Religious tolerance and multiculturalism

Yes, it even applies to stuff like that.I was one of the folk that lived through a period here in the US where that was pretty much exactly the speech heard.And we protected such speech and changed the whole culture of the US. I personally think the way we did it was pretty *** and so caused us even more pain in the long run, but at least speech was protected.

---

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

Just checked our constitution 39th paragraph deals with freedom of speech strangely it also deals with information of public characteristics almost in the same breath.Basically it says freedom of speech is guarantied to all about everything and anyone has the right to information of public character except where it is restricted by law lolSo now i would have to check every law if there is any restriction on our freedom of speech if there even is such a law and do to the strange in one breath wording im not sure if the restriction by law applies only to information of public character or to bothSo as fare as my knowledge goes the same speech could be conducted under the protection of freedom of speech in our country much to my protest And this is not the only place where our laws are written as if school kids where writing them.a funny one would be what you need to have in your car the law goes you need:- a spare tire
- first aid kit
- spare lights
-the triangle
- a tool to unscrew the bolts on the tires
.....Recommended by law not mandatory:
A jack to lift the car

Understand, I do not say that people should not protest hate speech, in fact I believe we are under a moral obligation to speak, but I also believe that we must protect the right for even the most abhorrent speech.

---

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

The topic is about religious tolerance and multiculturalism. In my view, Christianity as portrayed by both Jesus and Paul views those of other faiths and cultures as being our neighbour and that we are called to love them. For a simple example just look to the story of the "Good Samaratin".I think that Christ’s message is fairly clear that it isn’t our theology that makes us right with God, but is essentially the condition of our heart. If we look at Matthew 25: 31-46 there is no mention of getting your theology correct in order to be one of the righteous. Also if your read Matthew 7: 21-23 it is clear that there are followers of Jesus that will remain alienated from Him.I believe the consistent message throughout the NT is that the divine will seeks for us to love unselfishly. Part of the human condition is the constant struggle within us between selfish love and unselfish love. I think that it is said best in Micah 6: 8. He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. In Matthew 9: 12-13 Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."In other words I don’t believe that Christianity is as exclusive as is often portrayed. Yes, Christians teach that God in a great act of recreation will bring about the new heaven and earth, (Isaiah 65: 17-25, Ephesians 1: 10 and Revelation 21), and Christ will be its servant King. The Christian position, IMHO, is not that it is only Christians who will be citizens of our recreated world. It will be made up of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists etc, who in their hearts desire unselfish love as opposed to selfish love. This is well portrayed in CS Lewis’ book The Great Divorce. I'll repeat my earlier CS Lewis quote to make the point: There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.I can take quotes form the Qu'ran that also show an acceptance of other faiths.Surah 2 - 62

quote:

---

Lo! those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall be no fear come upon them and neither shall they grieve.

---

It also says roughly the same thing in Surah 5 -69The Qu'ran recognizes Jesus as prophet and messiah in Surah 3 — 45 to 47

quote:

---

(And remember0 when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)
He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous.
She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what he will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! And it is.

---

This is from this wiki article: Jesus in Islam

quote:

---

In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى; ʿĪs) is considered to be a Messenger of God and the Messiah who was sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl or Gospel.[1] The belief in Jesus (and all other messengers of God) is required in Islam, and a requirement of being a Muslim. The Qur'an (Koran), considered by Muslims to be God's final and authoritative revelation to mankind, mentions Jesus twenty-five times.[2] It states that Jesus was born to Mary (Arabic: Maryam) as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God (Arabic: Allah). To aid in his ministry to the Jewish people, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles (such healing the blind, bringing dead people back to life, etc.), all by the permission of God rather than of his own power. According to the popular opinion and Muslim traditions, Jesus was not crucified but instead, he was raised up by God unto the heavens. This "raising" is understood to mean through bodily ascension.

