|
Post by Rhiflect on Apr 6, 2010 12:47:22 GMT
(unless you're a creationist idiot or something stupid like that) ;you must respect people's religious beliefs or you're a bad person." then carrying on and elaborating that religion's anti-homosexual stance, or their love of female genital mutilation. Why the fuck should I respect your opinion when it's based on ignorance and superstition and is directly harmful to humans? Similarly, Sibz, I think this post is a little rude. It's a bit TOO harsh to be saying someone's a 'creationist idiot'. Because despite it being a ridiculous notion, it IS still someone's belief. It's just the same as calling someone a 'dumb Muslim', which you would (possibly) agree is a little wrong. And as for not wanting to respect someone's religious beliefs, I think it is something that would make you a decent person, understanding one culture's faults because it is their culture. For instance, you wouldn't outwardly criticise an African tribe for, i dunno, marrying children young or something, because it IS their culture, despite how backwards and immoral it is.
|
|
|
Post by jadeface on Apr 6, 2010 16:08:38 GMT
I respect people's religious beliefs, but I'm not religious at all. I was vaguely taught it in school, but none of the schools I went to were religious. I think like all things it is good to be aware of things that exist in the world, but without preaching. My opinion, though. My boyfriend's sister works in a school and it's super christian. They're not allowed to read Harry Potter.
Religion is a really tough subject and like most people I try to tread carefully. But it's often a subject of, does religion override human rights etc etc? It's hard to say what's 'wrong' and what's 'right'. Like female circumcision is really quite shocking to me, but other people accept it as part of their life. I often wonder if there's something I do in my life that other cultures might be shocked and disgusted by?
There was this Muslim man on TV the other day (he was actually part of a more extremist movement (no idea if that's the right wording) so not really abiding by the original religion) and he was saying how the Western world is just disgusting, full of people who get pissed and flash their bodies. And sweeping generalisations like that, are probably one of the worst things that people do in the world, it's why people are scared of Muslims, and why there's so much ignorance all over the place for people who are different to ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Apr 6, 2010 17:08:40 GMT
In response to Sibz.
If you, Lawrence or any other hardline atheist wish to brand the dizzyingly varied and diverse spectrum of the five billion of your fellow human beings who hold religious beliefs as uniformly ignorant, silly or harmful (as Dawkins has made a name for himself doing), that's your business as curious and bigoted as I might find it. However freedom of speech works both ways and expression of any kind of bigotry is likely to get the verbal smackdown from me especially the weird unearned "know-it-all" elitism implicit in such a stance. This is vexing enough coming from an esteemed authority on evolutionary biology like Dawkins, from a 19 year old student with a single ill considered sentence on a web forum, it's just plain weird.
What was worrying for me about Lawrence's post was the implications of anti-religion positions being "enforced".. I hear these kind of casually fascistic statements made by "liberal"/left leaning young people all too often when it supports their positions. I find it unlikely anyone would disapprove of me smacking down a post seriously suggesting that atheists should be forcibly converted to Christianity or Islam.
Also, Sibz defining religion on the grounds of its most extreme elements ala female genital mutilation is a bit weird. It would be like me calling all of feminism ignorant or dangerous because the Society for Cutting Up Men exists..
I'm no authority on science, but all of my dabblings on the subject has made me aware quite how tiny and almost insignificant us humans are given the dizzying scale of the universe we live in, and the tree of evolution of which homo sapiens are a single ephemeral branch. Science is really humbling, and it makes the sheer blinding ignorance of even the finest human intellect presuming to know enough to make an empirical "factual" statement on the origins of universe, meaning of life and all that jazz all the more glaring.
As I see it, agnosticism is the only truly logical and "rational" position to take given the data available to us, and tellingly this is also the position of most of the finest scientific minds in recent history.
Science and facts are certainly important, but they aren't the be-all and end-all. Subjective topics like religion.. and also philosophy and art are just as important to inform kids about as they interpret the world that science and mathematics establish, as well as promoting different ways of thinking and expression.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Apr 6, 2010 17:14:48 GMT
(unless you're a creationist idiot or something stupid like that) ;you must respect people's religious beliefs or you're a bad person." then carrying on and elaborating that religion's anti-homosexual stance, or their love of female genital mutilation. Why the fuck should I respect your opinion when it's based on ignorance and superstition and is directly harmful to humans? Similarly, Sibz, I think this post is a little rude. It's a bit TOO harsh to be saying someone's a 'creationist idiot'. Because despite it being a ridiculous notion, it IS still someone's belief. It's just the same as calling someone a 'dumb Muslim', which you would (possibly) agree is a little wrong. And as for not wanting to respect someone's religious beliefs, I think it is something that would make you a decent person, understanding one culture's faults because it is their culture. For instance, you wouldn't outwardly criticise an African tribe for, i dunno, marrying children young or something, because it IS their culture, despite how backwards and immoral it is. Creationism is flat out stupid, and beliefs like "God put dinosaurs in the ground!!!" hold back real scientific and social development. I'm not actualy going to argue about that one, because it's a non-issue. Creationism is bullshit, some people are ignorant enough to belive it, that's their choice, let them live a lie. Religion does not give you a free pass to hold damaging or offensive views. I don't give a shit what religion you are, if someone tries to tell me how I'm going to hell, and I tell them I don't respect that belief, I'm apparently the rude one? What the fuck is wrong with our society where we accept that as the norm? Oh and regarding your last point, yes of course I would. Think about what you're saying: "It's immoral and backwards, but I'm ok with that! I'm going to let the ritualistic rape of children continue because some people think a man in the sky wants them to!".
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Apr 6, 2010 17:47:17 GMT
Again you can't define religion by its most extreme elements. Not as all Christians are creationists.. and if you actually take the Bible on its own values rather than the culture and theology that has attached themselves to the faith in the last 2000 years, you can argue that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful. (though the chinese whispers effect of 2000 years of translations and intepretations of a text make it far from clear-cut). However one of Christ's central teachings is that EVERYONE is a sinner and therefore equal in the eyes of God and we should never judge or condemn others but focus on righting our own failings whilst treating others with universal love and tolerence.
Therefore, you can argue that homosexuality is unchristian but homophobia in all its forms is DEFINITELY unchristian.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Apr 6, 2010 17:50:02 GMT
In response to Sibz. If you, Lawrence or any other hardline atheist wish to brand the dizzyingly varied and diverse spectrum of the five billion of your fellow human beings who hold religious beliefs as uniformly ignorant, silly or harmful (as Dawkins has made a name for himself doing), that's your business as curious and bigoted as I might find it. However freedom of speech works both ways and expression of any kind of bigotry is likely to get the verbal smackdown from me especially the weird unearned "know-it-all" elitism implicit in such a stance. This is vexing enough coming from an esteemed authority on evolutionary biology like Dawkins, from a 19 year old student with a single ill considered sentence on a web forum, it's just plain weird. What was worrying for me about Lawrence's post was the implications of anti-religion positions being "enforced".. I hear these kind of casually fascistic statements made by "liberal"/left leaning young people all too often when it supports their positions. I find it unlikely anyone would disapprove of me smacking down a post seriously suggesting that atheists should be forcibly converted to Christianity or Islam. Where are you getting this from? Where did either of us say that people weren't entitled to their religion? They're more than welcome to, as long as it doesn't affect my life, as I mentioned (and by that I don't mean BAN CHRISTMAS, I mean stuff like keeping church and state seperate etc.) But it's not just the extremist elements that are dangerous. FGM is an extreme practise, I admit, however "moderate" beliefs like homophobia are constantly reinforced by religion, and for some reason, given a free pass- "That's ok, you can ban gays from your hotel because you're a CHRISTIAN!". Why should I respect that? I know that there are many people who aren't homophobic or racist or sexist, and are just nice, normal people who get on with their lives and happen to bop to church every so often and have a pray- that's cool, if that's what they want I'm happy for them. But I don't see why their bopping to church and praying should outweigh any negative views they may hold as a result of bopping to church and praying. Everytime some religious nutcase murders a child for not praying, or rapes a deaf child, or beats their wife people are quick to jump in and say "oh well, that's not a TRUE christian" and everytime I wonder, what is a true christian then? Someone who follows the word of the Bible to a T? Because that would be one revolting individual. Is it being a good person? Because that's not exclusive to being a christian. Agnosticism comes in amny different types I'd like to point out, and doesn't reaaaally mean that much. Essentially, all you're saying when you say agnostic is "I don't know"- which is a fair enough; No-one can prove one way or the other, but it's a term incorrectly used to mean "oooh i dunno lol" way too much. You can be a Christian Agnostic ("I don't know for sure, but I BELIEVE that god exists") and the scale goes all the way along to Atheist Agnostic ("I don't know for sure, but I don't believe god exists"). Ultimately I think everyone's kind of Agnostic, because even though I'm more than happy to make absolute statements about god not existing, it's not a FACT and I don't know for absolute, absolute certain, as convinced as I am. I could be wrong. It's not like my shoe size- I can prove that by showing you my shoe, and my foot and you can acknowledge that the shoe is a size 5 and my foot fits in it. I'm not however, going to spend my life going "oooh, maybe god DOES exist" when every thing I know leads me to the conclusion that at the very least, any god I've read about in religious texts doesn't. If I turn out to be wrong, oops, at least I made (what was to me) the most appropriate decision based on the evidence available to me. I'm not much of a fan of Philosophy either, but that's a whole other thing. As I said, it's important to learn about and understand other people's culture, I just don't think that we should teach kids that you must respect other peope's beliefs purely because they belong to a religion. I think it's time, as humans we started holding people more accountable for their actions. Disjointed, I've inhaled a lot of paint fumes today.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Apr 6, 2010 17:59:15 GMT
^ as I just posted Sibz, I actually agree with you that religion doesn't excuse prejudicial beliefs such as homophobia. I believe Christian homophobes are acting directly against their religion and the teachings of their god.
I also agree with you that none of the current established religions are "right" in simplistic terms. I believe all religions to be human interpretations of the same thing, and a mixture of divine truths and utter bullocks. Personally I believe in a Hindu conception of God and the teachings of Christ.
I tend not to get along with material rationalist types on matters like this. I tend to lean more toward the theoretical intellectual disciplines like philosophy because I believe reality itself to be subjective. When I hear the word "rational" for right or wrong a part of my mind hears "my conception of the world is THE ONLY TRUE CONCEPTION".
|
|
|
Post by Rosie The Red on Apr 6, 2010 18:40:59 GMT
and congrats on starting a thread, RtR. i know it took some courage. I feel empowered. My boyfriend's sister works in a school and it's super christian. They're not allowed to read Harry Potter. ^This, I think is just ridiculous. Do they feel threatened by it? I don't understand it at all. It's not like Harry Potter is marketed as non-fiction. From personal experience, I went to a Christian primary school, because that's what my parents choose... despite being completely non-religious. My mother says it was so I knew about religion, and thus was informed in making my own decision, like how Chool was taken to Church probably. But I didn't like it there, and it kind of put me off religion, because every year we would be taught the same Christian things at Christmas and Easter, and we'd have to pray before lunch when all we wanted to do was eat. {I don't think my liking the school was helped by the people there... they were, for the main part, awful.} But then, when I got to secondary school, I enjoyed R.E, thought it was fascinating. I especially loved learning about Buddhism and Hinduism, I think because of their non-monotheistic beliefs, and the different culture. But for my GCSE next year, we are doing all about Christianity, and ethics a la Christianity, and I still feel prejudiced against the religion from my time at a Church of England school. Edit: although, i think my teenage self would be less inclined to point out said contradictions or be comfortable outwardly treating everything with the mind of a skeptic if classes were taught by a cleric. as long as they had an air such that challenging the text wouldn't have them giving you twenty lashings in their head, i'd consider it. My teenage self {a.k.a. moi} would love to be able to point out these contradictions to a religious person. Maybe I just like to cause trouble... But, anyway, I would be really interested to know how they would argue back, or how they would explain such inconsistencies from an insiders perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Apr 6, 2010 18:45:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Apr 6, 2010 18:57:13 GMT
I have no idea how you extracted your post from that article, but al I can say is that's a very Daily Mail take on the situation. He says he's writing a book for children, and he hasn't read Harry Potter but enjoys Philip Pullman's books and that he doesn't know what the effect is on children but he's interested in it.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Apr 6, 2010 19:10:56 GMT
I have no idea why any non-zealot would even ponder the question if fictional fairy tales are "anti-scientific" with an "insidious affect on rationality". It's fiction! Considering this is the dude who's made a career out of telling 5 billion people they're deluded and dangerous.. It baffles me and I find it ridiculous, he just strikes me as someone who's started out with good intentions and got sucked wayyy too deep into his ideology. Text book fundamentalist. I confess my intial statement was slightly misleading. I was aware he'd said something along those lines, but looked for the article/proof to back it up afterwards which is a pretty dunce-esque move. *edited for fairness/balence*
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Apr 6, 2010 22:58:13 GMT
conveniently enough, i just recently bought a book for these kinds of debates. it's big and it's thick and makes a nice thwacking sound when applied swiftly to the cranium of others. nah, this has actually been enjoyable so far. perhaps only because sibz doesn't really have an opposite to um, oppose. i like it though, i can see sibz going into temples and kicking ass. much like jesus, actually. sibz's tone does have a place in such debates, i think, well.. when more diplomatic methods of reasoning have been exhausted. but i would think actually that being critical and even ridiculing the devoutly religious can burst a bubble of myopia when some might see their beliefs as sacrosanct. but i don't know...it is a balance. you can either make people challenge their beliefs or you might make them feel persecuted, and like a martyr for their religion. still i guess i fall on the side of sibz with regard to respecting one's religious. deciding to follow a doctrine and convincing oneself to believe in something largely unfounded shouldn't merit respect. if i ever believe the INVISIBLE BIKE cat was in fact cruising around on a mystical moped based on this photo, please, please don't respect that, just slowly and quietly back away [even though that is possibly better evidence for those beliefs than most theologies have]. knowing who they are as a person is essentially the only way i can see justifying respect for them. but, i should clarify that i can definitely respect how religion positively impacted someone's life on an individual level. i kind of see josh's arguments like eye floaters though. seems there's enough wiggle room there to never really get a firm hold on it and pin it down no matter how much attention i give it. i still sorta like them. the arguments, not the floaters. My teenage self {a.k.a. moi} would love to be able to point out these contradictions to a religious person. Maybe I just like to cause trouble... But, anyway, I would be really interested to know how they would argue back, or how they would explain such inconsistencies from an insiders perspective. actually, yeah, now that i think of it, i could imagine a lot of nonbelieving students having a kind of 'know thy enemy' view on such classes, even if they weren't into it from a historical standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Apr 6, 2010 23:07:27 GMT
as for richard dawkins, i wouldn't worry about him. in two millenia, the world will probably be convinced that the god delusion came from the pen of satan himself.
actually, i am pretty underexposed to his stuff...only familiar with his reputation. i have run into a few good quotes here and there though, like, 'there's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out.' acerbic, but on point.
anyhow, i'd find it hard to believe that any of the worst crimes against humanity came from a person or group being too 'rational' whereas...
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Apr 6, 2010 23:57:30 GMT
I would never diss rationalism, only dogmatically clinging to material rationalism at the expense of all other approaches. The logical, rational, analytical side and the imaginative, emotional, spiritual side are both as essential as each other, and shouldn't be seen as in conflict but work in tandem. The problem comes (in my view) when one of these energies begins to dominate the other. In an individual or a society this is unhealthy to the point of catastrophic. I think we see the results of this in our current western society, I mean the real power base in this world is made of pragmatic to the point of sociopathic economists and business people. If the balance titled to an imbalance on the other side it would be just as destructive.
Religion is on the decline in the western world, specifically here in Europe and god knows religion has been responsible for some awful things, but has religion been replaced by a peaceful logic based utopia? Has it fuck. There's been pros and cons. The departure of spirituality from ordinary people's lives has all too often found itself filled with the spoils of tangible materialism; buying shit, succeeding and shagging are the new religions.
I have a lot more respect for an staunch atheist rationality-head if they're actually scientists working hard to ask questions and work shit out or just average people that read up on the science that supports their arguments in depth. To be honest, I find a lot of the overwhelming trend toward atheism among this generation (though of course far from ALL of it) to basically be a way of saying "oh, I don't have to think about anything too deep, leave it to the scientists, I'll take their word for everything without investigating for myself and go back to thinking about shoes".
I totally disagree with Sibz statement about how we should start holding people MORE accountable for their actions.. finger pointing and blame culture pretty much seems to dominate the current social/culture dialogue and as for that Dawkins quote Joeb.. well to be honest you know the millions of problems in the modern world? I really really don't think people being TOO forgiving and open minded is one of them!
I think we need to move toward a culture of "love your enemies" we're all angered by homophobia, but have you ever put yourself inside the shoes of a homphobe, a racist or a misogynist, religious or otherwise? C'mon did you notice the PHOBIA in that word? A lot of people are scared by changes and "the alien", bless the poor dears! People don't just pop out of the womb as ignorant bigots. I think bridges can be built and hearts and minds won over whilst still standing proud and tall and protecting discriminated against people. This why I'm not a fan of the juvenile BATTLE BATTLE provocative or "us against them" approachs to these problems.
Anger is what motivates people to want to change things, reason and love in perfect harmony are what actually changes things.
Shit! Rant.. basically what I'm saying is sorry if seem to go at the Dawkins brand of atheism and anti-religion with particular gusto, it's just at cross purposes with everything I believe in and what I reckon the world needs. I think dismissing and discrediting spirituality the way Dawkins and co want to would be bad bad news.
|
|
|
Post by izzyplastic on Apr 7, 2010 2:26:56 GMT
Ah, religion. Alongside politics, should never be discussed over alcohol. Or perhaps a message board given how quickly i skimmed over this threads catfights. ahem.
Anyways. My general two cents.
I was raised Catholic in Ireland. I was an altar boy for almost 8 years, and I was pretty religious. A lot of my family (aunts, uncles, etc..) are in the church. When I hit college, over the years I was there, my opinions changed a lot though. It's my opinion that religion/belief is a personal thing and can never be defined properly by an organised religion. In my local church, I don't think you could find one person out of the hundreds that agreed on every single aspect of their beliefs.
This is because almost all religions are a way of life that have been added to over the hundreds of years, with people adding in bits and pieces as they saw fit. I think people can still be religious without being a part of a church. The basic guidelines are very similar among almost all religions I have looked into, except for Buddhism which is more an exploration of life in nature as a whole/consciousness of your surroundings, as opposed to life amongst people.
To get to the point of schools: I went to a catholic primary school, and my second level was in a jesuit run school. I think it was probably the best school i could possibly have gone to for the general ethos at the school, which encouraged the development of the individual as well as their studies. there was no uniform, students were treated as equals, on first name basis with a number of teachers...it was a great preparation for the real world.
(For example when i started in college, there was a number of girls who had never had day to day interaction with boys because they went to an all girls school, etc...)
As much as I think it was an exceptional school, I firmly believe that religion in general has no place in education. Education deals in facts, and known quantities, religion all comes down to belief, which as I've said, is personal. It should neither be taught as a subject, or have a presence in a school as educators/administration, etc...I think the qualities of the school I went to can be kept just as well by a "lay person" or someone of any faith.
While I've thought this for a while, it's only been reinforced by the sex abuse scandal that's breaking in Ireland over the past few years. I'm not too expectant that it's a localised thing to Ireland either, I think it's the start of a long chain of stories to come out all over the world. I don't think people who are restricted in the way they live their lives (ie, priests-celibacy, etc..) should have a direct influence over young people who are still learning about themselves and what's acceptable in life and so on.
I could go into a lot more detail, but I'm cutting here cause I've to run off to work. as a teacher, funnily enough.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Apr 7, 2010 7:12:29 GMT
on the whole, i feel a lot of what you're saying, josh. i would certainly agree that this generation is far removed from the pinnacle of our ability. i'd guess this and many more upcoming generations may just be the birth pangs of progress. or maybe not, and we'll still be talking about the teapots in space for millenia. [which, i must say, the odds of an identifiable functioning ceramic container, devised by man over the course of many centuries, just happening to exist outside of our civilization and even currently in orbit of a planet seem pretty unlikely. i think even our greatest scientific minds would have no understanding of such a phenomenon let alone myself] or better yet, maybe the robots will inherit the earth by banking off of that original sin deal and then we'll finally see a utopia. ...and as for that Dawkins quote Joeb.. well to be honest you know the millions of problems in the modern world? I really really don't think people being TOO forgiving and open minded is one of them! it's a call to not be so sensitive that you end up getting trampled on by those who have no problem raising cain. thing is we're dealing with the relatively early waves of clashing with the oppressive yoke of ideology that has been set in stone for longer than any of us can really grasp. how do you contend with/extend an olive branch to people who believe your lifestyle will bring you eternal damnation? or with unfounded beliefs that obstruct the passage of rights to better the quality of life of others? people who would only have an open mind themselves if you bopped them on the head with a blunt object? i understand where you're coming from, and to be clear, i'm not a rah-rah angry type. i just think everyone should be philosophically challenged as well as understood. anyway, like i said, for the most part i agree; the dogmatic or rabid crowds of both theists and atheists are not my cup of tea, and can often neutralize the good of either worldview's efforts to create the gooey love concoction you described. using an analogy inspired by the floaters, i'd reckon coming to grips with, and striving to understand our universe is in some ways like noticing something in the corner of your eye that incessantly resituates away from your periphery each time you turn to see it. dogmatic theists i would see as people content to do thousand-yard stares knowing that whatever it is, it is definitely there, definitely benevolent, and it'll all be alright and i can't hear you if you say anything to the contrary *covers ears* lalalalalalala. the 'dogmatic material rationalists' you mentioned i would guess are the people who turn on the tv, go 'who can be bothered' and then turn the volume up a little higher. i guess what i'm saying is, yes, the universe is dizzying, as you put it, but only if you choose to spin. [which i feel is the action of most people] and c'est la oui if i get my note-jotting pencil lodged in someone because i'm too busy spinning and they're too lazy to move. this analogy is failing me or i failed it. either way, maybe i should just rent out an auditorium for myself. anyhoo, i don't think i'm really arguing with you about any of that. in fact i can't, i like being nice and stuff. and dawkins probably is a jerk. damn it, our whole existence really went down the crapper once that one sumerian guy thought it would be a good idea to write down his own livejournal-esque musings. me-yow.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 7, 2010 9:37:08 GMT
if i ever believe the INVISIBLE BIKE cat was in fact cruising around on a mystical moped based on this photo, please, please don't respect that, just slowly and quietly back away [even though that is possibly better evidence for those beliefs than most theologies have]. You're the biggest fool in this thread: Invisible Bike cat is obviously gripping the back of an Invisible Velociraptor. Cheerio, Michael. xxx
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 7, 2010 9:47:47 GMT
Of all of Professor fucking Yaffle's unhelpful huff and puffs, this is the one that annoys me the most. Say what you will about Yahweh and his homies, but mess with Albus Dumbledore and I will... get very angry on the internet. But, with the patronising! The idea that children can't distinguish between myth/fantasy and fact supports his God delusion, yes, but it's... just... stupid. And patronising. And stupid! There are probably wish fulfillment tropes in children's literature that set up unrealistic expectations, but they exist outside the world of wizards and spells. (Also, more often than not you could replace the spells and potions in Harry Potter with guns and drugs and it'd be the same story.) He bothers me so hard. "You there! Your belief system helps you to make sense of and feel secure within a world that is - at best - frightening and confusing? Stop it! Stop it immediately!" IN OTHER NEWS, Religious Education focusses on teaching about religion, rather than teaching religion itself. Cheerio, Michael. xxx
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Apr 7, 2010 20:18:20 GMT
You're the biggest fool in this thread: Invisible Bike cat is obviously gripping the back of an Invisible Velociraptor. Cheerio, Michael. xxx oh, right, so you believe that the dense mist of mythos actually birthed an invisible creature over the clear fact that technological advancements enabled mankind to build transparent transportation? great. once again, human achievement is undersold in favor of the supernatural. yeah, ok, go search for big foot in your tea leaves, sky nymph
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Apr 7, 2010 21:29:10 GMT
And as for not wanting to respect someone's religious beliefs, I think it is something that would make you a decent person, understanding one culture's faults because it is their culture. For instance, you wouldn't outwardly criticise an African tribe for, i dunno, marrying children young or something, because it IS their culture, despite how backwards and immoral it is. Oh and regarding your last point, yes of course I would. Think about what you're saying: "It's immoral and backwards, but I'm ok with that! I'm going to let the ritualistic rape of children continue because some people think a man in the sky wants them to!". I agree with you on most things I think, Sibz, but I disagree totally and utterly on this last point. The range of human interaction and behaviour on this earth is so hugely diverse. Western Society is not the pinnacle of human civilization, even though most Westerners tend to assume so. Who are we to say that the way we've been socialized and the way in which our society functions is 'right' for all humans, and the endless amount of other cultures are wrong? To use Rhi's example - just because in much of the developed world today we believe that marrying children younger than sixteen or whatever is "wrong", doesn't mean that's the be-all-and-end-all perspective. Childhood is a socially constructed concept; it varies greatly throughout history and across the world. The idea of children as you and I know it - as an economic liability rather than an asset, as having a different nature to adults, as being in need of protection - is something which has only developed in Western society over the last two centuries. In places all over the world it does not exist at all, for cultural, economic and, yes, sometimes religion reasons. 'Children' do labour the moment they're physically able, children are married young, children are left to fend for themselves and their position within the family is completely different to how we are used to seeing it. Some societies simply don't have "children's rights", and it's ignorant and presumptive of us to think that they should. It's the way their society functions; the way they are and, in some cases, always have been for hundreds and thousands of years. You may think differently, but I don't think we have the right to 'improve' on other members of the human race who's lifestyles we - as Westerners, with entirely different history, concerns, economic structures, beliefs - find distasteful. Who are we to turn up somewhere as 'civilized' people, and say that someone else's way of life, way of survival, is wrong? To me, posts like yours just scream of the unbearable conceit that Eurpeans don't seem able to shake, whether it's taking Africans from their homeland and their tribes as slaves and "civilizing" their "barbaric" ways, or charging into America and completely obliterating the Native American's way of life and almost their existence, or Christian missionaries travelling the world in the 19th and 20th centuries, 'civilizing' people with different religious and spiritual practices, Westernising them, putting clothes on them, telling them they're wrong and our way is right. I'm sorry for sort of veering away from the topic of religion. This post probably doesn't make as much sense as I'd like it to - I'm sure I'll be able to put it more coherently in a few years when I'm an Anthropology major Basically, whether it's "outwardly criticizing an African tribe" as Rhi put it, or jeering at and belittling the religious beliefs of others, I think it shows conceit, disrespect, and ignorance about the very nature of humanity, rather than moral direction.
|
|