Man Possessed by Gay Demon

[Beckys_Mom]

I view it as everyone regardless of their circumstance or belief deserves my respect.

In general - Beliefs that hurt others and make other people look like complete morons,..are not worth my respect, I have an ounce of dignity,

[Lava_Lady]

If this bloke was being 'treated' for possession by the spirit of Napoleon or Atilla the Hun, everybody would be rolling about laughing at the obvious daftness of that vid, but immediately the word 'gay' is mentioned, the PC brigade start jumping up and down in righteous indignation! Lighten up - it's downright funny!

The "PC brigade" is much more holy than the rest of us unsophisticated, disrespectful, folk. LMAO!!!!

Honestly, that clip is good comedy!! And as far as know that is what it was meant to be since there is no explanation. But even if there had been something saying it was real, I'd still think it was hilarious... Because it is!

Hahaha!!!

[Clarakore]

In general - Beliefs that hurt others and make other people look like complete morons,..are not worth my respect, I have an ounce of dignity,

In general, other cultures have to be given the chance to mature on their own just as our culture has been allowed too.

To make fun or condemn them as wrong is like an adult yelling at a child to act a certain way the adult approves of, or worse an adult making fun of and laughing at a child.

Surely a component of their beliefs are harmful but the only legitimate action that can spur change are those from within the culture. Making fun of others or being quick to judge other cultures as right and wrong is also harmful. So while group A (gay demon exorcist, possessed, audience) is being made fun of by group B, there is a group C that sees both group A and B have a bit of maturing to do. No worries, we all have to grow at our own pace, and just as some in group B belive those in group A have beliefs that harm, some in group C believe both those in group A and B have beliefs that harm, still no need to make fun of anyone.

[notoverrated]

i was rolling at 1:04 man this is great.

[shadowhive]

In general, other cultures have to be given the chance to mature on their own just as our culture has been allowed too.

To make fun or condemn them as wrong is like an adult yelling at a child to act a certain way the adult approves of, or worse an adult making fun of and laughing at a child.

Surely a component of their beliefs are harmful but the only legitimate action that can spur change are those from within the culture. Making fun of others or being quick to judge other cultures as right and wrong is also harmful. So while group A (gay demon exorcist, possessed, audience) is being made fun of by group B, there is a group C that sees both group A and B have a bit of maturing to do. No worries, we all have to grow at our own pace, and just as some in group B belive those in group A have beliefs that harm, some in group C believe both those in group A and B have beliefs that harm, still no need to make fun of anyone.

I have a question for you.

Where is the line? By that I mean when does it become acceptable to act when something is wrong.

To me there's a clear line and that line is when culture A harms someone. It doesn't matter to me if the people harmed are part lof the culture or outside or it, in any case that harm is wrong and it should be condemned. It shouldn't be excused. To take your example of an adult and a child. If a child is a bully and is hurting other children should the adult just stand by and do nothing, or should the adult step in to stop it?

Sometimes to get a group to understand you must condemn what thye're doing or else they won't learn. Like with the child that's a bully. If no one condemns the child's actions, it will assume they're ok and keep doing it. Sometimes condemnation isn't immature, but is actually the right thing to do.

Also people within a cultural can make a change, but they need to be empowered to do so, otherwise they never will.

Edited December 8, 2012 by shadowhive

[Simbi Laveau]

Oh,how did I miss this ....

What a show . I hate televangelist crap . The money they make is criminal .

PRAISE JEEHHESUS ! AHHHVVV BEEN HEALED !

[Lava_Lady]

Oh,how did I miss this ....

What a show . I hate televangelist crap . The money they make is criminal .

PRAISE JEEHHESUS ! AHHHVVV BEEN HEALED !

Agreed. And they are the worst hypocrites.

Example: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html

That's just one, I could go on and on and on.....

[Beckys_Mom]

In general, other cultures have to be given the chance to mature on their own just as our culture has been allowed too.

Other cultures have been given the chance and the freedom to mature, shame so many of them don't care to...

To make fun or condemn them as wrong is like an adult yelling at a child to act a certain way the adult approves of, or worse an adult making fun of and laughing at a child.

Make fun? If those people in the video had any sense and dignity, they wouldn't have put on such a lame show.. If children were to do it, you could excuse them, but two grown men?

Making fun of others or being quick to judge other cultures as right and wrong is also harmful.

To whom ? Various religious people have been judging and condemning people for centuries, people say it is their beliefs and that excuses them... I didn't mock their video, I was embarrassed for them..It's a shame they put on such a joke of a show.. It's no wonder people here found it funny.. No one sane could take that seriously..

So while group A (gay demon exorcist, possessed, audience) is being made fun of by group B, there is a group C that sees both group A and B have a bit of maturing to do

Group A were the ones making a complete and utter joke out of the entire situation.. I mean for the love of pancakes, a gay demon? That jumps to answer some guy with a mic ? That act was lame I didn't poke fun, I said it was a complete joke and bad acting to boot I was also embarrassed for them ..its not mockery, its sheer embarrassment ..

I would have been embarrassed to sit in their audience.. In fact I would have made a sly exit hoping no one would see me there... I wouldn't be surprised if some of them did get up and walk.. it was so bad ..At one point through out the video, the guy with the mic looked as if he was trying to stop himself from laughing it was that bad, when he turned to the front row and smirked, right after the guy pretending to be possessed said - "Don't you let those women near me again", I even heard someone from the audience laugh as it went on.... And you worry that I don't show them respect? I doubt they would give a toss if I said it was lame or not..

Edited December 8, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[JGirl]

Harmful beliefs are not deserving of respect.

i agree. in any case respect is earned, or commanded by actions. it's never 'deserved' in the sense that it's automatically assumed.

[Beckys_Mom]

i agree. in any case respect is earned, or commanded by actions. it's never 'deserved' in the sense that it's automatically assumed.

Exactly.. Respect needed to be earned.. The act the two men put on earned something alight, they earned the laughter of so many who saw it.

I have to admit though, the man pretending to be possessed was a bit funny lol

[Clarakore]

I have a question for you.

Where is the line? By that I mean when does it become acceptable to act when something is wrong.

To me there's a clear line and that line is when culture A harms someone. It doesn't matter to me if the people harmed are part lof the culture or outside or it, in any case that harm is wrong and it should be condemned. It shouldn't be excused. To take your example of an adult and a child. If a child is a bully and is hurting other children should the adult just stand by and do nothing, or should the adult step in to stop it?

Sometimes to get a group to understand you must condemn what thye're doing or else they won't learn. Like with the child that's a bully. If no one condemns the child's actions, it will assume they're ok and keep doing it. Sometimes condemnation isn't immature, but is actually the right thing to do.

Also people within a cultural can make a change, but they need to be empowered to do so, otherwise they never will.

When does it become acceptable to act when you find something wrong?

I don't necessarily agree that we have to act in the first place. What we find wrong might not be wrong to others, why should our own personal sensibilities trump all others? Also laws are in place and if violated then acts and practices should be investigated. When law are specifically made to target the culture of a community then the question becomes sticky because it can seem like a majority culture persecuting a minority culture becuase they do things differently.

I do find the line will be different in every instance but that at times a line indeed must be crossed and action must be taken.

I support the laws in California that bans practices disguising as medical practice to "cure" homosexuality. I don't support making fun of other cultures who practice what "we" consider harmful. Many can point to us and say we also have our own harmful practices that make us look backward, that should be outlawed, that our culture supports evil things.

I accept the ambiguity of those who claim they condemn this because it is a harmful practice yet turn around and demand they should be given the right to laugh at them? Many would claim they are confused but I love these examples of holding two different and seemingly opposite opinions at the same time.

When I see the video I see nothing to make fun of, I see a person who is repressing his homosexuality and will be harmed, that is not a laughing matter to me at all.

Secondly, the belief that everyone who is human deserves respect because they are human comes from a superior sense of ethics than pretending only those who can pass our arbitrary judgment of them deserve it, when that is based on having others share the same sensibilities as us or at least not offend the ones we hold, which is just approving of others just like us and disapproving of those who are different, and that belief while far removed from believing only those of the same skin color as you deserve respect is still on the same side of scale as that because both demand that others be just more like them than different.

Edited December 8, 2012 by I believe you

[shadowhive]

When does it become acceptable to act when you find something wrong?

Ok let's give you a basic example.

Here in the Uk multiple cultures live side by side, as they do in many countries. In such countries there is one law. Not one law for culture A and one for B and one for C, but one which coers everyone. So if people of culture A think it's acceptable to beat women or murder people the law and people of culture's B and C condemns them for their actions. Is that unaccceptable?

It's rather naive of you to think that the actions of one culture only effects that culture. In places where multiple cultures co-exist, a harmful belief of one culture can effect many other cultures. Cultures are hardly isolated.

I don't necessarily agree that we have to act in the first place. What we find wrong might not be wrong to others, why should our own personal sensibilities trump all others? Also laws are in place and if violated then acts and practices should be investigated. When law are specifically made to target the culture of a community then the question becomes sticky because it can seem like a majority culture persecuting a minority culture becuase they do things differently.

That raises numerous problems doesn't it? Laws are in place to ensure somesensibilities trump others. Indeed, when a culture's belief is wrong (and violates a law) it should be out and out condemned. It shouldn't be given a free pass by virtue of 'oh it's just their culture'. Why should it?

Just because something is a belief of a culture does not suddenly make it ok or permissable.

I do find the line will be different in every instance but that at times a line indeed must be crossed and action must be taken.

I support the laws in California that bans practices disguising as medical practice to "cure" homosexuality. I don't support making fun of other cultures who practice what "we" consider harmful. Many can point to us and say we also have our own harmful practices that make us look backward, that should be outlawed, that our culture supports evil things.

The ban is a good thing, but it's being challenged by people with backwards thinking. That should be universally condemned, regardless of the culture. The harm such things cause is very real and we know this, so we should act to make sure it stops happening.

The ban is an example of something I said above. It solves a problem effecting many people in a place where there's multiple cultures and yet one culture wants to continue harming people.

I accept the ambiguity of those who claim they condemn this because it is a harmful practice yet turn around and demand they should be given the right to laugh at them? Many would claim they are confused but I love these examples of holding two different and seemingly opposite opinions at the same time.

I've not laughed at them. I condemn them. I think they're fools and I pity them.

When I see the video I see nothing to make fun of, I see a person who is repressing his homosexuality and will be harmed, that is not a laughing matter to me at all.

Secondly, the belief that everyone who is human deserves respect because they are human comes from a superior sense of ethics than pretending only those who can pass our arbitrary judgment of them deserve it, when that is based on having others share the same sensibilities as us or at least not offend the ones we hold, which is just approving of others just like us and disapproving of those who are different, and that belief while far removed from believing only those of the same skin color as you deserve respect is still on the same side of scale as that because both demand that others be just more like them than different.

I'll be blunt. There are things that are wrong. Those things and beliefs, regardless of their culture or age, or anything else, don't deserve respect. I don't respect sexists, or rascists, or peope like this. They all would willingly harm people so why should they get respect?

Edited December 8, 2012 by shadowhive

[Clarakore]

Ok let's give you a basic example.

Here in the Uk multiple cultures live side by side, as they do in many countries. In such countries there is one law. Not one law for culture A and one for B and one for C, but one which coers everyone. So if people of culture A think it's acceptable to beat women or murder people the law and people of culture's B and C condemns them for their actions. Is that unaccceptable?

In your example, laws are in place to safeguard all of society from culture A's harmful practice of domestic violence and murder of women, I support such laws and violators should be prosecuted.

Group B and C belong to the same culture but see things differently and in this example both would condemn except condemnation for group B means not respecting them, making fun of them, and focusing on the negative aspects of culture A.

For group C condemnation means to agree that those who use violence against women should be prosecuted, but that such a culture should also be understood and reasons why violence occurs should also be understood, programs should be put in place to curb such harmful practices and those programs must go beyond punitive measures alone, and that support must also be put in place for women in any epidemic of violence that victimizes women. Condemnation for group C would not mean making fun of group A, group C condemns group B for making fun of group A because group C sees that making fun of others is a harmful practice.

It's rather naive of you to think that the actions of one culture only effects that culture. In places where multiple cultures co-exist, a harmful belief of one culture can effect many other cultures. Cultures are hardly isolated.

I never claimed to adhere to the concept of cultures existing in vacuums. I agree with your overall point.

That raises numerous problems doesn't it? Laws are in place to ensure somesensibilities trump others. Indeed, when a culture's belief is wrong (and violates a law) it should be out and out condemned. It shouldn't be given a free pass by virtue of 'oh it's just their culture'. Why should it?

We are in agreement again. As noted above I would go further than just punishing but also include understanding and supporting this culture A which in my view is a culture in crisis and needs our help more than our condemnation. That is stricly actions which violate laws should be specifically condemned, condemnation should not extend to the whole culture.

Just because something is a belief of a culture does not suddenly make it ok or permissable.

It may not make it OK or permissible to you. It might not be permissible to me.

The ban is a good thing, but it's being challenged by people with backwards thinking. That should be universally condemned, regardless of the culture. The harm such things cause is very real and we know this, so we should act to make sure it stops happening.

I agree their thinking is backward. But wanting them to be universally condemned is also backward.

When there are two groups who have to live with each other and half think one way, half another, then we should continue the dialogue without condemnation or wanting to see "universal condemnation" against the other side, it won't be coming immediately.

We have to wait until one side begins to win the field of ideas, then the other idea will die out naturally, it will be universally condemned then. For now we have to understand half of the people think differently than us and we must respect them, not pretend their view does not exist by claiming everyone is against it when that is not necessarily true, we have to try and work with them, but also be encouraged ourselves that the world is changing, the youth won't stand for it, and that eventually no matter how the appeal goes, the law will eventually see homosexual therapy banned for good. Progress is not about speed but direction.

The ban is an example of something I said above. It solves a problem effecting many people in a place where there's multiple cultures and yet one culture wants to continue harming people.

The ban should be democracy in action, nothing more or less. There are practices both domestic (we have had forever as tradition) and foreign (immigrants bringing them in) which both need society at large to have a conversation and decide a direction. We have a way to go but making fun of people or simply claiming they are wrong is not part of the path of progress.

've not laughed at them. I condemn them. I think they're fools and I pity them.

I was speaking in general, never claimed you made fun of them, thinking they are fools and pitying them is very close to making fun of them in either case. You might find them foolish and pity them, I would rather understand and help them without being negative.

I'll be blunt. There are things that are wrong. Those things and beliefs, regardless of their culture or age, or anything else, don't deserve respect. I don't respect sexists, or rascists, or peope like this. They all would willingly harm people so why should they get respect?

When one group of people do not respect another they can do awful things to them.

I am glad society has safeguards to protect homosexuals from the far-right religious zealots, and we are continuing to strenghten those safeguards, but I am equally glad society has safeguards to protect the religous zealots from people who do not respect them.

[shadowhive]

In your example, laws are in place to safeguard all of society from culture A's harmful practice of domestic violence and murder of women, I support such laws and violators should be prosecuted.

Group B and C belong to the same culture but see things differently and in this example both would condemn except condemnation for group B means not respecting them, making fun of them, and focusing on the negative aspects of culture A.

For group C condemnation means to agree that those who use violence against women should be prosecuted, but that such a culture should also be understood and reasons why violence occurs should also be understood, programs should be put in place to curb such harmful practices and those programs must go beyond punitive measures alone, and that support must also be put in place for women in any epidemic of violence that victimizes women. Condemnation for group C would not mean making fun of group A, group C condemns group B for making fun of group A because group C sees that making fun of others is a harmful practice.

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.

Again, I don't think 'making fun' is the way to go, but if something should be condemned, then it should be condemned.

I never claimed to adhere to the concept of cultures existing in vacuums. I agree with your overall point.

Several times you seemed to make out like what one culture does only effects said cuture and no one else should have any say, that change should ONLY come from within. That, to me, suggested that cultures existed in vacuums.

We are in agreement again. As noted above I would go further than just punishing but also include understanding and supporting this culture A which in my view is a culture in crisis and needs our help more than our condemnation. That is stricly actions which violate laws should be specifically condemned, condemnation should not extend to the whole culture.

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.

It may not make it OK or permissible to you. It might not be permissible to me.

Meaning?

I agree their thinking is backward. But wanting them to be universally condemned is also backward.

When there are two groups who have to live with each other and half think one way, half another, then we should continue the dialogue without condemnation or wanting to see "universal condemnation" against the other side, it won't be coming immediately.

We have to wait until one side begins to win the field of ideas, then the other idea will die out naturally, it will be universally condemned then. For now we have to understand half of the people think differently than us and we must respect them, not pretend their view does not exist by claiming everyone is against it when that is not necessarily true, we have to try and work with them, but also be encouraged ourselves that the world is changing, the youth won't stand for it, and that eventually no matter how the appeal goes, the law will eventually see homosexual therapy banned for good. Progress is not about speed but direction.

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.

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.

I don't think the view doesn't exist. I think it does exist and it's a dangerous view. it shouldn't be respected or encouraged.

And religion is not about progress. That's part of the problem. It resists it.

The ban should be democracy in action, nothing more or less. There are practices both domestic (we have had forever as tradition) and foreign (immigrants bringing them in) which both need society at large to have a conversation and decide a direction. We have a way to go but making fun of people or simply claiming they are wrong is not part of the path of progress.

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.

It's not a 'claim' that they are wrong. It's a fact.

I was speaking in general, never claimed you made fun of them, thinking they are fools and pitying them is very close to making fun of them in either case. You might find them foolish and pity them, I would rather understand and help them without being negative.

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.

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.

When one group of people do not respect another they can do awful things to them.

I am glad society has safeguards to protect homosexuals from the far-right religious zealots, and we are continuing to strenghten those safeguards, but I am equally glad society has safeguards to protect the religous zealots from people who do not respect them.

That's the problem isn't it? There's protections for gay people, but protections for those zealots that wish to harm them. All that does is create problems, especially when they're against each other.

Back to the ban. It's being contested. By who? Religious zealots,

[Clarakore]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's not a 'claim' that they are wrong. It's a fact.

That is simply a value judgment.

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.

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 December 9, 2012 by I believe you

[shadowhive]

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.

Again, you're acting like culture's live in vacuums once more.

As I said, in the vast majority of countries not there's not a universal culture, there's many that live side by side. Getting them to live in such a way is diffult if one of those culture's has a harmful practice. Also not that said harmful practice is NOT simply contained in the culture an those within it. If culture A thinks homosexuality is a sin, it's likely they won't just enforce that belief in culture A, but also let it bleed into culture B and C. Sad fat is, it happens and that's because culture A thinks it's somehow ok to ignore everything because off it's internal teaching.

It depends what the religious minority wants doesn't it? Let's a say the Mayans still exist like they did hundreds of years ago. One of their beliefs was they had to sacrifice a person to their gods. Now let's say that was still going on, what do you do? Do you make it clear that the law bans those sacrifices, or do you let them do it anyway because 'it's part of their culture'.

I use an extreme example for a reason. Just because a religious minority believes something, does't mean we should bend over backwards to accomodate them especially if that belief involves harming another. I'm not saying round them up, or mark them, but we should tighten things and make sure they don't have loopholes to take advantage of.

Not if that condemnation is coupled with intolerance instead of understanding.

Why exactly should we 'understand' them? What's that going to do exactly?

Exorcising elements of other cultures is not within your ability or authority.

I'm not saying it is. However, the world would be a much better place if such things were done.

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.

You don't need to underline it. I just wanted some form or clarity as your first statement wasn't terribly clear.

Alright then. Now we have a serious problem don't we? Such a belief is ratehr paralysing.

Let's say the government of the US adopted an internal policy that said that. Pretty much every law would go out the window. After all, what a judge or law things is right or wrong would be meaningless. It would become chaos.

Even on a global scale we have human rights laws and treaties, which are trying to make sure that people are treated fairly in every culure and society. I suppose we should junk them huh?

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.

I'm sorry, but both is necessary. Yes, some religious groups are making positive progress through internal dialogue. An yes, in future that will indeed lead to rogress. That should be encouraged absolutely. BUT at the same time there's religious groups that don't want to have such a dialogue and that are resistant to it and aggressively at that. These are the groups that should be critised and rightly so, because dialoogue is not something they're interested in.

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.

The problem lies in a bit of both. People that aren't interested can sway even those that are.

I think reinterpretation is necessary, yet religious people seem to think it's impossible even though it's happened numerous times before. I do hope things will change, I really do, but religion just seems like an obstacle, a hinderance to the whole process.

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.

I think it's optimistic that such a thing will happen again. While I do think in some quarters it will happen, I doubt it wwill at large. The lag, which is uncessary and unhelpful, will ensure that.

I'm not so quick to give praise to religion. Why It's also given values which have harmed it. It kept women as second class citizens. As you state, it resisted the civil rights movement. It's treated gay people and atheists as monsters. So no, I'm not going to give religion praise when at the same time it encouraged those values.

I agree that peace is better for all.

However I don't see that commandmant as a good reason for it. Especially since, not long after issuing that commandmant, Moses went on killing spree, inluding murdering women and children. I'm afraid I can't put much stock in the commandments especially when the most important one is ignored soon after. The vast majority of the other commandmants are essentially valaueless as well.

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.

I agree we should focus on what we have in common with others. But we shouldn't just build up. We should tear down prejudices against woomen and gay people, not build over them and ignore them. They need to be torn down, not glossed over.

That is simply a value judgment.

Oh some I'm guessing the countless studies that prove such 'treatment' is harmful, all the evidence that they don't work are just 'value judgements' too eh?

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.

To me that simply sounds like finding excuses.

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.

I think that's the only thing I agree with in that book.

I hope such things will happen too.

The difference between us is that I see people being harmed by religion now, today. Simply waiting patiently won't do them any good. They'll still be harmed unless we act to stop that harm. I can't 'patiently concentrate on the positive' while people are suffering due to religion. I think it's unacceptable that people are suffering now and slow rogress is not particularly helpful to them. How long will that progress take? Decades? Centuries? And how many people will suffer and die because the progress took so long?

As I have said several times, I'm not against the dialogue approach, it's just there's times when it just won't work and we have to have something in place that's got a little more teeth. Let me use an analogy of my own. You get an infection in your arm. The first reaction by the doctor's is, naturally, to try and treat it. However when the treatment doesn't work and it becomes more agressive the doctor's decide that the best way to go is to amputate. Amputation's always an option. It's not the best one, nor is it preferred, but the option's there to be used only when necessary.

I think that properly shows what I mean best.

Edited December 9, 2012 by shadowhive

[mfrmboy]

That gay demon sure used good language... Wonder if he chewed some Orit gum to clean up that dirty mouth ??? Fabulous !!!