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

[Enoch07]

It is one thing that we are all guilty of masturbation, sodomy and homosexuality, but to enshrine it in law through marriage legitimises these human conduct: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Its neither good or bad. It just is.

 

[Shantanu]

What if this baker came to the conclusion that he shouldn't bake the cake on his own from simply reading the bible? What if the baker's spiritual leader told him that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God and the baker interpreted that to mean he shouldn't bake wedding cakes for a gay wedding? Do we still drag the spiritual leader into court?

That said, what if there is a law that I feel is unjust and needs to be changed. And I tell my neighbor that I think that the law is unjust and that people shouldn't have to follow it. If my neighbor then chooses to disobey this law that I think is unjust and shouldn't have to be followed, could I then be brought before a judge and charged with somehow causing him to disobey the law?

If the baker says that he came to his conclusion by simply reading the Bible, the judge would ask him where in the Bible does it say that you should not bake a cake for a gay wedding or that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriages are wrong in Jesus eyes. If he can point that out than the Bible should be banned as anti-societal literature. The same applies to all Holy Books.

If the spiritual leader told the baker that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, the baker would be asked why did he listen to the spiritual leader without consulting God himself. If he says that he gets all his directives from the spiritual leader than the spiritual leader should be dragged into court to explain his conduct and to prove to the Court that there is a God and that the God has said that homosexuality is an abomination and gay marriages are to be marginalised if one does not wish to commit a sin. The judge will then have to decide and thereby impose the State religion on this matter.

As to whether you think a law is unjust and needs to be changed, there are appropriate channels for making representations to Parliament for doing so which should be accessed by you, or you should be brought to court for incitement to break the law on this issue. Disobeying the State's laws is not permissible under any circumstances because the State looks after your needs in terms of food, clothing, housing, etc so that you are then alive to enjoy life.

 

[Shantanu]

Why? What about eating meat...or not eating meat? Our evolution makes it possible for us to survive and thrive one way or the other, so how should humans behave on that issue? What about listening to music, and does it matter what kind of music? What about prayer...or not. Is there a right way to pray, is it necessary, to whom should prayer be direct?

Should you be an artist, or an architect, which is "the right way to behave?" Should you be celibate or father many children, which is "the right way to behave?" Should you be a sports fan, a lover of the arts, or a hard core music groupie, which is "the right way to behave?"

Do you have some sort of comprehensive list of all of the ways in which "humans should behave?"

The right way to behave is that which does not bring a person in conflict with the law of the State that one lives in. If you think you can get away with your conduct in any of these issues without being prosecuted by the Police for an offence or being taken to court in a civil litigation for legal redress than you are entitled to how you have determined that you should behave. That is the sole determinant of the right to behave. If what you are doing is definitely wrong and the State has not taken actions against you for whatever reason, you can publicise these decisions and let the people decide. These days this is easy to do because of the internet Blogging facilities. One must always test the law by initiating civil and criminal proceedings in the courts against peoples perceived rights to behave in particular ways to prevent public indecency and nuisance. If the laws do not exist than one should make representations to ones member of parliament or lodge a petition for Parliament to consider the representation. These facilities exist in the United Kingdom where I am a resident and I have personally taken advantage of them.

I do have a personal comprehensive list of the ways in which humans should behave and if I find a conduct distasteful I will highlight it in my Blog if the Police and Courts do not act to stop the menace.

 

[Shantanu]

If what you're saying is that you misspoke when you said religious influence shouldn't be a mitigating factor... but rather that in cases where religious influence WAS a mitigating factor, that the religious leaders should be held accountable as well.

The idea in what I am suggesting is that individual spiritual leaders will have to educate themselves and bring themselves uptodate on humanitarian values before advising people to break the law.

 

[Shantanu]

Well now, really, if "we are all guilty" as you say, then if you don't enshrine it in law, then we'll all have to go to jail. And if we're all in jail, who is going to feed us?

I am persuaded by your argument

 

[Shantanu]

An explanation would be helpful. So far, based on your previous posts it pretty much everyone that disagrees with you.

Let us start with religious leaders attributing 'stuff' to God's wishes for mankind: a judge in a court of law should sit down with the clergy of various religions and work out whether this is a delusional attribution as I suspect or whether it has any rational truth as being real on the balance of probability. The rest of religious scriptures would be seen to be man-made then: synthetic laws and dictations.

 

[SomeRandom]

The right way to behave is that which does not bring a person in conflict with the law of the State that one lives in. If you think you can get away with your conduct in any of these issues without being prosecuted by the Police for an offence or being taken to court in a civil litigation for legal redress than you are entitled to how you have determined that you should behave. That is the sole determinant of the right to behave. If what you are doing is definitely wrong and the State has not taken actions against you for whatever reason, you can publicise these decisions and let the people decide. These days this is easy to do because of the internet Blogging facilities. One must always test the law by initiating civil and criminal proceedings in the courts against peoples perceived rights to behave in particular ways to prevent public indecency and nuisance. If the laws do not exist than one should make representations to ones member of parliament or lodge a petition for Parliament to consider the representation. These facilities exist in the United Kingdom where I am a resident and I have personally taken advantage of them.

I do have a personal comprehensive list of the ways in which humans should behave and if I find a conduct distasteful I will highlight it in my Blog if the Police and Courts do not act to stop the menace.

See this confuzzles me. You preach abiding by state laws and humanitarian secular values, which I agree with. Yet condemn State Sanctioned Same Sex Marriage. Which are the laws of the land, at least in some countries. But provide no compelling secular humanitarian reason as to why it should be denied or illegal. Biology doesn’t care, to be frank. There’s no one being hurt and really the only risks are with polyamory. So by providing an incentive for gay couples to be monogamous (ie marriage) one can point to a net benefit for the community as a whole.
So why the random prejudice?

(To be clear, I have nothing against polyamory. What people do behind closed doors with other consenting adults is none of my business.)

 

[Shantanu]

See this confuzzles me. You preach abiding by state laws and humanitarian secular values, which I agree with. Yet condemn State Sanctioned Same Sex Marriage. Which are the laws of the land, at least in some countries. But provide no compelling secular humanitarian reason as to why it should be denied or illegal. Biology doesn’t care, to be frank. There’s no one being hurt and really the only risks are with polyamory. So by providing an incentive for gay couples to be monogamous (ie marriage) one can point to a net benefit for the community as a whole.
So why the random prejudice?

(To be clear, I have nothing against polyamory. What people do behind closed doors with other consenting adults is none of my business.)

The point of this thread is not my opinion on what is right morally or wrong morally: it is to highlight that there should be due process in the determination of the laws of the State that one lives in based on consensus and democratically determined values. I say that because religious laws cannot be relied upon to provide us with what is a sin and what is not a sin that society should not tolerate. It is to advocate steps to prevent humanitarian values being subverted by religious sentiments. Above all what I am arguing for is a slow and steady move towards universal laws that serves humanity, but through a process of gradual evolution so that short term disharmony is prevented and there is no culture clash. If religious institutions cannot abide by the humanitarian laws of the State then the State should take steps to quell the rebellion through laws that coerce or force people to tow the line. This will lead to social cohesion in the future and everyone can then sing from the same hymn book instead of being subjected to the vagaries of multiculturalism. I would like the world to have a single culture so that more time can be spent on real issues such as providing livelihoods, growing enough food, clothing, providing clean drinking water for all, and looking after biodiversity and addressing climate change as the pressing issues. The religions just get in the way of sorting out where humanity and the planet are heading into the future so that we are storing problems for future generations.

 

[Shantanu]

Its neither good or bad. It just is.

So be it. There are more pressing issues than the sexual preferences of humanity.

 

[Enoch07]

So be it. There are more pressing issues than the sexual preferences of humanity.

I agree, thank you for the civilized discussion.

 

[Shantanu]

Why on earth do you insist on this idea of "falsehoods." One person believes something, and does so honestly, another person believes something else, just as honestly. So the Jews that honour Shabbat on Saturday, and the Christians that honour sabbath on Sunday, can quite easily get together and have lunch on Monday, and spend their time discussing business, their favourite sports teams, newest movies, or even whether the CEO is a jerk or not. As long as they are comfortable within their own belief systems, and don't feel the need to shred the other's, what's the problem?

The problem is that they cannot all be right and the conduct separately of different beliefs brings conflicts for the State to try and resolve, for example should Saturday be a public holiday or should Sunday be a public holiday.

Who said "same sex marriage is to be celebrated" by anybody other then the celebrants? Not I...I merely said you need to tolerate it, because as long as you're not in it, it really doesn't have anything at all to do with you. (Or if you think it does, please tell me about the big impact on your life by 2 guys or 2 gals marrying each other.) And whether or not same sex marriage "stands to reason," as you put it, begs the question of "whose reason?" My relationship with my life partner is about the most reasonable thing in my life.....to me. I have no interest at all in what anybody else thinks about it, because none of them has to live it.

