Multiculturalism

No. Not every instance of the minority keeping the majority in check is an example of Multiculturalism, even when the minority and majority are from clearly different cultures. By your silly standard teaching evolution in America is Multiculturalism:

quote:

---

Creationism Trumps Evolution (CBS News Poll):

​

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

​

More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.

---

Political affiliation doesn't matter. The majority of Americans opt for Creationism being taught in public schools. But our laws don't go that way (even if our practices often do). Evolution without Creationism wins in the courtroom time and time again.Is this Multiculturalism at work? Of course not. There is a good reason for evolution to be preferred over Creationism in schools. There is also a good reason we have equality for black citizens, and homosexuals, and...We have many laws affirming the rights of minorities. Getting these laws passed is the essence of social movements. Laws/regulations/etc. that simply protect the rights of minorities are not Multiculturalism, at least not in the sense this thread is using it.To regard all successful social movements as instances of Multiculturalism is ridiculous; it stretches the meaning of the term beyond recognition and usefulness.The fact that certain religious minorities are proving temporarily successful in reining in Europe's desire to irrationally strip rights from it countries' citizens doesn't mean Multiculturalism is winning; it just means rationality is ahead for the time being. And the fact that European countries are staying their proposed bans on circumcision out of consideration for certain religious minorities doesn't change the matter either; it is no more an example of Multiculturalism than a decision to grant equal rights to homosexuals to freely practice their lifestyle as heterosexuals freely practice theirs. Lawrence v. Texas was not a win for Multiculturalism; it was a win for equal rights. And the two are not synonymous. Because this topic isn't about protecting rights for minority cultures. I have said from the beginning that doing so is necessary and desirable. The topic is about promoting cultural diversity or restricting majority cultural practices out of consideration for minorities.To take an example that has already come up, criminally prosecuting adults for child sex trafficking is part of the UK's majority culture. This practice was restricted out of fear of offending, or fear of being seen as offending, a minority culture (i.e., out of consideration of the perpetrators' status as minorities). This is Multiculturalism. Because, as I've stated numerous times, there is more than one standard by which we judge policies/actions as Multicultural or not; it's not just about 'harm'. Promoting cultural diversity (which, as you know, means promoting minority cultures) is also Multiculturalismeven when no immediate and clear 'harm' is involved.Jon

But crafting laws explicitly excepting minority cultures from legal ramifications of existing laws is. I'm not sure how it could possibly not be. If the Republic of Macedonia penned a law allowing FGM or civil flogging or something else, then you'd probably say that this was a multicultural policy in action, wouldn't you? so you are saying that we should allow abusive practices in the name of minority rights, but you aren't the worst kind of multiculturalist? Yes, but while you are arguing against that, I'm not arguing for it.There is one thing to pass a law that says 'as a public vendor you can't refuse service to members of the public on the basis of religion or race etc', it's quite different to pass one that says 'human sacrifice is illegal.' And to then pass another one that says 'Unless you are from Botswana and follow the Fic-sha-nal religion, in which case it's not criminal' on the ground that Botswanan Fic-sha-nalist's culture should be preserved and protected by the state You don't understand the situation. People often complain about rights being taken away while neglecting rights that are being afforded. I don't know of any right in modern north western European law guaranteeing circumcision (until the recent situation under discussion at least). However, some people did see the laws of the land as giving children the right to not be circumcised without medical justification.so the EU is/was considering giving up to 80million people rights to have their body preserved, and you are worried about stripping rights (that they didn't have) from about 1 million people who want those rights to do certain long term changes to their children's genitals.Out of curiosity where do you stand on Type 1a FGM, the analagous procedure to male circumcision? Your framing of the discussion is a product of your culture. I'm not talking about protecting rights for minority cultures, I'm talking about enacting specific legislation to allow them to do things that could otherwise contravene the law quite seriously.Allowing human sacrifice may be framed as protecting the rights of minority cultures, but it's also excusing murder out of cultural sensitivity or in the interests of cultural diversity because of a belief that this is a good thing. same with circumcision. Criminally prosecuting adults for circumcising people without consent was part of EU culture, many legal minds believed the established rights of children and the laws associated with those rights already made the practice of neonatal ritualistic circumcision illegal, and medical ethics experts were in strong consensus that it is unethical. This practice was restricted out of fear of offending or being seen as offending, a minority culture. It wasn't just some unknown number individuals within the system who might have been involved in this, perhaps, maybe. It was governments voting on passing legislation in a 3-1 sized majority in public view and as part of official record. This is Multiculturalism. Then you should not dismiss this discussion as off-topic based on the singular standard that it isn't harmful then, right?

No. I'd say that the whole lot of them were stupid. No. That's the opposite of what I'm saying. This is a slippery slope to nonsense, as I showed in the other thread on Circumcision. No. Every instance of a majority culture recognizing rights of a minority is not an example of Multiculturalism as it's being used in this thread. I haven't dismissed the discussion as off-topic based on the singular standard that it isn't harmful. I've dismissed it based on the standard that it isn't relatively harmful (anything can be argued to be harmful, so it's 'relative') and that it doesn't involve any example of Multiculturalism policy as discussed in this thread.Not all instances of affirming equal rights/protection from prosecution/etc. are examples of Multiculturalism as it's being used in this thread.

Certainly people within cultures will tend to share some values - and I can agree that it is possible to analyse sub-cultures within cultures. You get into issues as to how thinly to slice the cake then, of course, in an endeavour to find as tightly a defined sub-set of people as you can - and even then, I'm not sure as to the level of consensus you would get in values. I'm a reasonably standard white middle class male in an urban environment in England. One of my values is honesty. I would never falsify an insurance claim - but I know that many people do in my culture (however you'd like to define that term). And although they know it is illegal, many will genuinely believe it is not morally wrong - they see it as part of an acceptable level of give and take between wealthy corporations and less wealthy individuals. In that regard, I believe we have different values, within the same culture, for example. I'm not so sure. My concern as to the dialogue around mutable values is that it engenders a view that no particular value set should be given extra weight, and that this in turn weakens the strength of my current value set. My values are right for me, right here right now, and that makes them especially important to me in the present. If I think otherwise, and start to shrug my shoulders at the fact that 125 million living women are thought to have undergone FGM, on the basis that my values are no more valid or important than another set of values which might conceivably condone FGM, then I would not be the man I would want to be. That to me is the danger of relativism - the dialogue of it dilutes moral outrage and can engender an environment in which we are less motivated to help others. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not blind to the problems in my own society - and you're right, I want the absolute bare minimum of state and corporate intrusion into my life and those of others. But that doesn't, of course, undermine my concern as to the effects of the dialogue of relativism, nor my abhorrence for things which brutalise individuals and which are (occasionally) accepted in other cultures.

Message 110:

quote:

---

But we have decided already as a society that we are not going to allow infringements on individual liberties under the excuse of freedom of belief. That's why we don't allow ritualistic sacrifice, even though our imposition against it clearly infringes on the religious freedoms of some people. In general, we have a principle in our society that says one person's liberties end where another person's begin.

​

This is one of the concerns about Multiculturalism that I posted in the OP.

---

It seems you've had a change of heart, I wasn't aware. Could you give me your updated understanding of multiculturalism? When you're ready to start engaging a discussion and moving the discussion forward rather than breaching guideline 4 with gainsaying.Here I am saying the children's rights begin with their body. When they're born it's more or less all they have and every part of it is theirs and theirs alone. A parent's liberties therefore end there. That's the perspective I'm discussing, and you seem to have shut down the discussion completely. Are you feeling a sense of dissonance in your mind at all? And now it seems we're back to the other definition of multiculturalism. so what you are saying is that we should disallow abusive practices despite minority 'rights'? If a pointing out that there are different perspectives in law and ethics, even between liberal Western democracies, is a 'slippery slope to madness' then we're already in madness, and we'll probably be here forever.I suppose dismissing our cultural values as 'irrational' and characterising us 'rights strippers' is an example exemplary argumentation, in your mind? Why is mine not multiculturalism, when yours is? Gainsaying is not going to get us anywhere and is actually quite rude. If you've run out of motivation to discuss it, you can do as you did with The Search for Moderate Islam you can just stop talking. It's more polite that way.

quote:

---

Circumcision has nothing to do with this topic because it is not a harmful minority practice that needs to be legislated out of existence.

---

I only see one standard employed in the comment my criticism was directed at. With a statement so broad who could disagree. Indeed, I've said things which should indicate I agree with this already. On the other hand - what rights are being affirmed with legislating to allow circumcision? The entire point is that there was no such right, we just looked the other way so we didn't offend other cultures.To advance the argument you'll have to make a specific argument as to why protecting people from being prosecuted for child abuse because of the prevalence of a certain culture within society is not multiculturalism.

Your upbringing, personality and experiences all have a strong cultural component. I'll be more impressed by the contribution of your "native wit" when you can accurately predict what people's values will be a hundred years from now. I didn't say that your/our values of today should be given little weight. They are, after all, the only values that you/we have. They are the only values that have weight in our society.What I said was that you/we should be constantly re-assessing your/our values because they have changed in the past and can be expected to continue changing in the future. You remind me of the fellow who wanted to close the Patent Office at the turn of the twentieth century because every possible advance had been made. Don't confuse "obvious" with "true". What's "obvious" in one context may well be false in another.There may indeed be absolute ideal human values. Eating babies is pretty close to absolutely wrong. Forced female genital mutilation is pretty close too. What about voluntary female genital mutilation? What about any kind of voluntary mutilation? What about facial tattoos?Who decides where the absolute line is between "right" and "wrong"?Unless you're contantly re-evaluating your own values, how can you even draw the line for yourself?

