I don't really see how multiculturalism is bad...

Postby Axelgear on Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:02 pm

This is, to say the least, an interesting debate. People seem to have left the topic of multiculturalism and moved to Creationism v. Evolution, but in all honesty, I enjoy such debates so...

Though I do find it funny to see Fundamentalism and Scientific Theory butting head to head so roughly. I'm Christian, though I do admit I find it hard to identify any specific branch (Baptist maybe), and I believe in God and Jesus, and love them with all my heart. However, I do not believe God meant for us to pluck out our own eyes, as that just leads in the Blind leading the Blind, and I should also point out that the lack of questioning authority leads to much the same thing. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, after all. Evolution, adaptation, darwinism, survival of the most adaptive (Not the fittest, as the extinction of the T-Rex so perfectly proves), these are simple facts. I fail to see how science has to be so counter to religion and vice versa. It's obvious God gave us the ability to reproduce, yes? But then why in Corintheans does it state sexual interaction (Yes, all forms, not just homosexuality but ALL of it) is immoral and wrong? God gave us it, yes? The Bible is a set of guides and allegories for us to find God and to understand His wishes, but there is much in it one must take with a pinch of salt and understand through open eyes.

Now, I wish to make no enemies here, but the idea that a scientific fact (Or as close to a fact as we can get, seeing how nothing is ever truely a fact, since all things are subject to the Great Unknown) is somehow wrong seems counter-productive to reasonable and logical thought. Open your minds, Christians, and do not box yourself away in litteral interpretation.

And by the way, those of you that need further examples of evolution in action: Escherichia Coli is a prime example. E. Coli has been found in the intestinal tracts of infants containing ESBL (Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase), which makes them resistant to anti-biotics. Now, if all animals, plants, and creatures were unchanging, would not E.Coli always be affected by the same anti-biotics? They die, don't they? But they don't. The E. Coli that are resistant to the anti-biotics reproduce while the others die, and over time this resistance becomes an immunity. This is known as Evolution. And another thing... If God created Man in His own image as stated in the Bible... Which Human is "The Original"? What color was the skin of Adam and Eve? What color were their eyes? Their hair? And if these are the origins, how did we come about having people with different colored skin tones?

So, one last time, Christians, Jews, or whatever faith you are; please realize that God may have set the Universe in place, but God Himself did not write the Bible. It is a long account of history that was written often in third account and was significantly altered over time by the Catholic Church to allow for the Pope in medieval times to sell Papal Indulgences and turn it into the biggest money maker in the world. God exists, but He does not want you to turn a blind eye to knowledge and reason.
Astronomer. Sketch Artist. All-around generally creative and useless guy.
User avatar
Axelgear
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:30 am

Postby RHJunior on Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:17 pm

Mister, If Christians and Jews don't believe the Bible is God's Word, they don't have nothin'.

I'll take the Bible--- divinely inspired, written at God's command, penned by prophets, peasants, disciples and kings, preserved in spite of every attempt to deface or destroy it--- over the self-important flailings and pratfalls of Man any day of the week.

Anyone who thinks "science has all the answers" or even that science's limited answers are all <I>correct</I> answers, forgets that "Science" is nothing but the accumulation of Man's knowledge. That's all the word <I>means,</i> "knowledge." And Man, for all his accumulated arrogance, is limited and badly flawed.... and quite happily inclined to believe a familiar lie over an unfamiliar truth.

And do not imagine for a minute that Man's Knowledge is a continual or inevitable forward progression; history is crisscrossed with footprints where Man's Knowledge had to <I>backtrack</i> over his own grievous errors.... often having to trample stubborn intellectual elitists underfoot on the way. (It is not merely a <I>modern</i> convention that intellectuals are the world's Lettered Idiots...)

The refusal to bathe was propagated not by the "ignorant religious" of the medieval period but by the intelligentsia of the Renaissance, who thought it spread disease by "opening the pores."
Galileo's conflict was not with with the Church so much as it was with conniving scholars who advocated Ptolemy's geocentric model, and who used their influence with the clergy to protect their status (sound familiar? Wonder why? "Most forward thinking church leaders accept the Evolutionary model....")
Columbus did not prove the world round--- it was a well known fact to anyone with any schooling. The Hebrew scriptures described the world as a "circle" (the original hebrew word was used both for circle and sphere) that "hangs suspended on nothing". The ancient Greeks calculated its circumference to within a few hundred miles... Columbus, in fact, was advocating <I>a flawed mathematical model</I> that had the world's circumference grossly undersized, and believed that this made the distance westward to India far shorter. If an entire undiscovered continent had not been in the way, his expedition would have ended in disaster.

While the bible said that "life is in the blood," physicians were bleeding people dry to "cure" them.

While the bible said every creature was of different flesh, scholars were giving humans transfusions of blood from dogs and pigs.

The old testament laws gave rules of cleanliness, sanitation, and the prevention of the spread of disease that were not only millenia ahead of their time but were <I>in direct conflict</i> with the teachings of the most learned minds of the day--- the Egyptians--- who among other things advocated <I>spreading mule dung on wounds</i> to make them heal.

No, I'll take my Divinely inspired Bible. Science may be a useful tool, but it makes a retarded god.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
RHJunior
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: WV

Postby Axelgear on Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:20 am

RHJunior wrote:Mister, If Christians and Jews don't believe the Bible is God's Word, they don't have nothin'.


Not true. Much of the holy temples and books were lost when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans and the Christians in Rome lost many books because they wanted to make sure Christians knew what they were dieing for. The books are recordings of actions and Gods word, but often times are they not a mortals attempt at interpreting God; an act that is pretty much impossible.

RHJunior wrote:I'll take the Bible--- divinely inspired, written at God's command, penned by prophets, peasants, disciples and kings, preserved in spite of every attempt to deface or destroy it--- over the self-important flailings and pratfalls of Man any day of the week.


... And by Scribes, by Priests, and by Popes who had their own aims... I accept things in the Bible like the Ten Commandments and Jesus's words, but things in it seem to have bias in my opinion. Things like "Kill the children of Babylon; crash their heads against the rocks" and such. That doesn't seem to come from God who said "If your enemy should strike you, turn the other cheek. Vengeance is mine." Y'see what I mean?

RHJunior wrote:Anyone who thinks "science has all the answers" or even that science's limited answers are all <I>correct</I> answers, forgets that "Science" is nothing but the accumulation of Man's knowledge. That's all the word <I>means,</i> "knowledge." And Man, for all his accumulated arrogance, is limited and badly flawed.... and quite happily inclined to believe a familiar lie over an unfamiliar truth.


Of course science has flaws, and science is DEFINITELY not a religion. It's merely a collection of knowledge. However, one should not state that just because the Bible has a different writing, it means that what we discover is wrong. The World was created in six days, but God is immortal and eternal. What is a day to God? I'd say a good few billion years fits that, wouldn't you?

RHJunior wrote:And do not imagine for a minute that Man's Knowledge is a continual or inevitable forward progression; history is crisscrossed with footprints where Man's Knowledge had to <I>backtrack</i> over his own grievous errors.... often having to trample stubborn intellectual elitists underfoot on the way. (It is not merely a <I>modern</i> convention that intellectuals are the world's Lettered Idiots...)


Of course, this is also true. Einstein, probably the most accepted physicist in the world, was wrong in a lot of his theories. I.E. He stated nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but it has been proven that radiation waves can be accelerated, and hence light itself can move faster than its normal speed. However, this does NOT mean we should call all scientists stupid. Look at Louis Pasteur. His theory was considered insane at the time, but he was later proven right. But the fact is, you have to take into account that is how science works. One can never be right 100% of the time, and that is why we now have Scientific Method.

RHJunior wrote:The refusal to bathe was propagated not by the "ignorant religious" of the medieval period but by the intelligentsia of the Renaissance, who thought it spread disease by "opening the pores."
Galileo's conflict was not with with the Church so much as it was with conniving scholars who advocated Ptolemy's geocentric model, and who used their influence with the clergy to protect their status (sound familiar? Wonder why? "Most forward thinking church leaders accept the Evolutionary model....")
Columbus did not prove the world round--- it was a well known fact to anyone with any schooling. The Hebrew scriptures described the world as a "circle" (the original hebrew word was used both for circle and sphere) that "hangs suspended on nothing". The ancient Greeks calculated its circumference to within a few hundred miles... Columbus, in fact, was advocating <I>a flawed mathematical model</I> that had the world's circumference grossly undersized, and believed that this made the distance westward to India far shorter. If an entire undiscovered continent had not been in the way, his expedition would have ended in disaster.


Oook, here's where our opinions get further apart. I admit, Geocentrism was not rejected by many scientists, but it was accepted by the church that, based on their interpretation of the Bible, that the Sun revolved around the Earth. After all, God created the Earth, then put all the stars in the heavens above, yes? It was them and not just scientists who opposed Copernicus.

And of course Columbus wasn't the first to theorize the world was round, but he was supposedly the first to gather proof by trying to sail around it (Which is a bit like claiming the first person to boil water was the first to prove it killed disease in it). The first people in recorded history did so about 2600 years ago, and they were Greeks known as the Ionians, who had their writing surpressed by the cult of Pythagoras (Who was as much a scientist as a rock is a tomato). These people were some of the most intelligent in the world.)

And as to the refusal to bathe, that was more a case of accepted common "knowledge" rather than scientific testing. Scientific Method, the key that makes science today science, was not brought about until LONG after that.

RHJunior wrote:While the bible said that "life is in the blood," physicians were bleeding people dry to "cure" them.

While the bible said every creature was of different flesh, scholars were giving humans transfusions of blood from dogs and pigs.


Blood being the source of life was discovered by Rabbi's slitting the throats of animals to make them cosure, or so I guess. It seems logical to me at least. It's scientific method in action. Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experimentation -> Observation. It goes around in a circle, and at that time, people weren't too bright usually.

As to the idea of using animal blood in humans, it has been shown recently that certain treatments WILL allow animals (Especially pigs) blood to be used in place of a humans. Who knows? One day, someone you or I care about may be hurt and have their life saved by a pig? Stranger things have happened.

RHJunior wrote:The old testament laws gave rules of cleanliness, sanitation, and the prevention of the spread of disease that were not only millenia ahead of their time but were <I>in direct conflict</i> with the teachings of the most learned minds of the day--- the Egyptians--- who among other things advocated <I>spreading mule dung on wounds</i> to make them heal.


Yes, but the Egyptians also believed in magical incantations and that their ruler was a living deity who would live forever... Just like the last one and the one before him...

RHJunior wrote:No, I'll take my Divinely inspired Bible. Science may be a useful tool, but it makes a retarded god.


Who ever said Science IS God? I merely said that Science and God can get along. Did not people once believe that people who fell over and shook wildly were possessed? But we now know that those are caused by seizures. God gave us the ability to think, to observe, to learn. Why don't we use them?

Also, something that has always puzzled me... I'm no Biblical Scholar, so I ask someone who most likely knows more than me: Did God create more people for Adam and Eve? After all, if we were all descended from Adam and Eve, wouldn't we all have identical DNA? Mutations abound over milleniia/M.Y. (Depending on your point of view) but... Yeah, I think you get my point
Astronomer. Sketch Artist. All-around generally creative and useless guy.
User avatar
Axelgear
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:30 am

Postby Tom Mazanec on Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:16 am

RHJunior wrote:Columbus did not prove the world round--- it was a well known fact to anyone with any schooling. The Hebrew scriptures described the world as a "circle" (the original hebrew word was used both for circle and sphere) that "hangs suspended on nothing". The ancient Greeks calculated its circumference to within a few hundred miles... Columbus, in fact, was advocating <I>a flawed mathematical model</I> that had the world's circumference grossly undersized, and believed that this made the distance westward to India far shorter. If an entire undiscovered continent had not been in the way, his expedition would have ended in disaster.



And they call Columbus the "Great Navigator" and have a holiday to him that is so well known that I had to go back the next day to pay a traffic ticket (second one in my life...I am not THAT bad a driver) and my aunt had to go back to the bank. HAH!
Forum Mongoose
User avatar
Tom Mazanec
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Wanderwolf on Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:46 am

Minor correction, RH: Galileo Galilei was in trouble less for the facts of his presentation and more for the timing. Just a few months prior, an anti-Catholic iconoclast had used the heliocentric model to propose the destruction of the Papocracy. His reasoning ran that the Papal authority had been founded upon the idea of an Earthly representation of Divine authority, and the removal of Earth from the center of the model meant that an Earthly authority was counter to God's plan.

As you can imagine, the Catholic Church was, er, less than pleased with him.

Timing, they say, is everything...

Axelgear, a few minor corrections for you as well:

1. "Bleeding" as a cure arrived much later than the "kosher" restrictions. It was, in some ways, a reinterpretation of the common-knowledge discovery that some unsees material must be transmitted between prganisms to make people sick of the same disease. Since blood was found throughout the body, it only made sense that the unknown contamination was carried by the blood.

This became "take out the blood, remove the disease". Not a good interpretation.

2. Actually, everyone bathed in the Roman Era. It was the later recoil against the famed licentious nature of the Roman baths that fueled our image of the medieval worker as a filthy wretch.

Yours quitting now to distract his baby nephew,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby MikeVanPelt on Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:10 pm

Wanderwolf wrote:Minor correction, RH: Galileo Galilei was in trouble less for the facts of his presentation and more for the timing. Just a few months prior, an anti-Catholic iconoclast had used the heliocentric model to propose the destruction of the Papocracy.


Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

Galileo was somewhat ... humility challenged. Often downright arrogant, and insulting to those who didn't agree with him. His "Dialogs" could easily (and probably accurately) be interpreted as casting the current pope in the role of "Simpleton". Which was a stupid thing to do; the pope had been a personal friend; alienating him was a very bad move.

Is the "anti-Catholic iconoclast" you're referring to Giordano Bruno? Yeah, in spades. Bruno did propose a heliocentric model, but that's not what got him burned. He was a monk, and also spoke out against the deity of Christ, the Resurrection, and just about every other major Christian doctrine. Plus, in the arrogance department, he made Galileo look like Caspar Milquetoast. Isaac Asimov, in his "Biographical Encyclopedia of Science", said that Bruno seemed to be deliberately trying to get himself burned at the stake.
User avatar
MikeVanPelt
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:07 pm

Postby RHJunior on Thu Nov 23, 2006 1:49 pm

Actually, as posted elsewhere in this forum, bathing was much more common during the medieval period than is commonly portrayed. It was as much a form of social commerce and interaction as a matter of cleanliness, and the associated norms and rituals varied from region to region.

It was only a period of 200 years or so-- the Renaissance-- when bathing fell into disfavor.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
RHJunior
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: WV

Postby Wanderwolf on Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:24 pm

RHJunior wrote:Actually, as posted elsewhere in this forum, bathing was much more common during the medieval period than is commonly portrayed. It was as much a form of social commerce and interaction as a matter of cleanliness, and the associated norms and rituals varied from region to region.

It was only a period of 200 years or so-- the Renaissance-- when bathing fell into disfavor.


Yes, Ralph, sorry. That was what I intended to convey by stating that it was our image of the medieval worker that was affected; sorry I didn't have time to make it clearer. (Children under two are such a handful...)

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby RHJunior on Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:44 am

And, on the original topic of "what's wrong with Multiculturalism?"

It demands that we pretend that all cultures are equivalent. They are not.
Putting a man on the moon is not equivalent to putting a bone through the nose, and the fact that a culture remains unchanged since the Stone Age is an indicator of a state not of harmonic perfection but one of grim and worrying arrested development.

Multiculturalism is little more than another way than saying AntiWesternism.
Their ranks are made up of

"Every idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone
Every century but this and every culture but his own...."

It is anti-civilization, anti-progress, and makes us incapable of criticizing even a badly damaged society's behavior. The movie "BORAT" is a rather ugly comedy <I>based</i> on that; it's based on the routines of a comedian whose entire shtick is that he pretends to be a minor celebrity from some Eastern European nation, then goes out in public and behaves as atrociously as possible--- racist, sexist, antisemitic, homophobic--- to see how much people in America will tolerate out of fear of "offending his culture." (Or better yet, for the slavering anti-American leanings of the film, how many people will go along with Borat's vile behavior and vulgar outlook.)

Let's just say that the tolerance level is depressingly high.

Worse, most of the reviews I have read are <I>sympathetic to the character of Borat,</i> and condemn the movie for being "insensitive to the fish-out-of-water foreigner".... and milk every moment of American citizens' bewildered cluelessness as a chance to deride American culture as morally inferior.

THAT is what is wrong with "multiculturalism."
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
RHJunior
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: WV

Postby Axelgear on Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:41 pm

I think I see your point RH, but what you state as Multiculturalism is not what most people see it as the definition as. I think what most people see it as, or more accurately what I think most sane and rational people who don't see the word as having the same definition as you see it as (And no, I do not mean you are not sane or rational. You've proven yourself to be both), and what I see it as is this:

Multiculturalism is the willingness to accept the freedom of others to practice their beliefs so long as they fit inside the bonds of Human Rights.

An example would be accepting Buddhism but not blood sacrifices. Buddhism is a belief that teaches peace, tolerance, kindness to others, and equality. Blood sacrifice is a barbaric ritual in which animals and/or humans are killed in savage ways. Even though Buddhists do not follow the Bible, they still espouse values set in place by Christandom, and I think you can appreciate that at least.

So, RH, if Multiculturalism does not fit that sort of logic, can you give me a term that does? If you can find a word that fits it better, then I shall gladly use it, but as I have learned it, Multiculturalism is merely the acceptance of sane and rational beliefs even if they differ from your own.

And a quick edit/addition here: Borat is more about bringing out and exposing racism and ignorance. Borat takes on the role of a Foreignor for the sake of ridiculing others. You can't fault a person for being annoyed with Cohen (Sacha Baron Cohen, a.k.a. Borat for those of you that don't know him) when he pulls the ignorance card (I.E. The Chicken on the subway) but can't you also consider them kind for being willing to help someone who needs it? And of course, I have no sympathy for the anti-semitic rancher. He has his right to free speech and all but it is difficult to say the least to allow such hateful things...

Though I do think Sacha took it a bit far with the whole stadium thing...
Astronomer. Sketch Artist. All-around generally creative and useless guy.
User avatar
Axelgear
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:30 am

Postby NydaLynn on Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:22 pm

Hmm. And here I thought I was multicultural becuase no one by looking at me can ever find the right 'ethnic label' to put on me. And why is that? Becuase the only box on the damned census that comes close to fitting me by everyone elses definitions (and I suppose my own) is 'OTHER'.

I must say, the definition of multiculturism being discussed here is new to me, though I freely admit I see where RH is coming from on this issue. It is disheartening to see anyone bash anyone else based on percieved superiority of race or culture. What is good for people? To keep the way they live that includes poor nutrition, no education, and high young mortalty rate becuase it is the way they have always lived? Would it be better to make them wards of state for thier own good? Or teach and give them opportunites and tools to make thier lives better (even if it destroys thier 'culture'?).

Culture and tradition are only viable if it sustains life. As soon as a better way of doing things comes along, it would be easy to adopt it. Did you know that the indigenous peoples of north america had not seen horses before settlers from europe arrived? It was not long before they recognized the value of this animal and chose to ride them. Was this in thier culture previously? No. Was it more important fo rthem to maintain thier culture or to try and better thier way of life?

All life is change. Even the Amish adapt.

All that aside, it is also very insteresting to see this morph into a discussion of religion and evolution. I wonder how that came about? I should look through these postings agian. Now my question to the whole talk is this... is it macro-evolution or micro-evolution we are talking about here? Or is no one making that distiction?
User avatar
NydaLynn
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:50 am
Location: Amish Country, PA

Postby NydaLynn on Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:25 pm

Axelgear wrote: Buddhism is a belief that teaches peace, tolerance, kindness to others, and equality.



I am currently studying a book espousing Buddhism and I dissagree on the equality part. Granted I am not finished reading the whole thing (Though I intend to), but I have a large question about a practice that claims to promote equality and yet has different regulations depending on what gender you hapen to be. If you have any insight on this, I would love to hear from you.
"Que Sera Sera..."
<a href="http://nydalynn.deviantart.com"> Deviant Art stuff</a>
User avatar
NydaLynn
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:50 am
Location: Amish Country, PA

Postby Axelgear on Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:06 pm

Buddhism and Confuscianism do often get twisted together, yes. Buddhism in itself actually doesn't really state much about women, at least as much as I've learned from my Buddhist friends anyway. However, Confuscianism (A way of life, not a religion) is very vocal on the topic, and treats women as second class to men, and all people younger are subservient to their elders. The two originate from very close regions, and share a long history, so it's not unlikely the pair become intertwined. However, Buddhism is all about harmony overall. Anyone can seek Enlightenment, be they of any race or either gender. While it is true Buddhist Monks are all male, this is simply to enforce their vows of chastity.
Astronomer. Sketch Artist. All-around generally creative and useless guy.
User avatar
Axelgear
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:30 am

Postby Rangers on Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:05 pm

NydaLynn wrote:Did you know that the indigenous peoples of north america had not seen horses before settlers from europe arrived?


However, their ancient ancestors saw them - and most likely ate them all.

Wanderwolf wrote:"1. "Bleeding" as a cure arrived much later than the "kosher" restrictions. It was, in some ways, a reinterpretation of the common-knowledge discovery that some unsees material must be transmitted between prganisms to make people sick of the same disease. Since blood was found throughout the body, it only made sense that the unknown contamination was carried by the blood. "


Its actual purpose was to balance the levels of the four 'humors' of the body, blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile. Although the idea started in ancient Greece, our Frankish barbarian ancestors found confirmation for it in the fact that there were four seasons, and four gospels. Kind of like thinking there's a curse on the Presidency because Lincoln and Kennedy have the same number of letters.
Join the adventure at http://rangers.keenspace.com
Licensed Online Comic Macquettes - get 'em at http://www.ntoonz.com
User avatar
Rangers
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:32 am

Postby LoneWolf23k on Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:00 pm

I suppose this would be the right thread to mention something that's happened recently here in Quebec, that's related to this topic..

A few weeks ago, a Hassidic Jewish school won a trial and got a court order given to a local YWCA to demand that it installed tainted windows in it's gymnasium to prevent male students from seeing the scantily clad women within the gym.

In a related story, a Montreal CLSC (a community clinic) was the scene of another controversy when a muslim woman attending a lamaze class requested that no males attented the class with their wives.

And for a few years now, young Sikh students are allowed to keep their Kirpan knives when attending public schools...

Now, these sparked a whole debate in the city about "reasonable accomodations" regarding Montreal's minority communities.. Some think it's important to try and reach a compromise with the minorities, but the ones I've gotten to respect (one is the leader of the ADQ party, about Montreal's only Right-Wing party I know of, and the other is the only non-leftist journalist in the Montreal Journal aside from an economy editorialist) were the opinions that go "Hey, if they decide to live in our country, they should accept to live by our rules and standards."

Is it really too much to ask that minority groups at least try to follow the same rules as the rest of us in shared society?
LoneWolf23k
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm

Postby BrockthePaine on Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:17 pm

LoneWolf23k wrote:And for a few years now, young Sikh students are allowed to keep their Kirpan knives when attending public schools...

When I first saw that decision I tried to found "The Church of the Holy Disciples of Browning" where wearing a 1911 pistol is a mandatory part of the religious observations. As far as I know, there's only one member and one cleric... me... but hey. Blessings upon you all, brethren...
It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee
User avatar
BrockthePaine
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:45 pm
Location: Further up and further in!

Postby Axelgear on Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:53 pm

I'd say at the very least, the first one is reasonable. Tinted glass, if paid for by the Jewish group, is simply a barrier to ensure they are not tempted to seek out these afore-mentioned scantily clad women which is for some reason against their training/moral code. As to the Muslim one, in stricter Muslim cultures, a Muslim woman is not supposed to be seen undressed by any person but their husband (And a doctor if they relax that point). If the husbands are not paying for the class, not participating, and although I see no reason for them to be forced to leave, she has a reason. Now, personally, I find it a bit silly, but is it truely hurting anyone to accomidate her? And the third one... Well, I know nothing about Sikhism.

Now why is this unreasonable? I admit, I'm a bit of an advocate of the "You come here, you follow our rules" trip, but the fact is, Canada is based off accomidating the minority. Until a population burst just before and after each of the World Wars, Quebec was and always was a minority. France had lost the war and England ruled Canada. But did they say "Hey, you French guys, now you speak English, got it?"

Well... Yes, they did. And the French-Canadians were outraged. They were as much founders as the rest of Canada, and over time French Canadians have become recognized as a large and equal part of Canada. French Canadians are now recognized as a large group within Canada and as a seperate culture who we live with and accept, just like the First Nations, only Quebec has a much larger population, and it was only done through reasonable agreements.

So as you can see, it's a little ironic people would have an issue with minorities in Quebec.

(And P.S. What does allowing people to keep their wife from, I'm guessing, an unlicensed ceremony have to do with fire-arms? As behounded I know I will be for saying this, they're not dangerous. Just usually arrogant (The ones I've met anyway))
Astronomer. Sketch Artist. All-around generally creative and useless guy.
User avatar
Axelgear
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:30 am

Postby Wanderwolf on Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:36 am

RHJunior wrote:Multiculturalism is little more than another way than saying AntiWesternism.
Their ranks are made up of

"Every idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone
Every century but this and every culture but his own...."


Point the First: No. Multiculturalism states only that cultures should be allowed to persist. As you should know, living in the same "melting pot" as I do, it's going to persist anyway; Jewish culture still persists over here, Italian culture, Japanese, Chinese, Russian... any culture can be found if you look hard enough. We're a melting pot: That doesn't mean we all blend together into mush. It means we're the spiciest mix in the world.

And Point the Second: You've misquoted poor Gilbert and Sullivan badly. That's a line from the Mikado, specifically "And Someday It May Happen", sung by Koko, the High Executioner of Titipu:

W.S. Gilbert wrote:
Gentlemen, I'm much touched by this reception. I can
only trust that by strict attention to duty I shall ensure a
continuance of those favours which it will ever be my study to
deserve. If I should ever be called upon to act professionally,
I am happy to think that there will be no difficulty in finding
plenty of people whose loss will be a distinct gain to society at
large.

<song begins>

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs–
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs–
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat–
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like that
And all third persons who on spoiling téte-a-tétes insist–
They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed!

CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list--he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed--they'll none of 'em be missed.

There's the banjo serenader, and the others of his race,
And the piano-organist--I've got him on the list!
And the people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face,
They never would be missed--they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy,
And who "doesn't think she waltzes, but would rather like to try";
And that singular anomaly, the lady novelist--
I don't think she'd be missed--I'm sure she'd not he missed!

CHORUS. He's got her on the list--he's got her on the list;
And I don't think she'll be missed--I'm sure she'll not be missed!

And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife,
The Judicial humorist--I've got him on the list!
All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life–
They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed.
And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind,
Such as--What d'ye call him--Thing'em-bob, and likewise--Never-mind,
And 'St--'st--'st--and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who--
The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.
But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed!

CHORUS. You may put 'em on the list--you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed--they'll none of 'em be missed!


That's Act I, musical number 5a, if you're wondering.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby RHJunior on Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:37 am

I still stand by my statement, and my statement stands by itself as self-evident. The only time people wail and holler for "multiculturalism" is when they want to sweep the standing WESTERN culture out of the way.

You're in OUR country now. SPEAK ENGLISH.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
RHJunior
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: WV

Postby LoneWolf23k on Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:03 am

RHJunior wrote:I still stand by my statement, and my statement stands by itself as self-evident. The only time people wail and holler for "multiculturalism" is when they want to sweep the standing WESTERN culture out of the way.

You're in OUR country now. SPEAK ENGLISH.


Well, here's how I look at it: you can speak your native language around the house all you want, but you'd better learn English (or French here in Quebec, or even both) out when doing official business...
LoneWolf23k
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm

PreviousNext

 

Return to NPC



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest