Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Are All Cultures Created Equal & Endowed With Inalienable Rights?


chefranden

Recommended Posts

Primarily, I think education will be the biggest of the tools.

 

1. We are well past the ages where people can be tricked into believing new gods or new dictates simply because they are said to come from a wiser source than the current one. People need to learn the facts and learn to rely on the facts alone when it comes to religion, like with anything else.

 

2. Only by arming people with the truth and with all the arguments against Xianity that exist can we hope to finally push Xianity into the grave.

 

When enough people are educated enough to not be tricked into Xianity, or into any similar belief system, no other tools will be needed. No one will believe the world is flat because of all the available facts. One day, Xianity will be like the flat-earth concept.

 

1. You might think this would be the case, but I don't see it -- outside of old Europe. Even there the ethic of tolerance (which I'm for, :twitch: I think) is allowing intolerant religionists to gain a new foothold there.

 

2. How do you do this? In America we tried to finish off what remained of Native cultures by forcing their children to live apart from their families, to throw off any of their culture already learned - like language, and

be schooled in European/American culture. This actually worked pretty well for its intended outcome. However, it doesn't seem a project much concerned with human rights. We certainly condemned the Russians when the did the same sort of thing. I wouldn't want my children taken away, just because someone else wanted to get rid of my culture -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

 

Education isn't a magic wand to wave at people to make them "better". A good many people consider learning the "facts" as a great evil. I suspect they would fight rather than let it happen to their children. There is too much of a catch 22 here.

 

Now here's the rub for me. I consider honor killing (for example) to be absolutely immoral. On the other hand I know that there are many men and even women out there that would consider me absolutely immoral for not killing my sister for her ah, indiscretions. If they had the power to force their morality on me, should they? Would they? If I had the power to force my morality on them, should I? I think I would, but that means there is no reason for them not to do the same.

 

Since I don't have any power to effect anything out there in this matter, should I just become a provincial and not worry my pretty head about it? Should I be a know-nothing? That doesn't seem right either, but it may just be more comfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A non-religious society? Do you really think that it would be all that better?

 

The Soviet Union was a non-religious society......didn't really work out.

 

I think the mistake is placing blame on one particular facet of society. Religion is merely one thing among many. As some have said, religion is not the problem, fundamentalism is. Fundamentalism is the belief that only one way could possibly be acceptable and this is not a belief held solely by religious people. Atheists, in fact, have been offenders in this area as well. Fundamentalism still thrives in racism, sexism, the political sphere and classism......regardless of religion. Even if you removed religion from society, people will still hate that black guy down the street for being, well, black and that gay guy for being gay. They will still think that they are inherently superior to somebody who makes less money than they do, they will still think women belong barefoot and in the kitchen, and they will still think that their particular nation has an inalienable duty to send their military to rip some new ones in peasant towelhead ass. You may have removed the symptom but you have not removed the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the problem is too few cultures rather than too many?

 

Once a culture becomes enough of a monolith it can cause worldwide damage when it flexes it's dark side.

 

Would that be just the USA or all of "Western" culture? Or is there really a "Western" culture? Regardless of that, it seems to me the problems in the Middle East stem from that dark side you mentioned; an outside culture imposing itself on another culture.

 

Sure there are moderate religionists, but I think there is a plausible case for the idea that moderate religionists make room for the fundamentalists. In addition they preserve the germ of fundamentalism through the good times that it may blossom again in its natural nutrient bath of desperation and fear.

 

Making room for, or preserving, fundamentalism sounds like a good argument. I haven't thought about that part much. I do blame the moderates for not reigning in the fundamentalists and at times protecting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. And a strong case can be built, I think, that the pot is being stirred for political reasons much in the same way as fear is being stirred up in the US. What better way to get the hoi polloi fired up and backing your cause than appealing to their religion and/or their fear? What better way to unify the troops than appealing to pious sensibilities of a zealot? Petropolitics plays a large role in creating extremist groups and extremist groups appeal to the religious sensibilities of potential soldiers for the cause. It's a vicious cycle that can't all be blamed on religion.

 

I know... it seems to be a human trait that those that rise to power cannot shake. It's all about consolidating power. If you control the religion, and the oil, you got the power. I wonder what they'll find to fight over when the oil is gone? I'm sure they'll find something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A non-religious society? Do you really think that it would be all that better?

 

The Soviet Union was a non-religious society......didn't really work out.

 

It was their economic system that didn't work.

 

They went broke dumping all their money into a war in Afghanistan. Sound familiar? Except that we're doing it in Iraq... soon in Iran.... and I don't know if we'll last long enough to do in in another country.

 

I think the mistake is placing blame on one particular facet of society. Religion is merely one thing among many. As some have said, religion is not the problem, fundamentalism is. Fundamentalism is the belief that only one way could possibly be acceptable and this is not a belief held solely by religious people. Atheists, in fact, have been offenders in this area as well.

 

Of course Atheists are guilty too.... but many of us believe that religion is the worst thing to happen to humanity, but we wouldn't dream of forcing Atheism to be the only possible view. When fundamentalism of any stripe takes over, it becomes the one particular facet of society that causes problems in many other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You might think this would be the case, but I don't see it -- outside of old Europe. Even there the ethic of tolerance (which I'm for, :twitch: I think) is allowing intolerant religionists to gain a new foothold there.

 

Sadly, tolerance often means letting assholes have their say. That allows them to potentially make converts, but it can also allow others to make examples out of them by dismantling their arguments. Having their stupidity thrown back in their faces can sway just as many people.

 

2. How do you do this?

 

To arm people, I'd say just to encourage the activists amongst us to keep getting the word out, and for others to lobby for fewer restrictions on laws that curtail criticism of religion (where any still exist). Certainly, using force would be quicker, but you know what sorts of problems that creates. We'd be no better than the Xians who converted Europe if we forced people out of Xianity.

 

Of course, that's the slow way of doing it, but whatcha gonna do?

 

Education isn't a magic wand to wave at people to make them "better". A good many people consider learning the "facts" as a great evil. I suspect they would fight rather than let it happen to their children. There is too much of a catch 22 here.

 

There will always be those who don't want to learn in any society, and there will be those who don't want to hear why Xianity sucks. Can't do much about them, other than try to reach those who want to learn and are open to the messages against Xianity. Hopefully, a good example can be set. Hopefully.

 

Now here's the rub for me. I consider honor killing (for example) to be absolutely immoral. On the other hand I know that there are many men and even women out there that would consider me absolutely immoral for not killing my sister for her ah, indiscretions. If they had the power to force their morality on me, should they? Would they? If I had the power to force my morality on them, should I? I think I would, but that means there is no reason for them not to do the same.

 

Whether or not one is justified in "forcing" morality on anyone is relevant to a point, but one also has to selfishly consider one's own values and defend them if need be. People who believe in shit concepts have the right to defend and promote them - if they can do so without resistance from the opposition or if their opposition fails to trump them. The same goes in reverse.

 

If I make any sense.

 

Since I don't have any power to effect anything out there in this matter, should I just become a provincial and not worry my pretty head about it? Should I be a know-nothing? That doesn't seem right either, but it may just be more comfortable.

 

It generally is more comfortable, but that's a decision based on the situation at hand, I think. And that changes over time. Just do what you truly believe to be right - that's all you can do, in the end.

 

A non-religious society? Do you really think that it would be all that better?

 

The Soviet Union was a non-religious society......didn't really work out.

 

Non-religiousness wasn't at the core of Soviet life or ideology - Communism was. Communism is a much bigger thing than the Atheism it embraced. It failed because it couldn't prop itself up when the pressure got too tough (only ideologically speaking), much as Xianity generally can't withstand too much criticism or else it also fails.

 

Athiesm had nothing to do with the success or failure of Communism, in the Soviet Union or elsewhere.

 

Personally, I'm fine with a society being religious. But I don't define "religious" as meaning "Xian" exclusively. A society can be totally non-Xian and very religious.