Yes. Yes. Yes.So I had to go back and try to figure out what you're disagreing with me about.In Message 225 I said:

quote:

---

... but many other cultural practices should be looked at carefully before we apply the letter of the law to them.

---

Faith and petrophysics cheered your objection but now you seem to have repudiated them and changed your mind to agree with me.

The full sentence was My objection was that you appear to be saying that the host nation should not apply its laws to the immigrant. I say that the immigrant should expect the host nation's laws to apply to them and that they should be expected to change any cultural or religious traditions that would break the incumbent's laws.It's a variant on the two way street argument - immigrants have a responsibility to adapt to the host county's laws and values; if they don't want to, they needn't come.

I'm saying that the host nation shouldn't apply its laws stupidly. They should be applied judiciously. False dichotomy. They may, indeed, "need" to come for refuge. Or they may decide that it's easier to work for change over here than over there.They need the serenity to accept the things they cannot change, the courage to change the things they can and the wisdom to know the difference.My grandparents were immigrants. They didn't come to Canada to absorb the British culture. Canada benefited from theirs.

I've worked in insurance claims. The biggest culprits for insurance fraud was Pakistanis and other Asians. We didn't say that often, didn't want to appear racist, but we would talk about it when the light wasn't shining on us, and it never stopped us investigating. Actually I had a friend who would instantly mark a file as fraudulent within a minute of speaking to someone. I asked him why he was doing it and he said 'well, in this case, the guy's surname is Patel, which is very dodgy.'. My response to him was "But your surname is Patel too!", he'd retort "so, I'd know, right?" Funny how that is on topic It's the truth, though, right? Whether a value system is good or not, really depends on its goals. If the goal is community and collectivism, our value system sucks. You keep saying it, but it's not true. It's exactly as weak as it was before we discussed it, but now we're both conscious of it. But why would you do that? Did you abandon your values somewhere?Of course not.Just because you can't say which culture is 'right' and 'true' and 'the best', it doesn't mean you can't passionately fight for what you believe in. It just means you should temper your passion with tentativity moreso even than one does with empirical claims about objective facts. Misdirected moral outrage can do just as much harm as it can help: see september 11 2001. Hence the need for tentativity. so can rigidly sticking to the values you currently hold. see Jon's discussion of circumcision: he feels no motivation to help children because he doesn't think they need it because they aren't being harmed and that's that. Descriptively relative.
Prescriptively absolute.
With measured tentativity of the latter coming from the former.That's the way to live, methinks.

What that means is that laws should be ignored or enforced on political or politically correct grounds. Which is where we disagree. If a country has a law that is routinely enforced on one culture but not another, you get the kind of problems we're seeing in Rochdale. We shouldn't confuse law with culture.

Your position leads to the most ludicrous conclusions. No society, even ones that would ban circumcision, actually treats children as though they own their bodies completely. And for good reason: kids are morons.Parents tell children what clothes to put on those bodies; what food to put inside of them; how to hold those bodies (don't run; sit up straight); where those bodies will be and when; what other bodies those bodies will interact with; what work those bodies will do (clean your room!). Parents shove their hands up the asscracks of those bodies; fondle those bodies regularly; force those bodies into chairs while other people probe, jab, twist, hit, and stab those bodies.The notion that a child's body is "theirs and theirs alone" is just nonsense.Children do not own their bodies, which is why it is misguided for anyone to make an ethical argument about circumcision on the premise that they do.The argument needs to be based on something else and frankly there's nothing else to base it on. I've made that argument. You've chosen to ignore it. But here it is again:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 256:

​

The topic is about promoting cultural diversity or restricting majority cultural practices out of consideration for minorities.

---

When the majority cultural practice is dumb (like stoning adulterers or forcing women to cover their bodies form head to toe), then Multiculturalism doesn't apply.An unconditional ban on infant circumcision is dumb. It has nothing to do with Multiculturalism.

Maybe others can't, but I most definitely can say which culture is 'right' and 'true' and 'the best'.It's not the culture that stones homosexuals. It's not the culture that wages religious war on itself. It's not the culture where girls are denied an education just because they are girls. It's not the culture where political institutions cannot even provide for the basic needs of the people.It is the culture that grants equality before the law. It is the culture that respects religious freedom. It is the culture where children are provided educations regardless of the shape of their genitals. It is the culture where individual liberty, freedom of expression, and respect for others has created powerful empire-like societies capable of providing for nearly every conceivable want or need of their people.It's the Western culture. That is the culture that is right and true. That is the culture that is the best. Not prescriptively so; but actually so.Plain. And. Simple.

