Multiculturalism

What you are describing is not a policy. Nobody dictates where immigrants are allowed to live. Are you suggesting that someone should?

I should have been more clear. I was mostly referring to the resettlement of refugees. Voluntary agencies (VolAgs) are responsible for the resettling of immigrant refugees.

quote:

---

Church World Services:

​

Those approved for admission are allocated among the nine U.S. voluntary agencies, including CWS, with which the U.S. government has cooperative agreements for refugee resettlement.

​

The placement cities and numbers of refugees are proposed annually by each of those agencies, and are subject to approval by the U.S. Department of State.

---

quote:

---

World Relief:

​

World Relief works in partnership with the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration and the Office of Refugee Resettlement to provide initial resettlement and placement as well as employment, youth, education and legal services to refugees entering the U.S.

---

If you look at others you will see a similar pattern.ABE: So you don't have to look too hard:

quote:

---

Refugee Resettlement Program (PDF) from Office of Refugee Resettlement:

​

Local resettlement agency means a local affiliate or subcontractor that has entered into a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement with the United States Department of State or other appropriate Federal agency to provide for the reception and initial placement of refugees in the United States.

---

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

My father and my brother are both living in the usa as immigrants. I don't recall any period of forcing them to live in an English or European enclave. Is this a new thing?Ah, you mean the actions of mostly private groups in housing refugees. I think the needs of refugees are different, and the moral situation is likewise changed as these people typically didn't choose to leave their culture of origin, and were coerced into so doing. They often have traumatic histories, involuntary familial separation or deaths, financial disaster and are suffering with considerable cultural dissonance at the sudden change in circumstances. Is isolating these people from people with which they have a common shared experience a more moral course than housing them together? I'd need to hear the argument regarding your alternative strategy. Less gross than encouraging children to take candy from strangers or dressing up like a corpse, but OK. Costumes and candy have religious origins that people who follow certain religions get uneasy with. As Harlan F. Stone once said, "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties.", given the large number of times they have litigated over religious issues. And America has a tiny Somali population. Over the entirety of the united states, there is probably the same number as there are in the UK. This is the group of people who were in the news demanding Halal food availability at food banks. I'm not sure they're much more numerous than JW's and they certainly have less funds for legal action. There are like two to three times as many Hmong in the region. st. Paul are not banning Halloween, though. It still is a major part of childhood for those kids. They just have to get 6 hours of compulsory education and they get 8-10 hours to do what they like within their parent's discretion.You note it could have 'serious influence', but I don't think it's that serious. And if it is, on the plus side:

quote:

---

Minneapolis schools and others have very similar policies. For national holidays such as presidents’ birthdays and Martin Luther King Jr. Day, schools are required to recognize those holidays for at least one hour.

---

Assimilation is still happening. Do they normally collect most of this candy at school under direction of teachers? Is the culture of giving children access to that amount of sugar actually something we should be concerned with given how obesity is such a problem and all. I mean, we trick or treat here, but there was no conceivable way we'd end up with those kinds of quantities. From wiki

quote:

---

Christian attitudes towards Halloween are diverse. In the Anglican Church, some dioceses have chosen to emphasize the Christian traditions associated with All Hallow's Eve Some of these practises include praying, fasting and attending worship services.
Other Protestant Christians also celebrate All Hallows' Eve as Reformation Day, a day to remember the Protestant Reformation, alongside All Hallow's Eve or independently from it

---

But yes, there are lots of religious positions somewhat or entirely against Halloween, including JWs, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus and so on.Again, this is a diverse religious issue rather than a general cultural one. These are children we're talking about. When it comes to government mandated attendance at government institutes of education who are dealing with children - I think there is a high duty of care in effect. I guess that depends on the depth and commonality of the feelings involved. I've not heard it be a problem before, so I presume its not considered a big deal by anybody, but if it became a big deal? Yeah, maybe. I'm pretty sure I was advocating for a compromise rather than a capitulation by either side. Assuming you are teaching English to them, does that not require some familiarity with the language of the students? Is it not possible to discuss class rules within a common language?

quote:

---

For example, people of some cultures will continue to talk until interrupted, (Neuda, 2010) but interrupting could be very uncomfortable for many American teachers. As mentioned earlier, teachers usually have their own culturally defined expectations for how students should behave, yet they rarely make them explicit (Fowler-Frey, 1998). Fowler-Frey asserts that teachers need to teach students the kind of culturally defined behavior that is expected in and out of the classroom. Brown (1994) says sociolinguistic rules should be part of the second language curriculum. Furthermore, teachers should be explicit about their expectations for student behavior and in doing so, teach the learner how to learn. However, the teacher should be cautioned to add the host culture’s expected ways of behaving, rather than correct or replace learners’ existing culturally preferred behavior, so as to not degrade the student’s native behavior (Fowler-Frey, 1998) because, as indicated earlier, if the student perceives the host culture to be hostile, they may lose enthusiasm for learning (Neuda, 2010).

​

...
If it is too late for prevention, Dobmeier and Moran (2008) provide suggestions for dealing with disruption and resistance as they occur. First, they caution that behavior may persist or worsen if it is ignored or dealt with poorly. Even though many of the teachers they surveyed indicated they felt unprepared to deal with student disruptions, the authors advise teachers to view the situation as an opportunity to teach appropriate
behavior. Participant-teachers in the study recommended that teachers should have a private, friendly and empathetic conversation with disruptive students. They add that these conversations may take some bravery and skill.

---

quote:

---

Disruptive behavior in adult ESL students is very common, with only 4.3% of teachers indicating that they had not experienced any of the disruptive or resistive student behaviors listed in the survey. As show in Figure 5, however, the most commonly experienced behaviors are not severe, such as talking to classmates during teacher presentation (87.2%), chronic tardiness (85.1%), using cell phones in class (84.1%) and being slow to start a task (78.7%). It is worth noting that what might be considered moderately severe behavior is also quite common: being rude to classmates (74.5%), leaving the classroom at inappropriate times (72.3%), not following teacher recommendations (48.9%), stating that teacher methods are ineffective in front of the class (42.6%) and deliberately not following directions (25.5%). Finally, the most severe
form of behaviorthreat of or actual physical confrontations between students or between a student and a teacherdo, in fact, occur, though rarely: physically threatening a classmate or teacher (10.6%) and physically fighting (6.4%)

---

TEACHER PERSPECTIVES AND RESPONSES TO DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN ADULT ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSES, Meghan M. Boyle, Hamline University, Saint Paul, Minnesota, June 2013 - gives some numbers to the phenomenon you are discussing.

Okay. Now we have a policy to critique. Tell me how you would place 100 Iraqi refugee families if you were given the task. Let's assume that you do have a budget and that we can grade both the long term and short term success of your policy. School for the kids starts in three months.Then let's look at how the government actually does this.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's a fact, but the question is 'why'? As ever, the reality is more complex.

quote:

---

One of the reasons offered by survey respondents
for the lack of prosecutions was the difficulty in
identifying the crime (29.03 per cent, n=9), due to
the low level of reporting by the victim or others;
another reason given was the difficulty in persuading
victims (in most cases children) to testify against the
perpetrators (usually including the parents) (29.03
per cent, n=9). Others mentioned the difficulty
of gathering the appropriate evidence, including
medical evidence (16.13 per cent, n=5). According to
one respondent, ‘the standard of evidence required
by CPS is difficult to obtain. It is unrealistic to expect
child victims to report or provide evidence against
family.’

---

quote:

---

With intelligence-led policing and the use of surveillance against those suspected of perpetrating FGM, it ought to be possible to gather sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution without having to rely
on evidence from victims. It would be necessary in such circumstances for sufficient ongoing funding to be raised, in order to ensure that prosecutions initiated in this way can continue to a proper and effective conclusion.

---

The report also notes lack of training and reporting requirements. The only thing it really says about cultural sensitivity is

quote:

---

By far the most important factor, however, is excessive cultural sensitivity: quite simply, there is a reluctance to combat the practice of FGM for fear of appearing reactionary or prejudiced.

---

In the introduction, but that's not supported within the text. An Unpunished Crime: The lack of prosecutions for female genital mutilation in the UK, Julie Bindel, 2014Fair enough, but what evidence did you base the conclusion that a main reason was the racial element? If it is race, that's not culture. Neither is jumping to conclusions and fearing the worst. I was just saying presenting as evidence of any case might be premature at this stage. Maybe later, we'll be in a better position to discuss it.Or alternatively, we could discuss the Rotherham situation?

quote:

---

Several people interviewed expressed the general view that ethnic considerations had influenced the policy response of the Council and the Police, rather than in individual cases. One example was given by the Risky Business project Manager (1997- 2012) who reported that she was told not to refer to the ethnic origins of perpetrators when carrying out training.

​

All the senior officers we interviewed were asked whether ethnic considerations influenced their decision making. All were unequivocal that this did not happen. However, several of those involved in the operational management of services reported some attempts to pressurise them into changing their approach to some issues. This mainly affected the support given to Pakistani-heritage women fleeing domestic violence, where a small number of councillors had demanded that social workers reveal the whereabouts of these women or effect reconciliation rather than supporting the women to make up their own minds. The Inquiry team was confident
that ethnic issues did not influence professional decision-making in individual cases. Frontline staff did not report personal experience of attempts to influence their practice or decision making because of ethnic issues. Those who had involvement in CSE were acutely aware of these issues and recalled a general nervousness in the earlier years about discussing them, for fear of being thought racist.

---

I mean, even if we were to reject multiculturalism, that wouldn't overcome the fear of being thought of as racist when discussing the racial demographics of crime, but in any case, the report is long and discusses many issues. The ethnicity one is more about a few people feeling nervous about it, a sense that others were too, and some senior officials wanting to downplay the racial focus as well as a view existed that it had influenced policy. I'm not sure this kind of thing constitutes an 'insidious threat to a society', when we look at some of the other problems in the system.

What values or national identity are promoted by Halloween?

Now, you don't really believe most of that; you know better than to take much notice of self-reports and n=9 can be added to the pile marked 'mildly interesting, now can we please find a representative and statistically valid sample. And the fact that the report finds the most important factor to be 'excessive cultural sensitivity' must be set aside!!The police and CPS don't have many qualms these days prosecuting domestic violence cases and even issue warrants against women refusing to give evidence, whereas 10 years ago it was thought to be equally difficult and before that it was barely regarded as a crime - hence the term 'just a domestic.' Now the police are under instruction to arrest and the CPS have targets for it.The fact is that the will to tackle the problem did not exist, if it had, ways and means would have been found and resources would have been diverted to it. The situation regarding evidence hasn't changed much but the political situation is changing now and we might finally see some movement on it. What is prosecuted and what is not is a political act and that is my only problem here - multiculturalism shouldn't be something apart. If any group in society is allowed to practice what, in other circumstances, would be regarded as offences that would attract very long prison sentences we finally get into these kind of problems.That's what is insidious - the problem is not multiculturalism, the problem is a nervous fear of enforcing the laws and therefore value systems of the incumbent nation on the immigrant population. And that creates problems of all kinds.

