my previous post on multiculturalism has …

my previous post on multiculturalism has a lot of comments. i can’t even follow some of them well since they use arabic terminology which i’m not fluent in. but i would like to say two things:

1) i think that “true” objective multiculturalism is as real as religious freedom. that is, not much. let’s use the roman empire as an example. it was multicultural and multireligious. jews were even given exemptions from the mandatory worship of the emperor. but christians and druidism was outside of the circle of toleration. the issue was more to do with their anti-government sympathies than their theology. additionally, though the empire was multilingual, pride of place was given to both latin and greek. there were many cultures, but there were also two preeminent ones, the latin imperial and greek intellectual.

2) the main issue with modern debates is the neglect of the reality that despite objective empirical multiculturalism all states have standards defined by a norm established by a dominant culture. since male circumcision is common among christians in the USA (dominant even) there is little talk about banning male circumcision. in contrast it is unknown among swedish gentiles (aside from explicit medical needs) so there are discussions as to its barbarism and stricter regulation from the authorities that be.

of course, as noted in the comments below there are lots of other things one can say.