Not at all. You've just attempted to interpret things in the worst possible way. I assume because you don't want to face the argument. Morons with rights, however. Including, according to some (such as in the 'German Constitution' {Basic Law}), a right to bodily integrity. After all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article I starts it off:

quote:

---

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

---

And the ECHR, Article 8:

quote:

---

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life

---

And previous judgements had ruled that 'private life' includes ones own body, in accord with

quote:

---

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

---

Leading to the German judge who weighed

quote:

---

The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.

---

From German constitutional law along with

quote:

---

The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty.

---

against

quote:

---

Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.

---

thusly:

quote:

---

When the fundamental rights affected are weighed, account must be taken of the principle of proportionality. Circumcision for the purpose of religious upbringing constitutes a violation of physical integrity, and if it is actually necessary, it is at all events unreasonable. This follows from the evaluation of section 1631 (2) sentence 1 BGB. In addition, the child's body is permanently and irreparably changed by the circumcision. This change conflicts with the child's interest of later being able to make his own decision on his religious affiliation. Conversely, the parents' right of upbringing is not unreasonably adversely affected if they are required to wait to find out if the boy later, when he is of age, decides himself to be circumcised as a visible sign of his affiliation to Islam. (...) Schwarz (...) sees the consent, taking account of criteria of constitutional law, as constituting justification, but he only considers the parental rights under Articles 4 and 6 GG, but not - as is necessary - the child's own rights under Article 2 GG. For this reason alone, his opinion is not convincing.

---

None of what you said is a counterpoint to this notion. Children own their bodies, but they can't look after them, and parent's are therefore obligated to do so because the child has rights to health and general welfare etc. Every person owns their own body. Even when that person is under care of another. This is one reason why child abuse is illegal. It doesn't matter, we're not here to make the ethical argument for or against the practice. We're here to discuss the cultural view that sees children as having a certain set of rights, and how this conflicts with certain cultures which deny those rights (including yours), and how the conflict is resolved by capitulating and legislating to allow those rights to be breached in the interests of cultural diversity.The point is, it isn't a bunch of misguided folk talking horse manure. Experts in relevant fields are making these arguments:

quote:

---

Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to
autonomy and physical integrity.

---

Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minorsso all your unnecessary objections that are part of an expected reaction when someone is discussing a hypothetical, but fact based, situation which is at odds with your culture should stop now. If the above sentiments were a reflection of a host's culture's values, would allowing it anyway be a multicultural policy? Why? In your cultural opinion. But your opinion of a ban is irrelevant. I'm asking you should a society ban practices it deems abusive in the interests of preserving its culture and values, or should it compromise and allow abusive behaviour to continue because of the pressures coming from minority cultures (Jews, Americans etc) with different values? A ban wouldn't be multiculturalist. It would be monoculturalist. Multiculturalist would be to allow the practice to go on only because minority cultures want to continue practicing it, even though it is against the law, and when society realizes it is against the law, it would be multicuturalist of them to enact laws to specifically exempt it as a crime in order not to criminalize minority cultural practices so as to maintain or even encourage a multicultural society.You have to explain why the policies intended to retain or promote cultural diversity aren't multicultural policies. Dismissing it as 'dumb' is perhaps the least intelligent attempt you
could have made, and if it were me, I'd be pretty embarrassed about it.Your reaction to this has led me to start developing the hypothesis that you aren't against multiculturalism at all. You are just against other cultures in general. You look at other cultures that are doing things in a way you disagree and you call them 'dumb', 'irrational' and 'misguided' regardless. What you want is for everybody to be even more American in their culture, and to share American values and American morality. I'm half expecting puppets to burst out of the screen yelling 'fuck yeah!', you know?Take off your American glasses. Try to shift thinking slightly. For instance: it used to be considered not only acceptable but a moral imperative to use corporal punishment on children, even by teachers and sometimes police officers. I'm not talking about grabbing, spanking, shaking, slapping or what have you - I mean canes and paddles - floggings/beatings. But then a shift of thinking happened that children had rights which were being denied leading to their abuse and this kind of thing stopped. Imagine, if you will, a similar shift that says that removing the clitoris and the labia cannot be excused on cultural practice grounds, then a further shift that says even removing only the clitoris is unacceptable, and then finally, and this is a hard one, imagine a shift where people came to the belief that it might be, just maybe, unacceptable to remove the clitoral hood. Even if it is mandated by some religion!?Can you get to the point where you can imagine that taking a baby girl, or a toddler, spreading their legs, opening up their genitals, and slicing off their clitoral hood might be considered a moral offence?

America! Why not? How have you determined this?