Obama’s apostasy

May 5, 2008 — xanthippa

It is unusual for me to write about the US presidential race, because, frankly, it is a bit overdone.  We are inundated with the minutest details and the wildest speculations over and over, whether we care or not.

Yet, there is one very important speculation that I have never heard voiced.  Perhaps it is my own fault for shutting out so much of the detail, and it has been covered and dealt with.  If that is the case, then I beg your forgiveness.  But, if it has not been addressed, then I would humbly request that people give this some sober, realistic consideration.

Different people – and nation states – react very differently to identical ‘facts’.  Mundane example: I see a rabbit, I will think ‘pet’.  Another person looks at a rabbit, they may see ‘dinner’.  It would be unreasonable to expect the same reaction from both of us to being served a rabbit-burger.  The same is true of many, many things, not all of them mundane or witout deep impact.

Many supporters of Mr. Obama’s bid for the Democratic nomination, and ultimately the Presidency of the USA, say that he would be well received in the world, and enjoy much more credibililty than either Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain.  While his lack of experience and specific policies he suggested may have come under attack, his supporters maintain that his multicultural outlook would be great assets giving him (an by extension, the USA) great credibility, especially in Africa.

But are we not overlooking one extremely important point?  Mr. Obama is an apostate to Islam – and much of the Muslim world, including in Africa, consider this to be very bad thing indeed.

This has less to do with the views of Mr. Obama himself.  It does not concern anything a preacher he’d listened to may or may not believe.  All it has to do with is the fact that as a child and young man, Mr. Obama was a Muslim, and now he is not.  He does not deny that – nor has he ever tried to.  By definition, this makes him an Apostate.

The very fact that he has converted from Islam to another faith may make it impossible for many fundamentally Islamic nation-states to accept him.  After all, rightly or wrongly, many of them do interpret The Qur’an, specifically Sura (chapter) 4, verses 89-92: “If they turn away [convert away from Islam], then sieze them and kill them wherever you find them;…”. 

Also, many Muslims use several books in addition to the Qur’an.  These are not given the central importance that Qur’an is, but because they contain the collected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and strories of his life, these are often used as a guide according to which the Qur’an is supposed to be interpreted.  One of these is often quoted as to the proper interpretation of the above verse: ‘Bukhari’ 4.52.260 – “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’ ”

In 2006, a man was sentenced to death in Afghanistan for having converted from Islam to Christianity.  This was well after the Taliban were out of power, but even the moderates in Afghanistan did not understand why people in ‘The West’ were upset by this.  Most of us are familiar with the case of Lina Joy, and others like her.

In fact, four of the major Sunni as well as the major Shia schools of Islam all agree that a sane, adult male who converts away from Islam deserves the death penalty. 

I offer this as an entirely pragmatic consideration:  will some people be able to see Mr. Obama, the man, or will they only see an Apostate? 

How will they react if the USA elects an ‘Apostate President’? 

Posted in atheism, debate, freedoms, human nature, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Astronomical Arrogance in Journalism

April 17, 2008 — xanthippa

Over the last few days, there have been gleeful reports of the ‘big brains’ at NASA having really goofed up – again – only to have a 13-year-old kid fix the mistake in their math.  The arrogant reports also touted a tantilizing tidbit of ‘secret’ information:  ‘someone from NASA confirmed to someone from the European Space Agency that the kid is right!’

Ooooh!  That must have sent shivers of schadenfreude up some journalistic spines!  After all, everyone keeps using the term ‘rocket scientist’ as the ‘smartest possible thing ever’ – and here, we have proof the silly eggheads are not so smart, after all!  Even a kid can wipe the floor with them! 

Except, of course, that the news reports were WRONG!

So, was this a simple case of journalists attempting to inflate their own egoes by taking the scientists down a peg?  Or is there something more at play here…like ‘credibility’.

As Bill Nye the Science Guy used to repeat over and over and over:  extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!  But these reports went out all over the world – many papers which like to consider themselves ‘respectable’ have reported this as FACT!  The only pretense at ‘proof’ was the ‘uncofirmable gossip’ bit:  done deal, no doubt, NASA is wrong and a 13-year-old is right!   Our source is so very high up in NASA, we cannot even reveal their name!  So, we know and you should trust us.  It’s a fact.

Lubos Motl, one of the world’s leading physicists, has a bit to say about this on his blog, The Reference Frame.  He gives an excellent analysis (both in the main post, and in the comment section where he responds to specific questions) from a scientists’ point of view.  I could not have done it better, and so I will not go into the reasons why Nico Marquadt is not likely to have found an error the NASA dudes missed.  If you’d like, you can read his post here.

My question is a little different:  HOW did this story ever make it into ‘the News’?  And, perhaps more interestingly, WHY?  And why did we hear so much about the original story, but hardly a whisper about the fact that we were fed unverified, unchecked, unreliable and downright wrong information as ‘established facts’?

I can only guess:  it was fun and juicy, looked like it would take down a peg someone who is seen as smarter than most journalists, and – let’s face it – most members of the MSM (main stream media) just do not posses the math skills to check the calculations for themselves.  And they could not be bothered to email the nearest scientist/mathematician for comment.  And they wanted to get that juicy story out right away.  Ok, that might cover the ‘HOW’. 

But WHY?

Again, this is just a guess from an outside observer:  nothing more.  But, could there be some deep resentment between the MSM/journalists and (almost) ALL scientists?  Is there any benefit the MSM could derive from attacking the credibility of scientists in general?  If so, that might signal a sinister bias could be creeping into our news coverage…

No, don’t worry – I’m not turning into a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ – pointing out who owns what percentage of which paper or magazine…  I cannot really be, because I have not done my homework on this.  However, I do understand a little bit about human nature… Hopefully, I am wrong on this one.

It brings me to the tired old topic of ‘Anthropogenic Climat Change’ (ACC) in its many incarnations.  In the very beginning, I, too, bought into it.  It sounded plausible.  So, I went and learned about the underlying science of it.  Being somewhat obsessive, I read quite a bit about it.  And I learned it was not plausible, after all – and that what was used to tout it was ‘junk science’ and bits of legitimately good science, just taken out of context and twisted.  Oh, and it was all anchored in a study which has been shown to be not just wrong, but actually fraudulent.  So, egg on my face, I had to stand up and say I was wrong to have thought ACC was right.  Yes, I felt a fool…but I deserved it for buying into something before I really checked it out!

The MSM also bought into it.  It sounded good, and they did not bother to look too deeply into the ‘scientific mumb0-jumbo’.  Byt the time the MSM had figured out that the ACC movement was – from its inception – driven by policymakers and not scientists, that the very first studies were commissioned to be one sided only (and by Margaret Thatcher, no less), they had invested themselves WAY too deeply into propagating it.  They bought into it, and sef-righteously attacked any lone scientists who dared to stand up and speak about scientific rigour, actual data, the underlying science….you know, the basis for it!

But now, more and more scientists are speaking out.  More and more data is showing there has not been any ‘Global Warming’ in the last decade.  More and more scandals are coming out about the IPCC report.  Yet the media does very little to cover these new developments.  Unless you go out of your way to look for this information (or regularly check the science websites/scientists’ blogs), it is unlikely that you will have heard about this.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Perhaps because of the explosion of information available on the internet, perhaps because fewer and fewer people trust that the MSM is a trustworthy source of information – the fact is that the MSM is slowly dying.  And they know it.  But instead of examining their lack on impartial and or informed reporting, they blame the loss of their credibility on ‘scientists’….for uncovering the magnitude of the fraud they allowed themselves to be suckered into.

So, whether it is an attempt to regain some relative credibility for themselves by taking some away from ‘the scientists’, or whether it is a punch of an industry that’s going down kicking and screeching – should we be surprised that the MSM reported this falsehood the way they did?

Posted in education, freedoms, human nature, politics, science, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Athletes vs Human Rights

April 9, 2008 — xanthippa

When you put it this way, many athletes might feel kinda baaaad…

Many people are justifying ‘not boycotting’ the Olympic games in Beijing by calling attention to the plight of the athletes:  these people have trained and sacrificed, to be at the pinnacle of their form, so they could perform at these games!  Denying them the chance to go could dash their Olympic hopes forever, because it is unlikely that most of them will be able to remain at their highest performance level for four years.

