drink and wear and do in your free time. You and I are reading very, very different things. That is precisely what I understand is happening. I'm not so sure that declaring that it won't happen will alter the facts. People are in the name of multiculturalism trying to bing in Sharia law. Why else did the Archbishop call for bringing in Sharia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nsharia110.xml)?

[Dr Adequate]

You and I are reading very, very different things. That is precisely what I understand is happening. I'm not so sure that declaring that it won't happen will alter the facts. People are in the name of multiculturalism trying to bing in Sharia law. Why else did the Archbishop call for bringing in Sharia (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nsharia110.xml)? They aren't and he didn't.

What he suggested was that Muslims should have the option, by the consent of both parties, to "resolve disputes and regulate transactions" according to the sharia code, and that if they do so choose, there should be some way that the decision could be taken as binding by the British civil courts.

Note that this is optional, and that it doesn't affect criminal law.

To quote Archbishop Williams: "The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human dignity. So the question remains of whether certain additional choices could and should be made available under the law of the United Kingdom for resolving disputes and regulating transactions."

It's a big flap over nothing. It might be a good idea, it might be a bad idea, but it is certainly not "bringing in Sharia law". No-one would be allowed to blow up statues of the Buddha, or give me forty lashes for drinking beer, or ban saris for being immodest dress, or outlaw hip-hop --- and it is clear that the biggest fans of multiculturalism are amongst the people who would like this the least. There can be no unholy alliance between multiculturalists and fanatical monoculturalists. Relax.

[RandFan]

They aren't and he didn't.

What he suggested was that Muslims should have the option, by the consent of both parties, to "resolve disputes and regulate transactions" according to the sharia code, and that if they do so choose, there should be some way that the decision could be taken as binding by the British civil courts.

Note that this is optional, and that it doesn't affect criminal law.

To quote Archbishop Williams: "The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human dignity. So the question remains of whether certain additional choices could and should be made available under the law of the United Kingdom for resolving disputes and regulating transactions."

It's a big flap over nothing. It might be a good idea, it might be a bad idea, but it is certainly not "bringing in Sharia law". No-one would be allowed to blow up statues of the Buddha, or give me forty lashes for drinking beer, or ban saris for being immodest dress, or outlaw hip-hop --- and it is clear that the biggest fans of multiculturalism are amongst the people who would like this the least. There can be no unholy alliance between multiculturalists and fanatical monoculturalists. Relax. Fair enough. That was not clear in the article that I read. BTW, AIU you are not Muslim so it never was about you anyway. In any event, the video link I posted does demonstrate the desire that many Muslims would like Sharia law and critics like Ayan Hirsi Ali have claimed that multiculturalism has led to the loss of rights for women in places like Denmark. I'll try and find support for that.

[Sunni Man]

They aren't and he didn't.

What he suggested was that Muslims should have the option, by the consent of both parties, to "resolve disputes and regulate transactions" according to the sharia code, and that if they do so choose, there should be some way that the decision could be taken as binding by the British civil courts.

Note that this is optional, and that it doesn't affect criminal law.

To quote Archbishop Williams: "The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human dignity. So the question remains of whether certain additional choices could and should be made available under the law of the United Kingdom for resolving disputes and regulating transactions."

It's a big flap over nothing. It might be a good idea, it might be a bad idea, but it is certainly not "bringing in Sharia law". No-one would be allowed to blow up statues of the Buddha, or give me forty lashes for drinking beer, or ban saris for being immodest dress, or outlaw hip-hop --- and it is clear that the biggest fans of multiculturalism are amongst the people who would like this the least. There can be no unholy alliance between multiculturalists and fanatical monoculturalists. Relax.
Great post Doc!

[RandFan]

Great post Doc! Given that the guy is regularly nominated for TLA and is a winner is it any surprise?

It was a good post. DR.A is one of my all time favorite posters.

[RandFan]

From another forum. Not offered as proof of my claim but evidence of a larger problem.

I don't know if anyone else has heard of this but Network Solutions apparently took down the page of a documentary film which had some views on the Koran which were not to the liking of some Muslims.

Apparently the film was not any kind of extreme hate fest, but was critical about the Koran and contended it tended to support tyrany etc. Of course, this is fine to do with christianity, atheism, communism, conservatism or any other belief, as long as it's not Islam.

The article is here: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/23/europe/EU-GEN-Netherlands-Quran-Film.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/23/europe/EU-GEN-Netherlands-Quran-Film.php)


Anyways, if you'd like to help try to do something about this (assuming you don't think stuff that might be offensive to Islam should be banned either by government or censored by content providers), then you can view some information here which I dug up:

http://depletedcranium.com/?p=486 (http://depletedcranium.com/?p=486)

I encourage everyone to deluge Network Solutions and their business partners with communications with the information provided.

[RandFan]

An enlightened response.

I can only hope someone gets to this pervert film maker and teaches him a permanent lesson.

[Travis]

Back in 1999 I was trying to get my schoolmates to understand my anti-Taliban stance. When I brought up the stoning of women someone protested that I had no right to condemn it as it was a part of their culture to stone women to death.

That was my introduction to the notion of multiculturalism.

It still stuns me that so many seemingly intelligent people embrace it.

[FireGarden]

One more thing.



One can predict, based on culture, one's HDI. Check it out. That is an objective standard. Now, you can assert things all day long but in the end the things that humans want, life and well-being, are demonstrably best found in cultures that value freedom and seek to minimize suffering.

From: http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_IRN.html

HDI, for Iran, from 1975 to the present (figure 2):
http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/hdi-trends/irn_2.gif

Compared to the improvements since the revolution, there was hardly any improvement at all 1975 to 1980ish.

When was the Shah forced out of power? Coincidence?

[RandFan]

From: http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_IRN.html

HDI, for Iran, from 1975 to the present (figure 2):
http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/hdi-trends/irn_2.gif

Compared to the improvements since the revolution, there was hardly any improvement at all 1975 to 1980ish.

When was the Shah forced out of power? Coincidence?The Shah was a dictator.

I never said it was impossible for Muslim nations to improve. However I think it would be dishonest to compare Muslim countries to Liberal Democracies based on HDI or GDP and conclude that there is no difference between the two based on culture and ideology.


Iran is an oil producing nation.
The Shah was a dictator (it's true he was propped up by the US but that didln't make Iran a Democracy).
After the dictator who was making so many people's life in Iran misserable was deposed things got better I concede.
I never said that Muslim culture was incapable of providing some level of value for its citizens only that it isn't very good at it.
Iran is currently listed at 99th. For a nation so rich in oil they don't do a very good job in the HDI department.I stand by my original statement.

[FireGarden]

I never said it was impossible for Muslim nations to improve.

I see.
But the graph indicates a very dramatic improvement.

Re your list of points, they amount to:
Iran should have recovered to a much greater extent than it has after the Shah.

Which leads to the question: How much, how fast? You seem sure that they're under-performing, so you must have an expectation.

[RandFan]

IRe your list of points, they amount to:
Iran should have recovered to a much greater extent than it has after the Shah. Why does the latter follow from the former? I don't see that.

Which leads to the question: How much, how fast? You seem sure that they're under-performing, so you must have an expectation. (see above)

I would only say that they are under-performing given the potential of human capability. The current regime is better than the former but it is not a modern liberal Democracy so there is a ceiling for how much they can improve. Iran relies on oil wealth to subsidize much of their way of life.

BTW, before the revolution Iran was in transition from an agricultural society to an industrialized one. Iran had actually made much progress under the Shah but it is fair to note that the progress stalled just prior to the revolution.

But let's stop the dancing and get to the heart of the matter. It is demonstrable that Islamic nations don't fare well in HDI or GDP in comparison to liberal democracies. Now there are many reasons for this and it would be wrong to simply blame Islam but one thing is quite clear, Islam in and of itself is no boon for societies (assuming of course that you accept the premise that HDI is a valid measure of "good" as it relates to society).

[Oliver]

Multiculturalism - Biggest Threat to Democracy


Are you trying to convince us that if America wouldn't be a multicultural Country that supports "Freedom of the Nation of Islam" and "muslim N-Words", America would be a Democracy by now? :confused:

My suggestion is: Get a Parliament, a working Press and Constituion and some represantive Candidates and Parties for a start to solve the Democracy question. Or those guys (http://www.newvideo.com/images/boxart/AAE73040-03.jpg) instead.

Concerning Muslims: Hey, you just cowardly murdered millions of innocent babies, children and adults in the Middle East in the last 3 decades (http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Paying+the+Price%3A+Killing+the+Children+of+I raq%22+by+John+Pilger&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=).

Still not fast enough for ya, eh? :mad:

Oh, and thank you very much for Freedom of Religion. Looks like you're §#%"§$!
... by your own Forefathers. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110747fffc710d662.gif

[RandFan]

:rolleyes: :D

Are you Mr. Wilders himself?

Here's what a serious critical view of Islam looks like - in contrast to a conspiracy nut "Documentation" you're obviosly obsessed with for some dubious reasons [Ossi? :confused:] :

Who's Afraid of Islam? Episode 1 of 3 (http://video.google.de/url?docid=2365081171838960665&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=2700&q=Who%27s+Afraid+of+Islam%3F+duration%3Along&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.de%2Fvideoplay%3F docid%3D2365081171838960665&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D2365081171838960665% 26q%3DWho%2527s%2BAfraid%2Bof%2BIslam%253F%2Bdurat ion%253Along%26total%3D7%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26 so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H232gzQqVdX2nzRhh1lXOTU6aQvnhQ)
Who's Afraid of Islam? Episode 2 of 3 (http://video.google.de/url?docid=29738296087850507&esrc=sr2&ev=v&len=2585&q=Who%27s+Afraid+of+Islam%3F+duration%3Along&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.de%2Fvideoplay%3F docid%3D29738296087850507&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D29738296087850507%26 q%3DWho%2527s%2BAfraid%2Bof%2BIslam%253F%2Bduratio n%253Along%26total%3D7%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so %3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D1&usg=AL29H21UG80tJPZWqKu5yo4qJzrKHWEi4Q)
Who's Afraid of Islam? Episode 3 of 3 (http://video.google.de/url?docid=3973264001528417676&esrc=sr3&ev=v&len=2711&q=Who%27s+Afraid+of+Islam%3F+duration%3Along&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.de%2Fvideoplay%3F docid%3D3973264001528417676&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D3973264001528417676% 26q%3DWho%2527s%2BAfraid%2Bof%2BIslam%253F%2Bdurat ion%253Along%26total%3D7%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26 so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D2&usg=AL29H21nCcucZRf22SXAWMB8kNq2gbczig)

Pssssst... hey oliver, I've got a little secret for you. The "critical view of Islam" video states that the best place for Islam is, drum roll please.................................America!

Oh damn. America? Yes, America.

AMERICA!!!!!

[RandFan]

God damn that kills me. It just slays me. When I watched it I couldn't help but wonder if Oliver had even bothered to watch it.

Parliment, a working Press and Constituion and some represantive Candidates and Parties.

What for? According to your vaunted video the best place for Muslims is America. Not Germany. Not Europe. America!

That's gotta leave a mark.

[Oliver]

:rolleyes: :D

Pssssst... hey oliver, I've got a little secret for you. The "critical view of Islam" video states that the best place for Islam is, drum roll please.................................America!

Oh damn. America? Yes, America.

AMERICA!!!!!


That's why I told you you're §"%§!"$. Besides the fact that it wasn't the video that stated it, it was the American Muslim who did so. [A very dangerous American democracy undermining Muslim, I suppose ;)]

[RandFan]

That's why I told you you're §"%§!"$. What does §"%§!"$ mean and what do you mean when you say "why"?

Besides the fact that it wasn't the video that stated it...
Actually no, the narrator does also state it.

Watch it again.

[FireGarden]

Why does the latter follow from the former? I don't see that.

You seem to have an idea of what Iran's HDI should be. The Islamic revolution was in 1979, they haven't reached the target you set for them. I'm just curious what that target is.

But let's stop the dancing and get to the heart of the matter. It is demonstrable that Islamic nations don't fare well in HDI or GDP in comparison to liberal democracies. Now there are many reasons for this and it would be wrong to simply blame Islam but one thing is quite clear, Islam in and of itself is no boon for societies (assuming of course that you accept the premise that HDI is a valid measure of "good" as it relates to society).

HDI sounds as good as anything else.
Like you say, there are many reasons. I don't discount Islam as one of them. But the whole point of democracy is that people choose. It's like when the Iraqis wrote a constitution that involved Islam. Some people seemed upset. What did they expect Muslims to choose?


As for some of the many reasons...
People on this forum have recommended this book a few times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

I keep meaning to read it. I guess I could start with the wiki article.

[RandFan]

You seem to have an idea of what Iran's HDI should be. I'm sorry but I just don't see the rationale for this. I just don't know why you think this.

The Islamic revolution was in 1979, they haven't reached the target you set for them. What did I specifically state that caused you to think I had a target for them? I don't see anything in what I wrote that would cause you to think I had set some target.

I'm just curious what that target is. I think this is all in your head. As I never gave you cause, as far as I can tell, to make you think I had a target then I can only guess this is some red herring. I don't have a target. I've no reason or rationale to suppose there would be a target. It seems to me reasonable to assume that since the regime of the Shaw was worse than the current regime then things would get better after the fall of the Shaw. That isn't to say that it would get better by "X". Just better.

Questions:

If we assume that the current regime is to some degree than the previous then isn't it reasonable to assume HDI would improve after the Shaw was deposed?
Given premise 1 is there any reason to suppose that we could quantify how much the improvement would be?I can't come up with a target because a.) there are far too many variables and b.) I'm far from an expert.

I hope we can put this to rest since I don't have a target and there is no reason to suppose I would have a target (barring of course your rationale to support your claim).

Like you say, there are many reasons. I don't discount Islam as one of them. But the whole point of democracy is that people choose. It's like when the Iraqis wrote a constitution that involved Islam. Some people seemed upset. What did they expect Muslims to choose?
I have no idea. I wasn't upset.



As for some of the many reasons...
People on this forum have recommended this book a few times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

I keep meaning to read it. I guess I could start with the wiki article.Oh, it's absolutely excellent. I've read the book. I've also watched the documentary narated by Diamond. It's excellent.

Here's the thing.

The people of The Middle East were the first benificiaries of the underlying premises of Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond credits Domestic animals and plants located in The Fertile Crescent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_Crescent) as the basis for his thesis.

Now, isn't that a bit of shock? So what's the deal? Muslims turned their backs on science and technology.

[FireGarden]

What did I specifically state that caused you to think I had a target for them?

It's just something I inferred from the claim that they were underperforming. If you didn't mean that, then sorry.

Oh, it's absolutely excellent. I've read the book. I've also watched the documentary narated by Diamond. It's excellent.

There's another recommendation then!

Here's the thing.

The people of The Middle East were the first benificiaries of the underlying premises of Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond credits Domestic animals and plants located in The Fertile Crescent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_Crescent) as the basis for his thesis.

Now, isn't that a bit of shock? So what's the deal? Muslims turned their backs on science and technology.

Here's an article by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy on science and Islam, especially in the modern world.
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml

It certainly tries to be balanced, so this isn't representative of the whole argument:

Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world. If the scientific method is trashed, no amount of resources or loud declarations of intent to develop science can compensate. In those circumstances, scientific research becomes, at best, a kind of cataloging or “butterfly-collecting” activity. It cannot be a creative process of genuine inquiry in which bold hypotheses are made and checked.

Again...
Democracy is about choice, so this part is important:

This leaves secular humanism, based on common sense and the principles of logic and reason, as our only reasonable choice for governance and progress. Being scientists, we understand this easily. The task is to persuade those who do not.

[Oliver]

What does §"%§!"$ mean and what do you mean when you say "why"?

Actually no, the narrator does also state it.

Watch it again.


Point granted - out of my laziness to watch it now. But you're still dancing around my point:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Plus: Following the ratification of the 14th Amendment and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

So how are you going to solve it if the law is working against you and the government?
Bush Break the law? Use terrorism? Whining all day long? http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/popc1%5B1%5D.gif

And just out of curiosity concerning the equilibrium of your fears: how is the very constitutional MS13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha) [and friends] doing while you and the Bushies are hunting teh axis of evildoers? :confused:

[RandFan]

So how are you going to solve it if the law is working against you and the government? Solve what? What are you talking about?



Bush Break the law? Use terrorism? Whining all day long? http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/popc1%5B1%5D.gif
What the hell are you talking about?

And just out of curiosity concerning the equilibrium of your fears: how is the very constitutional MS13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha) [and friends] doing while you and the Bushies are hunting teh axis of evildoers? :confused: What in the sam hell are you talking about?

[RandFan]

It's just something I inferred from the claim that they were underperforming. If you didn't mean that, then sorry.No problem. Sorry for going on and on about it.

There's another recommendation then!

Here's an article by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy on science and Islam, especially in the modern world.
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml

It certainly tries to be balanced, so this isn't representative of the whole argument:

Again...
Democracy is about choice, so this part is important:Good article. Thanks. I agree.

[Oliver]

Solve what? What are you talking about?

What the hell are you talking about?

What in the sam hell are you talking about?


I am still talking about the muslims undermining your hopes to get a democracy one day. :D [You still remember the title of this thread, don't you?]

Anyway: Most muslims live in Asia and America, so I have no Idea what you're whining about Muslims in Europe is about and to what extend you think that living together with muslims is more of a problem than living together with blacks, asians, the Bible Belt Nuts or MS13.

And I agree with my funny Dutch friends (http://www.nisnews.nl/public/130906_2.htm): If the majority of people in a democracy want to live under sharia law one day, well - so be it. That's what democracy is about, you remember? :p

[RandFan]

I am still talking about the muslims undermining your hopes to get a democracy one day. :D [You still remember the title of this thread, don't you?]???

What? Oliver, what are you talking about? Seriously, I've not a clue what you are going on about. You seem to be ascribing things to me that have no basis in reality.

Anyway: Most muslims live in Asia and America, so I have no Idea what you're whining about Muslims in Europe is about and to what extend you think that living together with muslims is more of a problem than living together with blacks, asians, the Bible Belt Nuts or MS13.???

It is an accepted fact that genetically, people are, by and large, inherently the same.
I believe that people should have the freedom to live any way they wish so long as it does not impinge on the civil rights of others. This includes being a Muslim.
I believe that it is in the best interest of human civilization that free speech be considered a universal right (ultimately it leads to tolerance, freedom and the cessation of tyranny).
I'm proud that America is an immigrant nation.
I think that integration, to some degree, is vital for a cohesive society.
I believe that many aspects of Muslim culture are inherently problematic and have the potential to threaten Liberal Democracy.
I believe that Muslim culture is more likely than not to be divisive and lead to Pillarisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation).
I believe that fanaticism is dangerous regardless of the theological underpinnings of the fanatics.
I welcome Muslims to America.
I reserve the right to speak out against those aspects of any religion that I think are problematic. I won't sit down and shut up because it offends people. And I agree with my funny Dutch friends (http://www.nisnews.nl/public/130906_2.htm): If the majority of people in a democracy want to live under sharia law one day, well - so be it. That's what democracy is about, you remember? :p


Thats right. That's why I speak out. I think reason will prevent Sharia law from ever taking hold so long as people are willing to speak out and not be silenced for fear or because someone accuses you of whining.

It's funny for a guy that spends much of his free time whining about America you should accuse others of whining. You remember?

[mrbaracuda]

Hey RandFan, I just wondered if you've come across CAIR yet?

[RandFan]

Hey RandFan, I just wondered if you've come across CAIR yet?I've only recently become familiar with CAIR and ACAIR. I've not completly made up my mind but I note that ACAIR settled the lawsuit brought by CAIR without appology or changing any of the claims that brought the suit in the first place.

[mrbaracuda]

I've only recently become familiar with CAIR and ACAIR. I've not completly made up my mind but I note that ACAIR settled the lawsuit brought by CAIR without appology or changing any of the claims that brought the suit in the first place.

What is ACAIR if I might ask? And maybe this blog (http://cairhateandterror.blogspot.com/) has some more on CAIR for you. I only had a glance so I don't know how good the blog is, but it was mentioned on jihadwatch.org (www.jihadwatch.org) for an article. I also recommend searching jihadwatch.org for articles about CAIR or reading the IPT-reports and articles you can find here (http://www.investigativeproject.org/search/?v=1622797021&submit=GO&searchtext=cair&submit=GO).

Oh now I remember why jihadwatch.org mentioned the blog and its article (http://cairhateandterror.blogspot.com/2008/04/cairs-war-on-pulitzer-prize-winning.html). It was because CAIR was gonna try to sue or at least defame the creator of this cartoon, claiming it depicts all Iranians as cockroaches and what not:

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6760/toonrc1.jpg

Says much about CAIR doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

As for some of the many reasons...
People on this forum have recommended this book a few times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

I keep meaning to read it. I guess I could start with the wiki article.You owe me big time dude. :)

The video is in 3 parts but this link will give you all 3.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280

[RandFan]

What is ACAIR if I might ask? Sorry, I should have linked.

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

[mrbaracuda]

Sorry, I should have linked.

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

Ah I see. I was going to have a look later on; saw a link to that on the "CAIR Hate and Terror-Blog". Thanks.

[Oliver]

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6760/toonrc1.jpg

Says much about CAIR doesn't it? :rolleyes:


Oh - I've seen this image before ... wait a second ... ah, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazi_Anti-Semitic_Propaganda_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

[mrbaracuda]

Oh - I've seen this image before ... wait a second ... ah, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazi_Anti-Semitic_Propaganda_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

I might have been wrong about you. You might not be physically 12 years old, but mentally.

You might have missed the word on the manhole cover. Now tell us how you can possibly compare it with Antisemitic propaganda? I can't wait to hear this.

[GreyICE]

All cultures are not created equal. The vast majority are amazingly moronic in many ways. Every single one of them is flawed. That does not mean that we can ignore the degrees of the flaw, especially regarding Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and similar countries.

[Oliver]

???

What? Oliver, what are you talking about? Seriously, I've not a clue what you are going on about. You seem to be ascribing things to me that have no basis in reality.

Thats right. That's why I speak out. I think reason will prevent Sharia law from ever taking hold so long as people are willing to speak out and not be silenced for fear or because someone accuses you of whining.

It's funny for a guy that spends much of his free time whining about America you should accuse others of whining. You remember?


Gee, I'm still tweaking your nose based on your assumption that Islam is your pet-threat to democracy - the very topic of the OP.

Concerning "no basis in reality":

"Let culture evolve naturally and not try and force it. Finally, at all costs, don't allow Sharia law into western civilization."


That's quite a distortion coming from an American [you] who basically seems to support the Geopolitical agenda of policing and shaping the world towards a pro-american and pro-jewish "Neighborhood" - if necessary by FORCE and including the American set of pet-laws.

Would it surprise you that most parts of Europe was and is opposed to the Idea of bringing Democracy to the Middle East by force because of that very reason: "Let culture evolve naturally and not try and force it."

Anyway: In your OP you said:

"Not all cultures are equal. Some really are superior to others. A culture that mutilates children and oppresses women is inferior to those that do not. Secular culture is superior to those that are dominated by mythology."

Later, however, you acknowledge that: "The problem, IMO, is that there was a false belief that people of European decent were inherently superior".

Do you see the contradiction here? You acknowledge that the old european belief was wrong - but you do the same failure by claiming that a secular culture is superior to one that "oppresses women and mutilates children".

First of all, what cultures do you mean by opressing Women and mutilating Children? Are you sure you refer to cultures here - or are you merely referring to governments that don't enforce law and order the way you personally would like to see it?

Secondly: You state that Multiculturism is a threat to democracy - yet you live in the most multicultural Nation in the world - and it isn't even a real democracy. So how is Multiculturism bad for America - let alone Europe's democracies?

Or in other words: Do you see a Pillarisation by the chinese and black Americans by now as well as you do in case of Europe???

Thirdly: Where does Sharia law come into play here?
You say that: "Finally, at all costs, don't allow Sharia law into western civilization."
Who the heck do you think want's Sharia law in Europe? Are you drunk? :confused:

You believe there is a threat to democracy because someone cries "Sharia Wolf"? - May I remind you that you acknowledge that "people are fleeing oppressive regimes to live in the West" and that Muslims in America say that they love their freedoms, yet you believe that the same people love to see opressive sharia law? How the heck did you come to this lunatic phantasm? :confused:

[Oliver]

I might have been wrong about you. You might not be physically 12 years old, but mentally.

You might have missed the word on the manhole cover. Now tell us how you can possibly compare it with Antisemitic propaganda? I can't wait to hear this.


I was comparing Propaganda to Propaganda. Are you telling me you don't see the similarities? - And if so, how old are you? :confused:

[Oliver]

All cultures are not created equal. The vast majority are amazingly moronic in many ways. Every single one of them is flawed. That does not mean that we can ignore the degrees of the flaw, especially regarding Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and similar countries.


Quite frankly, I prefer a moronic country over a deadly warmongering one. And if you compare Iran's, Saudi Arabia's or China's casualties to America's casualties, you will quickly realize which countries are the moronic ones and which ones the deadly moronic ones.

[RandFan]

Gee, I'm still tweaking your nose based on your assumption that Islam is your pet-threat to democracy - the very topic of the OP.Ok, couldn't you at least be coherent?

That's quite a distortion coming from an American [you] who basically seems to support the Geopolitical agenda of policing and shaping the world towards a pro-american and pro-jewish "Neighborhood" - if necessary by FORCE and including the American set of pet-laws. Why is it a distortion and what does this have to do with me?

"Not all cultures are equal. Some really are superior to others. A culture that mutilates children and oppresses women is inferior to those that do not. Secular culture is superior to those that are dominated by mythology." Yes, I stand by this. It's obvious, if of course you assume that liberty and HDI are valid measures of good. If so then it is demonstrable.

Later, however, you acknowledge that: "The problem, IMO, is that there was a false belief that people of European decent were inherently superior".Apples and oranges. The former is a human construct the latter is nature.

Culture.
Genetics.This will be our theme from here on out.

Do you see the contradiction here? Of course not. One is about culture, the other about genetics.

You acknowledge that the old european belief was wrong...The Europeans believed that they were inherently (genetically)superior.

...but you do the same failure by claiming that a secular culture is superior to one that "oppresses women and mutilates children". Culture isn't inherent

First of all, what cultures do you mean by opressing Women and mutilating Children? Any paternal culture that devalues women and treats them as property and mutilates children. As to the former they include many Muslim nations. As to the latter we are talking about a select few like Somalia.

Are you sure you refer to cultures here - or are you merely referring to governments... In theocratic governments the culture IS the government.

...that don't enforce law and order the way you personally would like to see it? Ultimately I only care about results. Given that Muslim nations score low on the Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) I can safely say that it is demonstrable that it is more than simply what I would like to see. This is the UN's standard for quality of life for nations.

Secondly: You state that Multiculturism is a threat to democracy - yet you live in the most multicultural Nation in the world - and it isn't even a real democracy. So how is Multiculturism bad for America - let alone Europe's democracies? I should have said, "Liberal Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy)". I've tried to rectify that since. You are being pedantic but that is fine. I'm talking about Liberal Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy).

I don't think you know what Multiculturalism is.

Who the heck do you think want's Sharia law in Europe? Are you drunk? Many Muslims.

May I remind you that you acknowledge that "people are fleeing oppressive regimes to live in the West" and that Muslims in America say that they love their freedoms, yet you believe that the same people love to see oppressive sharia law? How the heck did you come to this lunatic phantasm? It's simple. Really, really simple. When fanatics can silence the once proud liberals who fought for free speech in nations that were known for free speech and these same fanatics are asking for Sharia and are growing in strength it is a cause for concern. I said the sky is not falling. We are not in danger at the moment but we damn well better wake up. The trend isn't good.

[RandFan]

Quite frankly, I prefer a moronic country over a deadly warmongering one. And if you compare Iran's, Saudi Arabia's or China's casualties to America's casualties, you will quickly realize which countries are the moronic ones and which ones the deadly moronic ones.Wow. Yet you agree that Muslims do well here. Many prefer it here. Immigration is high. HDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) is high (better than Germany BTW).

We stoped Germany from mass murdering every Jew they could get their hands on.
We protected West Berlin during the Soviet Blockade.
Hell, we protected Germany period and helped them rebuild after the war.There are a many metrics and you choose one that is the result of Muslims who don't give a damn about other Muslims. America does not target civilians but the Muslim insurgents do. They don't give a rats rear end about anyone yet they are the ones you would choose over America.

You reveal your bigotry. You've claimed in the past that you didn't hate America but you and I both knew that was a lie. Oh I know, you know some Americans or have some American friends. Kind of like skin heads who have black friends.

[RandFan]

Quite frankly, I prefer a moronic country over a deadly warmongering one. And if you compare Iran's, Saudi Arabia's or China's casualties to America's casualties, you will quickly realize which countries are the moronic ones and which ones the deadly moronic ones.Oh, and I forgot, America didn't intentionally exterminate 12 million civilians. Compare those figures Mein Führer.

[FireGarden]

You owe me big time dude. :)

The video is in 3 parts but this link will give you all 3.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280

Thanks.
But I'll have to do a bit of upgrading. IE 5 or something.

I'll get myself into the 21st century someday. :D

[mrbaracuda]

Are you telling me you don't see the similarities?

Exactly. I don't. So point them out.
By the way, are you one of those who claims Ahmadenijad never said he wants to, well, eradicate Israel?

how old are you? :confused:

Ominous 23 good sir, ominous 23.

[mrbaracuda]

Who the heck do you think want's Sharia law in Europe? Are you drunk? :confused:

lRJcbyts9lg
WeJyHosS0bM
DXGPqyK3Srg
sFkk5KnQKdw
PgVwmBEX5Cs
apM0xSkhayQ
52xgUyR34ss

Yes, who the heck wants Shari'a in Europe? :covereyes

[mrbaracuda]

Thanks.
But I'll have to do a bit of upgrading. IE 5 or something.

I'll get myself into the 21st century someday. :D

www.firefox.com maybe? IE has this smell of insecurity to it.

[Oliver]

Ok, couldn't you at least be coherent?

Why is it a distortion and what does this have to do with me?


The distortion is that your Government does quite the opposite of natural developement, which is absolutely fine to me if it is coherent with a plausable and humanitarian reason. Lying and invading for geopolitical advantages, enhancing influence while not caring about human suffering and death, on the other hand, is not. [/politics]

Yes, I stand by this. It's obvious, if of course you assume that liberty and HDI are valid measures of good. If so then it is demonstrable.
You're lucky that the HDI doesn't include Foreign Policies, which most probably would've kicked the US off the Map within the last 8 years. And you ignore the fact that those Muslim countries you have in mind usually are pretty poor ones - which is a major contributing factor for underdevelopement and a bad HDI, as you might understand as well.

Apples and oranges. The former is a human construct the latter is nature.
Culture.
Genetics.This will be our theme from here on out.
Okay, let's skip the genetical aspect since it's indeed stupid to assume, I have to repeat that the major aspect here is poverty, not the human aspect. To claim that devalued women and/or mutilated Children are the problem and that this makes a culture inferior - is pretty off the mark.

Any paternal culture that devalues women and treats them as property and mutilates children. As to the former they include many Muslim nations. As to the latter we are talking about a select few like Somalia.

In theocratic governments the culture IS the government.
While I think that circumcision also falls into that definition against a childs will, the Idea that women in those countries are being treated without any respect, a property without rights and forced to wear the hijab - while all of this is basically true in Saudi Arabia, our friends.

First of all, the Qur'an was written about 1350 years ago - and at the time a huge improvement for women in many ways. Unfortuately, the women role predates the Religion itself, which foremost makes the female role in those parts of the islamic world a topic of cultural background/traditions:

"At the time Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) began, the conditions of women were terrible - they had no right to own property, were supposed to be the property of the man, and if the man died everything went to his sons. Muhammad improved things quite a lot. By instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, he gave women certain basic safeguards. Set in such historical context the Prophet can be seen as a figure who testified on behalf of women’s rights." Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies)

Now you have to understand that the Qur'an is literally seen as the word of God himself. Not some stories written by people who supposedly wrote down their experiences and rumours about God and Jesus like in the Bible. Every word in the Qur'an is seen as a 1:1 translation of what God told Muhammad - and Muhammad told those who wrote down those words.

