by Cito di Pense wrote:
Well, there you go, running smack up against the basic concepts of multiculturalism. The easy solution is that one culture does not impose its standards on another, and of course, the asymmetry we recognise here is that proselytising religions do not obey the principles of multiculturalism because they insist (at least) on respect for their traditions from people outside their circle.
Thousands of threads here are wasted reiterating that very general principle. Several contributors to this thread have no problem with other people's traditions, and then the proselytisers run off the rails by proselytising, including asking for 'recognition'.
The simplest solution to proselytising is to ask, metronomically, if necessary, "Yes, of course, but what has this to do with me?"
Including, naturally, people's precious fee-fees. If one takes obligatory empathy on board, one is well on the way to religion, which leads back to establishing standards for barbarism and mistreatment, which multiculturalism insists we may not judge.
Multiculturalism off the rails is just another religion-substitute.
At the risk of incorrectly paraphrasing, I think Cito isn't terribly keen on multiculturalism.
I tend to hold that idea to be accurate.
My working concept of multiculturalism is something along the lines of an established culture attempting to accept other cultures into it on a more or less equal footing.
I think this is doomed to varying degrees of failure, owing to the obvious and often dichotomous differences to be found across varying cultures. What is acceptable to one, for example, may be strictly forbidden in another. To think that different cultures that possess such differences can co-exist peacefully is, I think, wishful thinking.