So, what should one say to an athlete who has perhaps sacrificed a lot, instead of investing in a career and a home, they have invested in training and now it will all be for naught?  I have an answer! 

Get a life!

Sports are a hobby!  It is something we do for fun and pleasure – and to keep ourselver healthy.  It is ‘self-care’. 

How do I know it?  Because if I want to buy a membership in an athletic club, go swimming in a public pool, ride a bicycle, play ball on a sports field – I have to pay for it!  Just like I have to pay for my haircut, my facial, my manicure… and these are also necessities for a competition!  A different competition, to be true, but a completition based on physical attributes, their training and presentation!  Except that the other beauty contests are nowhere near as politicized as the Olympic Games are, were, and always will be.

Are you getting angry yet? 

Good!  You should be.

Comparing the preparation and dedication necessary to compete at the Olympic games to those of a beauty contest is ludicrous (though some little girls might differ).  Yes, beauty contestants also need it – but the degree of magnitude is somewhat lower.  Importance, and all that…

Now imagine the degree of dedication it takes to stand up for human rights against an opressive, callous, arrogant giant like the Peoples’ Republic of China!

Yes, a few degrees of magnitude greater than the athletes need to get ready for the Olympics!  

So, now, perhaps you can understand the anger that decent people feel rise up within them when someone worries about dissapointing the athletes… or places their desire for self-validation above the very survival of a peoples threatened with genocide!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Fitna

April 7, 2008 — xanthippa

The birthplace of Islam is in Arabia.  In Arabic, this word, Fitna , is said to be difficult to translate – but Wikipedia (not the end-all for learning, but an awesome place to start) explains is as “all-encompassing word referring to schism, secession, upheaval and anarchy at once”.  It also notes that ‘First Fitna‘ and ‘Second Fitna’ are terms used to describe the first and second ‘civil wars’ within Islam itself.

Even though many people are not aware of this, the most populous Muslim country is Indonesia.  In Indonesian, the term ‘Fitnah’ means ‘defamation, slander, libel’…

Is it not fitting, then, that Geert Wilders chose this word as the name for his very controversial documentary movie?  It may be his 15 minutes of fame (that is the duration of the movie), but it has certainly created a bit of an uproar.

Even prior to the movie’s release, individual Dutch people made little videos, to put onto YouTube, apologizing to the Muslim ummah (world family) and begging them to please not kill them because of it.  Really.  But, it would not be long and others would post ‘apologies‘ that are somewhat more imbued with deeper meanings…

But that is not all – Network Solutions, the company which was going to host the movie, even before the movie came out, pulled the site.  Sorry, decied to ‘investigate it’!  And all before the movie even came out!  And when the movie finally DID come out, it was quickly pulled, because of threats of violence against the employees of Liveleak.com, the company that hosted it.

So, WHAT is so horrible about Fitna, the movie?  Don’t let anybody tell you – see it for yourselves:  Part 1, Part 2.

And what is the POINT of it, anyway?

In my never-humble-opinion, the name of the movie says it all.  There is a war of ideas WITHIN Islam.  The Umma is being torn apart by very powerful forces.  And this movie, it is meant to be an exposition for the moderate Muslims, who wish to live in harmony with the rest of us, a wake up call to them:  these violent people, who themselves believe they are following the teachings of the Qur’an, they are the ones who bear false witness to your faith!!!  And you are the only ones who can set it right.

It is not, nor do I think it was ever meant to be, an indictment of all Muslims.  Not even a little bit.  Yet, it is meant to show how some Muslims are abusing their holy book, taking verses out of context (which they do in order to justify the violence), and how they are perverting their religion.  It is no coincidence that so many violent riots happened on Friday afternoons, after some men pretending to be religious men, and acting as Imams, used their perverted version of Islam to inflame hatred in their worshippers.

That is why, at the end of the movie, the filmmaker asks all ‘real’ Muslims to please reclaim their good and peaceful religion from these violent people who consider themselves to also be Muslims! 

Christians have had the same problem, and, to a great degree, they HAVE taken their religion away from the violent people who used it to make war and oppress people.  The filmmaker made this movie to show proper Muslims what is being done in the name of THEIR religion, and to ask THEM to do them same with Islam.

Or, do you think I am really off the mark?

