socratoad

I totally agree with you, alas the American government does it all the damned time

I'm sure you do not need a list

socratoad

My apologies to all posting on this thread. After a night without sleep I started posting without thoroughly reading several of the recent posts, and so naturally I misinterpreted the latest posts. Oh well hopefully I shall learn from this embarrassment.
The humble pie tastes very bitter

DMB

I don't see that there is a clear distinction. If I argue passionately with Canadians about an issue such as this, I might be supposed to be trying to influence Canadian domestic policy by getting Canadians on my side.

Mughal

I think campaigning is all about bringing in some change. Positive as well as negative.

Secular humanist forces have been very active in this regard ie in reacting to religious wrong doings. This is why religions are gradually losing their appeal as rational and scientific education takes roots.

This campaign also has come about in reaction to the campaign that was started by religious people who formed a religious body to safeguard religious concerns. Secularist always have been reacting to religious teachings and practices etc because of their harmful effects. It is people who suffer those effects that start a campaign against religion.

Muslims who are living in the west many have suffered under religious regimes and laws or rules and practices therefore they sort refuge in free states. Now as soon as they found out that the same is beginning to get attention even in the countries wherein they have taken refuge, they are bound to panic because they have nowhere else to go. There is a saying, once bitten twice shy or that you do not want to be bitten from the same hole. Since these people know what islam is and what it does to people and many muslims are clearly showing that therefore their concerns cannot be ignored.

Also since world has been moving from tribalism to religionism to secularism therefore it would seem that giving religion any security no matter how minute it may be would be considered as an obstacle in the way of progress in the direction of civility and humanity or humanism.

The idea is that ultimately all religious rules that are anti humanity should be discarded from our human societies. This cannot happen unless religions and religious are forced more and more to justify their stance rationally and scientifically for the betterment of human beings. This is what forces law changes in societies as well as brings about constitutional changes.

So it is not sufficient to think that such and such is the constitution or law of the land or of religion but it must remian justifiably relevant as well or campaigns will come about to force the changes that people deem necessary.

So debate has two opposing aspects a ) from the secular humanist side and b ) from religion side. If secular humanists side loses support, the religious side gains it and if religious side loses support, the humanists side gains it.

Now coming to muslims demands, they came to nonmuslim states voluntarily knowing full well that they were going to join the infidels. The question is, why did they do so? Why would a religious muslim go and live in an infidel state? Was it for havinga better life? Well quran repeatedly says, life of this world is nothing and should not be given attention over and above islam. So why would a practicing muslim give up islamic life in an islamic state and go where he cannot practice what his religion demands of him? Now if a muslim is clever enough and courageous enough to demand that shariah or islamic practices must be allowed in infidel lands, why is he afraid to make such demands in muslims countries? After all he visits whole of his family in there every now and then and no one is stopping such a person from leaving infidel state.

What mainly ruined muslim countries is their own political, social, cultural and economic senselessness and sectarianism based madness. Such clear is the islamic teaching and such great it is in comparison to all other ideologies, systems and structures that this is the end product of it that even muslims themselves have to run away from their very own countries. Is that what they are trying to do to nonmuslim countries as well ie turn them into beautiful islamic gardens? I still see tribal and religious warfare in Afghanistan, bangladesh, iran, pakistan etc etc. If islam is no good for islamic countries, why should it be imported to infidel countries?

So if muslims must campaign to get their way, secular humanist must also campaign to get their way. Whoever fails will lose the battle but consequences for humanists losing are not going to be good.

jbernier

Not so sure. I mean, while my ancestors were running around worshipping trees Muslim scholars were inventing algebra and the like. And how did Aristotle come to the Western European world in the 12 through 14 centuries - through Muslim scholars! I think that we need to look more at the history of European colonialism and the particulars of Ottoman imperial economy, practice, etc.

jbernier

Not so sure that it has to be a zero sum game. That is where I really think you might be missing a crucial dimension of Canadian approaches to issues of cultural plurality. Traditionally (particularly in the last 30 years or so) the goal has been to allow people as much freedom of practice as possible when it comes to religious practice. For some countries (France, for instance, and America to a large extent) secularism has tended to mean limiting differences and diversity, at least in the public arena; for Canada it has tended to mean allowing as much diversity as feasible. This means compromise and a willingness to live with people who are different from oneself - even if one disagrees with them. We have tended to take a live and let live attitude to cultural plurality. We talk about multiculturalism as a mosaic, as opposed to the American melting pot: Multiculturalism as a tapestry of differing shades and shapes. It is, thus, no accident that Canada has been a leader in recognizing same-sex marriage - that came out of our traditional live and let live attitude, a willingess to let the tapestry broaden and grow.

