Does 'progressive racism' exist?

[-1=e^ipi]

@ Bleeding Heart - I'll admit that the links I provided are poor and I was extremely tired when I posted them, so please forgive me.

With respect to bias and the cbc, it is really difficult to prove a systematic bias in the CBC, especially when the bias is more subtle and only exists some of the time (as opposed to news stations like fox news or sun news which are more blatantly biased). What would be the best way to demonstrate this? I could show the voting preferences of cbc viewers to be more left-wing and culturally relativist than the rest of the population (but this doesn't indicate bias). I could to demonstrate how individual stories or panels are biased, but again it doesn't demonstrate an overall bias.

Ezra Levant does a much better job and demonstrating cases of CBC bias than I ever could, so perhaps watch some of his videos?

With respect to idle no more, it would be much easier/very easy for me to demonstrate bias in this case and in how the cbc reports native issues. Whether this would count as 'cultural relativism' is of course quite debatable. Some would argue that it counts as cultural relativism because natives have a unique culture that has existed for thousands of years while others would argue that it doesn't count as cultural relativism because natives are well integrated with the rest of the population and have Canadian culture.

Anyway, I admit it is difficult to demonstrate a bias and the links that I have provided in my last post suck.

[bleeding heart]

@ Bleeding Heart - I'll admit that the links I provided are poor and I was extremely tired when I posted them, so please forgive me.

With respect to bias and the cbc, it is really difficult to prove a systematic bias in the CBC, especially when the bias is more subtle and only exists some of the time (as opposed to news stations like fox news or sun news which are more blatantly biased). What would be the best way to demonstrate this? I could show the voting preferences of cbc viewers to be more left-wing and culturally relativist than the rest of the population (but this doesn't indicate bias). I could to demonstrate how individual stories or panels are biased, but again it doesn't demonstrate an overall bias.

Ezra Levant does a much better job and demonstrating cases of CBC bias than I ever could, so perhaps watch some of his videos?

With respect to idle no more, it would be much easier/very easy for me to demonstrate bias in this case and in how the cbc reports native issues. Whether this would count as 'cultural relativism' is of course quite debatable. Some would argue that it counts as cultural relativism because natives have a unique culture that has existed for thousands of years while others would argue that it doesn't count as cultural relativism because natives are well integrated with the rest of the population and have Canadian culture.

Anyway, I admit it is difficult to demonstrate a bias and the links that I have provided in my last post suck.

I genuinely admire the concessions, which in the heat of debate are difficult. Appreciated.

As to determining CBC leftist bias, yes, a difficult proposition. But not an impossible one. But it would take more serious work than you and are likely to commit to, to put it mildly.

I think the way to do it would be in the manner of a sober institutional study (logically the only way to determine institutional bias.). my model, for lack of knowledge of others, would be Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent, which wasn't about a single media entity, although the "liberal" NY Times and Washington Post get a lot of focus...the reasoning being their undisputed influence on other news media, which if anything was greater at the time of writing.

Whatever one thinks of the authors--or of the book itself--no one disputes that it's a serious and meticulous attempt, and I think they took the right approach:

1. First of all, while their hypothesis was that the news acts fundamentally as a propaganda organ for the State, and for Business interests (quite distinct from "leftist propaganda," unless the subject's realm was the Soviet Union or Cuba, etc), they deliberately did not look for cherry-picked evidence. Their main approach was comparative: how do the media report on atrocities committed by the Enemy (Pol Pot, say, or the left-wing Latin American guerilla movements); and compare that to the reporting, both in quantity and quality, of their reporting on atrocities committed by the west, or by its Third World allies.

It might surprise some people to discover that the terrors of a lot of "bad guys" are quite equally met by the "good guys"...demonstrated often through official declassified records and the like.

2. They also demonstrated a set of interrelated "news filters," comprised of ownership, advertising, flak, sourcing, and, yes, ideology.

The picture they painted was of institutional biases, quite ingrained into the professional media culture. I believe the CBC would fit quite well into the paradigm...though, like I said, the effort is too large for me to concern myself with in the necessary detail.

I couldn't of course blame you for not undertaking something of such size. But I do wonder why, of the so many voices calling "left-wing bias," that no serious and honest study has, to my knowledge, been attempted by the political Right...or even the political "centre." Maybe someday.

Edited November 16, 2013 by bleeding heart

[-1=e^ipi]

With respect to the CBC and bias, in some cases they might have a so-called 'right wing' bias (example: how they and most media outlets have portrayed the Syrian civil war). But in other cases such as in issues of islamism & native issues they have a so-called 'left wing' bias. And other times they aren't biased, so the bias varies.

Again, with respect to idle no more and native issues, it doesn't necessarily show a bias towards cultural relativism but it does to an extent show a sort of 'progressive racist' bias. Just some quick comments:

- CBC refused to acknowledge that Teresa Spence was on a diet of fish broth for over a month despite other media outlets such as Sun News reporting on it. They constantly referred to it as a 'hunger strike' which was inaccurate.

- CBC didn't ask difficult questions of Teresa Spence, especially about the poor financial management on Attawapiskat.

- Actually, some media outlets such as Sun News did stories 6 months before the hunter strike on financial mismanagement on Attawapiskat. And later on how the 'hunger strike' protests were a cover up for corrupt management of Attawapiskat.

- The CBC has constantly portrayed individuals such as Pam Palmeter as the voice of first nations and/or representative of first nations, despite the fact that she is an extremist who lost the last election to Shawn Atleo.

- The CBC constantly portrays the idle no more as representative of first nations, even though it only represents a minority.

- CBC rarely has people on political panels that express opinions that advocate abolishing the Indian act / reserve system and making everyone equal under the law regardless of race. Preferring instead people that advocate the status quo.