Posted in education, freedoms, human nature, immigrants, language, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Conspiracy or good marketing?

April 6, 2008 — xanthippa

Oh, my!  Technology is FUN!!!

Today, I had some REAL fun.  Thanks to a tip from CanadianBeaver, I stumbled upon BlogTV!  Sort of like any other blog, except that instead of text, you pump out live video, and people type comments which pop up as you go….  And, once I got me a mike, I got to even talk – live – to a whole ‘roomful’ of people who were chatting with CB!  Thank you, one and all!

One topic which came up was the ‘world domination by the illuminati/banking families/the-13-bloodlines’.  I’d like to make an important point:  never ascribe to a ‘conspiracy’ what you can explain by human stupidity/greed.  Or, really, really good marketing!

Think about it, really.  If YOU were a person in control of great wealth/multinational corporate conglomerate, and you had the opportunity to create strategic alliances with other really wealthy businesses/individuals/families, would you consider this to be ‘a conspiracy’, or would it simply be good business sense?  Prudent corporate strategy, perhaps? 

How naive would we all be if we did not think that ‘strategic alliances’ have been forged and broken and re-forged, all throughout our history?  Visible ones, and ‘behind the scenes’ ones…  It is the most predictable, natural course of things… and calling it a ‘conspiracy’ just seems so silly!  Of course it is going on.  Of course the aim is to concentrate wealth, control and market share – power.  It is the most reasonable course of action! 

And….what is the real difference between being ‘secretive’ and ‘discrete’?

But to think it all this is somehow evil?  Come on!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, ignosticism, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Of Cellphones and Hijabs

March 19, 2008 — xanthippa

OK, these two do not seem too closely related. Perhaps a more accurate title would have been ‘Of Passing Laws Which Ban The Use of Cellphones While Driving And Of Passing Laws That Force The Wearing of Hijabs‘, but, somehow, that seemed a little long…

Every now and then, another spot on Earth passes a law banning the use of cellphones while driving – or flirts with passing such a law. A flurry of debates and discussions follows, weighing the pros and cons of such a law…often mistaking appeals to emotions for objective reasons, confusing symptoms with causes.

Typically, the pro-ban side (or, as I affectionately call them, the ‘bannies’) cites reams of accident statistics (real or imagined) which occurred while the driver was indeed using the cell phone. They usually present one or another variation of the following argument:

1. Talking on a cellphone can be distracting to drivers.

2. Distracted drivers do have more accidents.

Therefore, cellphones cause accidents and laws banning drivers from using them must be passed, in the interest of preventing those horrible car accidents. After all, anything less would be irresponsible!

Q.E.D.

Those opposed to the alarming increase in behaviour-engineering legislation usually put forth some silly nonsense like: “If a car is being driven badly, cops already have the right to ticket the driver, so a law specifically prohibiting cellphones is not only superfluous, it is redundant. Why pass two laws to cover one misdeed? If cops don’t apply one law they have, why give them a second one that does the same thing?”

These little arguments fall on deaf ears of the ‘bannies’. Usually, they counter with more statistics (but not those that show that even after cellphones were banned, the overall accident rates are pretty much unchanged in the long run). And if one begins to worry about the intrusiveness of the law, they invariably point out that drunk-driving is already banned, so why not cell-driving?

Perhaps it is commendable that the ‘bannies’ are looking out for us all – by banning all that is, or could potentially be, a source of harm to us. But what is not commendable is their basic mindset of attempting to legislate ‘common sense’, while they themselves fail to display an iota of it. So, I suppose it would be legislating ‘common nonsense’, n’est-ce pas? Having been in a debate with a vociferous ‘bannie’, I was unable to make her comprehend the difference between a chemically impaired judgment and a ‘distraction’…

Yet, that is not the only failure to apply logic in the ‘cellphone debate’. The real fallacy is in completely misunderstanding the nature of ‘distraction’: it is the driver’s responsibility not to become distracted by anything while driving. The cellphone is a symptom, not the cause of a driver’s distraction….only one of the many possible ways of abdicating responsibility to focus on driving. And as history has taught us, banning the symptoms never alleviates the underlying problem, it only masks it.

