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

[Shantanu]

Did you read what I wrote? I SPECIFICALLY stated that RELIGION SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR in the suspects guilt or innocence. IF a law was broken the persons' religion doesn't matter.

The person who has broken the law can say that he or she did not know that the law was broken because his or her religion allows that particular conduct.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Parliament (House of Commons) and the Lords (House of Lords) in the United Kingdom for example decide what is fraudulent proselytising and what is not.

So you ARE suggesting that we criminalize certain religious beliefs. And how exactly would you go about deciding which religions are legitimate and which ones are fraudulent? Or better yet, how do you propose letting SOMEONE ELSE decide for you which are legitimate and which are fraudulent?

 

[Nakosis]

The Courts have to do what the enacted statutory law says: the government has to be careful in the enactment of the laws.

They ought to, but again they are only human.

 

[Shantanu]

So you ARE suggesting that we criminalize certain religious beliefs. And how exactly would you go about deciding which religions are legitimate and which ones are fraudulent? Or better yet, how do you propose letting SOMEONE ELSE decide for you which are legitimate and which are fraudulent?

The priests who interpret Holy Books by pointing out that that religious followers do not need to abide by the common law of the country when teaching the religions to vulnerable members of the public should be criminalised because State laws supercede religious laws.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The person who has broken the law can say that he or she did not know that the law was broken because his or her religion allows that particular conduct.

And IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE. If I rob a bank and claim that I didn't know I was breaking a law, the judge at my trial would tell me TOO BAD. EVEN if I said that I didn't know it was wrong because my religion allows the behavior, the judge would STILL hold me accountable for robbing the bank.

 

[QuestioningMind]

They can cite mitigating circumstances to the judge such as religious upbringing and beliefs before sentencing is announced, so the punishment is influenced by the upbringing and present beliefs.

So you are saying that you don't believe that judges should allow mitigating circumstances to influence their sentencing. That's fine, but why exactly are you restricting this to religious circumstances? Shouldn't you be arguing that mitigating circumstances shouldn't EVER be considered, whether the circumstances are religious or not?

 

[QuestioningMind]

The priests who interpret Holy Books by pointing out that that religious followers do not need to abide by the common law of the country when teaching the religions to vulnerable members of the public should be criminalised because State laws supercede religious laws.

So you are suggesting that the religious leaders who supported the baker who broke established law by refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding are criminals who should be punished by law?

 

[Shantanu]

So you are saying that you don't believe that judges should allow mitigating circumstances to influence their sentencing. That's fine, but why exactly are you restricting this to religious circumstances? Shouldn't you be arguing that mitigating circumstances shouldn't EVER be considered, whether the circumstances are religious or not?

Mitigating circumstances must be considered on merit on purely humanitarian grounds, but not on religious grounds because the mere fact that a person has been taught how to commit a crime by religious bodies means that the religious bodies must be held to account separately.

 

[Shantanu]

So you are suggesting that the religious leaders who supported the baker who broke established law by refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding are criminals who should be punished by law?

Yes. The judge should have asked the baker who told you to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding and that individual priest would then be identified and brought to face justice.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Mitigating circumstances must be considered on merit on purely humanitarian grounds, but not on religious grounds because the mere fact that a person has been taught how to commit a crime by religious bodies means that the religious bodies must be held to account separately.

What a second... so if I was raised by a father with no religious influences who told me it was okay to commit a crime then that SHOULD be considered as a mitigating circumstance. However, if that same father had told me it was okay to commit a crime because his RELIGION said it was okay, THEN it should NOT be considered a mitigating circumstance?

I'm confused. IF mitigating circumstances should be considered, why should it matter if those mitigating circumstances were inspired by religion or something else?

 

[LuisDantas]

The person who has broken the law can say that he or she did not know that the law was broken because his or her religion allows that particular conduct.

One can claim conflict between law and creed, but that is not the same as a claim of ignorance of law - which is no defense, in any case.

 

[Shantanu]

What a second... so if I was raised by a father with no religious influences who told me it was okay to commit a crime then that SHOULD be considered as a mitigating circumstance. However, if that same father had told me it was okay to commit a crime because his RELIGION said it was okay, THEN it should NOT be considered a mitigating circumstance?

I'm confused. IF mitigating circumstances should be considered, why should it matter if those mitigating circumstances were inspired by religion or something else?

That is a valid concern.My answer is that traditionally, religious laws were all the laws that were prevalent in society. This was in the dark ages. So those still living in the dark ages without updating themselves with current humanitarian values of living in a decent society are criminals without any mitigating factors operating to save themselves from punishment for their crimes. So the father is guilty of a crime for not updating himself with current humanitarian values and still living in the dark ages of the past centuries from where we have learnt to become civilised now. Have I made this clear now?

 

[Shantanu]

One can claim conflict between law and creed, but that is not the same as a claim of ignorance of law - which is no defense, in any case.

No. The religious person allowed himself to put his religion on a higher level than the law of the State when it is the State that feeds, clothes and houses him to live in comfort, not the religion or God. He is therefore not facing reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

No. The religious person allowed himself to put his religion on a higher level than the law of the State when it is the State that feeds, clothes and houses him to live in comfort, not the religion or God. He is therefore not facing reality.

All that is true, but I just don't see how that contradicts what I said.

 

[Shantanu]

All that is true, but I just don't see how that contradicts what I said.

You mean this?:

Why, of course not. How could anyone think such a thing, anyway?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

Multiculturalism can, in fact, work quite well. I live in what the United Nations has called "the most multicultural city in the world." With around half of its population (5.9 million in the greater Toronto area) born outside the country, Toronto is often referred to as 'the most multicultural city in the world.' Located in Canada, this city boasts 200 ethnic groups with over 140 languages spoken. And of course, every religion is celebrated here. I myself have been to hundreds of mosques, temples, churches, cathedrals, Quaker meeting houses, Synagogues, and on and on.

The trick to multicultural success is simply this: it is not necessary to believe every system of belief is good, but to respect the beliefs of others anyway. It is not necessary to celebrate or participate in the rituals or cultural practices of others, but to respect the rights of others to participate in them...so long as they do not fall foul of the laws of the nation, the province or the city. It is not necessary to approve of the sexual practices of those who are not oriented the way you are, and it is certainly neither necessary nor recommended to participate in them! … but permit others the free use of their conscience!

This requires a certain amount of accommodation, but we in Toronto have not found that particularly difficult, and in fact, we go further and have many annual street fairs and festivals that celebrate all sorts of traditions, and a very large number of Torontonians of every race, nation of origin, language and religion attend a lot of them. I certainly do. Large Canadian banks and other corporations, and governments, have been providing family benefits to the families of their employees, even same-sex families like mine, since before our nation adopted same-sex marriage.

Some accommodations are admittedly difficult for some: the Mulsim cab driver who won't accept a dog in his vehicle because he considers it "unclean" is going to have a hard time keeping a job with any of our major cab companies. But that is not unreasonable: if he can't deal with the customers, he's in the wrong business and needs to look for something else.

Edited to add: I'm reminded of the problem of the baker who wouldn't make a cake for the wedding of a same-sex because he religiously disapproved of homosexuality. But guess what, baking the cake is neither approving nor disapproving...it is merely providing the service that you offer. Doing your job, in other words. The plastic surgeon who provides a cute button nose to someone who wants it many not think it looks appropriate, but as long as there's a consenting adult who wants it, well, that, too, is just providing the service he offers.

 

[Enoch07]

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 can work hypothetically. But it has yet to be proven to work in the real world. Honestly it's about adjustment. The people that can adjust to western liberal society, will fit in and can contribute their own part of their diverse beautiful culture. But the problem is the hold outs. The ones that despise western liberal society. They will not adjust and so they need to be kept at bay. And should they attack, like they attacked citizens in Israel today, there needs to be a reckoning.

A reckoning is coming.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

As an experiment on whether multiculturalism "works", try to invite someone from China into your house to live with you. Nothing against the Chinese, but you will quickly find out that the American rule of eye contact is found as aggressive, that your handshakes are too firm, that if I remember correctly, burping after a meal is encouraged. We haven't even gotten into the idea of saving face yet.

As a guest, you might find someone from China sweet. We had a sister's friend from Japan over and she was pretty cool. But this is the difference between guests (why we have tourism) and permanent boarders (why we have borders). Cultures can only coexist when they abide by the rules of the host country, just as guests will get kicked out of a house if they act rude to the standards of the host.

Oh, but you say, someone similar might be acceptable. Alright then, let's try Canada. After all, they're close by and they kinda seem similar to us... nope.

Our nearby priest is moving to Canada because she sees the whole socialized medicine thing, and feels like Americans aren't friendly to liberalism. Unfortunately, as we read about Canada, we realized she will probably have a rude awakening. Canadians tend to be very understated, and well kinda cold. In US, any church would announce their new priest. The church in Canada? It was like page 4 of announcements, and kinda "their church will tell you about her." I'm pretty sure even though I'm very standoffish, if I met someone who behaved like that, I'd kinda want them to leave.

The bottom line is, we cannot expect people to act like us, so unless they behave, they can at best be tourists. The idea of "celebrating differences" is an invitation for street brawls. No, I don't think we need to celebrate differences. I think we need to enforce our culture, and those who can't cope need to get out.

 

[Shantanu]

Multiculturalism can, in fact, work quite well. I live in what the United Nations has called "the most multicultural city in the world." With around half of its population (5.9 million in the greater Toronto area) born outside the country, Toronto is often referred to as 'the most multicultural city in the world.' Located in Canada, this city boasts 200 ethnic groups with over 140 languages spoken. And of course, every religion is celebrated here. I myself have been to hundreds of mosques, temples, churches, cathedrals, Quaker meeting houses, Synagogues, and on and on.

The trick to multicultural success is simply this: it is not necessary to believe every system of belief is good, but to respect the beliefs of others anyway. It is not necessary to celebrate or participate in the rituals or cultural practices of others, but to respect the rights of others to participate in them...so long as they do not fall foul of the laws of the nation, the province or the city. It is not necessary to approve of the sexual practices of those who are not oriented the way you are, and it is certainly neither necessary nor recommended to participate in them! … but permit others the free use of their conscience!

This requires a certain amount of accommodation, but we in Toronto have not found that particularly difficult, and in fact, we go further and have many annual street fairs and festivals that celebrate all sorts of traditions, and a very large number of Torontonians of every race, nation of origin, language and religion attend a lot of them. I certainly do. Large Canadian banks and other corporations, and governments, have been providing family benefits to the families of their employees, even same-sex families like mine, since before our nation adopted same-sex marriage.

Some accommodations are admittedly difficult for some: the Mulsim cab driver who won't accept a dog in his vehicle because he considers it "unclean" is going to have a hard time keeping a job with any of our major cab companies. But that is not unreasonable: if he can't deal with the customers, he's in the wrong business and needs to look for something else.

Edited to add: I'm reminded of the problem of the baker who wouldn't make a cake for the wedding of a same-sex because he religiously disapproved of homosexuality. But guess what, baking the cake is neither approving nor disapproving...it is merely providing the service that you offer. Doing your job, in other words. The plastic surgeon who provides a cute button nose to someone who wants it many not think it looks appropriate, but as long as there's a consenting adult who wants it, well, that, too, is just providing the service he offers.

So you do not see that living in falsehoods, downright lies and deceit harms individuals as well as the wider society and on the contrary these facets of a truly multicultural society with traditional religions and practices such as same sex marriage is to be celebrated even if they do not stand to reason? And why discriminate against a Muslim if he considers a dog to be too filthy to be allowed into his taxi?

 

[Shantanu]

It can work hypothetically. But it has yet to be proven to work in the real world. Honestly it's about adjustment. The people that can adjust to western liberal society, will fit in and can contribute their own part of their diverse beautiful culture. But the problem is the hold outs. The ones that despise western liberal society. They will not adjust and so they need to be kept at bay. And should they attack, like they attacked citizens in Israel today, there needs to be a reckoning.

A reckoning is coming.

What about same sex marriage: is that not contrary to truth of how humans should behave?