How many would actually oppose this immigration restriction?

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Why / how is the "secularization" of the U.S. relevant to "indoctrination" of Canadians ?

[TimG]

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 are so fixated with the imagery and myths that accompany many religions but you miss the core: a belief that there is more to the universe than we can perceive and the lack of evidence is beside the point. Some religious people are better able to manage the conflict between teachings which need to be placed in historical context and the the scientific study of the world we can perceive. It is wrong to reject all religious belief simply because some people can't figure out how to do that. Edited August 21, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Within humanism people are ascribed to have characteristics that make a person more than a bag of chemicals.

You have a strange definition of humanism. Could you define humanism for me?

The entire concept that human life has value requires a reference point beyond the simple chemistry of life.

Why? Could you provide proof for this claim?

[TimG]

Why? Could you provide proof for this claim?

We kill animals without a second thought yet the deaths of humans are a great concern even when there is no rational reason to be concerned (i.e. deaths on the other side of the world are not likely to affect us personally). Why? The usual argument is we all have some undefined connection "as humans" and that all humans "deserve" a long and full life. Where is the rationality in that? Can you provide an argument in support of the assertion above that does not end up making an appeal to some unproveable "truth"?

Here is wiki:

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

Here is a quote from a humanist organization that demonstrates the irrational assertions that underpin Humanism:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

i.e. "human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives".

What rational basis do they have for this assertion?

Edited August 21, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

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

So odd.

The Mennonites have not 'assimilated'.

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.

So do Jehovah's Witnesses, one house at a time.

human capital quality

.Hitler would have loved you!

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.

So are we kicking out the Seventh Day Adventists too?

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.

Ridiculous.

What about poor Charlie Brown and the Great Pumpkin?

We humans do come from pumpkins you know!

.

[-1=e^ipi]

We kill animals without a second thought yet the deaths of humans are a great concern even when there is no rational reason to be concerned (i.e. deaths on the other side of the world are not likely to affect us personally). Why?

Other animals are far less intelligent than humans, therefore the value of a non-human organism has less value than a human organism. A whale has more value than a dog, a dog has more value than a rat, a rat has more value than an ant, and an ant has more value than an amoeba.

Here is a quote from a humanist organization that demonstrates the irrational assertions that underpin Humanism:

i.e. "human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives".

What rational basis do they have for this assertion?

Idk, I'm not a member of that humanist organization. I cannot speak for them. But not all humanists are the same.

[-1=e^ipi]

So odd.

The Mennonites have not 'assimilated'.

Mennonites do not commit terrorist attacks. Though I do not approve of their incest and inbreeding.

So do Jehovah's Witnesses, one house at a time.

The theology of Jehovah's Witnesses is very different. They think that god will cause a global apocalypse will occur in the near future and then the resurrection will occur. They do not think that the world will be united into a global Jehovah's caliphate prior to intervention by god (quite the contrary, they predict that there will continue to be conflict until the last days), nor do the Jehovah's Witnesses have a doctrine of Jihad.

Hitler would have loved you!.

Why? Because I used the noun 'human capital quality'???

So are we kicking out the Seventh Day Adventists too?

Where did I advocate kicking people out? I suggested a change to immigration laws to reduce the influx of religious extremists.

What about poor Charlie Brown and the Great Pumpkin?

We humans do come from pumpkins you know!

That is fiction. Please understand the difference between reality and fiction.

[TimG]

Other animals are far less intelligent than humans, therefore the value of a non-human organism has less value than a human organism. A whale has more value than a dog, a dog has more value than a rat, a rat has more value than an ant, and an ant has more value than an amoeba.

You are making the irrational assertion that intelligence has value and creating mythical hierarchy based on that assertion. From an purely evolutionary perspective intelligence is of limited value - if it was then there would be many more species with intelligence. There are many more amoebas than humans and after the last human dies there will still be amoebas. Edited August 21, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

You are making the irrational assertion that intelligence has value

Why is it irrational for intelligence to have value?

From an purely evolutionary perspective intelligence is of limited value

Humans are the dominant species of the planet. Do you think it is a coincidence that we happen to be the most intelligent?

if it was then there would be many more species with intelligence.

No, not necessarily. Evolution takes time. Evolving intelligence takes a very long time. There just hasn't been sufficient time for significant amounts of intelligence to evolve in various species.

There are many more amoebas than humans and after the last human dies there will still be amoebas.

Amoebas are single celled organisms. If you want to compare the evolutionary success of various species, at least use biomass (not that i claim that biomass is a good indicator either).

And what is this about the last human dying? How will you even be able to determine the 'last human' if humans gradually change into something else (such as cyborgs)?

[jacee]

Mennonites do not commit terrorist attacks. Though I do not approve of their incest and inbreeding.

The theology of Jehovah's Witnesses is very different. They think that god will cause a global apocalypse will occur in the near future and then the resurrection will occur. They do not think that the world will be united into a global Jehovah's caliphate prior to intervention by god (quite the contrary, they predict that there will continue to be conflict until the last days), nor do the Jehovah's Witnesses have a doctrine of Jihad.

Why? Because I used the noun 'human capital quality'???

Where did I advocate kicking people out? I suggested a change to immigration laws to reduce the influx of religious extremists.

That is fiction. Please understand the difference between reality and fiction.

You base your immigration proposal on the theory that all Muslims are terrorists.

I'm pointing out that

1) that is ridiculous

2) your 'rules' would discriminate against people who are already part of our society, and many others who are not terrorists

3) your 'rules' violate fundamental freedoms upon which our society is based ... like the freedom to believe in the Great Pumpkin if we wish.

4) Hitler and other supremacist thinkers might approve of your discriminatory 'rules' , but they're not great role models.

5) If you want to keep terrorists out, keep terrorists out ... but don't discriminate against innocent people because of their religion.

6) If you make such discriminatory 'rules', somebody just might decide that you are, in fact, highly undesirable and make a 'rule' against you.

.

.

[Mighty AC]

Why / how is the "secularization" of the U.S. relevant to "indoctrination" of Canadians ?

It's not.

[Mighty AC]

You are so fixated with the imagery and myths that accompany many religions but you miss the core: a belief that there is more to the universe than we can perceive and the lack of evidence is beside the point. Some religious people are better able to manage the conflict between teachings which need to be placed in historical context and the the scientific study of the world we can perceive. It is wrong to reject all religious belief simply because some people can't figure out how to do that.

No, I am fixated on the idea that religious ideas are special and should therefor be protected and carry greater weight. If religious belief simply consisted of people thinking there is some 'spiritual' force that exists but cannot be seen or measured then very few would have a problem with it. However I am bothered, when millions of North Americans use religion to justify their ethical positions and then fight for matching public policy.

I personally consider belief in Reiki and the idea of cleansing our energy fields to be non-evidential and silly, but since those beliefs are not being used to shape public policy they do not concern me. Christians demanding unequal treatment of homosexuals because they believe their god has said it is an abomination does concern me.

[Mighty AC]

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

No, the philosophical argument that people are equal can be reasoned out, citing observations and evidence. Stating that Jesus is our savior cannot.

Do you reject arguments made by environmentalists that the earth before humans was in some ideal pristine state that should never be changed?

This is an example of a question that we can debate using logic and evidence. We can discuss the fact that the Earth along with all ecosystems on it have always been changing. We can state reasons for wanting to protect natural ecosystems and reasons for destroying them for our benefit. Our ideas may conflict and we can then appeal to observations and evidence to make our case. However, as soon as I introduce an appeal to faith the debate can no longer be productive. Hence my aversion to public policy arguments based on religious ideas and my desire to see a more secular society.

Take the argument that clear cutting rain forests at such high rate is harmful to human life on Earth. One may argue by doing so we are adversely affecting the carbon cycle and wiping out plant and animal species before they can be identified and tested. Those species could have contained compounds that led to new medicines and cures for diseases.

If the return argument is something like 'God gave man dominion over all the plants and animals and it's ludicrous to think that man can harm something created by God.' how can a logical debate possibly proceed? We may ask what reasons one has for believing this magic being exists in the first place and that it even made such a statement, but then the inevitable reply is 'faith'. They don't need evidence, since they strongly believe this supernatural being does exist.

[Mighty AC]

Humans are the dominant species of the planet. Do you think it is a coincidence that we happen to be the most intelligent?

Arthropods outnumber mammals (including humans) 312 to 1.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not.

That's right, it's not, so please leave the U.S. out of your war against religion in the public sphere. Hope you don't mind that we sent some religion to Mars....the Curiosity rover's camera calibration panel has a 1909 Lincoln cent with "IN GOD WE TRUST" above "LIBERTY", as they are not mutually exclusive.

[Mighty AC]

That's right, it's not, so please leave the U.S. out of your war against religion in the public sphere.

On this forum we regularly comment on the affairs of other nations, the US does not deserve or require special protection. Canada and the US have a pervasive trade relationship, a long shared border, overlapping cultures, shared air, water, resources and many integrated policies. My desire to see skepticism and reason increase in the US stems partially from a concern for US citizens but is mainly due to the impact US culture and policy has on the rest of the world.

[bush_cheney2004]

On this forum we regularly comment on the affairs of other nations, the US does not deserve or require special protection.

OK...clearly I must have misinterpreted your reference above to Canada and the U.S. when it comes to the "indoctrination" of Canadians.

.... My desire to see skepticism and reason increase in the US stems partially from a concern for US citizens but is mainly due to the impact US culture and policy has on the rest of the world.

Good...this is exactly the response I expected. How do you reconcile such disparate impact of such a "God fearing" nation "on the rest of the world" compared to more "secular" nations ? Environics polls demonstrate that Canada is a less religious nation than the U.S., but it is not clear that this has lead to distinct advantages in trade, protection of natural resources, or policies vis-a-vis the United States.

Edited August 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[jacee]

Well I see bc has again derailed the thread to the only topic he can discuss.

They pay you for that?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well I see bc has again derailed the thread to the only topic he can discuss.

They pay you for that?

Actually, it is quite on topic, as apparently the U.S. matters to the "indoctrination" of Canadians and potential emigres from "around the world". I suppose U.S. immigration policies could also look at excluding people who believe in the monarchy, royal jelly, and the mating habits of the European 1%. Would make as much sense as screening for religious beliefs, which are actually protected as a Charter Right.

Edited August 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[overthere]

I don't care what immigrants think. I care what they do. Here is what they have to do, and it is the exact same thing that citizens have to do:

Work

Pay Taxes

Obey the laws of Canada

Beyond that, do what you wish and enjoy your privileged life here.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't care what immigrants think. I care what they do. Here is what they have to do, and it is the exact same thing that citizens have to do:

Work

Pay Taxes

Obey the laws of Canada

Beyond that, do what you wish and enjoy your privileged life here.

Pretty much...and what most immigrants have always done in Canada and the U.S. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Mighty AC]

OK...clearly I must have misinterpreted your reference above to Canada and the U.S. when it comes to the "indoctrination" of Canadians.

Yes you have. A more secular Canada will lead to fewer Canadians being indoctrinated. As more secular US will lead to few US citizens being indoctrinated.

How do you reconcile such disparate impact of such a "God fearing" nation "on the rest of the world" compared to more "secular" nations ?

As stated, I believe reasonable debate cannot proceed when non-evidential appeals to the supernatural are included and accepted by so many. For example, powerful policy makers like Rick Santorum cite scripture as evidence that humans cannot affect climate change. The high level of religiosity in the US has created a situation where challenging data and evidence with religious beliefs is not only accepted but applauded.

The massive US economy means US policy affects the entire world. US Climate policy as mentioned above, and environmental decisions in general, affects Canada and the rest of the world. Restrictions on stem cell research affect the world. Requirements that African aid not be spent on birth control increase the spread of STDs.

Nations will always make policy decisions that harm others. However, when those decisions are impacted by the believed wishes of a supernatural being rather than rational evaluation of arguments and data, we all lose. Reasonable discussion cannot proceed when appeals to faith are made.

[bush_cheney2004]

As stated, I believe reasonable debate cannot proceed when non-evidential appeals to the supernatural are included and accepted by so many. For example, powerful policy makers like Rick Santorum cite scripture as evidence that humans cannot affect climate change. The high level of religiosity in the US has created a situation where challenging data and evidence with religious beliefs is not only accepted but applauded.

And yet you have chosen not to explain the dominance of U.S. research, development, and execution of such policies concurrent with the impact of religious beliefs at the local, state, and federal level. Simply put, why don't more "secular" nations have more impact on "data and evidence" ? The "Godless" Soviets also did well, but no longer exist and arguably did not do as well as the religious Americans.....there is no correlation to a supernatural penalty.

For instance, one of my favorite references in such discussions involves the abundance of climate research provided by the religious "denier nation" (United States). The practical reality is that the impact of religion in the U.S. has not deterred billions in government and private investment, far more per capita than in "secular" nations.

The massive US economy means US policy affects the entire world. US Climate policy as mentioned above, and environmental decisions in general, affects Canada and the rest of the world. Restrictions on stem cell research affect the world. Requirements that African aid not be spent on birth control increase the spread of STDs.

The U.S. does not exist in a vacuum, and its policies compete with those of other nations, including those espousing to be "secular". Again, why are U.S. policies and restrictions perceived to dominate over the much larger domain that is the "rest of the world", secular or otherwise ?

Nations will always make policy decisions that harm others. However, when those decisions are impacted by the believed wishes of a supernatural being rather than rational evaluation of arguments and data, we all lose. Reasonable discussion cannot proceed when appeals to faith are made.

No, this is not the case for many nations and for the U.S. specifically, which was founded on the basic concepts of natural rights and religious freedom. The U.S. proceeded to develop into the current world hegemon that it is concurrent with strong "religiosity" and faith in a "supernatural being" across many religions and cultures.

Excluding certain immigrants because of religious belief systems is not only inconsistent with Charter / Constitutional rights, such a policy would prove to be counterproductive to nations that depend on the contributions of such immigrants at all levels of education and commerce. The hard lessons of discriminatory immigration barriers are easy to find in Canadian and U.S. history.

Edited August 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

That's right, it's not, so please leave the U.S. out of your war against religion in the public sphere. Hope you don't mind that we sent some religion to Mars....the Curiosity rover's camera calibration panel has a 1909 Lincoln cent with "IN GOD WE TRUST" above "LIBERTY", as they are not mutually exclusive.

They sure as hell can be if you don't happen to buy into the particular "God" you speak of. why bother spending money to send that nonsense fruther afield all the way to another planet?

[-1=e^ipi]

You base your immigration proposal on the theory that all Muslims are terrorists.

Untrue claim.

1) that is ridiculous

Why?

2) your 'rules' would discriminate against people who are already part of our society, and many others who are not terrorists

No it would not. Because it would only apply to people who wish to immigrate to Canada. If someone is already a Canadian Citizen it cannot apply to them.

3) your 'rules' violate fundamental freedoms upon which our society is based ... like the freedom to believe in the Great Pumpkin if we wish.

How does my suggestion violate freedom of belief?

4) Hitler and other supremacist thinkers might approve of your discriminatory 'rules' , but they're not great role models.

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

5) If you want to keep terrorists out, keep terrorists out ... but don't discriminate against innocent people because of their religion.

I think that it is desirable to keep religious extremism out. What do you think homegrown terrorism is? Do you think it just pops into existence from nowhere? Why are there so many foreign fighters from the West currently fighting for ISIS?

6) If you make such discriminatory 'rules', somebody just might decide that you are, in fact, highly undesirable and make a 'rule' against you.

There are already plenty of discriminatory rules against me in society, but that's besides the topic being discussed.

If Saudi Arabia or Iran want to create a rule that only people that believe in the Shahada can immigrate to their counties, then so be it.