With respect to trying to understand the positions of people that claim systematic left wing bias at the CBC, I suggest that you watch Ezra Levant's videos at Sun News. He has done numerous videos that have examples of bias. Though obviously Sun News has a bias of its own. But unlike the cbc, Sun News isn't funded by public funds and is open about their bias (much like how The Young Turks is open about their left wing bias, where as CBC and Fox News do not claim bias).

[carepov]

Personally I would consider present day Saudi Arabia more evil then all in the list, except maybe Nazi Germany (And that is a strong maybe).

My opinion of Saudi Arabia is pretty low - but not that low.

Imperial Japan was very religious. There was and still is today a strong influence of Shinto Buddhism. The Bushido honour code that was used by the japanese to justify actions such as Seppuku or Kamikaze attacks is strongly based on influence from Shinto Buddhism.

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

"During pre-World War II and World War II Shōwa Japan, bushido was pressed into use for militarism, to present war as purifying, and death a duty. This was presented as revitalizing traditional values and "transcending the modern." Bushido would provide a spiritual shield to let soldiers fight to the end.

Denials of mistreatment of prisoners of war declared that they were being well-treated by virtue of bushido generosity."

Nazi Germany was strongly influenced by the Occult and by Christianity.

Maybe watch this video on the Occult and the Third Reich? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJwlHCVaQUo

In Nazi Germany, 54% of the population considered themselves protestant while 40% of the population considered themselves catholic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany While it would be wrong for me to say that Nazism itself was strongly influenced by Christianity, it still shows that the population did not 'lack a religion'.

20th century Russia was always a society with a strong presence of Orthodox Christianity and Islam. Despite the attempts of the communists to stamp out religion over decades, it remains strong in Russia today. Therefore I would not call 20th century Russia a society that 'lacked a religion'.

As for 20th century China, confusionism, taoism and buddhism have a strong presence. In addition, many of the people are still superstitious to some extent and believe in ghosts or demons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion Hardly a society that 'lacks a religion'.

As for Cambodia, 95% of the population is buddhist, hardly a society that 'lacks a religion'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Cambodia

Well I'll definately take the time to look into your arguments and then reconsider my opinions - but for now I still say that if China, Japan (The #1 and #2 least religious countries in the world today) Russia, Germany and Cambodia had been more religious the crimes that they comitted in the 20th century would have been less attrocious - I cannnot imagine them being any worse.

So some muslims are involved in the production of a cbc fiction tv show and that disproves that Islam = intolerance? Wtf lol. This ridiculous claim isn't even worth responding to. Do you believe everything you see on fiction shows on tv?

No, the point is that moderate, tollerant muslims exist and they co-exist in Western society. Little Mosque is just one example. Islam is not homogenious.

I gave you 3 examples of religious intolerance in Malaysia. You have yet to address them.

You did, thanks, I will look into them. But again my point is that Islam can be tollerant and peaceful.

Religious person - someone who believes in magical fairy tales

Rational person - someone who's beliefs and actions are based upon reason and observation

hmmm... OK, then I agree that by these definitions, there are no rational religious people. Also, there are no rational people period.

Am I not doing that [criticizing specific violations/ideas]?

No - you are saying: Islam and religion is intollerant because of "x". I am arguing that the problem is with "x" not the religion.

2. The idea that say Islam is inherently tolerant because it is a religion is non-sense if you actually bother to learn about what the religion teaches (it calls for the death penalty for homosexuals and apostates for example).

3. ...religion is still inherently bad. It teaches people lies about reality, reduces one's ability to think critically (encourages people to have 'faith' rather than skepticism) and gives people false hope about their mortality.

Edited November 17, 2013 by carepov

[-1=e^ipi]

I still say that if China, Japan (The #1 and #2 least religious countries in the world today)

Just because countries are not very religious today doesn't mean that they were not religious in the past. Shinto Buddhism was far stronger pre-ww2 than it is today and strongly influenced the Bushido code.

Well I'll definately take the time to look into your arguments and then reconsider my opinions - but for now I still say that if China, Japan (The #1 and #2 least religious countries in the world today) Russia, Germany and Cambodia had been more religious the crimes that they comitted in the 20th century would have been less attrocious - I cannnot imagine them being any worse.

Cambodia is 95% Buddhist. How much more religious do you want? 100%? And you still haven't explained why you think more religion would make these places commit less atrocious crimes. Do you want me to list massacres in history that were motivated by religion?

No, the point is that moderate, tollerant muslims exist and they co-exist in Western society. Little Mosque is just one example. Islam is not homogenious.

Little mosque is a fiction tv show. But yes tolerant muslims exist. However, muslims != islam. Islam is inherently intolerant of numerous groups including kaffir (non-muslims), apostates and homosexuals. All Islamic texts excluding the medinian Quran have a greater percentage of passages dedicated to anti-jewish statements than mein kampf. Do you want me to provide you with passages from the islamic texts which demonstrate this?

hmmm... OK, then I agree that by these definitions, there are no rational religious people. Also, there are no rational people period.

People aren't always rational. It's a common problem in economics.

No - you are saying: Islam and religion is intollerant because of "x". I am arguing that the problem is with "x" not the religion.

So you are saying that there is nothing wrong/intolerant with an ideology that promotes killing of apostates, death penalty for homosexuality, states that muslims are better than non-muslims, does not condem slavery, insists on imposing sharia law even on non-muslims, demands that non-muslims pay 'protection money' to muslims, says that the testimony of women in court is worth half that of a man's, has amputation of hands as the punishment for thievery, stones rape victims to death for adultery, etc.?

[Argus]

Wait, what? There are no benefits to immigration nor are there papers or studies that discuss this? What about the papers I have provided?

No one has been able to identify any economic benefits to immigration. Period. And as I've said before, the federal government has never set forth any scientific or social or economic data to justify our current immigration system.

Stating that immigration helps increase GDP or some such, is a pointless exercise. Growing the pie does not help anyone if there are more people eating the pie. Saying immigration creates jobs is equally vapid since immigration provides more people seeking jobs at the same time.

It's like taking in ten people into your house and saying there's a great economic benefit in that your household income is now larger. Sure it is but you also need more food, more electricity, more water, more clothing, and need to spend money on renovations to increase the size of your house. Is the end result an economic benefit to you? I don't see it.

[Argus]

Personally I would consider present day Saudi Arabia more evil then all in the list, except maybe Nazi Germany (And that is a strong maybe)

North Korea is indisputably the most evil regime in the world today, and it's hard to say the Nazis were any worse except insofar as the size and power of the nation allowed them to practice their evil on other nations. Arguably, you were better off in a Nazi concentration camp than in a North Korean concentration camp. You were unquestionably better off as a member of the German population, or the French, than you would be today as a citizen of North Korea.

The Saudis are pikers in terms of North Korea and its death camps.

Last month, North Korea publicly executed 80 people by machine gun fire for crimes ranging from being in possession of a bible, to watching a foreign film. Their entire extended families, down to infants, as is the tradition in North Korea, were all arrested and taken to concentration camps. Again, by tradition, they will die there, probably soon.

She described in horrifying detail how starving prisoners ate anything that “flew, crawled, or grew in the field.”

Children are born condemned, Ms Kim said, revealing how desperate mothers cut open pregnant rats to harvest their foetuses, roasting the tiny, hairless creatures, and feeding them to emaciated babies in the camp.

Other defectors have chillingly described how inmates look at people as animals that could be eaten. One Yodok survivor described instances where people, including a child, were taken, skinned and eaten.

Rape is commonplace at the camps, while pregnancy was often solved by execution. Knowing this, women would resort to desperate measures to abort their unborn children, without medical help.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/12/north-korea-defector-yodo_n_4088122.html

Edited November 17, 2013 by Argus

[-1=e^ipi]

No one has been able to identify any economic benefits to immigration. Period. And as I've said before, the federal government has never set forth any scientific or social or economic data to justify our current immigration system.

Stating that immigration helps increase GDP or some such, is a pointless exercise. Growing the pie does not help anyone if there are more people eating the pie. Saying immigration creates jobs is equally vapid since immigration provides more people seeking jobs at the same time.

Sigh. Immigrants have a number of effects on GDP per capita, including: Increased long term GDP per capita due to economies of scale (very significant for a relatively empty country like Canada), short term decrease in GDP per capita due to depletion of the physical capital stock per capita, affects on GDP per capita by changing the demographic distribution of the population (you want younger immigrants over older immigrants), affect on the human capital stock (different immigrants have different levels of education), etc..Whether a group of immigrants has a net positive or negative effect on Canada's GDP per capita depends on the quality of the immigrants. Immigrants from Hong Kong in the 90's for example had a very positive effect on Canada's GDP per capita and generally had incomes much higher than the rest of the Canadian population. Somalian immigrants on the other hand have had a negative effect on the GDP per capita of Canada. Their incomes are lower and they generally come to Canada with low levels of human capital.

Your second paragraph is basically a strawman argument. I'm not arguing that immigration is good cause more people = more GDP.

North Korea is indisputably the most evil regime in the world today, and it's hard to say the Nazis were any worse except insofar as the size and power of the nation allowed them to practice their evil on other nations. Arguably, you were better off in a Nazi concentration camp than in a North Korean concentration camp. You were unquestionably better off as a member of the German population, or the French, than you would be today as a citizen of North Korea.

North Korea wasn't on the list I was responding to but I will agree North Korea is worse than Saudi Arabia, even if you are a woman (sure you wouldn't be able to drive, but at least most of the population has cars XD).

[carepov]

Cambodia is 95% Buddhist. How much more religious do you want? 100%?

The Khmer Rouge was not religious.

And you still haven't explained why you think more religion would make these places commit less atrocious crimes.

Had the influence of Buddhism in Cambodia been greater, the Khmer Rouge would have been less powerful.

If there would have been more churches and believers in Germany - more Jews would have been given sanctuary and saved.

If Mao/Stalin and their followers were religious perhaps they would have not allowed so many people to die of hunger etc...

Do you want me to list massacres in history that were motivated by religion?

You could, but ten I could list those that were not motivated by religion and outnumber the deaths on your list 10 to 1. Then you would pick apart my list saying things like "the rape of Nanking was actually motivated by State Shintoism". I might then respond by saying some of your massacres were not actually religiously motivated but actually were principally politically motivated. Nah, I would rather not.

Little mosque is a fiction tv show. But yes tolerant muslims exist. However, muslims != islam. Islam is inherently intolerant of numerous groups including kaffir (non-muslims), apostates and homosexuals. All Islamic texts excluding the medinian Quran have a greater percentage of passages dedicated to anti-jewish statements than mein kampf. Do you want me to provide you with passages from the islamic texts which demonstrate this?

Muslims do not equal Islam? Pardon me? The fact that tolerant Muslims exist means that there are adherents of Islam that are tolerant.

Sure you can provide quotes from the Quran that are intolerant - I can then provide quotes that demand tolerance. We can then debate which texts supersede what and their interpretation. I would rather not.

Islam in not inherently anything. It is no more inherently intolerant as it is inherently charitable. It is people's behaviour that matters and this is influenced by the interpretation and teaching of the Quran. The fact that there are tolerant Muslins means that it is possible to interpret the Quran in a tolerant fashion that respects human rights.

People aren't always rational. It's a common problem in economics.

If I undersatnd your definition of a rational person correctly, there is not a single human being that is rational.

So you are saying that there is nothing wrong/intolerant with an ideology that promotes killing of apostates, death penalty for homosexuality, states that muslims are better than non-muslims, does not condem slavery, insists on imposing sharia law even on non-muslims, demands that non-muslims pay 'protection money' to muslims, says that the testimony of women in court is worth half that of a man's, has amputation of hands as the punishment for thievery, stones rape victims to death for adultery, etc.?

Again, the fact that there are Muslims (i.e. adherents of Islam) that do not promote, and in fact condemn, any and all of the violations of human rights above means that the problem lies with the (mis)interpretation of Islam - not Islam itself.

When you condemn all Muslims as intolerant then you are lumping in the tolerant Muslims with the intolerant ones and are cutting off the most powerful voices for potential change and reformation within Islam. It is precisely these tolerant Muslims that are best positioned to change Islam from within.

Please do not interpret my position as appeasement. The death penalty, discrimination, slavery, extortion, misogyny, torture, and all violations of human rights must be condemned and must stop. My point is that prejudice of Muslims is, at best, hindering the solution of these problems and, at worst, making the problem worse.

[Argus]

Whether a group of immigrants has a net positive or negative effect on Canada's GDP per capita depends on the quality of the immigrants.

Yes, which has been my position all along. Right now, the quality of our immigrants is pretty mediocre.

Canada's economic performance relies more on natural resources anyway. The provinces with the highest GPD per capita aren't high immigration provinces but high resource provinces. The highest are the northern territories, because of few people and many resources. That does not mean Nunavet and the Yukon are filled with mansions, though.

So to sum up, there is no evidence that the high rate of immigration Canada has had over the last couple of decades has benefited us economically.

[Michael Hardner]

No one has been able to identify any economic benefits to immigration. Period.

I have read .5% improvement to GDP - here's a page that discusses the topic.

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

Long term outcomes[edit]

One of the most important studies of the economic impact of immigration to Canada is Morton Beiser's Strangers at the Gate. This study looked at the arrival of the Vietnamese boat people who began to arrive in Canada in 1979 to much controversy. The total number of refugees was 60,000, the largest single group of refugees to ever arrive in Canada. Beiser first studied the boat people upon their arrival, finding that few spoke English or French, that most were farmers with few skills useful in Canada, and that they had arrived with no assets with which to establish themselves. Beiser then followed the progress of the boat people to see what effect they would have on Canada. Within ten years of arrival the boat people had an unemployment rate 2.3% lower than the Canadian average. One in five had started a business, 99% had successfully applied to become Canadian citizens, and they were considerably less likely than average to receive some form of social assistance.^{%5B45%5D%5B46%5D}

Stating that immigration helps increase GDP or some such, is a pointless exercise. Growing the pie does not help anyone if there are more people eating the pie. Saying immigration creates jobs is equally vapid since immigration provides more people seeking jobs at the same time.

There are more people eating the pie and making pies. GDP is a measure of economic *activity*...

[carepov]

So to sum up, there is no evidence that the high rate of immigration Canada has had over the last couple of decades has benefited us economically.

This is an interesting paper that seems to do a good job summarizing various studies that attempted to determine the cost/benefits of immigration. The results are mixed, some positive some negative, mostly neutral. The paper itself focuses on modeling the future impacts of immigration policy:

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

Our simulations indicate that additional immigration is likely to have a positive impact on the Canadian labour market and economy in general. This is the case with respect to such factors as real GDP and GDP per capita, aggregate demand, investment, productivity, and government expenditures, taxes and especially net government balances, with essentially no impact on unemployment. This is generally buttressed by conclusions reached in the existing literature; however, that literature is by no means in agreement.

The real concern, however, is with respect to immigrants themselves in that they appear to be having an increasingly difficult time economically assimilating into the Canadian labour market, and new immigrants are increasingly falling into poverty. Furthermore, existing immigrants are likely to be adversely affected by expanding immigration since new and existing immigrants are likely substitutes. Improving the economic integration of immigrants into the Canadian labour market is likely to be beneficial not only for the immigrants themselves but also because such integration is also likely to enhance the generally positive impact that immigrants have on the Canadian economy.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp6743.pdf

On my first quick read, I agree with the study and it's conclusions. What do you think?

[-1=e^ipi]

If there would have been more churches and believers in Germany - more Jews would have been given sanctuary and saved.

And perhaps if there had been more secular humanists and less people believing in the occult religious nonsense of nazism then perhaps there wouldn't have been a holocaust to begin with. What is your point? Less nazism probably would have resulted in less holocaust victims regardless of if you replace nazism with religious or non-religious ideologies.

If Mao/Stalin and their followers were religious perhaps they would have not allowed so many people to die of hunger etc...

Or perhaps it wouldn't have changed anything since Mao/Stalin did there actions because they thought that communism was an inherently good economic system (i.e. their motives were not bad, they were misguided by a misunderstanding of economics). So they would have done the same actions regardless of their religion.

Or maybe worse, perhaps if Mao/Stalin were religious more people would have died because most religions belief that dead people go to a better place, so there is nothing sad about people dying. Mao/Stalin would value life less.

You really want to play this game?

You could, but ten I could list those that were not motivated by religion and outnumber the deaths on your list 10 to 1.

While I doubt you could reach your 10:1 ratio, what does it matter? Bad things are done due to religion and bad things are done due to things that are not religious. The second group of bad things doesn't make the first group of bad things any less bad.

Muslims do not equal Islam? Pardon me?

Islam is an ideology. Muslims are people who agree with the shahada and claim to follow the ideology of Islam. Muslims != Islam in the same way that Drivers != Cars. Do you agree with me or do you think that you are a car?

The fact that tolerant Muslims exist means that there are adherents of Islam that are tolerant.

Sure there are moderate muslims and moderate interpretations of Islam. That doesn't mean that true islam as taught by the prophet Mohammed is tolerant.

Sure you can provide quotes from the Quran that are intolerant - I can then provide quotes that demand tolerance. We can then debate which texts supersede what and their interpretation.

Islam follows a system of abrogation where later verses abrogate earlier verses. This means that the intolerant jihadist verses in Sura 9 (the last major revelation by the Prophet Mohammed) such as

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." 9:29

abrogate any peaceful verses such as

"Let there be no compulsion in religion" 2:256

If you understood islam, you would know this.

I would rather not.

Of course you would rather not. Because I would win that argument.

Islam in not inherently anything.

Of course it is inherent of many things. It inherently believes that there is no god but Allah. It inherently believes that Mohammed is the last and final messenger of Allah. It inherently believes that the Quran contains the word of Allah through Mohammed that was preserved orally and written shortly after Mohammed's death by Mohammed's closest companions. Should I go on? Or do you really want to argue that Islam doesn't inherently contain the believe that there is no god but Allah?

It is no more inherently intolerant as it is inherently charitable.

Zakat isn't charity. And if you want to make these statements you need to back them up. Though I suspect that you would rather just continue to repeat the same unsupported claims over ('all religions are peaceful', 'all religions have multiple interpretations and we cannot know the true nature of a religion', etc.) and over again than realize that your statements are untrue.

The fact that there are tolerant Muslins means that it is possible to interpret the Quran in a tolerant fashion that respects human rights.

Does the fact that there are people that believe the earth is flat mean that there is a possibility that the earth is flat? No.

Many muslims are simply ignorant of their own religion or are in denial about the true nature of Islam (i.e. they understand that many of the intolerant teachings of Islam are immoral but do not want to abandon Islam because they have a strong emotional connection to it due to family members being muslims, due to not wanting to be alienated by the community, due to fear of the death penalty for apostasy and due to years of brainwashing from birth). Then you also have the issue of Taqiyya where muslims are commanded by their religion to lie about their religion to non-believers if it benefits Islam.

If I undersatnd your definition of a rational person correctly, there is not a single human being that is rational.

There is probably not a single human that is 100% rational.

Again, the fact that there are Muslims (i.e. adherents of Islam) that do not promote, and in fact condemn, any and all of the violations of human rights above means that the problem lies with the (mis)interpretation of Islam - not Islam itself.

Why is this the only conclusion you can make? Why not it's the moderate muslims that are misinterpreting islam and the extremists are following true islam? Why not the moderate muslims do not understand Islam? Why not the moderate muslims are irrational because of a strong emotional connection to islam? Why not the moderate muslims are performing taqiyya?

When you condemn all Muslims as intolerant then you are lumping in the tolerant Muslims with the intolerant ones and are cutting off the most powerful voices for potential change and reformation within Islam. It is precisely these tolerant Muslims that are best positioned to change Islam from within.

I do not condemn all muslims as intolerant, I condemn Islam as intolerant.

Also, the idea that I never side with the moderate muslims is false (see my thread on the Burka).

Lastly, I do not want to commit some sort of reverse-taqiyya and lie to muslims about their own religion in order for them to make it more tolerant. I'm more interested in the truth. Also, if anything I would prefer that all religions die and reason/science prevail than have them reformed.

My point is that prejudice of Muslims is, at best, hindering the solution of these problems and, at worst, making the problem worse.

So you advocate reverse-taqiyya?

[-1=e^ipi]

So to sum up, there is no evidence that the high rate of immigration Canada has had over the last couple of decades has benefited us economically.

Maybe you could rephrase this as "there is no evidence that the current level of immigration is optimal" and I might agree with you. Though I've been far more interested in immigration source country distribution than the total amount of immigration in this thread. I'm inclined to believe that immigration has benefited Canada overall (compared to zero immigration) even if the level of immigration and the immigration distribution has not been optimal.

@ Micheal Hardner - I think it is far more useful to look at the changes in GDP per capita as a result of immigration than to changes in GDP as a result of immigration. Sort of like what carepov did.

[Argus]

There are more people eating the pie and making pies. GDP is a measure of economic *activity*...

Which is essentially meaningless to the people here. Look, this is not rocket science. I've worked in government long enough now to know that every program requires documented justification -- except immigration. If I want to start a program, even a small internal one, what I need to do is write a detailed business case which will first and foremost detail exactly why we need this program, and then milestones so we know if the program is meeting its stated goals. There ARE no stated economic goals for immigration, no milestones, and no stated economic justifications for its existence.

A lot of people come into Canada. That certainly makes the economy larger. Does it make life better, economically, for the people already here? I don't see it.

[Argus]

The real concern, however, is with respect to immigrants themselves in that they appear to be having an increasingly difficult time economically assimilating into the Canadian labour market, and new immigrants are increasingly falling into poverty. Furthermore, existing immigrants are likely to be adversely affected by expanding immigration since new and existing immigrants are likely substitutes. Improving the economic integration of immigrants into the Canadian labour market is likely to be beneficial not only for the immigrants themselves but also because such integration is also likely to enhance the generally positive impact that immigrants have on the Canadian economy.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp6743.pdf

On my first quick read, I agree with the study and it's conclusions. What do you think?

My reading was quick, as well, but I didn't see anything which really disagreed with what I've been saying all along on this subject. The majority of the studies indicated no effect, economically, as pros and cons balanced out. So you wind up with a more crowded country but not really much, if any economic improvement. I was surprised at how high the level of poverty was for immigrants, though not that immigrant poverty is worsening. Too many of the immigrants we currently bring into Canada do not have the skills to participate in the job market at the levels necessary to make bringing them here economically advantageous to Canada. We need to reconsider just what criteria we are using to accept immigrants. I've previously posted the data from Stats Canada indicating that overall immirants from certain areas of the world perform far, far worse than those from other areas. If we can't set up proper individual criteria (and we've been fiddling with that for decades now) then we need to simply target those source areas which tend to produce the best immigrants. An expensive program, costing billions per year, to bring in people to live in poverty is utterly ridiculous. Any immigrant we bring here who winds up living in poverty is a failing as far as the system is concerned, and right now that failing is running at or close to 4 in ten.

[carepov]

And perhaps if there had been more secular humanists and less people believing in the occult religious nonsense of nazism then perhaps there wouldn't have been a holocaust to begin with. What is your point? Less nazism probably would have resulted in less holocaust victims regardless of if you replace nazism with religious or non-religious ideologies.

If religion was/could replaced by secular humanism then you and I would be on the karaoke machine singing a duet of "Imagine".

My point is that there are benefits to religion. IMO the benefits outweigh the costs and religion has been a net benefit to humanity.

Or maybe worse, perhaps if Mao/Stalin were religious more people would have died because most religions belief that dead people go to a better place, so there is nothing sad about people dying. Mao/Stalin would value life less.

You really want to play this game?

Not really, but how can it get any worse than Mao/Stalin?

Islam is an ideology. Muslims are people who agree with the shahada and claim to follow the ideology of Islam. Muslims != Islam in the same way that Drivers != Cars. Do you agree with me or do you think that you are a car?

Yes, I agree: "Muslims != Islam in the same way that Drivers != Cars". So then what causes accidents, bad drivers or bad cars?

Sure there are moderate muslims and moderate interpretations of Islam. That doesn't mean that true islam as taught by the prophet Mohammed is tolerant.

I hope that the moderate interpretations of Islam become the "true Islam". Moderate Muslims sure are convinced that it is they that are following "true Islam, no?

Islam follows a system of abrogation where later verses abrogate earlier verses. This means that the intolerant jihadist verses in Sura 9 (the last major revelation by the Prophet Mohammed) such as

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." 9:29

abrogate any peaceful verses such as

"Let there be no compulsion in religion" 2:256

If you understood islam, you would know this.

Of course you would rather not. Because I would win that argument.

Of course it is inherent of many things. It inherently believes that there is no god but Allah. It inherently believes that Mohammed is the last and final messenger of Allah. It inherently believes that the Quran contains the word of Allah through Mohammed that was preserved orally and written shortly after Mohammed's death by Mohammed's closest companions. Should I go on? Or do you really want to argue that Islam doesn't inherently contain the believe that there is no god but Allah?

You're knowledge of Islam and many other things is impressive and I appreciate that. I would not want to face off against you in a game of Jeopardy.

However your argument about (true) Islam having inherent beliefs is week. Islam, like a car has no beliefs, it is Muslims, like drivers, that have beliefs.

Zakat isn't charity. And if you want to make these statements you need to back them up. Though I suspect that you would rather just continue to repeat the same unsupported claims over ('all religions are peaceful', 'all religions have multiple interpretations and we cannot know the true nature of a religion', etc.) and over again than realize that your statements are untrue.

Without drivers, all cars are safe and do not pollute.

[-1=e^ipi]

My point is that there are benefits to religion. IMO the benefits outweigh the costs and religion has been a net benefit to humanity.

Yes I get you hold this belief. I disagree with this belief.

Not really, but how can it get any worse than Mao/Stalin?

Why is it not possible for things to be worse than Mao/Stalin? What point are you trying to make? Mao/Stalin did bad things, yes. Does that make bad things done in the name of religion any less bad? no.

And there are plenty of examples of mass genocides that were religiously motivated; from the Spanish inquisition to the Armenian genocide to the Bosnian genocide. Heck, even the old testament lists several genocides that were done in the name of God.

But again, what is the point? Some bad things are motivated by religion, and some bad things are motivated by non-religious reasons.

Yes, I agree: "Muslims != Islam in the same way that Drivers != Cars". So then what causes accidents, bad drivers or bad cars?

Both. Cars can have equipment failures (faulty breaks, flat tires, holes in fuel tank, etc.).

I hope that the moderate interpretations of Islam become the "true Islam". Moderate Muslims sure are convinced that it is they that are following "true Islam, no?

Just because moderate muslims believe they are following true islam, doesn't mean they are. And I suspect as time goes by, more muslims will have the time and ability to read the islamic texts (plus use online discussion forums to discuss with other muslims the true nature of islam) to properly understand islam enough to go to true islam.

Now I suspect that you might have a bias towards believing that societies become more moderate as time goes by, but with islam this isn't necessarily the case. I'll give you some historical examples:

- Al-Andalus (Islamic Iberia) was relatively tolerant of other religions (and by this I mean they allowed Christians and Jews to live on their lands provided they paid the Jizya, didn't own property, etc.) for hundreds of years during the so called Islamic golden age. However, this ended around the middle of the 11th century when the muslims of Al-Andalus started a policy of convert, die or exile towards the jews. This resulted in the Granada massacre of 1066 as well as the Jewish philosopher Maimonidies having to leave Iberia.

- For most of the history of Islam, Saudi Arabia has practiced more tolerant versions of islam such as sufism or ismaili. But since the 18th century, the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia has been Wahhabism. Furthermore, in the past few decades, especially after 911, Wahhabism has been on the rise, replacing more moderate forms of islam in many parts of the world.

- Before the Iranian revolution, Iran was far more peaceful and tolerant of religious minorities, didn't have strict Islamic rules with respect to the dress code, etc. But since the 1980's revolution, it has been a strict islamic theocratic state.

However your argument about (true) Islam having inherent beliefs is week. Islam, like a car has no beliefs, it is Muslims, like drivers, that have beliefs.

Why is it weak? You have not explained why? A car isn't an ideology, it is a machine. So obviously it doesn't have beliefs, but it does have wheels. For an ideology like islam, beliefs are the wheels of the car.

Anyway, good luck trying to tell a muslim that islam doesn't have the belief that there is no god but allah.

Without drivers, all cars are safe and do not pollute.

Nonsense. Some cars can drive automatically without a driver. Also if you leave your car running and aren't in it, it will still pollute.

[carepov]

Why is it not possible for things to be worse than Mao/Stalin? What point are you trying to make? Mao/Stalin did bad things, yes. Does that make bad things done in the name of religion any less bad? no.

And there are plenty of examples of mass genocides that were religiously motivated; from the Spanish inquisition to the Armenian genocide to the Bosnian genocide. Heck, even the old testament lists several genocides that were done in the name of God.

But again, what is the point? Some bad things are motivated by religion, and some bad things are motivated by non-religious reasons.

The point is that religion has and can have a positive impact by preventing or reducing the severity of some violations of human rights. This cannot be measured because we will never know about the wars, atrocities, massacres and crimes that did not happen.

In sociology, technically anything is technically possible - but practically it is impossible for any crime to be worse than those commited by by the non-religious leaders of Germany, Russia, Cambodia and China in the 20th century.

Both. Cars can have equipment failures (faulty breaks, flat tires, holes in fuel tank, etc.).

"equipment failure accounts for less than 5% of all motor vehicle accidents"

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html

On top of that, many equipment failures can be prevented by proper maintenance.

Just because moderate muslims believe they are following true islam, doesn't mean they are. And I suspect as time goes by, more muslims will have the time and ability to read the islamic texts (plus use online discussion forums to discuss with other muslims the true nature of islam) to properly understand islam enough to go to true islam.

I do not accept your definition of "True Islam". To me "True Islam" is defined by the adherents of Islam (Muslims). If Christianity can (mostly) change from a literal interpretation of the Bible to a figurative interpretation why can't Islam?

Now I suspect that you might have a bias towards believing that societies become more moderate as time goes by, but with islam this isn't necessarily the case. I'll give you some historical examples:

- Al-Andalus (Islamic Iberia) was relatively tolerant of other religions (and by this I mean they allowed Christians and Jews to live on their lands provided they paid the Jizya, didn't own property, etc.) for hundreds of years during the so called Islamic golden age. However, this ended around the middle of the 11th century when the muslims of Al-Andalus started a policy of convert, die or exile towards the jews. This resulted in the Granada massacre of 1066 as well as the Jewish philosopher Maimonidies having to leave Iberia.

- For most of the history of Islam, Saudi Arabia has practiced more tolerant versions of islam such as sufism or ismaili. But since the 18th century, the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia has been Wahhabism. Furthermore, in the past few decades, especially after 911, Wahhabism has been on the rise, replacing more moderate forms of islam in many parts of the world.

- Before the Iranian revolution, Iran was far more peaceful and tolerant of religious minorities, didn't have strict Islamic rules with respect to the dress code, etc. But since the 1980's revolution, it has been a strict islamic theocratic state.

Here is one interesting counter-example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/progressive-muslims-launch-gay-friendly-women-led-mosques_n_1368460.html

You are right, I do have a bias towards believing that societies become more moderate (tolerant, rational, better) over time. I recognize that progress is not a straight line and setbacks are the rule not the exception. You provide good examples of Islamic regression. Despite recent steps backwards are evident in Turkey, Indonesia, and as you pointed out in Malaysia, the overall trend in these countries is still positive.

Why is it weak? You have not explained why? A car isn't an ideology, it is a machine. So obviously it doesn't have beliefs, but it does have wheels. For an ideology like islam, beliefs are the wheels of the car.

Anyway, good luck trying to tell a muslim that islam doesn't have the belief that there is no god but allah.

Nonsense. Some cars can drive automatically without a driver. Also if you leave your car running and aren't in it, it will still pollute.

Cars, like ideologies, are designed, built, modified, and used by humans. Without humans (drivers, adherents) cars and ideologies would be powerless and would not exists. Ideologies have no beliefs it is the adherent that believes.

Correct, cars that drive automatically or idle empty need no drivers - but they do require programmers and operators.

[Bonam]

In sociology, technically anything is technically possible - but practically it is impossible for any crime to be worse than those commited by by the non-religious leaders of Germany, Russia, Cambodia and China in the 20th century.

As terrible as the atrocities committed by these regimes were, things can ALWAYS, ALWAYS be worse.

[carepov]

As terrible as the atrocities committed by these regimes were, things can ALWAYS, ALWAYS be worse.

As I said, technically anything is possible. At some point, (e.g. < 0.01 % probability) you have to call it a "practical impossibility". The threshold depends on the type of event being considered.

The point is that if these leaders and their supporters were religious, it is very, very, very, very, very unlikely that their crimes would have been any worse. And, IMO there is a chance that their crimes would have been lessened.

[Bonam]

The point is that if these leaders and their supporters were religious, it is very, very, very, very, very unlikely that their crimes would have been any worse. And, IMO there is a chance that their crimes would have been lessened.

You have presented no evidence, reasoning, or logic to suppose that that is the case. That that is your opinion is all well and good but if you seek to convince other people of your position you'll need something more.

[-1=e^ipi]

The point is that religion has and can have a positive impact by preventing or reducing the severity of some violations of human rights. This cannot be measured because we will never know about the wars, atrocities, massacres and crimes that did not happen.

Can have a positive impact occasionally doesn't mean that the net effect is positive.

I do not accept your definition of "True Islam". To me "True Islam" is defined by the adherents of Islam (Muslims). If Christianity can (mostly) change from a literal interpretation of the Bible to a figurative interpretation why can't Islam?

The definitions that you or I accept doesn't matter. What matters is the definitions that muslims accept. And what muslims define as true islam ultimately comes down to the teachings of the prophet Mohammed as recorded in the Quran and other Islamic texts.

But here is the biggest issue. Islam ISN'T Christianity! The level of flexibility of interpretation of islam is far less than in christianity. If one ignores verses the Quran or the Hadith then one commits a great sin and will go to hellfire. The quran is the word of god through the prophet mohammed; all muslims accept this. Christians can ignore verses, rewrite the bible to exclude parts they don't like, and constantly re-interpret their religion to fit their word view because they do not need to take the bible literally. That's the problem. At the theological level Islam and Christianity are different in how serious one must take the holy texts. Unlike christianity, if there are 2 contradicting versus, Islam has a method of abrogation to deal with this so there is less ambiguity in the religion. Islam also encompases far more aspects of life (divorce, income tax, law, how non-muslims should be treated in an islamic state, etc.). Even the level of commitment to the religion is far higher (Christians do not pray 5 times a day).

Here is one interesting counter-example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/progressive-muslims-launch-gay-friendly-women-led-mosques_n_1368460.html

That is in a western country, not a country where islam is dominant, so the comparison isn't remotely fair. Muslims in western countries are influenced by western values and often do not know what is in their own holy books. In addition, when muslims are a minority, they must appear peaceful so that the kaffir do not get suspicious. The Quran even compels muslims to appear peaceful when they are a minority. It's why things like Taqiyya (lying to non-muslims) exist.

This goes back all the way to the prophet Mohammed. When he was a minority in Mecca (the polytheist Quraish were the majority) he was very peaceful and that is where more tolerant versus from Sura 2 came from 'there is no compulsion in religion'. Later on he moved to Medina where took over the city and made it muslim; the verses became less tolerant. Later on, he broke his alliance with Mecca and invaded it, versus became even less tolerant. Eventually he took over all of arabia, completely expelled/killed/murdered the Quraish (the concept of jizya only applies to monotheists not polytheists) and then started offensive Jihad in Syria where he started a war on the Byzantium empire that would continue for nearly a millennium until Constantinople was taken. During his offensive jihad, mohammed 'revealed' the jihadist verses as found in Sura 9 such as fight those that do not believe in Allah nor the prophet Mohammed until they submit and willingly pay the jizya. Mohammed wasn't peaceful like jesus in Christianity; he committed genocide and murdered many people.

Anyway, I do not see a trend among muslim majority countries that shows they are becoming more tolerant as time progresses. Turkey as you have mentioned, has even regressed. In fact, the only reason turkey ever became tolerant in the first place was because of intervention from western powers that ended the Ottoman empire after WW1. I doubt secular turkey as we know it today would exist if the Ottoman empire did not lose WW1.

Cars, like ideologies, are designed, built, modified, and used by humans. Without humans (drivers, adherents) cars and ideologies would be powerless and would not exists. Ideologies have no beliefs it is the adherent that believes.

I do not agree. Ideologies contain beliefs and ideas.

[carepov]

Can have a positive impact occasionally doesn't mean that the net effect is positive.

Agreed. We disagree on the net effect, fine.

The definitions that you or I accept doesn't matter. What matters is the definitions that muslims accept. And what muslims define as true islam ultimately comes down to the [interpretation of] teachings of the prophet Mohammed as recorded in the Quran and other Islamic texts.

With the one modification, I agree.

But here is the biggest issue. Islam ISN'T Christianity! The level of flexibility of interpretation of islam is far less than in christianity. If one ignores verses the Quran or the Hadith then one commits a great sin and will go to hellfire. The quran is the word of god through the prophet mohammed; all muslims accept this. Christians can ignore verses, rewrite the bible to exclude parts they don't like, and constantly re-interpret their religion to fit their word view because they do not need to take the bible literally. That's the problem. At the theological level Islam and Christianity are different in how serious one must take the holy texts. Unlike christianity, if there are 2 contradicting versus, Islam has a method of abrogation to deal with this so there is less ambiguity in the religion. Islam also encompases far more aspects of life (divorce, income tax, law, how non-muslims should be treated in an islamic state, etc.). Even the level of commitment to the religion is far higher (Christians do not pray 5 times a day).

Islam is not Christianity but it is not uniform, homogeneous, nor static

Anyway, I do not see a trend among muslim majority countries that shows they are becoming more tolerant as time progresses. Turkey as you have mentioned, has even regressed. In fact, the only reason turkey ever became tolerant in the first place was because of intervention from western powers that ended the Ottoman empire after WW1. I doubt secular turkey as we know it today would exist if the Ottoman empire did not lose WW1.

Despite a few recent set-backs, in the last 100 years Turkey has become more tolerant and has modernized.

I do not agree. Ideologies contain beliefs and ideas.

Yes ideologies contain ideas. The adherents choose how to believe, interpret, prioritize and act on these ideas.

[Michael Hardner]

A lot of people come into Canada. That certainly makes the economy larger. Does it make life better, economically, for the people already here? I don't see it.

Your problem isn't with immigration, then, it's with growth.