I think that our willingness to live and let live in areas of differences is one of Canada's strengths. It is an attitude that has historically made us good peacekeepers in conflict situations. The thing, however, is that one must be willing to take the bad with the good. The same attitude and practice which has led us to value diversity, thus allowing us to more easily be comfortable with same-sex marriage (for instance), is precisely the same attitude and practice which has lead to the currently proposed recognition of Sharia. My thinking is that, since one of our great strengths is the ability to compromise and accomodate, Canada owes it to itself and the Muslims who desire this freedom to at least hear them out, to take their request seriously. And I think we need to have a damn good reason, when we generally tend towards compromise and accomodation, why we are unwilling to do so in this case. And you know what: If we can make it work, if we can institute the proper government oversight, then I think it is a great idea because it will express the ideals which Canada has come to stand for for many of us who are Canadian. And if we can't, okay, we don't do it. But if we can, why not.

ComestibleVenom

jbernier,

Come, come now. Don't be insular. I believe that outsiders are pefectly able to see some of the potential problems with such internal fracturing of justice. Your idealized notion of Canadian mutliculturalism (the government line, which you evidently have taken hook and sinker) seems to have blinded you to the fact that being able to accept 'outside' (such a xenophobic conception really!) advice as valuble is part and parcel with such relativism.

That being said, I agree with your assertion that this isn't a zero sum game. I think 'the seperation of the church and state' is a misguided theory. However, I would not wantonly suggest that religious practice can always be accepted for what they claim to be. I don't think that islamist governance or sovereign 'first nations' are particularly wholesome ideas, even in such a dynamic polyculture as Canada's.

Now as to the specifics of this proposal, I am not very familiar, and I feel I ought to do some more research before really speaking to it. I however welcome the tolerance of backwards thinking, and where it is found, I will exploit it to the hilt.



Amateur importer of lillegal hate literature,
ComesibleVenom

jbernier

Holy &*%$. How many times do I have to say that I am not opposed to people outside Canada putting their two cents in! Was it not clear the approximately ten thousand other times I have said it and the approximately five thousand that I have that I have said it?!

Note that I did not suggest that they could. I did say that, given our tradition of compromise, we should at least be open to the possibility that it might work - not shut down discourse about the possibility at first opportunity.

I'm all for First Nations self-governance, but that is a different issue entirely.

Exactly - and I think that most here who have unilaterally dismissed this possibility have not shown much awareness of Canadian practice and history (by the way, I was intentionally giving 'the government line' in order to help explain the philosophy behind this proposal).

Rustharold

For a religious person there is a strong desire to bring everyone into the light, every nation under the one true God. This is what will be in the back of their mind when they do things like this. That it may someday be used to help bring the nation into subjection to God

Now, I'm sure not everyone minds such a thing, even many would glory in it. However, from my point of view this is a sinister plan and anything that may propel it forward or inspire their religious zeal is evil.

jbernier

Your argument, then, put more formally:
"[The] religious person [has] a strong desire to bring everyone into the light, every nation under the one true God."
The people who are making this proposal are religious.
Therefore, in making this proposal, it is their intent to "bring everyone into the light, every nation under the one true God."

The first step is to consider your first premise. What would it take to disprove it? Well, since it talks about "religious person" in the generic the statement must apply to any and every one who can be characterized as 'religious.' As a Christian I could be defined thus. However I have no desire 'to bring everyone into the light, every nation under the one true God.' So either you must give a narrow definition of 'religious person', rephrase the statement to read 'for some religions persons...' or reject the statement as unsound. The first option would in effect be tailoring the data to fit your case by excluding contrary data a priori; the second would mean that your conclusion (in order to remain logically consistent) would have to rephrased as "Therefore, in making this proposal, it may be their intent..."; the third option would invalidate your whole argument. Thus in order to maintain your conclusion as it stands you must tailor your data a priori to exclude myself as a religious person. Once you do that, however, you really can prove anything by monkeying with the allowed data and thus really prove nothing.

Basically your argument is valid but not solid - not unless you can either provide evidence for your first premise or add a qualifier and then demonstrate that these particular religious persons meet the criteria that the qualifier would demand. Until you do that your argument is based upon a stereotyped 'religious person', not upon actual evidence.