You may be happy with that relationship but the State has to sanction the relationship so that tax laws can be devised appropriately.

And finally, when you ask "why discriminate against a Muslim if he considers a dog to be too filthy to be allowed into his taxi?" I would counter with, "why allow the Muslim to discriminate against a person who needs their service animal to get through life?" It is not discriminatory at all to not hire the person who can't do whatever it is the job demands. In that case, they are not suited to the job, and everyone would expect them to go and look for the work that they are suitable for, and capable of performing. That's incumbent upon all of us. In other words, don't hire the colour blind guy to decorate your home...you're unlikely to be pleased with the result. But who could object to the colour blind guy heading up a global insurance company (and I actually have an example of this very thing, who I personally know)?

So macroeconomic policy should rule human conduct, and not humanitarian values?

 

[Shantanu]

I agree, thank you for the civilized discussion.

Thank you for enlightening me.

 

[Shantanu]

@Shantanu

From a Baha’i perspective, many of the dominant currents in societies everywhere are pushing people apart, not drawing them together. Although global poverty at the most extreme form has decreased, political and economic systems have enabled the enrichment of small groups with grossly exorbitant wealth. This extreme inequality fuels instability in world affairs.

The interactions of the individual, governing institutions, and the community as a whole are often fraught, as those arguing for the primacy of one or the other show more and more intransigence in their thinking. Religious fundamentalism is warping the character of communities, even nations. The failings of so many organizations and institutions of society have understandably led to a decline in public trust, but this has been systematically exploited by vested interests seeking to undermine the credibility of all sources of knowledge. Certain shared ethical principles, which seemed to be in the ascendant at the start of this century, are eroded, threatening the prevailing consensus about right and wrong that, in various arenas, had succeeded in holding humanity’s basest tendencies in check. And the will to engage in international collective action, which twenty years ago represented a powerful strain of thinking among world leaders, has been cowed, assailed by resurgent forces of racism, nationalism, and factionalism.

Thus do the forces of disintegration regroup and gain ground. The voices of discord and chaos threatens to drown out the voices of those noble-minded souls in every society who call for an end to conflict and struggle. As long as that call goes unheeded, there is no reason to doubt that the world’s current state of disorder and confusion will worsen, possibly with catastrophic consequences.

At some stage as in the twentieth century, humanity will take another significant step, perhaps this time decisive, towards enduring peace.

Adapted from a letter from the Universal House of Justice 18th January 2019.

18 January 2019 – To the Bahá’ís of the World | Bahá’í Reference Library

The simple method of working towards world peace is to develop a common culture through the integration of diverse belief systems based on rational truthseeking on humanitarian values: would you agree with that?

 

[Shantanu]

It depends on whether you define marriage as being for the purpose of raising a family, or for companionship. The very first reference to marriage shows it as not being specifically for family (came later) but for finding company by being joined with your other half.

I always figured that marriage was a natural thing to do as a human being is incomplete without the other sex: together my wife and I make a whole, the children are a bonus. We have a family life which we nurture.

 

[Shantanu]

Yep.

What you seem to be saying that disagreements in outlook between different cultures can be just ignored as inconsequential on its impact on humanity in trying to feed the people and provide all the other requirements of civilised living: when one is obsessed with religion the person does not think of anything other than that and considers that the planet owes him a living.

 

[LuisDantas]

What you seem to be saying that disagreements in outlook between different cultures can be just ignored as inconsequential on its impact on humanity in trying to feed the people and provide all the other requirements of civilised living: when one is obsessed with religion the person does not think of anything other than that and considers that the planet owes him a living.

No, that is not even remotely close to what I said. It does not even sound very conceivable to me.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The simple method of working towards world peace is to develop a common culture through the integration of diverse belief systems based on rational truthseeking on humanitarian values: would you agree with that?

To have peace on earth there are a multitude of milestones humanity must reach. A foundational principle is the oneness of humanity. We are all one people regardless of race, gender, nationality or creed.

Peace must be founded on justice. There needs to be an excellent working relationship between the individual, governing institutions and the community.

There must be international cooperation. We need to have shared principles and values to enable cooperation. We need to acknowledge and retain our diversity. Therefore the principle is unity in diversity.

