I was thinking about how, when people would mention that they didn’t eat something for religious reasons, I always wondered what they feared would happen if they did. In other words, what’s the enforcement mechanism?
Still, regarding the Jesus question, doesn’t that demonstrate what I’m talking about? I don’t think it’s right to set up a situation like that without a place for thorough discussion, but, as you point out, such discussion would probably veer into dangerous territory. That’s why it’s a better idea to pursue laicite, at least de facto.
Addition is a fact, and, now that I think about it, maybe there’s a place for discussing the owning/keeping/use of animals by humans. Actually, that’s also a point I made earlier. When does it stop?
But why do they want to? If it’s just a preference, would they have that preference if they did not practice that religion?
I would like that. If I was a student (or who knows, a faculty member) in a situation like the one described, would I be allowed to do that, or would I get in trouble for not showing the proper “respect” for someone’s fairy tales? Would religion get a free pass, or not? I don’t have to respect someone’s taste in music, so why their taste in fairy tales?
I did have such an opportunity to do so, when I alone took on a room of Mormons (including some glassy-eyed convert androids, ugh), but this was at the graduate-school level. Not everybody gets such a chance, and I really doubt this can be handled well in other, “lower” (for lack of a better term) educational levels, as much as I would like to see that.
It would probably be perceived as “disrespectful”, because religion all-too-often gets a free pass. You’ve never seen that happen? I can (and do) respect people’s human rights while not respecting some of their thoughts and/or actions.
I use music as an example. Although it can indeed tell me a lot about a person, that’s beside the point. I’m under no obligation to respect someone’s taste in music (or architecture or fashion or their views on economics), so why do I have to respect the fairy tales to which they adhere?
I would report it the second way; what’s more, I’d say Catholics rather than Christians and indicate which particular source I’m using. Why do you consider that wrong?
Personally, I’d say “*I *believe these are the Ten Commandments”. I don’t say anything is factual unless I have evidence to support it, and I have no evidence to support my faith. I don’t seek any, either.
Are you, and some others, wilfully ignoring the oft-repeated fact that this was an optional event at a cultural awareness day at a school? It wasn’t a class and nobody got credit for attending and it doesn’t seem likely that anything was reported as fact other than specific things about the headscarf.
(My bolding) Why not? That’s what this thread was about.
Since the presentation was about the Hijab, then questions about the Hijab should definitely be allowed, including about how much women are pressured into wearing it. Questions about “was Mohammed a paedophile” or stuff like that would be a bit weird in a cultural awareness session that was specifically about the hijab, because they won’t encourage anyone to learn, they’ll just encourage attacking the person giving the presentation and take time away from people who actually wanted to ask questions about the hijab.
Same as if someone were talking about confession for Catholics and they were asked about paedophile priests. “Someone” being a child, especially.
Bear in mind also that these are pretty young children who might be well-equipped to talk about why they wear a hijab, but wider aspects of their religion are still too difficult for them to explain and it’d be a bit much to expect them to answer for everyone who was ever a member of their religion and explain every facet of their religion’s culture. Talking about an item of clothing or giving confession to a priest are discreet subjects that they can learn more about themselves while preparing the presentation.
I do know people who are what I would call secular Muslims, though whether they’d define themselves that way is another matter (I’ve never asked; why would you?) They don’t go off somewhere to wash their hands and feet and pray five times a day, in the UK anyway - even among my Bangladeshi students and friends this is seen as being unusually pious - they do associate with non-Muslims, they do smoke but generally don’t drink if they’re first-generation in this country, the woman sometimes wear hijabs and sometimes don’t, some of them are completely fine with gay rights, and basically there’s a whole spectrum of behaviours.
Some people seem to have the impression that to be a proper Muslim you have to be a Sunni Muslim with Saudi Arabian conventions. That’s not all Islam is and if it were it would have died out centuries ago.
I don’t think school is a good place for such things. So what if no one was required to attend? Presenting a sanitized variety of “cultures” that have been reduced to innocuous-seeming superficial details, like how to cover your head with fabric, in a format where questions must be carefully controlled, to avoid confronting any unpleasant facts about the culture, is worse than useless.
Even the most obvious questions are likely to elicit objectionable answers or lead to objectionable questioning.
Q: “Why do you wear that?”
A: " blah blah blah modesty"
Q: " So do you think a girl not wearing one is immodest?"
And that is about the mildest example possible.
We have plenty of different cultures in the US, shall we “learn” about all of them this way?
Family in the Aryan Brotherhood? Step right up and tell us all about it!
Growing up in public housing with a drug-addicted parent? Tell us what that’s like!
So you live in that Westboro Baptist Church compound and spend weekends protesting soldier’s funerals? Show us how you come up with anti-gay slogans and make signs!
Are your parents stockpiling guns and supplies in a bunker for the upcoming collapse of civilization? Please share your personal experience as an American prepper!
Did I miss a link to video or text of her presentation?
How can any of us possibly discuss what this student did or did not say? If this thread is about the content of a particular presentation, then is it just about wild speculation?
So how can this be handled? A list of forbidden topics? A moderator silencing people who ask tough questions? Sounds really educational.
These “young children” as you call them would likely already be married with a child or two in a traditional Muslim culture. Their religion is “difficult to explain” not because they are young, but because it (like other religions) defies explanation. Religion isn’t about explanation or making sense. It’s about swallowing what you are told until you “know” enough to start shoving it down other people’s throats, even if you restrict this shoving to the throats of your own children.
Personally, I would not ask, but nor would I just decide for myself that they must be “secular Muslims.” What if they do not identify themselves as Muslims at all? Is it fair to consider someone a Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, etc. if they do not identify themselves as such? This seems incredibly disrespectful. Then you list ordinary activities they do, when obviously the question is “what Muslim things do they do,” not the opposite. You say there is a “whole spectrum of behaviors,” so it seems likely that what you have stumbled upon is a colony of human beings.
There’s a difference between respecting the thing and respecting the person. Would you be a dick to someone whose music you didn’t like?
Right. For example, asking–with the typical respect for people who have done me no harm, and who I wish to communicate with–is how I learned that, despite religious bases,
Some secular Muslims have no religious objection to eating pork, they’ve just absorbed a cultural feeling that pigs are not fit to eat–similar to how most Americans would feel about eating dogs or rats.
Some secular Jews have no religious or instinctive/aesthetic objection to eating pork (or combining meat and milk), they just like the marking of Jewish identity it provides (to themselves, even). It’s reminiscent of how Amish do certain things differently for no reason but to be different from “the English.”
I don’t. But can you round up all the believers and get them to follow this format?
Sometimes Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door. Sometimes Mormons do. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how they talk about their belief systems. As far as they are concerned, they are sharing stone cold facts with me. Jesus said this and God thinks that. They aren’t going to dial it back for a school presentation or any other reason.
Since they came to me, I take the opportunity to proselytize my own interpretation of the facts for a bit and we part ways none the wiser.
I am absolutely flummoxed by this belief that religion is the source of evil and ignorance and atheism is of course more enlightened. I’m not religious myself, at all - being a totally mechanistic atheist depresses me too much, but I’m highly skeptical of religious/spiritual teachings. So I’m what, a hard agnostic, I guess? I am, however, a student of human beings. The thing about us is that we can take absolutely any belief system and pervert it to support what we want it to. So, yes, religion is often used to oppress, murder, cheat, steal, and do whatever other horrible things people do. However, pure reason has been used in the same way - women and minorities have had (and still have!) scientific papers written about our supposed inferiority in intellect and other ways. You may not agree with their reasoning, but they are doing what they do under the banner of pure intellect.
Social darwinism, eugenics, medical thinking about women’s limitations, and so on have all been used quite frequently to oppress a number of groups. On the other hand, religion has inspired multiple scientists to study the grandeur and beauty of God’s work, and religion and social justice often go hand in hand. If you reject that, you reject luminaries like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi, without whom progressivism would not have, um, progressed as far as it has. More, you reject modern social justice activists like the UCC, who sued for the right to perform gay marriages in North Carolina and the radical Catholic nuns fighting for women’s rights within the Church. Honestly, it’s not the belief system that’s wrong, it’s the person. If someone is basically a good person who believes in equality and learning, they’ll continue to be that whether they’re atheist, Catholic, Muslim, or whatever. If they’re jerks who get off on oppression, they’re not going to change just by rejecting religion.
Lastly, all of you anti-cultural relativist people should really learn something about the history of scientific thought and why cultural relativism is such an important shift in our thinking. Franz Boas was the big guy in anthropology for this way of thinking, and he supported it as a response to the colonialist, patronizing views of previous scientists that led to things like the White Man’s Burden and eugenics. It also opened up many fields of inquiry in the social sciences. Seriously, check him out - he was awesome and had a groovy mustache, and there are absolutely adorable pictures of him doing re-enactments of dances from one of the cultures he studied in old-timey underwear.
I wish that were true. Unfortunately, that’s not usually how religious types respond, or, in cases like this, oversensitive cultural gatekeepers automatically equate any challenges to religion as racist and/or bigoted.
Really? So some in the audience ask such questions, only to be told… well, see below.
In this case it seems like a better comparison would be asking Catholics if they really think that the communion components become Jesus’s body and blood, and if so, then 1. HOW?!?!, especially considering there is no evidence, and 2. Isn’t that cannibalism?
Exactly; since questioning is a prerequisite for this sort of thing, and since I don’t think the kids could fully handle it, this seems like a bad idea to me.
Yeah, Bangladesh is full of bars, apparently, and they don’t usually enforce their anti-gay laws. Muslims, like almost all theists, cherry-pick from their holy books, which seems like incredibly bad faith to me.
Not necessarily, but either holy books mean what they say or they don’t. Either they’re from a deity or not. How can portions of them be wrong? Would you eat a salad with one piece of fecal matter in it?
This. A thousand times this. “You think you’re better than us? You think we’re a bunch of sluts? Huh?” Remember what I wrote earlier about the Muslim girls being taught to slut-shame the outside world? The Xians I grew up around were bad enough; these people are frightening. I’m in agreement with those who say a big problem in the Muslim world (among other cultures!) is that these people really need to chill out and get laid. I know of what I speak, because I do too! It’s not that people from such environments don’t achieve sexual release, they do (and always have; and a recent survey in Iran revealed just how common this is), but for so many people it’s still all wrapped up in shame, guilt, and other neuroses. I can’t imagine having to deal with that as well.
It applies to many more things than just sexuality!
If you let in one, you have to let them all in. Or does it only apply to religion, and if so, why? It’s like when I tell people that I don’t drink (and never have), and for some reason a religious rationale would make more sense to them than the practical ones I have.
No, it’s more like speculation of what can go wrong, and if there’s a right way to go about this.
That’s a straw man. Learning about religions and other cultural aspects is critically important, but silence betokens consent, and kowtowing to superstition, backwardness, and so much else is antithetical to education… though it does provide a learning experience watching this happen.
Exactly, and when the non-religious fight back, we’re called racist, bigoted, disrespectful, and said to be “being a dick.”
That really depends on what music we’re talking about. Plus, it’s effectively impossible to point out all that’s wrong with religion without charges of dickishness arising. It’s one thing to get called a dick, but it’s another when one is a student who does not feel religion should get a free pass, asks the tough questions, and then gets in trouble for being disrespectful or whatever.
So no justifications around health, the environment, and the like? Or is that implicit in case #1?
Not this again.
Religion is not “used” or “perverted” to do bad things; those happen when it is actually taken seriously. Wrongheaded (or worse) actions undertaken on a rationalist basis can be fought on rationalist grounds, and they are, all the time. Nobody says methodology has to be respected if it’s wrong. That’s how scientific racism was attacked, and still is.
You don’t need religion to do positive things, and in any case, those good works don’t make it true. There are lots of do-gooder churches active in, say, Jamaica, but does that make the situation there preferable to that of godless Scandinavia? This is just like the reactionary stance that, if societies like the US have (worsening) inequality and poverty and whatever else, the course of action can’t possibly be trying to change the structure of power and privilege, oh no, the answer is church charity! Faith-based initiatives!
I work for a Catholic-derived (though independent) charity right now. If such groups do positive things, I am all for it, but there’s no need for the religion per se.
Cultural relativism is an unfortunate overreaction to all of that. It has its own problems, and those are very serious.
Some may, some may not. Assuming that ALL religious types are going to respond that way, well, that says more about you than them. Not to mention if you use terms like “deluded” “sky fairy” “woo”, etc, people aren’t exactly going to respond very kindly. :rolleyes:
Most likely since it IS such a complex subject, it wouldn’t be one they’d be explaining. For the record, the official term is Transubstantiation. As for the cannibalism theory, people actually HAVE discussed that and studied it. There are some theories that the whole notion of the Eucharist stems from the mystery cults of ancient Greece and Rome.
So it probably be something more like “why do Catholics pray to saints” or talking about confession.
I don’t know about Muslims, but one thing to keep in mind about Christianity is that Biblical literalism is a fairly recent movement. It has never been a Catholic teaching, and Catholic tends to be a very complex religion. It’s not a black and white thing. You have centuries of Biblical scholars studying and discussing and debating the Bible. They also take in mind the time it was written, what the intent was, context, etc. Remember – the Bible isn’t just one book. It’s a collection of books.
If this is how you talk to religious people, then I can see exactly WHY they treat you as they do. Going on the defensive much? :rolleyes:
Key phrase being, “The Xians I grew up around”
Well maybe you should have a drink. It might loosen you up and then you might not be such an uptight prick. I mean, why don’t you drink? Do you think you’re better than the rest of us? God, I hate teetotalers.
And your own way certainly isn’t.
“Superstition”, “backwardness”, etc – if these are the words you use, DUH! Of COURSE bpeople are going to call you a dick, dumbass!
You’re not asking “tough questions” – you seem to get off on trolling.
By health, I’m assuming you mean if someone’s starving, and all they have to eat is pork? Then yes, it is permitted for Jews and Muslims to eat pork.
Those are just examples. Others think differently. Point is, you find these things out by asking questions, or letting people tell their own stories, and those stories may be different from expectations. ‘Religious’ labels on cultures and people don’t necessarily mean what you think they will.
Nonsense. The progressive, rational, left-wing preachers I know take their religion very seriously, and in fact say they get their progressive rationality from their religious beliefs. Are you honestly going to tell me that they’re doing their religion wrong? So that the only proper way to be religious is to be the worst kind of fundamentalist? Great, now you’ve One True Scotsmanned your way to proving your point of view. How rational of you.
As for cultural relativism, there are certainly perversions of it; it does not actually require that you aren’t horrified by FGM or similar cultural practices. However, the cultural relativism as is defined by anthropologists, who made it up in the first place, requires that they try to understand the practice within the framework of the culture it’s in. And the magic thing about this is that, if you still believe a practice is horrific, you’ll have a better idea how to change the group’s custom. Going in all Mighty Whitey and insisting that they do things your way just makes people more stubbornly cling to their traditional values. Something like FGM, by understanding what’s behind it, you can address those issues so that people will change on their own. You can provide more opportunities for women in education and employment, for instance, that makes them less dependent on undergoing the procedure and thus less likely to insist that their daughters and granddaughters do.
Another fun thing about anthropology, and a big reason that I think it should be mandatory in high schools, is that it teaches you that your own culture is often quite irrational in ways that you don’t realize. Do you, for instance, regularly eat insects? If not, that’s utterly irrational. They are an excellent source of protein, abundant in the environment, and they are more sustainable than traditional US livestock. Do you dress up for weddings or funerals? Why? Those clothes tend to be uncomfortable and there’s no real reason that we wear suits or dresses instead of pajamas to those events. You, like all people, are full of these irrational beliefs that you follow without consideration simply because your culture taught you to. I’d consider that before declaring myself King/Queen of All That Is Right and True.