The terrible damage done

[Simon Ewins]

When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but
revealing. This poor girl.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-plead-guilty-to-so-called-honour-killing-of-16-year-old-girl/article1605082/

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"Live in danger. Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius."
[Nietzsche]

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but revealing. This poor girl.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-plead-guilty-to-so-called-honour-killing-of-16-year-old-girl/article1605082/

I hope a strong message is sent that this is not acceptable for any reason, including religious reasons, by giving the father and brother very long sentences. 

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

[Simon Ewins]

[Trance Gemini]

> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com
> <mailto:sje...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long
> but revealing. This poor girl.
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-plead-guilty-to-so-called-honour-killing-of-16-year-old-girl/article1605082/
>
>
> I hope a strong message is sent that this is not acceptable for any
> reason, including religious reasons, by giving the father and brother
> very long sentences.

Agreed completely. When I read the statement of fact my heart wept for
the poor girl. If she is suffering like this in our country then others
must be as well and that is simply intolerable.

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked.
"Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat.
"I don't know," Alice answered.
"Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."
[Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland]

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but revealing. This poor girl.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-plead-guilty-to-so-called-honour-killing-of-16-year-old-girl/article1605082/

And this statement is just stupid:

“We want to underscore that multiculturalism is not an excuse, or a moral or legal justification, for such barbaric practices. Multiculturalism does not equal cultural relativism.”

Multiculturalism *is* cultural relativism and creates the foundation for this garbage to occur.

It's the fundamental flaw in it.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com

<mailto:sje...@gmail.com>> wrote:

   When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long
   but revealing. This poor girl.

   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-plead-guilty-to-so-called-honour-killing-of-16-year-old-girl/article1605082/


I hope a strong message is sent that this is not acceptable for any
reason, including religious reasons, by giving the father and brother
very long sentences.

Agreed completely. When I read the statement of fact my heart wept for the poor girl. If she is suffering like this in our country then others must be as well and that is simply intolerable.

Multiculturalism *breeds* this and until we move away from it and into Interculturalism like Quebec has adopted, these kinds of tragedies will continue.

-- 

[dali_70]

On Jun 16, 8:13 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but
> revealing. This poor girl.
>

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-p...


I hope the father and brother become the prison sex toys, to be passed
around and traded for smokes. They should have gotten life without
parole.

[LL]

On Jun 16, 5:43 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Trance Gemini]
>

> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:sjew...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >     When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long
> >     but revealing. This poor girl.

LL: From the link: "When asked by his wife why he had killed their
daughter, Ms. Parvez said her husband told her: “My community will say
you have not been able to control your daughter. This is my insult.
She is making me naked.”

In other words, it's all about the so-called father.

When they talk about the family's honor, they mean nothing more than
the father's hyperinflated ego. It's their religion and their
disgusting "culture" that does the inflating.

I agree, they should have been sentenced to life without parole. Maybe
they'll be killed before their terms are up. Let's hope they are shown
no more mercy than they gave to their daughter and sister.

***************************************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************



>
> >    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-p...

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jun 17, 1:09 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 5:43 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [Trance Gemini]
>
> > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com
> > > <mailto:sjew...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > >     When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long
> > >     but revealing. This poor girl.
>
> LL: From the link: "When asked by his wife why he had killed their
> daughter, Ms. Parvez said her husband told her: “My community will say
> you have not been able to control your daughter.

Is killing his daughter controlling his daughter? If not, wouldn't
they still say that he has not been able to control his daughter?

[Dead Kennedy]

On 17 June, 06:17, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 1:09 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 5:43 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [Trance Gemini]
>
> > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com
> > > > <mailto:sjew...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > > >     When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long
> > > >     but revealing. This poor girl.
>
> > LL: From the link: "When asked by his wife why he had killed their
> > daughter, Ms. Parvez said her husband told her: “My community will say
> > you have not been able to control your daughter.
>
> Is killing his daughter controlling his daughter? If not, wouldn't
> they still say that he has not been able to control his daughter?

errm, pretty much the ultimate control.

>
>
>
> > This is my insult.
> > She is making me naked.”
>
> > In other words, it's all about the so-called father.
>
> > When they talk about the family's honor, they mean nothing more than
> > the father's hyperinflated ego. It's their religion and their
> > disgusting "culture" that does the inflating.
>
> > I agree, they should have been sentenced to life without parole. Maybe
> > they'll be killed before their terms are up. Let's hope they are shown

> > no more mercy than they gave to their daughter and sister.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[TLC]

One thing is certainly a fact, in these "honour killings" it's
normally only defenceless girls who are killed!

How often do you hear of young MUSLIM men being killed because they
wore western dress or had affairs outside marriage etc, etc?????

[Ma-choo!]

On Jun 16, 7:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but
> > revealing. This poor girl.
>

> >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-p...

>
> And this statement is just stupid:
> “We want to underscore that multiculturalism is not an excuse, or a moral or
> legal justification, for such barbaric practices. Multiculturalism does not
> equal cultural relativism.”
>
> Multiculturalism *is* cultural relativism and creates the foundation for
> this garbage to occur.
>
> It's the fundamental flaw in it.

I thought we'd almost agree here - finally a case of religious parents
taking their beliefs too far - albeit if those beliefs are more
cultural than religious. But I'd never have guessed you're against
"multi-culturalism" ?

I agree with the above - multiculturalism is obviously not an excuse,
and is not synonymous with cultural relativism. I happily live in a
multicultural part of the US- and there are many cultural practices I
have no problem condemning as wrong, unacceptable, illegal, etc - and
those practices should be dealt with individually - not used to indict
foreign cultures generally.

Why do you feel multiculturalism requires cultural relativism?

[Trance Gemini]

A lot of people don't actually understand exactly what multiculturalism is and what it advocates.

IMO the main reason for that is because everyone's been so bamboozled by the PC crowd's unsupported and unwarranted claims that the sociological concept of multiculturalism is the way to be non-racist. It's become a Holy Grail of sorts for the anti-racist crowd.

It's not the way to be non-racist. In fact it's the opposite. 

Nor are any of the concepts supported either through sociological or psychological studies (stereotypes and stereotypical thinking).

If fact, if one actually researches it you'll find that the concept is racist to the core and promotes divisiveness and a ghettoized relativistic culture.

The foundation is to "promote diversity". 

So, in practical terms what can that mean other than cultural relativism because the promotion of diversity necessarily requires that everyone maintain their own culture irrespective of other cultures.

This is precisely why issues like wearing the burqa come up, or female circumcision, etc.

Now I agree that there are a few lines we don't cross, but frankly why not?

Why is it okay to allow women to be second class citizens in every other respect because that's the demand of a certain culture? 

Is it okay for some laws (civil rights laws) to be violated and others not okay (criminal law)?

Perhaps we should simply recognize it for what it is and stop it.

"Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of his or her own culture"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism

"The term ‘multiculturalism’ has been used in a variety of ways, both descriptive and normative. As a descriptive term, it has been taken to refer to cultural diversity … As a normative term, multiculturalism implies a positive endorsement, even celebration, of communal diversity, typically based on either the right of different groups to respect and recognition, or to the alleged benefits to the larger society of moral and cultural diversity” (My emphasis).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

A different, and IMO far better approach, adopted in Quebec, Canada, is Interculturalism.

"Interculturalism is a political ideology that does not place a priority for all cultures to be on the same level as a basis to organize a given society. Its main objective is rather to develop a common civic culture based on the values of freedom and liberty, and of human rights, as derived from the Western civilization, while encouraging interaction between the communities living in the same country. As such, Interculturalism requries democracy and full respect for universal human rights (whereas multiculturalism explicitly doesn't know this requirement).

Interculturalism promotes individual rights for everyone, with no discrimination. This means, in particular, that people have the right to maintain an affiliation with one's ethnic group and the right for cultural and religious differences to be displayed in the public domain. However, the entire society must adhere to the same constitution of fundamental rights and obligations, with no exception. It does not accept that cultural differences are used as an excuse to reduce the rights of certain groups. This approach leads to an ethics of maximum tolerance for an individual's choices and of minimum tolerance for totalitarian and theocratic systems of ideas that could undermine the very foundations of a democratic society."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interculturalism

-- 

[LL]

On Jun 16, 10:17 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 1:09 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 5:43 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [Trance Gemini]
>
> > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com
> > > > <mailto:sjew...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > > >     When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long
> > > >     but revealing. This poor girl.
>
> > LL: From the link: "When asked by his wife why he had killed their
> > daughter, Ms. Parvez said her husband told her: “My community will say
> > you have not been able to control your daughter.
>
> Is killing his daughter controlling his daughter? If not, wouldn't
> they still say that he has not been able to control his daughter?

LL: You would think, but these people are not known for their logical
thinking.

**************************************************

[LL]

LL: But they're MEN!!!!!!!


**********************************

[Ma-choo!]

On Jun 17, 10:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

It sounds like a bit like the term 'judicial activism' in the US -
with so many contradictory meanings as to make it's general use more
of a political football than useful conceptual term. I'd prefer to
keep it to the wiki def you give below.

>
> It's not the way to be non-racist. In fact it's the opposite.

How?

>
> Nor are any of the concepts supported either through sociological or
> psychological studies (stereotypes and stereotypical thinking).

One of the most economically successful and progressive nations (up
until the last few decades..) is the United States - a notably
multicultural society. Ditto for Brazil, which has much less racial
tension and is the predominant economic and progressive force in the
area. Isn't the proof in the pudding? And in any case - I value
diversity and equal treatment of all cultures, for no reason necessary
besides my personal preference - matching up with the def of
'multiculturalism' below. Only in instances of physical harm and the
deprivation of another person's liberties - should any cultural
practice be curtailed. Outlawing the wearing of a Burqha would
therefore be acceptable, as removing this would be an unnecessary
infringement on the rights of Muslim women.

>
> If fact, if one actually researches it you'll find that the concept is
> racist to the core and promotes divisiveness and a ghettoized relativistic
> culture.

To call the belief that all cultures deserve "equal rights and
recognition" racist is a contradiction in terms. If it promotes
divisiveness, it's only because of existing tensions in the society
between cultures. The fact that not everyone on my block wears Western
clothing or live in the same cultural reality as I do divides us only
to that extent - it doesn't require exclusivity or hostile relations.
Multiculturalism doesn't require that you allow illegal treatment of
women, etc...the only difference between the two I see is the level of
respect given to cultures - whether you want them to all merge into
your culture - or value their right to remain independently unique.

You're welcome to say you dislike Islamic dress, female circumcision
( I know I do), I think it's even acceptable to say you don't like a
certain culture- generally. But the ultimate dictum is to live and let
live.

>
> The foundation is to "promote diversity".
>
> So, in practical terms what can that mean other than cultural relativism
> because the promotion of diversity necessarily requires that everyone
> maintain their own culture irrespective of other cultures.
>

> This is precisely *why *issues like wearing the burqa come up, or female

> circumcision, etc.
>
> Now I agree that there are a few lines we don't cross, but frankly why not?
>
> Why is it okay to allow women to be second class citizens in every other
> respect because that's the demand of a certain culture?
>
> Is it okay for some laws (civil rights laws) to be violated and others not
> okay (criminal law)?
>
> Perhaps we should simply recognize it for what it is and stop it.
>

> "*Cultural relativism* is the principle that an

> individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of
> his or her own culture"

You're obviously under the belief that multiculturalism is relativism
in disguise (both concepts I agree with) - but that's not anywhere in
the description of multiculturalism and it's not required by it's
advocacy or practice - so I see no basis for your claim.

Besides, cultural relativism is a fancy term for recognizing context.
Of course every activity should be *understood* in it's own context.
You can evaluate it, normatively, on your own standards - but to
understand it obviously you have to understand the basis for it. Why
should we stop that? I can't help but wonder if you're conflating
multiculturalism and relativism with some other ideas or practices you
dislike...?

>
> Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism
>
> "The term ‘multiculturalism’ has been used in a variety of ways, both
> descriptive and normative. As a descriptive term, it has been taken to refer
> to cultural diversity … As a normative term, multiculturalism implies a

> positive endorsement, even celebration, of *communal diversity*,* typically
> based on* either the right of different groups to respect and recognition,
> or to *the alleged benefits to the larger society of moral and cultural
> diversity*” (My emphasis).

>
> Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
>
> A different, and IMO far better approach, adopted in Quebec, Canada, is
> Interculturalism.
>

> "*Interculturalism* is a political ideology that does not place a priority

[Trance Gemini]

I'd like your response to the last point on Interculturalism before I respond to the following.

I think you may not have read to the end.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[TLC]

Ma-choo,

"Outlawing the wearing of a Burqha would therefore be (un)acceptable,

as removing this would be an unnecessary infringement on the rights of
Muslim women."

And isn't forcing a woman through family and religious/social pressure
to wear a Burqha, which means seperating her from and communicating
with most of society by religious rules entailed with wearing a
Burqha. Is not that a greater infringement on the rights of Muslim
women who could have a chance to advance in life and in the West?

> > everything else." --Dev- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Simon Ewins]

[Ma-choo!]

> 'multiculturalism' below. Only in instances of physical harm and the
> deprivation of another person's liberties - should any cultural
> practice be curtailed. Outlawing the wearing of a Burqha would
> therefore be acceptable, as removing this would be an unnecessary
> infringement on the rights of Muslim women.

No, it would be infringing on the primitive ownership ideas of Muslim
men. There is no basis for the burqha in Islam. It is just another way
that Muslim men use to deny 'their' women equal rights. It is a disgrace
and should not be allowed in any country that considers itself civilized.

No one should be allowed to walk around wearing a mask. If I did it
downtown I would be stopped by the police within minutes.

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"I can see nobody on the road," Alice said.
"I only wish that I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone.
"To be able to see Nobody! And at such a distance too! Why, it"s as much
as I can do to see real people by this light!"
[Lewis Carroll]

[thea]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Simon Ewins <sje...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ma-choo!]

'multiculturalism' below. Only in instances of physical harm and the
deprivation of another person's liberties - should any cultural
practice be curtailed. Outlawing the wearing of a Burqha would
therefore be acceptable, as removing this would be an unnecessary
infringement on the rights of Muslim women.

No, it would be infringing on the primitive ownership ideas of Muslim men. There is no basis for the burqha in Islam. It is just another way that Muslim men use to deny 'their' women equal rights. It is a disgrace and should not be allowed in any country that considers itself civilized.

No one should be allowed to walk around wearing a mask. If I did it downtown I would be stopped by the police within minutes.

Does a burka prove that the Islam religion is of the *flesh* and not of the *spirit* - in that they have to be scared their
wives, sisters, etc. see something or someone they like *better* than them.

 

--
"Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]

"I can see nobody on the road," Alice said.
"I only wish that I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at such a distance too! Why, it"s as much as I can do to see real people by this light!"
[Lewis Carroll]

[LL]

On Jun 18, 4:47 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ma-choo,
>
> "Outlawing the wearing of a Burqha would therefore be (un)acceptable,
> as removing this would be an unnecessary infringement on the rights of
> Muslim women."
>
> And isn't forcing a woman through family and religious/social pressure
> to wear a Burqha, which means seperating her from and communicating
> with most of society by religious rules entailed with wearing a
> Burqha.  Is not that a greater infringement on the rights of Muslim
> women who could have a chance to advance in life and in the West?

LL: They wouldn't be able to do it while wearing a Burka.

I recently made a trip to Jordan. Jordan is more modern than other
middle eastern countries. Most women wear a headscarf, long skirts and
long sleeves. Some, however, are completely veiled, head to toe, in
black, with most of the face covered. Jordan is a desert land. Only a
woman who feels she has no choice would choose to wear such clothing
in such a climate, which restricts here physically and socially,
interferes in her ability to communicate effectively and to be
properly educated. No, they are not "choosing" this clothing. They are
being forced either directly or indirectly by their families and their
"culture," which puts women in an inferior position, though they have
been effectively brainwashed to think they are making the choice.
Every time I saw a woman sweltering and being hidden under this
clothing I saw "Inferior" written all over her.

****************************************************

******************************

[LL]

On Jun 18, 5:43 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Ma-choo!]
>
> >  'multiculturalism' below. Only in instances of physical harm and the
> >> deprivation of another person's liberties - should any cultural
> >> practice be curtailed. Outlawing the wearing of a Burqha would
> >> therefore be acceptable, as removing this would be an unnecessary
> >> infringement on the rights of Muslim women.
>
> > No, it would be infringing on the primitive ownership ideas of Muslim men.
> > There is no basis for the burqha in Islam. It is just another way that
> > Muslim men use to deny 'their' women equal rights. It is a disgrace and
> > should not be allowed in any country that considers itself civilized.
>
> > No one should be allowed to walk around wearing a mask. If I did it
> > downtown I would be stopped by the police within minutes.
>
> Does a burka prove that the Islam religion is of the *flesh* and not of the
> *spirit* - in that they have to be scared their
> wives, sisters, etc. see something or someone they like *better* than them.

LL: Yes, but it's more than that. They are forced to show their
inferiority in their own culture.

********************************

>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > "Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]
>
> > "I can see nobody on the road," Alice said.
> > "I only wish that I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone.
> > "To be able to see Nobody! And at such a distance too! Why, it"s as much as
> > I can do to see real people by this light!"
> > [Lewis Carroll]
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[thea]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:23 PM, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

On Jun 18, 5:43 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Ma-choo!]
>
> >  'multiculturalism' below. Only in instances of physical harm and the
> >> deprivation of another person's liberties - should any cultural
> >> practice be curtailed. Outlawing the wearing of a Burqha would
> >> therefore be acceptable, as removing this would be an unnecessary
> >> infringement on the rights of Muslim women.
>
> > No, it would be infringing on the primitive ownership ideas of Muslim men.
> > There is no basis for the burqha in Islam. It is just another way that
> > Muslim men use to deny 'their' women equal rights. It is a disgrace and
> > should not be allowed in any country that considers itself civilized.
>
> > No one should be allowed to walk around wearing a mask. If I did it
> > downtown I would be stopped by the police within minutes.
>
> Does a burka prove that the Islam religion is of the *flesh* and not of the
> *spirit* - in that they have to be scared their
> wives, sisters, etc. see something or someone they like *better* than them.

LL: Yes, but it's more than that. They are forced to show their
inferiority in their own culture.

Thanks LL - I appreciated your response.
You are right!!

********************************
>
>
>
>
>
> > --

> > "Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram Dass]
>
> > "I can see nobody on the road," Alice said.
> > "I only wish that I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone.
> > "To be able to see Nobody! And at such a distance too! Why, it"s as much as
> > I can do to see real people by this light!"
> > [Lewis Carroll]
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[LL]

LL: Thanks, Thea. I'm always happy when we can agree.

>
>
>
>
> > ********************************
>
> > > > --
> > > > "Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying." [Baba Ram
> > Dass]
>
> > > > "I can see nobody on the road," Alice said.
> > > > "I only wish that I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful
> > tone.
> > > > "To be able to see Nobody! And at such a distance too! Why, it"s as
> > much as
> > > > I can do to see real people by this light!"
> > > > [Lewis Carroll]
>
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><atheism-vs-christianit
> > y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com <y%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>>

[xeno]

On Jun 16, 5:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Multiculturalism *is* cultural relativism and creates the foundation for
> this garbage to occur.
>
> It's the fundamental flaw in it.

A racist disregard for a set of people & their culture just because
there are some fucked up things going on within their community is a
fucking cop-out.

[Trance Gemini]

When you respond to actual points I'm making and not straw men you dishonestly  fabricate based on taking single lines of my post out of context I will consider responding directly to your comments and not until then.

-- 

[philosophy]

On Jun 16, 10:13 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but
> revealing. This poor girl.
>

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-p...
>

I see no "honour" in their killing this child. What it shows is a
religion
of hate, of violence and of power...... power of men over women. It
shows a mans' ego is more important than a girls' life. What honour
is there in that? An eye for an eye is taught in the old testament.
Does
this sort of antiquated attitude hold any sway in the world today?
Is
this also accepted in the Qu'ran? What barbaric attitudes! Aren't
the
two men lucky that the courts in Canada are superior to their own
debased attitude? If they weren't, these two men would have been
taken out of the courtroom and would have been stoned to death.
Food for thought...... My assessment is simple. If these idiots
can't
follow the laws of the country they are living in, send them back from
whence they came. Why should the Canadian Public have to keep them
for twenty-five years? There is something wrong here.

[Answer_42]

On Jun 16, 8:47 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I hope a strong message is sent that this is not acceptable for any
> >> reason, including religious reasons, by giving the father and brother
> >> very long sentences.
>
> > Agreed completely. When I read the statement of fact my heart wept for the
> > poor girl. If she is suffering like this in our country then others must be
> > as well and that is simply intolerable.
>
> Multiculturalism *breeds* this and until we move away from it and into
> Interculturalism like Quebec has adopted, these kinds of tragedies will
> continue.

However, when you are a religious nut, you are a religious nut,
whatever the cultural context...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Police+arrest+woman+after+daughter+stabbed+Dorval/3149389/story.html
__________________________________________________
A truth that disheartens because it is true is of more value than the
most stimulating of falsehoods.
-- Count Maeterlinck

[xeno]

On Jun 19, 5:18 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you respond to actual points I'm making and not straw men you
> dishonestly  fabricate based on taking single lines of my post out of
> context I will consider responding directly to your comments and not until
> then.

I did respond to an actual point you're making. Your line is racist
because the fact that there are multiple cultures within society
doesn't create the foundation of "garbage to occur". Domestic violence
occurs in all cultures & socio-economic classes. Your dismissive
attitude is just more of your arrogant disregard.

[xeno]

On Jun 21, 11:02 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, when you are a religious nut, you are a religious nut,
> whatever the cultural context...

You mean if you're a psycho-socio-path, your psycho-socio-pathology
can be explained beyond religion.
Religion is just a means to that end, not that end is a means for
religion.

[Trance Gemini]

Feel free to continue building your straw man by taking my remarks out of context and not dealing with my actual point.

Anytime you want to deal with my actual point I will deal with your comments.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[xeno]

On Jun 21, 1:09 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Feel free to continue building your straw man ...

You equate multiculturalism with cultural relativism but society isn't
homogeneous. Multiple cultures within society are a fact, not an
agenda. So why would you conclude that multiculturalism is the
*foundation* of social problems, such as domestic violence? Domestic
violence appears in all cultures & classes. This smacks of racist
opportunism. Just calling a spade a spade. So, there you go.

[Trance Gemini]

Like I said. Feel free to continue fabricating *your* straw man.

The reason you have no fucking clue what my point is, is that you either didn't read my entire post, or you didn't understand my post.

Either is possible given that the *last* time you tried to shove this straw man down my throat, you did so without having a clue what multiculturalism actually was other than your own pc airy fairy delusion about you *think* it is.

-- 

[xeno]

On Jun 21, 3:53 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like I said. Feel free to continue fabricating *your* straw man.
>
> The reason you have no fucking clue what my point is, is that you either
> didn't read my entire post, or you didn't understand my post.

All whine & no explanation. You did say that multiculturalism is
cultural relativism. You did say that this is the foundation of
"garbage" that causes the case of domestic violence that's being
talked abt here. So how isn't this a racist line when it has all the
hallmarks of one?

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:30 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 21, 3:53 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like I said. Feel free to continue fabricating *your* straw man.
>
> The reason you have no fucking clue what my point is, is that you either
> didn't read my entire post, or you didn't understand my post.

All whine & no explanation.

Like I said. Stop taking my remarks out of context and misrepresenting them with the straw men *you* impose on them and we can actually have a discussion.

Until then. Sorry but I'm not interested in playing these silly games.

[xeno]

On Jun 22, 3:09 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like I said. Stop taking my remarks out of context ...

I'm not taking your racist remarks out of context. I'm calling them
for what they are. Deal with it.

[Trance Gemini]

As he continues to delude himself based on his own straw man.

[xeno]

On Jun 22, 3:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As he continues to delude himself based on his own straw man.

Well, prove me wrong then. Do you have a constructive solution for
honor-killing or what?

[Trance Gemini]

If you actually read what I wrote you'd have the answer to that question.

[xeno]

On Jun 23, 12:25 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, prove me wrong then. Do you have a constructive solution for
> > honor-killing or what?
>
> If you actually read what I wrote you'd have the answer to that question.

I know what you said. How is claiming multiculturalism is cultural
relativism got fuck all to do with this honor-killing business?
Nothing. It's not the problem here. Domestic violence is the problem.
You're just compounding the problem.

[Jelrak TB]

I think the point Trance is making is that these people were allowed
to exist in a Western country without having to square themselves with
the fact that they were now living amidst a more enlightened culture
than the one they left behind. Cultural relativism means that no one
could or should have enlightened them that their cultural baggage was
obsolete for fear of *offending* them. The consequences of not
offending them is that this girl is now dead.

Not all cultures are equal and so what is the point of maintaining
inferior ones? Culture has nothing to do with race, as you well know,
it is merely a system of beliefs that have been held onto from a
[often distant] past. No one would argue that the descendants of the
Vikings should remain modern-day raiders and rovers and so no one
should argue that other barbaric cultures are *welcome* to exist among
us *as is.* Race is a red herring in this issue.

Creating cultural ghettos can lead to racism, however, because
differences in cultures chafe, and when the individual who thinks
alien thoughts to yours is of a different shade the two get conflated
so that individuals from that genetic heritage are all grouped
together. If people of a variety of races have a common culture, OTOH,
they are much better able to communicate and interact and so have
fewer differences that actually spark tension. Encouraging vast groups
of people to remain different while living in close proximity is only
setting everyone up for future problems.

[xeno]

On Jun 23, 3:37 pm, Jelrak TB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:20 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 12:25 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, prove me wrong then. Do you have a constructive solution for
> > > > honor-killing or what?
>
> > > If you actually read what I wrote you'd have the answer to that question.
>
> > I know what you said. How is claiming multiculturalism is cultural
> > relativism got fuck all to do with this honor-killing business?
> > Nothing. It's not the problem here. Domestic violence is the problem.
> > You're just compounding the problem.
>
> I think the point Trance is making is that these people were allowed
> to exist in a Western country without having to square themselves with
> the fact that they were now living amidst a more enlightened culture
> than the one they left behind.

HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO! What chauvinism! I've got to head
back to base so I'll get back to you tommorow but this isn't very
promising. I know you have more to say here but I've got to go.

[Trance Gemini]

If that's all you remember from the post you are an idiot with a reading comprehension problem.

I said much more than that.

Your self-serving, selective reading notwithstanding.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Trance Gemini]

The concept is called Interculturalism.

It differs from Multiculturalism in that it recognizes a general civil law which applies to everyone and doesn't recognize accommodationism or cultural relativism. It does recognize the right for everyone to practice their own culture and/or religion within the context of existing laws.

Multiculturalism requires accommodationism and cultural relativism by definition and the promotion of diversity creates a ghettoized exclusivist society which is racist by definition as well *because* it's exclusivist.

It also create inconsistencies in how the law is applied because the rationale for allowing accommodation is inconsistent and arbitrary.

Studies on Stereotypes have demonstrated repeatedly that a concept like Multiculturalism can only breed racism and division.

-- 

[JTB]

Chauvinism?

[xeno]

On Jun 23, 4:25 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If that's all you remember from the post you are an idiot with a reading
> comprehension problem.

Your ethnocentric bias is very evident.

>
> I said much more than that.
>
> Your self-serving, selective reading notwithstanding.

You don't bother to even clarify your position so this is just a
projection. How pathetic. Shameless.

[xeno]

On Jun 24, 10:00 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chauvinism?

Your premise is that one culture is superior to another. That's
debatable. Ghettos don't create racism. Racism creates ghettos. By
marginalizing people because they come from a different culture, & by
assuming supremacy, you are in effect ghetto-izing them.

[Trance Gemini]

I don't cater to the wilfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

Your straw man and bullshit analysis are worth nothing because they aren't based on any facts.

[xeno]

On Jun 23, 4:37 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
problems.
>
> The concept is called Interculturalism.

These are word games. Multiculturalism is just the notion that there
should be recognition of ethnic diversity.
Intercultural means: "of relating, involving, or representing
different cultures. Cultural relativism means judging and/or
analyzing a culture on its own terms. How can you have a functional
"interculturalism" by disparaging on principle any of the above?
Before you motor-mouth your way through this you've got to answer this
contradiction if you want to make any sense here.

[xeno]

On Jun 24, 11:59 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't cater to the wilfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

You do to yourself, so that contradicts your assertion. OK, you don't
like me, but so what? This isn't your personal blog. You don't have
the common courtesy to clarify what you mean. I can't read your
thoughts. Your words aren't necessarily clear.

[JTB]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:54 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:00 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chauvinism?

Your premise is that one culture is superior to another.

 

My argument is that this is demonstrably true. For example, which is better: a culture that freely embraces diversity and can co-exist with other cultures or one that cannot (and feels itself threatened by others)?

 

It is not, on the other hand, meant to indicate that one culture is better than ALL the others since it seems that often it is an amalgam of different cultural modes that produces a superior overall culture than any single held-since-the-age-of-time set of beliefs and doings. It would be odd, for instance, for me to claim that either my French or Irish heritage was better than my Norwegian or Germanic background (or any of them superior to any Asian or other European culture), but it is fair to say that the North American version that blends the four together allows one to pick the better aspects of each and emerge with a new, fuller culture.

 

Multi-culturalism ignores that opportunity by keeping the four seperate and concurrent, thereby ensuring long-term differences become established.

 

That's
debatable. Ghettos don't create racism. Racism creates ghettos. By
marginalizing people because they come from a different culture, & by
assuming supremacy, you are in effect ghetto-izing them.

 

There is some truth to what you are saying. Racism can and does create ghettos. What I was mentioning, however, is that when people come to a new country and ignore the prevailing culture they create their own ghettos. In their own ghettos they then maintain the label of outsiders and, as in the cases of outsiders everwhere, are then less understood and empathized with. Their cultural norms are foreign and so create conflict. Conflict leads to bad feelings and that is where the racism comes in (although arguably misplaced). 

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 23, 4:37 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
problems.
>
> The concept is called Interculturalism.

These are word games. Multiculturalism is just the notion that there
should be recognition of ethnic diversity.

Words mean something and have consequences irrespective of your choice to ignore those significant differences.

 

Intercultural means: "of relating, involving, or representing
different cultures. Cultural relativism means judging  and/or
analyzing a culture on its own terms. How can you have a functional
"interculturalism" by disparaging on principle any of the above?
Before you motor-mouth your way through this you've got to answer this
contradiction if you want to make any sense here.

I spoke to directly to that point and illustrated the difference quite clearly, your wilfull ignorance notwithstanding.

The fact that you chose to delete that entire explanation and yet again take *one* line of my post out of context does not change the fact that I spoke directly to it and explained it.

Go back to the post that you are "responding" to and actually *read* it.

I have no intention of catering to your wilfull ignorance and intellectual laziness by responding to your petty demands.

[Trance Gemini]

They're not clear when *you* don't bother to read them or respond to the *actual* points.

[xeno]

On Jun 24, 12:20 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your premise is that one culture is superior to another.

> My argument is that this is demonstrably true. For example, which is better:
> a culture that freely embraces diversity and can co-exist with other
> cultures or one that cannot (and feels itself threatened by others)?

Well, you couldn't claim w/o absurdity that this culture, that is,
North American culture, "freely embraces diversity" & can "coexist
with other cultures". That's contrary to historical fact.

> ... but it is fair to say that the North

> American version that blends the four together allows one to pick the better
> aspects of each and emerge with a new, fuller culture.

That's a fairy tale. You're denying the historical struggle involved
in that assimilation.

> Multi-culturalism ignores that opportunity by keeping the four seperate and
> concurrent, thereby ensuring long-term differences become established.

Multicuturalism is just the recognition that that diversity exists.

> Their cultural norms are foreign and so create conflict. Conflict
> leads to bad feelings and that is where the racism comes in (although
> arguably misplaced).

It's impossible to escape from struggle. Norms are dynamic even in a
homogeneous society.

[xeno]

On Jun 24, 12:33 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The concept is called Interculturalism.

> > These are word games. Multiculturalism is just the notion that there
> > should be recognition of ethnic diversity.

> Words mean something and have consequences irrespective of your choice to
> ignore those significant differences.

The significant differences you're referring to here are YOUR own
idiosyncratic misuse of these terms.

>
> > Intercultural means: "of relating, involving, or representing
> > different cultures. Cultural relativism means judging  and/or
> > analyzing a culture on its own terms. How can you have a functional
> > "interculturalism" by disparaging on principle any of the above?
> > Before you motor-mouth your way through this you've got to answer this
> > contradiction if you want to make any sense here.
>
> I spoke to directly to that point and illustrated the difference quite
> clearly, your wilfull ignorance notwithstanding.

You're not dealing with the contradiction here. You have use all these
terms outside of "interculturalism", which you just trotted out here,
as pejoratives. Cultural relativism for you apparently is synomyous
with moral relativism. Multiculturalism
for you is some agenda to divide people. Clearly you're full of shit
if you think that these *bias* definitions you're using here gives a
complete picture. If your "concept" of interculturalism does not
accomodate differences to some degree of other cultures, recognize
cultures in the first place, & facilitate communication between
different sets of people in an equitable democratic way as oppose to
some master race culture ramming its domination on alleged "lesser"
people, then your interculturalism is a fraud.

[xeno]

On Jun 24, 12:34 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They're not clear when *you* don't bother to read them or respond to the
> *actual* points.

I'm responding to the actual point I have concerns abt, thank-you very
much. That actual point is your key premise.
It lacks soundness, & suffers from ambiguities. What do you mean by
"multiculturalism is cultural relativism" if that proposition for you
is a pejorative? In order to understand another culture you have to
analyze what things mean in the context of that culture. If you want
to analyze the interactions between cultures, one has to take the
contexts of within those cultures & the context between those
cultures. Why is that a problem for you in *principle*?

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:55 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 12:33 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The concept is called Interculturalism.

> > These are word games. Multiculturalism is just the notion that there
> > should be recognition of ethnic diversity.

> Words mean something and have consequences irrespective of your choice to
> ignore those significant differences.

The significant differences you're referring to here are YOUR own
idiosyncratic misuse of these terms.

No. I'm dealing with the specific meanings of those terms as recognized by those who actually implement them as policies.

The meaning that you are assigning is absurd and effectively meaningless when it comes to implementing the policies. 

>
> > Intercultural means: "of relating, involving, or representing
> > different cultures. Cultural relativism means judging  and/or
> > analyzing a culture on its own terms. How can you have a functional
> > "interculturalism" by disparaging on principle any of the above?
> > Before you motor-mouth your way through this you've got to answer this
> > contradiction if you want to make any sense here.
>
> I spoke to directly to that point and illustrated the difference quite
> clearly, your wilfull ignorance notwithstanding.

You're not dealing with the contradiction here.

There is no contradiction. 

The terms mean completely different things when it comes to how they're implemented and if you bothered to actually read what I wrote you would understand that difference.

It's not rocket science.

Go back and read what I actually wrote in the post that you "responded" to previously and from which you deleted everything.

 

<snipped ignorant rant based on no knowledge of the facts>

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:05 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 12:34 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They're not clear when *you* don't bother to read them or respond to the
> *actual* points.

I'm responding to the actual point

No you're not because if you were then you wouldn't be bringing up the issues you're bringing up which are blatantly false and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding in terms of how both policies are implemented and the significance of each.

<snipped rationalization based on intellectual laziness and refusal to actually read the post resulting in wilfull ignorance>

[xeno]

On Jun 24, 5:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The meaning that you are assigning is absurd

They are the standard definitions anybody can get from a dictionary.
Your claim abt their "absurdity" is evidently colored by your dubious
political opinion.


> There is no contradiction.

Yeah, there is. How can you talk abt interculturalism if you don't
take account of diversity, which is a fact, not an agenda? What kind
of interculturalism is it that doesn't bother to analyze and/or
consider the cultural context of people's actions?
How are you going to open up a dialoge with people you deem are
"lesser"?

> It's not rocket science.

Something that inevitably draws in linguistics, sociology, psychology
& economics, among other things, can get pretty complicated inspite
of your glib opinion here.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:30 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 5:11 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The meaning that you are assigning is absurd

They are the standard definitions anybody can get from a dictionary.
Your claim abt their "absurdity" is evidently colored by your dubious
political opinion.

Which has nothing to do with POLICY does it?

The definition that's relevant is the one that applies to how the policy is implemented.

Like I said, the meaning you're applying is absurd *because* it doesn't speak to the policy and it's implementation.

However, feel free to keep your sheer ignorance intact.

 

> There is no contradiction.

Yeah, there is.

No there isn't and if you had read my explanation you would understand that.

Sorry it just doesn't work like that.

 

> It's not rocket science.

It really isn't no matter how much you want to over-complicate it while remaining wilfully ignorant about it.

Go back and read the post you supposedly "responded" to and read the entire thing.

The explanation is clear and detailed.

[xeno]

On Jun 24, 5:13 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm responding to the actual point
>
> No you're not because if you were then you wouldn't be bringing up the

> issues you're bringing up ...


I'm bringing up what needs to brought up. If you say "multiculturalism
is cultural relativism" & then go on to say that's the cause of
"garbage" that happens in soceity then you are in effect arguing
against understanding culture from a scientific basis.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:40 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 5:13 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm responding to the actual point
>
> No you're not because if you were then you wouldn't be bringing up the

> issues you're bringing up ...


I'm bringing up what needs to brought up.

No you're not. You would understand that they are two different concepts if you actually read the post and you would *understand* how Multiculturalism is implemented and how it's different if you bothered reading the post.

The fact that you didn't indicates that you are being wilfully ignorant and a waste of time to bother discussing this with.

-- 

[thea]

Well, well, can I go on and on.  Lets see:  I am English, Scotch, Irish, Holland Dutch, German,
French and it goes on and on and on.
Oh yeah, we in America believe you can marry anyone you really want to marry.  Do other
countries let you cross so many cultural lines?

--

[Ma-choo!]

On Jun 18, 6:47 am, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ma-choo,
>
> "Outlawing the wearing of a Burqha would therefore be (un)acceptable,
> as removing this would be an unnecessary infringement on the rights of
> Muslim women."
>
> And isn't forcing a woman through family and religious/social pressure
> to wear a Burqha, which means seperating her from and communicating
> with most of society by religious rules entailed with wearing a
> Burqha.  Is not that a greater infringement on the rights of Muslim
> women who could have a chance to advance in life and in the West?

No - because this is a slippery slope, a convenient excuse for
cultural imperialism. You cannot prove that Arabic women are being
forced via pressure to wear this - indeed, the point itself assumes
that women will say 'I want to wear this' - but only because they are
(allegedly) pressured and indoctrinated into thinking so.

This type of argument , if accepted, gives a carte blanche excuse to
ban any cultural practice - because there's no standard to test or
evaluate it by. You simply say someone's being indoctrinated, and
you've allowed yourself to control their lives and force them to
behave against their free will.

It would be equally reasonable for Muslim women to argue that
Western women really want to be respected and venerated (the Islamic
explanation for their dress) - but they've been pressured and
indoctrinated by oversexed men into believing they want to dress and
behave like whores. Therefore, Islamic women would say - it's proper
for them to ban your whorish Western clothing and save you from the
awful oppression of Western society - by forcing you into a Burkha.

I'm obviously not endorsing the view - but I hope you see the
dangerous slippery slope you create with such a position.


>
> On 17 June, 21:14, "Ma-choo!" <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 10:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ma-choo! <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 16, 7:44 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but
> > > > > > revealing. This poor girl.
>
> > > > > >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-p.
> > > > ..
>
> > > > > And this statement is just stupid:
> > > > > “We want to underscore that multiculturalism is not an excuse, or a moral
> > > > or
> > > > > legal justification, for such barbaric practices. Multiculturalism does
> > > > not
> > > > > equal cultural relativism.”
>
> > > > > Multiculturalism *is* cultural relativism and creates the foundation for
> > > > > this garbage to occur.
>
> > > > > It's the fundamental flaw in it.
>
> > > > I thought we'd almost agree here - finally a case of religious parents
> > > > taking their beliefs too far - albeit if those beliefs are more
> > > > cultural than religious.   But I'd never have guessed you're against
> > > > "multi-culturalism"  ?
>
> > > > I agree with the above - multiculturalism is obviously not an excuse,
> > > > and is not synonymous with cultural relativism. I happily live in a
> > > > multicultural part of the US- and there are many cultural practices I
> > > > have no problem condemning as wrong, unacceptable, illegal, etc - and
> > > > those practices should be dealt with individually - not used to indict
> > > > foreign cultures generally.
>
> > > > Why do you feel multiculturalism requires cultural relativism?
>
> > > A lot of people don't actually understand exactly what multiculturalism is
> > > and what it advocates.
>
> > > IMO the main reason for that is because everyone's been so bamboozled by the
> > > PC crowd's unsupported and unwarranted claims that the sociological concept
> > > of multiculturalism is the way to be non-racist. It's become a Holy Grail of
> > > sorts for the anti-racist crowd.
>
> > It sounds like a bit like the term 'judicial activism' in the US -
> > with so many contradictory meanings as to make it's general use more
> > of a political football than useful conceptual term. I'd prefer to
> > keep it to the wiki def you give below.
>
> > > It's not the way to be non-racist. In fact it's the opposite.
>
> > How?
>
> > > Nor are any of the concepts supported either through sociological or
> > > psychological studies (stereotypes and stereotypical thinking).
>
> > One of the most economically successful and progressive nations (up
> > until the last few decades..) is the United States - a notably
> > multicultural society. Ditto for Brazil, which has much less racial
> > tension  and is the predominant economic and progressive force in the
> > area. Isn't the proof in the pudding? And in any case - I value
> > diversity and equal treatment of all cultures, for no reason necessary
> > besides my personal preference - matching up with the def of
> > 'multiculturalism' below. Only in instances of physical harm and the
> > deprivation of another person's liberties - should any cultural
> > practice be curtailed. Outlawing the wearing of a Burqha would
> > therefore be acceptable, as removing this would be an unnecessary
> > infringement on the rights of Muslim women.
>
> > > If fact, if one actually researches it you'll find that the concept is
> > > racist to the core and promotes divisiveness and a ghettoized relativistic
> > > culture.
>
> > To call the belief that all cultures deserve "equal rights and
> > recognition" racist is a contradiction in terms. If it promotes
> > divisiveness, it's only because of existing tensions in the society
> > between cultures. The fact that not everyone on my block wears Western
> > clothing or live in the same cultural reality as I do divides us only
> > to that extent - it doesn't require exclusivity or hostile relations.
> > Multiculturalism doesn't require that you allow illegal treatment of
> > women, etc...the only difference between the two I see is the level of
> > respect given to cultures - whether you want them to all merge into
> > your culture - or value their right to remain independently unique.
>
> > You're welcome to say you dislike Islamic dress, female circumcision
> > ( I know I do), I think it's even acceptable to say you don't like a
> > certain culture- generally. But the ultimate dictum is to live and let
> > live.
>
> > > The foundation is to "promote diversity".
>
> > > So, in practical terms what can that mean other than cultural relativism
> > > because the promotion of diversity necessarily requires that everyone
> > > maintain their own culture irrespective of other cultures.
>
> > > This is precisely *why *issues like wearing the burqa come up, or female
> > > circumcision, etc.
>
> > > Now I agree that there are a few lines we don't cross, but frankly why not?
>
> > > Why is it okay to allow women to be second class citizens in every other
> > > respect because that's the demand of a certain culture?
>
> > > Is it okay for some laws (civil rights laws) to be violated and others not
> > > okay (criminal law)?
>
> > > Perhaps we should simply recognize it for what it is and stop it.
>
> > > "*Cultural relativism* is the principle that an
> > > individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of
> > > his or her own culture"
>
> > You're obviously under the belief that multiculturalism is relativism
> > in disguise (both concepts I agree with) - but that's not anywhere in
> > the description of multiculturalism and it's not required by it's
> > advocacy or practice - so I see no basis for your claim.
>
> > Besides, cultural relativism is a fancy term for recognizing context.
> > Of course every activity should be *understood* in it's own context.
> > You can evaluate it, normatively, on your own standards - but to
> > understand it obviously you have to understand the basis for it. Why
> > should we stop that?  I can't help but wonder if you're conflating
> > multiculturalism and relativism with some other ideas or practices you
> > dislike...?
>
> > > Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism
>
> > > "The term ‘multiculturalism’ has been used in a variety of ways, both
> > > descriptive and normative. As a descriptive term, it has been taken to refer
> > > to cultural diversity … As a normative term, multiculturalism implies a
> > > positive endorsement, even celebration, of *communal diversity*,* typically
> > > based on* either the right of different groups to respect and recognition,
> > > or to *the alleged benefits to the larger society of moral and cultural
> > > diversity*” (My emphasis).
>
> > > Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
>
> > > A different, and IMO far better approach, adopted in Quebec, Canada, is
> > > Interculturalism.
>
> > > "*Interculturalism* is a political ideology that does not place a priority
> > > for all cultures to be on the same level as a basis to organize a given
> > > society. Its main objective is rather to develop a common civic culture
> > > based on the values of freedom and liberty, and of human rights, as derived
> > > from the Western civilization, while encouraging interaction between the
> > > communities living in the same country. As such, Interculturalism requries
> > > democracy and full respect for universal human rights (whereas
> > > multiculturalism explicitly doesn't know this requirement).
>
> > > Interculturalism promotes individual rights for everyone, with no
> > > discrimination. This means, in particular, that people have the right to
> > > maintain an affiliation with one's ethnic group and the right for cultural
> > > and religious differences to be displayed in the public domain. However, the
> > > entire society must adhere to the same constitution of fundamental rights
> > > and obligations, with no exception. It does not accept that cultural
> > > differences are used as an excuse to reduce the rights of certain groups.
> > > This approach leads to an ethics of maximum tolerance for an individual's
> > > choices and of minimum tolerance for totalitarian and theocratic systems of
> > > ideas that could undermine the very foundations of a democratic society."
>
> > > Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interculturalism

>
> > > --
> > > "Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as

> > > everything else." --Dev- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

[xeno]

On Jun 24, 5:39 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They are the standard definitions anybody can get from a dictionary.
> > Your claim abt their "absurdity" is evidently colored by your dubious
> > political opinion.

> Which has nothing to do with POLICY does it?

What is wrong with you? Fuck start your head. Policy is not a
consistent thing but multiculturalism is defined as any considerations
revolving around & adapting to diverse cultures. You don't live in a
homogeneous society. If you think that one culture needs to dictate to
all others it deems less then you're not talking abt a democratic nor
an equitable policy. You have stated that "multiculturalism is
cultural relativism" & that being the "foundation" of "garbage". If
you deny cultural relativism then you are tacitly refusing to analyze
diversity in a scientific way.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:41 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 5:39 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They are the standard definitions anybody can get from a dictionary.
> > Your claim abt their "absurdity" is evidently colored by your dubious
> > political opinion.

> Which has nothing to do with POLICY does it?

What is wrong with you? Fuck start your head.

Take your own advice.

Policy is what is relevant here since that's how multiculturalism is implemented.

Policy *reflects* the definition which is not limited to your meaningless absurdity.

<snipped bullshit from the intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant>

[xeno]

On Jun 25, 1:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Policy *reflects* the definition which is not limited to your meaningless
> absurdity.

A singular policy doesn't define what multiculturalism is. That's like
saying American democracy defines democracy in general. You still
haven't addressed the contradiction here. Saying that multiculturalism
is cultural relativism & then say the latter is the foundation of
"garbage" *reflects* an irrational approach to things. All relativism
means is that to understand a culture you have to put it in its
context. Saying otherwise is like saying you can understand fish by
comparing fish with land animals & expect to actually understand fish.
See?

[xeno]

On Jun 25, 11:57 am, "Ma-choo!" <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>   It would be equally reasonable for Muslim women to argue that
> Western women really want to be respected and venerated (the Islamic
> explanation for their dress) - but they've been pressured and
> indoctrinated by oversexed men into believing they want to dress and
> behave like whores.

Exactly.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:07 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 25, 1:06 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Policy *reflects* the definition which is not limited to your meaningless
> absurdity.

A singular policy doesn't define what multiculturalism is.

An overall policy and how it's implemented does.

And you continue to ignore the detailed differentiation I outlined regarding the significance of how each was implemented based on the philosophical approach advocated by each.

Until you stop being willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy and go back and read that post and make an effort to grasp the main point you aren't going to be able to discuss this rationally with me.

Which makes this a waste of time.

I have nothing *personal* against you.

I have, however, told you repeatedly that I object to the way that you consistently ignore my point, extract single sentences, remove them from context, delete the rest of my comments so no-one else can see the context, and then proceed to fabricate straw men based on the single sentence you've extracted and taken out of context.

As long as you continue to do that we cannot have a rational and civil discussion.

If you are actually interested in having a rational and civil discussion then you will stop doing that. This is also something that I've told you before.

So your claim that this is personal is as nonsensical and absurd as your claim to understand what multiculturalism is and what my point is.

[xeno]

On Jun 25, 3:30 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An overall policy and how it's implemented does.

One instance of a policy doesn't define all possibilities of policy.
You're going to have to do better than this fucktard logic you've been
applying here. It's not going to work.




> If you are actually interested in having a rational and civil discussion...

Then why bother trying to interact with Trance Gemini? Well, the
matter is, Trance Gemini is irrelevant. What's relevant here is
exposing a RACIST & XENOPHOBIC agenda. If Trance Gemini wants to
perpetuate such then she's just going to have to deal with the slings
& arrows she so richly deserves that come her way.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:53 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:30 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An overall policy and how it's implemented does.

One instance of a policy doesn't define all possibilities of policy.

Policies are based on concepts and the concept does.

> If you are actually interested in having a rational and civil discussion...

Then why bother trying to interact with Trance Gemini?

Good question. 

Why do you bother when you're going to insist on doing it this way, by fabricating straw men that don't represent my position.

They represent *your* position based on *your* intellectual laziness and willful ignorance.

[xeno]

On Jun 25, 4:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Policies are based on concepts and the concept does.

The concept of multiculturalism does not imply one particular policy.

> Why do you bother ...

Because bad ideas need to be challenged.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:18 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 25, 4:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Policies are based on concepts and the concept does.

The concept of multiculturalism does not imply one particular policy.

Yes it does. Certain features are by definition inherent to the policy.

> Why do you bother ...

Because bad ideas need to be challenged.

You need to grasp what the person is saying before you can claim they are advocating a "bad" idea, your willful ignorance and intellectual laziness notwithstanding.

 

The only way you can do that is by reading the entire post and actually grasping the actual point.

Something which you refuse to do.

Instead, you would rather extract single sentences, take them out of context, fabricate straw men based on those single sentences and then argue against your own straw men.

A much easier approach for the intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant but not one which will ever result in rational and civil discourse.

[xeno]

On Jun 25, 4:24 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Policies are based on concepts and the concept does.

> > The concept of multiculturalism does not imply one particular policy.

> Yes it does. Certain features are by definition inherent to the policy.

That's like saying the only implementation of the principles of
aeronautics is the prop plane. & then say what's inherent in prop
plane production is inherent in all possibilities of aeronautics.

> > Because bad ideas need to be challenged.

> You need to grasp what the person is saying before you can claim they are
> advocating a "bad" idea, your willful ignorance and intellectual laziness
> notwithstanding.

You need to GrAsP that your bad ideas are problematical & no amount of
projecting your own stupidity on others is going to make your BAD
IDEAS any LeSs FuCkEd-Up. Are we having fun here yet or what? Yeesh.

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:28 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 25, 4:24 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Policies are based on concepts and the concept does.

> > The concept of multiculturalism does not imply one particular policy.

> Yes it does. Certain features are by definition inherent to the policy.

That's like saying the only implementation of the principles of
aeronautics is the prop plane. & then say what's inherent in prop
plane production is inherent in all possibilities of aeronautics.

Only to someone who chooses to remain willfully ignorant of what I actually said.

 

> > Because bad ideas need to be challenged.

> You need to grasp what the person is saying before you can claim they are
> advocating a "bad" idea, your willful ignorance and intellectual laziness
> notwithstanding.

You need to GrAsP that your bad ideas

Assuming they are "bad" without making any effort to understand what they actually are indicates intellectual laziness or willful ignorance.

Neither of which is worth dealing with.

In order to make the determination that they are "bad", one has to actually grasp the idea. Something you refuse to do.

Instead, you prefer to take my comments out of context, construct elaborate straw men and argue those.

That is not an indication that my "ideas are bad".

That is an indication that you are either deliberately deceptive (willfully ignorant) or intellectually lazy and refuse to bother to find out what my *actual* point was.

Either way, it makes your comments and assessments quite worthless.

-- 

[xeno]

On Jun 25, 6:42 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The concept of multiculturalism does not imply one particular policy.

> > > Yes it does. Certain features are by definition inherent to the policy.

> > That's like saying the only implementation of the principles of
> > aeronautics is the prop plane. & then say what's inherent in prop
> > plane production is inherent in all possibilities of aeronautics.

> Only to someone who chooses to remain willfully ignorant of what I actually
> said.

You're not being clear in what you're objecting to here. Perhaps you
just don't like the ramifications that inevitably lead from your own
premises. You appear to be saying that the concept of
multiculturalism does imply one particular policy. You reject without
any explanation that there are a number of possible policies & one
policy can't define them all. Instead you just assert "yes it does" &
then proceed into ad hominem abt it. That's not very convincing.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jun 16, 8:40 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but
> > revealing. This poor girl.
>
> >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-p...
>

> I hope

If wishes could be horses, beggars would ride:->

> a strong message is sent that this is not acceptable for any reason,

The message would be sent that it is not acceptable to non-Muslim
Canadians. How about Muslim Canadians, though?

> including religious reasons, by giving the father and brother very long
> sentences.

In order for it to be not acceptable to the rest of Muslims, it would
have to become more honorable to let a daughter run loose than to kill
her and go to jail for it. Once the murdered girl's father and brother
are serving long stretches in prison, will it then have become more
honorable in Muslim society to tolerant of a free ranging daughter
than to be a murderer of a free ranging daughter?

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 25, 6:42 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The concept of multiculturalism does not imply one particular policy.

> > > Yes it does. Certain features are by definition inherent to the policy.

> > That's like saying the only implementation of the principles of
> > aeronautics is the prop plane. & then say what's inherent in prop
> > plane production is inherent in all possibilities of aeronautics.

> Only to someone who chooses to remain willfully ignorant of what I actually
> said.

You're not being clear in what you're objecting to  here.

I've been repeatedly perfectly clear. 

You just appear to refuse to read any more than the first line of any post I write since that's all you consistently respond to.

And based on your responses you have ignored everything else I've written.

Since that's the case I have to assume that you are being willfully ignorant and are a complete waste of time to bother interacting with.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 16, 8:40 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but
> > revealing. This poor girl.
>

> >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-p...
>
> I hope

If wishes could be horses, beggars would ride:->

> a strong message is sent that this is not acceptable for any reason,

The message would be sent that it is not acceptable to non-Muslim
Canadians. How about Muslim Canadians, though?

Are they not Canadians? Are they not obligated to follow Canadian law?

I think you have your answer.

 

> including religious reasons, by giving the father and brother very long
> sentences.

In order for it to be not acceptable to the rest of Muslims, it would
have to become more honorable to let a daughter run loose than to kill
her and go to jail for it.

I, personally don't care if it's acceptable to the Muslims or not.

I do believe that it would be a deterrent.

That is, the Muslim will have to decide whether his "honor" is more important to him than staying out of jail for 25 years to life (the sentence that they got).

[JTB]

It might also help the Muslim girls who would feel more secure knowing that society was firmly behind them...

 

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

--

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:00 PM, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>

 

I, personally don't care if it's acceptable to the Muslims or not.

I do believe that it would be a deterrent.

That is, the Muslim will have to decide whether his "honor" is more important to him than staying out of jail for 25 years to life (the sentence that they got).

 

It might also help the Muslim girls who would feel more secure knowing that society was firmly behind them...

Even more important.

[xeno]

On Jun 26, 1:18 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been repeatedly perfectly clear.

Clearly nuts.

[Trance Gemini]

That would be you but feel free to continue demonstrating your wacky interpretations of the english language.

[xeno]

On Jun 26, 1:22 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are they not Canadians? Are they not obligated to follow Canadian law?

What does this have to do with multiculturalism? Are you trying to
equate cultural relativism with moral relativism?

> That is, the Muslim will have to decide whether his "honor" is more
> important to him than staying out of jail for 25 years to life (the sentence
> that they got).

"The muslim"? That's pretty devisive tone you're taking here. This
line you're taking here wouldn't likely stop honor killing though.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 5:53 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped bullshit straw man fabricated to push Xeno's personal agenda>

You have no clue about anything other than the straw men you deceptively fabricate based on shoddy reading comprehension and intellectual laziness.

Attempting to "discuss" anything with you is a complete waste of band width.

[xeno]

On Jun 26, 3:42 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have no clue about anything

You're demonstrably an idiot. It's you who deliberately gets things
wrong & it's you who are too fucking lazy to think outside of your
rightist box.

[Trance Gemini]

You have no clue about anything other than the straw men you fabricate based on your deceptive and shoddy reading comprehension and intellectual laziness.

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 6:50 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped deceptive and bullshit analysis based on Xeno's personal agenda>

[xeno]

On Jun 26, 3:54 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have no clue ...

(1) Cultural relativism is not equivalent to moral relativism.
(2) Cultural relativism is analyzing a culture by its own context in
order to objectively understand it.
Not condone actions for the sake of same.


"Interculturalism" is just a synonym of "multiculturalism" so what's
the point of this term other than make a vain attempt at denying the
reality of diversity. Your "interculturalism" would inevitabley lead
to bad policy because it refuses to objectively understand culture
since it denies cultural relativism. These are my concerns here.

[Trance Gemini]

You have no clue about anything other than the straw men you fabricate based on your deceptive and shoddy reading comprehension and intellectual laziness.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jun 26, 4:22 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

>
>
>
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 8:40 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but
> > > > revealing. This poor girl.
>
> > > >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-p.
> > ..
>
> > > I hope
>
> > If wishes could be horses, beggars would ride:->
>
> > > a strong message is sent that this is not acceptable for any reason,
>
> > The message would be sent that it is not acceptable to non-Muslim
> > Canadians. How about Muslim Canadians, though?
>
> Are they not Canadians? Are they not obligated to follow Canadian law?

Yes, but if the term "honor killing" is being correctly applied, then
this breach of law is not only acceptable but honorable (or less
dishonorable than letting a daughter/sister have freedom). You were
hoping that it would become unacceptable. Well, honor was already
unacceptable to most Canadians. So, the question is whether honor
killing will become unacceptable to those Canadians who found it
acceptable. Is it certain that it has become unacceptable to them?

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:05 AM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 26, 4:22 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

>
>
>
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 8:40 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > When religion makes you this insane. The Statement of Fact is long but
> > > > revealing. This poor girl.
>
> > > >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/father-brother-p.
> > ..
>
> > > I hope
>
> > If wishes could be horses, beggars would ride:->
>
> > > a strong message is sent that this is not acceptable for any reason,
>
> > The message would be sent that it is not acceptable to non-Muslim
> > Canadians. How about Muslim Canadians, though?
>
> Are they not Canadians? Are they not obligated to follow Canadian law?

Yes, but if the term "honor killing" is being correctly applied, then
this breach of law is not only acceptable but honorable (or less
dishonorable than letting a daughter/sister have freedom). You were
hoping that it would become unacceptable.

Actually I wasn't hoping for any such thing as I already explained in the rest of this post which you appear not to have bothered reading all the way through . 

You really should *read* a post completely before responding to it.

Here is the part you missed:

Trance said:

" I, personally don't care if it's acceptable to the Muslims or not.

I do believe that it would be a deterrent.

That is, the Muslim will have to decide whether his "honor" is more

important to him than staying out of jail for 25 years to life (the sentence 

that they got)."

 

Well, honor was already
unacceptable to most Canadians. So, the question is whether honor
killing will become unacceptable to those Canadians who found it
acceptable. Is it certain that it has become unacceptable to them?

>
> I think you have your answer.
>
>
>
> > > including religious reasons, by giving the father and brother very long
> > > sentences.
>
> > In order for it to be not acceptable to the rest of Muslims, it would
> > have to become more honorable to let a daughter run loose than to kill
> > her and go to jail for it.
>
> I, personally don't care if it's acceptable to the Muslims or not.
>
> I do believe that it would be a deterrent.
>
> That is, the Muslim will have to decide whether his "honor" is more
> important to him than staying out of jail for 25 years to life (the sentence
> that they got).
>
> --
> "Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as
> everything else." --Dev

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[xeno]

On Jun 27, 2:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have no clue about anything other than the straw men you fabricate based
> on your deceptive and shoddy reading comprehension and intellectual
> laziness.

Well, isn't it lazy for you to keep making this assertion? Isn't it
approaching the half a dozeneth time here? Or do you have some
irrational belief that if you keep posting this that it will make it
so? What's the matter with you? So, you disagree with my opinion. So
what. You haven't able so far to rationally refute it. Seems to me
you're caught up in some supremacy thing. Why don't you sort that out?

[xeno]

On Jun 28, 7:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I, personally don't care if it's acceptable to the Muslims or not.

Well, you should care because if somebody thinks something is
acceptable which it is demonstrably detrimental then they need to be
struggled with. Otherwise how can these things be prevented in a
constructive way? But you prefer doing things after the fact. Which in
a twisted way is condoning the act for your own purposes. You don't
like Muslims in the first place. The fact that some Muslims do bad
things is an opportunity to act out against Muslims.

[Trance Gemini]

On Jun 28, 3:29 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 7:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > I, personally don't care if it's acceptable to the Muslims or not.
>
> Well, you should care

Again you fail to grasp simple english.

It is the *Muslims* decision whether his "honor" is more important to
him than a lifetime in jail.

[Trance Gemini]

On Jun 28, 3:23 pm, xeno <69black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:27 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You have no clue about anything other than the straw men you fabricate based
> > on your deceptive and shoddy reading comprehension and intellectual
> > laziness.
>
> Well, isn't it lazy for you to keep making this assertion?

Because it's true, irrespective of your apparent inability to grasp
this rather simple statement.

[xeno]

On Jun 28, 1:34 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > I, personally don't care if it's acceptable to the Muslims or not.

> > Well, you should care

> Again you fail to grasp simple english.

You just got through saying you don't care. You really are a contrary
twit.

[xeno]

On Jun 28, 1:35 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because it's true...

You're a racist twit. Go get your head fixed.

[Trance Gemini]

Your inability to grasp basic english doesn't make me a racist.

Nor does this childish temper tantrum you're having despite having had things explained to you rationally and clearly and repeatedly.

I've also given you *repeated* opportunities to engage me seriously by interspersing actual explanations.

Your response?

You continue to disingenuously delete and ignore *all* of my comments, extract one line, misrepresent it, fabricate your straw man, argue your own fabricated straw man, and on that dishonest basis then claim that I'm a racist, or I hate christians, or I hate muslims, or whatever lie you're fabricating for the moment.

I'm not interested in playing these silly and extremely childish games with you.

Something I've explained to you *many* times before because this is *standard* practice in your interactions with me.

There are plenty of other people on this site for you to interact with.

I'm not interested.

I don't care what a persons opinions are or how much we disagree as long as they are honest in their interactions with me and honestly interested in having a discussion/debate.

You are clearly not.

Of course, based on this behavior, I can come to no other conclusion than you're nothing but a willfully ignorant k00k who's doing nothing but trolling me.

You're certainly *not* worth the bandwidth so I suggest you move on.

[xeno]

On Jun 28, 5:37 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your inability to grasp basic english doesn't make me a racist.

No, it's your assertion that multiculturalism is cultural relativism &
cultural relativism is the foundation of "garbage" that makes racism a
possible underlying problem here. You're all over the place here but
you're not dealing with *this* contradiction you put out there.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:22 PM, xeno <69bla...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 28, 5:37 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your inability to grasp basic english doesn't make me a racist.

No, it's your assertion

You have no clue what my assertion is which is why you continue to fabricate your bullshit straw men.

Typical k00k. Bug off.

[xeno]

On Jun 29, 12:49 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have no clue what my assertion

You asserted that "multiculturalism is cultural relativism"
You asserted that cultural relativism is the "foundation" of
"garbage" referring to this honor killing.
This came out of your mouth. Not anybody elses.
Deal with it.