If asked at a dinner party in front of strangers, many Canadians would likely think twice before saying they disagree with Official Multiculturalism in Canada. Failure to answer that question “correctly” might very well cause a bullseye to be drawn on one’s forehead, followed by a series of “Racist” barbs soon after.
Stepping back a moment though, when someone says they support “multiculturalism”, what exactly are they actually stating they believe in? Many undoubtedly think they’re affirming “support for multiple ethnicities in Canada”. But that’s not what multiculturalism means whatsoever!
Official Multiculturalism proponents in our country firmly believe that all cultures around the world are exactly the same; no better or worse than Canadian culture. Furthermore, anyone who does not believe this baseline premise is tarred & feathered with any number of pejoratives such as: Racist, Bigot, Xenophobe, etc.
I, for one, think such Multicultural views are absolute nonsense. Turns out that some immigrants do too. In fact, some moving to our country don’t appreciate our federal government trying to guide them into the sub-culture of their homeland and much prefer being an unhyphenated Canadian.
This past weekend I had the great honour of being a guest on Roy Green’s radio program, along with two ladies, Carmen & Sara, who left Egypt to move here, plus a regular guest on the show, William Gairdner. You can listen to the entire segment here.
canucklehead: “But if we act as though there it would be wrong for immigrants to become part of the main culture and respect and accept the core values of it … then Canada could also lose our character in even more serious ways… ”
In case you haven’t noticed it, canucklehead, we’ve decimated our “main culture,” which is Euro-Christian. Under the Liberal hegemony, led by Trudeau’s atheistic Leftists, our British/Judeo-Christian heritage, upon which our democratic laws and institutions are built, has been systematically and intentionally trashed.
‘Little wonder it’s difficult for immigrants who wish to assimilate to do so, seeing as what we’ve substituted as “a culture” (more like an anti-culture) involves anything-goes-and-the-more-flamboyant-the-better lifestyles, unmoored from our historical and faith-based foundations.
In many cases, the hedonistic, anti-historical substitutes for “culture” today run counter to many immigrants’ sense of morality and decency and they’re hard-pressed to know what Canada’s actual heritage/culture is, because it’s been relegated to the dust bin.
A nation that loses its story, as central Canada has done (Quebec, no), is vulnerable to takeovers by Strong Men, who usually don’t have the best interests of the most people at heart. It’s time to take back our Judeo-Christian/British heritage and to realize how it’s because of this heritage that we are the country of choice for many immigrants fleeing tyrannical regimes.
Canada, one of the freest, most democratic nations in the world, didn’t just happen.
I agree with batb that multiculturalism was instituted as the means to deliberately hollow out the Judeo-Christian/British heritage of this country: on the other hand, Quebec’s culture has been altogether protected and has a huge presence in the public square. This was engineered by Trudeau, a London School of Economics socialist, if not Marxist. A person called George Irbe has written about Trudeau:
“The Canadian people were stripped of the one and only absolutely benign and dependable system for the protection of individual freedom in the world – the British common law. In its place [in 1982] Trudeau gave to the people the French kind of constitution, which submits the interpretation of a set of enumerated individual rights to the pleasure of a group of judges who are unelected and who are accountable to no one. Furthermore, this colossal constitutional change was implemented without consulting the citizens by referendum, as they rightly should have been consulted. It was a robbery of precious rights . . .”
This government deception and intrusion into our lives was added to in 1988: [I posted this earlier]
“ ‘The Canadian Multiculturalism Act affirms the policy of the government to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government which respects and celebrates diversity. The Act also:
“. . . recognizes equality rights regardless of colour, religion, etc.’
“Of course, the act means no such thing: it was crafted by and has been wielded (like a bludgeon) by our politically correct masters, who hate the British, Judeo-Christian dispensation that’s the political, judicial, and moral foundation of this country—and [much] of the free, prosperous world. The “Act affirms the policy of the government to ensure that every Canadian receives equal treatment by the government . . .”? Ask a traditionalist, male Christian (Stephen Boissoin), who objects to homosexual propaganda in the schools (I’ve seen it up close and personal) or who’s not in favour of same-sex marriage (Damian Goddard, in the last two days).
“Have these dissenters from political orthodoxy been treated equally to Muslims, who also, a propos their religious belief, object to homosexual propaganda and same-sex marriage? NO. It’s white, Christian (and, in Ezra’s case, Jewish) males who are hauled before our draconian Human Rights (sic) Commissions or have lost their jobs because they’ve had the audacity to express both the inconvenient truth of our politically correct gulags and their religious/philosophical beliefs. Some equality!”
Official Multiculturalism in Canada has been a very powerful tool to denigrate and marginalize the Judeo-Christian/British institutions of this country—the very institutions that used to protect our freedoms.
“But let me say I’m pretty impressed. I’ve never seen a half-decent trolling last this long in an SDA thread and what I actually like is that in the last third of this thread you’re running out of pat troll tricks and actually made some real conversation.”
Judging by how it gets thrown around, I doubt there’s a single person around here – other than myself – who actually understands what the word “troll” means. There are, however, one or two people with the intelligence needed to have a decent conversation. You’re not one of them.
Alex: “I doubt there’s a single person around here – other than myself – who actually understands what the word ‘troll’ means.”
O.M.G.
Now, he’s actually claiming to be self-aware …
“Ah, yes. A bunch of white slave owners figured out that if they let this negro have a slave for life, they could use it as an excuse to keep their own slaves for life. This is, of course, multiculturalism.
You really live in a world of your own, don’t you?
”
The belief that all cultures are equal can result in something exactly like this, yes. There is nothing there that doesnt contradict any tenant of multiculturalism. He was right to post what he did, and YOU are the one out of touch. You do konw that white slave traders bought African slaves from other Africans, right?
Correction; meant to say theres nothing there that contradicts any tenet of multiculturalism.
If respect for the cultures of others is central to the concept of “multiculturalism” and “political correctness,” then why is anti-Semitism allowed to flourish on college campuses in both the United States and Canada? Shouldn’t there be a single standard for all in the conflict against bigotry in all of its forms and not just one standard for some and another standard for others?
“You’re not one of them.”
See, now we’ve thrown enough insults back and forth that I hardly remember that you led off by calling me bigoted. Sweet success, I feel all better now. I actually am curious about who you consider intelligent enough to have a conversation with now that you say you think so.
batb, yeah it’s especially interesting that more culturally conservative immigrants now also feel comfortable enough with the Conservatives to change over. I would never have imagined an election with Toronto going half Tory. I think it puts Canadian conservativism in a lot better position than in the states. Anyhow the odd thing to me has been how much post-Christian influences in the culture retain values. I think the whole same-sex marriage thing ended up as a plus for traditional values because so much of the argument for it was that same-sex relationships could be just as loving and stable. From being more of an anything-goes fringe it won that fight less by overturning the basic values than by respecting them. It seems to me that the moral foundations of the secular people are borrowed and altered versions of Judeo-Christian ones so the question is how that can possibly stay renewed with the source gone. I don’t really agree that the source has been wiped out of our culture though, since it isn’t really controversial when Harper says things like “God keep our land” – although I’d guess things are still heading that way.
canucklehead: “I don’t really agree that the source has been wiped out of our culture though …”
Try the public education system, where the mention of the Christian God is pretty much verboten (I know; my kids went to public school), whereas celebrations of Earth Day, Native spirituality, and visible minority faiths are common.
Most public school students have no idea what Christians believe about Christmas or Easter, as the narrative has now swung to Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman from the birth of Jesus Christ and the closest some students get to the meaning of Easter is, “Doesn’t it have something to do with a dead rabbit?” I’m not kidding. A friend of mine in the public system, when asking students through Holy Week, what Easter was, got the dead rabbit response. The kid was serious.
Then, there’s the gagging of Christians and Christianity — or slagging and/or rididuling of them/it, take your pick — in the public square. Here’s an instructive anecdote: A friend of mine bought a Christmas card at the Hospital for Sick Children gift shop about 15 years ago, of a picture of Jesus as the Good Shepherd holding a lamb in his arms. It was a photo of the stained glass window of the chapel at Sick Kids. Keep in mind that the Hospital for Sick Children was originally founded by Presbyterians.
When I expressed an interest in buying those cards the next year, to send as my Christmas cards, she said, “Oh, you won’t be able to get them next year.” When I asked why, she said that the gift shop at Sick Kids had decided not to sell specifically Christian cards at Christmas because it might offend the families with other faiths. HUH? (BTW, the only “Christmas” cards you can now get at the Sick Kids are ones with Frosty, Santa Claus, and winter scenes.)
What about the banning of “Christmas” from “Christmas” Concerts, which have become Holiday Concerts, and from “Christmas” trees, which have become Holiday Trees?
There’s beginning, thank Heavens, to be a push back on these “bans” but it’s been late in coming. I’m not sure where you’ve been for the past 25 years, canucklehead, or perhaps you’re just too young to know the before and after narrative.
Canada, since the socialist, atheistic, London-School-of-Economics trained Liberal elite under Trudeau and co., has been moving to secularism, which has meant the putting down of the Judeo-Christian faith of our forefathers and mothers, of Canada’s collective heritage. Trudeau and co. replaced Christianity and our British heritage with secularism and Francophone ascendency. Sadly, the fact that you seem unaware of this reality means that he and his illiberal henchman have done a thorough job of brainwashing.
The tide is turning, but it’s a slow turning.
canucklehead writes, “It seems to me that the moral foundations of the secular people are borrowed and altered versions of Judeo-Christian ones [right on!] so the question is how that can possibly stay renewed with the source gone.” ’Very good point.
My opinion is: not for very long. We’ve pretty well spent the moral capital in the Judeo-Christian account: look around. The public (and, I suspect, private) behaviour of all age groups is deteriorating rapidly. A common question is, “Where are the adults?” Basically, they’re missing in action. A society where self-control is severely lacking, hedonism—my way!—reigns, and few people seem to graduate from toddler behaviour isn’t going to do very well on the “Responsibility” file.
I’ve heard many people, who agree with me, say, “But, of course, things will have to change”, and they mean for the better. I disagree. Civilizations rise and fall: ours, meaning that of the Judeo-Christian West, is on the way down. “You can’t turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.” When a critical mass of a society is sows’ ears, things don’t look promising. People like that don’t tend to produce silk purses. Spend some time in a public school: undisciplined kids abound and the system, full of undisciplined and unprincipled people who look like adults, steps back and allows (especially the worst) offenders to be serial disrupters. Our civilizational confidence is so low, we allow the same thing in our society at large—and even when dealing with a deadly and determined enemy.
So, considering “that the moral foundations of the secular people are borrowed and altered versions of Judeo-Christian ones . . . the question is how that can possibly stay renewed with the source gone.” IMO, it can’t and it won’t. Kyrie eleison.
“It seems to me that the moral foundations of the secular people are borrowed and altered versions of Judeo-Christian ones”
It’s nice to see I was right about you.
Just out of curiosity, can you quantify the difference between “Jude-Christian” values, and the values of early, pre-Christian Roman or Greek society?
Who’s “you”?
I was speaking to the knucklehead but, since you agree with him, it obviously applies to both.
Watch the HBO series, “Rome”, to see the values of the quite barbaric “pre-Christian Roman . . . society”.
Then see who the knucklehead is.
Really? Your answer is “watch TV”?
Let’s hope the knucklehead can come up with something a little better.
’Come to think of it, I guess I never learned anything about anything by watching TV. Silly me for ever thinking I did.
arrrrgh
well, I doubt I could get very far on that question. I want to read the book about the Roman empire by Edward Gibbon but since I haven’t I don’t know much. I doubt the pre-Christian Roman and Greeks had particularly much in common with Judaic values since they were both developed separately if what you’re getting at is that Judeo-Christian values themselves are borrowed. (which is a great point if I can say that without sounding lame) You could probably say that western culture is made up of a lot of both – although I strongly expect that pre-Christian Rome really was a lot more barbaric. Still, it’s also not like you’ll find democracy in the Bible although people will make the case that modern democracy depended on biblical values. (George Washington’s quote about freedom and rights depending on the conviction that they are God-given).
I don’t really rule out that Judaic values were partly borrowed too. Obviously Christianity relies on a lot of Judaic values itself. The way I view Judeo-Christianity as a source for morality is as a backbone of moral certainty – in teaching that morality comes from something certain and transcendant. I just don’t see how people can continue to believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs without believing in God.
yet to respond to you too lookout, I’m not as sure about that as I used to be. I have a close relative who doesn’t believe in God and she’s arguably even more fiercely moral than she was when she did. It’s weird… logically for an atheist to believe something is ‘wrong’ in what people do makes as much sense to me as also criticising a rock for rolling down a hill one way instead of another. They’re just material things either way if matter is all there is. So do people eventually realize that or not? I would think so. (Not that secular and atheist are the same thing but I interpret a secularized culture as not recognizing a transcendant moral authority so the effect is similar) There are things that make me more optimistic. There seems to be a backlash to the really hedonistic hippie wave. My favorite example was a Maclean’s cover story claiming the death of the sexual revolution – with a crying playboy bunny on the cover. It was hilariously subversive of the old-guard libertine values of the 60’s. So my view is that we’re on an upswing although that doesn’t mean the overall direction isn’t still down.
anyhow… this has turned out pretty interesting for me. I notice I nearly contradicted myself three times in two sentences… oh dear.
canknucklehead, I appreciate your thoughtful response. Certainly, as in the case of your relative, individuals may have a strong sense of morality: I’ll bet it’s based on the Ten Commandments, which are embedded in our society. I’m sure this “fierce” morality did not spring, fully formed, from her mind!
However, as the morality of the Ten Commandments is systematically mocked and/or ignored by a critical mass of society at large, and even deconstructed by our legislatures and courts, one notices a steady decline in both personal and group behaviour. Once consciences are no longer informed by such codes as the Ten Commandments, which acknowledge God and an obligation to Him (humility), as well as care of the other: “Love thy neighbour as thyself” (altruism), and self-control: the “Thou shalt nots . . .”, people believe themselves entitled to do “their own thing” minus accountability. Just visit your local school: why, despite countless—and counting!—anti-bullying programs and behaviour codes, do so many kids (and their self-satisfied, boorish, excuse-making parents) treat each other and their teachers with such a lack of respect?
Unmoored from a sense of God and His love, with the corresponding expectation that we will love, serve one another, and be accountable, I believe that society becomes coarsened. We become like “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles”: “. . . in the futility of their minds;/ they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart . . .” (Ephesians 4) Yes, we can do it our way, but the prognosis for a “kinder, gentler” society—constantly preached, in vain, by our secular institutions—is pretty grim.
“I doubt the pre-Christian Roman and Greeks had particularly much in common with Judaic values since they were both developed separately if what you’re getting at is that Judeo-Christian values themselves are borrowed.”
Sort of. I’m not “getting at” anything, I’m just curious to see if you can list off any of these “christian values” which the eeeevil atheists stole from you, which didn’t also exist in pre-christian societies. Personally, I don’t think that you can. Christianity only adopted the values which you cherish in the last few hundred years (if that); prior to that, christian nations were every bit as barbaric as muslim nations. You’re grabbing on to secular values which predate christianity and were only re-introduced during the enlightenment, and then claiming that christianity is responsible for them.
I wasn’t trying to make that point, though – I was honestly curious to see your response. If you had provided a valid list, I would have had to reconsider my position.
“You could probably say that western culture is made up of a lot of both – although I strongly expect that pre-Christian Rome really was a lot more barbaric.”
You couldn’t be more wrong. For an example of the kind of “morals” that christianity introduced to the Roman Empire, read up on Hypatia of Alexandria. Just type her name into wikipedia if you don’t feel like digging through books. Early christianity was crude and barbaric – if you had been a Roman citizen living in that time, I suspect you would have felt just as strongly antagonistic towards christians of that time as you do towards muslims today.
And no, before you start getting self-righteous, I’m not trying to imply any kind of moral-equivalence between islam and christianity. I’m only pointing out that the “values” which you’re so proud of generally predate your religion, and that your religion had a huge role in suppressing those values for about a thousand years. That christianity managed – with much pushing and pulling from secularists – to drag itself back into civility … that’s laudable, and I’m thankful for it … but it’s ridiculous for you to go around claiming that christianity is responsible for the emergence of those values.
“It’s weird… logically for an atheist to believe something is ‘wrong’ in what people do makes as much sense to me as also criticising a rock for rolling down a hill one way instead of another.”
I would love to explain it to you, but that’s a much more involved discussion than would be appropriate for this comments section. It’s a great subject to discuss in a nice quiet pub over a few beers; much harder through a digital medium. However, as a simple thought experiment, ask yourself the following question: “Would it be morally right for me to rape and murder a child if God told me to?”. If the answer is yes, then your beliefs are consistent, but I’d say you’re probably a dangerous, immoral lunatic. If the answer is “no”, then you clearly have an inherent morality which doesn’t require any gods to sort out. If you answered “no”, then you have a starting point for figuring out why morality inherently CAN NOT be based on fiat rules handed down by gods or prophets; why it is necessarily an internal value judgment based on personal beliefs and experiences.
P.S. I may have been slightly off the mark about you earlier 🙂 In this case, I’m glad to be proven wrong.