Does multiculturalism always lead to falsehoods, lies and deceit and is therefore always harmful?

[Shantanu]

1. This is a general question that has arisen on the value of religious diversity for humanity emanating from the lack of consensus on religious dictats and concerns on multiculturalism as practiced in several European countries. It follows the following exchange I have had with @adrian009:


adrian009 said: ↑

What works for one person may not work for another. It would be as much a mistake to force atheism on a theist, as to force theism on an atheist. The first principles for a Baha’i are freedom of religion along with unity in diversity.

Shantanu:

The concept followed of unity in diversity is inherently flawed on account of the fact that some religions preach violence to attain certain ends (eg Islam) whilst others preach total non-violence (Buddhism).

adrian009:

Most Muslims are not violent, whereas some Buddhists certainly are. Perhaps the violent Buddhists and Muslims have a more urgent need for a better religious path than the peaceful Buddhists and Muslims.

Shantanu:

That is not the only reason that I consider 'unity in diversity' as a highly flawed Baha'i' concept: the fact that some religions are atheistic whilst others are theistic imposes different outlooks and practices upon the adherents that are wholly incompatible with each other.

adrian009:

There is no reason that an atheistic Buddhist could not find common ground with a Theistic Christian. Its an inherent part of multiculturalism that works well in my country. We don't all need to have the same faith or even worldview to be able to get along.

Shantanu:

I would not trust anyone who did not share my religion/philosophy or worldview.

adrian009

Thanks for your honesty. We all exist of a spectrum of belief, attitudes and behaviours. At one end is exclusivity, the other inclusivity. I'm more at the inclusivity end, whereas you are more exclusive in your outlook. In regards the OP question when religions (and philosophies and worldviews) are either beneficial or harmful, there is a case to be made about benefits of inclusiveness and the harmfulness of exclusion.

Shantanu:

For me the only way to include all people in a common humanity is through economic interrelationships where everyone has a vested interest in staying united in cooperation because livelihoods are involved. That is the secular way to proceed. We do not need religion to bind people together in a common cause. In fact religion only causes social problems in trying to achieve inclusivity in the place of economic development as a social engineering strategy.


2. Do multicultural societies 'work' to the benefit of all when there is a fundamental question on how can one trust any religious person in what he or she says as being true?

 

[shunyadragon]

Simply the evidence in history and in the contemporary world demonstrates the prevalence of egocentric religious and cultural worldviews lead to cultural isolation, fear and alienation, paranoia, and violence and conflict between cultures, and religions including tribal based territorial tribal claims. A significant part of the problem is many of the religions, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came from a tribal, us versus them world, and actually make tribal claims with scripture that indicates outside cultures and religions are evil.

The egocentric isolationist cultures and belief systems, by the evidence leads to lies, deceit, falsehoods, racism, ethnic supremacy, and by the way rejection of science, and aggressive anti-multiculturalism.

 

[Shantanu]

Simply the evidence in history and in the contemporary world demonstrates the prevalence of egocentric religious and cultural worldviews lead to cultural isolation, fear and alienation, paranoia, and violence and conflict between cultures, and religions including tribal based territorial tribal claims. A significant part of the problem is many of the religions, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came from a tribal, us versus them world, and actually make tribal claims with scripture that indicates outside cultures and religions are evil.

The egocentric isolationist cultures and belief systems, by the evidence leads to lies, deceit, falsehoods, racism, ethnic supremacy, and by the way rejection of science.

When one tries to reconcile the varying beliefs in attempting to develop social cohesion, one cannot help but avoid the difficult questions and so resorts to fallacies, and deceit in order to develop the State's social engineering strategy. But the differences between cultures are always simmering away beneath the scenes and when the frustrations get too much adherents of particular faiths resort to violence to get their own way in society. This is what this thread is trying to assess and develop an appropriate strategy to tackle. I live in a multicultural society but cannot help thinking that through truth exposition, one can strive towards social cohesion by engendering through laws such behaviour that puts the onus on the adherents of particular faiths to justify their religious beliefs, so that lies are treated as fraudulent and deception designed to further religious causes. If these beliefs cannot be justified in a court of law the particular faith should be banned in other words.

 

[Nimos]

2. Do multicultural societies 'work' to the benefit of all when there is a fundamental question on how can one trust any religious person in what he or she says as being true?

Just because a person is religious doesn't mean that they are not telling the truth. Lots of people that follow a religion does it without it having a huge impact on their daily lives. Where things seems to collide is when fundamentalism is introduced, as a result of their religious belief. I don't think there is a huge difference between "normal" believers and non believers when it comes to viewing this as a bad thing.

