• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
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?
How would that be the case, even hypothetically?
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Okay. Not sure what that has to do with who marries who. Not all religions even care.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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.

. . .but you claim to have a personal revelation from God and know God, 'attributing to God wishes whatever.'.

It is obvious that you trash all the the other religions other than your own personal revelation.

You assume judges in courts of law are unbiased to the point that they are will to sit down with clergy and tell them that there beliefs are delusional and their scriptures are man made as you believe. In the court system you are neglecting the fact that most judges belong to religions. Unless you are proposing a system of atheist judges, who would also reject your claim of knowing God through a digital radio.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
How would that be the case, even hypothetically?
The diverse religious institutions cannot agree on anything, not even if there is a God who wishes humans to conduct themselves in particular ways and if there is a God why do we need to listen to that God. Why cannot we work things out for ourselves using our scientific knowledge and commonsense. The result of multiculturalism is that human societies continue to fish in the dark to determine appropriate strategies for survival of human societies and the conservation of the environment that sustains us. Some believe in climate change some do not and the forces are adamantly holding on to their beliefs. Religious institutions carry on on the basis that God will look after all of us when there is no evidence of a benevolent God with any such intentions. The longer we leave matters to fester in a haphazard manner instead of determining a common approach to solving the problems of overpopulation and environmental degradation the worse it is going to get because we will continue to live in ignorance being bombarded with diverse viewpoints.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
. . .but you claim to have a personal revelation from God and know God, 'attributing to God wishes whatever.'.

It is obvious that you trash all the the other religions other than your own personal revelation.

You assume judges in courts of law are unbiased to the point that they are will to sit down with clergy and tell them that there beliefs are delusional and their scriptures are man made as you believe. In the court system you are neglecting the fact that most judges belong to religions. Unless you are proposing a system of atheist judges, who would also reject your claim of knowing God through a digital radio.
Fine. I did have revelations that I can rely upon as being true.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Fine. I did have revelations that I can rely upon as being true.

Like almost everyone else you 'believe' that you can rely on it being true, which leads to the problem that you aggressively reject all other religions that believe they live by Revelations from God they believe is true, and assert your way is the one and only true way,

Playing with a digital clock? or radio is only playing with a digital clock? or radio.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The diverse religious institutions cannot agree on anything, not even if there is a God who wishes humans to conduct themselves in particular ways and if there is a God why do we need to listen to that God.

Or, for that matter, whether we should.

I take it that you are proposing that multiculturalism is strongly tied to diversity of beliefs?

Why cannot we work things out for ourselves using our scientific knowledge and commonsense.

Mainly because we are still too tied to tribal behaviors and values, which often manifest as inconsequence and (politically) as support for cheap populism.


The result of multiculturalism is that human societies continue to fish in the dark to determine appropriate strategies for survival of human societies and the conservation of the environment that sustains us.

How the frak did multiculturalism get saddled with that unfair blame?


Some believe in climate change some do not and the forces are adamantly holding on to their beliefs. Religious institutions carry on on the basis that God will look after all of us when there is no evidence of a benevolent God with any such intentions. The longer we leave matters to fester in a haphazard manner instead of determining a common approach to solving the problems of overpopulation and environmental degradation the worse it is going to get because we will continue to live in ignorance being bombarded with diverse viewpoints.

You are attempting to make a case against multiculturalism with arguments that far better serve to advise secularism, widespread education, and social responsibility.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Like almost everyone else you 'believe' that you can rely on it being true, which leads to the problem that you aggressively reject all other religions that believe they live by Revelations from God they believe is true, and assert your way is the one and only true way,

Playing with a digital clock? or radio is only playing with a digital clock? or radio.
That was just a confirmation of whether there is a God or not. No one can believe any God unless there is confirmation. My education is why I am suggesting that we need to change. Address the substantive issues if you can. These are clearly laid out in this thread. You need to stop belittling me for using the digital clock to check for messages from God. It is the reason why I have survived State organised persecution that I am a mentally ill person without any scientifically-based ideas on how humanity should progress in the future. I do not take directions from God. I am my own person and believe in secular developments without the need to bring God into any argument. When I say I have had revelations, I mean just that. Whether those revelations come from God is another matter that will be left to my Consultant Psychiatrist to determine on 28 June 2019 because Canada House has not telephoned me even today with an earlier appointment. That just shows the extent of the persecution that I have suffered. The State authorities are well aware of my postings at Religious Forums and have nothing but maintained silence in response.
 
