What comes to mind when one hears the phrase "Multiculturalism"? It is a phrase often intended to invoke a thought of united harmony between fellow human beings in such a manner that we, although one may not necessarily recognize or accept, can at least learn an appreciation for differing cultures and beliefs. A term that cry's out to unite us together, regardless of those cultural differences, as the human race. A movement of noble intent to once and for all put an end to racism and unite us under one banner. The Human Race!
It was only a few short decades ago that this movement began to catch on with a number of countries that wanted to embrace "acceptance" and (my favorite word) "Tolerance" towards our differences. On the surface it all sounded good. Masquerading as a gesture of goodwill towards the masses as way for us to all come together and experience warm and fuzzy feelings about our differences by showing the rest of the world that our society could co-exist together. Celebrating our cultural heritages while living under one flag. One nation united (now let me get offensive to some) Under God!
So the deeper question in all of this is: "Have we accomplished what we set out to do?" "Are we more united then ever? Or are we more divided then ever?"
I would suggest, sadly, that the latter has prevailed. Since it's inception (multiculturalism), nations such as Canada, and even the United States, has slowly begun to witness the erosion of their own identity as a "people". Instead it has become engulfed in a mass drive to point out each and every single discrepancy and nuance about just how different everybody is from one another. Racism, essentially, has once again resurfaced in a different disguise by coming in the proverbial back door to once again infiltrate us to the point that we no longer recognize a fellow human being as such but immediately begin seeking out the "differences" within them. Rather counter productive of the original intent behind a united human race poised to eliminate the ugliness of racism.
Racism CAN NOT be eliminated when the sole focus is constantly on the "differences". Ending racism meant to look past one's cultural background. Looking past the color of one's skin and seeing the human being within. No "One" master race but a united race of human beings sharing the same planet. All wanting to know, learn, and love. Living peacefully with one another. Multiculturalism, the integration of the many different races, has failed this goal miserably. One only has to ask the question, "With all the exposure and "education" of the differing cultures why has racism continued to rise?"
Might I suggest that in part has to do with a simple job application and government enforced "quotas" in order to accommodate "minority's" as I wrote about here in November 2005 Do not think for a moment that this still does not go on. That's how we address racism? By committing racism and cloaking it in multicultural fairness and equality.
And what about our continous labelling? One example that comes to mind is U.S. Democratic Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama. Born an American citizen in Honolulu, Hawaii, I noticed that he is not referred to as an American. He is referred to as an African American! All though Barack is rather proud of this delusional title he is, in fact, NOT an African American no more then I am a European American. Barack was not born in Africa he was born in the United States of America. Yet he would rather be identified as an African as opposed to what he is, an American.
And so the trend continues in western nations. We no longer have Canadians/Americans. We have African Canadians, Mexican Canadians, Arab Canadians, Native American Canadians, Asian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Jewish Canadians, Irish Canadians, and the list goes on and on and on....
The segregation does not end there. We continue to promote this unusual form of unity by further separating ourselves thru media such as Black Entertainment Television (BET), the Black sports network, or The Aboriginal Peoples Network (APN). We have awards such as Black Enterprise Awards, Black Engineer Awards, and even a Black weblog Awards. Not to single out the black people, there is also Aboriginal Music Awards, Aboriginal Achievement Awards, and The Aboriginal Peoples Choice awards. The Spanish have the MTV Latino Awards and the Billboard Latin Music Conference & Awards. In sports there is the North American Indigenous Games.
To be fair and honest I wanted to see what the Caucasian race was up too as well but was hard pressed to find any of the above in their categories. Let's call a spade a spade here. If the "White" man had his own television station, awards program, or sports Olympics I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts it would be labeled as a racist outlet.
Let me be absolute clear here. As a Caucasian man married to an aboriginal woman and with many friends across differing cultural divides I harbor no animosity. The purpose and intent of this post is based on what I see as an observation over a long period of time observing a movement that is bringing us backwards, not forwards.
As a "White Judeo-Christian male" I am not alone in my views of Canadians loss of identity thru multiculturalism. First generation Canadian and practicing Muslim, Professor Mahfooz Kanwar, whose family roots are in Pakistan had this to say on the matter:
"I used to support multiculturalism. I believed it gave us a sense of pluralism, diversity, and a variety of cultural and social customs. Now I believe it is not working."
"I have appreciated the Canadian system of accommodating people from around the world. But I also notice a lack of assimilation. I don't expect newcomers to integrate to the extent of converting to Christianity. I don't preach total amalgamation of subcultures, but it is the responsibility of minority groups to assimilate to the Canadian culture. That is missing in today's Canada."
"Those who feel their home land is better should go back. Canada must not allow ethnic groups to create problems for our justice system..." (A good example of what he refers to would be this!)
"...by fighting governments in their homeland. If they have issues back home, they should go back and fight from within."
As a Muslim, I'm irritated by Season's Greetings, not Merry Christmas. We're obsessed with political correctness. I'm not defending vulgarities. I'm simply suggesting too much political correctness hinders communication. In lectures. I can't use some words to make a point because of multiculturalism."
"We're afraid of offending some minorities. I wish we had a common code of ethics....(where) we all loved to be Canadians NOT hyphenated Canadians."
And in conclusion the Professor says:
"Multicultalrism threatens Canada. Multiculturalism and political correctness hurt the Canadian identity. It makes Canada a country of wimps!
Multiculturalism is a disaster that allows people to marginalize themselves. We can never find unity and harmony thru segregational identification. Instead it backfires from it's original intent by pitting "this group against that group" by consistently exploiting what is "different". Unity is not achieved by division.
Either we reverse this policy soon or it's back to the stone ages.
Until next time...
38 comments:
Welcome back to the blogosphere TIO!
Hope you had a good time doing whatever it is you were doing...
This is a hot topic on this side of the Atlantic as well.
Although i understand what you're saying, and even agree to some degree, it is one thing to point out a problem and complain about it, but it's quite another to provide a working solution.
That is what i've been scratching my head about ever since the issue of "integration" came up. What, exactly, are we integrating into? What are the British/Canadian values that we should unite on? Are there values that are unique to these countries that are not found universally: respect of the law & justice, respect of fellow citizens etc.?
So it is all very well going on about the Multiculturalism "problem", but i wish someone would just define exactly how the minority cultures should integrate... cos until then, it's all hot air that is causing more friction in society.
Personally, i would say a definite goal would be to make sure that new immigrants, and more established members of immigrant communities, spoke the language of the country in which they reside, to a decent level. However, i have heard from a fellow citizen of yours that this is already being tackled in Canada, with people being paid to attend French lessons (what about English?).
I'm not sure what else can be done. I mean, what would a lesson in being "Canadian" involve? How do develop a love of snow? Training in Ice Hockey?!!
Any ideas would be most welcome - cos i've heard squat from UK politicians, except their usual complaining and finger pointing on the latest band-wagon issue. We pay these guys to fix problems, not just talk about them!
I am a big advocate of multiculturism and think that it is preferable to integration or any other method of living in peace and harmony with each other.
That said, i agree that the age old problem of 'differences between us' has reared its ugly head. Here, the far right groups such as the BNP highlight the differences, spreading rumours and falsehoods which lead to both sides eyeing each other with suspicion.
The fall-out from our Foreign Policy has escalated the problem but until we focus on merging the best of both worlds together, we are being led by people who have a vested interest in focusing keeping the best of both worlds apart.
Interesting post. I gotta say, though, it's a tempest in a teapot.
IMHO, what we're seeing is a pressure cooker over the centuries, as Eurocentric values were promoted over the years, marginalizing any other cultural contributions. For the longest time, the US (I can't speak to Canada) was WASP-ish in bent. A whole lotta racism was the ugly underbelly of our politics - in some ways, it's still going on.
&, as usual, the only way to get anything done is to overreact. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Time will soften the edges of this, just wait 'n see.
People on the left tend to go overboard - I've heard/read opinions where anyone who states there are genetic differences between races is racist - imagine that!
