I wanted to do one of my lengthy well researched posts. However Multiculturalism and
the road to evil must be discussed. The problems are people do not understand the severe problems associated with multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism starts out noble and it is a good idea to learn about other cultures. However as we progress down this road we run into the axiom that all cultures are equal and that differences are socital variants. The worse crime one can commit is to be judgemental. This mindset is known as Moral Relitivism.
If all cultures are equal then there can be no value judgements.Honor Killing , Stoning of Gays, Slavery and female foot binding become cultural variants. Behavior that does not harm society should be allowed. No lives are threatened if someone wants to worship nature. Thus there is zero need to interfere in this society. Yet when this society sacrafices humans there is a need to halt this.
The problem with the leftist Utopians are they suffer from Moral relivism. Thus a religion thathas engaged in 1300 years of colonialism and Jim Crowe is a cultural variant. While it is okay to rail at European Colonialism we hear next to nothing on the Islamic variant.
The basic problem is that people get a sanitized history of Islam. They do not read about slavery, dhimmi laws and persecution of minorities that continues until this day. They accept human rights violations against real indigenous people and promote fictitious ones. Nor are Jews unique ask a Copt , Armenian, Zoroastian or Assyrian and plenty of Hindus.
The white washing of history of Islam and the third world continues. The cult of low expectations is a form of bigotry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I am a foreign-language major and, as a result, have studied many different cultures. But back in the dinosaur age when I was getting my degree, we looked at those different values systems and discussed whether or not we agreed with various practices. Yes, we were certainly "judgemental." We were the worst of criminals [sarcasm].
Now, we've reached the point where moral relativism has taken over. I wish that I were in the mood to satirize this topic because such a satire could point out the absurdity in thinking that all value systems are equal.
Seems to me that Leftist Utopians want all values systems which are not Western to be equal, and to denigrate the Western system. Hence, no criticism is allowed of Islam. Of course, note that Islam has no problem with criticizing Western values--to the point of flying planes into buildings and murdering thousands of innocents.
Islam is the least of all the moral relativisms and seeks to detroy all other cultures--the Leftist Utopians, among them. Once a caliphate, all other voices are silenced. Do Leftist Utopians not understand that fact?
If Leftist Utopians think that Christians are intolerant, just wait until the Islamists get ahold of them. The Eric Rudolphs are not the Christian norm.
I like to go by this axiom: "Your rights end where my nose begins." Any ideology or religion can practice whatever it teaches, but leave me out of it.
Beak,
You say that behaviors not harmful to society (that threaten the lives of others) should be allowed, but don't you realize that what is "harmful" and "helpful" to a society is completely culturally defined, and actually "defines" what a culture is?
For example, foot-binding and female genital mutilation does not endanger anyone's lives... should it's practice (and the values underlying the practice - male dominance and sexual enhancement) be allowed in America?
People need to realize that multi-culturalism is completely impractical. Once people step onto our shores, things need to be "our way or the highway". If they don't like our "culture" and the values that define it, they can go live someplace better suited and accepting of them.
Multi-culturalism was once practiced in this country (federalism/state's rights). It lead to a Civil War and the deaths of millions of American's. We now have one huge melting pot with our "values" enshrined in and ever growing and multiplying body of federal law.
There is an example of the effects of multiculturalism, and a warning against it, in the bible. It is the Tower of Babel. And we all know what happened there.
And btw, a similar so-called harmless "nature worship" was once introduced in "Greece" by some "wise" men. One of the last great tragedies ever written (5th century, BC by Euripides), offers a glimpse into the dangers of importing such foreign cultures and practices. This one involves bringing a new Phrygian nature god into Cadmus' town Thebes, and the heavy penalty paid by Cadmus' son. The Bacchantes, by Euripides:
http://classics.mit.edu/Euripides/bacchan.pl.txt
Give it a read if you can find the time.
-FJ
Farmer John
I agree with you and thank you for stopping in. Foot binding FGM are tribal not religiously based customs that serve no purpose other then to harm women.
Always on the Watch
Multiculturalism is a dead end . I am working on a post on 167. There
is dissent is the Antisemitic house of 167 stupidity.
Multiculturalism = cultural suicide.
Btw...I do not understand these anti-Semitic lunatics.
Multi-culturalism is a funny sort of relativism. Leftists are collectivists, of courses, and relativism for them is group subjectivism. Thus, if you want some heinous practice as genital mutilation you only have to get a bunch of people together and presto – you are legitimate in the eyes of the left. After all, back in Africa where they practice genital mutilation, they have a saying: it takes a village. Hmmm. That sounds familiar!
Of course, the whole purpose of multi-culturalism is to take-away the pride we rightfully have in our culture and look the other way with regard to the crimes of others. I have a laugh when I read the far left websites and they start with a dismissal of the average American’s viewpoint as “exceptionalism.”
i agree with you and i think you have to look no further than our schools to see that it is true. we really don't learn about other cultures outside of our own and even when we study that we don't get the complete picture. i disagree with you that each culture shouldn't be viewed as equal but i do understand your point about why should we have to treat them as equal. if we aren't taught to do so in school why should we have to when we grow up? i am not talking about disrespecting a people but at the same time, i don't think anyone should condemn another person for not knowing enough about another culture.
jp,
Of course, if our politicians weren't always so eager to win-over the growing "ethnic" and multi-cultural voting constituencies, they wouldn't "bend over" quite as far to accomodate these groups and change all our laws to accomodate their practices. This is one of the great limitations of democracies... before you know it the culture that created the democracy morph's itself right out of existance... which is why the founders didn't want either the president or the senate (changed by 17th ammend) "directly elected". Somebody had to "hold-the-line" against the whims of the masses (House of Reps).
and bfj,
Although I agree that "ideally" all cultures should be "treated" as political equals, if you care about human suffering and misery I think you'll discover that they aren't. Many countries today are racked by Maltheusian limits, and people live from famine to famine. Those that don't, are IMO, "superior" (from a "human" viewpoint).
beak,
Great site! Thanks for havin' me.