It is considerably better than your n=0 reports that you have presented. The report didn't find that. It stated it in the intro, but as far as I can see, it doesn't actually find that. If you're reading of the findings is different, please illuminate me. Then at least direct your criticisms to the CPS rather than the police. I'm not sure what your last clause is meant to mean. I agree, but I don't thing this group in society is allowed to practice it. What does it look like when police are not nervous about being perceived as racist? Indeed - but how much of this fear exists, how big a role does it play and how much is it racial vs cultural? You seem unhappy to provide anything to back up your notion that this is an insidious problem directly caused by multicultural perspectives. The studies I present highlight more mundane explanations as being most significant, funding, awareness, reporting, training, the treatment and protection of victims etc.I'm happy to believe that some police investigations are hampered by racism and others are hampered by fear of being perceived as racist, I'd just prefer to see some evidence for the claim, the proposed causal agent, and the magnitude of the problem. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The evidence is that a specific law was enacted in 1985 to combat the identified problem of female genital mutilation. We now have a report saying that some 130,000 British children - mostly pre-pubescent children - have had their clitoris and labia removed (and other procedures involving stitching and pricking the labia) in non-surgical conditions by amateurs. They know that it is an illegal act; so much so that they take them out of the country to do it. It an offence that carries a 14 year term.Given the above, it's also an offence that is rather easy to find evidence of given the will to do so - rather more easily than children suffering from shaken baby syndrome; another crime we seem able to prosecute without too many concerns for the feelings of the offenders. What do you think the reason for not prosecuting such crimes are?Btw, the claim is not about racism, it's the opposite, it's a fear of being accused of racism - as the report found but you prefer not to accept, there was an excessive over-sensitivity to cultural issues. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Five hundred miles away in Bristol, a group of schoolgirls tell me about "FGM parties"."They cut them all together, as a group, because it is cheaper and quicker that way," explains 17-year-old Amina."At first the girls are all excited because it's a party, until they realise what is going to happen, and then they get frightened."It's done by the elder women, or the Imam, whoever is expert at cutting."Isabelle Gillete-Faye thinks the UK needs to do more about FGM
About 20,000 children in England and Wales, and about the same number in France, are deemed "at risk" every year.The laws which made FGM illegal were introduced in France and England at about the same time, in the mid-1980s.But whereas some 100 parents and practitioners of FGM have been convicted in France, there has never been a single prosecution in the UK.I meet Isabelle Gillette-Faye, a seasoned campaigner against FGM, at the Gare du Nord in Paris.She is trying her best not to be rude about the English."In England, you are very respectful of your immigrants," she says."It is very different in France. They have to integrate and they have to obey our laws."She walks me over to the Eurostar platform to tell me the story of two little girls who were about to board the train headed for St. Pancras to be mutilated in the UK."It was a Friday. We heard just in time. They had tickets for the Saturday."A family member tipped us off. We told the police and they were stopped from making the journey."The parents were cautioned. Had they gone ahead with the mutilations and been found out, they would have been imprisoned for up to 13 years."We simply will not tolerate this practice," Isabelle explains.Does she think many French children have been cut in the UK?"Yes, because you do not care," she says.Scotland Yard's specialist in child abuse cases, Commander Simon Foy, disagrees."I am not necessarily sure that the availability of a stronger sense of prosecution will change it (the incidence of FGM) for the better."The trouble is that what Isabelle calls our "respect" and what others call "cultural sensitivity" makes detection in the UK almost impossible.In France, mothers and babies attend specialist clinics up until the age of six.The genitalia of baby girls are routinely examined for signs of mutilation.Dr Amellou, who works in a clinic in a Paris suburb explains that after the age of six, responsibility is handed over to school medical teams.They continue to inspect girls, especially those coming from those high-risk ethnic groups.I point out that such a thing would be unacceptable in Britain."What is your problem," she asks? "Our interest is in protecting the child.""If we find a girl has been mutilated, we offer her psychological support and, if she wants it, surgery," she adds.[......]Back in Bristol, Muna who was born in Somalia and came to Bristol from Sweden in 2003, is baffled as to why the government does not do more to stop it."Those statistics show how little the government is doing."They are so terrified and they are using cultural sensitivity as a barrier to stop them from really doing anything."What would you do if the girl had blue eyes and blonde hair? Would FGM still be carrying on in the UK?"I ask her if she has a message for David Cameron?"Yes," she says, "do something about FGM."And if you can't handle the issue then there is no point in you doing your job."Hidden world of female genital mutilation in the UK - BBC NewsEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Yes, I understand the crime. I'm asking about evidence regarding the reasons for a low number of prosecutions in the UK. If you want to make your case, you might be better served looking at the 80s and 90s. It may be easy to detect that a crime has been committed (in some contexts, obviously not everybody has legal access to examine children's genitals), but it is less easy to determine who is criminally liable. Have you not been reading what I've written or something? It's literally summarised in the sentence preceding the one you quoted:

" The studies I present highlight more mundane explanations as being most significant, funding, awareness, reporting, training, the treatment and protection of victims etc."

Oh, you haven't been reading what I've written. That explains a lot.Here, I'll repeat myself and you can tell me why you though this 'btw' was required:

"I'm happy to believe that some police investigations are hampered by...fear of being perceived as racist"

I guess I need to repeat myself again here too:

"The report didn't find that. It stated it in the intro, but as far as I can see, it doesn't actually find that. If you're reading of the findings is different, please illuminate me."

This is also sufficient, I feel, to provide a preponderance of evidence in debate contexts that you haven't read the report you are making claims about.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And we all know how un-American those things are!In seriousness, though, these standards are based on a perceived physical difference in the product or secular ethical concerns for animal welfare. But there is nothing physically changed or different about a cut of meat because it has been inspected by a rabbi (as opposed to anyone else who might understand the Kosher standards for meat processing) and there is no other secular purpose for the requirement that a rabbi be present. It's only purpose is to cater to religious sensibilities, and that is obviously not something the government should be doing.If you look at the requirements for "free-range", for example, you will see that they clearly stipulate an actual physical condition of the product. If the matter "free-range" were at all relevant to the matter of "Kosher", then the requirement for "free-range" would instead read something like:The two cases simply do not compare. There is no secular reason the rabbi must be a rabbi! Why should the religious affiliation of the inspector matter for secular purposes? The investigation only happened because other Jews put up a fuss. It wasn't that food inspectors found bacon in the fridge; it was that some members of the Jewish community did not feel the "Kosher" products at the market met their standards. The USDA has no definition for Kosher outside the opinions of a rabbi. And that is exactly why the label is completely useless (or worse): it tells absolutely nothing about the product, only that it's been looked over by a rabbi using whatever set of standards he feels like using.As a secular person, if I chose to ate Kosher because I felt it bestowed a health benefit on me, I'd be a little upset that the USDA has no actual standards for defining Kosher (what part of the animal must be used, how it must be handled, etc.). I never said it should be illegal. Well, the Kosher dietary restrictions are burdensome. Folks are free not to follow them if they find them too much of a hassle. I don't think the government has an obligation to make all religions equally easy to follow; in fact, I think this would be impossible and efforts to do so would violate Establishment. People can follow whatever religion they choose; they might choose a hard one or an easy one, but that's their choice and responsibility. I am not saying it should be legal to falsely advertise. I have even said that there might be valid secular reasons for using the Kosher label and regulating that use. But the current standards do not address any of those secular concerns and only deal with the religious aspect. We could do with less Jesus, but that's a separate matter from Kosher labeling. They could side-step the issue entirely and simply define exactly what it means for a product to be Kosher, which would satisfy Jews and non-Jews alike. It depends. If there is clear medical concern, then banning it might be an option. But it is not right to enforce cultural norms on everyone (just like I don't think Muslim or JW children should be forced to celebrate Halloween). If there is no good medical reason to banning it, then it would simply be a case of 'we don't like it, so you shouldn't do it', and that is not, in my opinion, a valid reason for a law.After all, our society has been working on shaking off those laws for quite some time; it'd be silly to start making some more. Well, kids belong to their parents. If the society's opinion changed to such a degree that even this idea were questioned, then I suppose the idea of forcing children to do anything not necessary could be called into question.But I don't see your or my culture moving in that direction. It seems that parents have a good deal of freedom in deciding how to raise their kids; forcing them to do things they might not want to do; making decisions for them that the kids cannot make themselves and that are probably not actually relevant to the successful raising of the child; etc.And in that case, I would not look favorably to laws that banned circumcision just for the sake of banning circumcision.There was a thread on this: German judge rules child circumcision as child abuse. .

The idea is already questioned.Kids belong to their parents, but not in the absolute sense that society will never interfere in the relationship. Circumcision is just about at the threshold of where societies won't interfere. And for some cultures it crosses the threshold and only the fact that the practice has religious overtones keeps states from banning circumcision. Other cutting on the genitals is definitely questioned.

1921 the year my mother was born. Earth population was 1.8 billion. USA population was 106 million1947 the year I was born. Earth population was 2.3 billion. USA population was 149 million1970 the year my first child was born. Earth population was 3.7 billion. USA population was 203 million2005 the year my grandson was born. Earth population was 6.5 billion. USA population was 295 million2014 the world today Earth population is 7.265 billion USA population is 323 millionMy mother will celebrate her 93rd birthday in December. Since she was born, earth population has more than quadrupled and USA population has more than tripled.I am 67 years old. Since I was born, earth population has more than tripled and USA population has more than doubled.My oldest son is 44 years old. Since he was born, earth population has almost doubled and USA population has grown by 60%.My grandson is a mere 8 years old. Since he was born, earth population has grown by about three quarters of a billion people (the total earth population in the year 1750). The USA population has grown by 28 million, almost the total population of the USA at the start of the Civil War.This has been a very interesting thread. Having read it, I cannot make any conclusion for correct answers to multiculturalism. Valid arguments are made from all sides, which leads me to the suspicion there is no right answer. My contribution is to present the statistics above, showing earth populations and USA populations within four living generations of my own family. I will then ask the pointy question of what role multiculturalism should play in the very dangerously crowded elevator that earth is becoming.The debate over how to best fit all these people into the crowded elevator of earth is pertinent. Look at world events, the middle east in particular. Cultural differences have existed in the middle east for millennia. Conquest through time has stirred the culture pot there. Borders have been drawn, erased, redrawn. We (the western world) are still involved in doing this. At the end of wars, nation building, investment of vast amounts of money, what do we have? Cultural demons over a thousand years old reemerging to establish cultural dominance after authority removes boots from the ground.My question for the debate is whether multiculturalism is a legitimate philosophical/sociological issue, or is it instead some brand of smoke and mirrors used by authority to control the masses in an increasingly crowded world?

Because the secular purpose is served in maintaining honesty in labelling. Exactly. Minimal government involvement in the kosher business. They only stepped in when a certification authority removed certification but business carried on as normal. Minimal entanglement. Talk me through it, then. What does the usda do exactly? I mean rather than trying to speculate based on a single sentence definition, what is the actual process from the very start (ie., the creation of a certification authority)? The certification authority does all of this, because Kosher standards vary and the government shouldn't be endorsing one particular viewpoint. And I never claimed you did. This isn't about the burden the religion gives the follower, but the burden government imposes. I would have thought you were familiar with the undue burden standard - it interacts with things such as Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the free Exercise Clause. Yet it serves as evidence this isn't a multicultural thing but a general religious privilege issue. That was the point of mentioning the Christian situation. The Jews can't define exactly what it means. They largely agree there should be rabbinical supervision though. Cheese, for instance. Kosher or not? Or does it depend? Rabbeinu Tam argued Cheese is fine, but Orthodox and a variety of other Conservatives disagree, but then some Conservatives agree with Isaac Klein's argument that the process of cheese making changes the nature of the ingredients so much that it it no longer matters about whether the rennet is kosher or not.You think making a vague requirement about rabbis is more entangling in religion than a government defining kosher? so what do you suggest? Provide incentives for not circumcising your child? Not providing the service on the nhs? Allow me to introduce you to liberalism, which includes the notion that people cannot be owned by anyone, and that people over whom you have power and a duty of care are not yours to do with as you please. That children have their own set of rights. Revolutionary stuff, really.If kids do belong to their parents, then even in us law there are limits. If your behaviour is abusive, your ownership of the child is not a defence. Although the us didn't ratify it {because they wanted to be able execute children initially, but who knows why they are still dragging their feet, probably the home schooling concerns or something}, the UN convention on the rights of the child does state 'States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. '. some people point to EU laws, or to the lack of legal exemptions in state law or in the us they might look to this:

quote:

---

Physical abuse is generally defined as any nonaccidental
physical injury to the child and can include striking, kicking,
burning, or biting the child, or any action that results in a
physical impairment of the child.

---

so the framework is already in place, all it takes is for people to see circumcision as abusive or harmful or as a nonsexual assault to the genitals, and then the only thing stopping it is multiculturalism, right? Oh you guys have a long way off, you are way too authoritarian, traditionalist and conservative for that to be considered likely. Britain is on its way towards that view. There are a few countries on the brink, like Germany, but pressures from minority cultures seem to have been instrumental in scuppering that The most prominent voices seem to have been Jewish, and there are hardly any Jews in Europe.Even one of Obama's senior multiculturist enforcer stepped into the discussions in Europe and played the anti-semitic card. {is enforcer the right term or is the Obama-hating phrase of the month still Tsar?}should we allow religious and minority cultures to determine our laws on circumcision like this? Yes, that's how I know that we have a cultural disagreement on the subject. This kind of thinking is currently in flux here in Europe, with people increasingly siding with the idea that the rights of the child outweigh the parental rights to exercise their religion in this case.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.