http://www.signandsight.com/features/1167.html
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070227_100426_7612

Two excellent debates on multiculturalism and reasonable accommodations, two topics that are well on their way to becoming the defining social issues of our time. Already, we see multiculturalism at its worst in Europe, in the ethnic cloisters where economic conditions and standard of living continue to slip because of cultural segregation. The key issue in this debate, to me, is the rejection of cultural relativism. The rejection, essentially, that all beliefs are created equally. You have a belief of pure faith, and a belief based off of rational empiricism, and according to our Canadian multicultural model, you are to be asked to respect and tolerate both beliefs equally. But what then, when these beliefs conflict in the public sphere? Nobody is denying the right of citizens to believe what they will, Muhammad or Spaghetti Monster, it's their right to personally have utterly inane beliefs. However, we must reject the idea that an idea of faith is equal to an idea of rationality, of the Enlightenment, of science and observation. That a fundamentalist Islamic culture is to be automatically deemed the equal respect as that given a culture of equality and liberty, simply because it exists. Respect is earned, and I find it hard to place any respect for thuggish, misogynistic theocrats, in the guise of religion or otherwise. If fervently believing in Enlightenment ideals, in the equality of mankind, that freedom and liberty are the most essential characteristics of a standard of living, makes me intolerant, then I'll happily be intolerant.

Why is this all relevant? Because recently in Canada, for example, we have conflicts between the public sphere and the personal religious beliefs of citizens. Female police officers being recommended to leave the interaction with male Hasidic Jews to male police officers, men being banned from swimming pools where there are Muslim women in the pool, etc. It boils down to the basic rejection of cultural relativism and the equality of beliefs. In a secular and plural society, as Canada professes to be, the rational, empirical belief will always triumph in conflict with the religious, faith-based belief. Not because of intolerance, but because of the acknowledgement of Enlightenment ideal's superiority. The superiority of reason, observation, rational discourse and analysis, and of basic equal rights for all, over the those beliefs of superstition and blind faith.

Being rather agnostic, it seems like this to me: when I buy a chocolate bar worth 1.99, I try to pay with only with a quarter. Why? Because I read this book somewhere and somebody told me about something, and thus, I fervently believe that the chocolate bar is worth 25 cents. Don't try to dissuade me, because my personal beliefs tell me it is worth 25 cents and thus it is worth 25 cents. Whether or not the chocolate bar is really worth 1.99 or not is irrelevant, the market has deemed it worth that much, and society has deemed to accept monetary values based on the Canadian dollar. That is the way we find ourselves with an orderly and peaceful society, by accepting basic rational facts and concepts. When personal faith, beliefs based solely on faith, come into play in conflict with these secular, humanist beliefs, then the latter will always triumph. At least, in my ideal Canada, it would. Because that is the only way that human rights, equality, and personal liberties will be upheld.