An Immigration Debate

Just finished listening to an interesting round-table debate on immigration featuring a number of prominent Canadian bloggers of all political stripes. Listen to it here.

One point which I noticed that was not raised during the debate--although understandably so due to it being slightly off topic--was addressing the issue of immigration's flow. Indeed, since the topic of immigration is inextricably linked to such broader philosophical issues as cultural relativism, the idea of immigration flow is critical when discussing these topics. So what is meant by "immigration flow?" Quite simply, it means the direction that immigrants move. And when we examine that particular fact, what is very clear is that the flow of immigration is overwhelming in one direction: to the West--with all its Common Law traditions and Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, one does not hear of any massive immigrant backlogs in Saudi Arabia or China or Sudan, as we do for the countries traditionally seen as part of Western Civilization.

Thus, everywhere outside the halls of liberal academia and especially in the non-western countries from which thousands of immigrants come, it is eminently obvious that cultural relativism does not stand. So the next time the issue of immigration and cultural relativism arises, just ask the cultural relativist why immigration only seems to flow one way. (Although I will admit that I do not believe that this will continue in the future for the simple reason that we are losing our Judeo-Christian heritage, but that is a topic for a different post.)

UPDATE: Deborah Gyapong addresses this topic in an excellent post Multiculturalism and Immigration on her blog:

I think immigrants should integrate into the variant of Western Civilization that Canada represents and graft themselves onto its history and its founding stories. While I think there should be lots of room for religious freedom and unique cultural expression, it should not be a kind of "anything goes." Practices like honor killings, widow burnings, genital mutiliation, cannibalism (even if the victim volunteers on E-Bay) should be circumscribed by reason founded on Judeo-Christian principles that form the bedrock of everything that is good about the West.

Liberal Tolerance...Really?

In an older but excellent essay, Francis Beckwith--currently writing for the What's Wrong with the World blog--deconstructs the idea of "Liberal Tolerance."

An excerpt:

The proponent of liberal tolerance, it turns out, is not the celebrant of diversity he portrays himself to be. Perhaps another example, one from popular culture, will be instructive. In 1997, in her acceptance speech for an Emmy for cowriting the “coming out” episode of Ellen, Ellen DeGeneres said, “I accept this on behalf of all people, and the teen-agers out there especially, who think there is something wrong with them because they are gay. There’s nothing wrong with you. Don’t ever let anybody make you feel ashamed of who you are.”

There are many who, after hearing or reading Ellen’s speech, applauded her for her liberal sensibilities, concluding that the actress is an open and tolerant person who is merely interested in helping young people better understand their own sexuality. If you think this way, you are mistaken. Ellen’s speech is an example of what I call “passive-aggressive tyranny.” The trick is to sound “passive” and accepting of “diversity” while at the same time putting forth an aggressively partisan agenda and implying that those who disagree are not only stupid but also harmful. In order to understand this point, imagine if a conservative Christian Emmy-award winner had said, “I accept this on behalf of all people, and the teen-agers out there especially, who think there is something wrong with them because they believe that human beings are made for a purpose and that purpose includes the building of community with its foundation being heterosexual monogamy. There’s nothing wrong with you. Don’t ever let anybody, especially television script writers, make you feel ashamed because of what you believe is true about reality.” Clearly this would imply that those who affirm liberal views on sexuality are wrong. An award winner who made this speech would be denounced as narrow, bigoted, and intolerant. That person could expect never again to work in Hollywood.

Ironically, Ellen’s Emmy speech does the same to those with whom she disagrees. By encouraging people to believe there is nothing wrong with their homosexuality, she is saying there is something wrong with those (i.e., Christians and other social conservatives) who don’t agree with this prescription. This condemnation is evident in the script of the show for which Ellen won an Emmy. In that famous “coming out” episode, the writers presumed that one is either bigoted or ignorant if one thinks Ellen’s homosexuality is deviant and that such a one is incapable of having a thoughtful, carefully wrought case against homosexuality. Such hubris is astounding. It presumes not only that Ellen’s detractors are wrong but also that they are stupid, irrational, and evil and should not even be allowed to make their case. They are, in a word, diseased, suffering from that made-up ailment, “homophobia.”

What a strange way to attack one’s opponents! After all, whether one fears homosexuals is irrelevant to the question of whether homosexual practice is natural, healthy, and moral. No one would say that the arguments of an antiwar protestor should not be taken seriously on the grounds that he is “hemophobic,” that is, fearful of bloodshed. Moreover, if one is homophobic (assuming there is such a thing), that is, suffering from a phobia as one would suffer from claustrophobia, then the homophobe cannot help himself and is therefore suffering from a mental disorder, perhaps one that is the result of his genes. Consequently, calling someone homophobic is tantamount to making fun of the handicapped, unless of course the accuser is himself homophobic.

Ms. DeGeneres has every right to think those who don’t agree with her judgments on human sexuality are wrong. The problem is that she and her more cerebral and sophisticated colleagues present their judgments as if they were not judgments. They believe their views to be in some sense “neutral.” From their perspective they are merely letting people live any way they choose. But this is not neutral at all. It presupposes a particular and controversial view of human nature, human community, and human happiness. It assumes that only three elements, if present, make a sexual practice morally permissible: adult consent, one’s desire, and the lack of intrusion into another person’s lifestyle orientation (i.e., “it doesn’t hurt anybody”).

This, of course, is not obvious. For example, an adult male who receives gratification as a result of pedophile fantasies while secretly viewing his neighbor’s young children, though he never acts on his fantasies and nobody ever finds out, is acting consistently with these three elements. Nevertheless, it seems counterintuitive to say what he is doing is on par with heterosexual monogamy and ought to be treated as such. By what principle can the Ellenites exclude this gentleman from the “tolerance” they accord more chic sexual orientations? At the end of the day, Ellen’s viewpoint is one that affirms what its proponents believe is good, true, and beautiful, while implying that those who dispute this viewpoint are incorrect. Ellen is as intolerant and narrow as her detractors.

In the words of Lieutenant Columbo, the proponent of liberal tolerance is pulling a fast one. She eschews reason, objective morality, and exclusivity, while at the same time proposing that liberal tolerance is the most high-minded, righteous, and philosophically correct perspective that any reflective person with a university education can possibly embrace. Even the most sophisticated defenders of this viewpoint, whether intentionally or not, cannot seem to avoid this philosophical faux pas.

Read it all here.

Addressing the false idea of "Liberal Tolerance"--and the above example in particular--is especially pertinent currently, seeing the "tolerant" backlash from such issues as the democratic vote concerning Proposition 8 in California (here and here).

In fact, from my own experience (and much like many others, I am sure), I have experienced such "tolerance." When completing a Master's Level Cultural Studies Course--taken specifically to see precisely what academia was currently teaching in such a course--I found that all discussion concerning the vast variety of cultures was cordial and tolerant until one claimed to subscribe to the precepts and ethics of what is best described as the Judeo-Christian culture. After that, the oft touted tolerance and all-cultures-are-equal attitude suddenly changed. One wonders why.