Obviously there are. I don't stipulate that 1 set of genetic differences are superior to another, do I? No.
Outside of height differentials (let's face it - unless you're 2nd generation American Chinese, likelihood is that I'll be taller than that person - it's just a fact) and melatonin levels, higher vs. lower cheekbones - who cares? I treat people (usually) in the same manner they treat me. That's how it works.
Besides which, the CDC compartmentalizes, doesn't it? Aren't black folks more prone to sickle-cell anemia? I think (?) Asian folks are prone to other diseases as well.
There are numerous other pluses to categorizing folks - demographic studies, tracking criminals, etc.
As to the -hyphen argument, that was done by John Wayne, back in the day.
Here's a rather long episode of Penn 'n Teller's BS episode - you have to go into it about approx. 1/2 an hour - but I think you may agree w/it (surprise!).
This is how it works (at least to me): counter-reaction to an old canard, everybody goes overboard (both sides), time wears away at the sharp edges, & eventually a compromise is reached.
iM,
"Welcome back to the blogosphere TIO!"
Thank you. As bizarre as it can seem when I only know you people by the words you type I can honestly say that I missed all of you!
"Hope you had a good time doing whatever it is you were doing..."
Actually....I didn't. Not long after I got home from my vacation I spent a week with a flu bug. The following week I had an infection in both my eyes (pink eye). The following week after that I had sore and swollen throat. In that same week a close relative passed away and my home was deluged with family from out of town. So far the New year has been kicking my ass! But it's all good now and I as much as I was missing my posting and interacting it was just not a priority for me.
Plus, if I am going to be very honest, I got some really cool Playstation 2 games that have been tempting my "addictive" nature and taking up my spare time :) I am still very much a boy at heart.
"it is one thing to point out a problem and complain about it"
Point it out I did. Complain? I am not so sure I did that. I made a statement based on years of observation AND like Professor Mahfooz Kanwar, originally was not against it.
"but it's quite another to provide a working solution."
Multiculturalism was the solution. I am saying that it is clearly backfiring.
"What, exactly, are we integrating into? What are the British/Canadian values that we should unite on?"
Let's simplify this a little. When people migrate to one of our respective countries what we don't do is expect them to leave their cultural heritage behind. Nor do we or should we expect them to stop speaking their native language.
Now that being said, when coming to Canada, for example, while maintaining their native tongue they should be have to learn Canada's language which is primarily English. French is our second language but even Canadians do not have to know it. It is only more helpful if you reside in the eastern part of the nation where it is spoken more fluently.
Secondly, when they come here to apply for citizenship they pledge allegiance to the flag and the country for which it's stands. If you reside here and are now recognized as a citizen then you ARE Canadian, period. Nothing more.
Third, respect our traditions. (Example, Christmas) One does not have to participate but they are ours and if they offend to the point where an immigrant is challenging them in the courts, then leave and go back to where they came from. That is an extremity of course but as I pointed out in the post, Muslims in Ontario want to induct Sharai law because they do not like how Canadian justice deals with certain morality issue's. No offence to you iM with respect to your religion but if there are Muslims in Canada who want to stone a woman because her perverted cousin raped her (which in Canada, we recognize this was not consensual on the woman's part) then go back to the homeland and deal with it. Don't come here and try and change our laws.
Live free, worship God, or don't as we do believe in freedom of choice. Even God wants us to choose to believe. Enjoy our country and all it has to offer. But don't come and try to change it.
"Personally, i would say a definite goal would be to make sure that new immigrants, and more established members of immigrant communities, spoke the language of the country in which they reside, to a decent level. However, i have heard from a fellow citizen of yours that this is already being tackled in Canada, with people being paid to attend French lessons (what about English?)."
I already answered a lot of this above. But I am not sure about people being paid to learn French? Although that may very well be true. English is our number one language. French is mostly recognized in the Province Quebec. The further you travel west the less French you will even hear.
"I'm not sure what else can be done. I mean, what would a lesson in being "Canadian" involve? How do develop a love of snow? Training in Ice Hockey?!!"
LOL, that's right. You not only better get used to snow but our frigid temperatures. I live in the far south of my home Province of Manitoba and for the last 3 weeks we have been locked into temperatures that have dipped as low as -51 degrees Celsius. Global warming is a very hard sell over here.
Our hockey to us is like soccer (you call it football over there) is to most European nations. If you don't develop a love for it, well, you just don't belong! LOL Kidding of course.
"Any ideas would be most welcome"
A good plan starts with one good idea. Mine was simple. Stop focusing on the differences ALL THE TIME! Stop trying to accommodate each and every little "offence" taken. It is an exercise in futility. On the other side of it, the "politically elite" need to stop assuming that those who have immigrated have even taken offence in the first place.
Lucy,
"I am a big advocate of multiculturism and think that it is preferable to integration"
But if it is failing, at least the way it is presented in it's current form, why continue to support it?
As I have previously stated, the original concept was a noble idea, but it would appear it has now become more of an adopted ideology for the politically correct. It has become more "obnoxious" with it's constant bombardment of racial differences that it has only succeeded at segregating us all over again.
KA,
"Interesting post."
Thank you kindly :)
"I gotta say, though, it's a tempest in a teapot."
Yeah, I know, but somebody has to address it. It might as well be us "intolerant" types LOL
"as usual, the only way to get anything done is to overreact. Squeaky wheel gets the grease."
Good point. I would suggest, whether you would agree I don't know, that it is a similar strategy used by gay rights activists. For a minority they are one loud wheel!
"Time will soften the edges of this, just wait 'n see."
I don't know bro. 30 years is a long time. No end of it in sight. Although, come to think of it, when even the "minorities" (I personally do not like to use this term but that is what they get referenced as) like Professor Mahfooz Kanwar are speaking out against it then that has to say there is a coming "awakening". You may be have another good point.
"People on the left tend to go overboard"
NOOOOOO!!!!! (denote sarcastic tone)
"I've heard/read opinions where anyone who states there are genetic differences between races is racist - imagine that!"
LOL I have heard that and even more ridiculous "accusations". Last year a cop up here shot and killed a youth with a criminal history after the youth charged him with a weapon. The youth was a Native (Indian). Naturally the fur flew about how it was a racist killing (kind of similar to what you experience in the US when ever a cop happens to shoot a black person) Two days later it emerged in the media that the officer who fired the shot was a Native himself. The accuser's of his racism, rather then eat crow, let their idiotic pride continue to spill over by then accusing the officer of being racist against his own people.
That is not too say there have never been racially motivated killings by those in authority but sometimes the accusations without any substantial foundation go way over and above stupidity.
LOLOLOLOL I Loved the link. That was awesome. I wish I could have been at that "protest" challenging their "tolerance" for my right to do so and questioning their potential for things to get volatile because I was exercising a right that apparently they agree I have but I am just not allowed to exercise it due to potential threat.
What a friggin' contradiction. Ahhh the sweet indoctrination of our blinded youth.
I am book marking that page. That says it all. And I love Penn and Tellers in your face approach on the BS. Thanks again KA, I am still laughing.
TIO,
Sorry to hear that you were so ill, and of course, about the passing of your relative.
"No offence to you iM with respect to your religion but if there are Muslims in Canada who want to stone a woman because her perverted cousin raped her (which in Canada, we recognize this was not consensual on the woman's part) then go back to the homeland and deal with it. Don't come here and try and change our laws."
Hey, no offence taken, cos that sick ruling is not Shari'ah! No way would a raped woman be punished under Islamic law. That sounds more like backward tribal law to me, Pakistani-style.
Does a raped woman have to bring four witnesses?
Are raped women punished in Islam?
I'm not sure what Shari'ah rulings the Canadian Muslims wish to implement, but i would imagine the bulk of the lobbying is centred around finance. Islam is dead against usury, whether it be paying interest or receiving it. The idea of increasing the burden of those in debt by charging interest is detestable. This makes it very difficult for practising Muslims to buy property in the West, as all the mortgage lenders charge interest. Certain insurance policies are also deemed 'iffy'. In the UK, high street banks are starting to offer Shariah-compliant loans and mortgages, and last year saw the launch of the first British Islamic Bank.
I'd imagine other Shariah laws they may be requesting are those to do with inheritance, divorce and marriage.
A bit of trivia for you: in the golden olden days, Christians and Jews living in the Islamic State were allowed to govern their communities according to their own religious laws, i.e., they had their own courts and judges.
I find the phrase "our laws", quite telling. Surely, if you wish the immigrants to fully integrate as Canadian citizens, their opinions on "your laws" should be properly considered. Canada is a democracy, democracy is about people's rule, and immigrants are people. Thus they have the right, as citizens, to ask for a change in the law if they see fit, through the proper channels. It's up to the government to then comply or deny their request.
Hey, I need one of those Islamic interest-free loans! What's the catch?
When I emigrated from north of the Mason-Dixon to well south of it, I had to do a lot of adjusting. It was a real culture shock. Had to learn the language, even.
Same thing with folks moving between countries. The immigrants should learn the language of the country they adopt. It's in their own best interest to do so.
Keep aspects of their cultures, but try to assimilate in at least some respects.
Follow the laws of their "new" land, but if they want to lobby and work to try to change the laws, hey, they're welcome to-at least in the US.
iM,
"their opinions on "your laws" should be properly considered. "
I am not against consideration but it has to work for everyone. Not just the group lobbying for change.
"Thus they have the right, as citizens, to ask for a change in the law if they see fit, through the proper channels."
Again I agree. However I would disagree when they are asking for a seperrate set of laws that would only apply to them. You cannot have a complete mish-mosh of laws that govern "this" group with one set of laws and "that" group with a different set.
That allows for some to get away with what others may not get away with. (whatever that may be)
For example, I, like Karen, would love to take out a Shariah-compliant loan and/or mortgage. But would I qualify for the loan considering I am a Christian who does not suscribe to Shariah law or does not recognize Allah as God?
Or would I be refused for that very reason? It is not only discriminatory but it applies a completey different set of rules for a select group thereby reinforcing my point in the article that "accomodating" leads to more segregating. If the Muslims here do not agree with paying interest on a loan (Everyone on the planet would actually agree with this) then they need to go back to where they came from so they can enjoy those perks.
Coming to another nation and expecting them to simply upheave their economical structure to accomodate them is ridiculous and unfair to the rest of the citizens who pay their taxes and work just as hard only they are stuck paying interest.
The danger in all of this is not just the seperation of different cultures and people but it almost places other's in different classes altogether. This is not fair and equal treatment in a country that would supposedly espouse those values. If our country states that all loans will have interest and gauge/run our economy by it then that is the way it is and ALL should be expected to comply.
"However I would disagree when they are asking for a seperrate set of laws that would only apply to them. You cannot have a complete mish-mosh of laws that govern "this" group with one set of laws and "that" group with a different set."
But TIO, you can and you do! Are the same laws applied to adult citizens, as to children? Are the same laws applied to women as to men (e.g., maternity pay & leave)? Are the same laws applied to homosexuals & heterosexuals? Does the same law apply to non-nationalized immigrants, compared to full citizens? Does the same law apply to motorcyclists, as to car drivers?
The answer the majority of the time is "yes", but there are special cases where the answer is "no".
Because we live in a heterogeneous society, where people have different needs and different moral beliefs.
As a Christian, you wish the state to allow you to practise a certain degree of, what others call, "discrimination" against homosexuals, as you do not wish to marry them, and in the UK, certain Christians groups do not want gay couples to adopt from their orphanages. Now, is that not one rule for one, and another rule for the rest?
"For example, I, like Karen, would love to take out a Shariah-compliant loan and/or mortgage. But would I qualify for the loan considering I am a Christian who does not suscribe to Shariah law or does not recognize Allah as God?"
Well, that is a matter you'd have to take up with the bank! I don't see why not... (btw, Arab Christians say "Allah", and it is used in the arabic Bible; it's just a name for the One whom we worship).
Anyway, i wouldn't be so quick to rush off and sign up, because the "islamic" mortgages are not much cheaper than normal ones. There are a few different types, but the one i understand the best is where the bank buys the property you are interested in, and then sells it back to you for a higher price, which they must state at the time the contract is signed. This is considered to be profit via trade, which is obviously allowed in Islam.
I have a problem with this though... i mean, technically, the mortgage becomes Shariah-compliant, but in reality, the debtors are paying more than they should be! Anyway, it's the best thing we have. For one, as the price is fixed at the time the contract is signed (which is a must in Islam), the person taking out the loan will not have any nasty surprises down the road, and can plan their finances accordingly. Right now, in the UK, due to fluctuating interest rates, combined with soaring house prices, the number of home repossessions has increased dramatically in the last few years, and is set to get worse. Some banks are now prepared to loan people FIVE TIMES their income! That is just asking for trouble!!
The other problem with going to institutions for loans and mortgages is that, although the mortgage is "islamic", the attitude isn't. It's "business" after all. In Islam, the lender is encouraged (though not forced) to be lenient with the debtor. There is great reward for the person who reduces the debt partially, or completely (i don't see the banks doing that!).
Narrated Hudhaifa:
I heard the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying:
"Once a man died and was asked, 'What did you use to say (or do) (in your life time)?'
He replied, 'I was a business-man and used to give time to the rich to repay his debt and (used to) deduct part of the debt of the poor.'
So he was forgiven (his sins.)"
"If the Muslims here do not agree with paying interest on a loan (Everyone on the planet would actually agree with this) then they need to go back to where they came from so they can enjoy those perks."
TIO, not every Muslim in Canada has come fresh off the banana boat. I imagine that a significant proportion of the Canadian Muslim population were born and raised in Canada, at least amongst the youth, and they are now at the age where they are raising their own babies. What about them? Where are they going to go "home" to? What about the "indigenous" Canadian folk who have accepted Islam? Does accepting Islam mean they must give up their birth right?
And if you don't wish to pay interest, then why not help the Muslims campaign on this issue and have it applicable for all? After all, i cannot imagine Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) being happy with the way working people are being sucked dry, and then thrown out of their homes. I've heard that he wasn't the biggest fan of money lenders!!
P.S., TIO, could you do me a lickle favour...?
Could you alter your blog settings so that a limited number of your entries show up on the front page, say 7-10?
It takes forever for your blog to load when i read it from home, as i only have a 56kbp modem connection; especially as you use photos on all your entries.
Often the side-bar doesn't show either, when my browser has had enough of waiting around! hehe
Thanks & BW!
TIO:
Yeah, I know, but somebody has to address it. It might as well be us "intolerant" types LOL
True, true.
Good point. I would suggest, whether you would agree I don't know, that it is a similar strategy used by gay rights activists. For a minority they are one loud wheel!
Hey, once they get all the rights they deserve, they’ll pipe down soon enough.
I don't know bro. 30 years is a long time. No end of it in sight. Although, come to think of it, when even the "minorities" (I personally do not like to use this term but that is what they get referenced as) like Professor Mahfooz Kanwar are speaking out against it then that has to say there is a coming "awakening". You may be have another good point.
Well, somewhere, somebody speaking up about it – sometimes it only takes 1 person to say, “Hey, waitaminnit!”
NOOOOOO!!!!! (denote sarcastic tone)
I think it applies to both sides of the fence.
LOL I have heard that and even more ridiculous "accusations". Last year a cop up here shot and killed a youth with a criminal history after the youth charged him with a weapon. The youth was a Native (Indian). Naturally the fur flew about how it was a racist killing (kind of similar to what you experience in the US when ever a cop happens to shoot a black person) Two days later it emerged in the media that the officer who fired the shot was a Native himself. The accuser's of his racism, rather then eat crow, let their idiotic pride continue to spill over by then accusing the officer of being racist against his own people.
Yeah, some people are too proud to admit they’re wrong, even when the evidence is overwhelming.
That is not too say there have never been racially motivated killings by those in authority but sometimes the accusations without any substantial foundation go way over and above stupidity.
In some things people have a longer memory. Depends on how long the oppression lasted.
LOLOLOLOL I Loved the link. That was awesome. I wish I could have been at that "protest" challenging their "tolerance" for my right to do so and questioning their potential for things to get volatile because I was exercising a right that apparently they agree I have but I am just not allowed to exercise it due to potential threat.
Glad you liked it. Here's another one, but somehow, I doubt you’ll like it quite as much.
What a friggin' contradiction. Ahhh the sweet indoctrination of our blinded youth.
“Youth is a wonderful thing. Too bad it’s wasted on the young,” – GB Shaw.
I am book marking that page. That says it all. And I love Penn and Tellers in your face approach on the BS. Thanks again KA, I am still laughing.
Hey, P&T have changed my mind on a few things. Diversity (as you saw), the current eco-movement – I’ve had to let a few cherished chestnuts crisp on the open fire.
P.S you can change your archiving settings as per imuslims request fairly easily, dontcha know? ;)
imuslim:
As a Christian, you wish the state to allow you to practise a certain degree of, what others call, "discrimination" against homosexuals, as you do not wish to marry them, and in the UK, certain Christians groups do not want gay couples to adopt from their orphanages. Now, is that not one rule for one, and another rule for the rest?
Oy vey! Outstanding! What I've been saying all along!
Is this the right Sanskrit? Soo-kree-jah? (that's phonetic - my Prakrit is about as non-existent).
Thanks.
Anyway, i wouldn't be so quick to rush off and sign up, because the "islamic" mortgages are not much cheaper than normal ones.
Ummm...what're the penalties? (note I'm deliberately avoiding the cheap shot here.)
iM, KA,
Thanks for the tip guys. Was not considering those with a smaller computer. Problem has been corrected to show only the last 5 posts's.
This is all I have time to answer at this moment, but I will be back. I was just on my way out the door for the day. Catch up to you later!
Thanks TIO! BIG improvement!
KA, my point about homosexual marriage and adoption was to try and help TIO understand where the Muslims in Canada are coming from, wrt having certain laws apply to them alone. The state may allow gay people these rights, but Christians want to be exempt from the rulings. Islam does not condone open homosexual practice either, as you most likely know, and there would be as much uproar by Muslims, if our imams were forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples!
Oh, and it's shuk-ri-ah. But i'm no expert in Hindi or any other Indian language. Pathetic, i know!
About Islamic mortgages, as i've never had to take one out, i know little more about them, than basic theory. By penalties do you mean, what happens if you can't keep up the payments? It's a good question, and one which i have wondered about myself. I will have to look it up.
Btw, i have no idea what cheap shot you have avoided, but thanks - i think!
iM & KA,
"As a Christian, you wish the state to allow you to practise a certain degree of, what others call, "discrimination" against homosexuals, as you do not wish to marry them,"
"Oy vey! Outstanding! What I've been saying all along!"
I have time to address this one, quickly. (I am too friggin busy this weekend) You are comparing apples to oranges here. Opposition to gay marriage is not solely a "Christian" objection. It is an objection by the people across many cultural, religious, and non religious barriers.
A good example of this was the vote it self here in Canada. Every single party had members who voted both for and against. The conservatives had 5 members vote in favor of gay marriage. The Liberals were divided almost in half, the Bloc Quebecois had 5 members vote against it, and the extreme left, the NDP actually booted one of their members out of caucus for voting against gay marriage (How's that for tolerance from the left?)
The other factor to consider is the people themselves. This is not just a religious issue. Although an atheist has no foundational support for their "morality" they still have it! Many atheists based on "conscientious" objection opposed gay marriage, AS WELL, as some homosexuals themselves.
On the other hand, when you speak of Sharai law which is only applicable to a select group that only they themselves would get behind because it benefits solely them then that is where the rest of the country needs to stand up and say "Not in our backyard".
I think i am about to stray into an area that i do not know enough about, but i'm sure it'll be an educational experience for me!
Your response reminds me greatly of the long-running argument "What is the exact role of government?". The idea of a small, non-invasive government, vs a "nanny-state".
I can't help thinking that your last comment is pro-"nanny state", where the government wants to control all aspects of a community, and refuses them the right to live by their own morals and laws. Of course, if these morals harm the greater nation, then they should be quashed... but i don't see how Shariah-compliant loans and mortgages do this.
I don't know exactly where i stand, but it seems from my own argument, that i might be against the nanny-state. I am for regional government that reflects the will of the people more accurately, and leads to happier lives overall.
It is not a hard and fast rule, and there are times when government needs to intervene, but overall, it should stay out of the way, and stick to the major tasks of leadership.
OK, i am gonna get it now, i know it... i did say this was not my strongest field of discussion, so be gentle with your criticism please! hehe
iM,
"I can't help thinking that your last comment is pro-"nanny state", where the government wants to control all aspects of a community, and refuses them the right to live by their own morals and laws"
Actually your description panders more to the intrusive "Big Brother" government. The term "Nanny" state is more applicable to extreme left wing governments who would rather pay the lazy welfare as opposed to providing job programs that get them back into the workforce. Nanny state also tends to throw good money after bad on endless useless social programs that are often driven by "special interests" groups that cater to their ideological thinking while continuing down the endless path of tax and spend with no plan on where it all ends. It pats the bottoms of the "capable but lazy" by rewarding them with paychecks they do not earn. There is far more to it of course but that is just a sample to show you that is not the type of government I subscribe too.
Your description would actually lean more towards communism. Where morality is imposed and enforced.
Let's focus on this statement of your in particular:
"...where the government wants to control all aspects of a community, and refuses them the right to live by their own morals and laws."
In Canada, under our constitution and Charter of rights and freedoms, we are all guaranteed our right to worship God (or not). We are entitled to our religious rights and freedoms and that would include expressing them verbally, thru media, billboard, advertising. etc.
We have to also be careful to exercise common sense as well when living in a melting pot of cultures. All would agree, both religious and non religious, that murder is wrong and is deserving of punishment. These are the laws of the land and all who come here must "assimilate" to them. Yet we can still worship the God of our choice. We can even allow our "beliefs" (this includes the atheist) to influence public policy.
If God tells me gay marriage is wrong. In Canada I have the right to believe and express that even if the government disagrees. I can run for elected office and change it if I so desire. But either way, the law of gay marriage is a reality that exists. I do not agree, support, nor will I ever perform a ceremony but the issue crosses over and affects people from all political stripes, backgrounds, religious and non religious. There are gays opposed to it just like there are certain religious factions that are for it. This is why I found your analogy weak.
On the other hand regarding economical structure of the land, that is not a deep rooted morality issue. This is an issue that affects everyone who resides in the nation. The economy affects everyone and what you are asking for would be unfair to the rest of a society that is contributing. It would only be applicable to a select group. That is invalidating to the economic structure of the country, unfair to it's citizens, and inclusive to a select group of people. That plays right into the hands of segregation based on cultural belief.
Now I do not agree with paying taxes especially when they are not going to what they were implemented for in the first place yet I still pay them. Why? Christ said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's". I.E. Pay your taxes if that is the law of the land. Following that up with a passage out of the book of Romans to "Obey all governing authorities". The exception being when they essentially tell you to either rebel against God or renounce Christ in which case the true Christian will suffer he persecution for his faith.
If Muslims migrate here there are more then welcome to practice their faith freely and openly but they will also "assimilate" with it's laws and economy. One, for example, cannot come here and expect to avoid paying taxes because they "do not practice that back in his homeland". Canadian government would simply tell him "Here we pay taxes, Everybody does. So pay them or go back". Same regarding interest free loans. Canadian Government know there would be a huge public uproar.