---

Also of course as both Islam and Christianity share with those of the Jewish faith the fact that all three are Abrahamic religions there is a great deal of commonality there as well. As a Christian I can’t for the life of me understand why I can’t share the teachings of the prophet Jesus that are consistent with all Abrahamic faiths with my Jewish and Islamic brothers and sisters. In the end our theologies have a great deal in common. Let’s focus on what unites so that we can discuss cordially our differences. Sure I have a different understanding of the nature of Jesus, but my own scripture, the Bible, is clear on the fact that in the end the point of it all is that we embrace that unselfish love, just as Jesus did on the cross.Let’s look at a couple of quotes of Buddha:

quote:

---

In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.

---

quote:

---

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.

---

These are things that people of all faiths should be able to agree on.The problems arise when we create god in our image and turn him into a being that will bring us power and control in this world. We become driven by pride. Pride is what CS Lewis calls "the great sin".If we faithfully follow the overarching tenants of our faiths we find that religious intolerance is contrary to the faiths that we espouse.

Hi, Frako. You're welcome to come over and try it yourself, if you think you could do better. Actually, you're probably not: this sounds like something my wife would be strongly opposed to. Still, the sentiment stands.----- I'm actually perfectly happy to let you spout whatever caricatured parodies of religious thought you want at my child: you're not very good at them, and if my son isn't capable of deciding for himself when people's claims are dubious, he deserves to be ripped off.However, it would not be acceptable for you to say that, if my son doesn't give you his pocket change, you will personally torture him. This is because you are not merely spouting a belief system and expressing an opinion about the consequences of my son's actions, but are actually planning to take an active part in those consequences. That's what makes it a threat, and that's what should be illegal.----- I think you grossly under-appreciate the sincerity of religious folks. The vast majority of religious leaders, such as ICANT and Buzsaw, honestly believe that they are trying to help us and save us from some very serious and very real dangers, and, for the majority of them, the money is not, in any way, causally connected to anybody's eternal rewards. Sure, these opinions can have negative consequences on people's lives: but that doesn't make it a threat, and it certainly doesn't mean people should be forbidden from expressing these opinions. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hello GDR,I have read similar quotes before. I do agree that there are textx in the faiths that advise that everyone should get along.My point is that this is not what is happening. People, are not following these teachings. Multicuralism is the current method of helping people to get along. I know it is not working. You have shown one of the big reasons why it is not working. Then you put forward this as a solution. There are two problems with this solution.The first and the biggest is that many people interpret the teneants of their faith differently to you. They believe that you have the wrong idea and they are doing the right thing.The second is that this issue is not just about peace. Many of the examples I have used are not related to conflict. All side cannot act as if their version of events is the true version of events without havinbg some difficulties. There will always be problems.Dont get me wrong, a world where all religions were working towards peace would be great, but even if they were not fighting, there would still be issues where both side would never agree. Some examples would include circumcision, halal butchering, burqas, arranged marriage, blood transfusions, pro life/pro choice, freedom od speech etc etc etcDo you think the current model, multiculturalism will work in light of the problems you have outlined?Do you have a practical alternative?I dont have a practical alternative but I think we need to start thinking of one.

