Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

[Ostroeuropa]

Therefore it makes no sense to ban it just like banning a sari makes no sense
The Hijab doesn't really qualify as something political, unless we count things like a cross necklace as being political.
And the Hijab doesn't disrupt education, at least no worse than any other religious clothing.

The hijab is not religious wear, or so we're told. If it is religious wear then it can be banned in public on the grounds of laicite.

[San Lumen]

The hijab is not religious wear, or so we're told. If it is religious wear then it can be banned in public on the grounds of laicite.

what is laicite?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The hijab is not religious wear, or so we're told. If it is religious wear then it can be banned in public on the grounds of laicite.

what is laicite?

Google: it is a thing.

[Ostroeuropa]

The hijab is not religious wear, or so we're told. If it is religious wear then it can be banned in public on the grounds of laicite.

what is laicite?

It's a strong form of secularism where public displays of religion are banned or curtailed (Businesses for instance have the right to throw you out for publicly displaying your religion, it is not a protected right, and Frances population is very culturally secular). Religion is for explicitly religious places (churches, mosques) and private households, not your job, not someone elses cafe, not your citizenship ceremony (see the incident where a Muslim woman had her citizenship declined at the last minute for bringing up her religion during the ceremony) and so on. It's worth noting the Hijab is banned in France where this form of secularism is practiced.

+

Critics of the system reject the idea that "Utilitarians, Nihilists, Capitalists, and Socialists can all bring their philosophy to bear on public life, but Catholics (or religious minorities) must check their religion at the door" in a sort of "second-class citizenship" which they consider nothing more than religious discrimination

(basically the moment you bring up religion as an argument, you are considered to have lost the debate and be an unacceptable candidate.)

By the way;

Scholar Olivier Roy has argued that the burkini bans and secularist policies of France provoked religious violence in France, to which Gilles Kepel responded that Britain which has no such policies still suffered a greater number of jihadist attacks in 2017 than France.

This runs counter to Islamophile arguments.

[Sovaal]

Coughs in Anglo-Powhatan war.
Coughs in the Mayflower.
Coughs in the Iroquois Confederacy.
These lands weren’t exactly empty.

Much of the land was empty. The Americas are vast and the Native American population was not that great. There was also no such conception as Westphalian sovereignty, or even, strictly speaking, 'borders' in pre-Columbian America (or for that matter the contemporary Old World.) The act of taking over land is not what was so horrific about colonisation; it's that the land-taking was accompanied by genocide, mass murder, rape etc.

The Native population was greatly reduced due to plague briught by the Europeans. Plymouth was founded on an abandoned village.

[San Lumen]

what is laicite?

It's a strong form of secularism where public displays of religion are banned or curtailed (Businesses for instance have the right to throw you out for publicly displaying your religion, it is not a protected right, and Frances population is very culturally secular). Religion is for explicitly religious places (churches, mosques) and private households, not your job, not someone elses cafe, not your citizenship ceremony (see the incident where a Muslim woman had her citizenship declined at the last minute for bringing up her religion during the ceremony) and so on. It's worth noting the Hijab is banned in France where this form of secularism is practiced.

+

Critics of the system reject the idea that "Utilitarians, Nihilists, Capitalists, and Socialists can all bring their philosophy to bear on public life, but Catholics (or religious minorities) must check their religion at the door" in a sort of "second-class citizenship" which they consider nothing more than religious discrimination

(basically the moment you bring up religion as an argument, you are considered to have lost the debate and be an unacceptable candidate.)

By the way;

Scholar Olivier Roy has argued that the burkini bans and secularist policies of France provoked religious violence in France, to which Gilles Kepel responded that Britain which has no such policies still suffered a greater number of jihadist attacks in 2017 than France.

This runs counter to Islamophile arguments.

Well i think banning religious clothing is wrong. The government has no right to do so. And in places like the US, Canada and the UK it a protected right. In the US any ban on hijabs, saris or kippah's would violate the First Amendment.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's a strong form of secularism where public displays of religion are banned or curtailed (Businesses for instance have the right to throw you out for publicly displaying your religion, it is not a protected right, and Frances population is very culturally secular). Religion is for explicitly religious places (churches, mosques) and private households, not your job, not someone elses cafe, not your citizenship ceremony (see the incident where a Muslim woman had her citizenship declined at the last minute for bringing up her religion during the ceremony) and so on. It's worth noting the Hijab is banned in France where this form of secularism is practiced.

