Multiculturalism

Force was the word you used. I'll quote you:From Message 67Your word, not mine. Mr. armed overthrow of the government is the essence of democracy. Are you ever going to get around to citing some examples of multi-cultural policies that you want to change. Tell me a specific attitude, value, or ideal of a cultural group that is protected by policy and that you want to change. Is it really to much to ask for you mono maniacs to be specific?

What did I accuse you of: And you believe that there is some distinction between that and " force their participation into the national culture." There is no distinction.You also claimed to have used the word "encouraged" in this context. Where was that?When are you going to get around to telling us what behaviors constitute multi-culturalism policy?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The police are not going to avoid prosecuting criminal matter stuff. Nobody is by policy allowing people to handle their own rape cases. So citing Sharia law provisions for those things is ridiculous. And if punishments are criminal, then those are going to run afoul of the law as well. Nobody in this country at least has a policy of making people exempt from criminal law.On the other hand, some religions here do practice shunning and other religious punishments for goofy reasons. And it is all tolerated.Arbitration would be used only for civil disputes. Kinda like how if you have a dispute with your cable company you don't get to go to court and sue because you've agreed to arbitration. You've also the rules for who wins and looses and the limits on possible remedies when you signed your contract. Time Warner however cannot cut off your hand regardless of how much cable you steal.

Isn't this really what you are leaving unsaid?

Surely you understand that the law provisions you discuss here would not affect anyone would could afford the necessary legal advice to minimize the ramifications to essentially nothing.Instead it would be poor people who would lose the tiny amounts that are all of the assets that their ma and pa had managed to accumulate who would be affected by your policy. Family house now owned by the state? Is that really what you want?

There is no new law. What is described is providing legal guidance. You are already allowed to use a will to disenfranchise one or more of your children. The advice would be providing ways to make such elections difficult to challenge after death.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You wish I had made them up.I quoted your words exactly as you provided them and I did not leave out any portion of them. I did indeed lift the quote from another discussion, but there is no question that you wrote it. If you think there is some context that will help, you are welcome to supply it.Here is your starting point Message 12Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I note that kosher is not the only religious inspection the FDA is involved in.In addition to safety, the FDA inspects food for non-safety related truth telling for lots of purposes. Despite the fact that there is no safety implication, it is against federal law to lie about lots of things related to food. Why would kosher be any different? People lying about whether food is kosher in order to make a buck are still lying no good, pieces of crap, and I would just as soon see them locked up.With regard to multiculturalism -- of all the things that separate us, is it really that important that we stamp out cultural differences in diet or that we make them more difficult to sustain. What end does this serve? What kind of government aims to wipe out stuff like that? Sounds pretty Orwellian to me.

I submit that secular superiority is the wrong standard. My argument:Secular superiority is not necessary to avoid constitutional problems. or to give the FDA jurisdiction. For example, the FDA allows marking non-GMO despite the fact they do not believe there is any superiority. Same thing with organic food markings. Flavoring ingredients are supposed to be correct even when the FDA has no science indicating safety issues. It is also illegal to improperly mark place of origin despite there being no nutritional impact whatsoever.Kosher includes some religious requirements, yes but some things are preparation and ingredient details. People may well have an interest in those things even if they are not Jewish. I personally like kosher hotdogs. As long as the FDA does not cross the lines Modulus pointed to, they don't need to employ any religious authority or to check for rabbis.And in some cases personal allergies may be involved.If some one advertises that their meat is cooked by any process (slow cooked over a charcoal pit) then I don't want the seller sneaking in some cheaper method even if it is more nutritional and healthy. And if people prefer the means Hebrew National uses to make hotdogs, then there is nothing particularly religious about the government making imitators do the deed properly.If some people think draining blood from meat is healthier or just less icky, then let the gov't check people who make those claims.Again, there is a line that can be crossed. If that line gets crossed, them I'm with you. I don't see that a kosher or Halal inspection necessarily crosses the line.

Completely agree. And the problem is not just white girls and Muslim pimps/abusers. This stuff goes on in urban areas everywhere. If multi-culturalism is used for cover, that's wrong. But it isn't an argument for getting rid of multi-culturalism in general.

The first half of the statement is not true. There are supposed secular benefits. I described some perceived benefits. If you want more, my wife is convinced that avoiding pork helps her control her blood pressure. The benefits are at least as substantial as those associated with non-GMO foods.As various health scares raise fears about the food supply, more consumers are viewing the strictly prepared meats as a safer alternative.

quote:

---

Kosher laws are stricter than U.S. Department of Agriculture standards when it comes to the health of animals that can be eaten. They prohibit, for example, using cows with broken bones or animals that are visibly sick. The laws strictly dictate how the animals are fed, killed and processed.

---

Can you say that it would be unreasonable for a secular person to value the extra scrutiny?And I think the USDA actually handles meat/poultry inspection. My bad.ABE:
The second half of your statement is based on bad logic. The presence or absence of the rabbi has no impact at all on the value or non-value of the processing steps.
end ABEAnd while there may be requirements to have a rabbi present to be truly Kosher, the government can avoid the issue by not verifying that requirement. Are you suggesting that they do otherwise?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

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.

What values or national identity are promoted by Halloween?

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.