Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Eh, they have as about as much legitimacy as any other religion.

[Another]

If one were to establish an official Charity - there would be some serious government inspections to permit the official tax-deductible status. Similar criteria would find most religions passing them but Scientology - not.

There is a whole continuum towards the most oppressive totalitarian sects and Scientology is firmly on the "money-making business detrimental to physical and psychical health of it's followers" (with some cases of being held inside against one's will) side of it.

[Sheb]

Organized religions are a bit like drugs. They tend to be harmful (although a lot are okay and really trippy), but some of them are so commonly used that it'd be unthinkable to ban them (cigarettes, catholicism, alcohol, Church of England...)

[smirk]

Relevant: The first three quotes on this page, and more interspersed further down. People will believe even blatant charlatans with sufficient encouragement. Kinda respect the guy for it, really, even as I despise the machine he created.

[XXSockXX]

(cigarettes, catholicism, alcohol, Church of England...)

I hear that distributors of catholicism will soon have to put graphic warning images on the packaging. Or was that something else...


I'm always quick with the religion hating, but Scientology isn't even trying much to look like one. It's a joke that it hasn't been banned here yet. All attempts to do so have suspiciously failed though, they have good lawyers and probably some strong lobbyists in the background.

[Sheb]

The problem is how do you prove it's a scam? On what ground do you ban them? Their claim may be silly, and they can be abusive, but so can other religions. And like with cigarettes, it's simply not practical to ban all religions.

[Darvi]

In the meanwhile, Denmark is committing crimes against humanity.

[Leafsnail]

This is how a multicultural society can still paradoxically lead to a homogenous society. Immigration is immediately relevant as in most European countries, the populations are mostly all shrinking with a high old:young ratio coupled with young parents having less than 2 kids per family. Immigrant families however tend to have more. The result is the immigrant families will replace the native ones, and if the immigrant families do not take up the native culture - that culture will be gone.

This argument doesn't make sense, and in fact it clearly contradicts your previous contention that a majority culture will cause minority cultures to be wiped out in a multicultural society.  Surely since the native culture is by far the most common it will easily absorb all the immigrant cultures under a multicultural system.  As your previous contention was wrong this isn't entirely what happens, but we do see that second and third generation immigrants largely identify as "British" and are reasonably well integrated into society, even if they maintain aspects of their original culture.

Your argument would only work if a) the vast majority of the immigrants we're receiving were from the same culture or b) if all foreign people would somehow form a coalition Immigrant culture to combat the English one.

Ultimately though, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make.  What do you actually define "multiculturalism" as, and what is the alternative you are trying to propose?  You seem to be arguing that minority cultures have inherent value and should be protected (as in your Welsh example), but at the same time that they are a threat that needs to be stamped out wherever possible (as in your Malaysian and Chinese examples).

[XXSockXX]

The problem is how do you prove it's a scam? On what ground do you ban them? Their claim may be silly, and they can be abusive, but so can other religions. And like with cigarettes, it's simply not practical to ban all religions.

Well, firstly they are not recognized as a religion here, they're a commercial enterprise. Grounds for banning them would be them being opposed to the constitution, which the goverment has been trying to prove for years. Results so far are a too shaky apparently, but they're still under surveillance. Other evidence would be reports of victims and informants, which obviously also hasn't been enough so far. Well, there is some ministry trying to ban them every other year or so, we'll see.

[Sheb]

Really? How would they be opposed to the constitution (You're German, right?)?

[10ebbor10]

Well, I suppose you could try to convict them for not following the freedom of religion principle. After all, before you can even look at some teachings you have to pay a significant sum of money.

In fact, said entire non-voluntary money donation thing makes it quite easy to label them as a cult/ business enterprise. Also, the fact that they want to abolish and forbid psychiatry.

As another note, Germany's constitution has a clausule that says that religious teachings used merely as a front for a commercial enterprise are not a religion.

[Sheb]

Except those payments are mostly presented as fees for psychological help (Help for problems they conveniently found during those psychological tests they offer for free). Not really different from stuff like psychoanalysis.

[XXSockXX]

Really? How would they be opposed to the constitution (You're German, right?)?