The principles upon which justice are founded must be reasonable and compassionate. To better grasp these principles we each need to search for truth within ourselves to find peace with those around us.

Is that what you mean by humanitarian, integration and rational truth seeking?

 

[Shantanu]

To have peace on earth there are a multitude of milestones humanity must reach. A foundational principle is the oneness of humanity. We are all one people regardless of race, gender, nationality or creed.

Peace must be founded on justice. There needs to be an excellent working relationship between the individual, governing institutions and the community.

There must be international cooperation. We need to have shared principles and values to enable cooperation. We need to acknowledge and retain our diversity. Therefore the principle is unity in diversity.

The principles upon which justice are founded must be reasonable and compassionate. To better grasp these principles we each need to search for truth within ourselves to find peace with those around us.

Is that what you mean by humanitarian, integration and rational truth seeking?

We have nation states until some State is declared unsustainable for a good reason: each agroclimatic region of the Earth has its own natural resource and human endowments and people living within those agroclimatic zones need to live in accordance with those endowments. For this the nation states must assess their strengths and weaknesses and devise appropriate laws to make themselves sustainable economically and in terms of meeting their population demands for food, water, shelter and the rest of the amenities like health services. If a partcular nation state is a failed state in that it is unable to provide these to its own population, it must join other allies and form cooperative states to make themselves culturally and economically viable. This means that I believe in nation states and not in unity of humanity as a single world entity. Cultures should evolve within nation states. Each nation state must have laws appropriate to social cohesion in that state based on its natural resource endowments. They will be free to adopt any religion that is appropriate for their cultures and nothing should be imposed on them from outside the nation state. All national integration will be limited to within-state integration of the population of that state. The justice system appropriate to a given nation state will not be appropriate for another nation state.

Thus I do not subscribe to the notion of the oneness of humanity and unity in diversity across nation states. There must be competition between nation states to make humanity economically efficient in terms of the utilisation of global resources.

 

[Shantanu]

No, that is not even remotely close to what I said. It does not even sound very conceivable to me.

If I am not mistaken you were saying that multiculturalism does not lead to falshoods lies and deception: perhaps you will consider ignorance is the natural result of multiculturalism?

 

[Dawnofhope]

We have nation states until some State is declared unsustainable for a good reason: each agroclimatic region of the Earth has its own endowments and people living within those agroclimatic zones need to live in accordance with those endowments. For this the nation states must assess their strengths and weaknesses and devise appropriate laws to make themselves sustainable economically and in terms of meeting their population demands for food, water, shelter and the rest of the amenities like health services.

I agree.

If a partcular nation state is a failed state in that it is unable to provide these to its own population, it must join other allies and form cooperative states to make themselves culturally and economically viable.

A nation can fail for all sorts of reasons. An important reason is that it becomes overly nationalistic and aggressive and decides to expand its national interests by expanding and colonising other nations, including by force. This has been an important lesson of the twentieth century. There are three major wars that reinforced the need for international cooperation. They were the first and second world wars and the so called cold war. One of the clear lessons was the need for an international framework to avoid conflict and to prevent one agressor state dominanting another.

Another activity that requires international cooperation is the need to address environmental issues.

Most countries also rely on economic cooperation with other countries as they are unable to produce all goods and services themselves.

This means that I believe in nation states and not in unity of humanity as a single world entity.

I have provided three examples where global cooperation is necessary.

1/ To maintain peace between nations

2/ The environment

3/ Sharing of resources such as goods and services.

Cultures should evolve within nation states. Each nation state must have laws appropriate to social cohesion in that state based on its natural endowments.

That is true, but it does not negate the need for internation law, a global culture, the need to share resources and to manage sustainable development.

They will be free to adopt any religion that is appropriate for their cultures and nothing should be imposed on them from outside the nation state.

Individuals must be free to choose religion or not have a religion. It is not for the community or governong institutions of a country to determine what religion their citizens chose to follow or not.

All national integration will be limited to within-state integration of the population of that state.

This sounds a little too nationalistic and ignores the need for interdependence between nations.

The justice system appropriate to a given nation state will not be appropriate for another nation state.

There is however an opportunity for nations to learn from each other about application of national laws and policies.

Thus I do not subscribe to the notion of the oneness of humanity and unity in diversity across nation states. There must be competition between nation states to make humanity economically efficient in terms of the utilisation of global resources.

This sounds like a failed economic theory of a bygone era. The truth as I see it is we need more cooperation and less competition between nations.