Multiculturalism has failed.

[Paxter]

But if you still have an official state religion you are, officially, making religious preference an essential part of the culture. I understand that this isn't so in how people live their everyday lives. But it's an interesting contradiction. I'm not sure what it means.

Raidne, is the existence of official state religions not negated (at least to some extent) by the fundamental right to freedom of religion that is bestowed upon all European citizens? All European states have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 9 (which protects the right to freedom of religion) is rigorously enforced by the European Court of HRs:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion: this right includes freedom…to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

[Brienne the Beauty]

That´s only about 100 years old Raidne. It wouldn´t even enter the discussion in most of Europe.

Yes. There are lots of gorgeous old churches, many hundreds of years old in Europe. Due to the natural movement of populations, and reduction in religious attendance, you often get beautiful old churches built for 500 people with a congregation of 50 or less. What do we do with these churches? They are too lovely to knock down. The congregation cannot support them. Sometimes they can be converted into homes or pubs. Sometimes they are too historic for that. They are tourist attractions and part of the national heritage.

[Guest Raidne]

That´s only about 100 years old Raidne. It wouldn´t even enter the discussion in most of Europe.

Oh, of course. Please. I was not at all trying to say that it compares to the architectural heritage in Europe. Ha! I am being misunderstood a lot in this thread.

It was just used as an example of funding. Presumably the upkeep is expensive. I had no idea if it received federal funds or not, but I guess not because here that would be state support of religion in violation of the Constitution. Of course, many European countries have many more such structures, that being, aesthetically pleasing ones: age is not even the issue with most U.S. churches which tend to be deliberately simple and range from an aesthetic that starts as "large storage unit" and progresses to "YMCA." Apologies - Episcopalians build beautiful churches, but most evangelical structures are appalling. On purpose. I hear our forebearers trashed a lot of what would otherwise be historical sites in the British countryside for similar reasons.

Raidne, is the existence of official state religions not negated (at least to some extent) by the fundamental right to freedom of religion that is bestowed upon all European citizens?

It's a cultural distinction. Here, in the states, people feel that as long as the state pays for the upkeep of certain religious structures, there isn't really freedom of religion.

Let me be more specific - I'm just saying that if I were an immigrant to Germany, I would find state support of the Lutheran Church combined with this stated commitment to religious freedom to be very puzzling. Does it just mean that non-Lutheran beliefs are tolerated, but that the culture still has strong Protestant undercurrents, and people are committed to keeping it that way? (Are they?) Or what? If no religion is really part of the essential culture, then why have a state-supported religion?

It makes it really hard to break it down in that whole essential/non-essential components to the culture distinction I was trying to make earlier.

[Paxter]

It's a cultural distinction. Here, in the states, people feel that as long as the state pays for the upkeep of certain religious structures, there isn't really freedom of religion.

Let me be more specific - I'm just saying that if I were an immigrant to Germany, I would find state support of the Lutheran Church combined with this stated commitment to religious freedom to be very puzzling. Does it just mean that non-Lutheran beliefs are tolerated, but that the culture still has strong Protestant undercurrents, and people are committed to keeping it that way? (Are they?) Or what? If no religion is really part of the essential culture, then why have a state-supported religion?

It makes it really hard to break it down in that whole essential/non-essential components to the culture distinction I was trying to make earlier.

But if I was an immigrant to Germany, how much would I really care about whether the state was paying for the upkeep of historically important structures (which happen to have religious origins)? I think I'd be much more concerned with whether I had the freedom to practise and manifest my own religion (this is why the burqa issue has hit the spotlight), and I wouldn't be too worried about what the state was doing to preserve important sources of tourism revenue.

[Alexia]

Since this thread has branched off into a discussion of separation of church and state, anyone hear about O'Donnell (the GOP candidate for a Delaware Senate Seat) claiming thatthe Constitution does not require separation of church and state?

[Guest Raidne]

Okay, I thought it over - maybe a respect for the religious heritage would be considered, by many Germans, to be an essential part of the German culture.

This is going to be kind of a problem for multiculturalism. Why on earth would a Muslim from Turkey have any particular respect for the Cologne Cathedral? Yes, it's beautiful, but it's a religious structure. This is no problem for you if you're not a particularly fervent adherent of any religion, but it is a problem if you are, and if your country uses tax dollars to maintain a symbol of another religion.

This isn't a problem in the U.S. since we don't have much of a history. Really, there is nothing here that people visit that went up in 1300. Almost everything everyone does visit here is a government building (or commercial, but that's another story entirely...) Anyway, is that what Cathedrals are? It's not that it reflects Germany's Christian past, it's just that it's freaking old and was built in a time when buildings that size were built for religious purposes? Personally, I'd argue that the most famous examples are almost one and all vivid examples of the 12th century Renaissance.

[Galactus]

Okay, I thought it over - maybe a respect for the religious heritage would be considered, by many Germans, to be an essential part of the German culture.

This is going to be kind of a problem for multiculturalism. Why on earth would a Muslim from Turkey have any particular respect for the Cologne Cathedral? Yes, it's beautiful, but it's a religious structure. This is no problem for you if you're not a particularly fervent adherent of any religion, but it is a problem if you are, and if your country uses tax dollars to maintain a symbol of another religion.

This isn't a problem in the U.S. since we don't have much of a history. Really, there is nothing here that people visit that went up in 1300. Almost everything everyone does visit here is a government building (or commercial, but that's another story entirely...) Anyway, is that what Cathedrals are? It's not that it reflects Germany's Christian past, it's just that it's freaking old and was built in a time when buildings that size were built for religious purposes? Personally, I'd argue that the most famous examples are almost one and all vivid examples of the 12th century Renaissance.

It's more than that, churches are collective buildings, they were built by the parishes, funded by the people living there. They're the centerpieces of the towns (often literally, the town grew up around the cathedral as often as not, especially in northern europe)

[ljkeane]

If no religion is really part of the essential culture, then why have a state-supported religion?

For the UK to disestablish the Church of England would take an Act of Parliament in every country the Queen is the head of state of I believe, so the amount of effort involved to take action on an issue that very few people care about is probably a significant factor.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You've just admitted a few posts back that your position has everything to do with your experience of Mexicans. In this case, migrant workers.

This gets so boring....okay, please identify the quote where I said that. In the meantime, this is from my very first post on the subject, and it's basically been repeated in most of my posts since:

But it's not necessary to isolate aspects of the culture anyway. It's enough to know that nations generally reflect their culture, and I think the U.S. is a better place to live than Mexico, economically and otherwise. Therefore, I value the culture here over the culture in Mexico, no matter how you'd choose to parse out various "aspects" of those cultures. Inconsequential things like food, etc., don't matter.

The only concrete example I can give from my own experience, and I can't say how widespread it is, was an attitude towards working/saving I saw among migrant laborers in a case I had down in Texas. Those workers were very hard working people, but their only interest was in earning enough money to go back home, and not work at all, living off the savings. Then they'd come back up for another stint. The idea of earning enough to save and advance themselves in life seemed foreign. I'm not sure if these people were outliers, or if their attitude is part of a more general national culture among a certain segment of the population. And in a sense, I don't even care. All I know is I greatly prefer the U.S. to Mexico as a place to live.

In the very next post where it came up, I said:

But as I said, I don't know how widespread that attitude is, nor do I really think it matters. I'm just talking about the end result of various cultural norms, regardless of what they are. And when looking at the societies those cultures produce, I'd generally prefer U.S. culture to Mexican.

I have said repeatedly that I'm simply looking at the total package of Mexican society, including the economy and everything else you might want to toss in there, and saying I prefer the way things are north of the border. Therefore, I'd prefer that immigrants from Mexico assimilate into our society/culture, or whatever you want to call it, rather than bringing all that up north with them. I can understand disagreeing with that POV, but I don't understand some folks being unable to grasp that concept.

[Jaerv]

Let me be more specific - I'm just saying that if I were an immigrant to Germany, I would find state support of the Lutheran Church combined with this stated commitment to religious freedom to be very puzzling. Does it just mean that non-Lutheran beliefs are tolerated, but that the culture still has strong Protestant undercurrents, and people are committed to keeping it that way? (Are they?) Or what? If no religion is really part of the essential culture, then why have a state-supported religion?

Our culture, in essence, is a secularized Post-Christian culture. Most people are still church members, but no one goes to service any more on sundays. The churches are empty apart from a few elderly women. With very few exceptions, no one listens to his/her bishops when this person tells them how to live their lives. Most people don’t even know the name of their respective bishop. The only real contact most people have with their church is when a baby is born, when one marries, or when someone dies. I think that most people like it that way and appreciate it when religion is domesticated by treaties with the state, even if this entails some annoying privileges for this religions.

Concerning politics: At the moment, our secretary of the interior tries to negotiate a treaty with the most important Muslim organizations similar to the ones that are already in existence with the two large Christian churches. The goals is obviously to integrate these organizations similar to the Christian churches and to tame them by bribing their decisions makers with lots of privileges, in exchange to them propagating a “modernized” (i.e. harmless) version of their religion. Up to now, he is not very successful. Problem seems to be (among others) that the Muslims are very divided among themselves and that the Turkish state, which has strong influence on the Turkish migrants presently, does not want to give up its influence.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

"Culture" is about as weak an explanation as you can get. Are you actually arguing that Mexican "culture" provided for an "extended period of one-party rule"? Similar comments could be made about, say, India (crime syndicates aside?), yet I've seen few people argue that Indian "culture" is to blame. The comparatively conservative political and economic structure of either country, though, confers less social mobility and - historically - a sharper divide between rich and poor. Cultural influences may figure at the margins, but it's worth noting that, unlike the US (and Canada), Europeans absorbed much of the remaining indigenous population in Mexico, leading to a considerably different colonial political structure - which itself was already very different thanks to the Spanish.

I think it all depends how you choose to define the world "culture" and I detest definitional debates. So (as I've already said...) substitute "socio-economic" beliefs/values, or "social norms", or whatever else it is that distinguishes Mexican society and Mexico from the U.S. And just to be clear, that may include political views, such as the merits of socialism v. capitalism, etc. Though I'm not sufficiently well-versed in Mexican politics to say what the "average Mexican" believes regarding the proper role of government. I'm simply tossing that out there as an example of another norm that may influence that culture.

I've never travelled or spent much time in Mexico, but I'll say that you've made it sound a lot more "third world" than it actually is (i.e. a middle income country that's relatively wealthier than China). And their National Institute of Public Health seemed a very professionally-run and well-equipped organization when I was there for a conference.

No, I've simply said that compared to the U.S., I personally would much rather live here. If you prefer that the U.S. look more like Mexico, or that the two nations are relatively indistinguishable absent the languages, than you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But that's not an issue I care to argue because I think the differences are evident.

What "ethic regarding work, savings, and investments"? In the US? A country with unprecedented levels of personal and public indebtedness?

As I said, you're free to prefer the way things are done south of the border, or to argue that the differences in societies are insignificant. But maybe I'll just quote Raidne regarding the existence of those differences, though I don't agree with her normative assesment of those differences:

What bothers me about the United States is that the culture seems very...shallow, insubstantial, because it's so new and not very connected to northern native American culture or the European cultures that comprised its earliest citizens. I love the complete opposite feeling that you get in Mexico, and the much stronger sense of a national character in the artwork and the literature than you get here. Surely that is worth something even if people aren't able to work 80 hours a week with the goal of trying to bankrupt the country's major financial institutions in order to bank fuck you money without tanking everything because of the nation's inexhaustible credit line.

And it seems contradictory to complain about Mexican migrants' "poor" work ethic when you comment that work "incredibly" hard at jobs that aren't filled by Americans.

Please identify the post where I said Mexican migrants have a "poor" work ethic, particularly since you quoted the word. Good luck!

I expect that they simply don't consider "moving up" as to mean a house in the suburbs with two cars (one an SUV), marble countertops, and new 40'' LCD TVs.

Er, so now you're saying there are differences in terms of how the people of the two nations tend to view economic advancement and achievement? You need to keep your story straight - do such differences exist, or not? Because if the question is simply which set of differing values you prefer, then I think my point is made.

[Guest Raidne]

For the UK to disestablish the Church of England would take an Act of Parliament in every country the Queen is the head of state of I believe, so the amount of effort involved to take action on an issue that very few people care about is probably a significant factor.

Right, there is that whole monarchy thing also...;)

Our culture, in essence, is a secularized Post-Christian culture.

Right, I totally get it. It is almost sort of an aesthetic thing. What I am asking is this: Is this an essential part of the culture to you? To most people living there? Would you no longer recognize your culture if it were not conscious of being "post-Christian"?

I don't think there is a right answer. I just think this would be an important thing to decide. It is a different thing to hope that immigrants come to respect the post-christian culture of Germany than to not care if they do or not as long as they are liberal democrats, etc.

Concerning politics: At the moment, our secretary of the interior tries to negotiate a treaty with the most important Muslim organizations similar to the ones that are already in existence with the two large Christian churches. The goals is obviously to integrate these organizations similar to the Christian churches and to tame them by bribing their decisions makers with lots of privileges, in exchange to them propagating a “modernized” (i.e. harmless) version of their religion. Up to now, he is not very successful. Problem seems to be (among others) that the Muslims are very divided among themselves and that the Turkish state, which has strong influence on the Turkish migrants presently, does not want to give up its influence.

This seems like it would really be a big, fat problem.

[Guest Raidne]

Surely that is worth something even if people aren't able to work 80 hours a week with the goal of trying to bankrupt the country's major financial institutions in order to bank fuck you money without tanking everything because of the nation's inexhaustible credit line.

You didn't line up the clauses correctly here, I think. People are certainly able to work 80 hours a week trying to bank fuck you money in Mexico, they're just not able to totally tank the national economy without actually, you know, tanking the national economy because they don't have an inexhaustible credit line.

The size of one's international credit line, is, I would hope, something that is utterly not etiologically related to culture, at least in the culture to credit direction. (I personally believe our country's access to credit, on the other hand, does influence the culture).

If I'm not mistaken, you were trying to make the opposite point, so I think you misunderstood me there.

[Happy Ent]

But if I was an immigrant to Germany, how much would I really care about whether the state was paying for the upkeep of historically important structures (which happen to have religious origins)? I think I'd be much more concerned with whether I had the freedom to practise and manifest my own religion (this is why the burqa issue has hit the spotlight), and I wouldn't be too worried about what the state was doing to preserve important sources of tourism revenue.

What you should be worried about—or rather, what I am worried about—is my freedom to blaspheme, not my freedom to practise my religion. The freedom to blaspheme is really, really important to me as a person, and I see it eroded everywhere I look. Mainly because of the toxic influence of a two-headed monster consisting of a medieval culture (Islam) and benevolent modern idiocy (multiculturalism).

The freedom to insult, ridicule, and offend other people for their beliefs is taken from me. Right. Now. That’s bad.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You didn't line up the clauses correctly here, I think.

I cut and pasted the whole thing, in its entirety, from your own post.

People are certainly able to work 80 hours a week trying to bank fuck you money in Mexico, they're just not able to totally tank the national economy without actually, you know, tanking the national economy because they don't have an inexhaustible credit line.

The size of one's international credit line, is, I would hope, something that is utterly not etiologically related to culture, at least in the culture to credit direction. (I personally believe our country's access to credit, on the other hand, does influence the culture).

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. The more I reread it, the more it sounds like you're saying that the primary reason for differences in GDP per person, per capita income, productivity, wealth, etc., is because we have more credit than does Mexico. That seems very circular to me (you don't get that kind of credit without generating significant wealth), and to the extent it's really a commentary on the post 2000-economic situation, it doesn't do anything to explain the pre-2000 economic differences, which I'd assume you'd admit are substantial. So I can't really see the relevance of the credit argument at all.

If I'm not mistaken, you were trying to make the opposite point, so I think you misunderstood me there.

Your post was talking about aspects of Mexican culture you preferred to the U.S., and apparently, that included what I suppose we could refer to as American materialistic greed. In essence, you were listing things you thought were bad about the American culture/mindset/whatever. Is that accurate, or no? Because whether those differences are good or bad is a normative analysis. All I'm trying to do is point out that those differences in mindset/culture/whatever exist in the first place.

[Errant Bard]

This is going to be kind of a problem for multiculturalism. Why on earth would a Muslim from Turkey have any particular respect for the Cologne Cathedral? Yes, it's beautiful, but it's a religious structure. This is no problem for you if you're not a particularly fervent adherent of any religion, but it is a problem if you are, and if your country uses tax dollars to maintain a symbol of another religion.

I really don't know about that. People who immigrate to our ex-christian officially or unofficially secular states do so in full knowledge that it's not a Muslim country. It takes a certain state of mind, and religious extremism or the will to criticize the country's policies is not usually part of that.

a funny bit of news to illustrate: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39037897/ns/world_news-europe/

Note that to us (though I cannot speak for Germany) the nutters are the religious hardliners, and cathedrals and all that stuff is 99% historical heritage

Anyway, is that what Cathedrals are? It's not that it reflects Germany's Christian past, it's just that it's freaking old and was built in a time when buildings that size were built for religious purposes?

Both? What's the problem with having a past and not wanting to forget or destroy significant monuments that can be used now still? (beside funding, that is) We're not destroying castles either despite not supporting anymore being ruled by (mad) kings.

It doesn't prevent anyone from building Mosques, either.

[ljkeane]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. The more I reread it, the more it sounds like you're saying that the primary reason for differences in GDP per person, per capita income, productivity, wealth, etc., is because we have more credit than does Mexico. That seems very circular to me

Whether the primary reason for the differences in economic development is differences in culture is hardly a given either.

[Jaerv]

Right, I totally get it. It is almost sort of an aesthetic thing. What I am asking is this: Is this an essential part of the culture to you? To most people living there? Would you no longer recognize your culture if it were not conscious of being "post-Christian"?

I don't think there is a right answer. I just think this would be an important thing to decide. It is a different thing to hope that immigrants come to respect the post-christian culture of Germany than to not care if they do or not as long as they are liberal democrats, etc.

These are very interesting questions which I cannot answer for the average person in this country.

For me and most of my friends, the “Post” is the essential part. Many people I know are as bewildered by stories about fundamentalist Christians in the US as they are bewildered by traditionalist Muslims.

However, there are others who think that the contemporary “Post-Christian” was only possible because it evolved out of “Christian”, and that the same process is simply not possibly with Islam. Well, I doubt this, but we will see. It took Europe centuries to go through reformation and enlightenment, so patience is required...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I really don't know about that. People who immigrate to our ex-christian officially or unofficially secular states do so in full knowledge that it's not a Muslim country. It takes a certain state of mind, and religious extremism or the will to criticize the country's policies is not usually part of that.

People may immigrate there with the knowledge of how it is, but that doesn't mean they're all willing to accept it.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-07-17/news/17383566_1_british-muslims-british-government-al-muhajiroun

http://www.anjemchoudary.com/

[Errant Bard]

Oh, yes, there are some extremists. But there are Christian extremists too. They are met with the same disdain in the public sphere.