This is a key difference between the Bible and the Qur'an since the Bible contains many different sources.

"Muslims believe the Qur’an to be the book of divine guidance and direction for mankind, and consider the original Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic) text to be the final revelation of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an#cite_note-Britannica-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an#cite_note-4)" Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an)

So why am I telling you this? - Because if women take the Qur'an the way I just described, you may be able to understand that they accept the word of God the way the Scriptures offers those words. This is a key point you seem to miss in the discussion.

The Hijab, for example, is often weared out of tradition - but foremost out of respect towards God and therefore to show ones own belief. It might not be the best comparsion, but from many muslim women's point of view it's comparable to wear a cross around the neck to show ones belief in the Bible.

Maybe this makes it a little bit easier for you to understand this tradition instead automatically comparing it to suppression and being forced to wear it - which of course, happens as well in modern cultures where women want to be more like the western women. And believe it or not, many Muslim women in western societies, especially the younger ones, have a free choice to wear it or not. And yes, there are conservative families as well, but it's a dying generation in western societies - which, by the way, is the reason why I'm mentally as far away from being afraid about Sharia as you can get.

And there are indeed many positive developements for women in Islam if you take some time to study the backgrounds:
Islamic Feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminists)
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam)
Female figures in the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_figures_in_the_Qur%27an)
Role of women in religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_women_in_religion)
Women in Arab societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies)
Women's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights)As you pointed out in the OP, those developements should happen naturally, especially because the fact that you probably wouldn't like if Muslims are trying to interfere with your religion. The same is true for Muslims - maybe because the Qur'an simply tolerates other religions.

That's why the American Allies here in Europe were opposed to the Iraq-Dilemma - because it threatened the archivements of intercultural understanding and symphaty which are leading to progress in muslim countries via Friendship. Which is quite the opposite to trampling and shooting around in the ME like cowboys, if you know what I mean.

So now to the conservative movement, the radicalsm and extremists. Yes, I'm completely aware that they exist, I'm aware that the Taliban is gaining new ground since Afghanistan doesn't get the necessary attention and I'm aware of the fact that interference in Iraq and the ME in general generates opposition to foreign people with foreign religions who are throwing bombs at other believers, destroying basic needs like sewage treatment plants (like in Iraq), denying basic medication like during the oil embargo that lead to an estimated 500,000 dead children.

If you had to walk in their shoes, you probably would be an extremist or insurgent by now - but it isn't your country, so you don't really understand the situation from their point of view - especially since your Media doesn't tell their stories, do you?

Anyway - Poverty:

Poverty is a main contributor to the fact that developement can't evolve the way or in a speed you probably would like to see. Thanks to those circumstances, many people actually have no freedoms at all but work and trying to support a family.

For example, farmer growing opium poppies in Afghanistan usually don't earn enough that would allow them any kind of luxury or large assets. And they know that the Qur'an and therefore God is condeming what they are doing, but there is no other way to feed your children - so they have to do it to survive - even if the Taliban killed a lot of them for violating the religious damnation of the Drug. [I just learned this recently in a German documentary talking with people down there and showing how they live]

I'm telling you this so you can make a picture about some circumstances we're talking about here. There is no big money for social support, medicaments, education and even basic things like water. That's exactly the environment where religion gives a little hope for people to make any sense whatsoever out of their poor existence. And US bombers destroying basic water supply, surely aren't seen as friend, as you might be able to imagine for yourself.

Anyway: On the other Hand, there are places such as Saudi Arabia where Sharia Law is in place, the money flows in tons but most of the people are the loosers nevertheless, thanks to cronyism of a tyrant family - the type of guys that the Bush family openly declares as friend, not evil-doers.

One would think that friendly countries are a good place to make a start concerning conservative Islam opening itself towards the west - like in Turkey or other countries close to europe.

But that's not the purpose of your Administration. Nor would they dare to touch those parts of friendly societies. [Why do you think the US-governmental hypocrisy pisses me of? Out of being bored and for no reason?]

So the solution I see to make this planet a place of freedom is to start to get rid of poverty - the main source of extrimism and violence. Democracy alone wont solve anything - and military interventions and embargos make it even worse for the poorest ones, including the children that could be yours if you didn't have the luck to grow up at a better place.

Unfortunately again, I don't see much efforts coming from the west to start with those underlying problem.

Now it's not just your view of the world that seems to be distorted from my point of view, I see this quite a lot and there are a lot of different opinions in America about the world outside. Initially I thought this is the famous "American Ignorance" people talk about. And it is true to some degree - due to the fact that I honestly assume that America doesn't learn much facts about the world outside. From my observations of the Media, I always see the flag waving in the Background - showing a pro-american view of the world - there's always a sense of "the greatest nation on earth".

I hope you're not mad at me for pointing out a slightly bigger picture here - it's important to grasp the topic to a bigger extend - from a broader point of view.

Take some time and tell me what you think. :)

[Oliver]

Oh, and I forgot, America didn't intentionally exterminate 12 million civilians. Compare those figures Mein Führer.


I completely understand. And it's the past - even if it does't nor should it vanish. And thank you for getting rid of him if your family members fought over here.

[RandFan]

The distortion is that your Government does quite the opposite of natural developement, which is absolutely fine to me if it is coherent with a plausable and humanitarian reason. Lying and invading for geopolitical advantages, enhancing influence while not caring about human suffering and death, on the other hand, is not. This is just your characterization. If America truly didn't care about human suffering and death we wouldn't work as hard as we do to avoid it. And we do. If we wanted to we could act like Saddam Husein did and use an iron fist to govern. Dissidents would simply be eliminated.

You're lucky that the HDI doesn't include Foreign Policies, which most probably would've kicked the US off the Map within the last 8 years. And you ignore the fact that those Muslim countries you have in mind usually are pretty poor ones - which is a major contributing factor for underdevelopement and a bad HDI, as you might understand as well. You are missing something very important. You are failing to see the forest for the trees. WHY are they poor? There is nothing inherently (genetically) inferior about Muslims compared to other societies so why are so many so poor?

Okay, let's skip the genetical aspect since it's indeed stupid to assume, I have to repeat that the major aspect here is poverty, not the human aspect. To claim that devalued women and/or mutilated Children are the problem and that this makes a culture inferior - is pretty off the mark. You are only asserting and not arguing here. I don't agree with you at all.

While I think that circumcision also falls into that definition against a childs will, the Idea that women in those countries are being treated without any respect, a property without rights and forced to wear the hijab - while all of this is basically true in Saudi Arabia, our friends.

First of all, the Qur'an was written about 1350 years ago - and at the time a huge improvement for women in many ways. Unfortuately, the women role predates the Religion itself, which foremost makes the female role in those parts of the islamic world a topic of cultural background/traditions:

"At the time Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) began, the conditions of women were terrible - they had no right to own property, were supposed to be the property of the man, and if the man died everything went to his sons. Muhammad improved things quite a lot. By instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, he gave women certain basic safeguards. Set in such historical context the Prophet can be seen as a figure who testified on behalf of women’s rights." Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies)
You can make that argument and there is some validity to it. The problem is that the Quran and the Hadith give far more ammunition for a man to beat and abuse his wife and for societies to opress women than they give ammunition to keep a woman safe and allow her freedom.

Please see Submission (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7106648073888697427).

So why am I telling you this? - Because if women take the Qur'an the way I just described, you may be able to understand that they accept the word of God the way the Scriptures offers those words. This is a key point you seem to miss in the discussion. The point you miss is that there are many Muslim women who are really being beaten, abused and lack fundamental rights.

Please see the plight of Deeyah and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.


The Hijab, for example, is often weared out of tradition - but foremost out of respect towards God and therefore to show ones own belief. It might not be the best comparsion, but from many muslim women's point of view it's comparable to wear a cross around the neck to show ones belief in the Bible.

Maybe this makes it a little bit easier for you to understand this tradition instead automatically comparing it to suppression and being forced to wear it - which of course, happens as well in modern cultures where women want to be more like the western women. And believe it or not, many Muslim women in western societies, especially the younger ones, have a free choice to wear it or not. And yes, there are conservative families as well, but it's a dying generation in western societies - which, by the way, is the reason why I'm mentally as far away from being afraid about Sharia as you can get.

And there are indeed many positive developements for women in Islam if you take some time to study the backgrounds:

Islamic Feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminists)
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam)
Female figures in the Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_figures_in_the_Qur%27an)
Role of women in religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_women_in_religion)
Women in Arab societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies)
Women's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) One can always find exceptions to anything. There were many good things that you could find from the Communist takeover of China. The problem is that those good things, in many people's opinion cannot justify the death and suffering of millions.

I have a problem with your argument here precisely for the same reason. That you can find these exceptions simply cannot justify the suffering of so many Muslim women.

As you pointed out in the OP, those developements should happen naturally, especially because the fact that you probably wouldn't like if Muslims are trying to interfere with your religion. The same is true for Muslims - maybe because the Qur'an simply tolerates other religions. That's all well and good but in the end all most of us have is our voice and our conscience. Speaking ones' conscience and pointing out the truth is a very important thing and it is why freedom of expression is so important.

If anyone tried to take away your right to come here and speak out against America I would come to your aid Oliver. I don't agree with you a lot of time and I find your attitude frustrating but I respect your right to criticize America.

Hopefully, I have the right to question and criticize Islam and to speak the truth as I see it.


Anyway - Poverty:

Poverty is a main contributor to the fact that developement can't evolve the way or in a speed you probably would like to see. Thanks to those circumstances, many people actually have no freedoms at all but work and trying to support a family.

For example, farmer growing opium poppies in Afghanistan usually don't earn enough that would allow them any kind of luxury or large assets. And they know that the Qur'an and therefore God is condemning what they are doing, but there is no other way to feed your children - so they have to do it to survive - even if the Taliban killed a lot of them for violating the religious damnation of the Drug. [I just learned this recently in a German documentary talking with people down there and showing how they live]

I'm telling you this so you can make a picture about some circumstances we're talking about here. There is no big money for social support, medicaments, education and even basic things like water. That's exactly the environment where religion gives a little hope for people to make any sense whatsoever out of their poor existence. And US bombers destroying basic water supply, surely aren't seen as friend, as you might be able to imagine for yourself.

Anyway: On the other Hand, there are places such as Saudi Arabia where Sharia Law is in place, the money flows in tons but most of the people are the losers nevertheless, thanks to cronyism of a tyrant family - the type of guys that the Bush family openly declares as friend, not evil-doers.

One would think that friendly countries are a good place to make a start concerning conservative Islam opening itself towards the west - like in Turkey or other countries close to Europe.


Oliver, poverty is not an inherent state of humans. There is no requirement that Muslims remain poor. The problem is that they lack Liberal Democracy and freedom.

Please see The Case for Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Democracy-Freedom-Overcome-Tyranny/dp/1586482610)by Sharansky. There is a reason that it works.

But that's not the purpose of your Administration. Nor would they dare to touch those parts of friendly societies. [Why do you think the US-governmental hypocrisy pisses me of? Out of being bored and for no reason?] I don't mind that you are angry at this administration. I'm not very happy with it myself.

My only problem with your view Oliver is that it is so myopic. You only see the bad and it lacks any proportion or willingness to see the complete picture.

So the solution I see to make this planet a place of freedom is to start to get rid of poverty - the main source of extrimism and violence. Democracy alone wont solve anything - and military interventions and embargos make it even worse for the poorest ones, including the children that could be yours if you didn't have the luck to grow up at a better place. The poverty won't go away until you get rid of the underlying cause. The people are not focused on the real problems. They are blind to the corruption and flaws in their governments and economic systems.

Unfortunately again, I don't see much efforts coming from the west to start with those underlying problem.

Now it's not just your view of the world that seems to be distorted from my point of view, I see this quite a lot and there are a lot of different opinions in America about the world outside. Initially I thought this is the famous "American Ignorance" people talk about. And it is true to some degree - due to the fact that I honestly assume that America doesn't learn much facts about the world outside. From my observations of the Media, I always see the flag waving in the Background - showing a pro-american view of the world - there's always a sense of "the greatest nation on earth". I appreciate your concession that it is just your point of view.

Their is truth to what you are saying as it relates to America in general but sadly it is a caricature. It is an extreme view that doesn't truly reflect the reality. You only see and assume the worst in Americans.

What I find truly bizarre is how easily you come to the defense of Muslims while you so easily find the faults of Americans when those faults pale in comparison. There is little to no free speech in many Muslim nations. They only know what the government feeds them. America has a rich source of information. We get Al Jazeera. We get a broad spectrum.