'FJ
Farmer John
Thank you for Stoping in but remember I am not a conservative.
I am a liberal Republican who is prowar and anti Communist
Beak,
I won't hold THAT against you. You've got at least TWO important things right (at least for now). And we do need the liberals... somebody's got to keep 'us conservatives' from "going too far" or sometimes "not far enough".
-FJ
This is the curious part about some on the left. They loose sight of anything beyond Iraq. I am for Civil Unions and am pro abortion.
Thus if one is Prowar some on the left call that a right wing extreemist.
Beak,
I'm anti-Civil Union and anti-abortion (at present). I can forsee a time when I might be pro-both (over-populated nation facing starvation), but this is not that time in this country. You'd have to convince me of a "societal need" for "blessing" (vice simply tolerating) both practices before I'd "switch" on the issue. And believe me, greater "freedom" is no "reason". Besides, there are some real costs to the existing social institutions in my society if I endorse either practice.
btw - I'm also anti-birth control. I sound like a Catholic pope, don't I?
-FJ
Farmer John I understand the religious teachings of the Church but I accept the notion of secular law. I do accept that there are notions that contradict my religious beliefs in Society.
I find Abortion repugnant but it is ingrained in the culure . The alternative is worse but sometimes
we have to pick the lesser of two
bad alternatives.
Most gays want to live in peace and
are entitled to human dignity. I like pettite brunetes but that is not everyones choice. I know a few gay couples that are as commited as heterosexuals.
I do not see the harm in recognizing their relationships in Civil unions. Marriage is a religious term and I do not want government changing my terms.
Human rights includes the rights of gays to live in peace and gays respecting my religious views.
Beak,
My opposition to same-sex marriage (aka "Civil Unions") has little to do with moral objections or religion. Marriage was initially "invented" to ensure the property rights of children, especially in a time when men were likely to father many "illegitimate" off-spring. In Greek tragedy one even discovers 'why' polygamy was done away with (The Oresteia comes to mind, as does a tale of Achille's son, whose title eludes memory at present).
You could argue that the children of homosexual couples require the same legal protections, but get real Beak, one of the parents of those kids ISN'T their own. He's born the equivalent of a "child of divorce". Is that the BEST society can offer kids, one "real" parent?
And there is a "deeper" problem. Kids raised in a same-sex household do not go through a "normal" process of sexual development, and are unlikely to improperly "imprint" at the end of the Oedipal stage. In other words, chances are increased that they, too will be gay or over/under sexually developed.
Sure, we can conceive of kids in test-tubes and raise them in Day Care Centers, but is any of this really good for the kids? Shouldn't a child have both a mom and a dad (for balance) who love them because they are "theirs", and not two-moms or two dads, one of whom is obviously a step-parent? And how else are they supposed to know what is "expected" of them or "who to emulate" if they are NOT the same sex as their parents? How will they ever learn to respect women if raised by two men, or respect men if raised by two women? It just isn't "wise" Beak.
-FJ
Not all marriages are for the basis of having children. The modern era has a mariage filling a social need .
The issue of the ideal way to raise children with birth parents that love each other. Sadly people are not perfect and they fall short.
Children raised in a Gay household would have a whole series of popular culture to fall back on.
I do not see assimilation of children into the gay lifestyle as
a big deal.
Having kids in a stable household should be the primary goal.
I guess we fundamentally disagree as to the "social need" that marriage is supposed to fill. I say that BUT for children, marriage is unneccessary. Might as well just "live together". And no, hetero-marriage isn't "perfect", but it beats starting out life as a kid with "one-strike". Before you know it, society will condone starting kids out with "two-strikes"... slipperly slopes and all that.
And as for the children of "gay" households having "popular culture" to fall back on, I wouldn't give you 2 cents for that, or a penny in ten years. Popular culture is seeking bottom, and still hasn't found it in "gangsta rap". Celebrating criminality...is there anything lower???
Yes, starting kids out in a stable household should be the primary goal. I guess you've gotta define "stable". Is an orphanage "stable"? Probably. Should we (society) encourage parents to abandon their kids to orphanages? I say, no.
-FJ
FJ
We agree to disagree as only a tiny percentage of Gays get involved with children. The most important thing is a child gets guidance and love . Idealy it is from the birthparents. Sadly nature does not always make the most ferile the best parent.I have seen lesbians raise a heterosexual kid. Being Gay is not the end of the world.
Being Gay in itself doesn't say much about a person. I love Pettite Mediteranean Brunettes females . Does that tell you if I am smart or honest ? Does my choice
indicate if I am a good person. There are nasty homosexuals like 167 and nastier heterosexuals like
Noam Chomsky.
Hi, I was just blog surfing and found you! If you are interested, go see this
href="http://www.luckys-traffic.com/sexmall/">womens product related article. It isnt anything
special but you may find it interesting.
can i get more info?
Post a Comment