Christianity, for better or for worse, is a flexible religion. In fact, Christendom does stand out by the sheer amount of denominations and contradicting faiths. Just off the top of my head I can name several different Christian groups: Catholics, Protestants, Evangelists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Baptists, Amish, Mennonites, Anglicans.
I guess you can now understand why a secular society goes very easily with Christians. If they really couldn't tolerate each other. they would have slaughtered each other until only 1 or 2 major faiths were left standing.
Now, I do not see Islam being anywhere as versatile or as openly tolerant as Christianity has took hundreds of years to do so. Just off the top of my head, Muslims are almost always Sunni an Shia. It's only a really small minority that belong to a different sect. Now, if you want to argue if our immigration policies should in fact favor Secularist Muslims over the less divided Sunni/Shia, then I would agree with you.
However, the current "multiculturalism" paradox does not want to discriminate on these grounds in which case, my fears are again justified. Muslims do tend to remain as a unified bloc wherever they go. They do tend to vote on the same issues that once again, favor a pro-Islam narrative as opposed to an anti-religious one. Christians in so far do also have their own voting blocs, but at least we know most Christian countries don't come together and say "You know what? Everyone must now follow the bible or else". It was perhaps true 500 years ago, but not today for the very detailed reasons I mentioned above.
And in regards to the question "are Christians the only people who are capable of living in another system" this question. Which countries on earth are the most tolerant? And what exactly do their demographics look like? You can keep telling me that "No, Jordan. These Islamic countries will become tolerant one day. You can't blame Muslims as a demographics for this" well ok, but I am in no way obliged to make an exception for why these countries still haven't moved forward on secularism whereas we know for a fact today: a country that is either non-religious or at least Christian = almost no real risk of losing secularism.
We literally saw last decade several Islamic countries organized protests and overthrow their rulers. So it seems like they are happy to change leaders they are not happy with, and yet did they actually change their religious system too? So to me, that's not really a valid excuse for why they still choose to keep Islam as the law of the land and punish Atheists or Homosexuals.
But I understand why they're not going to do that. They have their own religion and they obviously care more about their own book than what some heathen Canadians have to say from half way across the world.
The problem however is I clearly want the same with my country. I do not want our demographics to shift in a way where my relatively peaceful life now comes under attack, because our government did not have the foresight to monitor immigration and prioritize actual beliefs that are compatible with Canada instead of foreign ones that contradict it.
I remember a few years ago, there was in fact a Conservative politician (Kellie Leitch) who wanted to upgrade our immigration tests.
Basically, you did have to ask a question that stated "Men & Women are equal". Now just look, what is going to happen when we do let people in this country who might have answered no to that? There's literally no reason for them to care or value the current Canadian system because they've already been admitted inside. This is an example of why I think maintaining some form of immigration control is crucial. Was Canadian culture really suppose to change, if the people who first lived inside voted to protect certain traditions or beliefs?
Well see my above post. The Middle East is happy to go to wars and dispose of leaders they're not happy with. But they don't want to spill blood so non-believers like me can actually live in their countries peacefully? Well ok, I'm still not sure why I would want to import such a culture in my country, if they've demonstrated they're not going to be the first ones to fight for it.
And to make this topic shorter can I ask another question: we've talked so much about how there are different cultures around the world with their own beliefs and history. Why then, don't we have an immigration system that should try and connect people who are more culturally similar to one and other, as opposed to having a "free for all" system that overlooks such backgrounds of religion or personal values?
I cannot justify a more moral system that says, countries should be doing everything in their power to avoid bringing conflict in their country, by maintaining a society that is indeed, a little more homogeneous? Until world peace is actually achieved, the world right now is very much divided and there are ongoing conflicts that can be traced due to cultural differences.
You don't need to be the most extremist Muslim to still believe in Islamic law. The Taliban is considered one of the most extremist sects out there, and yet even their Islamic neighbors still thought they were insane and went to war with them. You don't have to be an actual Taliban to still believe in death punishments for homosexuals, or death penalties for those who draw the prophet Muhammad.
Where does a nation derive their beliefs from? It's not a crazy coincidence that perhaps the head of state or the individual citizens, still believe in a book that all share the same theme or the same advice.
If Saudi Arabia replaced their Quran with that of a Bible or Buddhist literature, then I don't believe they will still have laws literally okaying who gets to die because it's considered god's will. Maybe this might open up to why the Middle East & Islam are in fact religions that must be treated separately from the rest of the world. It's been centuries since Christians read their bible and could never agree which version is correct without endlessly going to war over it. In the Middle East, Sunni and Shia (the two biggest Islamic faiths) are indeed at war with each other and cannot agree who has the correct text. Now, whether or not this type of division has overlaps with other real world problems, doesn't change that the risk assessment is much higher in terms of "which religion has the last amount of tolerance for not only others, but even within their own groups"?
If this is what you meant to say, what my posted meant to say is Canada is in fact distinct from other cultures around the world. Canada is culturally different from Japan, or India or the Middle East or Africa or South America. If you're saying our distinct culture is in fact more similar to the USA/France/Britain than YES. I want 100% agree with this.
And the country only being 150 years solidifies this. Israel being founded in 1948, doesn't look like Canada. South Sudan, being founded in 2011, doesn't look like Canada. Why does actual time matter, when we have differences the eyes can see immediately? If Canada for 3 generations had a culture that was clearly British/French inspired, then the next 3 generations could very well be the same. As long as the people are still there, the culture does reflect those who lived and passed it onto their children.
This is highly subjective.
The world was both high advance and less advance, depending on which topic you want to address.
Like for example, yes GDP per capita is better, but I had another user on Neogaf just tell me last weekend
we are actually more poorer with today's money compared to the past.
Or another example, 50 years ago, was global climate temperature considered as much of a danger/threat as it is today? Even if people are more educated about climate change today, would you not prefer if carbon emissions were at the same levels they were in the 1970s as opposed to where they are in 2020?
Basically, there can be an argument for how the world worked 50 years ago that could be treated as a positive, just as how you can make arguments that say we have done some things better in the future.
You can still do foreign business without physically swapping different populations together. And in fact, the world before the 1970s still engaged in this.
Franchising/licensing out brand names. The CEO of Walmart doesn't literally manage every store, he or she has subordinates that run several different locations and then reports their results to the board of directors. If it was a foreign option, they same system still applies. Go to a foreign country, open a new branch, and hire people locally within the country who then sends their money back to main headquarters in the USA.
Why would they then pass it onto their direct descendants instead of random strangers?
Could it be that had strict rules or expectations that only those who were apart of the original family are more likely to carry on their legacy instead of the rare scenario where they abandon it?
It's actually a very magnificent system. Canadians from 3 generations ago may not have lived to to see their children (or they may have died half through the transition) and yet, there was still a flawless transfer of power. The trains didn't stop running, the government didn't stop running, people still kept practicing traditions like going to church without their great grandaddy having to scold them to go.
It becomes very reasonable to assume that inheritance is a natural process, because who do you expect to be the best person to carry on your legacy, if they are not your own flesh and blood and were raised in the same culture that you and your previous ancestors came to live by? Or here's another scenario, you are a frail elderly man or woman, and you clearly don't have much time left. You only have one biological child. Do you pass on your house to your child, or do you opt to give it away to a stranger you just met on the street? What do you think might motivate people to pass on their own personal possession to family members, if we as humans didn't believe those we are most similar to are expected to carry on where we left off after we die? How would humans even have a culture in the first place, if all we did was approach random strangers and try and convince them to follow all the same rules or customs as us, when you could raise a family where brother, sister, mother and father do have a better understanding of each other than with the outside world?
Now, do you see what i'm getting at when I talk about inheritance?
What if I told you for hundreds of years, that there were still civilizations who did culturally place more value in science and productivity even when compared to the rest of the world?
This is a serious question. I knew you were even going to bring up "war" yet many of these same scientifically developed countries were in fact war mongers or caught up in constant fighting.
Nobody denies that Germany had a violent past. Or Japan. And yet you were still the first one who answered that two nations were also the best examples of them. Why?
Why isn't the all the world equal in this aspect, since wars or economic pressures or even population has been something affecting every nation for hundreds of years?
There are several countries with larger populations that still punch far below their weight compared to where Canada has always stood on the world stage.
In fact, one doesn't even need to use the entire USA as proof of why they're advanced.
The states of Texas or California, if they were ever to become independent, would still become superpowers in their own right. A population only matters when you actually compare what the people are capable of producing.
I completely disagree that in order to grow the population (in act of catching up to the U.S) it must be done with immigration. No, we should actually invest first in sectors that actually meets the world's demands for goods.
There are plenty of countries for example, whose only resource is oil that practically drives their economy. I wouldn't go as far as to use the same tactic, but I would try and export things that aren't commonly found in the wild. Like Computers and digital software. You don't need billions of people to run your own Microsoft. You actually need people who understand how a tech startup works in the first place.
And in regards to the population, there can still be immigration but for reasons explained above, there should also be a natural effort and increasing the birth rate of the people who already live here. You wouldn't have to go through the boring steps of grabbing people all over the world and giving them a test and then hoping they assimilate. Millions of Canadians exist already, why isn't it the government's duty to use them first and populate their own country?
I would never look down on another nation for simply not having the cultural interests as the West. For example, the same nations who might not really value science could still have a culture that is really good at sports or music. If that's even their strength (i.e they're poor but they still win several gold medals at the Olympics or in tournaments) I would even encourage them to follow in that direction since that's something the rest of the world cannot best them in.
I am personally looking out for the interests of what Western nations continued to define themselves for hundreds of years. I do think that, when you look at all the records or achievements, then just as how there are countries who do good at sports, we similar patterns of countries that always had a culture of excelling well in the sciences. It's ok for both these nations to still co-exist and be different. I think the flaw of multiculturalism is that, it somehow thinks it cannot balance this or let one culture get completely swallowed by the other. And when that happens well, we can look at the Native Indians to see that losing your own influence in society quite literally sets you back, or even puts you on extinction.