4
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
I never said condemnation alone should be the only way. Yes, help should be provided, but (and this is a big but) there should be no concessions made. Instead of understanding a culture and giving it excuses, education should be put in place to curb whatever the practice is. The express purpose should be to remove the practice completely.
Except you are outside their culture so have no place deciding the terms of when they will organically decided through an internal dialogue that education to eradicte harmful practices should be part of their progression.
Outsiders of a culture cannot force education on another culture, should we be schooled? We certainly cannot go into other countries with colonialist intentions of changing their society to our design, we won't always be in power and should Islam come here because they have power and tell us what to do?
We can enforce the laws of our own country but it gets sticky as I stated earlier if the majority of our society specifically began passing laws against religious minorities. I mean first they can't believe in demons and then what would be next? They have to wear yellow stars? The reservations some of us have against any of that, slippery slope and all, will be eternal reservation.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
Again, I don't think 'making fun' is the way to go, but if something should be condemned, then it should be condemned.
Not if that condemnation is coupled with intolerance instead of understanding.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
I worry about those terms. Should a culture be supported and understood Yes. But when when it has something in place that's dangerous, That part needs to be exorcised completely. Not understood. Not supported. Removed. Only with such a removal would a culture survive. If a culture cannot survive the removal of harmful practices? Then it should just be allowed to fail.
Exorcising elements of other cultures is not within your ability or authority.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
Meaning?
What is OK and permissible to you or me is not the litmus test of what should be OK and permissible writ large to the rest of the world's societies.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
Ok. I have a reasoning for wanting them universally condemend. Let me run you through it. For the better part of 2 millenia, gay people have been persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and killed because of the beliefs of said culture. It still happens to this day beccause of the belief of said culture. Personally, I think it's done it's bit to deserve universeral condemnation and I don't think it's backward, far from it.
The world's religions which have traditionally been intolerant of homsexuality have now began an internal dialogue that has rapidly seen the inclusion of homsexual tolerance become part of the mainstream thought. Progress is well underway. The past is well taken into account in all of this.
Encouraging religion to improve promotes this positive change instead of agressively criticizing them which encourages negative feelings and anxiety.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
A dialogue is possible and yes, I think it needs working on, but some elements in the culure are just not interest and that's where the problem lies. The bible and koran says homosexuality is a sin and that's enough for them to give them license to do all sorts of cruel things. And you know what? Since they believe 'homosexuality is a sin' dialogue is not an option. A mandate from their diety overrides anything any human organisation of government could say.
Agreed some elements are not interested. Does the problem lie within those who are not interested? No it lies within those who do not recognize that the solution lies within us.
The Bible has been interpreted in many a number of ways depending on the context of the society it has become popular in. Conservatism that is based on rejecting groups is in decline all throughout the Western world. Dialogue is always an option because people who think change is inevitable and must be spurred on can be found on all sides and are willing to work together.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
And religion is not about progress. That's part of the problem. It resists it.
Of course religion resists progress because it is a protector of tradition. So it will always lag behind science moreso than than it lags behind society at large but it will lag behind both.
Part of the success and longevity of religion is that it protects tradition which is stability. But when a society does change religion will eventually become an agent of it and change too defending the new ideals.
It was religion which first resisted the Civil Rights movement in America but also a successful agent to encourage the eventual change toward ethnic equality.
Another part of the success of religion is that it has in its long history indeed encouraged values that lead to the success of society.
In the tribal era success was defined as war but peace has become a greater metric for success. One of the Ten Commandments is 'thou shall not kill' and this value will triumph when war is finally abolished. We will all be in group C one day so it will be.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
The ban should be relatively simple. A practice harms people. There is evidence it does. That should be that. It should be open and shut, but it's not. It's dragged out even though the proof of harm is visible.
Both intolerant religious types and those against religion totally focus on the negative of those they disagree with.
Change will come as a result of those who can rise above that fray, those who focus on what we have in common with others, on building up, not tearing down.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
It's not a 'claim' that they are wrong. It's a fact.
That is simply a value judgment.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
I've tried to understand them. The problem is they're past reasoning. I've had conversations here with people that are otherwise intelligent,, reasonable people. But when it comes to this? The word of god trumps human beings.
Understanding another culture does not mean finding their members reasonable in conversation. It means taking into account the geographical, economic, social, political, and historical aspects of their society into account.
shadowhive, on 08 December 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
I'm not making fun of them when I say those things, it's what I think. Ipity them because they should know better, because their religious belief disables their compassion. Because they don't care about other human beings because god says so. I think they're foolish because they allow their morals to hang on a book that's almost 2 millenia old and that they won't progress beyond it, regardless of the evidence before them.
I think in time they will learn better, as will their detractors who do also more harm than good.
As noted above some things in that book will eventually prevail, we won't have wars in the future.
I put my reasoning in the scope of historical progress. The world has consistenly become more safer with each century. There will always be spikes and dips as with the abnormal horrors of becoming accustomed industrialization and the wars it produced on epic scale, but in the long run the graph tends to chart upward to more safe and stable living conditions for all humans on the planet.
This is simply recognizing a trend which gives me great hope and reassurance for the future of humanity. A part of me understands the desperation and sense of urgency in wanting to see religious reform. I know it will come and can patiently concentrate on the more positive aspects that are coming into play in sponsoring the change we all desire.
The difference of approach in an analogy is whispering to a horse versus whipping a horse to break her in...or in using chains to link us to others instead of using them to confine or punish others.
Edited by I believe you, 09 December 2012 - 04:33 AM.