Which brings me to the hijab part… Please, consider this unfortunately real ‘reasoning’:

1. The sight of a beautiful woman arouses men.

2. An aroused man will want to have sex.

Therefore, the sight of a beautiful woman causes rapes and laws banning display of feminine beauty must be passed, in the interest of protecting women from those horrible rapes. After all, anything less would be irresponsible!

Q.E.D.

Yes, this is real! These are some of the reasons put forth in support of laws that require women to wear a hijab, a burka, or similarly concealing ‘modest dress’. Don’t believe it? The Mufti of Copenhagen Sahid Mehdi said in 2004 that women who do not wear the hijab are ‘asking to be raped‘. Australia’s Mufti in October 2006 was much the same thing, but in much cruder terms – comparing unveiled women to ‘uncovered meat‘….and how could you blame cats who came to eat it? And unless I am much mistaken, an Egyptian Imam said much the same thing in England (though I could not find a very good original article on this…happened too long ago).

But rape is not the only threat to women who do not don the veil: Palestinian broadcasters live under a death threat for wearing makeup and not covering their faces while on camera – I guess it is not so easy to rape a TV image, so the islamofascist ‘bannies’ content themselves with threatening to kill them a firebomb their houses instead.

The ‘reasoning’ in both cases – cellphones and hijabs – is eerily similar.

It may seem a chasm from banning the use of cellphones while driving to forcing the hijab on women, but bigger gulfs have been bridged, one little step at a time….each one facilitated by complacency and happy little ‘bannies’!

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

A Soldier’s gift

February 27, 2008 — xanthippa

Most of the world is watching the circus leading up to the US elections, whether they want to or not, because our media is inundated with it.  And, while 0.01% of what they beam at us may actually be interesting, many important things which will impact our daily lives remain barely covered.

OK, OK, so this is happening in Canada….

But, to all you Americans out there, please, pay attention!  Why?  Because more often than not, Canada serves as USA’s political ‘canary in the mineshaft’…  Yet it took months before even the Canadian media raised its sleepy head and, bleary-eyed, began to sip its ‘Timmy’s coffee’ and realize what is actually going on. 

So, if you have missed this story so far, here is a quick recap:

Long time ago, when hippies just began to leave outdoor concerts and started applying their activism to setting up bureaucracies, Canada saw the establishment of these so called ‘Human Rights Commissions’:  each province got one of its own, but to be sure, one overarching ‘Canadian HRC’ was set up as well.  And, as many drug-inspired dreams, while the intent was good … the practice sucked.

And unquestionably, the intent was good.  Really good.  The HRC was to serve as a kind of a ‘small claims court’ for protecting human rights.  People who were not allowed to rent an apartment because they happened to be black, or not served in a restaurant because they were ‘Oriental’ (which had actually happened to my friends in the 1990’s) could go there and get help, without the stress and strain of getting a lawyer and launching an expensive lawsuit.   In other words, the HRC’s were to make sure that justice was not denied to anyone.

But, as the saying goes, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. 

These ‘Human Rights Commissions’, however well intentioned, were drafted up in a bit of ‘purple haze’, with predictable results.  And while it may or may not have been so intentioned, their constitutions’ ‘Section 13’ actually prohibits communication (even private) or anything else “that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”.  Translation:  Section 13 bans ‘thought crime’!!! 

These HRC’s are not proper courts:  once they receive a complaint, their officers investigate, draft a report with recommendations, and then the HRC announces their ruling.  To show how effective this ‘investigator-prosecutor-judge’ system is, to date, the federal Human Rights Commission enjoys 100% conviction rate…  Hey, what are all these kangaroos doing in Canada?

Currently, there are two very high profile cases under investigation by the various HRC’s. 

  1. The newsmagazine Macleans published an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book.  This included a quote from an Imam in Norway, where the Imam boasted that the birth rate among European Muslims was very high:  the IMAM used the phrase that the Muslims were ‘multiplying like mosquitoes’….  Decidedly, this is disrespectful:  which is why it is important that we all realize that an Imam would actually say that!  I read that article when it first came out, and the quote was duly attributed.  Yet, a complaint was laid at the HRC against both Macleans and Mr. Steyn for spreading hate against Muslims for printing that quote.
  2. Two years ago, worldwide violence broke out because a Danish paper published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad AND because some Danish mullahs manufactured some even more offensive cartoons and distributed them in the Middle East, claiming them to be part of the ‘Danish cartoons’.  The reactions were vitriolic and violent, people were murdered, churches set on fire, yet very few ‘Western media’ saw it fit to let us know what the subject of this violence was actually about.  In Canada, The Western Standard was one newsmagazine that dared to publish them.  In no time at all, the magazine and its editor, Ezra Levant, were being dragged in front of one of the HRC’s…..and a $100,000 in legal fees later, the Western Standard is only online and Mr. Levant is still trying to defend himself.