Look at it this way. For sake of argument let us assume that we live in a created world and that there is but one god. This is the view of the vast majority of theists. If we hold that opinion we accept that this one god created all of us. If then, we are all his created beings it makes no sense whatsoever that he would want us at each other's throats.I recently read a book called The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. Wright describes himself as a materialist and an agnostic. He makes a very good case, based on our various holy texts, as well as human history, that our understanding of God is evolving and that as a result over time we are also evolving socially.If it is correct that God wants us to live in harmony I contend that our understanding of the nature of God will continue to be made clearer, and that our faiths will eventually draw us closer together as our understanding of the nature of God becomes clearer. I believe it is a fact that mankind is evolving socially. I believe it is because our world is grounded in divine intent. If however I'm wrong and there is no divine intent and Robert Wright is correct, it still holds true that we are evolving socially and over time are becoming more tolerant. So, in the long run, whatever our beliefs are theologically, there is reason for optimism.In Canada one of our leaders once described us as being a community of communities. I suppose that he saw this as being in contrast to the American melting pot. I think that the result of the Canadian policy is that we have to a large degree wound up with numerous ethnic communities within the broader community across the country just as he envisioned. I'm of two minds about that policy. If these ethnic communities serve as communities for new immigrants to establish themselves in their new country so that they, or at least their children, can later move out into the wider community then that policy should be a positive thing. If however, these communities become permanent versions of their various homelands living apart from the broader society, then I see this policy as negative.The only long term solution is a melting pot but the question is how best to arrive in that position. Is it best to establish ethnic communities or is it best to have policies that encourage immigrants to immediately be thrust into their new culture. Maybe there is a middle ground. Frankly, I’m not sure, although I don’t think our Canadian policy has been all that effective.I also think that we are a people who want instant solutions. There is no instant solution and the best that we can do is to continue to build bridges as best we can. Modern technology has shrunk our world enormously. There are more and more interracial and interfaith marriages. We are able to instantly know what is going on in various parts of the world and if necessary respond quickly. There are so many positive indications of how things are going if we are inclined to look beyond the negative.In many ways I think that we are on the right track, but I believe that in the west we have to be more careful that we don’t become embroiled in the problems of those in other parts of the world to everyone’s detriment. Knowing how to do that is way above my pay grade. However, I think that possibly the key is to look for intergenerational goals as opposed to short term solutions. I suppose the problem there is that our political leaders want to be seen as problem solvers and it will take great leadership at the political level for someone to build the framework for a solution that isn’t going to happen on their watch, or even during the term of their immediate successors.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Given the recent events in Norway, has anyone changed their opinions or are there any new opinions on this topic?

I am not sure that I would ever want to change the established laws of my country based on the opinions of a insane mass-murderer.If some lunatic went around killing people because he thinks that toilet seats are taking over the planet and killing innocent people is the only way to get the government's attention - I would not think that toilets weren't working and that they should be changed.

The Norway situation is one homicidal psychopath with no connection to this topic except as an excuse ... a trigger. May as well have gone off because for decades all the bakers in the world have conspired to deprive him of the correct number of blueberries in his muffins.

Sorry that I never replied to this before - I forgot all about this topic.Of course there are issues in society causing tensions - this is normal in any society of any size with any make-up. The problem is was referring to that doesn't exist is this:

quote:

---

It is not possible for everyones religious beliefs to be catered for as if they were all true

---

That's true, and is probably one of the reasons it's never been attempted anywhere, to my knowledge. Allowing somebody to peacefully practice their religion doesn't require anbody to pretend it's true. It just requires us to let them do their thing. Allowing somebody to hop around in his garden making monkey noises doesn't require us to pretend that anything is true, why should letting someone pray to Mecca or wear a turban?We do make exceptions for religious requirements sometimes, but this doesn't require us to pretend their tenets of faith are true. We don't have to pretend anything, we just have to accept that this (wearing turbans, for example) is important to some group in society, and ask whether allowing them to do so is any significant danger or detriment to society. There are borderline cases that are being argued about. The full-body covering burka is a big issue in many European countries at the minute - some have banned it in public on the grounds of security, though I'd put this down more to xenophobia. Halal meat's another borderline issue, which is currently being banned in the Netherlands.If someone goes around demanding death to people who draw cartoons of Mohammad, or actually carrying out these threats, then the problem is not with society. The problem is with them. And we don't pretend their behaviour is oky because we're accepting their religion as true. We send them to prison for inciting violence, or assault, or murder, or whatever it is they're getting up to.

unfortunately this is not true. We do pretend their behavior is ok and we respond to it in the way they demand. Your example of the cartoons is the perfect example. In most of the world, nearly every newspaper, magazine and TV station self censored the cartoons. They gave up their right to freedom of speech. They gave up their right to parody a figure. An act that is acceptable in their own culture and society. They gave this right up in order to appease an aggresive group.I believe that what should have happened is that every newspaper and magazine and every TV station should have shown the cartoons in an act of solidarity. They should have done what is acceptable to them in their own countries because they need to show what they stand for. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is one of the greatest rights we have.I am not saying we should go to other countries where freedom of speech and freedom of expression are not accepted and force them to display the cartoons. This would be wrong. We should not force them to do anything or accept our ideals. What I am saying is that in the countries where showing a parody or cartoon is legally, culturally and socially acceptable, they should have shown this.I do not see why any nation should stop doing something they see as acceptable because another group says they should not.If the people from Belgium (country chosen at random) want to run through the streets naked covered in peanut butter on their condiment holy day, they should be able to do that. If I found it unacceptable (I know a Belgian guy who is quite a large hairy man), I would not feel it is my right, as an outsider going in, to tell them to stop the Peanut butter nudie run.I do not believe that it is acceptable that one group entering into an established society with developed legal, cultural and social norms can tell that society they can no longer practice and act acceptable to those norms (particularly with the threat of violence).As to the Norway incident. This is a piece I wrote on another website the day after the shootings.This individual was a troubled man. This much is undeniable. However, he was not insane. I would even say he was not mentally ill. From the planning, choice of victims, method of execution and his writings, I would say his is as sane as most people. Ordinary sane people kill other individuals on a daily basis. Some do it as a career in the military. All you need to have to kill people is a personally acceptable motive. This mans motive is quite clear. Firstly, one needs to remove Christianity from the equation. This man may have been a Christian, and from what I have read he was, but this is not his motivation. He was not using any Christian ideologies directly in this event. I believe he is intelligent enough to be aware that he would not recieve any support from Christian groups or individuals for pressing a Christian message upon people in such a manner. While there are Christian extremists active in many parts of the world, it is difficult for them to use their faith to justify violent actions. The people who are saying he is not a true Christian are missing the point of his message. His Christianity had about as much to do with this as his tastes in music (classical and trance for those interested).The targets —
Since 1935, the Labour Party has been in power in Norway for all but 16 years. They have been the dominant power. They are a social democratic party. They support multiculturalism and are progressive and liberal. Breiviks anti markist leanings would go strongly against this type of government. The victims were at a Labour Party Camp. He would have seen them as the next geneneration of Labour figureheads. The choice of these individuals, rather than the Islamic people is an important point. He chose to attack the party who he blamed for the problem.The method —
It takes a certain something I dont have a word for it, to shoot people at close range. A bomber can detinate the device from a safe place away from the blood and the screaming. Breivik would have been able to exceed the current death toll with carefully placed bombs. But he did not. The manner of the act is telling. He chose to shoot children and young adults. He chose to look into the frightened eyes of young people and execute them. This shows how badly he wanted his message to hit home. Anyone can create terror. It is not even very difficult. But not everyone can create the horror that this man has. He would have been well aware of the significance of his choice and method when he planned the attacks.Analysis —
I would say that Breivik is an extremely proud man. I would say he is proud of his heritage, proud of his people and proud of his nation. It is this pride that leads to the act. He would see, every day, the decay of his society. The dilution of his culture. The economic situation as well as problems not related to Islam would cause him trouble. However, it would be the non intergration of Islamic people that would become his target. He would see the failure of multiculturalism as the problem. He would rant and rave on chat forums and in his manifesto about the problem but noone would listen. He would probably find a great many people who agreed with his position. He would wonder who was to blame for the problem of Islamic tension in his home country. The reson he chose not to target Muslims is that he knew it would make little differnce. It may even hurt his cause. The knee jerk reaction of sympathy and political correctness after a muslim massacre would not have the desired effect. He would need to target those he saw as responsible. Like a child who has been let down by their parent, he chose to target the governing power of his nation. He sees his nation being taken apart by multiculturalism and decided to take his anger out on those he saw as responsible.In all conflict, all parties eventually reduce themselves to the lowest acts of any individual group. To not do so puts the reluctant at a disadvantage. This can be seen in all major wars throughout history. He saw the tactics of his enemies. He chose to use the tactic of terror to send his message. Perhaps he thought that violence between Islam and the West was inevitable. Rising tensions in many nations with the spread of Islam show this is true. This is not the fault of the average muslim. It is not even the fault of most muslims. It is not possible for all people with very different ideologies to intergrate. Someone has to change. Bievik did not want to change. He did not want his country to change. This is the reason for this act. He saw an invader and did not want to change. This is not an uncommon feeling. His act is deplorable. But do not cast this man out as a madman. Do not take solice that he was insane. Do not fall back on the weak belief that he was a Christian fundamentalist acting for his God. This event will not be the last of its type. We need to look to the big issue. Multiculturalism is failing. We, as rational people, need to work out a method that is acceptable for all side of the equation. Many social experiments have failed. We need to try something new to prevent further disasters. Killing each other is not going to succeed. But it certainly gets attention. We cant save the lost lives. But we can work to prevent future losses. Beiviks message was clear.

Sorry Cafiene,I forgot to reply to the second part of your reply. That is what multiculturalism is. This is how it is practiced. Everyone must cater for the beliefs of others as if they were true. In my part of the world, we have to accept Ramadan as a reason to put Islamic workers onto light duties as if their religion is true. I dont believe them but other workers have to take up the slack even though they do not share the Islamic workers religious beliefs. I do not mean that we have to believe that all of the groups versions of truth. We have to cater to each group as if they were true. Each group tells us what they can and cannot do according to their religious beliefs and we have to cater to those beliefs. The conflict comes when a group tells us what we can and cannot do according to their religious beliefs.

I mainly agree with this. The cartoons should have been shown wherever they were relevant.
Unfortunately for the people upset about the cartoons, this would have been in every major newspaper because it was a current headline. Thank goodness that there are so few proud men in the world, else this would be happening all the time. To shoot innocent people at close range?
The word you are looking for is 'madness'. Why would the non-intergration of Islamic people become his target?
Why would he not target the other issues you listed? So he chose targets that also hurt his cause?
What desired effect was he after?None of the reasoning that you assign to Breivik makes any sense (which would be understandable to me, as I think he is insane).
But clearly you think it makes sense.
Can you explain the inconsistencies and random behaviour of this supposed proud and sane man?

Nobody pretended that the violent reactions of some protestors were okay. The cartoons were republished all over Europe, far more than they would have been if not for the protests. Those who chose not to publish them did so for various reasons - some found the cartoons offensive and needlessly provocative; some were afraid of losing customers by offending them, or afraid of inviting retaliation from nutters. None of this means accepting that those demanding death to the infidels were okay.Nowhere were the cartoons banned. People who went around waving banners demanding death to the infidels were charged and convicted of inciting religious hatred in Britain. People who planned violent retaliation in Denmark were caught and charged. Their behaviour was not accepted. To summarise your lengthy post, one guy, enraged at the faults he saw in society, murdered a bunch of people. Therefore, society is failing. Anders Breivik is a deranged sociopath - the fact that he can rationally explain what he's doing doesn't change that. One of the ideas suggested in his manifesto was the use of tactical nuclear weapons at various points in European cities, to bankrupt the 'multiculturalist, cultural Marxist, socialist' governments quicker and speed up the 'inevitable' coming of European civil war.Did the existence of Marxist terrorist groups in the 60s and 70s mean that European captitalism had failed, and was inevitably doomed? No, no, no, no, no. Read what I said again. You are not accepting these peoples beliefs as true. You're accepting them as important to these people. It's not the same thing at all.And is this true, anyway? There's nothing about Ramadan that requires Muslims to do less work. Are you saying that it's the law in Australia, or is it just the policy of the company you work for?Edited by caffeine, : typo