Politik iFokus

Politik

Etikettövrigt
Läst 1058 ggr
deia
0

Is it REALLY multiculture?

Would it be ok if I start practicing macumba(kind of vodoo), traditional religion in Brasil, and then I demand the tipical food of this religion(which you just can't find the main ingredients in Sweden) to have at school to my son?

Or also, based on my religion(macumba), I cut the neck of a chicken at midday in a cross of roads and leave it there with blood and wine spreaded around, candles burning among other things?

[mingdie]
0
#1

You are allowed to practise whatever religion you want as long as you don't break the law. If there is enough of you that want the typical food of course there is a case to consider it.

AndersE
0
#2

#1 Bra svar!

#0 Jag kan inte kräva att det ska finnas oxfilé i min butik. Däremot kan jag önska det, vara villig att betala för det och hoppas att marknaden är intresserad av att tillgodose mitt behov.

Och jag har sagt tidigare att som jag ser det är religion och kultur inget fribrev. Du ska självfallet kunna leva efter din kultur och din religion så länge du håller dig inom ramarna för regler och lagar.

deia
0
#3

#1

If there is enough of you that want the typical food of course there is a case to consider it.

Do you see that is exactly the point to be avoided?

Or you avoid the number to grow. Or you demand the integration. Or this kind of situation will happen.

This situation already has happened here, it's happening now and then one demand here, other demand there. And that is growing, nobody knows where it will arrives, what else will be demanded according to how big and strong the group is.

And how many 'enough of you' is? How will this 'enough of you' press to get what they demand? Will they accept no as answer pacifically if they know they are in number big enough to react?

We don't know. What we know it's what History has proved that some of them don't use to accept, soon or later they start using violence to get what they want.

And the cost to import special traditional foods just to please one group and if you offer the food at one school because there are many of that group, it could happen that you would have to offer at all the other schools with only one in each. No company wants to import. Should the taxes payers pay for the costs?

I don't think so since religion is a choice, very different of a sickness.

AndersE
0
#4

#3 Det finns otaliga exempel på företeelser som varit obetydliga men som idag är allmänt förekommande. Om jag kunde väcka min farmors föräldrar till liv skulle de nog tycka att såväl affärers utbud som barnens skollunch var ytterst märkliga. Kanske skulle de tycka att det var hemskt eller osunt - kanske fantastiskt?

Med en liberal livssyn så är det människors behov som styr utvecklingen - inte ett partis märkliga ideologi.

Vilken mat som ska finnas i affärerna styrs av marknadskrafter. Vilken mat som serveras i skolan styrs ytterst av politiska beslut, dvs av befolkningen.

Så vill vi ha det som tycker att liberalism och marknadsekonomi är sunt.

Vill man att allt ska bestämmas av ett parti kan man ju rösta på kommunister eller (sd) i nästa val. Om man alltså vill frånsäga sig möjligheten till inflytande…

deia
0
#5

#2

It's exactly what I've said. It's your choice, the consequenses of your choices are your problem.

Freedom must carry the responsability for the consequences. You can't demand from others to pay for.

The problem is that some people demand others to pay for in some way, or financially or changing behaviours and traditions, that also is a way of paying, it's a emotional cost to others.

For exemple, this tradition here of having a cerimony in the end of gymnasium in a church. Because other non-christan religions, there are schools which don't have it anymore, this pleases some religions groups with the cost for christians who were used to have this tradition and miss it, get hurt.

Why couldn't non-Christians just not go to the cerimony? Why have others to change a tradition to please some groups? Is there a faith more important than the others? Why to sacrifice a group to please others if there is the solution just to choose not to go? Why should a country change its tradition to please immigrants? And when will the demands stop???

AndersE
0
#6

#5 Ditt exempel på skolavslutning rör ju långt ifrån bara invandrare. Det finns många svenskar som inte betraktar sig som kyrkligt kristna, eller ateister, som ifrågasätter kyrkbesöket.

Även om jag tillhör dem som tycker om traditioner, inklusive skolavslutning i kyrkan, så kan jag ju inte hävda att mitt intresse skall styra över andra. Vilket beslut som fattas måste bestämmas så som vi brukar i Sverige. Diskussion och samförstånd.

Att säga att man inte behöver gå om man inte vill är inte ett helgiltigt argument. Om bara två i klassen vill gå? Ska man ändå hålla avslutning i kyrkan?

deia
0
#7

#4

Liberalism is only an ideology also!!!

I know that the maket forces decides what will be or not business.

My question is, if the market decides not to have especial tipical food, would the State have to import and taxes payers pay for it just because there are groups demanding the food at school?

(Remember this is only one situation taken as an exemple to ilustrate)

#6

I talked exactly about choices and to be responsible for the consequences.

Food and cerimony related to religion were only exemples, of couse there are many others situations which have nothing to do with religions like the vegetarians, f.ex, that some have nothing to do with religion, it's only a choice for what they believe is healthful.

Anyway, isn't that alreay happening? A minority changing(or trying/demanding to change) traditions which a majority is used to and most of the times the cost goes to the majority???

Or, in this case of school cerimony in church, isn't the majority who wants it and still some schools already are discussing not to have it?

And in the case of food, is the majority who doesn't eat pig or any other meat, f.ex.? But there is already schools discussing not to server pig anymore because the religion of some.

AndersE
0
#8

#7 Jag kan inte tänka mig att staten skulle importera mat, men om ett demokratiskt beslut skulle leda till det så kan det väl hända. Ungefär som om att man kan tänka sig ett demokratiskt beslut om att Sverige skall sända en man till månen…

Majoriteten har i princip möjlighet att slippa kostnader man inte vill ha - i ett demokratiskt land.

Visst händer det att minoriteter får sin vilja igenom.

Vad är problemet med att en skola diskuterar att inte servera griskött? Om folk tycker det är fel kan man ju byta skola eller välja nya skolpolitiker.