Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious tolerance and multiculturalism
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 1 of 77 (622710)
07-04-2011 10:44 PM


In many parts of the world multiculturalism is providing great gains in respects and tolerance.
quote:
"The problem arises when we are required to pretend, in the name of tolerance, that all religions are true.
This situation, where all religions are presumed true is dysfunctional and in the long term untenable.
Society cannot live with such a lie indefinitely."
Dr John Perkins.
My question is open for all but I am particularly interested in the thoughts of the religious people on the forum. It is arguably easier for an athiest to answer.
Do you believe the current method (multicuturalism, acting as if all faiths are correct) of dealing with religious freedom is effective?
Do you see this working in the long term?
My position on the topic -
I cannot see multiculturalism working for religious difference. It is not possible to make laws taking into account all possible religious needs. A recent example can be seen here.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/.../story-fn7x8me2-1226078801032
Here is a case of a Jehovah's Witness who died after refusing a blood transfusion. Doctors did not have the right to save a 15 year olds life.
404
Freedom of speech rights are being violated. Everyone will remember the Danish cartoon of the profit Muhammad. How do you incorporate Freedom of Expression laws into a society when that freedom of expression can get you killed?
There are many debates on this website about what should be taught in schools. Evolution or Creation, Creation model one versus Creation Model 2 (or 3, 4, 5, 6 etc) How can it be possible to please everyone?
Richard Dawkins documentary 'Faith School Menace' illustrates that multiculturalism is creating great separation of the people. The idea of multiculturalism was for all people to be able to live together. But it appears that multicultural ideas are helping people to live segregated in the same area.
Scientific research in areas like cloning and stem cell research are being restricted or even banned for religious based reasons (among many other reasons of course)
Multiculturalism has been very effective in regards to race, sexuality and to a lesser degree cultural differences. But multiculturalism seems to fail when it comes to religion (and the lack of religious belief, atheism).
I do not believe that multiculturalism will work in the long term for this issue. I think it will lead to greater segregation of groups. I believe it will help to create greater division.
Once people recognise this, we need to work together to come up with a better model. One that all people of all faiths can agree with. Even if that does mean fully separating groups. When my kids fight, I separate them. Sometimes they cannot get along. I am aware that this is a gross oversimplification of the issue. And I do not mean apartheid like separation. I mean an equal voluntary separation. It probably wont work and I am sure that many people will be able to point out problems but it is the only thing that comes to mind. I am open to suggestion...
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : clarifying
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : adding my position on the topic

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 07-05-2011 7:22 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 5 by ScientificBob, posted 07-06-2011 6:58 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 07-06-2011 7:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 7 by caffeine, posted 07-06-2011 7:31 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 07-08-2011 2:26 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 77 (622711)
07-05-2011 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Butterflytyrant
07-04-2011 10:44 PM


Needs Work
Topic is a bit vague. I don't see that you've outlined any discernible method.
Please use the quote boxes for the Dr.'s quote.


type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy


or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy

I would also like to see you present your position on the question(s).
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-04-2011 10:44 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-06-2011 6:04 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 3 of 77 (622712)
07-06-2011 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
07-05-2011 7:22 AM


Re: Needs Work
I have edited the post.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 07-05-2011 7:22 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 77 (622714)
07-06-2011 6:22 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Religious tolerance and multiculturalism thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 5 of 77 (622718)
07-06-2011 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Butterflytyrant
07-04-2011 10:44 PM


