Why is there a free pass for religion? It’s not like race, or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or gender identity, or disability. It’s a choice. I don’t have to respect your taste in music, painting, or anything else. Why should I have to respect anyone’s superstitions? We are all born as atheists, but usually our parents start telling us lies.
Nobody has the right not to be offended. If there’s an ecological reason to stay off of the rock in question, then people should stay off. If it’s because it offends someone, for some completely illogical, irrational, superstitious reason, then I’m tempted to get on it. The terrible treatment of the aboriginals doesn’t mean that they should be held to a lower standard regarding logic, reason, science, and rational thinking. I’m tired of the attitude that religions held mostly by people of color, or people who have been victimized, are not fair game.
I personally think that Temple Mount should be bulldozed, or otherwise demolished, and replaced with something more useful. I realize that Maoists killed a lot of people like me, among others, but I get a dirty little thrill out of this clip. You can stop after the plane takes off, as the generals leave.
I probably wouldn’t climb the rock but I don’t think it’s quite fair to demonize people who would question it. It is entirely a personal decision where one chooses to draw the line about respecting other customs (maybe staying off the rock is OK, but faith healing or making women walk five paces behind men is a different story.) It can be rude, but not necessarily malicious.
I was a bit taken aback when I read this. Taste in music is a very important cultural identifier! Mods vs. rockers, jocks vs. skaters, and so on all have music as key ways of signifying one’s allegiance. If you discover someone’s music taste to be abysmal, does it not change your estimation of said person?
Superstition, backwardness, and so on.
No, it’s showing that I expect them to be logical, reasonable, and rational. It’s like the story of St. Boniface and the sacred oak tree, taken one step further. Allegedly, Boniface knocked down (with wind assistance) this tree that was sacred to the pagans. Nothing bad happened, i.e. there was no divine vengeance, so the pagans converted to Xianity. The point is, however, that their reasons for disbelieving in their gods could also be applied to Boniface’s god!
Grin! I’m happy to meet someone who takes an opinion too far in the other direction!
Religion (when not too theocratic) should be respected, in the way we respect nationalities, languages, cultures, and moral values. I’m willing to give religion “a free pass” because it is central to so much of human nature. Like fire, it’s a decent servant, although a really bad master.
I think it’s our duty, as humanists, to avoid giving offense any time it is avoidable. I’ve conceded from the first that anyone who climbs the rock, knowing what we know now, is a jerk. It’s bad to be a jerk, and we should, to at least some degree, try to avoid being jerks.
But you’re right: we can’t avoid giving some offense in this world. I’ve actually met people who are offended by my surname. (Vaguely analogous to Arnold Schwarzanegger, where the last two syllables can sound a little unpleasant to some segments of our society.)
Members of PETA are offended when I eat a hamburger. I am willing to eat it quietly, without making a big in-your-face production of it – but I am damn well going to eat it.
That said…
Nah… Too “Taliban.” Too “ISIS.” If nothing else, religious architecture is a thing of great beauty. Same with religious music. J.S. Bach may have been wasting his time in glorifying a God that doesn’t exist…but he did it with some magnificent creative beauty, I can’t really feel it was a loss. Burning manuscripts is not the practice of open-minded, tolerant humanists.
Serious question: does Australian/Commonwealth fundamental constitutional legal philosophy have a doctrine of “If it’s not forbidden, it is permitted?” Does Australia have something like the U.S. Tenth Amendment?
Can someone speak to this foundational legal philosophy here?
You were a little taken aback!? That is a good sign.
Sure music can be an important cultural identifier for many people, and I’m glad you recognize that.
Which is why I said my taste in music is not such (to me), since you brought up music as an example of not needing to respect other people’s “tastes”.
I really don’t think equating cultural identity and religion with tastes is a reasonable way to approach the argument, and like I said up-thread, I don’t think analogies are necessary to address the topic of the OP. But since you’ve chosen this one, would you feel the need to tell someone to their face “you’re taste in music sucks and I think you’re stupid for liking that crap”?
If you think you’re hunting superstition and backwardness, well then happy hunting. But I suggest you look carefully at your targets before pulling the trigger. Maybe read a couple of game books first.
St. Boniface and the sacred oak? Didn’t know about that until now, so thanks for that. (And boy, what an arsehole he was!)
But do you think the Anangu will suddenly cast off all their beliefs and follow you into the light just because you step all over their sacred rock without being smitten by an angry god?
No, of course you don’t. What a silly thing for me to suggest.
As for who you identify with in the movie Seven Years in Tibet, well, you made it clear that it ain’t Brad Pitt.