I hope you're not mad at me for pointing out a slightly bigger picture here - it's important to grasp the topic to a bigger extend - from a broader point of view.

Take some time and tell me what you think. :)

I very much appreciate your tone. Thank you. I think you make a number of valid points. I think you also need to be exposed to a bigger picture but you are going to have to open your mind and get information from other sources. Your view is simply too one sided.

Thanks,

RandFan

[Pardalis]

Is it just me, or has Oliver's English vastly improved within the last day? :confused:

Last night his posts were almost unintelligible, now he's extremely articulate, and to the point. And he suddenly is very knowlegeable of Islam...

Oliver, maybe you should ask your friend to join the forum instead of writing your posts for you?

[mrbaracuda]

Is it just me, or has Oliver's English vastly improved within the last day? :confused:

Last night his posts were almost unintelligible, now he's extremely articulate, and to the point. And he suddenly is very knowlegeable of Islam...

Oliver, maybe you should ask your friend to join the forum instead of writing your posts for you?

Miracles happen all the time my friend. :p

[Serenity's Light]

Ultimately I only care about results. Given that Muslim nations score low on the Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) I can safely say that it is demonstrable that it is more than simply what I would like to see. This is the UN's standard for quality of life for nations.


I'm not quite sure about this. I don't think I can post links yet, but if you go to Wikipedia's "List of Countries by Human Development Index", you will see that Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia scored in the "High" category. Furthermore, the list indicates whether a given country's current ranking represents an increase or decrease from the previous year. Qatar has moved up 11 ranks, the UAE has moved up 10, and Saudi Arabia has moved up 15, indicating dramatic improvements in the quality of life in those countries.

As for multiculturalism in general, I feel that it would tend to have a positive effect on democracies. A democracy can only flourish when varying points of view are expressed and listened to, and the inclusion of citizens from a variety of cultures means that diverse opinions will exist in the society. Furthermore, the culture of a democracy can be enhanced by the cultural richness of its immigrants--the traditional foods, music, art and literature, etc. that they bring with them from their home countries. Far from being a threat to democracy, cultural pluralism enriches the lives of citizens in a democracy by exposing them to viewpoints and cultural artifacts (the aforementioned music, literature, etc.) that they wouldn't have access to if they lived in a monolithic society.

[RandFan]

I'm not quite sure about this. I don't think I can post links yet, but if you go to Wikipedia's "List of Countries by Human Development Index", you will see that Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia scored in the "High" category. Furthermore, the list indicates whether a given country's current ranking represents an increase or decrease from the previous year. Qatar has moved up 11 ranks, the UAE has moved up 10, and Saudi Arabia has moved up 15, indicating dramatic improvements in the quality of life in those countries.Muslim countries with the highest HDI typically are oil producing countries that subsidize much of their economy from oil wealth. With all of that the highest still only reaches 30. Not all that great. If you take all of the Muslim nations combined they average much worse in comparison to liberal democracies.

As for multiculturalism in general, I feel that it would tend to have a positive effect on democracies. A democracy can only flourish when varying points of view are expressed and listened to, and the inclusion of citizens from a variety of cultures means that diverse opinions will exist in the society. The problem with this is that there are some cultures that don't necessarily integrate or listen to other ideas.

Furthermore, the culture of a democracy can be enhanced by the cultural richness of its immigrants--the traditional foods, music, art and literature, etc. that they bring with them from their home countries. Far from being a threat to democracy, cultural pluralism enriches the lives of citizens in a democracy by exposing them to viewpoints and cultural artifacts (the aforementioned music, literature, etc.) that they wouldn't have access to if they lived in a monolithic society. I've maintained all along that mixing cultures is very good for society. We need however for them to mix and not let cultural differences keep them apart.

America's success has relied heavily on immigration. Sadly much of those who immigrated were exploited. Contribution of different culture is a good thing. Diversity is a good thing. Policies that keep us separated are not.

Earthborn and others argue that multiculturalism in fact promotes cohesion and integration but I don't think so.

Regardless, my biggest complaint is the pressure for cultural sensitivity. That I think is harmful because it suppresses criticism. Besides, the sensitivity is arbitrary favoring some groups over others.

Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index)

[Oliver]

Never mind, RandFan. You're on your personal جهاد

[RandFan]

Never mind, RandFan. You're on your personal جهاد You might be right but one thing is for sure, it pales in comparison to your war on America. I can only dream of emulating you.

[quixotecoyote]

Randfan:

I think it would serve you better to use another term than 'multiculturalism'. You've defined your term so that we all know that you aren't speaking of what is normally referred to by 'multiculturalism,' but in doing so you alienate the defenders of the common use version.

[RandFan]

Randfan:

I think it would serve you better to use another term than 'multiculturalism'. You've defined your term so that we all know that you aren't speaking of what is normally referred to by 'multiculturalism,' but in doing so you alienate the defenders of the common use version.I agree that there is some miscommunication but I don't think it is as simple as you suggest. I think misguided "multicultrualism" is in fact a problem. But that is in part why I want to discuss it here. I'll keep an open mind and perhaps give an alternate definition or use a different word but I don't think it is going to be that easy.

Thanks

[Undesired Walrus]

Never mind, RandFan. You're on your personal جهاد

Jihad? No point in feeling warm and superior in your utilisation of the Arabic script Ollie, as I can read the language. You would probably be better off putting a kesra under the 'J' however.

Randfan, I can't say I care much for school nativity stories which incorporate all religions into it, but I cannot help be reminded of Thatcher's infamous 'swamped' speech when I voice any opposition against multiculturalism.

In my opinion, it should simply be regulated. Children that go to a school which has school uniform should not be able to wear their hijab, cross or turban (Or all three!), and this is simply not happening at the moment. Schools that do not, however, have a dress code should clearly, IMO, be able to wear their religous bits. I can't help that feel a culture that strains to retain its traditional culture just gets boring and un-progressive in philosophical discourse.

It's when they demand superiority and immunity from criticism, that is the problem. Don't you agree?

Let's suppose the religion of the Jedi grew in numbers and immigrated to the UK, and demanded electricity be turned off in the neighbourhood because it interfered with the force. The council say no. However, all the Jedi move in to one neighbourhood, and then demand the electricity to be turned off in that one all-Jedi neighbourhood. Should we? I'm not sure.

[FireGarden]

You owe me big time dude. :)

The video is in 3 parts but this link will give you all 3.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280

I just watched the first episode -- about agriculture and domestication of animals.

I think I'd probably prefer to read the book, but I may watch the other two episodes later.

Thanks for the link.