The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Multiculturalism: at what point does it stop being an inherent good? > Comments

Multiculturalism: at what point does it stop being an inherent good? : Comments

By Jenny Goldie, published 25/2/2011

Can multiculturalism be good when it incorporates cultures which do not mirror our own liberal, humanitarian and egalitarian culture?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All
Stevenlmeyer <"So explain to me, suzeonline, why we need a whole multi culti bureaucracy."

Multiculturalism stops being an inherent good when some people of the host country set up the immigrants to fail in their new land.

It's interesting Stevenlmeyer, that you use the words 'multi culti' to describe a bureaucracy. It seems the 'multikulti' concept was thought up by the German Government, who were less than enthusiastic about the immigrants (multiculturalism) needed to rebuild their land after the second world war.

<"...The "multikulti" concept, as the Germans call it, had led immigrants to believe that they need not integrate, learn the language or adopt the customs and practices of their new home. To some extent, the Germans have only themselves to blame, because they were less than welcoming to the millions of Turks and others who arrived under the Gastarbeiter scheme to help build the post-war economic miracle. Many were given a right to reside but denied full German citizenship – excluding them from certain jobs such as teaching.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8071854/Multicultural-mistakes.html

We all know what happens in a country that tries to keep just one main religion, race, culture, or skin colour, to the detriment of all others.
We don't want to go back there do we?
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 28 February 2011 11:37:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You see Pelican, I simply asked of Mac that he provide the evidence to support his statement that Islam is intolerant of other religions and anti-semitic, and he scampers. He is unable to back up his statement and instead gets personal.

For evidence that Islam was spread peacefully, you can consult Oxford History of Islam, where it shows that "contrary to popular understanding Islam was not spread by the sword (paraphased because i do not have the book with me). Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, "The Preaching of Islam", provides a detailed account as to how Islam was spread peacefully throughy trade and 'missionary' work of sufis

Also, from Ira M. Lapidus (2002) A History of Islamic Societies: Cambridge University Press

"The question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword, and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary. (...) In most cases worldly and spiritual motives for conversion blended together. Moreover, conversion to Islam did not necessarily imply a complete turning from an old to a totally new life. While it entailed the acceptance of new religious beliefs and membership in a new religious community, most converts retained a deep attachment to the cultures and communities from which they came.” p244
Posted by grateful, Monday, 28 February 2011 11:38:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

Many historians recognise that the western ideals of courtly love and chivalry were a consequence of coming in touch with Islam of that period.

Many years ago I lived for a long time in a Muslim country. I found the religious leaders devout and gentle.

A genealogy of Islam, however, appears to have no relevence.

Are you aware that the UN Human Rights Council has approved the proposal of laws protecting Islam from criticism worldwide.

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution famously said.

Of those who objected/abstained Terry Cormier, a Canadian diplomat observed: "It is individuals who have rights and not religions."

India abstained in protest as Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection. As the Indian Ambassador Copinathan Achamkulangare rightly stated the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism.

susieonline,

I think all of us here are well aware of the situation in Germany. This is certainly not the situation in this country, which couldn't be more different.
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 2:06:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac

Grateful is playing a game with you.

TECHNICALLY he is correct. Islam, the religion, was not spread by the sword.

What the Muslims did was to conquer TERRITORY. This they did with “the sword”. (You’re hopefully not going to deny that Grateful. Muslim territorial conquests are well established history)

Once Muslims controlled the territory life usually, not always, became unpleasant for non-Muslims who had “dhimmi” status. In most cases it was simply easier to conform to the religion of the ruling class.

There were exceptions. For a brief period a sort of multicultural society flourished in the Iberian Peninsula, especially around Cordoba. This ended when the Almoravids and Almohads invaded the Iberian Peninsula from North Africa and re-established a stricter, less tolerant, more mainstream actually, version of Islam.

Eventually of course the Christians defeated the Muslims in Spain and established a regime that has become the byword for religious intolerance.

One way that Islam spread in the conquered territories was not so much through the sword as through the bedroom. If you were a pretty but poor Christian girl you might marry a poor but handsome young Christian boy. Or you might be practical and become ONE of the wives of a rich Muslim ruler who would look after you and often undertook to make life a little easier for your family if they too converted.

After all, the time honoured way in which conquerors spread their genes and culture is through the women of the conquered. And the Muslims were very much the conquerors and the Christians and others very much the conquered in those territories. Read up about the Janisseries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary

On the other hand, since none of this absorption of conquered people could take place until the territory had in fact been conquered you could also say that Islam spread by the sword.

You have an impressive library mac. You may wish to add this book to it:

lslam's Black Slaves: The History of Africa's Other Black Diaspora by Ronald Segal.

(Mostly the Arab slavers were interested in sex slaves)
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 7:21:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful
I accept your heartfelt belief that Islam is not intolerant of other religions at it's core. It is human beings that make up religious groups and much of what is cherry picked is in line with other cultural norms and expectations.

Christianity has not always been a tolerant religion if we look historically, Islam has also had its share of radical spokespeople that do not bode well for Muslims living by the essential tenets of the Koran.

There are also some Christians who do not support a secular society, so to point the singular finger at Islam alone is one-eyed on the issue. As regards women, domestic violence can occur in any home, Christian, Atheist or Muslim. People will be who they are, regardless of their beliefs, even if those beliefs may consolidate or reinforce those natural inclinations in some way.

The treatment of 'infidels' or 'heathens' is the test of a religion (or individual adherents) in a secular society ie. willingness to embrace secular freedoms. I think the European and British experience has made it difficult elsewhere for Muslims - the threats of beheadings of those who 'blaspheme' in a free speech environment, the mantra of "You are either a Muslim or not a Muslim" which determines the way some people might be treated. None of these things help. But Christianity and other religions have their fair share of these intolerants.

It is moderate and secular Muslims that will provide the force for good in this debate hopefully quelling the minority of disruptives. Those non-secularists within the Christian Church are also in the minority as well.

Australia has been very successful in integrating various cultures within its borders and I suspect in 50 years time we will all be discussing and studying the issue of Islamic migration in the same way.

I hope your wife and other Muslim women will take on board that the actions of some racists do not diminish the goodwill of other Australians with all our mixed heritages.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 9:20:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

“... genital mutilation of young females, ... without any foundation whatsoever in Islamic scripture, tradition, or law. Another example is the practice of honor killing. ...” (p118)

Bernard Lewis, "Islam: the Religion and its People" :

“... conversion to Islam ... most converts retained a deep attachment to the cultures and communities from which they came.” p244

Ira M. Lapidus (2002) A History of Islamic Societies: Cambridge University Press

Yet, a modified version of female circumcision has now emerged as a Islamic practice in societies where it never occurred before. Honour killings, whilst not officially approved, have become entrenched, so women have to actively seek institutional protection - go “underground”.

The burqua, is not Islamic in origin, but an ancient cultural practice.

Also, there are traditional Islamic practices - as there were traditional Christian practices - which have no place in 21st century Australia.

I do not believe that the vast majority of Muslims in this country accept nor tolerate these. But until their voices are loudly heard, such issues will be seen problematic by the wider community
Posted by Danielle, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 1:20:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy