In the survey, conducted the same week Quebec adopted a law prohibiting niqab-wearing women from receiving government services, 26 per cent of respondents said increasing religious diversity is a good thing while 23 per cent said it is bad. Nearly half — 44 per cent — said diversity brings a mix of good and bad; the remaining seven per cent were unsure.
When the pollsters sought respondents’ views on particular religious groups, anti-Islam sentiment stood out. Forty-six per cent of the people polled said Islam is damaging Canada compared with 13 per cent who said it is beneficial. The others either did not know (20 per cent) or said it has no real impact (21 per cent.)
The Angus Reid Institute, which conducted the poll in partnership with Faith in Canada 150, said the results are in keeping with “a well documented pattern” in recent years. “Namely, if Islam is involved, a significant segment of Canadians will react negatively,” the institute said in its analysis of the numbers.
The only other religion with an overall negative score was Sikhism, with 22 per cent calling it damaging and 13 per cent beneficial. Catholicism, Protestantism, evangelical Christianity and Judaism all had overall positive ratings.
I think some of this is due not only to Canada’s secularisation but to intellectual and moral laziness, as well. Most people worship quietly and do not cause problems. Indeed, many contribute positively to society. However, to admit that would mean that the haters would have to acknowledge these contributions, respect the freedom to worship and admit that the real problems do not lie in religions that serve as low-hanging fruit (ie – the Saturday and Sunday people).
A newly opened restaurant in Toronto sparked heated online debate recently by revealing that two dishes on its menu would contain seal meat. Kū-kŭm Kitchen, an Indigenous-owned and operated restaurant, was targeted by an online petition which gained more than 6,300 signatures. The petition called for the restaurant to remove seal from its menu, stating that seal hunting is “violent, horrific, traumatizing and unnecessary”.
One extra large bucket of popcorn with butter please.
All around us, we are seeing the cultural lights of Western civilisation flickering, if not being dimmed or even switched off altogether. Whereas the Age of Enlightenment was a period in which intellectual and philosophical thought and reason flourished, three centuries later we appear to be heading down an increasingly gloomier path into a foreboding future.
Running through a list of Enlightenment values is a depressing experience, as we realise that today’s post-modern, neo-Marxist so-called ‘progressive’ culture, laced as it is with a dash of Mohammedan medievalism, appears hell-bent on achieving the precise opposite of those original values. Instead of tolerance, we have the frightening intolerance of GetUp!, Antifa, modern ‘feminazis’, the LGBTIQ fundamentalists, leftist students, teachers, and media and their bizarre pandering to the ‘sensitivities’ of Islam. Instead of individual liberty we have the suffocating control of bloated government bureaucracies and stifling political correctness. Instead of fraternity, we have ‘diversity’ and the demonising of the white ‘patriarchy’. Instead of the scientific method and reductionism, we have climate change’s sinister quartet of ‘sacrifice’, ‘belief’, fake data and alarmism. Instead of biology, we have ‘gender fluidity’. Instead of reason we have ‘feelings’ and ‘compassion’.
Ross Douthat is mistaking the new American cultural revolution for a mere culture war. In a New York Times column under the headline “Trump’s Empty Culture War,” Douthat accuses the president of engaging in the bad kind of culture war, in which “attitudinizing, tribalism, and worse-case fear-mongering float around unmoored . . . without a single issue being clarified or potentially resolved.”
On the contrary, the fight Trump has joined is not a culture war but a cultural revolution.
A book by California sociologist Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, “The sum of small things”, reveals why everybody wants to join the liberal bubble. She tries to decipher who the “new yuppies” are, a category in which the scholar places different professional figures such as the producers of HBO series, the employees of non-governmental organizations, the screenwriters, the journalists, the university administrators, the Silicon Valley engineers and the attorneys.
Elegant people, between the ages of 40 and 50, with physically fit and attractive bodies, who read the New Yorker and discuss “inequality” and “justice”. It is they who make up the new “cultural elite” and they are winning the debate in the public opinion about immigration, terrorism and Islam.
I am not a musician; but about a quarter century ago in the 1990s, I was in a restaurant with a musician who gave me a dire observation. He told me that a professor had mentioned to him that a vital, vibrant culture should produce a new form of music every ten to twenty years or so, roughly speaking.
I thought about what he said. It sort of made sense. Around 1900, America had ragtime. Tango came from South America around 1910. Jazz took over by the 1920s. Swing came in during the 1930s. Bebop came in during the late 40s, early fifties. Rock ‘n Roll took over the culture in the late 1950s and 1960s.
But then this musician – mind you again, this was the 90’s – asked me, “What new music has our culture invented since Rock?”
A new season begins, and fans are wondering about more than just What Happened last Sunday.
Television ratings declined, last season, for the National Football League’s games. This came as a shock to the Lords of the NFL. Ratings are not supposed to decline. The NFL’s ratings never decline. This is a law of nature. The popularity of football is always on the increase even as its presence spreads, with games now being played in London and Mexico City, with other venues under consideration. Football is expanding and inevitable.
So how, then, to account the falloff in the ratings?
And you have to see this to believe it- Trainwreck: ESPN’s Attempt at Diversity on Monday Night Football Goes Horribly Wrong
Americans are being emotionally manipulated to take up cause with those whose ultimate purpose is the repeal of the First Amendment and erasure of national memory.
Wars are won or lost based mostly on perceptions of events, not on what actually happens. This is true for any given battlefield, whether it’s the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam or the ideological battlefield over the future of the First Amendment as played out in Charlottesville in 2017. The reality of what takes place in the public arena is always secondary to any projected illusion.
So let’s never forget this: Whoever has the power to dictate public perceptions of reality is in a position to dictate public opinion and behavior. Abusing language and images to stir up emotions is an ancient trick of power-mongers. And once journalism turns into unchecked propaganda, we become trapped in its dangerous illusions.
The old never really understand the young, especially in times when the paradigm is changing. The old looked on with dismay during the nineteen-sixties and seventies when so many Boomers rejected traditional morality and established social roles, inaugurating the Age of Aquarius with a utopian belief in the power of universalism to overcome tribalism. For the post-war idealists, flowers of tolerance were the answer to the guns of hatred that made the twentieth century so hellish for so many.
The post-war generations came to believe that World Wars I and II were the result of authoritarian white maleness. Central European theorists such as Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse led the intellectual movement to convince young Westerners that this was the case and were very successful. Those ideas fuelled the New Left movement that took over the campuses and the hippie movement that took over the culture.
Last week, The Atlantic rendered a great service to those of us who contend that America is in the midst of a civil war between the right and the left. It provided a smoking gun — actually, the gunshot itself — to those of us who contend that the left (never to be confused with liberals) is intent on dismantling Western civilization.
“In Ruling the Void, Peter Mair describes a process by which political parties have retreated from public life and civil society and into the state. Plummeting membership of political parties and turnout in national elections was, he notes, a shared feature of all developed democracies at the end of the 20th century. As a result, political parties ‘have become agencies that govern – in the widest sense of the term – rather than represent. They bring order rather than give voice.’ In turn, ideology withered, and parties became absorbed into an amorphous governing class. They began competing not on the basis of ideas or interests, but on their readiness to govern.”