Last edited:

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Or, for that matter, whether we should.

I take it that you are proposing that multiculturalism is strongly tied to diversity of beliefs?



Mainly because we are still too tied to tribal behaviors and values, which often manifest as inconsequence and (politically) as support for cheap populism.




How the frak did multiculturalism get saddled with that unfair blame?




You are attempting to make a case against multiculturalism with arguments that far better serve to advise secularism, widespread education, and social responsibility.
The States that are multicultural cannot take a decision because any decision that they take brings them into conflict with some other aspect of the State and the result is total inaction and silence. They just plod on from day to day managing and patching up the fractures in the State's operations.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
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.
To have pride in ones nation is being patriotic and you seem to be against that in the Baha'i' faith, but the primary duty of a State is to provide food, clothes, shelter, health and security for its population so that other religious states cannot attack them to fulfill the objectives of that religion, eg Islam and Buddhism.
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
You are fond of using the term cooperation, where as it is an economic necessity to trade with each other by exchanging goods and services for which a state has comparative advantage in producing competitively. Those states that cannot compete are the failed states. This is generally caused by the fact that their population follow religions instead of working hard for livelihoods and producing goods and services that meet a market demand. As far as the environment is concerned no one is interested in protecting the environment so long as we continue to exploit all the natural resources that the Earth has to offer. No one cares for global warming either. Certainly I see no evidence that God is doing anything to warn humanity of the dangers of continuing to use fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate. The likeilhood is that it will only stop when we run out of finite resources and then only will the global population start to decline. There are considerable dangers in a God-centric approach to developing coping strategies for the survival of humanity beyond this century. God is doing nothing to stop the over exploitation of the environmental resources. He does not care whether we survive or die out when our resources run dry. So let us get away from God and focus on living properly like ordinary human beings.
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.
No doubt that cooperation will come from a religion like the Baha'i' faith that God has said should be in the next phase of human development, except that that cooperation is pie in the sky for the simple reason that we are all individuals living solely to fulfill our own personal objectives in life. What you seem to be recommending is the abolition of nation states in favour of a universal humanity.
.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
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.

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.

That's the problem with ancient religious books... ONE person can read a passage and conclude that God wants A and another person can read the exact same passage and conclude that God wants B. Should a book be banned because the baker INCORRECTLY interpreted a passage? And again, WHO exactly gets to decide which passages are being CORRECTLY interpreted and who decides which ones are not?


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.

And what if the baker claims that he DID consult God and that God told him not to bake the cake? Do you plan to grag God before the court?

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.

That doesn't answer the question asked. If I tell my neighbor that I think a law is unjust and that people shouldn't obey unjust laws and then my neighbor chooses to disobey what he considers to be an unjust law, is the court going to go after ME for voicing my opinion?
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
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.


Which means that you do NOT actually think that religious influence shouldn't be a mitigating factor in deciding a persons guilt... ONLY that the spiritual leader who influenced them should be held accountable.

And again, I have to ask who exactly are you going to trust to decide for YOU whether or not a religion advocates for what YOU consider to be humanitarian values?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
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?

A lot of society operates on blind trust anyways. Trust is not a major factor for the masses.

I do not think multicultural societies work for the benefit of all. It works for "the greater good" which changes on a whim at times and who happens to be in power.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
That's the problem with ancient religious books... ONE person can read a passage and conclude that God wants A and another person can read the exact same passage and conclude that God wants B. Should a book be banned because the baker INCORRECTLY interpreted a passage? And again, WHO exactly gets to decide which passages are being CORRECTLY interpreted and who decides which ones are not?
Of course books should be reclassified as fiction, and not used when taking oaths in courts.
And what if the baker claims that he DID consult God and that God told him not to bake the cake? Do you plan to grag God before the court?
The baker would be required to produce evidence of God's communication to him: if he cannot provide the evidence that would rule out his mitigation.
If I tell my neighbor that I think a law is unjust and that people shouldn't obey unjust laws and then my neighbor chooses to disobey what he considers to be an unjust law, is the court going to go after ME for voicing my opinion?
Aiding and abetting a law to be broken would render you liable to punishment from the law enforcement agencies, yes.
And again, I have to ask who exactly are you going to trust to decide for YOU whether or not a religion advocates for what YOU consider to be humanitarian values?
I will trust the official judges: that is their job. They will have to be trained to do this assessment taking evidence from experts like reputable Professors of Psychiatry.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
A lot of society operates on blind trust anyways. Trust is not a major factor for the masses.

I do not think multicultural societies work for the benefit of all. It works for "the greater good" which changes on a whim at times and who happens to be in power.
That is because people take instructions from the State unquestioningly: when the State institutions are questioned they frown upon the intrusion in multicultural societies where there is not a unified humanity living in social cohesion.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Of course books should be reclassified as fiction, and not used when taking oaths in courts.
The baker would be required to produce evidence of God's communication to him: if he cannot provide the evidence that would rule out his mitigation.
Aiding and abetting a law to be broken would render you liable to punishment from the law enforcement agencies, yes.
I will trust the official judges: that is their job. They will have to be trained to do this assessment taking evidence from experts like reputable Professors of Psychiatry.

The society that you are describing sounds like a totalitarian hell to me. Freedom of speech would effectively be neutralized. If I voice my OPINION that a law is unjust and should be ignored, while never actively ignoring any laws, it's ludicrous to suggest that I should face legal consequences if someone else agrees with my opinion and CHOOSES to act on it.

And I'm sure that you'd trust the judges ONLY as long as you agree with with what 'properly trained' means and that you agree with who they consider to be 'reputable Professors of Psychiatry'.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course books should be reclassified as fiction, and not used when taking oaths in courts.
The baker would be required to produce evidence of God's communication to him: if he cannot provide the evidence that would rule out his mitigation.
Aiding and abetting a law to be broken would render you liable to punishment from the law enforcement agencies, yes.
I will trust the official judges: that is their job. They will have to be trained to do this assessment taking evidence from experts like reputable Professors of Psychiatry.
I don’t know. I mean fired for not doing your job, I could understand. But that’s hardly worth getting the goddamned law enforcement in on it.
Don’t get me wrong, I think said baker should have been fired, personally. Because he was being unprofessional and refusing to do the very thing he was hired to do. Bake freaking cakes. Unless he was the owner. In which case, that’s on him.
Beyond that, seems far too petty for the law enforcement agencies to get involved.
Too much government interference.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
The society that you are describing sounds like a totalitarian hell to me. Freedom of speech would effectively be neutralized. If I voice my OPINION that a law is unjust and should be ignored, while never actively ignoring any laws, it's ludicrous to suggest that I should face legal consequences if someone else agrees with my opinion and CHOOSES to act on it.

And I'm sure that you'd trust the judges ONLY as long as you agree with with what 'properly trained' means and that you agree with who they consider to be 'reputable Professors of Psychiatry'.
Over time judges will learn what the up-to-date humanitarian values are of society. The important thing is justice must not only be done but be seen to have been done.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
I don’t know. I mean fired for not doing your job, I could understand. But that’s hardly worth getting the goddamned law enforcement in on it.
Don’t get me wrong, I think said baker should have been fired, personally. Because he was being unprofessional and refusing to do the very thing he was hired to do. Bake freaking cakes. Unless he was the owner. In which case, that’s on him.
Beyond that, seems far too petty for the law enforcement agencies to get involved.
Too much government interference.
It is what needs to happen for the emancipation of society so that truth prevails.
 
Top