Is multiculturalism wanted??

Death and Taxes

Bambi wrote: »

Actually you'll find that western nations have evolved into secular states, unlike our islamic friends, I mean you do realise that don't you? And you do realise that your comparisons are so stretched they'd need to be made of latex?

I would say you have the monopoly in latex stretching.
Most laws in western society are derived from religion.
Our own Constitutions preamble:
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,We, the people of Éire,Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/a-misc/prayer.htm

Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen.


The above prayer is said at the commencement of each day's business in the Dáil by the Ceann Comhairle, and in the Seanad by the Clerk of the Seanad.


The Offical motto of the USA? "In God We Trust"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

Happy reading!:p

Evilsbane

Bambi wrote: »

Actually you'll find that western nations have evolved into secular states, unlike our islamic friends, I mean you do realise that don't you? And you do realise that your comparisons are so stretched they'd need to be made of latex?

USA: Accusing a Presidential candidate of secretly being a Muslim is considered a good way to hurt their chances. Money says "In God We Trust". Presidents sworn in on Bibles.
Ireland: Public schools teach Catholicism as a general rule, Protestant students get free period during religion class (when I was in secondary school anyway). Abortion illegal due to religious beliefs. Divorce only recently legalized. Gay Marriage not allowed due entirely to religious reservations.
UK: The Head of State is automatically the Head of Church, considered ordained by God and titled Defender of the Faith. Politicians must swear loyalty to this person and their image is put on all money.

LincolnsBeard

hooradiation wrote: »

You mean people who live in London?
Yeah, there's still about 8,174,100 of them there, i wouldn't worry about them going anywhere anytime soon.

They're not Londoners. They are simply people living in London. There used to be a community of people that could be identified as traditional "Londoners". If you put a bunch of arabs in Newcastle tomorrow, would they be Geordies? No.

The Road Runner

I think it only makes sense that integration is a two way street. As far as i know in canada you need to have a reasonable knowledge of either english or french to get a visa. I don't think it would be a huge cost to the state to provide english classes here to new comers which would be mandatory as part of the visa terms if they couldn't already speak it. It would go a way to giving new immigrants a better start and making integration easier from the outset.

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I note that nothing in above addresses your earlier rant accusing those of us who favour multiculturalism of being middle class nimbys who have adopted a cause , but are unprepared to to actual accept it in our own neighbourhoods or in our own lives.

If you'd be so good as to answer the questions put to you yesterday Wiley

P_1 wrote: »

The point is that the majority of people can declare as British and Muslim, some overstep the mark though.

It's all about cultural context.

Would you expect to act as you would in Dublin (enjoy the occasional pint/rasher sambo or go to mass etc) in Dubai for example?

Is it racist of the people of Dubai to expect you to respect their cultural norms? What's so different between that and the people of London expecting immigrants to respect their own cultural norms.

Wibbs wrote: »

Again you took it personally as applying directly to you and rather than take his points objectively and debate them got offended and brandished your credentials. EDIT actually could you discuss/debate this I posted earlier?

I think what many of the more hard line "right on" multiculturists miss is that some cultures that become part of a modern, progressive and equal society may not believe in or share the same views of modern, progressive and equal as the main society they find themselves in. Take more traditional cultures as examples. EG Many see sexual equality in very different ways. Ditto for social, religious and political equality. How can this be resolved in the philosophy that says modern, equal and progressive is the yardstick by which we judge our society, if we encourage by cultural relativism another culture who doesn't believe in this in the quest for diversity?

hooradiation

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

They're not Londoners.

Sure they are. They live in London, what else would they be?

Blisterman

Can I eliminate this strawman argument?

Being tolerant of people from different cultures ≠ Being supportive of Islamic extremism.

LincolnsBeard

hooradiation wrote: »

Sure they are. They live in London, what else would they be?

I just told you.

hooradiation

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

I just told you.

So they're Londoners then.
Awesome. Glad we sorted that out.

LincolnsBeard

hooradiation wrote: »

So they're Londoners then.
Awesome. Glad we sorted that out.

Are you intent on being an irritable **** today?

They are citizens of London. People that live in London. They're not a part of the London of old, which has all but disappeared now because of mass immigration.

When you change the people, you change the culture, you change the city. The same will happen to Dublin. It's ****ing horrible. The end.

Evilsbane

This London argument seems rather petty so I should probably point out that the original inhabitants of Ireland were overrun by the Celts, who were in turn overrun by the Normans. Migration happens, and if you think it can be prevented you're lying to yourself. The only question is whether the migration is unfair to anyone, and so far noone has put forward anything to suggest that it is. What exactly are the immigrants to London being accused of?

Forest Demon

I seen a family of Eskimos in the square. They were sweating in their big coats. They should try and integrate.

Death and Taxes

The Road Runner wrote: »

I think it only makes sense that integration is a two way street. As far as i know in canada you need to have a reasonable knowledge of either english or french to get a visa. I don't think it would be a huge cost to the state to provide english classes here to new comers which would be mandatory as part of the visa terms if they couldn't already speak it. It would go a way to giving new immigrants a better start and making integration easier from the outset.



If you'd be so good as to answer the questions put to you yesterday Wiley

I do think immigrants should learn the language of the host country, but is much evidence that they dont? The fact that they continue to converse with each other in their native language does not mean they cant speak the language of the host country. However I have no problem with them being obliged to learn it as it is essential to be able obtain employment, and do basic everyday social and business transactions.
With regard to the the questions you want answered:
To answer P_1
I think I should be able , in an ideal world ,to eat a rasher or drink a pint in Dubai, but if becuase the State of Dubai is intolerant I cant. Does that mean or even justify me being intolerant in return, no it doesn't.
The intolerance of others is never a justification for intolerance by onself.

Not sure what question exactly Wibbs wanted answered as he is a prolific poster but if you find it I will answer it.

Death and Taxes

Evilsbane wrote: »

This London argument seems rather petty so I should probably point out that the original inhabitants of Ireland were overrun by the Celts, who were in turn overrun by the Normans. Migration happens, and if you think it can be prevented you're lying to yourself. The only question is whether the migration is unfair to anyone, and so far noone has put forward anything to suggest that it is. What exactly are the immigrants to London being accused of?

Based on the posts so far? Not being white!

kraggy

Zillah wrote: »

This is incredibly unlikely. We're not the former capital of a worldwide empire.

No, but if our Social Welfare generosity continues, immigrants will continue to arrive in Ireland.

Aside from that, why does Britain continue to welcome non-EU immigrants when their economy is in the toilet?

hooradiation

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

They are citizens of London. People that live in London. They're not a part of the London of old, which has all but disappeared now because of mass immigration.

When you change the people, you change the culture, you change the city. The same will happen to Dublin. It's ****ing horrible. The end.

This happens all the damn time, it's not fucking horrible, it's life simply going on. Much like the complaining that "dem foreigners is ruining everything with their change" a complaint as old as time itself.

And yeah, "they" are as much Londoners as any other arbitrary subsection you want to define, because the only real criteria for being a Londoner is "to be living in London" anything else is pointless hairsplitting.

E.S.T.

Evilsbane wrote: »

USA: Accusing a Presidential candidate of secretly being a Muslim is considered a good way to hurt their chances. Money says "In God We Trust". Presidents sworn in on Bibles.

Accusing somebody of being a Muslim in the US is no different to accusing somebody of being a communist in the 1950's. That is why you have people accusing Obama of being a Kenyan, communist, Nazi, Muslim, socialist, fascist even though they don't understand what half of those words really mean

You also don't have to use a Bible when being sworn in.

Sworn in with Constitution

Sworn in with Koran

LincolnsBeard

hooradiation wrote: »

This happens all the damn time, it's not fucking horrible, it's life simply going on. Much like the complaining that "dem foreigners is ruining everything with their change" a complaint as old as time itself.

Mocking the attitude of people who dislike multiculturalism as stupid people that hate foreigners. That's hilarious and it's never been done before has it?

hooradiation wrote: »

And yeah, "they" are as much Londoners as any other arbitrary subsection you want to define, because the only real criteria for being a Londoner is "to be living in London" anything else is pointless hairsplitting.

I was talking about a certain community of people. You tried to be a smarmy **** about it.

Interesting point, the proponents of multiculturalism get very angry with people that don't think it's such a great idea (which tends to be most people...yet it still goes on)!

Death and Taxes

kraggy wrote: »

No, but if our Social Welfare generosity continues, immigrants will continue to arrive in Ireland.
QUOTE]

That is a facile arguement since immigrants have NO entitlement to Social Welfare under the Habitual Residency Condition.

Grand Moff Tarkin

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

There used to be such a thing as a Londoner. Cockneys in London were a defining part of the city like Geordies in Newcastle. Strong white working class communities in London have basically disappeared now. They have been pushed outward.

It was the Irish who built the Empire for our friends across the sea don't forget.

Death and Taxes

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

It was the Irish who built the Empire for our friends across the sea don't forget.

Oh please!

Grand Moff Tarkin

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Oh please!

I suppose you are going to tell us now it was all Muslin and Hindu lads who did all the back breaking work in London in the 1950's and swinging 60's.

Death and Taxes

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

I suppose you are going to tell us now it was all Muslin and Hindu lads who did all the back breaking work in London in the 1950's and swinging 60's.

What Empire did the Britain have in the 1960's?

Hoop66

Hackney Empire?

Dyr

WileyCoyote wrote: »

I would say you have the monopoly in latex stretching.
Most laws in western society are derived from religion.

That's as good as you can get, "derived from religions"

Here, let me draw you a picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Secularmap.PNG


See if you can spot the difference between western democracies and islamic states, then sit down and be quiet.

Grand Moff Tarkin

WileyCoyote wrote: »

What Empire did the Britain have in the 1960's?

My point was it was the Irish people who had immigrate who built up towns and cities all over England in the years after WWII. The fact you are trying to split hairs over the dates takes nothing away from the fact being correct and more to the point i was trying to make to the poster i originally replied to.

Dyr

hooradiation wrote: »

This happens all the damn time, it's not fucking horrible, it's life simply going on.

