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]

Originally Posted by MG1962

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.

Quote:

Get out if you want Sharia law, Australia tells Muslims.

It would seem there might just be some problems on the horizon.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

How do you feel about the Beatles?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by MG1962

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

I 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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.)

Quote:

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%).

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

[*]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.

Quote:

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'.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by MG1962

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]

Originally Posted by The Painter

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

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

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

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".

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Not all cultures are equal. Some really are superior to others.

Superior according to whose criteria?

Quote:

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".

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with cultures assimilating aspects of other cultures as they evolve but this process needs to be natural and not forced

It 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.

Quote:

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

These are multiculturalist attitudes.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

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]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

So the "argument from power" or "argument from popularity" is a shallow and meaningless one...

And not one that I've made.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

...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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Superior according to whose criteria?

Mine. I care about individuals. It bothers me when women and men are oppressed and children are mutilated.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Tribalism means that cultures considering themselves superior over others.

Not quite that simple at all.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are making a false dichotomy and using the definition of the word multiculturalism that I'm not.

But thanks for the reply.

[Earthborn]

Quote:

Mine.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by fuelair

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."

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

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.

Quote:

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.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

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). Do you really believe that all cultures are equal? Really?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by plumjam

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.
You fail at life.

Quote:

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".

Quote:

Betraying your evolutionist mythology here

Evolution is not mythology, it is extensively documented and peer-reviewed mainstream science.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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^WP" 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]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

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.

Quote:

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^WP" 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]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Well, that doesn't seem to be what the proponents of multiculturalism mean.

We clearly have read different things.

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

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.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Quote:

Sharia law may result in 'legal apartheid'

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]

Originally Posted by RandFan

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

From the video:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

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^WP" 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]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

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]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Not a clue.

Compare it with the first paragraph of your post.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

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.

Quote:

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.