You said you get “a dirty little thrill” out of seeing the Maoist general desecrating Tibetan religious symbolism, and seem to approve his words about religion being poison.
On the other hand, may I ask what you mean when you say “I realize that Maoists killed a lot of people like me”? (Honestly no snark intended with this question. Just curious.)
The attitude is very much there even if the legal precedent isn’t (I couldn’t say off-hand).
I’d note though that if the Commonwealth just up and banned climbing Uluru I suspect the same people complaining about climbers would also bitch about the government doing that and taking the decision out of the hands of the traditional owners. :rolleyes:
Personally I think the owners and the NT Parks people should just sit down in a closed session and fucking well work it out once and for all and then stick with the decision (either way) and tell anyone who doesn’t like it to piss-off.
Among other things, religions make claims regarding history, science, morality, and so on. Can you see what is wrong with deciding that all of these claims are equally valid, and exist on a par with empirical evidence? Moral values and cultures are also not all equally valid. It’s this kind of weak relativism that leads to making endless excuses for all kinds of backward, oppressive behavior, opening a space for more misogyny, homophobia, sexual repression, and so on. We’re seeing this with Muslims in the West, though no, they aren’t going to “take over.”
Often, offense is exactly what’s required to demonstrate the powerlessness and pointlessness of taboos. I can’t get to it right now, but there’s great video of an atheist conference in Australia, which a group of angry Muslim men protested. The atheists’ response is priceless: chants of “Where are the women?!?” and same-sex couples making out. Similar make-out blocs have been directed at homophobic Christians in the US and France. When the Hasidim in Brooklyn were complaining about scantily-clad (they said) cyclists moving through “their” neighborhoods, plans emerged for a mob of such cyclists to ride around in defiance, but the weather did not cooperate.
I specified Temple Mount because there’s so much (pointless) conflict over it. Just destroy it. I’m not an open-minded, tolerant humanist, because that’s a great way to let those with the courage of their convictions walk all over you and establish a theocracy, but there’s no need to burn manuscripts or anything like that.
I wouldn’t put it that way, and it would really depend on the music in question, and the general context of the situation. I see religion the same way.
Not necessarily, but it’s the principle of the thing.
I do, but I don’t endorse most of the rest of their stances. “People like me” would refer to advocates of a far more (or completely) decentralized regime.
Agreed. But from a “political” standpoint, it helps me, because I can claim to a position of moderation, using your position as a contrast. I didn’t say it wasn’t fallacious, just convenient. “Don’t yell at me for spray-painting obscenities on the wall; this guy threw a grenade!”
I started a lengthy response on the subject of religion in general, but, really, this isn’t the right thread for it. This is “Uluru, Climb it or Not?” and not “Religion, Good or Bad?” If I meet you in one of the latter-themed threads, lay on!
I’m no fan of religion myself, but I wouldn’t walk into a church to rant about it. It seems disrespectful to enter someone else’s space to complain about their beliefs.
I didn’t climb when I was there, simply because our bus driver said that although we had the choice, he’d really prefer that we didn’t. I didn’t really give a shit either way, I suspected that once on top all I would see was bloody desert anyway so I didn’t feel like I was missing out, and so I didn’t bother going up.
The spiritual/holy ground thing didn’t affect my thinking in the slightest, couldn’t have cared less about that.
No. Weakness in the face of tyranny, oppression or injustice is how you let people walk all over you. Open-mindedness, tolerance and humanism help to foster mutual understanding and appreciation between people. They help to build bridges and heal wounds.
I would rather the world had more people who are open-minded, tolerant humanists than people who are closed-minded, intolerant . . . inhumanists?
And since the topic of the thread is Uluru: climb or not, and you have your climbing boots on, who’s walking all over whom?
Being principled is good, but as you have rightly suggested, the wrong principles can cause grief for other people. Would you say you have courage of conviction in your principles?
M’kay.
I just wondered if maybe you had some kind of cultural identity I should be aware of.
Thanks for answering.
Whilst the traditional owners would prefer to see the outright banning of climbing Uluru they are also realists, they recognize that without tourism dollars they would have a tough time in the middle of nowhere. SO the original idea was that it would hurt tourism.
Now they recognize that banning the climb would not necessarily slow down the numbers of tourists in any material way. They also understand that banning the climb would give some people the permission to start slaggin off on them about it and at heart they are not a group who want that kind of negative situation to occur.
Yes the government could ban the climb but the traditional owners believe that education is better then regulation. By informing people and asking them to come to a decision they believe that people will understand their culture a little more and then hopefully respect it a little more.
I have many friends who would climb it but I wouldn’t, out of respect for them.