Canada shits on multiculturalism

Great Debates
21

I too do not see any problem with the Canadian example under fire. Religion is a private choice. Culture less so. I can grieve for the victims of the WTC tragedy without needing a religious service crammed down my throat.

Canada most definitely does not shit on multiculturalism. They simply understand that religion is a personal choice and is not ncessarily representative of culture. They also understand that religion and official state matters need to be separated. So, while the clerics were present to show their support for the cause, it was Canada as a nation that grieved for the victims, not specific religions. I consider Canada’s actions on this commendable.

22

Hey Matt! Your list would make a great opening for a joke:

“See, a Roman Catholic priest, an Anglican priest, a UC minister, a Presbyterian minister, a Methodist minister, a Unitarian minister, a Greek Orthodox priest, a Russian Orthodox priest, a Coptic Rite priest, a Seventh-Day Adventist minister, a Mormon priest, an Orthodox rabbi, a Conservative rabbi, a Reform rabbi, a Sunni imam, a Shi’a imam, an Ismaili imam, a Jaina cleric, a Baha’i cleric, a Shinto priest, a Confucianist cleric, several flavours of Hindu clerics, a Japanese Buddhist cleric, a Tibetan Buddhist cleric, assorted other Buddhist clerics, an Inuk shaman, a Mohawk shaman, a Cree shaman, an Ojibway shaman, a Mi’kmaq shaman, a Malecite shaman, a Haida shaman, a Gardnerian Wiccan priest, an Alexandrian Wiccan priest, a Dianic Wiccan priestess, a Faerie Tradition Wiccan priestess, an Asatru priest, an ADF druid, several representatives of unorganized religions, an agnostic representative, an atheist representative, two turtle doves, and a partridge in a pear tree all walk into a bar. The bartender turns and says to the Mi’kmaq Shaman…”

:smiley:

Fenris

23

Well matt, I don’t think you are exaggerating at all. You make a very good point. I would submit that any group who** desires** to to pray or speak on behalf of their following at a memorial of such national scope should be able to do so. This should be open to atheists as well if they can control themselves from publicly scorning the beliefs of others. Now that would be multiculturalism.

If I can be so bold as to say that for many people of faith, grieving without prayer is like a party without alcohol. As Mexicans like their Tequila and the English their bitter, so the different flavours of religion represent their cultures. That is my point. Culture is a matter of the heart. Grief is a matter of the heart. That is why I said this was a multicultural issue. If one has to compromise their expression of grief by suppressing an effective learned response of their culture, then their culture can only be regarded as subversive to the health of the nation. Not exactly the message intended.

24

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by grienspace *
**If I can be so bold as to say that for many people of faith, grieving without prayer is like a party without alcohol. **

[quote]

This is the first thing you’ve said in this post that I agree with-- as long as you substitute the word “religion” for “faith”. (It also happens to be the first thing you’ve said that’s fairly coherent and understandable, but that’s another matter. )

I think you need to realize that the opposite side of the coin is just as valid. For people who are not religious, grief exists without prayer. And like it or not, most Canadians are not religious. You only need to check attendance levels at churches, synagogues, and mosques. They’re low.

Like it or not grienspace, Canada is a secular, multicultural society that evolved out of a (mostly) Judeo-Christian culture. This outlook is shared in most European nations, but not with our neighbours to the south.

In the United States, ministers, rabbis, and imams may actually be cultural leaders. In Canada, they are not.

25

That would be two hours of nothing but waiting for a long line of people to have their five-minute turn at the mike, after which the official speakers would go.

26

<aside>
The Church of Scientology is considered a criminal organization up here in the north. Just FYI :wink:
(Freezoners would be welcome to represent themselves though)
</aside>

27

So let me get this straight then; you are saying that religion cannot be excised from culture because those two cannot be separated…

…but in the same breath you’re saying that culture can be separated from human life so neatly that we can say that excising religion from culture isn’t the same as excising it from public or private life. Har!

Your criticisms are just nonsense. Memorial services run by the government and government agencies are routinely run without prayers, including dozens of services every Nov. 11; how you failed to notice that is anyone’s guess. To run a memorial service that was inclusive of all religions in attendance would be impossible - heck, just getting through the Christian denominations might have taken half an hour, since you’d need to hear from Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, United, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Jehovah’s Witness, etc.

Your bizarre position appears to be that people were required to suppress their religion because the government didn’t have a parade of holy men running to the mike. That’s just silly. Inclusiveness of religion isn’t about presenting a prayer for everyone, it’s about letting people have the freedom to do what they will with respect to religion. The government doesn’t owe anyone a prayer. Not having prayers was a proper and appropriate move - it would not be possible to include EVERY religion practiced by Canadians, so any attempt to have prayers would have included some and excluded others. The government, if it genuinely respects multiculturalism and diversity, should not be inclusive of some religions, and so should avoid any endorsement of particular reigions at all, which includes inviting them to speak at memeorial services. They made the appropriate decision.

28

I fail to see the problem here. Canada had an official, state memorial service. In said official and state memorial service, they followed the culture of the government - i.e., the official state - itself: they excluded open prayer. However, they also included a few religious officials as acknowledgement of fact that some people’s culture includes religion. So, multiculturalism is satisfied: the hosting culture designed the ceremony, and then made sure to include everyone else as reasonably as possible.

But, you might argue, not everyone else got to demonstrate their beliefs! Out loud! Proud! In public! Well, of course not. At a Jewish wedding, we don’t offer equal time to Christians - or Scientologists, or members of the Church of Pit Bulls and Leather. They may come, with respect for our traditions, and we will be happy for them to attend without participating in any peculiarly Jewish aspects that might make them uncomfortable, because of our respect for their traditions. Same thing happened here: a nonsecular government held a nonsecular memorial service, and invited everyone, and lots of people came. No one told those people what to do in their heads or their hearts - they could think anything, from “Dear Jesus, please help…” to “Thank you, God, for smashing the capitalist pigs.” All they had to do was respect the format of the event, laid down by the hosts. Hence, all cultures (and religions) were respected, within the context of the non-religious nature of the Canadian government.

Sounds to me like your real complaint, grienspace, is that your government is not religious. And that’s something totally different than Canada shitting on multiculturalism.

Oh, and as a quick footnote - lots and lots of people have cultures and traditions that do not mix prayer and grief. But if prayer is essential to your personal culture or tradition or whatever, and you attended that memorial - what in the name of your own supreme being was stopping you from praying?

29

[QUOTE]
Pray tell us what this other agenda is, and the relevance of your comment

[QUOTE]

Let’s see. Whenever I see someone say the following:

[QUOTE]
you pissed off a lot of people by wasting a lot of money promoting multoculturalism[/

[QUOTE]
It sounds like many arguments I have heard against the whole idea of Multiculturalism. Suddenly because the government did not have public prayers that invalidates any actions done for Multiculturalism?

Their spending and support for Multiculturalism has been proof enough of their commitment.

What they did was correct. Publicly show our sympathy and sorrow for the events in New York and Washington, reaffirm our governments commitment. They let each person, in the moments of silence, use that time for private prayer, or introspection. At least that allows all Canadians to participate in their own personal way.

The government is for all the people of Canada. As many people have pointed out they risk excluding people if they bring up only a few representatives.

Also, d you think they should have had speakers for the Atheists and Agnostics or do they not merit inclusion too?

30

That is a specious argument. It would follow therefore that expenditures of the treasury towards multiculturalism should be terminated because not all cultures can be equally supported. This silly argument can be extended to a host of social programs that favour specific groups at the expense of others.

America has spent not one dime on multiculturalism, but it certainly is woven into the fabric of American society. Canada’s expensive brand of multiculture is akin to a museum display.

31

You know, when I respond to another poster, I read everything that person has provided to the thread in order not to make a fool of myself. I suggest you re-read before spreading bullshit. I addressed your question and never presented one group as not meriting inclusion as your query suggested.

32

Huh? How is it specious?

Culture isn’t necessarily religion. The government is, very rightfully, much more careful about religion than it is about other aspects of culture. After all, much of the terrorists’ motivation was based in religion, but when did you last hear about someone blowing up an office building over the suppression of Irish step dancing and fiddle music?

That said, what the Canadian government does or doesn’t spend on a variety of multicultural programs is really quite beside the point; those are political bones tossed to partisan dogs. The REAL centerpeices of Canada’s multiculturalism policy are the freedoms listed in the Constitution, and Canada’s open immigration policy - both recent inventions - as well as a general attitude of tolerance for those who are different. Those are the key things, not the little dribs and drabs of funding you see for community centers.

The federal government has never pursued a program of all-out public inclusion of a rainbow of cultures, so for you to claim that the Sept. 14 service was somehow at odds with our multiculturalism policy is, simply put, wrong. Nothing in the application of “multiculturalism” has ever involved a parade of clerics at public memorial services, and I’ve been to enough Rememberance Day services to know.

“Multiculturalism” is not synonymous with “we give money to every ethnic group that wants to hold a dance.”

Nonsense. America has spent billions on multiculturalism. They might not call it that, but accomodation of those who are different is as common there as it is here. I was just in California a few months ago and I couldn’t help but notice that the state government there has gone to the trouble of publishing many government documents and forms in a multitude of languages; I’m sure that costs more than a few bucks. Consciousness of ethnic and cultural diversity has been very deliberately introduced into the educational curriculum of pretty much every state in the Union at huge expense (hey, textbooks cost money.) You can get state and federal handouts for community centers and whatnot in the U.S. as easily as you can here. And that’s not even getting into the cost of their large and inclusive immigration system. So if by “Not one dime” you meant “Ten of millions of dimes, rather than just one,” you’re right. If you meant “no money at all,” you’re hilariously mistaken.

And so we see that kingpengvin was right; your OP was in fact reflective of another agenda, which is that you just don’t like the entire multiculturalism policy as it stands. Which is fine, but at least be upfront about it rather than using a perfectly run memorial service in a strange, illogical complaint.

33

MAAAAATTT!!!

You forgot the Byzantine Catholics!!!

Sheesh! And you said you were tolerant!!!

:stuck_out_tongue:

34

Religion and culture are not synonymous. Define Islamic culture for me. Will you point to the stern Puritanism of Saudi Arabia, to the more liberal Lebanese, to the tolerance of Indonesia? What is Christian culture? What culture do an Alabama Baptist, a South Dakotan Mennonite,
a Guatemalan Catholic, or an Egyptian Copt share?

35

Never said or implied that gobear Blow jobs are not synonomous with sex… except perhaps for some people.

36

Please read the opening paragraph of my OP where I clearly compared American policy and expression of multiculturalism with the financially supported Canadian policy . Then I dealt with evidence of its failure.
You and others however are so consumed with your precious “separation of church and state”, that the centrepiece of the debate naturally focussed on that issue.

37

Huh? Blowjobs fall under the term of oral sex.

Well, unless you’re Bill Clinton, I suppose. :stuck_out_tongue:

38

Considering that this whole tragedy was ostensibly perpetrated as a facet of some ‘holy war’, I think the fact that the clerics said nothing at all, and instead stood silent in reflection and grief for such a pointless loss of life is as strong a statement our nation could make.

And besides, the Americans had Oprah too… :stuck_out_tongue:

z

39

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**

My point…

40

You have provided no evidence of its failure, so you cannot have dealt with it. Your personal opinion about how a memorial service should be run isn’t much evidence, I’m afraid.

The separation of church and state is an absolutely vital part of a legitimate policy of multiculturalism and civil ctizienship, and it’s especially topical when you’re bitching about RELIGIOUS LEADERS SPEAKING AT A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION (duh!) No intelligent discussion of the role of religious ceremony in government functions could possibly take place without discussion the separation of church and state… but hell, you don’t even understand your own posts. What evidence of “failure” have you provided, anyway?