Mr. Levant did a very clever thing:  he actually taped his interrogation in the HRC’s modern-day dungeon.  Parts of it are now on YouTube…my favourite ones are ‘Attributes of Free Speech’ and ‘I don’t answer to the state’.  And, I read his blog, where there are many updates on this, as well as other ‘stuff’ about the HRC’s and the state of freedoms in our Western society.

Which is where I came across a letter, written to Mr. Evant, from a Canadian soldier on the front-line in Afghanistan….a true hero.  I must admit, it left me speechless…and touched me in places I thought I had long ago walled off with cynicism.  The soldier has some very deep insights, and though he is not rich, he donated $1,000 of his danger pay to help Mr. Levant’s defence fund!  Please, take a few moments and read that letter….it puts so much into perspective…

Thank you.

Posted in freedoms, human nature, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 3: HOW we ought to tolerate

February 20, 2008 — xanthippa

Everyone is calling for ‘tolerance’ these days.  But, really deep down, what do we mean?

It seems to me that there are several different types of ‘tolerance’, and they don’t all mean the same thing.  There is a whole spectrum of ‘tolerance’!  Let me highlight the ‘good extreme’ and the ‘bad extreme’, with the understanding that most of the time ‘tolerance’ – as practiced in our society –  falls somewhere in between the two.  I just hope we’ll try to aim towards the ‘good’ end of the spectrum…  

 

 

The ‘GOOD tolerance’ 

I suspect that is what most of us mean when we say ‘tolerance’.  This form is the ‘respectful tolerance’, and it requires that both sides ‘acknowledge the differences’ and then CHOOSE to respect the choices the others make.

 

That is by no means easy.  All sides (this is never as easy as just two or three sides) have to take the time and effort to actually educate themselves on other peoples’ views and beliefs, then consider each others’ positions objectively, then judge ‘the other sides’ to be worthy of respect….and that is not always possible.  For, how can one truly respect a view or belief which may be contrary to one’s core values?

 

The answer, of course, is with an utmost exercise of self-control and intellectual detachment…but remember, this is one of the extremes, an ideal we ought to aspire to live up to.

 

 

The ‘BAD tolerance’ 

This tolerance is not nice tolerance at all.  It is the dismissive kind:  ‘oh, let them do their thing, we could never hope to civilize them’ kind of tolerance…  ‘Oh, why would we want to bring democracy there, these people are just too backward – they could never understand equality.’  ‘Their women don’t know any different, so why give them ideas of what we live like – they’re just too tribal to change.’  You know, this is the ‘they could NEVER be equal to US’ tolerance….which permeates the separatist and racist underbellies of every society.

 

Not only does it dismiss the side ‘to be tolerated’, it treats people as unworthy of the expectations that one has of the members of a civilized society….  It inevitably leads to the alienation and isolation of the ‘tolerated’ side, socially and eventually economically, forcing them to become second class citizens.  It is dispicable!

This position is difficult to eradicate for two major reasons:  one, it is often deeply held, because it makes the person holding such views feel somehow ‘superior’ and way more ‘special’;  it is also often really hard to recognize, because it is so adept at masking itself…as real, proper, respectful tolerance!

What is even worse is that among those who practice this ‘patronizing tolerance’, there are often despicable busybodies who consider their actions to be noble, a showcase of how tolerant we all ‘ought to’ be, wrapping themselves in ‘the cloak of righteousness’.  These busybodies wreak havoc in many ways. 