In short they are being suspected of spreading an antidemocratic totalitarian ideology and committing human rights abuses. They have been under surveillance by the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution for many years. (The same glorious organisation that has managed to torpedo the last attempt of banning the NPD by having half of their leading party members on their informants list.)

As another note, Germany's constitution has a clausule that says that religious teachings used merely as a front for a commercial enterprise are not a religion.

Actually Scientology's legal status is a bit unclear. It is not recognized as a religion or worldview officially (which would still be much less than being recognized as a church), though there have been rulings that treated it as such. Generally it's treated like a business corporation.

[Loud Whispers]

This argument doesn't make sense, and in fact it clearly contradicts your previous contention that a majority culture will cause minority cultures to be wiped out in a multicultural society.  Surely since the native culture is by far the most common it will easily absorb all the immigrant cultures under a multicultural system...

Of course! That's one way it would work. Although one struggles to imagine how one culture absorbing others is very multicultural.

...As your previous contention was wrong this isn't entirely what happens, but we do see that second and third generation immigrants largely identify as "British" and are reasonably well integrated into society, even if they maintain aspects of their original culture.
Your argument would only work if a) the vast majority of the immigrants we're receiving were from the same culture or b) if all foreign people would somehow form a coalition Immigrant culture to combat the English one.

It's not about any intended ill will or some insidious immigration colonization conspiracy, it's really just about the English population aging and decreasing in size. In London for example, the English are already a minority themselves.

Ultimately though, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make.  What do you actually define "multiculturalism" as, and what is
the alternative you are trying to propose?

Oh I quite like cosmopolitan capitals and quiet Welsh countrysides of sheep herders chanting Lovecraftian script as they are now, I only see one other alternative to multiculturalism and that's homogenous culture. That could work for spares, rural regions, but it makes cities all the more boring. My stick I'm waving around is that people don't really factor into how integration and stringent regulation of immigration is important to maintaining the delicate balance of a multicultural society like London or New York and is key to benefiting the country socially, economically and culturally.

  You seem to be arguing that minority cultures have inherent value and should be protected (as in your Welsh example), but at the same time that they are a threat that needs to be stamped out wherever possible (as in your Malaysian and Chinese examples).

Did I seem supportive of the Hakka Chinese culture being erased? Because I am openly critical about it, and this is leaving me fairly confused.

[Leafsnail]

Of course! That's one way it would work. Although one struggles to imagine how one culture absorbing others is very multicultural.

I only see one other alternative to multiculturalism and that's homogenous culture.

This is why I am baffled as to your definition of multiculturalism.  Either we can adopt what you regard as multicultural policies and end up with a monoculture, or we can not adopt multicultural policies and be a monoculture.  Does it even matter what policy we choose, then?

It's not about any intended ill will or some insidious immigration colonization conspiracy, it's really just about the English population aging and decreasing in size. In London for example, the English are already a minority themselves.

Just to be clear, by English you mean "white and English", right?  I can't see any other way this statistic works.

I think people with different skin colours are capable of being English.  I'll go further - children and particularly grandchildren of immigrants do retain aspects of the culture they arrived with, but are also able to integrate into English society fine - indeed, your own argument on cultural assimilation implies that this is what will happen, unless you're suggesting immigrants have some kind of shield against it.

Oh I quite like cosmopolitan capitals and quiet Welsh countrysides of sheep herders chanting Lovecraftian script as they are now, I only see one other alternative to multiculturalism and that's homogenous culture. That could work for spares, rural regions, but it makes cities all the more boring. My stick I'm waving around is that people don't really factor into how integration and stringent regulation of immigration is important to maintaining the delicate balance of a multicultural society like London or New York and is key to benefiting the country socially, economically and culturally.

Is it?  I can see that integration is helpful in a multicultural society, but I don't see what kind of threat uncontrolled immigration is supposed to represent unless we're in one of those really unrealistic scenarios I mentioned earlier.

Did I seem supportive of the Hakka Chinese culture being erased? Because I am openly critical about it, and this is leaving me fairly confused.

No.  Your implication with those examples is that if we allow immigration to be unchecked then British culture will end up wiped out, just like the Hakka Chinese.  In that regard, we should be seeing minority cultures as threats, not valuable things to be protected.  Is that what you were getting at with those examples?