As an atheist, I agree. I think the present situation cannot be held in place indefinatly.
I expect the abrahamic religions to fade out (although I don't expect that to happen without some type of "end of life scream").
Superstition in general will not go anywhere. For some reason, people seem to be hellbend on believing quite silly things and I think we are all guilty of that one way or the other.
So I also expect new forms of blind faith to replace the old.
What bothers me at the moment though, is that, imo, we don't really have a "freedom of and from religion". The very fact that there is such a concept says enough for me.
For example, anybody is free to believe that life on earth is a reality TV show of an alien race who spy on us with nano-technology. But we don't have a concept of "freedom of believing crackpot theories". Precisely because there is actual freedom there both for the believer as well as the non-believer.
In a truelly secular society, religion would be a complete non-issue. This means that we shouldn't have explicit rules or restrictions about them (pro or contra). The normal laws apply and are more then enough:
- "no" to hate speech, bigotry, fascism, racism, and other forms of discrimination
- right of organising social groups/communities
Both of these provide the framework you need for organised religion that doesn't preach hatred to exist AND the right to choose not to be a part of it (in any way or form).
So as an atheist and a secularist, I'ld argue that we haven't quite reached that stage yet where we can speak of a truelly multi-cultural and secular society.
Funnily enough, the way I see it, these things will only be a reality the day they aren't the subject of specially tailored rules and regulations, but rather simply fall under the broader framework where everything else is subject to.
I look forward to the day when, officially, there is no difference between believing in the talking snake and alien anal probing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-04-2011 10:44 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 6 of 77 (622720)
07-06-2011 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Butterflytyrant
07-04-2011 10:44 PM


In the UK (in my experience) it is bad form to talk about religion in general (you would get funny looks or tolerant smiles).
Seems to me that all religious people would get on better if they adopted this attitude, religions could be quite happy with each other if the religious people were happy to think quietly to themselves: "they are wrong, but why ruin the atmosphere?".
Then get on with life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-04-2011 10:44 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 7 of 77 (622722)
07-06-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Butterflytyrant
07-04-2011 10:44 PM


The problem arises when we are required to pretend, in the name of tolerance, that all religions are true.
And the problem with phrasing the problem this way, of course, is that no such problem exists. Accepting that people have the right to live their lives the way they want to until they start harming others does not require accepting the truth of their beliefs.
'Multiculturalism' is not restricting people's freedom of speech. If you say something that offends people, it's possible people will attack you for it. When people's religious beliefs cause them to be offended by stupid irrelevancies, when their religious beliefs sanction violent relatliation, and when they feel like they're being victimised by wide society, they will sometimes strike back violently. The Mohammad cartoons weren't banned, people who reacted violently were arrested and charged. This is how freedom of expression laws work in our society, and I can't see the problem here.
Laws do not take into account every religious need - nor do they attempt to. It's not possible to practice a religion which requires you to violate some fundamental standard of the community - human sacrifice is not allowed, whether your religion requires it or not.
Your propsed solution is abhorrent and bizarre, and I fail to see how it addresses the problems you purport to see. One of the issues you raised was that of being unable to save the Jehovah's Witness who refused a blood transfusion. Why would this problem go away if Jehovah's Witnesses were all segregated from wider society, as you suggest. At least, at the moment, it is possible for a court to give a doctor authority to override the parent's wishes, as has happened with younger children. In the Jehovah's Witness ghetto of the future, this couldn't happen.
-------------------------------------------------
To solve your problem, we need to understand exactly what it is, and I don't think your examples really present any coherent criticism. What, specifically, do you mean by 'multiculturalism' in this context?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-04-2011 10:44 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-06-2011 9:55 AM caffeine has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 8 of 77 (622745)
07-06-2011 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by caffeine
07-06-2011 7:31 AM


Hello Caffeine,
quote:
And the problem with phrasing the problem this way, of course, is that no such problem exists. Accepting that people have the right to live their lives the way they want to until they start harming others does not require accepting the truth of their beliefs.
No problem exists? You cant think of any issues in your society that are causing tension between religious groups?
The reason I asked the question was because there is harm being done. I am totally happy with people believing anything they want. No problem with that at all. Until it does start to cause harm. Many people on this very forum argue that teaching children evolution or creation (depending on their position) is harming their children.
My local shopping centres cannot put up standard christmas decorations as it is a concern that they will offend people who are not Christian. The shopping centres must pretend that all peoples beliefs are true by following each groups rules. All of the decorations are now non demoninational. No great harm here to me but to the large Christian population probably misses the manger scenes.
Religious groups threaten pro choice groups. I have witnessed religious people threatening and abusing women entering a family planning clinic where abortions are performed.
I believe that it should be everyones right to burn my nations flag in protest. Take a copy of On the Origin of the Species and throw it in the mud. Wipe their arse with a picture of my mum. Everyone has freedom of expression. But what happens if I want to wipe my arse with a page of the Koran? Protest actions are supposed to be offensive. I recognise the right of freedom of expression as it may offend but not hurt anyone. An artist painted a picture of Jesus in urine called the Piss Christ. There was protest, and the show was cut short. Fair enough. But there were no killings, the artist was not threatened with assasination by international group. The issue of Halal slaughtering is fairly big here at the moment. Many people, including myself believe that killing a beast by the Halal method is unneccesary torture of the beast. But, as we have to act as if everyones religion is true, we have to continue to allow this torture.
I am not blaming multiculturalism at all. Australia is a multicultural country. It has been a wonderful way for many different nationalities to come here and exist together. I think it has been a admirable model for culturally deverse societies. What I am saying is that the idea of multiculturalism will not work when it comes to religious differences. It is not possible for everyones religious beliefs to be catered for as if they were all true. I am also not blaming religion. It is no rleigions 'fault' that they have the beliefs that they do. It is no religious persons fault that they believe what they do. I would like every person to be able to believe whatever they want and practice whatever system of religion they believe without it having an impact on anyone else. What I am trying to establish is if there is a way anyone can think of that all religions would be able to live together peacefully and happily without religious conflict. The current model is multiculturalism, but it is not working.
quote:
Laws do not take into account every religious need - nor do they attempt to. It's not possible to practice a religion which requires you to violate some fundamental standard of the community
In Australia we have anti discrimination laws. One very important part of the anti discrimination act is that everyone is treated equally regardless of religion (as well as age, sex etc). This is a law seems like a good way to go. There was a recent issue with it. A Sikh was refused entry into a bar because he was wearing a turban. The hotel has a strict no hat policy and this policy is for all guests, regardless of religion, race, sex etc. The property acted in accordance with the current anti discrimination laws. I would be the first to agree that this is a pretty extreme example. But to allow the guest in would actually breach the anti discrimination law.
link to story - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/.../story-e6frfhk6-1226087203597
In Canada in 1993, 5 Sikh war veterans were told they would have to remove their turbans at a memorial because wearing hats was seen as a sign of great disrespect to the dead.
link to article - http://www.sikhs.org/100th/part5a.html
The second example is an practicing a religion which requires you to break a fundamental standard of the community. Head covering of all types are not a standard of my community but Muslims and Sikhs are required to wear them. One of the links in my first post showed how a Muslim woman was able to create a loophole in the Australian legal system because of her protected right to wear a burqa.
I know my solution would not work. I freely admitted that and advised that this is the solution I have for my fighting children. I admitted that many people would be able to see prolems with the issue. The reason I asked the question was to see if there was a way anyone could think of that all of the religious (and non religious) groups could live happily.
defs of multiculturalism.
quote:
The ideal of multiculturalism is the respect for different ethnic, cultural and religious groups in society.
quote:
Multiculturalism is the appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nations.
In a political context it has come to mean the advocacy of extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values as central.[1][2] Multiculturalism as "cultural mosaic" is often contrasted with the concepts assimilationism and social integration and has been described as a "salad bowl" rather than a "melting pot.
Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by caffeine, posted 07-06-2011 7:31 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2011 11:45 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 56 by caffeine, posted 07-28-2011 8:41 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 9 of 77 (622750)
07-06-2011 10:08 AM


Rights
And of course religious groups should have every right to protest and even threaten pro choice groups.
You have every right to burn the Qur'an and those that you offend have every right to protest you behavior.
Where is the problem?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-06-2011 8:29 PM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 77 (622770)
07-06-2011 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Butterflytyrant
07-06-2011 9:55 AM


The hotel has a strict no hat policy and this policy is for all guests, regardless of religion, race, sex etc.
In the old, unenlightened days, wearing a hat was seen as an individual choice; but that was before scientists alerted us to the dangers of passive hat-wearing. In laboratory experiments, beagles exposed to a hat-rich environment were observed to develop bowlers, trilbies, and in extreme cases stetsons.
Further research is needed to determine if the whole world is going mad or if it's just me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-06-2011 9:55 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-07-2011 6:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 11 of 77 (622853)
07-06-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
07-06-2011 10:08 AM


Re: Rights
Hey Jar,
The problem is that religious groups do not have the right to threaten pro choice groups. Particularly if they have reached their position of protest because of religious teachings not shared by the pro choice group. Noone has the 'right' to threaten anyone. I am unaware of any legal system where a civilian group has the right to threaten another civilian group into changing their behaviour. Police and government groups can threaten legal action and punishment for committing crimes but they cannot threaten a group because they have a personal disagreement.
With regards to the Koran burning. I agree that I have the right to burn the Koran. I would not as I believe that it would be pointless and inflammatory. I agree that people who I would offend by burning this book have the right to protest my behaviour if I do offend them. This is everyones right. What I disagree with is the fact that some Islamic people feel they have the right, the obligation even, to perform violent acts on people who offend them. Even when they live in a country where the right to offend them is legal. Even when the manner by which they were offended is an act that is normal and not offensive in the society they are in.
An example of this can be the South Park threats after they showed an image of Muhammad. This TV shows Jesus in many episodes. It is a normal, acceptable and legal thing for them to do, even if it does offend some people. They have the right to show any person they want on their show. Religious people can be offended. That is their right. They do not have the right to threaten anyone. There is a difference between being offended and protesting and the belief that you have the right to threaten and carry out threats because you are offended.
Revolutionmuslim.com had this to say to the Southpark creators -
quote:
"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."
(from the article) Theo van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by an Islamic extremist in 2004 after making a short documentary on violence against women in some Islamic societies. The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com features a graphic photograph of Van Gogh with his throat cut and a dagger in his chest.
source - Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
Imagine if an athiest decided that they had the right to threaten a creationist with physical violence, intimidate them and issue an order to all other athiests to do violence to an individual because they burned a copy of Oliver Twist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 07-06-2011 10:08 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 07-06-2011 8:38 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 77 (622854)
07-06-2011 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Butterflytyrant
07-06-2011 8:29 PM


Re: Rights
Two different issues.
The first is protest including threats. In the US that is a protected speech unless it is possible to show specific examples of incitement to violence.
The second is carrying out a threat.
It has nothing to do with whether the statements or actions are driven by religion or some other cause.
Speech is protected.
Acts are not.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-06-2011 8:29 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-06-2011 10:58 PM jar has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 13 of 77 (622860)
07-06-2011 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
07-06-2011 8:38 PM


Re: Rights
Hey Jar,
I am not familiar with the legal system in the states.
In Australia it is illegal to threaten someone with violence for the purposes of causing fear. It is illegal to threaten someone with the intent to intimidate them into following your instructions.
In australia, noone has the right to intimidate anyone with the threat of violence.
It is called unlawful threatening.
quote:
Under section 19(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) a person is guilty of an offence if they threaten to kill or endanger someone’s life, intending to arouse fear. A person will be guilty of an offence even if they were recklessly indifferent to the fear they arouse. Under the same section, a person will be guilty of an offence if they threaten to cause harm to another with the intention of arousing fear. A person will still be guilty if they were recklessly indifferent to the arousal of fear.
Recklessly indifferent means you didn’t intend to make someone fearful, but you should have realised that fear was likely to occur.
I did not know it was legal to intimidate someone into doing what you want them to do in the USA.
Have i misunderstood that this is a protected right there?
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 07-06-2011 8:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 07-06-2011 11:08 PM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied
 Message 15 by frako, posted 07-07-2011 3:02 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 77 (622861)
07-06-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Butterflytyrant
07-06-2011 10:58 PM


Re: Rights
That of course depends on the specific speech. If you say "You are going to hell!" or "I hope you die." or "Do you enjoy killing kids?" then it's protected speech. If you say "I will beat you up." or "I will shoot you." and there is some possibility that you might actually have the capability to carry through on the threat then it might be actionable.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-06-2011 10:58 PM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 15 of 77 (622875)
07-07-2011 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Butterflytyrant
07-06-2011 10:58 PM


Re: Rights
intending to arouse fear.
Id sue every religious organization in Australia saying you will go to hell if you dont follow Christ is an intent to arouse fear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-06-2011 10:58 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-07-2011 6:22 AM frako has replied
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 07-07-2011 9:52 AM frako has replied
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 07-07-2011 10:26 AM frako has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024