Now fro the record, iM, I believe that allowing a separate set of laws, even it were just a few regarding Sharai law, would only lead to eventually implementing it all and having it abused. For one thing, I am not one of these "Terrorist deniers" who believes that there no terrorist "sleeper" cells residing in my Nation. I am quite convinced they are here and would be all over this once it began. For those who truly want to abide by Sharai law, so be it to the choice of the individual, but go to where it is in fact law. A country cannot be governed successfully by different laws for different groups. Is it possible even slightly? I guess if they do not clash with one another.
Even though gay marriage is law here I am still free to not recognize it under God’s laws in this country. It does not change the Federal law but I can still refuse to acknowledge it. The only damage done is hurt feelings on both sides.
“OK, i am gonna get it now, i know it... i did say this was not my strongest field of discussion, so be gentle with your criticism please! hehe “
Oh c’mon now. All input is welcome here. I prefer that even my other guests be “constructive” in their criticisms. Although debate has been known to heated at times here I do my best keep more of a “gentleman’s” blog. We have all had to endure it at one time or another. But we only learn from the attitudes we choose to receive it. No one has to agree with another’s criticism but wisdom would at least consider what the other is saying.
TIO:
I have time to address this one, quickly. (I am too friggin busy this weekend) You are comparing apples to oranges here. Opposition to gay marriage is not solely a "Christian" objection. It is an objection by the people across many cultural, religious, and non religious barriers.
I beg to differ: I can't speak to your country, but it sure as hell is a religious scuffle in mine.
I'm fairly willing to bet, if the religious factors were subtracted from any culture in re: the opposition of GM - there'd be a helluva lotta fumfahing goin' on.
The other factor to consider is the people themselves. This is not just a religious issue. Although an atheist has no foundational support for their "morality" they still have it! Many atheists based on "conscientious" objection opposed gay marriage, AS WELL, as some homosexuals themselves.
Waitaminnit: who ARE these people? Do share.
I have no doubt that some do, but I'm betting these 2 groups are quite small indeed.
A country cannot be governed successfully by different laws for different groups.
That's a constant out here, that's for sure.
im:
By penalties do you mean, what happens if you can't keep up the payments?
Exactly.
I don't have an prima facie objection to multiculturalism--I see it as perfectly compatible with the pluralist element of the liberal democratic tradition.
Monoculturalism, on the other hand--in which the government pursues policies that promote or impose a unitary national culture--is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy. History demonstrates clearly what can eventuate when unity is prioritised at the expense of pluralism. And if you don't like that example, how about this one?
It's interesting, TIO, that you use an image of Darth Vader to evoke symbolically the evils of multiculturalism. When I think of the proposition that everyone--but especially immigrants--ought to subscribe to a unitary national identity or set of values, on pain of being deported if they don't, I think of the control-freakery and stultifying uniformity associated with Vader and the Empire.
In a liberal democracy we ought not expect everyone to "Canadian" values or "American" values or "Australian" values--especially given that these are generally imposed from above by the government and are certainly not universally-agreed upon by all Canadians, Americans or Australians respectively. What we ought to expect is that, whatever an individual's cultural or religious beliefs or practices, he or she must not trample upon the constitutionally-enshrined civil and political rights of others. Multiculturalism works when this fundamental principle of liberal democracy is observed.
I used the rather extreme examples of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union earlier to make a point: the biggest problem facing the West today is that it is losing faith in liberal democracy. Bush's Patriot Act is a case in point, but so too is the increasing acceptance of the notion that--particularly through immigration and citizenship policies, but also in many other ways--it is the role of government to enforce a "national identity," and to isolate, weed out or "purge" dissenters in the interests of preserving this identity. We have been in this situation before--i.e. in which liberal democratic principles are being marginalised and totalitarian impulses are gaining ascendancy--and it ultimately led to WWII.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. Opposition to gay marriage is not solely a "Christian" objection. It is an objection by the people across many cultural, religious, and non religious barriers.
I think iMuslim's point still holds. In various countries, for example, religious institutions (e.g. schools) granted exemptions from discrimination laws and are permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In Australia, such schools receive taxpayer funding.
As iMuslim would ask: is that not one rule for the religious institutions, and another rule for non-religious institutions?
Arthur,
First let me take the opportunity to welcome you to this site. I do not recognize you from past entries so I assume you are a first time visitor/contributor. All input, regardless of viewpoint, is welcome here.
"It's interesting, TIO, that you use an image of Darth Vader to evoke symbolically the evils of multiculturalism. When I think of the proposition that everyone--but especially immigrants--ought to subscribe to a unitary national identity or set of values, on pain of being deported if they don't, I think of the control-freakery and stultifying uniformity associated with Vader and the Empire."
The symbol of Vader was used for the purpose of the "Dark" path I see multiculturalism heading in my country. If you read near the beginning of the post you may notice my acknowledgement of multiculturalism was in fact a noble intent.
As I read your comments I could not help but feel you have misunderstood the angle of my approach on this subject. A multicultural society, when applied with it's original intent, allows for many from differing nations/cultures to co-exist together under one nation. But when arriving at that nation does it somehow empower the immigrant to literally change the customs and laws of that country?
I am not, for example, opposed to the immigrant bringing their cultural celebrations or even practicing their native language. In fact the many different culture's are recognized thru special festivals where those who desire can get to know more about the varying cultural types thru out Canada.
That said, English is still the number one (National) language. We also cannot be altering and changing laws directed towards to select groups (as I pointed out with Muslims wanting to introduce Sharai law). I agree with you that your examples of Nazism and Communism regimes are more extreme. In fact I felt the comparison failed in the sense that Nazism, for example, did not call for unity as a Nation of diverse people but unity as "One" race. My argument against the current form of multiculturalism is pointing out the constant segregation by this movement, not the assimilation of "whites" or "Blacks" only.
Living together is not the hard part. We can continue to live together celebrating our cultures with our loved ones without re-writing the laws of the land every two or three years to accommodate those who preferred what they had back in the homeland. As I said, if one prefers it there, then go back. Nobody is keeping you here.
I know that if I choose to make one of the middle eastern countries my home I would have to adapt to certain cultural requirements. For example, I may be allowed to freely express my Christian faith BUT my wife and daughter would still be expected to wear a veil and head dress. I don't like that nor do I support it. But if I want to make my bed there I need to also be respectful of countries traditions and laws.
Likewise if I pledged allegiance to the Australian flag and became a citizen. I am now an Australian, NOT a Canadian Australian.
"religious institutions (e.g. schools) granted exemptions from discrimination laws and are permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In Australia, such schools receive taxpayer funding.
As iMuslim would ask: is that not one rule for the religious institutions, and another rule for non-religious institutions?"
Things work differently here. Religious institutions are private and paid for by the parent not the state. So they are free to teach their "moral" codes without, as you say, discrimination.
This argument you hold onto is very easy to turn around. For example, in our publicly funded schools, which I pay for thru my tax dollars, homosexuality is taught in current sex ed as "normal/natural". Thereby imposing their own form of discrimination against those who do not accept this teaching. While you feel they are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation I would feel they are discriminating on the basis of "conscientious moral" rights. What that means, in case I lost you on that, is in the Canadian Charter of Human rights and Freedoms, one does not have to be tied into a religion in order to have a moral objection. Every individual is guaranteed the right to "moral conscience". And many do, including myself (which in my case is both religious and natural reasons) yet I am still having to pay for this thru my property tax's or I lose my home. Discrimination can be flung both ways on this topic.
TIO:
Things work differently here. Religious institutions are private and paid for by the parent not the state. So they are free to teach their "moral" codes without, as you say, discrimination.
Wow, Canada's sounding better & better all the time.
This argument you hold onto is very easy to turn around. For example, in our publicly funded schools, which I pay for thru my tax dollars, homosexuality is taught in current sex ed as "normal/natural". Thereby imposing their own form of discrimination against those who do not accept this teaching. While you feel they are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation I would feel they are discriminating on the basis of "conscientious moral" rights. What that means, in case I lost you on that, is in the Canadian Charter of Human rights and Freedoms, one does not have to be tied into a religion in order to have a moral objection. Every individual is guaranteed the right to "moral conscience". And many do, including myself (which in my case is both religious and natural reasons) yet I am still having to pay for this thru my property tax's or I lose my home. Discrimination can be flung both ways on this topic.
