Statistics, comparisons, contradictions

[Scott Mayers]

On 11/26/2018 at 4:49 PM, Zeitgeist said:

I would argue that many of the Judeo-Christian faiths, Catholic, Jewis, Protestant, etc., can play a productive role in society as long as they don’t spew hatred or exclusion.  You can be an atheist and respect the people and values of faith based organizations, just as you can be a religious person and respect atheists who have the well being of society at heart. I would be careful though about severing too many ties with the cultures that created our great institutions, as you may find that they have shoddy replacements.  

Yes there’s a big pile on against the Catholic Church right now related to abuse by some priests and residential schools, but I also know that the Catholic Church has protected the poor and outcast throughout Central and South America and in Africa. Think of people like Archbishop Romero or Bishop Desmond Tutu. 

Also, be careful about how much you buy into the current narrative on residential schools.  Yes some bad things happened in residential schools and the policy of having them at all, by our standards today, is misguided.  At the time, however, they were supported by the public as a means of providing education and welfare to kids who lived far from schools.  It was seen as a social good.  Also, there were many problems on some reserves with alcoholism and abuse.  We don’t like to discuss this but it’s true.  Early on when the reserve system was set up, and no doubt it’s a messy patchwork, there was always a question as to whether such a system should exist. It’s still controversial. 

Sir John A MacDonald, our first PM, has been accused of genocide because he opposed the idea of indigenous people being provided with food, clothing, etc. He was saying that government shouldn’t get into the business of taking care of one group’s food, housing, etc., because it creates a moral hazard of welfare dependence and is unsustainable. Was he wrong?  Now his statues are being removed. My point is that we should be careful not to rewrite history too quickly because of a vocal perspective that may not tell the whole story. We risk casting unfair judgment and forgetting the reasons for other perspectives.  

I already agree with this too though. The problems associated with the Aboriginals is isolation and poverty. This is only a "First Nations" issue though precisely because we enable a right FOR the Catholic Church's protection via Multiculturalism as an entrenched law. If any specific church is favoured in law, this means we are a theocratic government by law. The only reason Multiculturalism is instituted at all is to preserve consistency with the biases our constitution has for desiring to favour the PARTICULAR powers of that church and the French language in legal isolation. The concept of "Multiculturalism" as defined through the constitution is a smoke screen that PERMANENTLY CONSERVES a right of the traditional religious to utilize different laws for different people in order to have their cake and eat it too. 

They get the benefits SPECIFICALLY but drop the losses GENERALLY to the population as a whole. The Reserve system itself treats the Aboriginals as animals in light of the beliefs of those original Canadian governments. While I agree that the Natives should have been assimilated, the error of the way this assimilation was done was by attempting to alter their culture to the Christian arrogant belief that their ideals uniquely related to modern civilization. This is not the case because the religion is coincidental. Any civilization if repeated FROM any different religious background will also think their particular religion is what makes the civilization 'civil'. The truth is that civilization evolves IN SPITE of whatever artistic beliefs people hold. 

So no, ...we do not OWE anything to the nature of our country's religious roots but to a secular idea that goes against the religious mindset. The crimes against the Natives were about the religious assimilation but is being purposely being treated as though it was about civil assimilation. They are separate factors but are being blurred to hide the actual causation of the abuses. The powers of the government to grant particular churches, let alone ANY churches in general to be responsible for assimilation IS the problem. If we had laws that denied the government to make laws about religion, you'd have to hold accountable any of those churches that the government permitted to assimilate them by using religion as a means to do this. 

Civilization is NOT a 'culture' but an inevitable evolution of any animal that organizes itself intellectually to create a 'government' at all. The con is to treat this 'government' as though it is owed specifically to some supernatural being and to those who believe in it. This is dangerous because when it is empowered to those ruling, it enables them to excuse ANY potential behavior as something INSPIRED by their invisible being's commands and not something negotiated by the secular population. 

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I already agree with this too though. The problems associated with the Aboriginals is isolation and poverty. This is only a "First Nations" issue though precisely because we enable a right FOR the Catholic Church's protection via Multiculturalism as an entrenched law. If any specific church is favoured in law, this means we are a theocratic government by law. The only reason Multiculturalism is instituted at all is to preserve consistency with the biases our constitution has for desiring to favour the PARTICULAR powers of that church and the French language in legal isolation. The concept of "Multiculturalism" as defined through the constitution is a smoke screen that PERMANENTLY CONSERVES a right of the traditional religious to utilize different laws for different people in order to have their cake and eat it too. 

They get the benefits SPECIFICALLY but drop the losses GENERALLY to the population as a whole. The Reserve system itself treats the Aboriginals as animals in light of the beliefs of those original Canadian governments. While I agree that the Natives should have been assimilated, the error of the way this assimilation was done was by attempting to alter their culture to the Christian arrogant belief that their ideals uniquely related to modern civilization. This is not the case because the religion is coincidental. Any civilization if repeated FROM any different religious background will also think their particular religion is what makes the civilization 'civil'. The truth is that civilization evolves IN SPITE of whatever artistic beliefs people hold. 

So no, ...we do not OWE anything to the nature of our country's religious roots but to a secular idea that goes against the religious mindset. The crimes against the Natives were about the religious assimilation but is being purposely being treated as though it was about civil assimilation. They are separate factors but are being blurred to hide the actual causation of the abuses. The powers of the government to grant particular churches, let alone ANY churches in general to be responsible for assimilation IS the problem. If we had laws that denied the government to make laws about religion, you'd have to hold accountable any of those churches that the government permitted to assimilate them by using religion as a means to do this. 

Civilization is NOT a 'culture' but an inevitable evolution of any animal that organizes itself intellectually to create a 'government' at all. The con is to treat this 'government' as though it is owed specifically to some supernatural being and to those who believe in it. This is dangerous because when it is empowered to those ruling, it enables them to excuse ANY potential behavior as something INSPIRED by their invisible being's commands and not something negotiated by the secular population. 

I think you're creating a false dichotomy that religion is separate from culture.  You can't separate atheism or humanism from culture either.  Canada was formed by two major cultural groups.  The country is redolent with the traditions of both nations.  To pretend that Canada would be the same country if it was settled by Indonesian islanders or atheist Maoist Chinese revolutionaries is wrong.  Cultural values set precedents in law and the legislation that is voted in by citizens and supported by the courts (who are also citizens).  Our laws and institutions are absolutely cultural.  These institutions are formed by people for people.  My main point is that, while the values may change someone over time through evolution, cultural exchange, scientific discovery and so forth, if we want to say that there's something distinct that we value about Canada that makes it different from other countries, what is that?  Yes there are universal human values of the sort most developed and even underdeveloped countries would set forth as essential, the kind of statements we would find in a UN charter on human rights.  Yet we know that there is something comforting about our own country/culture that is grounded in history and makes us distinct.  When we describe life in Canada to other people, it will obviously be marked by things like cold long winters, space, raw beauty, maple syrup, hockey and all those stereotypes.  It will also be marked by the tolerance and outward thinking of Multiculturalism.  It will also be marked by the cultural traditions of the two major founding cultures of Canada: England and France.  That includes those countries' cultural traits.  There are also important indigenous components, but indigenous peoples didn't found Parliamentary democracy or the Seigneury system or do the surveying of land plots, roads, and districts that the Royal Engineers completed during early European settlement.  Those systems have served Canada quite well.  I certainly think they're better contributions than many of the alternatives.  If you compare the way that many indigenous people were living during those early times, most of us wouldn't opt for those lifestyles.  We owe what we have in Canada to many factors, but make no mistake, some influences were bigger and more important than others and I'm thankful for many of these influences.  Be careful what you try to dismantle. 

Generally societies that try to blow up the past and start anew quickly become the dystopian rootless countries that people want to flee:  Our major religions in Canada did good and bad things, but we are judging the past through a modern lens.  I think that the intentions at the time were largely positive, though the interventions were misguided by our standards.  At the time that institutions like residential schools existed, they were supported by the society and the churches that operated them.  Were they all bad?  I can't make that absolute judgement.  In some situations the education and experience may have been a leg up for some children from remote communities bereft of education and family/social supports.  It's deeply contextual.  Would most people support such social engineering today?  No way.  it wasn't that long ago that children worked in factories, women didn't vote, there were twelve hour work days, you get the idea.  We are learning and growing as a society, but I'm not sure that we'll leave behind all of the traditions that seem to frustrate you, because they are still valued by many people.  We look upon aspects of the past with disapproval and censure.  On the other hand, sometimes old values are reborn and strengthened, even while some are left behind.  There is such a thing in the human identity that psychologists term the "religious impulse".  We seem to seek out deeper meaning and purpose related to forces greater than ourselves.  That breaks down into many forms in different cultures.  Much as I see the value in Multiculturalism, it should in my eyes be balanced by the cultural values of our founding cultures because I don't think all cultures are of equal value.  Not all are cultures equally healthy, even though there's some value in all cultures and we're all equally human.  Canada may look and feel very different centuries from now and the population may have actively chosen this new way of life.  I also think if we're not careful, we may lose certain healthy ideas about how society should operate and adapt ones that are damaging and worse than what existed.  I see two dangerous pressures right now: global cultural and economic forces that make it hard for Canada to chart its own destiny (particularly from large powers) and reactionary forces within Canada that seek to shut down the positive aspects of global exchange and international rules.  The pressure on the middle class is real.  As economic pressure mounts, the darker sides of cultures emerge.  People need to feel informed and empowered.  Whether they actually are or not is another worry.  Many people today are speaking to groups and clicking their way to ideas that are self-affirming.  Google and AI are applying a new kind of social engineering.  We're in halls of mirrors and need dialogue outside of our comfort zones.