One of the most destructive is by appointing themselves the ‘guardians’ of those ‘to be tolerated’.  In this role, they look for ways in which the ‘mainstream culture’ differs from the original culture of the unfortunates whom they’ve decided to ‘shield’, and demands exemptions for them.  This may be from sport-team rules and other minor things to cultural practices, or even to exempt them from some actual laws of the land.  Of course, this may please some of the newest arrivals (or those within the immigrant community who wish to control them), but overall, it denies the newly arrived immigrants the right and the very ABILITY to integrate, bullying them into perpetuating the very cultural practices they are trying to escape from by coming here….

Another extremely destructive thing these ‘busybodies’ do is to bully the mainstream culture into tolerating all kind of excesses perpetrated by some people in the ‘target minority’, into tolerating behaviours unacceptable by our laws and our cultural standards.  This, of course, is done in the name of ‘educating us all’ to the ‘sensitivities’ we must be mindful of when we tolerate these excesses and illegal behaviours….

How could this unwelcome and obstructive meddling do anything but breed resentment on all sides?  How could we all be blind to it?  How could we allow ourselves to be duped and bullied by these busybodies?

It would be naïve to think that we can ever fully get rid of the ‘bad tolerance’…it’s part of our human nature.  But, could we not try to minimize it?  Could we not try to aspire to actually respect each other?  Could we not hope to reach higher on the ‘kind of tolerance’ spectrum?

Gosh, I hope I’m not too naïve for hoping we can!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 2: What we ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’ tolerate

February 19, 2008 — xanthippa

In order to have a functioning society, we need to agree on a common set of rules according to which we interact with each other.  (I ranted on a bit about this in my ‘Dogged by Dogma’ post.)  Some of these rules are codified into laws, others govern what we consider to be polite day-to-day behaviour.  Though the rules change from country to country, the basic principle remains the same:  without a common set of rules, there is no ‘society’.

We all, as humans, have the innate right to freedom of speech and thought.  So, let’s start by agreeing to tolerate that.  This means not denying it to anyone, even people we disagree with…or people who hold unpopular views.

From the freedoms of speech and thought flows the freedom of religious belief.  That, too, needs to be respected.  Most ‘western’ cultures are pretty good at protecting this one – usually, it is entrenched in the constitution.  But while we may be free to hold every belief we want, and are free to worship every deity (or absence thereof) we choose to, it is essential that we all understand that only those actions and behaviours that are legal under the laws of the land may actually be performed, whether based on religious conviction or not.

It is essential that we recognize that being tolerant of a belief is not the same as tolerating each and every behaviour that stems from it!

If it were, we would all need to tolerate human sacrifice.  And frankly, if we do tolerate illegal behaviour which stems from religious belief, in a very real sense, we WILL indeed be making a ‘human’ sacrifice! 

Asma Jahangir, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, has on many occasions reported that she has seen over and over situations where minority groups within a society demand special rights onto themselves, in name of religious freedoms – only to use these special rights to then oppress its own internal minority.  This kind of abuse of special rights is more common than we would like to think:  Ezra Levan’t has actually posted photos of Robina Butt, a woman who was assaulted by intruders into her own home after she and two other women complained of the financial improprieties at her own Mosque.  It is horrid!

So, let’s be clear.  We must tolerate each other’s beliefs.  

At the same time, we absolutely must not tolerate illegal behaviour, however motivated.  This is as much for the protection of the greater society as for the protection of the individuals within any specific minority.  If someone chooses to self-limit certain behaviours, good on them (provided they do not impact the society as a whole or diminish the rights of other individuals).  If they choose to self-impose rules which preclude them from enjoying certain privileges (such as people who refuse to have their photograph taken must be prepared to give up privileges for which a photo-i.d. is required – say, a driving license), they MUST be also prepared to give up such privileges.  Forcing them to comply with the conditions would be just as wrong as granting these privileges without compliance.

What is more:  not respecting these rules, granting special privileges to some but not others, will mean that the most basic rule of society is broken.  I may be repeating myself, but…without common rules, there is no ‘society’.  Doing so would breed resentment and hostility among various segments of the population…and how could unequal treatment by law not result in just that? 

We all need to keep this in mind the next time we are tempted to exempt one group or another from the laws which must apply equally to all of our citizens.  