+



(basically the moment you bring up religion as an argument, you are considered to have lost the debate and be an unacceptable candidate.)

By the way;



This runs counter to Islamophile arguments.

Well i think banning religious clothing is wrong. The government has no right to do so. And in places like the US, Canada and the UK it a protected right. In the US any ban on hijabs, saris or kippah's would violate the First Amendment.

The US's form of secularism is flimsy and useless due to the first ammendment as can be seen from the influence of their religious factions in politics. I much prefer the Laicite approach. The UK may well shift toward it as the Anglican population drops and the Atheist population continues to grow.

[San Lumen]

Well i think banning religious clothing is wrong. The government has no right to do so. And in places like the US, Canada and the UK it a protected right. In the US any ban on hijabs, saris or kippah's would violate the First Amendment.

The US's form of secularism is flimsy and useless due to the first ammendment as can be seen from the influence of their religious factions in politics. I much prefer the Laicite approach. The UK may well shift toward it as the Anglican population drops and the Atheist population continues to grow.

I dont think what you allege will occur in the UK nor is the first amendment going to be reinterpreted to allow banning of religious clothing.

[Ostroeuropa]

The US's form of secularism is flimsy and useless due to the first ammendment as can be seen from the influence of their religious factions in politics. I much prefer the Laicite approach. The UK may well shift toward it as the Anglican population drops and the Atheist population continues to grow.

I dont think what you allege will occur in the UK nor is the first amendment going to be reinterpreted to allow banning of religious clothing.

The US is a lost cause to religious fundamentalism, yes, we already know this.
Sure:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... -burka-ban

The only thing preventing it is inertia on the part of elites. The same dynamic that prompted Brexit can prompt a Burqa Ban. (A landslide majority of Tories supporting such a ban, with half of the labour party (more than oppose the ban) supporting it, meaning the Tories can stifle support for Labour by going ahead with it and so on.

[San Lumen]

I dont think what you allege will occur in the UK nor is the first amendment going to be reinterpreted to allow banning of religious clothing.

The US is a lost cause to religious fundamentalism, yes, we already know this.
Sure:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... -burka-ban

The only thing preventing it is inertia on the part of elites. The same dynamic that prompted Brexit can prompt a Burqa Ban. (A landslide majority of Tories supporting such a ban, with half of the labour party (more than oppose the ban) supporting it, meaning the Tories can stifle support for Labour by going ahead with it and so on.

I very much doubt your going to see a burga ban go to a referendum in the UK.

[Ostroeuropa]

The US is a lost cause to religious fundamentalism, yes, we already know this.
Sure:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... -burka-ban

The only thing preventing it is inertia on the part of elites. The same dynamic that prompted Brexit can prompt a Burqa Ban. (A landslide majority of Tories supporting such a ban, with half of the labour party (more than oppose the ban) supporting it, meaning the Tories can stifle support for Labour by going ahead with it and so on.

I very much doubt your going to see a burga ban go to a referendum in the UK.

It doesn't need to be a referendum. The Brexiteers weren't demanding we leave the UK by dictat, they were demanding a referendum on the topic, and successfully forced the Tories to give them what they wanted. Burqa Ban folk aren't demanding a referendum, they're demanding a law. It would bring us into line with the growing European consensus on the topic.

Further, the growing opposition to circumcision and so on are likely to reinforce this and visa versa. If a Burqa ban can be forced through, a circumcision ban becomes a fait accomplis and a no brainer, dramatically reducing the likelihood the "Anti-semite!" howling would have on the campaign.

Similar numbers, 2/3rds, support the ban on circumcision, with similar numbers opposing it.

I think the polling indicates a supermajority of the British public has Laicite inclinations, with Pluralists of the US-First ammendment variety being a shrinking minority. Like all issues, the elites lag behind the change in public opinion, but will be forced to adhere to it eventually.