[Scott Mayers]

On 12/2/2018 at 10:11 PM, Zeitgeist said:

I think you're creating a false dichotomy that religion is separate from culture.  You can't separate atheism or humanism from culture either.  Canada was formed by two major cultural groups.  The country is redolent with the traditions of both nations.  To pretend that Canada would be the same country if it was settled by Indonesian islanders or atheist Maoist Chinese revolutionaries is wrong.  Cultural values set precedents in law and the legislation that is voted in by citizens and supported by the courts (who are also citizens).  Our laws and institutions are absolutely cultural.  These institutions are formed by people for people.  My main point is that, while the values may change someone over time through evolution, cultural exchange, scientific discovery and so forth, if we want to say that there's something distinct that we value about Canada that makes it different from other countries, what is that?  Yes there are universal human values of the sort most developed and even underdeveloped countries would set forth as essential, the kind of statements we would find in a UN charter on human rights.  Yet we know that there is something comforting about our own country/culture that is grounded in history and makes us distinct.  When we describe life in Canada to other people, it will obviously be marked by things like cold long winters, space, raw beauty, maple syrup, hockey and all those stereotypes.  It will also be marked by the tolerance and outward thinking of Multiculturalism.  It will also be marked by the cultural traditions of the two major founding cultures of Canada: England and France.  That includes those countries' cultural traits.  There are also important indigenous components, but indigenous peoples didn't found Parliamentary democracy or the Seigneury system or do the surveying of land plots, roads, and districts that the Royal Engineers completed during early European settlement.  Those systems have served Canada quite well.  I certainly think they're better contributions than many of the alternatives.  If you compare the way that many indigenous people were living during those early times, most of us wouldn't opt for those lifestyles.  We owe what we have in Canada to many factors, but make no mistake, some influences were bigger and more important than others and I'm thankful for many of these influences.  Be careful what you try to dismantle. 

Generally societies that try to blow up the past and start anew quickly become the dystopian rootless countries that people want to flee:  Our major religions in Canada did good and bad things, but we are judging the past through a modern lens.  I think that the intentions at the time were largely positive, though the interventions were misguided by our standards.  At the time that institutions like residential schools existed, they were supported by the society and the churches that operated them.  Were they all bad?  I can't make that absolute judgement.  In some situations the education and experience may have been a leg up for some children from remote communities bereft of education and family/social supports.  It's deeply contextual.  Would most people support such social engineering today?  No way.  it wasn't that long ago that children worked in factories, women didn't vote, there were twelve hour work days, you get the idea.  We are learning and growing as a society, but I'm not sure that we'll leave behind all of the traditions that seem to frustrate you, because they are still valued by many people.  We look upon aspects of the past with disapproval and censure.  On the other hand, sometimes old values are reborn and strengthened, even while some are left behind.  There is such a thing in the human identity that psychologists term the "religious impulse".  We seem to seek out deeper meaning and purpose related to forces greater than ourselves.  That breaks down into many forms in different cultures.  Much as I see the value in Multiculturalism, it should in my eyes be balanced by the cultural values of our founding cultures because I don't think all cultures are of equal value.  Not all are cultures equally healthy, even though there's some value in all cultures and we're all equally human.  Canada may look and feel very different centuries from now and the population may have actively chosen this new way of life.  I also think if we're not careful, we may lose certain healthy ideas about how society should operate and adapt ones that are damaging and worse than what existed.  I see two dangerous pressures right now: global cultural and economic forces that make it hard for Canada to chart its own destiny (particularly from large powers) and reactionary forces within Canada that seek to shut down the positive aspects of global exchange and international rules.  The pressure on the middle class is real.  As economic pressure mounts, the darker sides of cultures emerge.  People need to feel informed and empowered.  Whether they actually are or not is another worry.  Many people today are speaking to groups and clicking their way to ideas that are self-affirming.  Google and AI are applying a new kind of social engineering.  We're in halls of mirrors and need dialogue outside of our comfort zones.

Since we digressed, I started up a new thread to respond to this called, "Are Cultural Laws against Free Speech?..."

[Sorry for the title. I should have named it, "Are Cultural Laws for or against Free Speech", to not bias my own position by the title. I realized that too late.]

Edited December 5, 2018 by Scott Mayers
Changed the link and struck out note

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Since we digressed, I started up a new thread to respond to this called, "Cultural Laws are against Free speech" [Sorry for the title. I should have named it, "Are Cultural Laws for or against Free Speech", to not bias my own position by the title. I realized that too late.]

I think you can change the title of a thread you create.

[Scott Mayers]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think you can change the title of a thread you create.

Thanks. Fixed.