Looking through history there have been both religious and atheist dominated societies, which have been quite brutal and causing a lot of death. So it seems that the only thing you need is really just a bad idea and people that choose to follow and realize it, to cause issues in multicultural societies. Most of it, as far as I see it, is based on ignorant.

But I don't think you can deny that religions, are easier to misuse to cause conflicts as your are talking about peoples feelings and faith in a particular religion. And even within the same religious view, you can have conflict on how to understand your own beliefs, so mixing in others religions as well, just make it worse. As they obviously can't all be true at the same time.

Then you have some of the religious views which conflict with non believers views, such as the abortion rules, sexuality, what food you can eat, whether people should use condoms, contraceptive pills, education etc. Which tend to be based on their religious view rather than on a discussion about what is reasonable to do. Which I honestly think is what pisses off atheists more than anything else

So multicultural societies adds diversity, which is not always good, if it comes with to many bad ideas. But on the other hand, its probably the only way forward to actually learn, how to live together here on the planet. So the question is really, how you get rid of all the bad ideas, which currently is through education, I think.

 

[shunyadragon]

When one tries to reconcile the varying beliefs in attempting to develop social cohesion, one cannot help but avoid the difficult questions and so resorts to fallacies, and deceit in order to develop the State's social engineering strategy. But the differences between cultures are always simmering away beneath the scenes and when the frustrations get too much adherents of particular faiths resort to violence to get their own way in society. This is what this thread is trying to assess and develop an appropriate strategy to tackle. I live in a multicultural society but cannot help thinking that through truth exposition, one can strive towards social cohesion by engendering through laws such behaviour that puts the onus on the adherents of particular faiths to justify their religious beliefs, so that lies are treated as fraudulent and deception designed to further religious causes. If these beliefs cannot be justified in a court of law the particular faith should be banned in other words.

It appears you advocate an anarchistic view of the conflicts in our world, caused by the arrogant egocentric cultures and religious beliefs.

The different cultures and belief systems that maintain an arrogant egocentric cultural or religious perspective, and eventually lead to 'cultural isolation, fear and alienation, paranoia, and violence and conflict between cultures, and religions including tribal based territorial tribal claims, are responsible, and the buck stops there. A significant part of the problem is many of the religions, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came from a tribal, us versus them world, and actually make tribal claims with scripture that indicates outside cultures and religions are evil.

It is a scapegoat agenda to blame those that endorse a multicultural view to heal and bring peace to these divisions. Thes beliefs and worldviews cannot be blamed for problems of anti-multicultural worldviews

 

[Shantanu]

Just because a person is religious doesn't mean that they are not telling the truth. Lots of people that follow a religion does it without it having a huge impact on their daily lives. Where things seems to collide is when fundamentalism is introduced, as a result of their religious belief. I don't think there is a huge difference between "normal" believers and non believers when it comes to viewing this as a bad thing.

Looking through history there have been both religious and atheist dominated societies, which have been quite brutal and causing a lot of death. So it seems that the only thing you need is really just a bad idea and people that choose to follow and realize it, to cause issues in multicultural societies. Most of it, as far as I see it, is based on ignorant.

But I don't think you can deny that religions, are easier to misuse to cause conflicts as your are talking about peoples feelings and faith in a particular religion. And even within the same religious view, you can have conflict on how to understand your own beliefs, so mixing in others religions as well, just make it worse. As they obviously can't all be true at the same time.

Then you have some of the religious views which conflict with non believers views, such as the abortion rules, sexuality, what food you can eat, whether people should use condoms, contraceptive pills, education etc. Which tend to be based on their religious view rather than on a discussion about what is reasonable to do. Which I honestly think is what pisses off atheists more than anything else

So multicultural societies adds diversity, which is not always good, if it comes with to many bad ideas. But on the other hand, its probably the only way forward to actually learn, how to live together here on the planet. So the question is really, how you get rid of all the bad ideas, which currently is through education, I think.

What I am proposing is that when there is discord in society caused by religious beliefs, howsoever minor, each person has to justify his or her actions in a court of law and it will not be sufficient for that person to say I am a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or Hindu or whatever that is why I did these things. The judge will have to sentence the person on the basis of what evidence is provided by the adherent to the judge that he or she was justified in carrying out the misdemeanour because it was the true way of handling a particular problem. The judge will take evidence from reputable sources to assess whether what the person did was justified as moral based on all the evidence that the State has at its disposal. The adherent will face punishment if the judgment goes against him or her, so will be forced to modify his or her beliefs. Over time the State's religious authorities will have to take account of the judgment and modify their holy books to ensure that they are giving the State-approved teachings on religious beliefs that are permissible, or the official religions would be banned for not taking account of the State's judgements as given in a Court of law.

