|
Post by jay on Apr 7, 2010 22:40:17 GMT
^ i wish i was as smart as you. on the religious education topic, mine was rather dire as i attended a catholic school and thus only got the basic education like: you must learn only about christianity/catholicism and any other opinion is wrong, god is right, the end. but! despite all of that stuff i disagreed with, i did learn how to debate intelligently and i must thank the lessons for that, at least. i think if religious education is well-rounded, exploring all faiths and beliefs and nurturing the skills of debate then yeah, it should be a subject. learning the stuff i was essentially forced to, though? nah. scrap that. it is quite sad that i've had to discover and learn about other religions/faiths by using the internet but hey. it's been kind of enjoyable doing it that way. and i think i swing more towards a cross between buddhist and satanist/humanist beliefs, myself (i added humanist there cos people always get the wrong end of the stick when the word 'satanist' is mentioned). eta: i've talked on here so many times about my r.e. lessons so this post hasn't gone too deep for that reason...
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Apr 7, 2010 23:15:28 GMT
..and the final scores from todays fixtures.
Florence - 10 The Rest of the World- 0
|
|
|
Post by admin on Apr 7, 2010 23:24:56 GMT
yeah, ok, go search for big foot in your tea leaves, sky nymph I did, guess what I found? YOUR MUM. Cheerio, Michael. xxx
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Apr 8, 2010 1:34:48 GMT
Who are we to turn up somewhere as 'civilized' people, and say that someone else's way of life, way of survival, is wrong? add to that, there wouldn't be any point in saying anything since it's impossible to reason with crazy people. all anyone can realistically do is burn'em at the stake. I did, guess what I found? YOUR MUM. Cheerio, Michael. xxx this is making me question things.
|
|
|
Post by Rhiflect on Apr 8, 2010 10:07:29 GMT
I thought this said 'bum'em' at the stake, and I am upset to find out otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Apr 8, 2010 13:23:02 GMT
^ HAHAHA.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Apr 8, 2010 21:38:42 GMT
heathens.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Apr 8, 2010 21:55:42 GMT
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. I can't actually be bothered with talking about this anymore, I'm in the middle of a project due in tomorrow, but I will say, the suggestion that childhood is merely a social construct is ridiculous. It's a biological state of being wherein a human is not fully developed. To suggest it's ok to marry off a child who does not have the cognitive ability to fully understand the implications and entailments of marriage and sex is just bizarre to me. These sort of customs arise out of poverty and lack of education, and I'm surprised that so many of you are cool with that. Have any of you people being all down with not passing judgement ever actually met a child bride? As in, someone who ran away from their abusive husband after years of rape, but no-one cared because it was ingrained into their culture? Because I have, and I assure you they certainly weren't saying "I get why people don't want to do anything, it's cool, thanks for respecting the culture that allowed me to end up like this". In fact, they found it quite unbelievable that people could have so many rights, and access to education, and a high standard of living and forget aboutor be ok with situations like theirs going on every single fucking day. Don't try and make me out to be a bigot here. I just believe that human rights should be what they're called and apply to ALL humans.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Apr 8, 2010 23:35:26 GMT
^ I don't think anyone thinks you're a bigot Sibz (I certainly don't) some of us just view things differently, though I respect your stance. I just see it thus; different places, cultures and times have different standards and norms I think it's dangerous when well meaning and protective attempts to support human rights leads to some idea of our western moral/social standards being superior or THE definitive way to go about things.
Morals are totally relative anyway, I don't believe morals exist as a universal emperical property, they're an abstract human construct and entirely dictated by the practical and transient needs of maintaining the social status quo. Thus social norms regarding say; marriage or sexuality have evolved organically as a by-product of a wider societies cultural and material landscape and its necessities. A reaction of distaste at certain things is perfectly normal however imposing western standards on the countries in which the practices you oppose operate would likely be as destablising as gifting Iraq with "ideal" western democratic freedom. As Florence so expertly listed nearly every example of the world's advanced civilisations medling in other cultures has ended badly.
With all our rights, education and high living standards our society festers with its own unique social diseases and miseries. I think in some respect we'd all have a hell of a lot to learn from third world cultures.
Florences' point was not that childhood isn't a biological state of development but that social perceptions of individuals in that state and the appropriateness of them taking on certain roles differs from culture to culture.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Apr 9, 2010 14:19:58 GMT
I can't actually be bothered with talking about this anymore, I'm in the middle of a project due in tomorrow, but I will say, the suggestion that childhood is merely a social construct is ridiculous. It's a biological state of being wherein a human is not fully developed. To suggest it's ok to marry off a child who does not have the cognitive ability to fully understand the implications and entailments of marriage and sex is just bizarre to me. These sort of customs arise out of poverty and lack of education, and I'm surprised that so many of you are cool with that. Have any of you people being all down with not passing judgement ever actually met a child bride? As in, someone who ran away from their abusive husband after years of rape, but no-one cared because it was ingrained into their culture? Because I have, and I assure you they certainly weren't saying "I get why people don't want to do anything, it's cool, thanks for respecting the culture that allowed me to end up like this". In fact, they found it quite unbelievable that people could have so many rights, and access to education, and a high standard of living and forget aboutor be ok with situations like theirs going on every single fucking day. Don't try and make me out to be a bigot here. I just believe that human rights should be what they're called and apply to ALL humans. I'm not trying to make you out to be a bigot. I think we're talking about two different things here, because you're using one example which you've come across (a young girl being married to an older man and who was abused by him) to draw a conclusion which applies to all cultures whose norms and values differ from ours. Yes, in some cultures the practice of marrying off young girls to older men who will abuse them is horrific, and should be stopped (although I'd still be dubious about intervention from outsiders). Are there not many examples of girls being trapped in abusive relationships with their husbands in Western societies, too? Childhood is still a social construct. In some societies, children (boys and girls, I more meant) are married to each other young, in ways that obviously don't always involve abuse, and I'm sure they'd be offended if you implied that. You mention children who do "not have the cognitive ability to fully understand the implications and entailments of marriage and sex" - that's because in our society we protect children from an early age, keep them in a state of ignorance and separation. I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing, it's just how it is. But in other parts of the world, a person being wed to another person at a young age, or indeed, starting work at a young age, or forced to be independent at a young age, wouldn't be damaged like a child who was raised elsewhere would be when put in the same position, as they are socialized completely differently way into a completely different society. Your sweeping concern for them may be misguided. Of course there are some examples to the contrary, but it's a big world and I stand by the fact that it's dangerous to label all cultures that don't live by our standards and laws as in need of intervention and 'modernizing'. Edit: And all of what Josh said is true, as well.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Apr 9, 2010 20:48:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Apr 9, 2010 21:19:00 GMT
Of course there are some examples to the contrary, but it's a big world and I stand by the fact that it's dangerous to label all cultures that don't live by our standards and laws as in need of intervention and 'modernizing'.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Apr 9, 2010 21:25:35 GMT
Who said that exactly? Because I said that some practises need to be abolished, not "EVERYONE MUST BE LIKE ME".
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Apr 9, 2010 21:26:48 GMT
I don't think subjective examples/anecdotal evidence, no matter how horrifiying really changes the points Florence and I have made.
I mean.. you could post at article about some of the horrifying things that happen in this country (the Jamie Bulger case perhaps, which had its roots in child abuse and poverty) and use that isolated example to say that "British society is SICK and WRONG".
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Apr 9, 2010 21:32:13 GMT
white is right everyone in schools should be foreced to praise the lord
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Apr 9, 2010 21:35:39 GMT
Who said that exactly? Because I said that some practises need to be abolished, not "EVERYONE MUST BE LIKE ME". Rhi said; you wouldn't criticize someone else's culture just because it seems backward and immoral to you, to which you replied that you wouldn't "let the ritualistic rape of children continue because some people think a man in the sky wants them to!". Then you said that differing customs "arise out of poverty and lack of education, and I'm surprised that so many of you are cool with that," and that you "just believe that human rights should be what they're called and apply to ALL humans" - which implies that you think the rights that Western children have (such as the right to an academic education, not being allowed to work under the age of 14, not being allowed to marry under the age of 16, etc) should be applied to every human society across the world. I'm sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Apr 9, 2010 21:37:52 GMT
...but that social perceptions of individuals in that state and the appropriateness of them taking on certain roles differs from culture to culture. i think i live in a bubble somewhat, but i've heard of some cultures children are considered mature enough to make an informed decision about their religion. which, to me, is quite impressive, and i'd reckon those cultures might as well consider allowing those kids to have the same freedom with regard to choosing their country's leaders. someone let the pious kids have a say! Are there not many examples of girls being trapped in abusive relationships with their husbands in Western societies, too? my knowledge of absolutism vs relativism is patchy [at best] -- [like most things] -- and i couldn't sound smart if i tried but: i think this points to the most practical approach. if we can feel comfortable making judgments on another's way of life, we better darn sure go to great lengths to ensure we never begin resembling them first. ie. political leaders who drum up support for war by castigating other countries as being without order and led by cruel despots, while still allowing the practice of hypocritical acts such as torture. but i still can't in good conscience say other cultures are always off-limits simply because it's all relative. do we just hope that the mayflower comes floating around to all oppressed peoples so they can get out of dodge? [honest question ] Edit: And all of what Josh said is true, as well. i bet a snide fatcat like dawkins would read that and say, 'so, relativism is absolutely right?'
|
|
|
Post by tarantella on Apr 9, 2010 21:42:47 GMT
I've really enjoyed reading this thread (and not having blathered about my opinions at length, for once. I'm sure you all enjoy it too.). I haven't gone through a religious education program myself, but I agree mostly with Florence and Josh's posts.
I'd be curious to know how people identify their own religious/spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. Have we had this thread already? Would anyone be interested in sharing?
|
|
|
Post by Rhiflect on Apr 9, 2010 22:39:56 GMT
I personally am quite agnostic, believing that there may be something, but it's not the God that everyone goes on about, or the one that wrote the Bible or whatever. Although I think that's probably more so I can feel reassured that we're not alone in the world rather than proper, genuine belief.
However, I am quite spiritual, i love tarot and angels and all that lark. Palm reading, dream-reading etc!
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Apr 9, 2010 22:48:50 GMT
Who said that exactly? Because I said that some practises need to be abolished, not "EVERYONE MUST BE LIKE ME". Rhi said; you wouldn't criticize someone else's culture just because it seems backward and immoral to you, to which you replied that you wouldn't "let the ritualistic rape of children continue because some people think a man in the sky wants them to!". Then you said that differing customs "arise out of poverty and lack of education, and I'm surprised that so many of you are cool with that," and that you "just believe that human rights should be what they're called and apply to ALL humans" - which implies that you think the rights that Western children have (such as the right to an academic education, not being allowed to work under the age of 14, not being allowed to marry under the age of 16, etc) should be applied to every human society across the world. I'm sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick. giving people rights and choices is not the same as taking over and "modernising" culture. it's flat out selfish to think you should have rights but others shouldn't. everyone deserves rights, education and choices, and i think that what's more offensive than the implementation of these things (which does not require outside intervention, see: french revolution for example) is the suggestion that a certain cultures are only a lack of these things, and that getting them will ultimately lead to their downfall. western societies didn't used to have these things, and now we do- our culture hasn't crumbled because it's greater than the oppression of it's people, it's art, and history and food, and stories. culture and society are fluid, and prone to changes and development, i don't think it's ignorant to want those changes to be ones that benefit people rather than hurt them.
|
|