True enough. I may've asked this afore, but can't you get some special dispensation aka 'permission slips' to excuse your children from that class? We have that in the US.
The bigger problem (IMO) is what qualifies as 'special dispensation'.
I say it's when you legislate your POV. Instance: while a big proponent of gay marriage, I think it's terribly wrong for the State to insist that a church/religious inst. be forced to perform said marriage via law.
& usually, it's who yells loudest & longer is who prevails, not the cooler voice of reason.
As a humanist, I put humanity first. Nationalism takes a distant second to that.
Being American, of course I can afford to espouse those values.
Oh hey:
Likewise if I pledged allegiance to the Australian flag and became a citizen. I am now an Australian, NOT a Canadian Australian.
Can't you hold multiple citizenship status?
I don't want to derail this thread by spending too much time talking about homosexuality and religion, which I think is a separate (if related) issue. However . . .
Things work differently here. Religious institutions are private and paid for by the parent not the state. So they are free to teach their "moral" codes without, as you say, discrimination.
Religious schools are fee-funded in Australia as well, but they also receive a degree of government funding. However, I'm not talking specifically about what these schools teach. I'm talking about laws that grant exemptions to religious groups and institutions (such as discrimination laws). Wouldn't other groups be entitled to enquire why these exemptions are granted only to religious groups and not to others?
This argument you hold onto is very easy to turn around. For example, in our publicly funded schools, which I pay for thru my tax dollars, homosexuality is taught in current sex ed as "normal/natural". Thereby imposing their own form of discrimination against those who do not accept this teaching. While you feel they are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation I would feel they are discriminating on the basis of "conscientious moral" rights. What that means, in case I lost you on that, is in the Canadian Charter of Human rights and Freedoms, one does not have to be tied into a religion in order to have a moral objection. Every individual is guaranteed the right to "moral conscience".
I don't think this is a valid objection. Firstly, I think Christians (or those of other faiths) retain their right to moral conscience regardless of whether they are in a public or private school and regardless of what they are taught in sex-ed. But their relgious beliefs ought not to trample the rights of others, and this is what I believe would transpire if public schools began to take measures such as altering their sex ed curricula, or not hiring gay and lesbian staff, or penalising gay and lesbian students, merely in order to placate the beliefs of Christians regarding homosexuality. This is what I mean by discrimination--discrimination that manifests itself materially in, for example, hiring practices.
Secondly, public schools are educational institutions first and foremost, and are obliged to conduct the business of educating as factually and objectively as possible. For example, whatever the personal beliefs of students and their parents, public schools don't teach creationism in the science classroom, or Holocaust-denial in the History classroom. And given that homosexuality is by no means any less "natural" than heterosexuality, leaving it out of the sexual education curriculum for "moral" reasons (i.e. to placate the moral beliefs of certain groups and individuals), is to ignore a significant dimension of human sexuality and therefore sell students short.
Like I said, I'm not trying to derail the thread, but I needed to address these points.
The symbol of Vader was used for the purpose of the "Dark" path I see multiculturalism heading in my country.
I understand. But I see the trend towards nationalism and monoculturalism across the Western world as heralding an equally "Dark" future.
But when arriving at that nation does it somehow empower the immigrant to literally change the customs and laws of that country?
I'm not sure what you mean. The customs and laws of a country may change for a variety of reasons--immigration and the influx of new ideas and customs, changes to the economy, educational changes, technological improvements--and it doesn't seem to me that this change can be arrested simply by cracking down on immigrants.
Are immigrants empowered to change the laws and customs of a country? They are no less entitled than any native-born citizen to do so, provided they remain within constitutional and legal boundaries. As iMuslim pointed out earlier, if an immigrant becomes a citizen of a country, surely he or she enjoys the same political rights enjoyed by all citizens, and surely he or she is entitled to as much of a say in the running of the country as any other citizen?
I agree with you that your examples of Nazism and Communism regimes are more extreme. In fact I felt the comparison failed in the sense that Nazism, for example, did not call for unity as a Nation of diverse people but unity as "One" race.
I think that's splitting hairs somewhat. In Nazism, liberal democracy was sacrificed for the higher goal of national and cultural unity. The ethnic cleansing, the genocide and the attempts to fashion a "master race" formed but a part of the overall project. In other words, with Nazism (as with Communism), unity trumped diversity.
We can continue to live together celebrating our cultures with our loved ones without re-writing the laws of the land every two or three years to accommodate those who preferred what they had back in the homeland.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but in my experience such accommodations are usually well-intentioned gestures at inclusion on the part of governments, local councils and private companies. They are usually met with bemusement on the part of those whom they are meant to benefit. Most non-Christians in Australia, for example, have absolutely no objection to Christmas festivities--and it seems unfair to lay the blame upon them on the (in Australia's case, very rare--much rarer than the right-wing tabloid press would have you believe) occasion that a public or private institution chooses to tone such festivities down.
I know that if I choose to make one of the middle eastern countries my home I would have to adapt to certain cultural requirements. For example, I may be allowed to freely express my Christian faith BUT my wife and daughter would still be expected to wear a veil and head dress. I don't like that nor do I support it. But if I want to make my bed there I need to also be respectful of countries traditions and laws.
In many of these countries, you don't have a choice. It's not simply a matter of fitting in or respecting local customs--the government and the law imposes this upon you. These countries represent monoculturalism in action, and we should not be trying to emulate them.
We need to separate out some of these issues. If an immigrant doesn't learn the lingua franca of their new home, and refrains from observing at least some of the local customs and attitudes, he or she will be at a distinct social disadvantage. Work will be hard to come by. Simple activities like shopping or reading road signs wll be almost impossible. Outside one's own social or familial circle, one might feel isolated from the wider community. So it is in an immigrant's own interest to adapt to the extent that they will be able to live normal lives--which is presumably why they have chosen to settle in their new country--and most of them do.
(The extent to which immigrants are isolated by the wider community because of prejudices and misconceptions is a separate question--but one often ignored in these multiculturalism debates. If it is in the interest of immigrants to adapt, it is equally incumbent upon the society in which they have been allowed to settle to make them feel welcome.)
So yes--it is advantageous for the immigrant to learn the language and be sensitive to the customs of a new society. But that doesn't justify the proposition that it is the role of governments to enforce the observance of these customs or to impose a unitary national identity from above. I'm someone who is suspicious of nationalism in all its manifestations, but if a country is to have a national identity it should be an organic thing and not something artificially manufactured or preserved by governments. And--so long as everyone's civil and political rights are protected--it should not be used to stifle the uniqueness of individuals and minorities.
KA,
can't you get some special dispensation aka 'permission slips' to excuse your children from that class?
We call it an "exemption" but yes you can. However, the school does not inform the parent of what they are teaching the child and offer an "opt in" option to the family. We have to discover it on our own and yank the kid from that particular class. The positive side to this is that it challenges parents to be more "in tune" with what exactly their children are being subjected too.
I think it's terribly wrong for the State to insist that a church/religious inst. be forced to perform said marriage via law.
Here is an interesting scenario for you. This would tie back to what I told you regarding our private funding regarding religious schools. Apparently they are only as private as the state wants them to be unless it interferes with their political agendas. While religious institutions here are privately funded by the parents and the school's themselves have "Legal and binding" policies (obviously regarding issues such as homosexuality) the state decides it can interfere with those policies when it does not comply with political correctness. You can read about an interesting story here about a gay boy attending a Catholic school who wanted to bring his boyfriend to the prom. Obviously this would be a violation of their deeply held beliefs and a violation of their, as I just stated, "Legal and binding" school policies.
Can't you hold multiple citizenship status?
Dual citizenship? Yes you can. Multiple? I am not sure about that one.
