User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 54

  1. #41
    Senior Member wyrdsister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Ape
    Posts
    106

    Default

    I believe that the whole world should sign up for some basic human rights. Beating a woman is wrong in any culture, sorry but that's my opinion. All this bullshit about preserving others cultures is hogwash, all cultures of all times have been influenced by other cultures from the time we came down from the trees.

    /rant over
    Wyrd is a concept in Anglo-Saxon and Nordic culture roughly corresponding to fate. It is ancestral to Modern English weird, which has acquired a very different meaning.

  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahara View Post
    Why oh why is multiculturalism being raised above basic human rights? or am I to accept that basic human rights are not as important as the "Don't offend other cultures" concept?
    This hit upon a particular beef I have with Canada and its so-called multi-culturalism. A lot of feel-good lip service is paid to the idea by allowing various forms of religious dress and expression, but such things as Sharia law are knocked down by the courts. That, in fact I support, but 'true' multiculturalism should reflect the methods and precedures of different cultures; anything less is simply posing.

  3. #43
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Canada uses it as a way to isolate minorities. People go "oh, we're multicultural, look, over there, see, that person is a muslim", but they fail to mention that they never interact with these people. It's just quiet distrust and non-acceptance, they can live here, but we don't want them in our neighborhoods. It's not really a unified country, it's merely a variety of racial and religious groups that happen to live near each-other in the same box drawn on a map.
    I 100%, N 88%, T 88%, J 75%

    Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahara View Post
    Hi Lateralus

    Without getting into a long debate on the link you provided, you are wrong about any muslim scholar granting a divorce in this case. The link is misleading, and whats' worse not actually giving references to the hadiths.
    You're right. I choose my words poorly.

    Other stuff
    I'll take your word for it. I know you have far more intimate knowledge than I have.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #45
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cindyrella View Post
    And this is why separation of church and state is so incredibly important. Religion should not mix with politics. I cannot think of one exception to this rule. I'm right with you, Sahara...human rights should transcend culture and religion.
    You're ignoring the political side to Islam. It's not just a religion.

    The more peaceful Muslims are only following the spiritual side of the belief system. There's a reason that 'separation of church and state' grew out of Western culture and not the Middle East.
    I don't wanna!

  6. #46
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    From what I understand of the "separation of church and state" in the United States, it was only alluded to and not really set out as a specific policy... and the intent behind it was to keep government from meddling in the affairs of religion.

    It's funny how we have turned it on its head (i.e., use it to protect government from religion) and at least in the public mindset might as well have included it as part of the Bill of Rights.

    Any speculation on how this plot twist occurred?

    Quote Originally Posted by booyalab View Post
    You're ignoring the political side to Islam. It's not just a religion.
    True. None of these categories are as clear-cut as people make them for the purposes of their arguments.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #47
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Any speculation on how this plot twist occurred?
    I would speculate that the US was founded on keeping individual rights a priority (hence the original separation of state and religion!), except that religion was used as a fulcrum to change people's political beliefs to vote en block along religious lines with the intent of removing individual rights (ie: prohibition, but I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of small events that created this mindset).

    Hence, to protect the "democracy" part in the republic, since a republic is still just a democracy with paper rules, religion had to be curtailed in the government.

    I can't say it exactly worked well, judging from the religious influence being exerted. I wonder if you can really have a multicultural religious democracy...?

  8. #48
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    Canada uses it as a way to isolate minorities. People go "oh, we're multicultural, look, over there, see, that person is a muslim", but they fail to mention that they never interact with these people. It's just quiet distrust and non-acceptance, they can live here, but we don't want them in our neighborhoods. It's not really a unified country, it's merely a variety of racial and religious groups that happen to live near each-other in the same box drawn on a map.
    Yeah, this happens...but I think it is for a different reason than you think.

    In my experience people come here, and because multiculturalism is so promoted, there is already a stable and very...closed community existing for pretty much any ethnic group. So people find their place in their community, and they don't feel any need for additional human contact so they rarely reach out of their community.

    Even in high school, there were many "westernized" immigrants who hung out with people of all origins, but most of the others, especially recent immigrants, stuck to people of their own culture. There were chinese groups, various other asian groups, muslim groups, muslim black groups, etc etc. But not at ALL because they weren't welcome in the rest of us....they just usually seem to prefer to be with people like them. With many exceptions of course.

    I can't say whether this is a good thing or a bad thing; I imagine there are differing opinions. That's how I see the situation though.

  9. #49
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Yeah, this happens...but I think it is for a different reason than you think.

    I would agree... There are language barriers, economic barriers and cultural barriers. Some cultures are very closed to outsiders, including Canadians as a whole... And a lot of it has to do with existing cultures.

    I don't think anyone in Canada claims perfect "multiculturalism", but the whole bit about not changing our legal system and that being done to segregate seems ridiculous to me, even in theory. There are pre-built communities to help people integrate and get jobs, which causes pockets of cultures... but from where I stand, the major problems are caused along economic lines. That binds "like" people together and creates a "help me, help you" attitude, which really slows integration.

  10. #50
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    From what I understand of the "separation of church and state" in the United States, it was only alluded to and not really set out as a specific policy... and the intent behind it was to keep government from meddling in the affairs of religion.

    It's funny how we have turned it on its head (i.e., use it to protect government from religion) and at least in the public mindset might as well have included it as part of the Bill of Rights.

    Any speculation on how this plot twist occurred?
    The phrase "separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

    The "wall of separation" is strictly Jefferson's interpretation, though it indicates the Founder's intent with regard to the function of the Constitution. The clause in the Bill of Rights that pertains to it reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It's part of the First Amendment, and it was written into the Constitution in reaction to centuries of state-sponsored religious repression at the hands of various European governments.

    Entire towns in New England were settled by Presbyterian Scots whose ancestors had been victims of bloody reprisals against the Covenanters of protestant Scotland by agents of James I (ironically, the King James of the King James Version). The entire colony of Maryland functioned as a refuge for English Catholics no longer welcome in Anglican England. The Huguenots (French Calvinists) fled to the new world as fast as they could find passage, as did the Anabaptists fleeing the Calvinist and Lutheran governments of Switzerland and Germany, respectively, and the active persecution there.

    All of them believed fervently that there should be no such thing as an official state church...that governments should govern in the civil arena, and leave religious matters to ecclesiastical authorities. The hope was to prevent state-sponsored religious persecution, up to and including using tax revenues in support of a religion to which everyone didn't necessarily adhere.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] How idyllic is your life, How idyllic is your spirit?
    By Alienclock in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-10-2013, 05:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO