How many would actually oppose this immigration restriction?

[waldo]

Yes, it is called the fossil record:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

Also, the ERV similarities between chimpanzees and humans is very compelling:

http://www.skepticink.com/humesapprentice/2013/10/18/proving-darwin-fun-with-endogenous-retroviruses/

then why do you make the distinction between "your question"... and one (evolution theory based) that you categorically make distinction to; i.e., your phrased "It wasn't 'accept the theory of evolution'."

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

[guyser]

Q?

What happens if the answer to this. ..."'humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor'...is " Yes, God made them both." ?

[TimG]

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

What are you talking about? The evidence shows quite unambiguously that humans are NOT equal across a wide variety of measures. Any argument supporting the assertion that "humans are equal" is an argument that asks people to ignore the evidence and choose to believe something that is obviously not true. There are obviously rational arguments that one can make to explain why it is a good idea to believe something which is obviously not true but these arguments are not materially different from the arguments one could use to argue the benefits of believing in a higher power.

You keep trying to make an artificial distinction between the ethical frameworks that the religious use and the frameworks that you prefer. The distinction is an illusion - all ethical frameworks require the acceptance of unproveable assertions that form the basis for the framework. There is nothing inherently superior about a atheistic ethical framework. The differences come down to how a person manages the conflict between the assertions that underpin their framework and the real world.

Edited August 21, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

The U.S. is less secular than Canada and many other nations, but it invests in and yields much more "data and evidence". I say again...no strong correlation has been demonstrated.

I didn't claim religion had anything to do with investigating climate change. I said religion is being used as one of the arguments against climate change mitigation by US policymakers. Religion is relevant in the fight against climate action and the EPA, and is an example of how US religiosity can affect other nations. Granted that fossil fuel industry funded misinformation campaigns play a larger role, but powerful members of the GOP do slam environmental topics and climate change action using religious arguments.

The Bush administration allowed religious arguments to interfere with medical research and foreign aid spending. Both cases in which the religiosity of the US affects other nations.

[Mighty AC]

What are you talking about? The evidence shows quite unambiguously that humans are NOT equal across a wide variety of measures. Any argument supporting the assertion that "humans are equal" is an argument that asks people to ignore the evidence and choose to believe something that is obviously not true.

Nobody is claiming that all people are equal in all things, nor is any ethical framework. The statement simply means all people should have equal rights and freedoms. However, if for some reason you want that statement to actually mean all people are equal in every way then we can still debate the argument. We could both find arguments to disprove it quickly and then we would move on.

The statement that a god exists or that Jesus is a savior is still just a simple assertion. Any attempt to debate it leads to an appeal to faith.

You keep trying to make an artificial distinction between the ethical frameworks that the religious use and the frameworks that you prefer.

I am not working from any specific ethical framework. I also don't believe religions are the source of ethics, humans are. Which is why the religious can cherry pick which scriptures they adhere to and which they pretend do not exist.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The Bush administration allowed religious arguments to interfere with medical research and foreign aid spending. Both cases in which the religiosity of the US affects other nations.

If the religiosity of the U.S. affects other nations, then it does not speak well for the net influence of secularists. Policy decisions in the U.S. are not made based purely on evidence and data, if only because the flow of government funding is far more political, regardless of religious views. It is a common mistake by many people to assume that the U.S. would quickly change course on climate change policies if only the "religious nuts" or GOP would get out of the way. Climate change policies will not be made by climate scientists, nor should they be.

U.S. foreign aid is not primarily for the benefit of the receiving nation, but rather for the benefit of U.S. policy interests. Politics matters...religion matters...data is processed as information to influence but not dictate such decisions.

Edited August 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

The statement simply means all people should have equal rights and freedoms.

Then why isn't a different word for homosexual marriage with equal rights an acceptable compromise? Why do advocates insist on using the same word? Perhaps it is because simply having "equal rights and freedoms" is not enough for many people. They want more because they want society to affirm their world view (just like some of the religious).

The statement that a god exists or that Jesus is a savior is still just a simple assertion. Any attempt to debate it leads to an appeal to faith.

But that is the point - every ethical framework requires that one accept assertions on faith. If you explained your own framework I am sure I would eventually find the assertions that you accept on faith but don't realize it. You just have a problem with assertions that include a higher power.

I am not working from any specific ethical framework. I also don't believe religions are the source of ethics, humans are.

Then you don't understand what you are arguing against. At their core all religions are an ethical framework. They give a rational for acting in ethical ways. They also pick up a lot of historical baggage and different people are better at separating the baggage from the core values. But the existence of historical baggage does not invalidate the ethical framework which is the core of every religion. Edited August 21, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

then why do you make the distinction between "your question"... and one (evolution theory based) that you categorically make distinction to; i.e., your phrased "It wasn't 'accept the theory of evolution'."

Because a belief in evolution doesn't not necessarily imply a belief that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. They are different things.

[guyser]

Then why isn't a different word for homosexual marriage with equal rights an acceptable compromise? Why do advocates insist on using the same word?

I dunno, maybe because the word marriage is in the law ? As in civil marriage act ? A marriage was always between two people until it was corrected, but it was and always will be a marriage. Still two people getting hitched.

I guess we could call a zebra a striped horse, but whats the use?

Unless of course one doesnt consider a gay marriage a real marriage.

[waldo]

Because a belief in evolution doesn't not necessarily imply a belief that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. They are different things.

what part of evolutionary theory holds that humans and apes/chimps do not share a common ancestor... how widespread is that understanding/hold... and how accepted is it?

[Bonam]

One could make a strong argument that culturally-relativist multiculturalism has failed in France, Germany & Britain. But it hasn't failed in Canada or the US... yet. Do you really want to wait for it to 'fail' before addressing the problem?

No they want to wait for it to fail and then keep waiting some more, until it can no longer be addressed at all.

[dre]

I think it would make a lot more sense to just try harder at weeding out real radicals, and people who wont follow Canadas laws. We already do a pretty good job, but maybe we should try harder.

[-1=e^ipi]

what part of evolutionary theory holds that humans and apes/chimps do not share a common ancestor... how widespread is that understanding/hold... and how accepted is it?

No part of the theory of evolution implies that humans and apes do not share a common ancestor, but belief in evolution does not imply the belief that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

Look, to believe in the theory of evolution means that you believe that through the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection, species may change over time, and perhaps into new species.

The theory of evolution does not on its own necessarily imply that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, that horses and zebras have a common ancestor, or that pine trees and apple trees have a common ancestor. For that you would need empirical evidence.

For example, one could be a young Earth creationist and still believe in the theory of evolution. The young Earth creationist can recognize that species can change over time through these natural processes, but claim that there hasn't been sufficient time over the past 6,000 years for the majority of life on Earth to share a common ancestor. When confronted with empirical evidence to the contrary, the young Earth creationist can merely disregard the evidence.

In Islam, it is very possible to believe in the theory of evolution but not believe that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. A Muslim can claim that all creatures, with the exception of humans, share a common ancestor, and that all these creatures can change over time through natural processes. But at the same time hold that Humans were directly created by Allah out of mud and therefore humans are special.

[jacee]

-1=e^ipi, on 21 Aug 2014 - 1:52 PM, said:One could make a strong argument that culturally-relativist multiculturalism has failed in France, Germany & Britain. But it hasn't failed in Canada or the US... yet. Do you really want to wait for it to 'fail' before addressing the problem?

No they want to wait for it to fail and then keep waiting some more, until it can no longer be addressed at all.

Be addressed ... how?

I'm finding the plethora of 'debates' on "multiculturalism" here rather ridiculous.

Every country is 'multicultural'.

There is no way to change that.

There is no reason to change that.

There's always a backlash from ... some people ... against the newest waves of immigrants.

Discussions of "multiculturalism" are just attempts to disguise discrimination and racism, imo.

Those still seeking the mythical 'white nation' are just pathetic.

Oh ... and -1 ... it's quite interesting that Stephen Harper would likely fail your proposed immigration question.

.

Edited August 22, 2014 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

Then why isn't a different word for homosexual marriage with equal rights an acceptable compromise? Why do advocates insist on using the same word? Perhaps it is because simply having "equal rights and freedoms" is not enough for many people. They want more because they want society to affirm their world view (just like some of the religious).

This can also be debated logically without appeals to the wishes of magic men. Considering that homosexuality is a not a choice and it is still a couple entering into at least the intent of a lifetime contract, is there any reason to use a different term than marriage?

But that is the point - every ethical framework requires that one accept assertions on faith. If you explained your own framework I am sure I would eventually find the assertions that you accept on faith but don't realize it. You just have a problem with assertions that include a higher power.

I'm not aware of any faith claims in my personal ethical framework, though I admit it is harder to examine yourself. The framework I deal in tends to work on a case by case basis. I do believe that neurobiological advancements that have allowed us to start quantifying emotional and subconscious responses has really broken the perceived barriers between science and philosophy. I think that despite our psychological short comings we will soon be able to map out universal ethics based in the maximization of human well being. We don't have Muslim mathematics and Christian physics, just math and physics. One day we will no longer have Muslim ethics and Christian ethics, just ethics. This is really Sam Harris's idea, but, in theory, I really like it. I'm always interested in pursuing this type of debate, but it is probably better suited for a different thread. This one is dedicated to the idea of discriminatory immigration practices.

At their core all religions are an ethical framework. They give a rational for acting in ethical ways.

Granted religions provide many rules, but humans, over time. have decided to ignore most of them as they become 'unethical'. If this religious framework evolves over time as secular morality progresses is the religion really the scaffolding for ethical views or do cultures and societal values really lay the groundwork? Again, this may be something worth pursuing in another thread.

[Mighty AC]

Policy decisions in the U.S. are not made based purely on evidence and data, if only because the flow of government funding is far more political, regardless of religious views. It is a common mistake by many people to assume that the U.S. would quickly change course on climate change policies if only the "religious nuts" or GOP would get out of the way. Climate change policies will not be made by climate scientists, nor should they be.

I agree. Politics, backscratching, favours, leverage, FUNDING, etc. all play such a big role is what gets done. However, at the root they somewhat argue over data, figures, observations and evidence. I really don't like clouding the core evidence with appeals to the supernatural.

If religion was less political, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. If there weren't powerful forces inserting religion into science classrooms, discriminating against homosexuals, denouncing scientific data, killing doctors, belittling women, beheading infidels, etc. I'd have no interest in anyone's 'spiritual' beliefs. To me they would be on par with something like Feng Shui, astrology or Reiki. To the religious I'd be a heathen missing out on the really important aspects of life...but I think we'd coexist just fine. However, public policy would be less side tracked by personal mystic BS and handled by power, money and influence...the true god of today.

U.S. foreign aid is not primarily for the benefit of the receiving nation, but rather for the benefit of U.S. policy interests. Politics matters...religion matters...data is processed as information to influence but not dictate such decisions.

I agree again, though hopefully you're willing to concede that religion only matters because it pleases the plebeians.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm finding the plethora of 'debates' on "multiculturalism" here rather ridiculous.

Every country is 'multicultural'.

There is no way to change that.

There is no reason to change that.

Why do you refuse to distinguish between different types of multiculturalism?

Did you not notice that I was referring to 'culturally-relativist multiculturalism' rather than all forms of multiculturalism?

[Mighty AC]

Because a belief in evolution doesn't not necessarily imply a belief that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. They are different things.

What is you ultimate goal here? Your question makes it seem like you are mainly opposed to creationist Christians. If you truly want to keep out Islamic extremists couldn't you just prohibit migrants from middle eastern nations? Sure we'd exclude some good apples but based on your proposed solution do you really care?

[-1=e^ipi]

This one is dedicated to the idea of discriminatory immigration practices.

Is the requirement for new citizens to pledge allegiance to the Queen a discriminatory practice? Why or why not?

[-1=e^ipi]

What is you ultimate goal here?

Reduce the flow of religious radicals to western countries in order to reduce homegrown terrorism and also to enable these countries to respond to various foreign threats without a significant democratic bloc preventing it.

If you truly want to keep out Islamic extremists couldn't you just prohibit migrants from middle eastern nations?

Not everyone from middle eastern nations is a religious extremist. Many want to escape religious extremism and be productive members of society. Furthermore, not all religious extremists are from the middle east.

The other problem is that if you try to implement country restrictions then all the 'progressives' will call you a 'racist', so it would be difficult to implement politically. But if the requirement is simply to accept the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, such accusations are harder to make.

[Mighty AC]

Is the requirement for new citizens to pledge allegiance to the Queen a discriminatory practice? Why or why not?

Interesting question. Does pledging allegiance to a British monarch discriminate against a class of people? I don't think so. Is it possible that misogynists are currently offended by this? I suppose so...but I don't like most people and especially not a-holes so I don't really care.

On a side note would I like Canada to severe any formal ties to the Brits and become it's own republic? Yes. Our history will always include the Brits mostly defeating the French and piecing together our nation. However, we no longer benefit from an association to our founding empire. It's time to move, but we'll still be friends....really, we'll call them...I promise.

[Mighty AC]

But if the requirement is simply to accept the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, such accusations are harder to make.

So you believe religious extremists want to setup shop in Canada but will be thwarted by an honest answer to your chimp question? Do you also believe undercover drug operations can be thwarted by asking everyone if they are really a cop?

[waldo]

what part of evolutionary theory holds that humans and apes/chimps do not share a common ancestor... how widespread is that understanding/hold... and how accepted is it?

No part of the theory of evolution implies that humans and apes do not share a common ancestor,...

zactly! You could have... should have... stopped right there and acknowledged your selectively targeted anti-immigration question/OP is failed.

...but belief in evolution does not imply the belief that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

the theory of evolution does not allow you to carve out selectively targeted anti-immigration "story-telling narratives/beliefs" - the theory is the theory.

[eyeball]

Is the requirement for new citizens to pledge allegiance to the Queen a discriminatory practice? Why or why not?

It's discriminatory because any old citizen can tell the Queen to go fill-in-blank-here and not a thing will happen to them whereas the new citizen will be turfed.

[-1=e^ipi]

Interesting question. Does pledging allegiance to a British monarch discriminate against a class of people?

1. Something has to discriminate against a 'class' of people to be discriminatory now?

2. Could you define these classes of people for me? I know Trudeau tried to define the 'middle class' as 'anyone not living off of their savings'.

3. These people certainly think it is discriminatory:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/would-be-citizens-fight-oath-to-the-queen-1.1364055

So you believe religious extremists want to setup shop in Canada but will be thwarted by an honest answer to your chimp question?

It will reduce the flow of radical religious people into Canada yes. Completely thwarted? I never made such a claim, nor is that necessary to reduce future terrorism and extremism.