If we respect and allow other cultures freedom will they respect us?

Freiheit

Initially I favoured banning of the burqua,but I'm now starting to feel that it would only alienate Muslims and actually drive them further into Islam. If we tolerate other creeds freedom of expression, backed up by a secular constitution, are other creeds likely to become more moderate and accept us when they recognise our humane values?. Seems that when cultures are restricted that they become more fudamentalist.

Manach

It could be that by giving one concession leads to an avalanche that leads to the fragmentation of society. As part of a course I've been reading various texts of the end of a society - The Austro-Hungarian empire. One of the main threads is how any concession to a minority to allay a perceive injustice immediate lead to other minorities seeking the same and more. This in the end reached such a state that the empire was paralysised by multi-culturalism.

ThirdMan

Manach wrote: »

It could be that by giving one concession leads to an avalanche that leads to the fragmentation of society. As part of a course I've been reading various texts of the end of a society - The Austro-Hungarian empire. One of the main threads is how any concession to a minority to allay a perceive injustice immediate lead to other minorities seeking the same and more. This in the end reached such a state that the empire was paralysised by multi-culturalism.

I think we should establish a secular constitution first. If anything has the potential to alienate it is the "Christian nature of the state".

Freiheit

Freiheit wrote: »

Initially I favoured banning of the burqua,but I'm now starting to feel that it would only alienate Muslims and actually drive them further into Islam.

They're already "into" Islam, and its highly unlikely that banning or allowing the burqua is going to convince them to leave that religion. I have this feeling that most posters are comparing Islam with Christianity or other such religions. And yet its not, due to the level of belief that runs quite persistently throughout all levels of the religion.

If we tolerate other creeds freedom of expression, backed up by a secular constitution, are other creeds likely to become more moderate and accept us when they recognise our humane values?. Seems that when cultures are restricted that they become more fudamentalist.

Highly doubtful. The precepts/laws of the Islamic religion have changed extremely little since its creation, and they have experience of living in just about every country in the world. So why/how would Ireland create something unique?

Cultures can become more fundamentalist in a free environment simply because they see the resident culture as being a threat to them, and therefore its logical to return to the root/origin of the religion when everything was clear and closer to God. We're talking about people and religion here... there's very little logic to be used.

Although TBH I don't really think its our place to wean away Islamic believers.. its not as if we have a decent religion to replace it with.

Truley

I take aspects of peoples culture and way of life as they come, if it doesn't do any harm and makes people happier then I can respect it. If I don't think it worthy of respect then I will treat it as such, on a situation by situation basis. However I would never disrespect a persons culture/way of life solely out of fear of what might happen in the future, especially if it involves oppressing or trying to manipulate other people's way of life. That idea is purely based on presumption and stereotyping and will only lead to conflict, from both sides. Either you show respect or you don't, regardless of whether you think that respect will be returned.

looksee

I don't think its possible for 'us' to answer the OP's question, only the people of other cultures can answer it. Further I don't think other cultures are being disrespected, if the only thing in question is the wearing of the burka. And if we continue to not protest the wearing of it, it seems unlikely that a centuries old tradition will respond by not wearing it.

Though your comment about fundamentalism has some merit, there are still fundamentalist Christians and Muslims in various Christian and Muslim countries, where they are not under pressure but still thrive.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Truley

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have a point, but I think cases of rioting, killing, terrorism etc should be treated as seperate, individual crimes and not judged on their cultural context because the perpertrators happen to be from a particular religion/ethinicity. For example a mulsim father carries out an 'honour killing' on his daughter it should be treated as an individual case of murder, not an issue with the Islamic religion itself and the wider population who follow it. Any more than say, the killing of abortion doctors in the US warrants a clampdown on Christian followers.

It seems to me that the OP is suggesting that allowing certain religions the freedom to practice their customs could lead down a slippery slope to cultural disorder. A sort of 'give em an inch' idea maybe. I don't really see it that way, if someone commits a crime they commit a crime. If they don't they don't. Any attempts to curb harmless cultural expression with the idea that it 'may' lead to problems is invasive in my opinion; say for example banning hijab wearing 'incase' it encourages extremeism.

Freiheit

My suggestion was that could allowing them freedom actually promote greater social harmony? Surely people are people and regardless of what their holy books say there is a common set of human values? such as peace?....Muslims have just taken over a shop next door...I'm sure they'l be much better than the previous indigenous owner, who ran a loutish, clannish establishment...

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While I don't particularly like religion (or at least the religions I've seen to date), anyone that leaves a religion usually finds something else to replace it, especially when the religion they're leaving is particularly intense. A friend of mine left the Jehovas under great stress, and turn to consumerism. Thats his new God. His new religion. And TBH I can't say which is worse.

However, when Muslims start whipping, stoning, and beheading people because of something they read in the Koran, or rioting in the streets because some newspaper published satirical cartoons of their beloved prophet, or forming terrorist organisations for the purpose of wiping out the infidels in the West, then yes, the state should put a stop to that. Defending a belief system doesn't entail defending atrocities committed on the basis of that belief system.

Yes, our state, or the non-muslim country should be stopping any such extremism. The muslim states should be stopping it too, but thats pretty unlikely in the sense of realism. But the problem with our state or western nations are the people that say that Muslims have rights, and the right to maintain all aspects of their religion/vulture, and then wonder why everything goes to hell.

Personally, this freedom brigade goes too far. Cultures such as Islam and others, need to be regulated so that they can become part of our society, but also have the venue to stay removed in private. But the minute groups/mobs form, or they enter the public forum, they live under our (Irish/Western) rules.

Freiheit

Freiheit wrote: »

My suggestion was that could allowing them freedom actually promote greater social harmony? Surely people are people and regardless of what their holy books say there is a common set of human values? such as peace?....Muslims have just taken over a shop next door...I'm sure they'l be much better than the previous indigenous owner, who ran a loutish, clannish establishment...

Did you read my previous response?

By and large, the majority of Muslims are lovely people. Sure, the men can be a little superior and the women way too submissive, but they're very enjoyable to do business with. I've never seen a badly run shop or such from a Muslim. And the food they cook? Fantastic.

Human values though are subjective. Lets consider you and me. [Major assumptions following ] Both Irish. (probably), both had similar religious backgrounds (probably - even if neither of us is serious), have traveled a bit, etc

I guarantee that my value system is different to yours. And thats not to be argumentative. People are not just people. That's a propaganda reel from 20-40 years ago. People are different and we will hold to those differences. Except when we follow a religion with particular interest/devoutness. Then our individualism becomes part of the religion, and not so convenient.

But I'm sure most muslims would agree that they would have no problem with the rest of the world turning to the true faith. Then there would be common peace. Allahu Akbar!

metrovelvet

What about things like circumcusion? Polygamy, in the case of Mormons? What about animal sacrifice like in santa ria?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about things like circumcusion? Polygamy, in the case of Mormons? What about animal sacrifice like in santa ria?

If it has no legal precedent in this country, I wouldn't support its allowance. Other countries can do what they like. But thats just my feeling on things. I love living in other countries with different cultures, but I'll always be a foreigner. I freely accept that, as do most people who travel/live like I do. So I don't really understand why we have to change our own country's culture/legal to make them feel more "at home".

It all honesty I highly doubt the home countries of these people would bend change their customs to please us (unless we're bringing in big money - but even then there are limits)

Denerick

I dislike the premise of the original question. We should not embrace freedom for differing cultures (Or in other words, a culture neutral State) for pragmatic reasons or with an end result in mind. We should adopt a free society because it is inherently right, regardless of the perceived risks involved.

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

I dislike the premise of the original question. We should not embrace freedom for differing cultures (Or in other words, a culture neutral State) for pragmatic reasons or with an end result in mind. We should adopt a free society because it is inherently right, regardless of the perceived risks involved.

Sounds awfully naive to me. [And more like one of those romantic ideas, than something based in reality] The world is full of dangerous ideas and concepts which frankly Ireland has been protected from until pretty recently (last 10-15 years). Immigration has opened the world to us, and brought with it a host of different ideas and such. Look at the other countries which have embraced everything and you will see common strife. Yay for a free society.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging of different peoples to come to this country but on our terms. Many other countries like Japan and others put restrictions in place to regulate the type of change that occurs. While we don't have to put in place the same heavily restrictive regulations, we can at the same time put in our own type of regulations.

I really don't understand why we need to repeat the mistakes of the other countries in the western world, by blindly accepting everything a immigrant brings with them.

Denerick

I don't believe cultures should be preserved like some sort of quaint romantic experiment. Thats the only romantic naivity at work here, the belief that governments can 'protect' and defend cultures against the much broader and more powerful forces of history. The state should be neutral in such affairs and not take a position either way.

Furthermore it is inherently right because the perceived risks (I was careful to use that term) of cultural 'contamination' are ridiculous. If a culture cannot survive on its own terms then clearly that culture wasn't worth defending. Ireland has benefited immensely in cultural terms over the last 20 years - I believe the previous social conservatism kept this nation in a 19th century bubble, trying to recreate the perfect Gaelic society that never existed in the first place. It is travesties of this nature that I find abhorrent.

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

I don't believe cultures should be preserved like some sort of quaint romantic experiment. Thats the only romantic naivity at work here, the belief that governments can 'protect' and defend cultures against the much broader and more powerful forces of history. The state should be neutral in such affairs and not take a position either way.

Furthermore it is inherently right because the perceived risks (I was careful to use that term) of cultural 'contamination' are ridiculous. If a culture cannot survive on its own terms then clearly that culture wasn't worth defending. Ireland has benefited immensely in cultural terms over the last 20 years - I believe the previous social conservatism kept this nation in a 19th century bubble, trying to recreate the perfect Gaelic society that never existed in the first place. It is travesties of this nature that I find abhorrent.

All cultures are influenced by external sources and change over time. I'm not suggesting that we freeze Irish culture and resist change. However I do believe that we need to be careful of freely embracing foreign cultures and allowing them to set up shop on our shores independent of our own culture. There are quite a lot of cultures/religions which encourage such, and regardless of the countries I've been to, I still haven't seen one good reason for allowing it to happen.

What is Irish Culture? I have no real idea. Its not what the government, the political parties, the land developers, or our musicians tell us it is. I came back to Ireland after living abroad and found that it had changed, and changed in a rather great way. And I'm all in support for the culture to continue changing. But some changes are not welcome either. And some of the changes can be controlled by stepping in at the start and saying "No".

Denerick

Who steps in and says 'no'? Obviously you consider that to be the role of the State.

Obviously we can never tolerate criminal activities or activities that may be common to some cultures but abhorrent to us (Such as fathers preventing their daughters from getting an education) but generally the role of the State shouldn't be in this area. It shouldn't act as a restraint on what are natural changes.

I can understand the necessity of an immigration policy. Too much, too soon can cause social problems if nothing else. But I find nothing more offensive and abhorrent than the State dictating to us what our 'values' are for one thing, and then deciding to impose these values (And 'Values' is a ridiculous term which is basically used to justify tyranny and bigotry) on others. Such as telling women they can't wear a certain item of clothing, for example. I find the very concept of the chauvinistic State to be disgusting.

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

Who steps in and says 'no'? Obviously you consider that to be the role of the State.

Pretty much. They're the ones that introduce the laws by which we live our lives by. They're there to protect this country and the people within. They're not there to nanny us though.

Obviously we can never tolerate criminal activities or activities that may be common to some cultures but abhorrent to us (Such as fathers preventing their daughters from getting an education) but generally the role of the State shouldn't be in this area. It shouldn't act as a restraint on what are natural changes.

And who should be cast in that role if not the State? You say generally so I have to assume that you believe that there are circumstances whereby the State must be involved, so where is the line drawn, and who determines where that line is drawn?

Obviously I can understand the necessity of an immigration policy. Too much, too soon can cause social problems if nothing else. But I find nothing more offensive and abhorrent than the State dictating to us what our 'values' are for one thing, and then deciding to impose these values (And 'Values' is a ridiculous term which is basically used to justify tyranny and bigotry) on others. Such as telling women they can't wear a certain item of clothing, for example. I find the very concept of the chauvinistic State to be disgusting.

Whereas I believe its necessary... I've lived in countries which have allowed everything and also lived in countries which have been very careful about what was allowed. Some changes occurred regardless of the limitations set by those State's but the effects were limited, and could be managed. Interestingly enough it was the countrys that had those controls in place that were the safest of all.

You mention the aspect of restricting articles of clothing. I support such when there is a clear connection between such an article and a culture which encourages separation from society. When it concerns the introduction of such separation in Ireland, then I'm concerned since its just the start of a foundation towards greater separation. I still believe its better to step in now, and say no, than having to step in later when the separation is grounded and growing.

If people want to come to this country then they will be prepared to do so within the limits we allow for everyone. If they don't, then there's plenty of other countries to choose from. Just as when I go to live in other countries I know that I will have to exist under the limits imposed by those cultures/governments. I didn't find it difficult to accept that in China, Japan, etc when I had to accept many restrictions if I wished to be allowed to stay in-country and enjoy the experience.

Denerick

Deleted User wrote: »

And who should be cast in that role if not the State? You say generally so I have to assume that you believe that there are circumstances whereby the State must be involved, so where is the line drawn, and who determines where that line is drawn?

The line should be drawn between the culturally varient (Such as women choosing to wear certain types of clothing) and the immoral (IE gender discrimination) The two aren't mututally exclusive.

Whereas I believe its necessary... I've lived in countries which have allowed everything and also lived in countries which have been very careful about what was allowed. Some changes occurred regardless of the limitations set by those State's but the effects were limited, and could be managed. Interestingly enough it was the countrys that had those controls in place that were the safest of all.

You mention the aspect of restricting articles of clothing. I support such when there is a clear connection between such an article and a culture which encourages separation from society. When it concerns the introduction of such separation in Ireland, then I'm concerned since its just the start of a foundation towards greater separation. I still believe its better to step in now, and say no, than having to step in later when the separation is grounded and growing.

If people want to come to this country then they will be prepared to do so within the limits we allow for everyone. If they don't, then there's plenty of other countries to choose from. Just as when I go to live in other countries I know that I will have to exist under the limits imposed by those cultures/governments. I didn't find it difficult to accept that in China, Japan, etc when I had to accept many restrictions if I wished to be allowed to stay in-country and enjoy the experience.

The Burka ban, which is what I'm referring to is aimed at around 2,000 French women who choose to wear it. It was a glorious act of chauvinism and bigotry aimed at placating the far right, which like in most of Europe has grown in strength over the last two decades.

I understand your position and there is an anxiety about having divisive cultures living within a State. But I don't like the principle of the State determining for me what my culture is, and manipulating the inchoate fears of society by imposing a hare brained medieval interpretation of what it means to be Irish. Being Irish is whatever we damn well decide it is - not the government!

G453

When I go to their countries I have to dress how they want me to so why should it be any different when they come to mine! Don't like it, stay at home. Bad enough we cant have the nativity scene in our hospitals any more, enough is enough.

Denerick

G453 wrote: »

When I go to their countries I have to dress how they want me to so why should it be any different when they come to mine! Don't like it, stay at home. Bad enough we cant have the nativity scene in our hospitals any more, enough is enough.

Do you really think Liberal, democratic and western Ireland is comparable to authoritarian, autocratic and eastern Saudi Arabia? Would you like the two countries to be comparable?

Eliot Rosewater

I've never understood this argument that the State should defend a certain culture. If a culture, or cultural practise, is worthy enough to be saved (by worthy, I mean that enough people consider that practise to have value) then it will save itself.

The gaelgoirs often tell us that the Irish language needs to be protected. If it is so valuable, and there is such a desire for it to exist, then surely it will survive on it's own.

As such, I would always tend to view the government intervening in the name of culture to be nothing more than the workings of an obstinate minority who want their world view plastered over others.

G453 wrote: »

When I go to their countries I have to dress how they want me to so why should it be any different when they come to mine!

The day that Ireland starts basing its moral code on that of extremist intolerant countries like Pakistan is a very sad day indeed. Them doing something terrible is not licence for you to do same.

irishh_bob

Denerick wrote: »

Do you really think Liberal, democratic and western Ireland is comparable to authoritarian, autocratic and eastern Saudi Arabia? Would you like the two countries to be comparable?

ireland wont be liberal for very long if we allow regressive cutoms to take hold

Denerick

irishh_bob wrote: »

ireland wont be liberal for very long if we allow regressive cutoms to take hold

Ach aye, its discipline these young people need.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As such, I would always tend to view the government intervening in the name of culture to be nothing more than the workings of an obstinate minority who want their world view plastered over others.

How about the government intervening on the grounds of stability then? That the introduction of foreign & persistent religious/cultural beliefs has created a divide in other countries, which we would prevent here.

Most people would agree that they wouldn't want Islamic men to beat their wives in the street.. [with the wife refusing to press charges] that's part of their culture. So i have to wonder where and how we draw the line as to what's acceptable and whats not.

Denerick

Deleted User wrote: »

How about the government intervening on the grounds of stability then? That the introduction of foreign & persistent religious/cultural beliefs has created a divide in other countries, which we would prevent here.

Most people would agree that they wouldn't want Islamic men to beat their wives in the street.. [with the wife refusing to press charges] that's part of their culture. So i have to wonder where and how we draw the line as to what's acceptable and whats not.

There is a difference between accepting cultural differences and accepting ethical homogenity. It is wrong to beat up anyone (Your wife or otherwise) on the street and the perpetrator would be punished by the law. Plus, I doubt how much domestic violence is part of Islamic culture; certain segments maybe, but hardly the mainstream consensus.

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

There is a difference between accepting cultural differences and accepting ethical homogenity.

Ok. Explain that further then.

It is wrong to beat up anyone (Your wife or otherwise) on the street and the perpetrator would be punished by the law.

Actually, if the woman or man refused to press charges there's very little the Gardai can do.

Plus, I doubt how much domestic violence is part of Islamic culture; certain segments maybe, but hardly the mainstream consensus.

I used Islam as an example. Its part of many M.Eastern cultures, asian cultures, and some western subcultures etc.

But I've seen it happen when I was in Egypt, Syria, China, Thailand, Russia, etc. So if these peoples come to this country, since hitting "their" women is part of their culture, surely an allowance should be made? Or perhaps hitting their children?

But then I suppose we allow Jehovah Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds even in terminal circumstances...

Denerick

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. Explain that further then.

One should accept someones cultural difference so long as it doesn't have broader ethical implications; IE, Halal meat is fine - raping children is not (If that happens to be a part of their culture), the burka is fine - domestic violence is not, Muslims refusing to engage in ursury is fine (If they manage to pay for a house without a loan, more power to them!) - shooting your neighbours and vomiting over their flowers is not (Again, assuming that is part of their culture )

In short, anything that doesn't directly harm me or another and which the individual derives satisfaction or pleasure from is fine. So the concept begins and ends on the principal of non aggression.

But I've seen it happen when I was in Egypt, Syria, China, Thailand, Russia, etc. So if these peoples come to this country, since hitting "their" women is part of their culture, surely an allowance should be made? Or perhaps hitting their children?

But then I suppose we allow Jehovah Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds even in terminal circumstances...

Clearly that is not acceptable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't quite understand why it has to be one or the other. Open versus closed. Can't there be something in the middle?

We have laws against assault that make it illegal for anyone to beat anyone else on the street, or anywhere else, for any reason. Religion and culture are not legitimate defenses against assault.

If the wife refuses to press charges, that's unfortunate—but the same thing happens in many instances of spousal abuse here in Ireland. It's not exclusively a Muslim issue.

I mentioned later that I intended the Islamic reference as an example, and its part of many traditions/cultures.

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

One should accept someones cultural difference so long as it doesn't have broader ethical implications; IE, Halal meat is fine - raping children is not (If that happens to be a part of their culture), the burka is fine - domestic violence is not, Muslims refusing to engage in ursury is fine (If they manage to pay for a house without a loan, more power to them!) - shooting your neighbours and vomiting over their flowers is not (Again, assuming that is part of their culture )


In short, anything that doesn't directly harm me or another and which the individual derives satisfaction or pleasure from is fine. So the concept begins and ends on the principal of non aggression.

Thanks. That clarifies things for me quite a bit.

Clearly that is not acceptable.

Which? The beating or the Jehovah Blood thingy?