[Thanatttynia]

Much of the land was empty. The Americas are vast and the Native American population was not that great. There was also no such conception as Westphalian sovereignty, or even, strictly speaking, 'borders' in pre-Columbian America (or for that matter the contemporary Old World.) The act of taking over land is not what was so horrific about colonisation; it's that the land-taking was accompanied by genocide, mass murder, rape etc.

The Native population was greatly reduced due to plague briught by the Europeans. Plymouth was founded on an abandoned village.

Yes, but the Americas were never really that populous to begin with. Add to that the European diseases decimating populations, and by the time European colonisation (in North America) began in earnest in the 17th Century, the population was very low.

I think the polling indicates a supermajority of the British public has Laicite inclinations, with Pluralists of the US-First ammendment variety being a shrinking minority. Like all issues, the elites lag behind the change in public opinion, but will be forced to adhere to it eventually.

I'd say the polling results are more likely the result of widespread (understandable) contempt for and distrust of Muslim religious wear for women like the burqa than any real support for Laicité. If they were asked their opinions on nun's habits, or vicar's collars, or even Sikh turbans, I think the answer would be a lot different.

[Ostroeuropa]

The Native population was greatly reduced due to plague briught by the Europeans. Plymouth was founded on an abandoned village.

Yes, but the Americas were never really that populous to begin with. Add to that the European diseases decimating populations, and by the time European colonisation (in North America) began in earnest in the 17th Century, the population was very low.

I think the polling indicates a supermajority of the British public has Laicite inclinations, with Pluralists of the US-First ammendment variety being a shrinking minority. Like all issues, the elites lag behind the change in public opinion, but will be forced to adhere to it eventually.

I'd say the polling results are more likely the result of widespread (understandable) contempt for and distrust of Muslim religious wear for women like the burqa than any real support for Laicité. If they were asked their opinions on nun's habits, or vicar's collars, or even Sikh turbans, I think the answer would be a lot different.

Disagree because the public also shows the same supermajority in favor of banning kosher slaughter and I don't think an honest assessment of the UK could argue they are as anti-semitic as they are anti-Islamic. I think it's more likely that they are (rightly) dismissive of "religious freedom" as an argument over temporal matters, and if they see harm in a practice, will seek to ban it.

Similar figures (though about 5% less) support bans on faith schools and so on.

There might be a bias against applying laicite principles to christian garb, i'll concede that is true, but in terms of applying secular rule and law, there isn't. The landmark cases enforcing secular society were against christians and supported by the public.

There's also the landmark poll showing that around the same number of Britons think religion, all religion in general, is a detriment to society and more harmful than beneficial.

I think it's convenient for progressives to pretend this about Islam and ignore those facts.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/1 ... 94442.html

Note that two-to-one in favor of atheists is the same results as the polls. I'd wager you've got around 50% atheists in support of Laicite (The half talked about in this poll), 10% atheists in support of pluralism, 30% religious in support of pluralism, and 10% christians siding with atheist Laicite in the hopes of escaping the worst of it.

Religion is viewed as a source of immorality and irrationality by a sizable amount of the public and the same isn't true of Atheism.

The secularisation of Britain has been thrown into sharp focus by new research showing that for every person brought up in a non-religious household who becomes a churchgoer, 26 people raised as Christians now identify as non-believers.

[Thanatttynia]

Yes, but the Americas were never really that populous to begin with. Add to that the European diseases decimating populations, and by the time European colonisation (in North America) began in earnest in the 17th Century, the population was very low.


I'd say the polling results are more likely the result of widespread (understandable) contempt for and distrust of Muslim religious wear for women like the burqa than any real support for Laicité. If they were asked their opinions on nun's habits, or vicar's collars, or even Sikh turbans, I think the answer would be a lot different.

Disagree because the public also shows the same supermajority in favor of banning kosher slaughter and I don't think an honest assessment of the UK could argue they are as anti-semitic as they are anti-Islamic. I think it's more likely that they are (rightly) dismissive of "religious freedom" as an argument over temporal matters, and if they see harm in a practice, will seek to ban it.

Similar figures (though about 5% less) support bans on faith schools and so on.

