How many would actually oppose this immigration restriction?

[-1=e^ipi]

I think it would be an understatement to say that the doctrine of culturally-relativist multiculturalism has been challenged in the west in recent years. Prominent European politicians such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron has proclaimed that multiculturalism has failed in their respective countries.

Look at Brussels. Look at Malmo, Sweden. Look at Newham, England. Do you honestly think that culturally-relativist multiculturalism hasn't failed in these places?

But this is Canada. Culturally-relativist multiculturalism hasn't failed here. Does that mean we are immune to the failings of various European countries? Perhaps Canada is immune to these failings because of its longer history of immigration and more accepting society. Some people like Muslim Canadian Congress founder Tarek Fatah don't think so.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/02/07/17188881.html

It's obvious which 'immigrant group' is responsible for the majority of this skepticism towards culturally-relativist multiculturalism. Perhaps it is the same group committing the majority of domestic honour killings, the same group committing the majority of domestic terrorist attacks, the same group that has an ideology that homosexuals & apostates should be killed, and the same group that believes that they will one day take over the world since god has told them so.

There is on the order of a thousand foreign fighters from US, Canada, Western Europe and the rest of the West currently fighting in Iraq and Syria. When that conflict ends, where do you think they will go? Some may stay in their newly founded Islamic State, but some may come back to their former Western Countries. The current Caliph, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, might have plans for the rest of the world:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/August/See-You-In-New-York-Jihadists-Plans-for-America/

Does it really make sense to have a large influx of religious radicals to come to western countries and outbreed the domestic population? Can't that cause problems in the long term?

There are a number of immigration reform policies Canada could take (such as changing the immigration point formula to account for differences in human capital quality between countries). But with respect to keeping radical religious extremists out of Canada, I propose the following:

In order to immigrate to Canada, an applicant must answer the following question:

"Do you agree that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?"

If the answer is yes, they can come to Canada. If the answer is no, they cannot.

Of course some people will lie, but I doubt the majority will (and even if most are willing, they would still feel less comfortable about immigrating). Since all forms of radical Islam and most other radical religions are incompatible with the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, it would be an easy way to filter out the radical religious extremists in the immigration process.

[Mighty AC]

I think it's important to continue the secularization of Canada and the US. It will be much harder to indoctrinate second and third generation Canadians in a highly secular, skeptical more critical state.

[TimG]

If the answer is yes, they can come to Canada. If the answer is no, they cannot.

What if the answer is "probably"? Why not a question on the risk of radiation or GMOs? Both are equally settled scientific questions that that rejected by many.

The issue is not religion - it is acceptance of other points of view. A lot of "secular" people are intolerant bigots when it comes to accepting people who have different political views. A lot of "secular" people may agree on evolution but believe complete nonsense when it comes to radiation, GMOs, vaccines or organic foods.

The biggest quandary for people who believe in tolerance is how to deal with people who are intolerant. Do you remain true to your values despite the fact that they threaten your values with their intolerance? Or do you abandon your values in order to protect them?

Edited August 20, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

I think it's important to continue the secularization of Canada and the US. It will be much harder to indoctrinate second and third generation Canadians in a highly secular, skeptical more critical state.

Keep doing what works, works for me, even if it's usually 3 steps forward and two back its still progress.

[-1=e^ipi]

What if the answer is "probably"? Why not a question on the risk of radiation or GMOs? Both are equally settled scientific questions that that rejected by many.

Probably should be fine. The reason I suggest the above question is because it is in direct contradiction with the Quran and various other religious creation fairy tales. GMOs and radiation are not.

it is acceptance of other points of view. A lot of "secular" people are intolerant bigots when it comes to accepting people who have different political views.

The biggest quandary for people who believe in tolerance is how to deal with people who are intolerant.

You are mixing up acceptance with tolerance.

[TimG]

Probably should be fine. The reason I suggest the above question is because it is in direct contradiction with the Quran and various other religious creation fairy tales. GMOs and radiation are not.

I don't care if people believe in religious fairy tales because it has no impact on things that affect me. But if people have irrational ideas when it comes to questions of radiation, GMOs et. al. then it has a real impact on public policy decisions that matter. I would rather let people in that believe in religious fairy tales and vaccines than people who believe in evolution but think vaccines are a corporate plot. Religion is not the only source of irrational thinking.