 

[Shantanu]

It appears you advocate an anarchistic view of the conflicts in our world, caused by the arrogant egocentric cultures and religious beliefs.

This is incorrect. In society each person has responsibility to conduct himself or herself in accordance with the laws and norms of that society. The onus is on the individual who will have to account for his or her beliefs to a court of law when he or she is charged with conducting fraudulent activities such as proselytising delusional religious scriptures.

 

[Nimos]

What I am proposing is that when there is discord in society caused by religious beliefs, howsoever minor, each person has to justify his or her actions in a court of law and it will not be sufficient for that person to say I am a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or Hindu or whatever that is why I did these things. The judge will have to sentence the person on the basis of what evidence is provided by the adherent to the judge that he or she was justified in carrying out the misdemeanour because it was the true way of handling a particular problem. The judge will take evidence from reputable sources to assess whether what the person did was justified as moral based on all the evidence that the State has at its disposal. The adherent will face punishment if the judgment goes against him or her, so will be forced to modify his or her beliefs. Over time the State's religious authorities will have to take account of the judgment and modify their holy books to ensure that they are giving the State-approved teachings on religious beliefs that are permissible, or the official religions would be banned for not taking account of the State's judgements as given in a Court of law.

I think that is impossible you can not force other to change their beliefs and trying to do it through laws will only make things worse. However I do agree and think it is actually the case that people are charged for crimes even if they claim its based on religious reasons, at least where I live. But I don't think it changes their beliefs, they will simply do more not to get spotted doing it.

 

[Shantanu]

I think that is impossible you can not force other to change their beliefs and trying to do it through laws will only make things worse.

How will it make things worse: if people cannot abide by the law, they will be incarcerated.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is incorrect. In society each person has responsibility to conduct himself or herself in accordance with the laws and norms of that society. The onus is on the individual who will have to account for his or her beliefs to a court of law when he or she is charged with conducting fraudulent activities such as proselytising delusional religious scriptures.

Bizzaro egocentric view that leads to the to 'cultural isolation, fear and alienation, paranoia, and violence and conflict between cultures, and religions including tribal based territorial tribal claims, are responsible.

 

[Shantanu]

Bizzaro egocentric view that leads to the to 'cultural isolation, fear and alienation, paranoia, and violence and conflict between cultures, and religions including tribal based territorial tribal claims, are responsible.

The theory is over time the laws will be emulated by other cultures and so prevent any cultural isolation and conflicts between cultures. The important thing is social cohesion will be attained so people can live in harmony with each other across divergent cultures because the cultures will change to accommodate the new laws and norms practiced in society.

 

[shunyadragon]

The theory is over time the laws will be emulated by other cultures and so prevent any cultural isolation and conflicts between cultures. The important thing is social cohesion will be attained so people can live in harmony with each other across divergent cultures because the cultures will change to accommodate the new laws and norms practiced in society.

Social cohesion will only take place with an empathetic multicultural view. You are describing a multicultural perspective.

 

[Shantanu]

Social cohesion will only take place with an empathetic multicultural view. You are describing a multicultural perspective.

I am describing a secular perspective in which established religions (those with written scriptures no matter how ancient) that are forced upon unsuspecting children and adults are not protected by the State by being given a free hand to do whatever they wish but are taken to task through the law enforcement system for the harm that potentially delusional beliefs do to society and the individual follower on a daily basis in terms of the personal suffering that is experienced from delusions. In other words it is in everyone'e interest that the change I am suggesting should happen.

 

[Nakosis]

1. This is a general question that has arisen on the value of religious diversity for humanity emanating from the lack of consensus on religious dictats and concerns on multiculturalism as practiced in several European countries. It follows the following exchange I have had with @adrian009:


adrian009 said: ↑

What works for one person may not work for another. It would be as much a mistake to force atheism on a theist, as to force theism on an atheist. The first principles for a Baha’i are freedom of religion along with unity in diversity.

Shantanu:

The concept followed of unity in diversity is inherently flawed on account of the fact that some religions preach violence to attain certain ends (eg Islam) whilst others preach total non-violence (Buddhism).

adrian009:

Most Muslims are not violent, whereas some Buddhists certainly are. Perhaps the violent Buddhists and Muslims have a more urgent need for a better religious path than the peaceful Buddhists and Muslims.

Shantanu:

That is not the only reason that I consider 'unity in diversity' as a highly flawed Baha'i' concept: the fact that some religions are atheistic whilst others are theistic imposes different outlooks and practices upon the adherents that are wholly incompatible with each other.

adrian009:

There is no reason that an atheistic Buddhist could not find common ground with a Theistic Christian. Its an inherent part of multiculturalism that works well in my country. We don't all need to have the same faith or even worldview to be able to get along.

Shantanu:

I would not trust anyone who did not share my religion/philosophy or worldview.

adrian009

Thanks for your honesty. We all exist of a spectrum of belief, attitudes and behaviours. At one end is exclusivity, the other inclusivity. I'm more at the inclusivity end, whereas you are more exclusive in your outlook. In regards the OP question when religions (and philosophies and worldviews) are either beneficial or harmful, there is a case to be made about benefits of inclusiveness and the harmfulness of exclusion.

Shantanu:

For me the only way to include all people in a common humanity is through economic interrelationships where everyone has a vested interest in staying united in cooperation because livelihoods are involved. That is the secular way to proceed. We do not need religion to bind people together in a common cause. In fact religion only causes social problems in trying to achieve inclusivity in the place of economic development as a social engineering strategy.


2. Do multicultural societies 'work' to the benefit of all when there is a fundamental question on how can one trust any religious person in what he or she says as being true?

It's why I support secularism. The diversity of religious belief means there will always be enough uncommon ground to cause issues between various beliefs.

The laws of a nation should be the standard imposed equally on everyone. Folks are free to enact any personal belief as long as they don't conflict with a nations laws.

Where we can work together on common ground, great. Where we can't, folks will have to go their own ways. Not a big problem unless we decide other folks have to accept/respect/follow what amounts to a personal belief system.

I don't know why this needs to lead to falsehoods. One's personal beliefs are their own. No reason to expect anyone else to have any respect for them.

 

[Shantanu]

I don't know why this needs to lead to falsehoods. One's personal beliefs are their own. No reason to expect anyone else to have any respect for them.

There are sound reasons for this: if a person behaves in a particular way that does not adhere to the norms of society dependent on his irrational religious or cultural personal beliefs he or she will try and justify his or her actions through lies and deception to his fellow human beings (thereby causing problems in society at large) as well as to the State authorities even in a court of law where he takes an oath upon his or her Holy book. These are very harmful and insidious in their impact on the need for a harmonised State. When people do something that is not normal they will try their best to escape justice, including keeping silent.

 

[icehorse]

Do multicultural societies 'work' to the benefit of all when there is a fundamental question on how can one trust any religious person in what he or she says as being true?

I look for the person or religion's core values under the surface. If the core values align, multiculturalism seems possible.

What I encounter a lot however is that folks aren't honest about the core values enshrined in their religions.

 

[Shantanu]

What I encounter a lot however is that folks aren't honest about the core values enshrined in their religions.

You seem to be implying that folks use their religions as a cover for their dishonesty?

 

[shunyadragon]

I am describing a secular perspective in which established religions (those with written scriptures no matter how ancient) that are forced upon unsuspecting children and adults are not protected by the State by being given a free hand to do whatever they wish but are taken to task through the law enforcement system for the harm that potentially delusional beliefs do to society and the individual follower on a daily basis in terms of the personal suffering that is experienced from delusions. In other words it is in everyone'e interest that the change I am suggesting should happen.

Nonetheless you are describing multiculturism also embraced at least by the Baha'i Faith and Unitarian Universalists.

 

[Shantanu]

Nonetheless you are describing multiculturism also embraced at least by the Baha'i Faith and Unitarian Universalists.

What I am describing is the gradual process of evolution that will inevitably take place within any given State for a natural replacement of several delusional multicultural faiths by a single true faith (yet undescribed) that will emerge as a result with the passage of time, once the legislative enactment of appropriate laws are passed and have been acted upon by law enforcement agencies.

 

[icehorse]

You seem to be implying that folks use their religions as a cover for their dishonesty?

Not exactly. I think that most old religions enshrine some ideas that are bad by modern standards. It's hard for people to admit this, so they pretend that their religions are modern when in fact they are not modern. In other words, I think it's difficult to defend most religions by modern standards.

This wouldn't be a problem except that most religions make extraordinary claims of perfection. If old religions didn't claim to be perfect they would be easier for other people to accept. So it's the combination of:

- claiming perfection
and
- being outdated

that causes so many problems.