London has a long history, show me when "this" last happened in london.

Wibbs

WileyCoyote wrote:

Multiculturalism and mutually respect are not ideologies.

While mutual respect isn't, Multiculturalism with a capital M most certainly is.

philologos wrote:

Part of freedom of religion means that people are free to evangelise. Muslims are free to share their faith and others have every reason to share those. I don't think its a big deal unless they are ramming legislation in that would undermine the freedoms of non-Muslims.

Agreed, though Christianity and Islam are quite different in a number of respects. Christians(and others) have tended to see the commonalities between the faiths. The "ah sure it's like our thing", only in a few fundamental ways it's not. How? For a start the separation of church and state that exists in Christianity theologically(if not always in practice) simply doesn't exist in Islam and is written in stone as a tenet of faith. The caliphate model is the "ideal". Secondly Islam never had a reformation, followed by an enlightenment. The very notion of reformation can't happen. It's a more self protected ideology. Thirdly Islam is more a template for living from the top down, politically and socially than Christianity down to the minutiae of how many times and ways you wash yourself. Of course there are millions of a la carte Muslims, just like any faith out there, but the nutbags are increasingly getting more airtime particularly in developing nations.

Interestingly with regard to Islam in Europe and something you hear little about these days is that both the French and German govs actually promoted the faith in their immigrant populations in the 70's. Their reasoning being that more religious types would be less prone to social misbehaviour. There were far fewer headscarves in sight in Paris 1970, than in Paris 2000. Plus at the time Islam wasn't the boogyman it has become(for all sorts of reasons).

The Road Runner wrote: »

If you'd be so good as to answer the questions put to you yesterday Wiley

Good luck with that RR, though I'd love to see a cogent answer/argument to the question. Hey I'll pose the question again for shíts and giggles.

I think what many of the more hard line "right on" multiculturists miss is that some cultures that become part of a modern, progressive and equal society may not believe in or share the same views of modern, progressive and equal as the main society they find themselves in. Take more traditional cultures as examples. EG Many see sexual equality in very different ways. Ditto for social, religious and political equality. How can this be resolved in the philosophy that says modern, equal and progressive is the yardstick by which we judge our society, if we encourage by cultural relativism another culture who doesn't believe in this in the quest for diversity?

The bit in italics sums it up.

9959

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

I suppose you are going to tell us now it was all Muslin and Hindu lads who did all the back breaking work in London in the 1950's and swinging 60's.

Of course not, we know it was our altruistic lads who left the monocultural nirvana of 1950's Ireland to give the neighbours a 'dig out'.

Evilsbane

E.S.T. wrote: »

Accusing somebody of being a Muslim in the US is no different to accusing somebody of being a communist in the 1950's. That is why you have people accusing Obama of being a Kenyan, communist, Nazi, Muslim, socialist, fascist even though they don't understand what half of those words really mean

You also don't have to use a Bible when being sworn in.

Sworn in with Constitution

Sworn in with Koran

OK, great. The fact remains that whether it's enshrined in the Constitution or not, the USA has plenty of legislation that has its origins in religious tradition. In fact, every nation does. The thing to note is that Christianity and Islam both have their roots in Judaism, the tenets of which tend to form laws in most countries (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness etc). These laws are secular only insofar as all religions share them. Islam happens to have extra rules (being a continuation of Christianity, i.e. Islam acknowledges
Moses and Jesus in addition to Mohammed, they just consider Mohammed more important), so naturally countries with Muslim history and Culture will have extra legislation that we disagree with. They're different after all. But I fail to see how Iran is a nation of Martians fundamentally different from we humans, whereas the Vatican is hunky dory. And even if it was, I don't think Muslims should all be judged as one unit. It's not as if every Catholic is automatically a pedophile.

My point being that immigrants are not a sinister force attempting to subvert our nation. If they obey our laws then what harm? If they don't, then they're criminals and nobody's suggesting that criminality should be tolerated. If your Londoners moved away because immigrants were threatening violence, then criminals should be prosecuted as they always have been. But if they simply didn't like having darkies next door, then I don't care. Let them cut off their noses to spite their faces if they want to.

Am I missing your point? I'm not sure what exactly your complaint with immigration is. If it's economic reasons, then bear in mind that there are economic reasons why Western nations NEED immigration, not least of which is age demographics needing to be balanced to keep the pension problem under control.

dissed doc

Einhard wrote: »

Multiculturalism should never have been a policy in Europe. By multiculturalism, I mean the notion that every facet of every culture was to be respected, and that to call certain practices or belief into question was an inherently racist attitude. That kind of attitude has caused huge damage across the continent and, ironically, has hieghtened ethnic and racial tensions. I'm all for immigration. I like the diversity that immigration provides. However, I'm in favour of the melting pot where all cultures mix together as part of a broader society, not one where each culture forms its own segregated society. That's no fun. And it's pretty dangerous too. So multiculturalism, meh. Melting pot, yah!

Since when was it ever a policy in Europe? It's a UK/US driven idealogy and so naturally as people in Ireland prefer Anglophone/monoglotic media, they presume it's everywhere else as well. It isn't!