There might be a bias against applying laicite principles to christian garb, i'll concede that is true, but in terms of applying secular rule and law, there isn't. The landmark cases enforcing secular society were against christians and supported by the public.

There's also the landmark poll showing that around the same number of Britons think religion, all religion in general, is a detriment to society and more harmful than beneficial.

I think it's convenient for progressives to pretend this about Islam and ignore those facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec ... opstories3

I think your assessment of the general trend towards secularism is correct. The problem as I see it for people who support state secularism is that our own state church is so toothless and anodyne that people don't notice its influence (which would be difficult to separate from what is simply culture/tradition in any case) and therefore are apathetic/non-supportive about changes to its status til, as you said, they see harm in a specific practice arising from it. But then apathy is a problem for all causes, so it's not necessarily specific to this.

My own feeling is that we are going to see a swerve away from secularism at some point in the near future, such that it may be wise to institute some kinds of legal protections for non-religious people from religion whilst we are as secular as we are now. I don't think the threat is so grave that laicité is necessary (as I feel it impedes personal freedom without a real need to do so) but it's an interesting idea.

[Ostroeuropa]

Disagree because the public also shows the same supermajority in favor of banning kosher slaughter and I don't think an honest assessment of the UK could argue they are as anti-semitic as they are anti-Islamic. I think it's more likely that they are (rightly) dismissive of "religious freedom" as an argument over temporal matters, and if they see harm in a practice, will seek to ban it.

Similar figures (though about 5% less) support bans on faith schools and so on.

There might be a bias against applying laicite principles to christian garb, i'll concede that is true, but in terms of applying secular rule and law, there isn't. The landmark cases enforcing secular society were against christians and supported by the public.

There's also the landmark poll showing that around the same number of Britons think religion, all religion in general, is a detriment to society and more harmful than beneficial.

I think it's convenient for progressives to pretend this about Islam and ignore those facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec ... opstories3

I think your assessment of the general trend towards secularism is correct. The problem as I see it for people who support state secularism is that our own state church is so toothless and anodyne that people don't notice its influence (which would be difficult to separate from what is simply culture/tradition in any case) and therefore are apathetic/non-supportive about changes to its status til, as you said, they see harm in a specific practice arising from it. But then apathy is a problem for all causes, so it's not necessarily specific to this.

My own feeling is that we are going to see a swerve away from secularism at some point in the near future, such that it may be wise to institute some kinds of legal protections for non-religious people from religion whilst we are as secular as we are now. I don't think the threat is so grave that laicité is necessary (as I feel it impedes personal freedom without a real need to do so) but it's an interesting idea.

Secularism in law and practice is a seperate matter from secularism in institutions. I don't think people care about the status of the Anglican church, especially given its movements and overtures toward atheist-Christianity (Which is actually the second largest "Religion" in the UK after Atheism.) (2% of anglican clergy are openly atheist, the archbishop of cantebury identifies as agnostic, and so on. Many of their churches are basically sermons on secular humanism and how to be good people in that sense. Some of the higher bishops have argued Anglicanism is an evolving moral discourse and not necessarily tied to belief in god, that the core belief of the church is its own fallibility and need for constant change and improvement. I'd argue this is a result of their temporal involvement, in order to stay relevant and institutionalized for the forseeable future, they need to consider this direction. Most of their flock doesn't believe in god, but attend church for these reasons, and they need to keep them around.)

We're not likely to swerve away from Secularism unless there is a mass migration explosion of around ten or twenty times the current amount arriving.
Why do you think we'll move away from it? If anything, the growth of Atheism and secularism will see it become a more prominent issue as the elites continue to ignore the will of the public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

Phillip Pullman is an "Anglican Atheist" and his book series His Dark Materials might (and it would make me so joyful if it did) provoke more of this. Bishops have discussed it and the aforementioned "Anglican atheist" and atheist-christianity tolerating bishops have read it and reacted.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/mar/10/arts.books

In a private address to religious leaders and academics at Downing Street on Monday night, Dr Williams even went so far as to suggest that study of the Pullman trilogy could form part of schools' religious education syllabuses. Such praise is a far cry from the Association of Christian Teachers, who have condemned it as shameless blasphemy.

If you know about the series, then you know why this is shocking. It's a christian-atheism series with undertones of doing away with god now he has served his purpose and is no longer necessary.
(Dr Willians is the archbishop of canterbury.)

[Oturia]

So can I be a proud German-American?
You know the culture that people were assaulted for and today if your proud of it your called a Nazi.

[Dahon]

Scholar Olivier Roy has argued that the burkini bans and secularist policies of France provoked religious violence in France, to which Gilles Kepel responded that Britain which has no such policies still suffered a greater number of jihadist attacks in 2017 than France.

And the United States?

[Sovaal]

So can I be a proud German-American?
You know the culture that people were assaulted for and today if your proud of it your called a Nazi.

I find pride on any "-American" label to be idiotic. This is America, not Asian-America, or African-America, or European-America.

[Ostroeuropa]

Scholar Olivier Roy has argued that the burkini bans and secularist policies of France provoked religious violence in France, to which Gilles Kepel responded that Britain which has no such policies still suffered a greater number of jihadist attacks in 2017 than France.

And the United States?

The US has a much much smaller population of Muslims, and beyond that has its own crop of religious fundamentalists inspiring terrorism who likewise would be subjected to Laicite policies. (Their circumcizing of their children for instance, would be banned, if the british public had their way.)

[Sovaal]

And the United States?

The US has a much much smaller population of Muslims, and beyond that has its own crop of religious fundamentalists inspiring terrorism who likewise would be subjected to Laicite policies. (Their circumcizing of their children for instance, would be banned, if the british public had their way.)

Circumcising in the US is hardly in the realm of religious extremists. And few extremists have any clothing that could be deemed "religious" in nature.

[Oturia]

So can I be a proud German-American?
You know the culture that people were assaulted for and today if your proud of it your called a Nazi.

I find pride on any "-American" label to be idiotic. This is America, not Asian-America, or African-America, or European-America.

Except that time when German was as common a language in America as English, and newspapers had German publishings.
Remember when America was home to a mix of cultures, not just eating fast food and watching football

[Sovaal]

I find pride on any "-American" label to be idiotic. This is America, not Asian-America, or African-America, or European-America.

Except that time when German was as common a language in America as English, and newspapers had German publishings.
Remember when America was home to a mix of cultures, not just eating fast food and watching football

I supoort a universal pan-American culture.

[Dahon]

And the United States?

The US has a much much smaller population of Muslims, and beyond that has its own crop of religious fundamentalists inspiring terrorism who likewise would be subjected to Laicite policies. (Their circumcizing of their children for instance, would be banned, if the british public had their way.)

What I'm getting at here is that there's the possibility that there is no correlation between laicite (or lack thereof) and incidence of religious violence, not without comparing the belief systems as practiced and tendency to violent expressions of faith of subject congregations in countries where such statistics are compiled.

[Oturia]

Except that time when German was as common a language in America as English, and newspapers had German publishings.
Remember when America was home to a mix of cultures, not just eating fast food and watching football

I supoort a universal pan-American culture.

Nun, ich bezweifle, was dein wertvolles Amerika mir und meiner Familie angetan hat

[Ostroeuropa]

The US has a much much smaller population of Muslims, and beyond that has its own crop of religious fundamentalists inspiring terrorism who likewise would be subjected to Laicite policies. (Their circumcizing of their children for instance, would be banned, if the british public had their way.)

Circumcising in the US is hardly in the realm of religious extremists. And few extremists have any clothing that could be deemed "religious" in nature.

The US has normalized religious extremism but it's still extremism, much like the US government being right wing and far-right. Mutilating your children is extremist.

The US has a much much smaller population of Muslims, and beyond that has its own crop of religious fundamentalists inspiring terrorism who likewise would be subjected to Laicite policies. (Their circumcizing of their children for instance, would be banned, if the british public had their way.)

What I'm getting at here is that there's the possibility that there is no correlation between laicite (or lack thereof) and incidence of religious violence, not without comparing the belief systems as practiced and tendency to violent expressions of faith of subject congregations in countries where such statistics are compiled.

True. Which means there's little to no downside to laicite.