You are mixing up acceptance with tolerance.

How can you tolerate something without accepting it? If you don't accept it you are not really tolerating it. Edited August 20, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

I don't care if people believe in religious fairy tales because it has no impact on things that affect me. But if people have irrational ideas when it comes to questions of radiation, GMOs et. al. then it has a real impact on public policy decisions that matter.

Delusional religious ideas impact public policy all the time; be it equal marriage, death with dignity, animal rights, medical research, spread of disease, education, etc.

[Argus]

In order to immigrate to Canada, an applicant must answer the following question:

"Do you agree that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?"

If the answer is yes, they can come to Canada. If the answer is no, they cannot.

That would keep a lot of Christians out, but the Muslims are not nearly so opposed to the theory of evolution. What is said of creation in the Koran is much more flexible and not time-stamped. Besides, most of the Muslims you're thinking of keeping out are unsophisticated and probably don't really understand creationism and evolution anyway.

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't care if people believe in religious fairy tales because it has no impact on things that affect me.

Well I am happy that it doesn't affect you. But it does affect myself and others in very negative ways every day.

Religion is not the only source of irrational thinking.

I do not deny this, but 1 set of irrational thinking does not excuse another set of irrational thinking.

How can you tolerate something without accepting it?

Why couldn't you? The two verbs mean different things.

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

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

[-1=e^ipi]

That would keep a lot of Christians out, but the Muslims are not nearly so opposed to the theory of evolution.

You are so wrong here, it is ridiculous.

Notice that my wording was specifically 'humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor'. It wasn't 'accept the theory of evolution'.

Many muslims will claim to accept the theory of evolution but think that humans and chimpanzees do not share a common ancestor because humans were directly created by god.

The reason is simple. Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. The Quran contains the direct teachings of Allah through Mohammed. Therefore in Islam, the Quran is the direct word of god. There isn't really a way around this and there is no Muslim group that I know of that does not take the Quran to be the word of god. Islam doesn't have the same 'flexibility of interpretation' that Christianity has, where Christians can simply 'reinterpret a verse' that conflicts with observable reality.

The Quran frequently mentioned that Adam and Eve existed and that they were directly created by Allah. Humans cannot both be directly created by Allah from mud and at the same share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees. It is contradictory.

Though that doesn't mean a few Muslims are capable of severe cognitive dissonance to convince themselves that there is no contradiction. But those Muslims aren't a threat like the radical Muslims are.

[TimG]

Delusional religious ideas impact public policy all the time; be it equal marriage, death with dignity, animal rights, medical research, spread of disease, education, etc.

The doctrine of fairness only requires that homosexual relationships be granted equal status under the law. It does not require that their relationship have the word "marriage" attached to it. The latter is a good example of the irrational obsessions of the non-religious. Others are question of ethics which are often points of debate. The fact that the religious don't happen to have an ethical view that you want them to have does not make them wrong or worthy of exclusion.

[Mighty AC]

The fact that the religious don't happen to have an ethical view that you want them to have does not make them wrong or worthy of exclusion.

The reasoning behind their chosen 'ethical' position is their belief in the supposed wishes of a supernatural being for which there is no evidence. The fact that we treat these beliefs with kid gloves instead of the same skeptical, scrutiny as any other idea allows them to continue to flourish. If we seek to believe and base public policy on as many true ideas as possible and discard the false, then giving weight to religious beliefs based on faith in a story is counterproductive.

[TimG]

The reasoning behind their chosen 'ethical' position is their belief in the supposed wishes of a supernatural being for which there is no evidence.

So? Why is that any less worthy than an ethical position derived from humanist philosophy? The belief that all people are equal has no more rational foundation than a belief in the teachings of Jesus. It seems to me that you are simply seeking to suppress those views which you dislike which makes you no better than the people you claim to criticize. Edited August 21, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

The doctrine of fairness only requires that homosexual relationships be granted equal status under the law. It does not require that their relationship have the word "marriage" attached to it. The latter is a good example of the irrational obsessions of the non-religious.

Are you kidding? This particular issue is an even better example of the sort of irrational religious obsession we're trying to weed out.

That said I actually support anything that rubs a religious idiots nose in his own nonsense. I have lots of tolerance for religion but little patience for wilful idiocy.

[Mighty AC]

The belief that all people are equal has no more rational foundation than a belief in the teachings of Jesus. You simply seek to suppress those views which you dislike which makes you no better than the people you claim to criticize.

The idea that we should treat all people equal is no more rational than giving weight to the supposed words of supernatural beings without evidence? Really? You know that rational means 'in accordance with reason or logic' right? So in your view is any ethical position valid as long as the individual holds a sincere belief in the story behind it?

I am fine with debating any ideas based on reason, logic and evidence. The problem with religious ideas is believers give them enormous weight despite having zero evidence. Belief simply for the sake of believing cannot be used to backup ideas. Especially those ideas that seek to limit the rights of others.

[TimG]

The idea that we should treat all people equal is no more rational than giving weight to the supposed words of supernatural beings without evidence? Really?

Yes. What is the rational basis for the idea that "all people are equal"? My guess is you won't get much further than saying we should *treat other people as equal* because we want them to treat us as equal. But that is a pragmatic rationalization that does not require that one *believe" that all people are equal. The belief that "all people are equal* is no more rational than believing that Jesus is the savoir.

The problem with religious ideas is believers give them enormous weight despite having zero evidence.

I encounter non-religious people on a regular basis that give enormous weight to ideas with zero evidence. What makes religious beliefs so special that they need to be singled out for oppobrium?

Belief simply for the sake of believing cannot be used to backup ideas. Especially those ideas that seek to limit the rights of others.

The most intractable problems are those that require that competing rights to be resolved. These kinds of problems require reference to an abstract ethical framework that may or may not include a diety. There is nothing inherently superior about ethical frameworks that do not incorporate a belief in a higher power. Edited August 21, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

So? Why is that any less worthy than an ethical position derived from humanist philosophy?

Because humanist philosophy isn't derived from fiction and claims without evidence, where as religion is.

The belief that all people are equal has no more rational foundation than a belief in the teachings of Jesus.

People aren't equal. Everyone is different. However, people should have equal rights and that position has far more rational foundation than belief in some 2,000 year old magic man.

[-1=e^ipi]

I encounter non-religious people on a regular basis that give enormous weight to ideas with zero evidence. What makes religious beliefs so special that they need to be singled out for oppobrium?

Did you read my original post? The homeopathists and reiki practitioners aren't going around committing global terrorist attacks, nor is their goal world domination. The same cannot be said for islamists.

Edited August 21, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[TimG]

Because humanist philosophy isn't derived from fiction and claims without evidence, where as religion is.

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1] Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism).

The notion of a "human nature" is as irrational as a belief in a higher power. Both are abstract and unprovable concepts used to anchor an ethical framework.

[TimG]

Did you read my original post? The homeopathists and reiki practitioners aren't going around committing global terrorist attacks, nor is their goal world domination.

Neither are the vast majority of believers in religion. And why is the desire to see democracy spread to every country in the world materially different from the desire to see Islam spread to every country in the world?

[Mighty AC]

Yes. What is the rational basis for the idea that "all people are equal"? My guess is you won't get much further than saying we should *treat other people as equal* because we want them to treat us as equal. But that is a pragmatic rationalization that does not require that one *believe" that all people are equal. The belief that "all people are equal* is no more rational than believing that Jesus is the savoir.

The idea that all people should be treated equally was not always accepted and is a position gained by evaluating ideas and asking questions about humanity. For example are some humans born with special characteristics or abilities that should grant them a superior or inferior set of rights and opportunities?

There is no evidence or reasoning behind the idea that Jesus is a supernatural being. It's just an assertion.

I encounter non-religious people on a regular basis that give enormous weight to ideas with zero evidence. What makes religious beliefs so special that they need to be singled out for oppobrium?

Religious ideas are not being singled out for criticism, quite the opposite. Currently, our culture still gives special weight, privilege and protection to religious ideas; whereas regular unsupported ideas are free to be criticized and ridiculed. I am simply treating religious beliefs like any other unsupported claim by saying put up the evidence or shut up.

The most intractable problems are those that require that competing rights be resolved. These kinds of problems require reference to an abstract ethical framework that may or may not include a diety. There is nothing inherently superior about ethical frameworks that do not incorporate a belief in a higher power.

Incorporating appeals to unproven supernatural ideas do make an argument inferior. Reasonable debate cannot occur without justification for our arguments. Suggesting an idea should hold weight simply because one wants to believe it is ridiculous.

[-1=e^ipi]

The notion of a "human nature" is as irrational as a belief in a higher power. Both are abstract and unprovable concepts used to anchor an ethical framework.

Wait, so are you claiming that human's don't have a 'nature'?

See, there is this thing called DNA. This DNA determines the shape and composition of proteins in the body. This intern influences how the organism functions and interacts with the environment around it. More closely related organisms tend to have more similar DNA. That is why ants act differently from birds, birds act differently from plants, and plants act differently from humans.

Neither are the vast majority of believers in religion.

This is debatable. It really depends on how you define to boundaries of a religion. For example, the islamist militants claim that Shia are not muslims. And it's the majority of Muslims in Saudi Arabia that think that homosexuals & apostates should be killed, it is the majority of Muslims in Malaysia that think that Christians should not be allowed to use the word 'allah', and it is the majority of Muslims in Pakistan that think that people should be jailed for 'blasphemy'.

Also, I am unsure why it matters whether or not that the majority of radical muslims do not perform terrorists attacks. You only need a minority to do significant damage to society. Also, many of the others may be indirectly supporting or facilitating terrorism through zakat, through supporting a violent ideology, or through helping to establish a culture that results in terrorism.

And why is the desire to see democracy spread to every country in the world materially different from the desire to see Islam spread to every country in the world?

Where did anyone bring up spreading democracy in this thread. And what relevance does it have?

[Mighty AC]

And why is the desire to see democracy spread to every country in the world materially different from the desire to see Islam spread to every country in the world?

See this is a question that can be discussed and debated using evidence and reason. We can appeal to facts and figures about democracies and religions and discuss the merits of the arguments chosen in the debate However, what if I responded by saying:

The Cosmic Gummy Bear (CGB) clearly stated that fiery comments will rain down upon any nation that does not choose its leadership in a democratic fashion.

You may question the existence and authority of the CGB and I could respond with, 'I have faith in the existence in our furry overlord'. Should my position on democracy based on the teachings of the CGB hold the same weight as any other argument for or against it?

[TimG]

The idea that all people should be treated equally was not always accepted and is a position gained by evaluating ideas and asking questions about humanity.

You seemed to have missed the nuance in my argument. There is a difference between believing that all humans are equal and believing that all humans should be treated equally and not all people that believe in equal treatment believe that all humans are equal. The belief that "all humans are equal" is a belief without rational basis yet many non-religious people hold onto it. The debate over equal marriage is a good example: people that believe in equal treatment would accept a word other than marriage to describe homosexual unions provided this alternate word is equal to marriage as far as the law is concerned. But such a distinction offends people who believe that people are equal and see the distinction as hurtful.

There is no evidence or reasoning behind the idea that Jesus is a supernatural being. It's just an assertion.

There is no evidence or reasoning behind the idea that all people are equal. It is just an assertion.

Incorporating appeals to unproven supernatural ideas do make an argument inferior.

Do you reject arguments made by environmentalists that the earth before humans was in some ideal pristine state that should never be changed? You should because that is just an appeal to an unproven supernatural idea. The rational argument is there is nothing inherenetly wrong with humans changing the environment but some of the changes we should try to avoid because they cause harm to humans in the long run.

i.e. a rational person would agree that the extermination of a few species which are biologically similar to many other species is not a concern. An person holding onto irrational beliefs will insist that every species must be protected.

Edited August 21, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Wait, so are you claiming that human's don't have a 'nature'?

Within humanism people are ascribed to have characteristics that make a person more than a bag of chemicals. The entire concept that human life has value requires a reference point beyond the simple chemistry of life. The assertion of these non-physical attributes is as irrational as a belief in a higher power.