I need to let this debate go without interruption, but I should explain one point.
I should explain why the social scientists do not make value judgements. The methodology of the social sciences is positivism. Positivism distinguishes between facts and values. Facts are objective and capable of being proven by the scientific method while values are subjective, a matter of taste or sensation. It is impossible to prove that one man’s values are better or worse than another man’s. Auguste Comte said that all values are equal.
The need to distinguish between facts and values arose because of the universal 18th century belief that the scientific method’s successes in identifying cause and effect of matter could be repeated for mankind. The cause of human unhappiness and the conditions necessary for the best political regime only needed the application of science. “Matter” however, did not have free choice. The laws of science identified the laws that governed matter's behaviour because it could not change its mind.
Mankind, on the other hand had free will. If every human could change his mind, strictly speaking there could never be determinative laws of human behaviour. Accordingly, behaviour was said to be the result of the passions, not human reason and free choice. It was argued that human passion was the cause and human reason the instrument of the passions. Passions are always referred to as “more” or “less” and hence seemed suited to the application of modern science.
The fact that people did what they thought was right or good or beneficial, that is, in accordance with rational choice was disposed of by the assumption that these were only values and hence, subjective tastes.
All the social sciences adopted the positivist methodology and the “fact value” distinction. Social scientists can not make value judgements because value judgements can not be proved by the scientific method. One man’s values are equal to any other person’s values.

David Long- "mankind on the other hand had free will. It was argued that human passion was the cause and human reason the instrument."

Put in other terms that would read- basic survival instinct(human passion)is the cause and human intelligence the instrument(the means of obtaining what is needed for survival). In other words the survival instinct is in the drivers seat and the intellect obeys.
We largely obey our sexual mating instincts and our need for survival resources exactly as nature programmed us to do.

You may say; but we have control over our sexual instincts. OK then lets bring in a law decreeing that no sex is to be permitted in Australia for the next 12months. You see we only have so much ability to control our basic instincts we cannot shut them off permanently.

The territorial instinct (the need for resources like food etc to survive) is also a basic human instinct and cannot be permanently shut off by means of advocating tolerance in the face of ever mounting territorial threat.

or for some it's a matter of accepting everything on it's surface and being unwilling to look deeper into motivation. Control issues. Multiculturalism is a control issue not a social expectation. When the politicians breeze through my neighbourhood saying how much they understand and respect our cultural values and a vote for them will insure blissful serenity we all smile. We Turks, Vietnamese, Greeks, Iranians, Irish, Scottish, Indian, Sikh, Chinese, Hungarians, Italians, etc., etc.,look at each other and smile. The game is afoot and we are well aware of the manipulation, speak about it, and go back to the subjects that really impinge on our community success. Our jobs, our children's education, the cost of food, housing, petrol. None of us worry about the next cultural event. It's not something we expect our governing bodies to be concerned with. How we dress and our hairstyles and food choice and dance structure we can share amoung ourselves with out it being mandated by policy. Well perhaps I shouldn't have spoke so soon. Let me just pop down to my local office of cultural and ethnic minorities and see what todays dictate is.
Some of us choose independent thought rather than those who choose to believe what they are programmed to believe by the socialist and the infiltration of socialism into our political system.

DAVID LONG said in his recent post: (quoting some social scientist)

"It is impossible to prove that one man’s values are better or worse than another man’s."

STABinTHEdark said:

"It is through tolerance and understanding of other cultures - which is encouraged by direct contact with them - that people learn there is little founding to the irrational fears and prejudices that a select few use to inflame hatred and war."

Now...Stabby... do you by any chance see the problem here?

Your offering has a nice peaceful ring to it.. no question about that.
But based on Davids quote, (which is entirely true) one group may have 'values' which are inTENSELY opposed to the values of another group.

If one group (the prevailing culture in a country) believes in the Rule of law and Democractic freedoms, but another group believes that "The World and all that is in it belongs to Allah and his apostle" and further that they are COMMANDED to "fight those who believe not in Allah and the last day... until they do, or pay a tax"

Then.... we have a serious and insurmountable clash of cultures. There can only be ONE outcome. WAR. Like wages, they don't come every day, but usually they do come.

Now..there are a couple of solutions to this.

1/ The 'fight them' group changes it's view to a more 'tolerant' one, and:
a) Abandons and repudiates the foundation in their holy book which calls for this militant advancing of their interests.
b) They harden their hearts, we have a war, and last man standing rules.

But the idea that we should 'tolerate and understand' such cultural differences, and that this will result in peace and tranquility, is to put it nicely DELUDED. :)
Here is why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1YBoMC-oE&mode=related&search=

Notice how he describes "No Kaffir is innocent".... hence.. when they decry 'terrorism' and say "Islam does not believe in the killing of 'innocent's" ...now you know the meaning of this code.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaaZ1dbukYs&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLK1Xpc7SMQ New York.....

So this doesn’t merely become another exercise in Islamaphobia, I’ll quote the following from Alia Hogben, director general of the Canadian Council for Muslim Women (CCFM),Feb 2004:

"If not based on values and laws that are shared by all Canadian men and women, pure multiculturalism is dangerous and can bring the division of the various ethnic groups. We are also aware that extreme forms of cultural relativism undermine the common Canadian identity. We support none of the groups that not just insist on the safeguard of their original cultural identity but seem to promote changes that could damage the common values. Unfortunately, some people believe that multiculturalism gives them the right to shift the balance between the celebration of diversity and the reinforcement of the Canadian common identity" (healthy round of applause).

The above was written in reaction to Canada’s former Ontario Attorney General, feminist lawyer and defender of multiculturalism, Marion Boyd, who astounded the Canadian community by recommending that Islamic tribunals be allowed to use Shari’a law to settle family disputes in that province.

The German experience is certainly not an isolated one - just takes a slightly different form.

Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, denounced the former attorney general's report as "multiculturalism run amok."

Multiculturalism will lead, when you take it seriously, to legal pluralism and that's precisely the kind of compartmentalized society that we would all hope to avoid. Fortunately, most Australians take tolerance and pluralism more seriously than a politically correct MC.

So, are we being rational or merely emotional? – I’d suggest, most lose control to become less rational and highly emotional on the subject of MC. Rather than to merely offer our ‘saccharine opinions’ perhaps it is really is, after all, better to ask “What is virtue? What is vice?” :)

David Boaz, Thank you for your kind words, I always enjoy being on these forums with you and some of the old regulars.

Aqavaris- Your article on the Socialist lefts reasons for promoting MC not being to eradicate racism; was very perceptive and brilliantly expressed.

Incidently I did know that the North of America had slaves, I was referring to the timeframe after that when they tried to stop slavery in the south. I had not done my homework on the industrialisation of the north bit. Having just done some reading on the Wikepedia I would still assert that the reason for the civil war was territorial.
11 Southern States actually decided to seceed from the North when Abraham Lincoln threatened to invade them to shut down slavery. They wanted to Govern themselves and their own states or territories to maintain the prosperity of those territories under slavery. You cant get more territorial than that. A seperatist movement. How many bloodbaths have we seen over that in modern times.