 

It's only extremism (ie, fundamentalism) that is the problem, and this is easily bred in a Xian society. It's part of why Xianity needs to go - it's very prone to being interpreted in an extreme fashion, especially by those who take the plain text of the Babble at face value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You might think this would be the case, but I don't see it -- outside of old Europe. Even there the ethic of tolerance (which I'm for, I think) is allowing intolerant religionists to gain a new foothold there.

 

Actually I wouldn't say that. I mean, look at the amount of even the big evangelical Christians who denouce Westboro Baptist. I think the problem is not unique to moderates: people just either don't want to make the effort to denouce, are afraid to or don't know how.

 

I know my own mother (a Christian) hates Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell just as much as I do. But we both have the same problem: in both our cases we really don't know how to stand up to something that big and loud, and even if we did, we're not sure what good it would do.

 

One of the problems with extremists of all colors is that they're well-organized. Think: Al-Qaeda, the Religious Right, even Dawkins seems to like the fellowship of his followers being together as a group. The more extreme the viewpoint, the more likely it will have a well-ordered group following. Most moderates and other non-extremists feel uneasy about forming their own organization promoting tolerance because they think it's "taking a side" or because they really don't know how to create a group whose goal is harmony with others rather than opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Atheists are guilty too.... but many of us believe that religion is the worst thing to happen to humanity, but we wouldn't dream of forcing Atheism to be the only possible view. When fundamentalism of any stripe takes over, it becomes the one particular facet of society that causes problems in many other areas.

 

From the Original Post....

1. How could one help do away with religion without becoming one of them in strategy and tactics?

 

Looks like a dream to me. :scratch:

 

The realization of not wanting to become "one of them in strategy and tactics" may be a qualifier - but, the mere fact that there is a dream to "do away with religion" makes the dreamer "one of them". :Hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic also reminds me of a special I once saw called "Women of the Holy Kingdom". It was a documentary by a progressive female Muslim from Pakistan on women in Saudi Arabia. The women she spoke with were by and large hugely frustrated by their lack of rights and lives as objects rather than persons. But she did speak with a few women who seemed to have the opinion that it was great to live as a non-person. I remember one in particular who stopped working for a particular women's hospital (hospitals are divided by sex in Muslim countries, typically) because they didn't force their employees to wear a veil at all times. She moved to a hospital that did. She simply wanted that restriction, felt it was more in line with her faith. There were other women who were more extreme than her, but she's just the one I can think of right now.

 

My opinion on such a situation is, If she wants to do what I would consider demeaning, let her. She's not doing drugs or harming her body in such a way, she's not harming others, either. If that's what she wants to do, if she feels fulfilled that way, then so be it. Far be it from me to try to convince her that what she's doing is wrong because it doesn't tie in with what I would like to do.

 

Some women out there genuinely want to be like possessions or on a lower level than men. Just because I wouldn't do such a thing, doesn't mean I have the right to restrict her in her activities.

 

This woman worked in a hospital so I would assume she was at least fairly well educated. It's not like these things arise simply out of ignorance. It's a life choice, and her choice. The only point at which I draw the line is where she expects me to be required to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... Most moderates and other non-extremists feel uneasy about forming their own organization promoting tolerance because they think it's "taking a side" or because they really don't know how to create a group whose goal is harmony with others rather than opposition.

The Secular Humanists have created such a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Atheists are guilty too.... but many of us believe that religion is the worst thing to happen to humanity, but we wouldn't dream of forcing Atheism to be the only possible view. When fundamentalism of any stripe takes over, it becomes the one particular facet of society that causes problems in many other areas.

 

From the Original Post....

1. How could one help do away with religion without becoming one of them in strategy and tactics?

 

Looks like a dream to me. :scratch:

 

Sure, what's wrong with dreams? I only know of a fringe element in Atheism that would force their dream on others. Most just want to be left alone and get along with others.

 

The realization of not wanting to become "one of them in strategy and tactics" may be a qualifier - but, the mere fact that there is a dream to "do away with religion" makes the dreamer "one of them". :Hmm:

 

Only if you take each to the extreme which it seems that no one here is claiming they want to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....Some women out there genuinely want to be like possessions or on a lower level than men. Just because I wouldn't do such a thing, doesn't mean I have the right to restrict her in her activities....

 

That's just the culture she grew up in and is comfortable with. Your's was a good example of why it's wrong to impose the values of one culture on another. I do not believe that they are right in making their women cover up like that, but it's not my culture, it's not my family, it's not my place. As long as they are not being tortured or killed.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a dream to me. :scratch:
Sure, what's wrong with dreams? I only know of a fringe element in Atheism that would force their dream on others. Most just want to be left alone and get along with others.
Dave - and you pointed this out earlier in the thread - it is only fringe element within religions who turn extremist. I agree with your earlier assessment.

Isn't it those fundamentalists that take away the rights of others? I keep having to remind myself that religion is not the enemy, fundamentalism is.

 

The human tendancy for extremism isn't about believers and non-believers. It's in the numbers. There will always be fundamentalists (of all shapes and sizes) within humanity. The extremists causing problems now are able to do so because of numbers. There are more believers than atheists and agnostics. So the "fringe element" among believers is just larger (and more dangerous) than the "fringe element" among non-believers. :shrug:

 

The realization of not wanting to become "one of them in strategy and tactics" may be a qualifier - but, the mere fact that there is a dream to "do away with religion" makes the dreamer "one of them". :Hmm:
Only if you take each to the extreme which it seems that no one here is claiming they want to do.
No - no one here is suggesting that. But - it's important to also realize that extremism can happen within any group of people. You are right, it is the fundamentalists that take away the rights of others. I agree with that assessment - my only point is that extremists come in all shapes and sizes. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave - and you pointed this out earlier in the thread - it is only fringe element within religions who turn extremist. I agree with your earlier assessment.

 

Is it just religions or ideas that can act like a religion in general?

 

The human tendancy for extremism isn't about believers and non-believers. It's in the numbers. There will always be fundamentalists (of all shapes and sizes) within humanity. The extremists causing problems now are able to do so because of numbers. There are more believers than atheists and agnostics. So the "fringe element" among believers is just larger (and more dangerous) than the "fringe element" among non-believers. :shrug:
That's what I was trying to say. There will always be those that take an idea too far. It doesn't have to be a religion either. Take communism, not a religion but an economic concept. Even democracy. If democracy is taken to a fundamental extreme it becomes no different than mob rule.

 

I agree with that assessment - my only point is that extremists come in all shapes and sizes. :)

 

It's safe to say we can agree on that. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I was trying to say. There will always be those that take an idea too far. It doesn't have to be a religion either. Take communism, not a religion but an economic concept. Even democracy. If democracy is taken to a fundamental extreme it becomes no different than mob rule.
Exactly - my point as well - the tribal mentality.

 

I do hope though, that because the world is becoming smaller and people are forced to live alongside those different from themselves that this dynamic will decrease.

 

I agree with that assessment - my only point is that extremists come in all shapes and sizes. :)
It's safe to say we can agree on that. :grin:
Yes we do . :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I don't have any power to effect anything out there in this matter, should I just become a provincial and not worry my pretty head about it? Should I be a know-nothing? That doesn't seem right either, but it may just be more comfortable.

 

The short answer is yes. For if you and other westerners take it upon themselves as some duty to change parts of the world that don't belong to them, they/you will end up doing more damage than good. We've already seen that. The weight of the whole world must not be born upon your shoulder's Chef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just religions or ideas that can act like a religion in general?

 

The human tendancy for extremism isn't about believers and non-believers. It's in the numbers. There will always be fundamentalists (of all shapes and sizes) within humanity. The extremists causing problems now are able to do so because of numbers. There are more believers than atheists and agnostics. So the "fringe element" among believers is just larger (and more dangerous) than the "fringe element" among non-believers. :shrug:
That's what I was trying to say. There will always be those that take an idea too far. It doesn't have to be a religion either. Take communism, not a religion but an economic concept. Even democracy. If democracy is taken to a fundamental extreme it becomes no different than mob rule.

 

 

Yeah, the real problem seems to be memes that provide a paradigm of thought for the unthinking masses. When an individual is left to think on his own, he/she seems to avoid the problem of the meme mindset. My wife tells me about growing up in a communist system where she went to Pioneer camp, sang songs, memorized platitudes, felt teary eyed, etc... There was virtually no difference between the communist meme and religious memes.

 

I think with better tools people can avoid falling prey to these mind viruses. I don't think that the powers that be whereever they may be are going to be enthusiastic about providing the masses with the tools they need. [tools = good, round education with an emphasis on critical thinking skills).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I was trying to say. There will always be those that take an idea too far. It doesn't have to be a religion either. Take communism, not a religion but an economic concept. Even democracy. If democracy is taken to a fundamental extreme it becomes no different than mob rule.
Exactly - my point as well - the tribal mentality.

 

I do hope though, that because the world is becoming smaller and people are forced to live alongside those different from themselves that this dynamic will decrease.

 

I guess that's where the education comes in. Teach people tolerance for different ideas... as long as those ideas do no real harm. There does need to be a line somewhere, and probably a wide, grey, line. Sacrificing children to the rain god is not something that should not be tolerated. That doesn't mean kill off the whole society, just find them something else to sacrifice. That may be an extreme example, but it kind of makes my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the real problem seems to be memes that provide a paradigm of thought for the unthinking masses. When an individual is left to think on his own, he/she seems to avoid the problem of the meme mindset. My wife tells me about growing up in a communist system where she went to Pioneer camp, sang songs, memorized platitudes, felt teary eyed, etc... There was virtually no difference between the communist meme and religious memes.

 

Exactly, but it's those memes taken to the extremes. But I don't think it's the "masses" but just the lunatic fringe. What happened to all the "communists" when the USSR fell? The fundamentalists didn't change, but the masses just worried where their next meal would come from. They didn't care about religion or communism. I think most people just want to get along and be left alone. It's that fringe that messes things up.

 

I think with better tools people can avoid falling prey to these mind viruses. I don't think that the powers that be where ever they may be are going to be enthusiastic about providing the masses with the tools they need. [tools = good, round education with an emphasis on critical thinking skills).

 

Education is the key... but we need to teach people how to think, not what to think or we'll just be wasting our time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Dave. That's why I emphasized critical thinking skills. Something that is sadly lacking in most education systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the problem is too few cultures rather than too many?

 

Once a culture becomes enough of a monolith it can cause worldwide damage when it flexes it's dark side.

 

I know there is a good bit of Irony in being intolerant of intolerance, but...

 

I've long been a proponent of seeing to the speck in my eye first, but doesn't that include examining the position that as evil as my culture is, maybe some others are worse?

 

Perhaps all this wickedness is the result of desperation induced demagoguery, and that desperation can be laid at the feet of free trade globalization. Is this a case of worrying about the symptoms in place of the disease?

 

Sure there are moderate religionists, but I think there is a plausible case for the idea that moderate religionists make room for the fundamentalists. In addition they preserve the germ of fundamentalism through the good times that it may blossom again in its natural nutrient bath of desperation and fear.

What I meant before about education is really an education about other cultures, philosophies, etc in a liberal venue. Not an education like, "Look at what these immoral cultures do." But exposing people to ideas outside their own culture brings an infusion of new vitality and strength. I am a major proponent of diversity for the sake of a stronger organism.

 

Take a tip from nature itself. What happens when you have a "Best of Show" type culture that seeks to breed out all the "undesirable" elements? They breed their dogs within the same bloodline in pursuit of some misguided idea of beauty, and what they wind up with is animals that loose their eyesight, hearing, week joints, etc, etc. It's really quite gross actually.

 

Same thing with cultures that isolate themselves. Imagine yourself as a culture of one, or a family of four who live in complete isolation from society outside your house in the mountains. "You never get out much, do you?” would be the response of those in the rest of the world as they encounter your distorted perspectives that developed without input from others. Though those views may serve you well enough in your isolated world, you are finding that urban sprawl has forced others to set up residence just across from your house and you now have no choice but to learn how to understand how other people think and learn to get along with them.

 

This is what the Middle East has been like, where the exposure to West was welcomed enthusiastically by the youth of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. But just as here in this country where fundamentalism was born in response to modernization, the Wahib's of Saudi started the push back against change with the same old accusations of immorality, etc that our own fundis do.

 

Fundamentalists are a necessary evil in the evolution of a society. I'll just repeat what I've mentioned many times about the bell curve, how that the majority of people in society are in the more moderate middle, either slightly to the left or the right of the center of the bulge. The minorities exist in the fewer than 10 percent levels at either extreme of the curve. Their more vocal and activist approaches to get heard, create a discussion in the middle about the issues of going left or going right that they bring up. After all... the extremes are created by that society itself, whether we like them or not. But what happens as the discussion ensues, society slowly moves itself in one direction or the other as they agree seems appropriate. When the issues are more settled in the middle, then the extremes move on to the next issues. The extremists will always be part of society. It is impossible to get rid of them. It's how societies evolve.

 

That said, the Middle East is a complex issue. My belief first and foremost is that it is the absolute height of arrogance that we dare to expect them to adopt the things in our culture we are barely doing ourselves, or that evolved because of the particular mix of ingredients that caused our own evolution of values. This is perceived, rightly so, as exporting our own morality. Those within their own societies must be the vehicles of change from within, and those people are created by their own society at large. Their fundamentalist problems are a symptom of problems within their own societies that created them.

 

Personally, I think it largely has to do with the same sorts of problems we have here where the exposure to other ideas and values at such an overwhelmingly rapid pace does not allow us much time to catch up. However, the big difference is that here in the States, we are a very, very, very young country. We're just over 200 years old, and though we have a sense of identify with our own heritage, it cannot begin to compare with a culture with 3000 plus years of history! Change takes a very long time in ancient cultures.

 

So to come back to education... I think them being a part of a global society has exposed them to a world at their door they were ill-equipped to respond to at the pace it was hitting them and bringing change to their socites within their own borders. There's no easy solution, but education, the rise of intellectuals within their own borders will begin change. It was happening, but within Iran the revolution drove out all the intellectuals to this country. In Iraq they're all gone too now, both having left from the under the fist of Sadaam Hussein, and now in the mass exodus that is happening under the current civil war/chaos that is breaking out over there after we entered her borders to liberate them into our world.

 

As people find that going too far in the direction of the ultra-conservatives isn't working for them in the long run, they will push back and the direction will move towards progress, and intellectuals will be allowed back in. Until then, this is all part of their necessary evolution. But Iraq is another matter now thanks to our intervention. What's left over there? What's going to bring the intellectuals back?

 

Not an easy situation. What will change it... education.... and time, a lot of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that was a beautiful post AM. :clap:

As usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that was a beautiful post AM. :clap:

As usual.

Wow, thanks guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a good post AM....and I rarely take the time to read long posts. (Type them, though....)

 

That's what I was trying to say. There will always be those that take an idea too far. It doesn't have to be a religion either. Take communism, not a religion but an economic concept. Even democracy. If democracy is taken to a fundamental extreme it becomes no different than mob rule.

 

I can understand that too. It sounds strange but it does make sense.

 

The fact of the matter is, AM is right, the extremists will always be present in a society. Just as you can never totally eradicate crime or prejudice in a society, you can never eradicate extremism. There will always be people in society who will be attracted to it.

 

Moderation includes both acceptance of those who love tolerance, and tolerance for those who don't. Everyone remembers the time those American Nazis marched through a neighborhood in a town that had several Holocaust survivors living in it. If democracy kicked in at that moment, the rule of the people would probably be "Let's spear them skinheads and hang 'em up at the overpass to serve as a warning." But the government had to step in and stop them and allow the Nazis to come through. It wasn't endorsing Nazism, it was allowing a basic human right - however ugly - to practice itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.