I should have been clear that the "super culture" isn't so much a full fledged culture as much as the core elements that appear in nearly all of the cultures around the nation. It's like saying everyone who drives a motor vehicle, drives a car. That is clearly false. They drive a motor vehicle, all of which have certain things in common: motors, wheels, brakes, a steering mechanism, and some kind of seat. But a Corvette is no more an SUV which is no more a pickup truck which, in turn, is no more a motorcycle than I am you. In the programming world we call this inheritance. And the "super culture" just has the basics that all these cultures share in common, but is not, in itself, a full blown culture. I would call it more an identity.

now define polymorphism.

Easy, the ability of an object to appear as if it were another object (typically as if it were of it's parent class).

"My question still stands. Is it morally wrong for a nation to try to preserve its traditional values?"

What traditional values?

You mean rain dances with native American shamens.

Or perhaps you mean in the west we should dictate the celebration cinqo de mayo.

Or maybe the African cultures that were brought here as slaves

Which culture are you refering to? From When? and who decides?

Traditional values as in what? The ones Joe McCarthy and the rest of the nation made up during the Red Scares? The values the founding fathers espoused, you know, including that S word?

In case you can't understand where Im going, you made an asinine and ultimately un-american suggestion

@ Santa ..........What traditional values?

Is this a statement that there are no absolute rights and wrongs and everything is just relative? I am not clear what you mean.

Actually I thought I was clear on that, and I am doing my best to explain. I was talking about France. It is a European country with a certain set of cultural values. If it wants to preserve those values, I think that is okay.
I don't actually know to what extent it's values are being challenged, and I am open to the idea that it is overreacting. If have not examined the stats about the extent of Islamic immigration, or statistics about assimilation problems. Personally I think banning the hijab is harsh and unfortunate. I would not want to see this in Australia. But we are different from France. We are not an old European country. We find it easier accept a range of cultures, and for the most part immigrants assimilate very well, and are well accepted. But this is not the case the world over. In some countries mixing the cultural pot can be be more problematic. Sometimes cultures clash.

>In case you can't understand where Im going, you made an asinine and ultimately un-american suggestion

The "asinine suggestion" of mine that you quoted was actually a question. You might think it asinine but I like to examine various points of view. Both sides of the debate.
The answer I was expecting was "yes, in some cases.... with the following characteristics... But in others no... with these characteristics".
From there I was hoping to get a better idea whether France is in the right or in the wrong and why.
I don't have a strong opinion on topics outside of my expertise (such as this one). But I still find these things interesting. I don't get riled up about these discussions the way some people do.

My post was in response to Santa.

@Draugnar -You forgot to explicity state that the classes must be related by a common superclass.

Partial credit. ;P

@ Spyman,

The France question is a direct consequence of there colonial aspirations in the past. So the wanted to get wealthy and powerfull by owning al lot of Arabian/African area. Now they have trouble with the fact conquest also means responsibility for a more diverse population, a lot of there 'new' citizens moved from there homeland to Europe, creating a more diverse population.

So the problem of 'diverging' cultural values is the consequence of there own history.

"I am open minded, always have been, you on the other hand are anything but..."

Congratulations on your superiority. I'm guessing calling whole countreis' populations racist is in keeping with open-mindedness. Great. Must be awesome to be so open-minded.

"There is religious devotion and then there is a cultural background"

Considering the supposedly "Islamophobic" concept of Laicite arose in order to repress the Catholic Church in France, it makes perfect sense that now Laicite is 'culturally Roman Catholic'.

."Perhaps instead of Roman catholic I should have said white non-islamic, but my point stands, the hijab ban was undoubtedly an anti-islamic action meant to preserve france from a perceived alien threat."

But you call 'Islamophobia' anything that targets Muslims, radical or not. Rendering yet another term useless.

"And by the way Mr. open-minded, since when have all who wear a hijab "Islamic Radicals""

I didn't say that, did I? I said Islamism is radical Islam. You claiming that Islamophobia also pertains to fear of Islamism provoked that comment from me. But yes typically only extreme Muslims wear this kind of attire, which is not a Muslim tradition but a practice of a minority within the global Muslim community.

"About Egypt, I never said they had no reason to be afraid of Islamism, all i said is that yes, Egypts actions, like France's are aimed directly at the devout Muslim population."

Great, so why are we listening to you bitch and moan about "Islamophobia" then? Are you purposely trying to paralyze countries' ability to respond to a legitimate threat by describing it in this way?

"Difference of course being, as you said, Egypt has a legitimate fear of Islamists, France wants to force a religious minority to assimilate"

Because cultural fragmentation is never a bad thing. And heaven forbid a secular country try to enforce its cultural norms. Only extreme religious countries are allowed to do that, and with great violence too.

."I guess if that doesn't work they'll ship them out of the country like they did with the Gypsies. "It isn't racism when they deserve it" as they tell you in Europe."

At least in France you'd get a chance to leave in your hypothetical, in many Muslim countries you're simply killed for not assimilating - eg: Egypt and Turkey - the so-called 'moderate' Muslim countries.

"What other groups? I thought the ban was a completely religious neutral bulwark of a secular state!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"

It is neutral because it was implemented against everyone. I never denied that the ban arose in response to women being forced to wear hijabs/niqabs in school.

"Here we go again. Putin equates all of Islam with terrorists just like he equates all of Christianity with fundamentalism. <*shakes head at the stupidity of a supposedly educated person*>"

Never said that. Point me to where I said that. But while we're keeping score, you consider all poor people to be lazy and think all women who have abortions are irresponsible and promiscuous. Among your many, many, enlightened generalizations.

"@Putin:

So, the answer it fanaticism is...another breed of fanaticism?"

Do you people all read from the same talking points? Or is today cliche argument weekend? This reminds me of the lame "intolerant of the intolerant" tripe that the right likes to pull out whenever anyone tries to advocate for hate crime laws. Let me guess, hate crime laws are "fanatic", right Santa? right Obi?

"And why do the fundamentalistm fanatics need to be won over?"

They don't need to be 'won over', their threat needs to be neutralized. Are you really going to say they're not a threat?

"There's a Flat-Earth Society still, yes--and the HQ is actually located near my hometown, of all places...so for anyone wondering why I'd like to move, there's one of many reasons--but HOW many people take it seriously?"

Good thing nobody brought up or cares about the Flat Earth Society, so your point is irrelevant. It's not as if religious extremism is contained to one small inconsequential group.

"It wasn't as if there needed to be a fanatical movement to match it..."

No kidding. So now that your destroyed your man made of straw..feel better?

"People may be ignorant--and I'm fully willing to even serve as the poster child for that if you'll have me play that role, I'm certainly ignorant of my fair share of mathematical facts--but give them enough of an incentive, and suddenly, they'll come around."

Ah yes, people will just change their mind if faced with your superior debate skills. No they will not. People only listen to information that confirms their already held beliefs. If diplomatic skill and debate convinced hostiles to change their mind, then Iran today would be singing the praises of Obama instead of calling him worse than Bush.

"Books sounding overly-pompous and matching fanaticism with fanaticism? No."

No, we should continue our strategy of appeasing religious extremists, that has worked so well so far.

"Proving the world is round via mathematical and scientific data...and then making an incentive for believing this the potential for a New World to colonize/...or plunder...or what have you?

Well, that worked well (for those colored white, anyway...those natives wearing a darker shade of tan...not so much.)"

I don't know what the hell you're talking about at this point. But sure, any convoluted attempt you can come up with to randomly equate combating religious extremism within one's own country to 16-17th century colonization I guess works, if you've got nothing else. Even though it was religious extremists who engage in said imperialism.

"In case you can't understand where Im going, you made an asinine and ultimately un-american suggestion"

Glad to see Santa attacks people with insults even when they're being polite and inquisitive. Now I'll know that it's pointless to be polite to him.

To insist that America has no core Anglo-American culture is to live in la-la land where supposedly America didn't have ethnic based immigration quotas, wasn't founded and ruled by Anglo-Americans, didn't implement a racially based system of laws and rights which enforced the dominance of Anglo-Americans and their culture, didn't place indigenous tribes in self-governed non-US government run reservations, doesn't speak English as the predominant language of the people and government, and doesn't engage in traditions and cultural practices (ex: Thanksgiving) which are explicitly Anglo-American.

"The France question is a direct consequence of there colonial aspirations in the past. So the wanted to get wealthy and powerfull by owning al lot of Arabian/African area. Now they have trouble with the fact conquest also means responsibility for a more diverse population, a lot of there 'new' citizens moved from there homeland to Europe, creating a more diverse population."

Yes and France allowed people within these colonized territories to participate in French politics and considered them to be fully French much earlier than other countries did. The condition, though, was that the population has to accept and integrate into French society. What country on earth does not demand at least some assimilation into the wider society?

Does the US have the right to preserve Anglo-American culture? Hell no! One of the fundamental values of Anglo-American culture is that northern Europeans have the right to conquer all other people in the world, and to kill those people who won't allow themselves to be conquered. Anglo-American culture always talks about liberty and individual freedom, but that freedom is only given to people who can use it "responsibly--" in other words, people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated into a value system that will support the status quo. The ideal state of Anglo-American culture is more like Plato's Republic than most of us want to admit: a minority of people share equally in the responsibility of rule. The majority is taught to accept this through myths which present the inequality as part of nature, and by creating just enough upward mobility to enable ambitious outsiders to join the ruling class rather than trying to overthrow it.

@ Putin, Yes, they allow them to participate. Nevertheless, they are discriminated (its very hard for them to find equal jobs).
And the condition you talk about can only be enforced because of the conquests from a few hundred years ago, i mean, they had no choice in becoming France.

And untill recently, in the Netherlands, the only demand imposed was having a job, or a good reason to fly from your country. (like i said, untill recently, now they have to make a language exam apart from the (heighten) income requerments)

actualy, the last part i havent said. Because we do want them to adjust (to drive at the right side of the road for instance, like normal people :) ) but those demands are not outspoken or officialy formulated.

Putin- You are ridiculous as always. I don't feel like spending all day addressing it.

Spyman- I was referring to warsprite,

Putin- So I guess cultural traditions of America are locked at the latest in 1920 and revolve around federal government and Elite American's actions, I see...

@Putin

I (and I dare say most who read your post) did not equate Islamism to be only the radical elements. We read that to be all of Islam, which was not an unreasonable interpretation considering the accepted definition of the word means just that - all of Islam.

Re: my comments on abortion. Now, just as then, you twist what I said. My quote never said all abortions were voluntary. Quite the opposite. What I said was taxp breaks shouldn't be given to voluntary ones but they should to medically or morally necessary ones.

Re: the poor. Show me where I said *all* poor people are lazy bums. I said the lazy bums who abuse welfare (meaning those who can work but won't) should have no say.

So while you twist my words, I read yours exactly as written and you try to redefine their meaning to make yourself look like less of a anti-religious bigot.

"Glad to see Santa attacks people with insults even when they're being polite and inquisitive. Now I'll know that it's pointless to be polite to him."

You ever were? You, at no point have ever been polite to me. About the statement, I didnt attack the person unlike you constantly do placing labels on everyone. I attacked the statement, Warsprite or whoever said it is probably a truly intelligent person, and i didnt call him an idiot, or a fascist, or talk about his immutable natural propensity to make idiotic statements as you love to do. I stated that the statement was asinine, and i stand by that. America has a traditional culture, right, one created in the 1920s to battle communism and propagated by radio and television, I'm sure that is worth forcing folks to assimilate into.


Draugnar
no Islamists are members of Islam who want to form an islamic state, you were mistaken Draughnar, if putin used islamism, it was because i accidentl did, but we were talking about islamists.

by the way, does anyone have any proof that Putin is a member of a Poly Sci department? I am beginning to find that harder and harder to believe.

I should say academic department, I don't remember if it was Poly Sci

Santa, you can't go a single thread without digging into my personal history, my source of employment, or whatever. Everything to you is personal. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next thread you ask for my long form birth certificate. You're that nasty. You want to bait me into revealing personal information so you can go mess with my academic career. I've dealt with people like you before.

" I attacked the statement"

Haha, of course. You can always split hairs enough to leave room for your own conscience. What did Spyman do to warrant such a nasty comment from you? Absolutely nothing except dare to ask you questions about your position on a matter.

@Putin
Re: The aside about France @ Santa
"Congratulations on your superiority. I'm guessing calling whole countries’ populations racist is in keeping with open-mindedness. Great, must be awesome to be so open-minded."
Your statement is absolute bullshit. His initial statement is a reasonable one without regard to anything you misinterpreted and made attempts to put words in his mouth over. It is fanaticism to deny all students free rights to practice their faiths.

Here’s what Santa actually said:
“before the shit storm commences, I believe purging any sign of religion from a 100 meter radius around schools (no you did not say it but you implied it) is fanatic. As long as schools don't endorse any religion, there is not problem with students wearing a hijab, being part of a prayer group, or praying during school hours. Any attempt to deny it is fanatic.”

Putin, You were the one that insisted that what Santa was saying meant that France was fanatical (fanatical was the term he used not racist). It does not follow that an entire country is anything based upon the policies of their government. If that were so you wouldn’t be a communist, because the policies of the country in which you live are not communist. You’re not going to pull a 180 and claim to agree with every policy of the US government now are you?

If anyone had any question about your fanaticism it should have been put to rest with these statements of yours a page or so ago:

“Do you view the law as some kind neutral "referee" making sure the rules are fair for all? I don't. The law is an instrument of power. Whichever class controls the law makes the rules. Law and politics are more akin to war than a game of backgammon. You should only support legal protections for your enemy if you can be assured your enemy will do the same. Otherwise you're voluntarily giving your enemy a knife sharpener just so he or she can more effectively stab you in the back.

The best way to make the next generation better off is to make sure the enemies of progress do not have political power.”

So only the people who agree with you or are willing to back you up on some level deserve protection under the law? The law is to be used as an instrument to further your own ends to the detriment of your rivals? Sure, you’re not a fanatic. That’s about as mainstream as it gets. Right?

actually, this is the first time... So I think I went a whole bunch of threads without doing it.

Everything to me is personal, guess that makes two of us, every other post you try to essentialize your opponents' natures\, everyone seems to realize this and i am by far not the only one.

I don't want to mess with your academic career, I don't believe you have one, sorry you don't carry yourelf as an academic, even an immature one, you carry yourself as a College/early grad school know-it-all who is a few months away from getting the boom dropped on him in a seminar.

Finally, I'm not splitting hairs, I attacked the statement, its obvious, I didn't even know who posted it as spyman pointed out. It was warsprite. I feel the statement or question, that the U.S. should have a right to force assimilation, completely asinine when viewed in historical context, and I stand by that.

Heh, it's bizarre how you project all of your behavior traits onto me. You're the angriest person on this forum, but you continually call me angry. You personalize everything, but want to pretend that I'm the same way. You try to shout down everyone and highly emotional about everything to be an academic, but claim that I can't be an academic because I don't handle myself like one.

Anyway I've been polite to you in the past when you didn't make things personal, and the record speaks for itself.

I think I've done pretty well in this and other threads not engage in the kind of deeply personal attacks despite the litany of insults you and others spew my way.

@ CA

"Your statement is absolute bullshit. His initial statement is a reasonable one without regard to anything you misinterpreted and made attempts to put words in his mouth over. It is fanaticism to deny all students free rights to practice their faiths. "

"Here’s what Santa actually said:
“before the shit storm commences, I believe purging any sign of religion from a 100 meter radius around schools (no you did not say it but you implied it) is fanatic. As long as schools don't endorse any religion, there is not problem with students wearing a hijab, being part of a prayer group, or praying during school hours. Any attempt to deny it is fanatic.”

Yeah it would be helpful if you'd not selectively post, but also include Santa's numerous comments about France when I asked him that question. Here, I'll do it for you, since you seem to want to selectively interpret the conversation.

"um, the majority of France who outlawed the hijab due to intolerance is, add Switzerland to that. Amazing how intolerant you are yourself"

"you want to know how I know it is intolerant, that for decades students were allowed to wear religious articles in french schools, until Islamic immigrants reached a critical mass, then all of a sudden it becomes illegal to wear a hijab to school Very progressive on their part, I'm glad you support their blatantly islamophobic decision"

" Why wasnt that put into effect 50 years ago? Why not ban the hijab 25 years ago? bottom line, the french are scared about what is happening to their roman catholic nation, now that immigrant groups are on the rise they might as well show those damn durkas whose country it really is. So we ban the hijab, Oh, and oh yeah, this isnt directed at islamic people, so we ban all religious articles! "

'Damn durkas', etc. It's clear from these comments what Santa is saying about the French, that it was a targeted attack against Muslims motivated by intolerance, and the French view them as the 'damn durkas'.

"Putin, You were the one that insisted that what Santa was saying meant that France was fanatical (fanatical was the term he used not racist)."

He also used the word 'intolerant', and said the French don't want "damn durkas" in their country because it is alien to their white culture. Read the thread before you distort the record of conversation.

" It does not follow that an entire country is anything based upon the policies of their government."

But the policies vs the hijab in France are overwhelmingly popular. So..yeah. No absolution in this case.

"You’re not going to pull a 180 and claim to agree with every policy of the US government now are you? "

Of course not, but Americans collectively are responsible. There's no question about that. You people insist on individualizing everything. Would you happier if I claimed Santa was saying a large majority of the French are racist? Would that nuance please you? And even if I did say that, how would my original point be altered in any significant way?

"If anyone had any question about your fanaticism it should have been put to rest with these statements of yours a page or so ago:"

Random ad hominem non sequitur. Something you're very good at. I don't really care about the label 'fanatic'. Typically the word has a religious connotation. But you people seem obsessed with labeling me as one. Ok, I'm a 'fanatic' then for not wanting to allow my enemies, who want to kill or jail my 'kind', the weapons to do so. You can continue to mislead people into believing that the law doesn't already do what I describe, except in favor of the rich and the bourgeoisie over everyone else. But I think increasingly people aren't buying your "equal opportunity"/"legal equality" myths.

These are all ad hominem attacks. We've gone from Glenn Beck, to evolution, to banning hijabs to "Who's the biggest jerk on the forums?" Generally a bad sign. And you know what's a worse sign? When I'M being the voice of reason. Let's either get this conversation back on topic, (I'd prefer that, it is an interesting conversation) or just let it die.