Arthur,
Wouldn't other groups be entitled to enquire why these exemptions are granted only to religious groups and not to others?
I would suggest to you that they are most certainly entitled to inquire. However I would disagree that these are "exemptions" from discriminatory laws. It is not discriminatory to disagree/not recognize/or not violate ones belief. Many people do not recognize homosexuality as normal/natural/or Godly. But that is not discrimination. Discrimination is too promote hatred towards them. I cannot speak for other religions, only as a Christian (No, not a catholic) but the Christian schools here, and church's for that matter, teach acceptance of the homosexual as a fellow human being created in the image of God but still acknowledging the lifestyle as sinful. There is nothing hateful or discriminatory in that.
It is discriminatory against religious rights and freedoms to say that I do not have the right to believe that or even teach it in my own "privately funded" schools. I find it more imposing when I still have to contribute my tax dollars to publicly funded schools (which my children attend) so they can promote things that I object too and I do not have the option of paying those dollars into a "private school" that I would prefer to send them too. To be quite honest, I believe schools in general really need to go back to the basics and eliminate all these other controversial subjects that are causing too much grief among people of different values and beliefs. Teach them how to read, write, and do their mathematics. Those are the basic requirements for education. Anything else can be addresses thru special ed courses. That way they are optional.
But their relgious beliefs ought not to trample the rights of others,
Herein lies one of the biggest problems regarding such a topic. Again, I can also put the spin on this and suggest to you that in a truly "equal" society governed under human rights codes can we neither allow equality rights to trump religious rights. But that is what is happening in nations such as mine where gay marriage has been legalized. The rights of the religious are now clashing with equality rights. The courts can not pick one between the other without being accused of bias. It is a bloody mess over here.
this is what I believe would transpire if public schools began to take measures such as altering their sex ed curricula,
Actually, at least in my part of the world, Christians do not oppose homosexuality in the sex ed currilculum. As a parent myself my main concern is how it is promoted as:
A) Natural, which even science medical science does not support.
B) A healthy alternative, which it is not. Although I do not recognize AIDS as a solely homosexual disease there is no getting around the reality that it is very dominant with in the homosexual community.
C) The internal damage that is caused over a period of time to the human body when it is prolonged.
D) The high rate of other infectious diseases it is susceptible too and the ability to attract them more easily.
Current curricula does not teach the health hazards that go along with this type of sexual practice. Instead it is often promoted and encouraged. That is an agenda not education. Teach children sex ed. But provide them educational facts, not lifestyles and positions. To be fair this would also apply to teaching the health dangers of promiscuous sex among heterosexuals. Sex education these days is actually not education but political ideologies. Throwing condoms at kids who think of their teachers as "infallible" regarding their education is irresponsible.
or not hiring gay and lesbian staff
I am not sure where you are going with this one but I already know of Christian businessmen who have hired homosexuals based on their qualifications not sexual orientation. On the other hand there are a few gay and lesbian organizations here who will only hire homosexuals so again, who is discriminating against who?
penalising gay and lesbian students, merely in order to placate the beliefs of Christians regarding homosexuality.
Penalizing? How so? Are referring to private schools? My children are also penalized every time a teacher wants to promote homosexuality in order to placate their own set of beliefs that it is a natural sexual practice. I have to pay public taxes and spend time correcting teachers misguided beliefs AND, if I so choose, additionally pay funds to a private school to get my kids out of the public system. I am financially nailed twice while the homosexual pays the same tax I do to have their lifestyle promoted. Might i suggest I am being discriminated against financially as well? If anyone is being penalized it is the those who do not desire to accept mainstream values.
and are obliged to conduct the business of educating as factually and objectively as possible
You and I would not be having this discussion if they actually applied that. At least in regards to sex ed.
public schools don't teach creationism in the science classroom,
Fair enough but neither is evolution 100% factual. There is still far too many contradictions in it which continues to explain why it remains a theory as opposed to scientific fact. It leaves more questions then answers. It is absolute arrogance for an educational facility to not only promote it as fact but to be so inclusive as too not consider other theories and promote evolution as the only scientific explanation for the origins. It is narrow minded when one considers that alot of the acceptance of this theory is steeped in "faith".
And given that homosexuality is by no means any less "natural" than heterosexuality
That is a matter of opinion. One which you are entitled too but when I suggest the opposite my opinion is deemed "imposing". Or , as my moniker suggests, intolerant. It is natural to experience sexual arousal but that does not make homosexuality a natural act. There is no getting around the reality that a man and a woman "naturally" fit together in the act of sexual love. It is physically not there for the homosexual. Therefore it is not a "natural" fit.
to placate the moral beliefs of certain groups and individuals
That goes both ways pal. Promoting placates the beliefs of those who feel homosexuality is natural. I believe it to be a high health risk (and medical facts support that) and that it sells kids shoprt to not inform them of the high risk they are taking when they engage in it.
Like I said, I'm not trying to derail the thread, but I needed to address these points.
Feel free. My thread's have tendency to do that. Although for now, I am done on the gay stuff. You can have the last word on that.
Arthur,
I'm not sure what you mean. The customs and laws of a country may change for a variety of reasons--immigration and the influx of new ideas and customs
I was making reference to what I feel is the extreme. That being the induction of Sharai law into a already established nation such as Canada. I am not opposed, for example, to immigrants who come here and may even want to run for public office one day and influence publicly policy but the line has be drawn when we have one set of laws that one group does not want to change but just wants their own.
Let me give you an extreme example. A select group decides that their set of laws justifies killing a woman who refuses to date them upon request. The laws of this land will land you in jail on first degree murder charges BUT because the individual falls under the "select" group his laws that apply only to him and his "select" group have him walking off without the type of justice everyone would demand. It cannot work that way.
The Ontario Muslims also want the right to address moral issues such as adultery and leave the Canadian courts out of it. Now iMuslim has provided what the "texts" say in how dealing with this matter should be dealt with. But many who have already migrated here may still hold on to "traditional" values of the homeland and decide that adultery still warrants a good ole' stoning. These are the dangers of allowing different rules for different people. That would not be tolerated here, unless of course, we allow separate laws. Be free to practice ones faith in a multicultural country but regarding the laws of justice I do believe people are obligated to assimilate in that sense.
think that's splitting hairs somewhat.
We are just not going to agree on this one. I think comparing fascism and nazism to my concern on where multiculturalism is heading in Canada is an extreme pale comparison. I have stated already that the original concept of multiculturalism is a noble idea. However it has been hijacked by political correctness and "Tolerant" ideology.
but in my experience such accommodations are usually well-intentioned gestures at inclusion on the part of governments, local councils and private companies. They are usually met with bemusement on the part of those whom they are meant to benefit. Most non-Christians in Australia, for example, have absolutely no objection to Christmas festivities--
Many different celebrations such as Dalawai, Hanukkah, and others are openly celebrated here. But that is not my point in the failure of multiculturalism. It is seeing it used as a footstool to implement so many variances that we end up more segregated then we before in it's attempt to appease "everyone". It does this not thru the different celebrations of varying cultures but thru it's repetitious singling out by constantly pointing out "differences". The end result is a nation full of segregated groups.
Hello again TIO & co,
I've been keeping an eye on the comments, but letting you guys hammer out the details as i didn't have much to add (nothing useful anyway!). Apologies TIO for inadvertently calling you an extreme lefty!!! haha
& thanks for the lesson...
Anyway regarding your last comment. I will actually agree with you here on this matter. If Muslims are coming to Canada, or any other non-Muslim country, they do have to accept certain laws, even family laws. Complete Sharia, IMO, cannot be practiced small-scale, as it would no doubt lead to "clashes" and misunderstandings on both sides. However, i'd be very, very surprised if any Muslim in the West (who had some good sense) was calling for complete Sharia.
They'd most likely go abroad to live amongst the Muslims, if they felt that strongly about it (and many do just that).
However, i still stand by my opinion that certain rules or exemptions can be applied without causing harm to greater society.
On the financial front, for example, i realised that it is not really a case for government at all, as Islamic banks would be private institutions. They would be covered by the laws of the land to some degree, but unless you can correct me, i'm not sure it says anywhere that banks MUST charge interest to their clients! Also, i am quite sure Islamic banks would not be for "muslims only" as they need all the customers they can get!
We have an Islamic Bank here in the UK, as well as high street banks who are prepared to lend Sharia-compliant loans, and i don't see the economy being ruined by it!
But i think this topic is not relevant to this discussion, anymore.
iMuslim,
Apologies TIO for inadvertently calling you an extreme lefty!!!
If someone read my words thinking I am a lefty and in their eyes I made lefties look bad then I am OK with that! LOL
However, i'd be very, very surprised if any Muslim in the West (who had some good sense) was calling for complete Sharia.
I will be watching this scenario unfold with close scrutiny to see exactly where it is they want to go with it. I have some dear friends who came here from Nigeria (they are Christians). When I told them, this was awhile back now, that Muslims in Ontario wanted to bring Sharai law to Canada I have never seen such a look of fear. My understanding is they had some horrible experiences in their home country where it is practiced to the extreme. Although on record one can say that it would never happen here my concern is "Once the ball gets rolling..."
but unless you can correct me, i'm not sure it says anywhere that banks MUST charge interest to their clients!
To my knowledge that would be accurate. But would the government allow it? There are two scenarios that will unfold in a situation like this. The first one would be, as you suggest, that it would not be applicable to Muslims only. In which case just about everybody is going to go there for an interest free loan thereby undercutting the rest of the Canadian economy plunging us into a recession of some kind.
The second scenario is that it is indeed applicable to Muslims only which now would set the standard for loan by discrimination. Or we could suggest another angle and that being loans to a "select" group which further would enhance my point of consistent segregation within a multicultural nation.
and i don't see the economy being ruined by it!
I am not convinced of that. You mention one bank. Then you mention another that is Sharai compliant. Once the ball starts to roll, just as it has done with credit unions out here, get back to me when Sharai banks dominant "Wall street" then let me know how the economy is going.
It would be interesting to have an economists perspective on this. Although I cannot see it working it is possible I could be wrong. But then again, I could be right :)
I have some dear friends who came here from Nigeria (they are Christians). When I told them, this was awhile back now, that Muslims in Ontario wanted to bring Sharai law to Canada I have never seen such a look of fear. My understanding is they had some horrible experiences in their home country where it is practiced to the extreme.
I am quite sickened to hear that any person should receive such treatment at the hands of Muslims. Sadly, that is the world we are faced with today. I, and many other Muslims i know, despair at the state of most of the Muslim countries. The true spirit of Sharia has been lost, and what little is left is often lumped together in some awful way with secular laws & tribal traditions, which just leads to chaos & corruption. Many Muslims face persecution in their own lands, simply for speaking out against the government. It is disgusting, and can never be justified, least of all by Islam.
The first one would be, as you suggest, that it would not be applicable to Muslims only. In which case just about everybody is going to go there for an interest free loan thereby undercutting the rest of the Canadian economy plunging us into a recession of some kind.
TIO, the Sharia-compliant banks still make money from us poor saps, but through means of shared profits from the investment of deposits, as well as from loans and mortgages (i did mention that an Islamic mortgage is around the same price as an interest bearing mortgage). Take a look at the website of the Islamic Bank of Britain for an explanation on how it all works.
I am not convinced of that. You mention one bank. Then you mention another that is Sharai compliant. Once the ball starts to roll, just as it has done with credit unions out here, get back to me when Sharai banks dominant "Wall street" then let me know how the economy is going.
I'm not a betting woman, but in this case, it is tempting... hehe
All i know is, Gordon Brown isn't as stupid as he looks... if it was going to be such a disaster for the economy, he'd never have allowed it. Plus there are many fat-cat economies in the Middle East (UAE, Saudi etc) that most likely work on the same principles of Sharia banking, and well, do i need to say anymore?
P.S., after asking some of the Canadian Muslims i know about Ontario Muslims wanting Sharia, i was pointed to this article: Islamic Arbitration Explained
It turns out the matter you mention is not about the implementation of new laws that reflect Islamic Sharia, but rather the use of existing Canadian laws to allow faith-based arbitration to solve disputes in the Muslim community. Jewish & Catholic communities also use such arbitration, so the Muslims would not be doing anything new.
In short, Sharia law is NOT coming to Canada! (Not yet, anyway...muwahaha)
1. "and even the United States, has slowly begun to witness the erosion of their own identity as a "people"."
-Perhaps it's just because the United States are just so much different. But the United States was never founded as a "Anglo-Saxon Republic". The Founders of the United States didn't impose an official language on them for a reason.
They envisioned Canada, Ireland, India, and every other part of the world that loved freedom joining the Union eventually. They wanted to predicate a nation on something other than ethnicity.
This does not, of course, mean that they wanted a nation full of freedom haters. They wanted a nation of freedom lovers. They, in principle, disliked English-speaking freedom-haters just as much as Spanish-speaking ones.
2. "Racism CAN NOT be eliminated when the sole focus is constantly on the "differences"."
-Great point. We ought to say it more. And we can also mock people who call themselves "African Americans" or "Asian Canadians" by referring to them as "qualified Americans/Canadians".
It would be so funny if someone gave a speech and said "hello my fellow Americans and Americans with qualification". They might realize how foolish they were after that.
3. And why are we still following the one drop rule. I guess it's because of the legal privileges attached to being a minority. Those groups that don't get goodies, like the Jews and Asians, tend to refrain from qualifying their nationality.
Perhaps the problem of excessive qualification could be best solved by removing the status attached to it.
Nog:
Perhaps the problem of excessive qualification could be best solved by removing the status attached to it.
Gam zeh ya'avor.
That being said, all of this will pass on soon enough.
While the hyphenated -American seems ridiculous to some of us, it's a way for someone to attach some significance to their past heritage(s).
I still say it's a minor affectation, which will fade soon enough.
Hold on:
Those groups that don't get goodies, like the Jews and Asians, tend to refrain from qualifying their nationality.
Chinese Americans? Japanese Americans?
Sadly, most non-Asians can't differentiate to save their lives.
'Memoirs of a Geisha', for instance, has 2 Chinese women in the roles of Japanese.
& I see mix 'n match in the movies all the time. Sometimes I watch them, & ask myself, "Isn't that guy Vietnamese?"
KA
"Isn't that guy Vietnamese?"
Yeah, but, see, he's an immigrant.
An immigrant, yeah, that's the ticket!
TIO said:
“To be fair and honest I wanted to see what the Caucasian race was up too as well but was hard pressed to
"White" man had his own television station, awards program, or sports Olympics I am willi
ng to bet dollars to doughnuts it would be labeled as a racist outlet.”
TIO,
Your comments to Arthur on the subject of homosexuality were impressive.
I must respond to a previous comment of yours however.
All you have to do is turn on the television to discover what the ‘Caucasian race is up too’. The white demographic is well served with many commercial ads demonstrating Caucasian men and women and Caucasian families although not under the title of ‘Caucasian TV’, however one can conclude that the media is disproportionately biased in appealing to the white demographic, that the white man already has his own TV.
Lucy said
“the BNP highlight the differences, spreading rumours and falsehoods which lead to both sides eyeing each other with suspicion.”
Lucy P, as a person of colour who resides in the UK, I personally feel the growth in support of the BNP has partially originated from the liberal lefts quest to suppress any intelligent and free debate on the BNP’s advocations. Silencing those who espouse offensive opinions by labelling them bigoted/ racist does nothing in the long run when it comes to improving social cohesion. Many in the UK who have had strong feelings and reservations about mass immigration are simply exploding now the reality that immigration does come with some negative realities is leaking into the open. Open honest dialogue is the only way to find a solution and not alienating those with ‘politically incorrect opinions’ without hearing them out first.
Bobo
Post a Comment