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 7 Comments »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 1: Setting the stage

February 14, 2008 — xanthippa

This is a bit off topic for me – I never planned to write about this.  But, with all the broo-ha-ha stirred up when the Archbishop of Cantebury, Dr. Williams, called for establishing a parallel legal system in Britain, based on Sharia law, my blood started to boil.  I am an immigrant, having come to North America from a non-democratic, non-English speaking country, I have integrated quite successfully.  I volunteer teaching English as a second language.  In the past, I have created ‘stay-at-home’ jobs for immigrant women from more oppressive backgrounds, empowering them and helping them connect with their new society. 

As such, I have had the opportunity to observe this ‘cultural tolerance’ from both sides – as the immigrant and as a member of the cultural mainstream.  And I am absolutely amazed at how basic concepts can become so muddled…to the detriment of both sides. Please, indulge me in this rant on WHAT we should – and perhaps more importantly, what we should NOT – tolerate with respect to immigrants coming to a society from a foreign culture.  This is for the benefit of us, immigrants, as well as us, the host society (I have made the integration successfully, and so feel part of both groups…). 

First and foremost, immigrants come to a new country in order to improve their life and to provide a better future for their children.  Perhaps this is not a universal statement, but I am willing to bet that it comes pretty close.  So, right off the bat, there is something ‘good’ about the new society that we have come to seek. 

When immigrants first arrive, things can be overwhelming:  new language, new surroundings, unknown expectations…because even if you read a lot about your new land, (I memorized the 84 page brochure I got at the Canadian embassy during my interview), things are never quite the same as in the ads.  Some are better, some are worse, some are just different. 

And even for a person who did try to learn English before, being immersed in the language for the first few weeks created incredible fatigue and triggered a unique type of headaches.  I was surprised at how my jaw, cheeks and tongue hurt after hours of flexing my speech muscles into positions they were not used to. 

In situations like this, in the first few weeks, it is very helpful if other immigrants, who had arrived years or decades earlier, from the same culture, speaking the same mother tongue, can help one orient themselves.  It is a relief to ‘tune out’ English for half-an-hour and chat with someone without fishing for every phrase, worrying if a mispronounced word would give offense.  (I’m not joking:  I know a guy who just about got beaten up because when his neighbour invited him for dinner, he tried to compliment his wife on the desert….and mispronounced the word ‘cake’.  Until I explained, he had no idea that cake is not pronounced ‘cock’.) 

It is understandable that the immigrants should form loose communities, offering each other support.  It is also very much appreciated when people in the host community show a great deal of leeway to newly arrived immigrants who are trying to learn the language and culture both.   

The key here is:  ‘newly arrived’ and ‘trying to learn’. 

The problem arises when government agencies, seeing the help new immigrants receive from their fellow ex-patriots, think that they are somehow making things easier on the newcomers if they contract these immigrant communities to help the newcomers settle in.  This gives the immigrant association incredible control over the newly arrived people:  and what’s worse, now money is involved. The money attracts precisely the wrong kind of person:  busybodies who did not integrate into the new society well enough to have a busy career, and controlling the newcomers’ integration gives them the status they could never earn on their own merits.  If you don’t see this for the recipe for disaster that it is, I’m not sure what I could write to make it clear. 

These people boost their self by controlling as much as possible in the lives of newcomers.  And since these do not know any better (after all, the government entrusted this person with their care, so even if they did, it would not help them much), they accept the control – and the often distorted picture of the host culture painted to them so the busybody could retain control.  This officially sanctioned isolation leads to nothing less than ghettoization and actually prevents successful integration of newcomers into society. 

To a smaller degree, this can occur in all places, even without government financing it.  Seeking support at the beginning can trap newcomers in a cycle of obligations that are hard to escape, while preventing them from forming ties outside the immigrant community. I have seen it, felt its pull, and struggled against it.  Till today, I have friends among immigrants from my ethnic background, there is nothing wrong in that.  But I am careful to balance my friends and acquaintances among many backgrounds, keeping myself firmly within mainstream culture.  And while I do volunteer to help newcomers learn English, I never reveal my first language and usually request that they not tell me theirs, either. 

After all, we have left our past behind….   

Coming next: 

Part 2 – WHAT we should and should not tolerate                       

Part 3 – HOW we should and should not tolerate

Posted in about, freedoms, human nature, immigrants, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 4 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »