Poll: Who's more intolerant?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Curious to see the results.

[punked]

Worst poll ever

I will cast a write in vote for you, for making this poll. You are the most intolerant for thinking a group of people as a whole can be intolerant. We all make our own decisions.

[cybercoma]

Wrong forum, but that's a very interesting way of looking at it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Worst poll ever

I will cast a write in vote for you, for making this poll. You are the most intolerant for thinking a group of people as a whole can be intolerant. We all make our own decisions.

I am certainly intolerant of intolerance.

Got that?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Wrong forum, but that's a very interesting way of looking at it.

Indeed. But since it's essentially Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Jews in the Holy Land, Muslims vs. Russians in Chechnya, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa and Muslims vs. Jew/Hindus in India, and of course Muslims vs. america in New York, how else might you phrase it?

Edited December 13, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Goat Boy©]

I won't vote. Intolerance of other cults is the foundation of abrahamic religion. IMO they're both just as bad.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I won't vote. Intolerance of other cults is the foundation of abrahamic religion. IMO they're both just as bad.

Well, as an objective observer why don't you provide your estimate on who has perpetrated more hatred and violence against the other in the past 10 years?

[punked]

Well, as an objective observer why don't you provide your estimate on who has perpetrated more hatred and violence against the other in the past 10 years?

They are not a gang infact most Muslim hate and intolerance is directed at other Muslims, just as most of your everyone else category is the same. I still vote for you.

[Moonbox]

It's a really stupid poll. Depending on where you are, you could find some Christians whose intolerance would rivalled only by the most intolerant of....every other religion.

There's moderates and fanatics of any religion. Let this thread die it's retarded.

[wulf42]

The problem is religion in general.........when people will come to realize that there is no afterlife, no angels , no heaven or hell........nothing when your dead your dead....we will all be better off!

[Sir Bandelot]

when people will come to realize that there is no afterlife, no angels , no heaven or hell........nothing when your dead your dead....we will all be better off!

There's nothing wrong with having spiritual beliefs per se. The problem is fundamentalism... in any religion.

[Smallc]

There's nothing wrong with having spiritual beliefs per se. The problem is fundamentalism... in any religion.

I agree. Ideology that is taken to far in any sense can be dangerous. That is true of religion and politics.

[Argus]

Worst poll ever

I will cast a write in vote for you, for making this poll. You are the most intolerant for thinking a group of people as a whole can be intolerant. We all make our own decisions.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or someone suffering from "Islamophobia" to determine that Muslims, as a group, are far more intolerant than Christians - or any other of the mainstream religions.

[Wild Bill]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or someone suffering from "Islamophobia" to determine that Muslims, as a group, are far more intolerant than Christians - or any other of the mainstream religions.

Well, I don't know about 'any other of the mainstream religions' but I would agree that for sheer numbers you essentially are correct, at least as far as the situation today. The most bigoted man I ever knew was a devout Hindu.

It's interesting how some seem actually afraid of the question! I guess they have a reluctance to accept that not everyone practices what we would interpret as positive values, for fear of being accused of bias against a particular religion.

In actuality it's not religion at all but rather culture! There are vast numbers of modern and sophisticated Muslims living perfectly normal and tolerant lives in western countries. However, it would be naive in the extreme to deny that there are also countries and regions where virtually everyone of Muslim faith practice it from an extreme and intolerant perspective, by our lights. We're talking virtually millions of people, here.

I remember once working with a young Somali Muslim lad who explained to me one of the problems of adapting to Canadian culture. His parents like most other Somali born parents in their community believed in arranged marriages while he and all his young friends wanted nothing to do with the idea! This had become a real source of estrangement between parents and offspring. I guess it still is!

Anyhow, some of the parents demanded that the imam at their local worship hall give a 'sermon' about this point. He seems to have been a more progressive fellow because his sermon pointed out that nowhere in the Koran does it talk about arranged marriages! He told them it was entirely a cultural matter, nothing more.

Not at all what this boy's parents wanted to hear.

Anyhow, my point is that most often we are talking about cultures rather than faiths. What's wrong with debating such points? What's rational about refusing to acknowledge that they even exist?

Maybe some folks are really afraid that if they point out some negative or even primitive aspects of another culture they may have to confront some of the same with their own...

[Michael Hardner]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or someone suffering from "Islamophobia" to determine that Muslims, as a group, are far more intolerant than Christians - or any other of the mainstream religions.

Argus,

To make such an observation doesn't help us in any way whatsoever because it doesn't tell us what the cause of the intolerance is.

It's pretty easy to come up with correlations. For example, I've read that the children of separated parents are far more likely to be involved in petty crimes than children who aren't in that situation. Should we therefore use that principle to decide that such children should never be allowed to be student council treasurers ?

Of course, that would be ridiculous. However, the principles at work are the same as if we look at the status of people who belong to a religion and say "there you are !".

Do you think a "Christian" who was raised in a poor country with little schooling or literacy would necessarily be better equipped to live in our society ? I'm sure there are plenty of backwards/backwoods "Christians" out there that will belie such a belief.

[Michael Hardner]

Anyhow, my point is that most often we are talking about cultures rather than faiths. What's wrong with debating such points? What's rational about refusing to acknowledge that they even exist?

Maybe some folks are really afraid that if they point out some negative or even primitive aspects of another culture they may have to confront some of the same with their own...

WBill,

I don't know what the point of discussing the problems with other cultures would be - except maybe to make ourselves feel better.

[Wild Bill]

WBill,

I don't know what the point of discussing the problems with other cultures would be - except maybe to make ourselves feel better.

Well, I would say it's a chance to identify what we consider positive cultural values, which ones we may share and which ones we wish to promote!

At the same time, we can identify those negative values we will NOT condone or include in our national culture!

Instead of just accepting ALL other cultures' values as equally positive if not superior to our own!

Defending our own culture is not the same as debasing that of others. What's more, if push comes to shove and there is a conflict about a cultural value there is nothing immoral about letting our own take precedence.

We do have problems in our country with those who would seek to make their own cultural values supreme, usually by some legal trick or other. Or use their own culture as a defense after committing a crime, or as the basis for sentencing. Not only is this attitude a logical inconsistency, it weakens our commitment to the principles of equality and fairness for all, within a culture that is shared by the majority of us.

There is a ridiculous notion held by many today that somehow if we are always willing to put other cultures first we are setting an example that the "other side" will seek to emulate. An extrapolation of the Golden Rule, if you like. The problem is that there are always those who will take advantage of those who practice the Golden Rule, counting on you 'turning the other cheek' so that they can get their own way.

When dealing with such an opponent no amount of example will help you achieve a positive end, at least for YOU! In games theory, the technical term for those who try to win with the Golden Rule is ...LOSER!

[Oleg Bach]

Conversion by the sword or conversion by the sword of the mouth? Both religions have a history of using violence to coerce and control.. Here is an interesting story. St. Peter was hanging out collecting large amounts of money - after Jesus instructed people to sell their property and bring the cash over to the church. The cash was to be put in a common trust for all supposedly.

One man comes in an lies about how much he got for his place and trys to short change Peter. Peter strikes such terror into the man that he drops dead with a heart attack. Word gets out to the rest of the village and surrounding area that if you don't pay up in full that Peter will frinking kill you...I would say that this shake down done by early Christendom was a terrorist action to say the least. It was extortion under threat. No one likes to talk about the fact that when the dead guys wife comes in - Peter terrifys her also and threatens her with joining her dead spouse that the boys buried out back.

[Michael Hardner]

WB,

Well, I would say it's a chance to identify what we consider positive cultural values, which ones we may share and which ones we wish to promote!

At the same time, we can identify those negative values we will NOT condone or include in our national culture!

We don't condone culture in North America. We live according to our constitution and culture happens.

Instead of just accepting ALL other cultures' values as equally positive if not superior to our own!

Defending our own culture is not the same as debasing that of others. What's more, if push comes to shove and there is a conflict about a cultural value there is nothing immoral about letting our own take precedence.

We do have problems in our country with those who would seek to make their own cultural values supreme, usually by some legal trick or other. Or use their own culture as a defense after committing a crime, or as the basis for sentencing. Not only is this attitude a logical inconsistency, it weakens our commitment to the principles of equality and fairness for all, within a culture that is shared by the majority of us.

This idea of a 'national culture' is as socialistic as the idea of an enforced 'multi-culture'. Let's just live, shall we ?

There is a ridiculous notion held by many today that somehow if we are always willing to put other cultures first we are setting an example that the "other side" will seek to emulate. An extrapolation of the Golden Rule, if you like. The problem is that there are always those who will take advantage of those who practice the Golden Rule, counting on you 'turning the other cheek' so that they can get their own way.

When dealing with such an opponent no amount of example will help you achieve a positive end, at least for YOU! In games theory, the technical term for those who try to win with the Golden Rule is ...LOSER!

There's no opponent, there's no debate, there's no taking advantage...

Before the Conservatives got into power, I believed that there may eventually be some change to immigration policy in Canada (which seems to be the point of these endless 'culture' discussions on these boards) but now we can see that it won't be happening.

So, the 'cultural' message from Harper and the rest of us to those who think there's still a debate:

"Get used to it."

[Wild Bill]

WB,

We don't condone culture in North America. We live according to our constitution and culture happens.

This idea of a 'national culture' is as socialistic as the idea of an enforced 'multi-culture'. Let's just live, shall we ?

There's no opponent, there's no debate, there's no taking advantage...

Before the Conservatives got into power, I believed that there may eventually be some change to immigration policy in Canada (which seems to be the point of these endless 'culture' discussions on these boards) but now we can see that it won't be happening.

So, the 'cultural' message from Harper and the rest of us to those who think there's still a debate:

"Get used to it."

Sharia law? Native 'punishment' circles? Honour killings in Toronto? Female genital mutilation, also in Toronto?

Sorry. I can never 'get used' to such things. I will constantly oppose them!

As for immigration, who cares where someone comes from? We only need to care about how they act when they're here. Our immigration demographics changed from western european to more primitive third world countries not because of any conspiracy in our system but simply because we are no longer an attractive destination for western europeans! We did pick up some Balkan folks fleeing the troubles there these past few years but Brits, Italians, Germans and such are feeling quite comfortable these days at home. Those countries are now richer than we are. It's that simple. We just don't like to admit it.

No, if we want immigrants we need to draw from less developed nations. These people usually need more time to assimilate and training/education for the workforce than a tool and die maker from Poland. They also tend to have a less sophisticated philosophy as regards their religions that can come into conflict with our values. It takes more time and effort for them to fit in, particularly while we also tell them that thanks to official multiculturalism they aren't expected to fit in anyway!

So we have more challenges today. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Neither will convoluted rationalizations of our values, such as what happened over those cartoons in Denmark that incited the radical Islamists. The talking heads declared that yes, we had free speech but it would be rude to practice it! The analogy given was yelling 'Fire' in a theatre but that was flawed. It would have been more correct to compare the situation to someone trying to burn down the theatre because they were offended by something in the movie.

Anyhow, most of the immigrant kids assimilate no matter what their parents want or the government gives in multicultural grants. Most of the problems come not from immigration per se but from taking in too many folks from less developed areas too quickly for the money we spend on resources to help them get started.

We're evolving into a 'Star Trek' society. No one cares about your race, or even if you're human. The problem can be if you come from a culture that doesn't believe that the Earth is round or stars are other suns with planets of their own. We need people who can help keep the ship flying, not people who think that some book thousands of years old describes how the laws of physics work or the nature of the Universe.

Everyone has the freedom to believe any cockamamie thing they want but in the final analysis some things work and somethings don't. That includes cultural values in a modern society.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Actually, I'd say the most intolerant people are non-religious. The most brutal and bloody mass murders have been comitted in the name of political, atheistic ideologies such as Communism and Nazism.

[Michael Hardner]

WB,

Sharia law? Native 'punishment' circles? Honour killings in Toronto? Female genital mutilation, also in Toronto?

Sorry. I can never 'get used' to such things. I will constantly oppose them!

As for immigration, who cares where someone comes from? We only need to care about how they act when they're here. Our immigration demographics changed from western european to more primitive third world countries not because of any conspiracy in our system but simply because we are no longer an attractive destination for western europeans! We did pick up some Balkan folks fleeing the troubles there these past few years but Brits, Italians, Germans and such are feeling quite comfortable these days at home. Those countries are now richer than we are. It's that simple. We just don't like to admit it.

No, if we want immigrants we need to draw from less developed nations. These people usually need more time to assimilate and training/education for the workforce than a tool and die maker from Poland. They also tend to have a less sophisticated philosophy as regards their religions that can come into conflict with our values. It takes more time and effort for them to fit in, particularly while we also tell them that thanks to official multiculturalism they aren't expected to fit in anyway!

So we have more challenges today. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Neither will convoluted rationalizations of our values, such as what happened over those cartoons in Denmark that incited the radical Islamists. The talking heads declared that yes, we had free speech but it would be rude to practice it! The analogy given was yelling 'Fire' in a theatre but that was flawed. It would have been more correct to compare the situation to someone trying to burn down the theatre because they were offended by something in the movie.

Anyhow, most of the immigrant kids assimilate no matter what their parents want or the government gives in multicultural grants. Most of the problems come not from immigration per se but from taking in too many folks from less developed areas too quickly for the money we spend on resources to help them get started.

We're evolving into a 'Star Trek' society. No one cares about your race, or even if you're human. The problem can be if you come from a culture that doesn't believe that the Earth is round or stars are other suns with planets of their own. We need people who can help keep the ship flying, not people who think that some book thousands of years old describes how the laws of physics work or the nature of the Universe.

Everyone has the freedom to believe any cockamamie thing they want but in the final analysis some things work and somethings don't. That includes cultural values in a modern society.

Firstly, I think the courts are doing a the job of dealing with the examples in your first paragraph.

Secondly, everything else that you're talking about is just a rant on your part.

You don't want 3rd world immigrants in Canada ? I'm sorry but that argument has been had, from every angle. The Conservative government was your last chance, and it doesn't look like they'll be changing anything soon.

[Wild Bill]

WB,

Firstly, I think the courts are doing a the job of dealing with the examples in your first paragraph.

Secondly, everything else that you're talking about is just a rant on your part.

You don't want 3rd world immigrants in Canada ? I'm sorry but that argument has been had, from every angle. The Conservative government was your last chance, and it doesn't look like they'll be changing anything soon.

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I day that I don't want 3rd world immigrants? We always need immigration. I simply pointed out that we don't have a lot of choice as to where we will get them. The 50's were an unusual situation, where we had huge numbers of for the most part well-educated and trained people fleeing war-torn Europe. Europe is now richer than us so the number of willing emigrants from those countries is a pittance compared to before.

That being said, if we are getting mostly 3rd world peoples then we have to accept them as they are, complete with what they lack to fit in here and any religious or cultural differences that may pose a conflict. These are real problems that make most modern day immigrants different from what we experienced before. We have to recognize them and deal with them. We really don't have the choice to deny them entry. Where ARE we going to get our immigrants?

I'm just saying that it is not logical or 'real-world' to maintain that immigrants today are virtually the same as those who helped to build Canada a half century or more from today. Also, that some of them have cultural values that are in conflict with that of mainstream Canada. I believe that the onus is on the immigrant to then adapt and not on the rest of us.

I also would take exception to the belief that if we've allowed enough immigrants of a particular culture to become the new majority that we should meekly accept any changes they wish to make. I liken that to someone who has taken needy strangers into their home until they outnumber the original home owners who then decide they have the right to change the exterior paint colour and interior decor of the home!

Canadians in the main back in the 70's were quite open to the idea of third world immigrants. However, no one told them that this might change mainstream culture. The reaction of those then if they could see how Canada looks today in some areas might have changed their mind.

You may well disagree with me but again as I said, please don't put words in my mouth to make me out to be some kind of anti-third world straw man. I believe that most immigrants from the 3rd world are quite happy to 'melt into the pot' in a few generations. However, from time to time there are some significant exceptions. When they crop up we need to make some firm decisions.

[Peter F]

...

I'm just saying that it is not logical or 'real-world' to maintain that immigrants today are virtually the same as those who helped to build Canada a half century or more from today. Also, that some of them have cultural values that are in conflict with that of mainstream Canada. I believe that the onus is on the immigrant to then adapt and not on the rest of us.

Well, yah. The onus is on them to adapt. Those who slay their children to save 'honour' are in for a big shockeroo. Same with ginital mutilations.

You make it sound like the government turns a blind eye to those things. "An honour killing you say? Oh. Well never mind then. Have a nice day"

"Surgically removed the childs clitoris? I see. Thank you for your cooperation. Have a nice day"

Such things are a crime in this country. I have not seen anyone turn a blind eye to these events. Yet, somehow, us lefties are accused of allowing these things.

I also would take exception to the belief that if we've allowed enough immigrants of a particular culture to become the new majority that we should meekly accept any changes they wish to make. I liken that to someone who has taken needy strangers into their home until they outnumber the original home owners who then decide they have the right to change the exterior paint colour and interior decor of the home!

Its the nature of democracy. Majority rules. Those with most of the votes get thier way. Your analogy of the overun homeowner does not reflect any reality. Immigrants, upon gaining citizenship have as much say in the colour of the house as the non-existant homeowner. No one person owns this country. Citizens do - no matter where they come from.

Canadians in the main back in the 70's were quite open to the idea of third world immigrants. However, no one told them that this might change mainstream culture. The reaction of those then if they could see how Canada looks today in some areas might have changed their mind.

No doubt some might have changed thier minds. As one of those Canadians back in the seventies - I havn't.

You may well disagree with me but again as I said, please don't put words in my mouth to make me out to be some kind of anti-third world straw man. I believe that most immigrants from the 3rd world are quite happy to 'melt into the pot' in a few generations. However, from time to time there are some significant exceptions. When they crop up we need to make some firm decisions.

Firm decisions about what? To charge them with murder? or Assault? Like we don't already make some firm decisions?

gimme a break

[Goat Boy©]

There's nothing wrong with having spiritual beliefs per se. The problem is fundamentalism... in any religion.

Faith & Religion are mutually exclusive.