The Ill feeling between left and right on immigration

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's hard to tell whether you hate White people or like them sometimes.  No matter, your views are overrepresented on this forum and would not be picked up by any party hoping for election.

Wanna bet? I said some time ago that if Canada brought in a new system of electing MPs based on proportional rep that the first new party would be an anti-immigration party. We see them rising in every western country. The reason Australia's PM just announced that his government was going to make it more difficult to become an Australian citizen was to draw support away from the rising far-right nationalist parties in Australia.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This country was founded on 3 cultures and until recently it was the French Canadians that were going to destroy Canada.  I would call your plaint "crying (General) Wolfe"

Realistically, it was founded on two cultures. Nobody gave a damn about the natives and whatever their cultures might be.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Optimism also plays a role. Conservatives tend to be gloomier, glass half empty types - they would perhaps say more realistic. 

Closed types tend to be more small c conservative in all things, not just politics, valuing tradition, being careful, not taking unnecessary chances weighing risks vs rewards carefully. My very liberal friend doesn't even lock his door. I not only lock my door, but I have bars on he basement windows and alarms on all doors and windows. When I bought my first house I got earthquake coverage for the insurance. When I buy a car, the most important elements of my selection are reliability and safety.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

1.  The Catholics were and are one of the many faces of Christianity.  You can certainly identify them as "not being really Christian", but that's exactly the same excuse some Muslims use when presented with evidence of what other Muslims do.

2.  I rarely look at Catholics; I'm much more familiar with evangelical Christians.

3.  Church of Mormon, especially the sect that follows polygamy.  Hutterites, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Coptic Christians, Christians in third world countries.   Many Christian churches within Canada and the US support the patriarchal idea that women should submit to their husbands and should dress 'modestly'; should a woman fail to follow these guidelines, she may be 'talked to' or shunned by other church members. 

4.  In Uganda in 2014, the Christian government tried to pass a law making homosexuality a capital offense; they were fully supported by American Christian politicians.  After an international outcry, they backed down and decided to only jail them for life.  Nonetheless, many Christian Ugandans still think gays ought to be killed and some are doing so.  There are Christian groups in the same area of the world who behave much as ISIS does; they just don't get the attention that ISIS does.   

Yes, you can say all these examples aren't 'really Christians' all you want.  I would call them 'conservative' Christians because they cling to old ways, rather than embracing change and progress.   I would call progressive the Christians who accept and even ordain gays, who don't even mention women's duty to submit to their husbands, who don't criticize or shun women who dress less modestly.   Same for Muslims: there are individuals and groups who are working to bring an end to conservative Muslim beliefs.   In my opinion, it's conservatives and conservative religious people who are the bane of a tolerant and free society.   It's progressives, those who aren't afraid of change, who challenge the status quo who bring the world forward - whether it's fighting for the right of women to vote in Canada in 1916, or fighting to allow women to drive in Saudi Arabia today.   Same with gay rights in the Western world, and in the developing countries.  Conservatives fight to keep things the same; they have objected to women's rights, black rights, gay rights, LGBT rights, and immigration - and many have used and still use the Bible to do so.

1.   "exactly the same excuse"       It's not really an excuse.   It is based on the interpretation of the Bible.  There has to be a basis for a religion.  In christianity, the basis is the bible because the bible contains the original teachings of Christ, the central figure of christianity.   If a large denomination such as the Roman church chooses not to follow the basic teachings, then that church can hardly be described as a model christian church and one on which to form a legitimate opinion of what real christianity is.   Would you agree? 

You can't compare this situation with Islam because the problem is different.

In Islam, the basis of what they believe is the Quran and Hadiths.   If the Quran and Hadiths have a major teaching which is repeated throughout the writings, and 75% or 95% choose not to follow it, that does not change the fact that the teachings are still there.  Would you agree?  So whether the 75% say the minority are not Muslims, in the end the teachings are still there in the holy books.  It depends on how one wishes to interpret them.

So trying to compare christianity with Islam is like trying to compare apples and oranges.  They have different sets of issues that are not comparable.

Point 3.  You mentioned a number of cults.  These are denominations whose doctrines are contrary to the basic teachings of the bible.  Most mainline churches agree on what group is a cult.  So there is not much point in mentioning cults as an example.  They represent only a small percentage of christendom.  They are not considered as part of evangelical christendom.   I think Mormonism practiced polygamy in Utah at one time, but it has been outlawed.  Two men in B.C. are presently being tried in court for polygamy in a small sect in southeaster B.C.  These are only a few people and do not represent the hundreds of millions of nominal christians in the world.  There are no churches that practice or approve of polygamy in the world today.

Yes you are correct christianity believes that a woman should be submissive to her husband.  This is taught in the bible. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."   Then a very important verse follows:  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"  Ephesians ch5 vs 22-25

But the bible also teaches christians are to be submissive to each other.  "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."  Ephesians ch5 vs 21.

Wives being submissive does not mean slavery.  Each partner has their role to play.  Husbands must love their wives as their own body (Eph. 5:28-32)

I know this is contrary to women's lib and feminism, but this is how God created man and woman.  Each has a special role in marriage for the success of the family, which is the building block of society.

Point 4.  Yes there are some perverse things going on in Uganda and other places in the name of christianity.  Personally I reject the idea of laws against homosexuals.  This is a cruel and hateful system we see there.  I don't know what American preachers agreed with that.  I have not heard of it.  There might be the odd one, but I don't think it is common.  It is heretical.  I don't believe most christians would agree with imprisoning or punishing homosexuals in any way.  It is not the way people should be treated.  I know there are some people claiming to be christian in some African countries that have some very extremist views.  It is sad really.

 

[Argus]

14 hours ago, dialamah said:

Nah, just eradicate conservatives.   Religious people who are also progressive are fine.  

One of the points Haidr makes in how open types (liberals) place so little value on ingroup loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity, is that without these values you basically have no real society. It is these values which allowed civilization to flourish and grow, which allowed the building of cities and then nations, which allow for organization and enterprise. Liberals, possessing only the first two values of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity can exist and thrive without the societies that are already there, but they could never build them, and can't run them very well, or rather, will inevitably run them off a cliff.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

Realistically, it was founded on two cultures. Nobody gave a damn about the natives and whatever their cultures might be.

Uh, no.  Mohawks, for example, were awarded status for assisting with fighting the Americans.

[eyeball]

.

Edited April 20, 2017 by eyeball

[Argus]

14 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If we could eradicate religion, we could probably figure out the rest.

The Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists have pretty much eradicated religion. Do you think those societies worked well?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

The Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists have pretty much eradicated religion. Do you think those societies worked well?

It would have to cover everyone.  Then we could work on the isms.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, kactus said:

Realistically, people with positivity have a better chance to overcome obstacles...Just saying.....  

Realistically, too much of a positive attitude leaves you wholly unprepared for obstacles. Another of Haidr's topics is the absolute lack of emotional preparedness of today's university students. Having been coddled all their lives, having been never allowed out on their own to make their own decisions, having been supervised by adults and authority figures all their lives, they get to university and demand more supervision, demand the university take care of all emotional and ideological challenges to their viewpoints on life.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Uh, no.  Mohawks, for example, were awarded status for assisting with fighting the Americans.

That's nice but irrelevant. The Mohawks were sent out to their reserves and took no part in the political and social development of Canada. Nobody cared what they wanted or what they were doing. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

 When I buy a car, the most important elements of my selection are reliability and safety.

Me too.  I can't imagine considering anything else when buying a car.  Maybe the colour.

[SpankyMcFarland]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

There have been periods in history when the Roman Church did impose it's brand of christianity on the population.  But this was not biblical christianity as Jesus taught.  You have to understand the difference.  Christianity as practiced in the beginning of the church age about 2000 to 1700 years ago was nothing like the Roman church's christianity practiced throughout the Holy Roman Empire after the Roman church became established several hundred years after Christ.   Rome set up the Holy Office to run the Inquisition for hundreds of years.  Many "heretics" were tortured and burned at the stake.  Many people believe this was christianity but it was the furthest thing from it.  There were several small sects who did not recognize the Pope or the RC Church but practiced christianity and followed the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in parts of Europe.  They were eventually hunted down by Rome and killed.  Biblical christianity does not oppress women or "impose" christianity on non-believers.  Again you have to distinguish the Roman Catholic church down through the ages from small groups of true bible believers.  True biblical christianity cannot be understood by looking at the big Roman church or the Eastern Orthodox or Russian Orthodox.  These are a different thing from bible believing christians.   Bible believing christians do not oppress other people or force them to become christians.  Jesus and the apostles never did that either.  People that used violence in the past to impose christianity or oppress people are not genuine believers but are in a cult or false religion masquerading as christianity.

 

We are going to rehash the Reformation debate here. I don't know who these true biblical sects are. Apart from the Quakers, I can't think of anyone else who has set a really good example. The followers of Luther and Calvin were just as happy to kill heretics as the Catholics were.  

Anyone who takes an ancient religious book literally is bonkers. The Jews have lots of commentaries on what was 'really' meant in the scripture and that's how they all should be read.

 

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Refer to the OP. Open people love variety and change and diversity, and do not value loyalty much. That is why liberals love immigration, because it brings all those things. They don't really care about the economics of it, since that is just the excuse. As to the impact it might have on Canada's culture, again they don't care. Change is good, and since they have little loyalty or nationalism they don't really care about importing vast numbers of foreigners who might not ever assimilate.

Well, I don't really give a damn about "loyalty" to any arbitrary group either. And change and diversity are nice, I don't mind them. But what I do care about is my own self-interest. Change for the better is great, change for the worse is not. Anyone with a brain should evaluate immigration not on the basis of emotions like "loyalty" or vague concepts like "fairness" or "sanctity" that you mention in your OP, but based on whether it will make Canada a better country or not in the future. Better means better economically, environmentally, socially, etc. If we bring in a million people a year from third world countries, Canada will quickly become a third world country. If we bring in zero people from anywhere, the population will dwindle rapidly and we'll quickly have abandoned and decaying cities everywhere. Somewhere in between in terms of numbers and immigration criteria is the right answer. Where exactly that optimum is should be a matter of reasoned debate backed up by factual evidence, not emotion. 

[Argus]

48 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Well, I don't really give a damn about "loyalty" to any arbitrary group either. And change and diversity are nice, I don't mind them. But what I do care about is my own self-interest. Change for the better is great, change for the worse is not. Anyone with a brain should evaluate immigration not on the basis of emotions like "loyalty" or vague concepts like "fairness" or "sanctity" that you mention in your OP, but based on whether it will make Canada a better country or not in the future.

Agreed. But one of the points Haidr makes is that we all evaluate evidence according to our own innate values and beliefs. It's very easy for us to believe what we want to believe, and to ignore what we don't. If we are dead set in favour of change and diversity and novelty then we're going to embrace whatever evidence we are given that immigration is good for Canada, and largely discount the other evidence as coming from "racists and xenophobes".  That is the problem with the dialogue over immigration. The Left simply does not care what evidence you produce because they will discount anything which they don't want to hear.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

 Nobody cared what they wanted or what they were doing. 

Giving them land = caring what they wanted.  They even complained that they were given the wrong land, and were given additional land.  Can you concede at least that ?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Giving them land = caring what they wanted.  They even complained that they were given the wrong land, and were given additional land.  Can you concede at least that ?

The government wanted to get rid of them. Not that the natives were exactly ready or eager or even willing to come and live among Canadian towns and cities at the time, of course. But the point remains that the only reason they're out on reserves is for them to live their lives AWAY from the Canadian people. That was the thinking at the time. That was why there are reserves in Canada and the US.

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

We are going to rehash the Reformation debate here. I don't know who these true biblical sects are. Apart from the Quakers, I can't think of anyone else who has set a really good example. The followers of Luther and Calvin were just as happy to kill heretics as the Catholics were.  

Anyone who takes an ancient religious book literally is bonkers. The Jews have lots of commentaries on what was 'really' meant in the scripture and that's how they all should be read.

 

I wasn't intending to rehash the Reformation, but because of Dialamah's allegations, it was necessary to go into some detail in order to properly reply.  That's the way it is.  If someone makes a number of comments, then it often takes a long reply.

No, Luther and Calvin did not kill heretics.  Try googling the Inquisition and then google the Spanish Inquisition.  I believe the Inquisitions went on for hundreds of years.  The Spanish Inquisition was particularly brutal.  There may have been tens of thousands killed;  some claim millions across Europe, but I am not an expert on the numbers.   Luther and Calvin were not in the business of running inquisitions or burning heretics.  I have no knowledge of Calvin or Luther killing heretics except for one case in Geneva where Calvin was located.  An Arminian named Servitus was executed or burned at the stake for heresy I believe.  But he was not a Roman Catholic; he may have been a baptist.

But don't forget the Huegenots in France.  They were a Protestant sect.  The Roman Catholics rose up one day and by surprise slaughtered many or most of them on the St. Bartholemews Day massacre. Then there was the Albengenses who were also wiped out.

Wikipedia says:

The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish: Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición), commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition (Inquisición española), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. The "Spanish Inquisition" may be defined broadly, operating "in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America."

 

 

 

.

Edited April 20, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

25 minutes ago, blackbird said:

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The followers of Luther and Calvin were just as happy to kill heretics as the Catholics were. 

That is completely false. Obviously you don't know the history.

 

 

..

 

[Moonlight Graham]

19 hours ago, dialamah said:

 Christianity is no better than Islam in its inherent patriarchy and tendency to oppress those who don't follow their religious dogma.  

Christianity is patriarchal but it's better than Islam that way.  Segregation, face coverings, male chaperones whenever a woman is allowed to go in public...that's pretty extreme. Not all Muslims in the ME do this but it's not insignificant.

[dialamah]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

"exactly the same excuse"       It's not really an excuse.   It is based on the interpretation of the Bible

Exactly what many Muslims say:  "They aren't following the Quran, therefore they aren't true Muslims".  

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

So trying to compare christianity with Islam is like trying to compare apples and oranges.  They have different sets of issues that are not comparable.

 

 

When my Muslim brother-in-law started telling me what he believed, I was amazed at how very similar to Christianity it was.  

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

You mentioned a number of cults. 

They consider themselves Christians, and they tell me that you have the wrong interpretation of what it means to be Christian.   You all say the same things.

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Yes you are correct christianity believes that a woman should be submissive to her husband. 

I'm aware.  Previously, this meant that women could not vote and that their 'Christian' husbands had the right to discipline them, or rape them.  Only through secular pressure have those husbandly "rights" been eliminated in Western society.  It certainly wasn't because the Christian Church had any interest in allowing women equal rights.

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

I know this is contrary to women's lib and feminism, but this is how God created man and woman.  Each has a special role in marriage for the success of the family, which is the building block of society.

 

 

Exactly what devout Muslims say!

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't believe most christians would agree with imprisoning or punishing homosexuals in any way.  It is not the way people should be treated.  

 

1

I agree, with the caveat that this is true of Christians in Western countries much more so than Christians in other countries.  

The more conservative and religious a society is, the more likely that society is going to engage in oppressive behaviors.  It doesn't matter if the religion of choice in that country is Islam or Christianity.   They all use the same arguments to support their oppressive practices; the only difference in the arguments are these words:  Christianity, Islam, Christian, Muslim, God, Allah, Jesus, Mohammed.   

Edited April 21, 2017 by dialamah

[dialamah]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

One of the points Haidr makes in how open types (liberals) place so little value on ingroup loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity, is that without these values you basically have no real society. It is these values which allowed civilization to flourish and grow, which allowed the building of cities and then nations, which allow for organization and enterprise. Liberals, possessing only the first two values of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity can exist and thrive without the societies that are already there, but they could never build them, and can't run them very well, or rather, will inevitably run them off a cliff.

 

1

Not surprisingly, that's not actually what he said.  His point was that both liberal and conservative are needed for a successful, fair and ordered society.   

Quote

Traditional authority, traditional morality can be quite repressive, and restrictive to those at the bottom, to women, to people that don't fit in. So liberals speak for the weak and oppressed. They want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos. This guy's shirt says, "Stop bitching, start a revolution." If you're high in openness to experience, revolution is good, it's change, it's fun. Conservatives, on the other hand, speak for institutions and traditions. They want order, even at some cost to those at the bottom. The great conservative insight is that order is really hard to achieve. It's really precious, and it's really easy to lose. So as Edmund Burke said, "The restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights." This was after the chaos of the French Revolution. So once you see this — once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute, that they form a balance on change versus stability — then I think the way is open to step outside the moral matrix.

 

2

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by dialamah

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Christianity is patriarchal but it's better than Islam that way.  Segregation, face coverings, male chaperones whenever a woman is allowed to go in public...that's pretty extreme. Not all Muslims in the ME do this but it's not insignificant.

 

Depends on how much power the religion has within the society.  In closed Christian societies, women wear very modest clothing, are segregated and not allowed to go into public places without men.  Sometimes they aren't allowed to speak to men outside their family, same as some Muslim women.  The niqab is the only practice that doesn't seem to have appeared in Christian groups, although it does appear in the other Judeo-Christian religion, Judaism.

I agree that at least in Western countries, such extreme practices are much less common - but the point isn't who does it more or who does it less, but that the drivers for that kind of extreme oppression exist in both Muslim and Christian religions when their power is left unchallenged and unchecked.

[Bonam]

20 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Not surprisingly, that's not actually what he said.  His point was that both liberal and conservative are needed for a successful, fair and ordered society.   

Insofar as people pigeon-hole themselves into rigid ideological frameworks, yes, you need both kinds so that society can follow a middle way between the extremes. Of course, it would be nicer if people could use their brains instead of just throwing their lot in with the entire party line of whoever wins them over on some wedge issue. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

I wasn't intending to rehash the Reformation, but because of Dialamah's allegations, it was necessary to go into some detail in order to properly reply.  That's the way it is.  If someone makes a number of comments, then it often takes a long reply.

No, Luther and Calvin did not kill heretics.  Try googling the Inquisition and then google the Spanish Inquisition.  I believe the Inquisitions went on for hundreds of years.  The Spanish Inquisition was particularly brutal.  There may have been tens of thousands killed;  some claim millions across Europe, but I am not an expert on the numbers.   Luther and Calvin were not in the business of running inquisitions or burning heretics.  I have no knowledge of Calvin or Luther killing heretics except for one case in Geneva where Calvin was located.  An Arminian named Servitus was executed or burned at the stake for heresy I believe.  But he was not a Roman Catholic; he may have been a baptist.

 

 

 

.

Followers of Luther and Calvin. Not Luther and Calvin. 

So there were no Catholics killed in Europe's religious wars? Catholics were never persecuted in Britain and Ireland? 

This is what religion can do to people if you take it too literally. 

Edited April 21, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland