That’s fantastic. I agree, it is not the only way to look at the situation. There are many other ways to look at the situation. Maybe anyone who claims to hold beliefs about the moon should have say in what happens to the moon, and we should create an international theological court to settle these sorts of disputes. Maybe it shouldn’t be up to us mortals, and we should ask Luna what She wants.
I understand that there are many ways to look at the issue. You haven’t convinced me that my way of looking at things is wrong by pointing out the obvious fact that other opinions exist.
Sooooo… according to you, it’s reasonable to consider Native tribes entitled to have input on “what happens” with terrestrial territory that they don’t physically own, but whose existence and nature is culturally significant to them…
…but it’s automatically ridiculous and unthinkable to consider Native tribes entitled to have input on “what happens” with lunar territory that they don’t physically own, but whose existence and nature is culturally significant to them?
No, the US government has defaulted to the position that a person should be allowed to do what they want unless there’s provable harm to another party.
You brought up two other examples of groups using the government to force other people to conform to their religious beliefs, in rebuttal to my argument that it’s inappropriate for the Navajo Nation to use the government to force other people to conform to their religious beliefs, so I kinda think you did.
I agree with you about the hypocrisy of the Celestis statement in the sense that burying human remains on the Moon rests just as much on superstition as any religious belief (I noted it early in the thread).
But surely there’s asymmetry here in the sense that only one side is telling the other side that they should not do something because of “harm” that is an entirely subjective mental state consequential to their particular superstition. To turn this around, if (say) these remains were placed on the Moon, but later some important scientific project would inevitably destroy the remains, I think symmetry would be realized - any objection raised by the relatives of the deceased should get the same short shrift as the Navajo objection. There is no objective harm in destroying the remains.
That’s not to say that we should all be assholes about ignoring people’s feelings on such matters. Mental states are real. When we can accommodate, we should. But we can’t treat subjective offense of this kind as worthy of the same consideration as objective harm.
Yes, based upon how the concept of “provable harm”, and the overriding importance of an individual person “do[ing] what they want”, are traditionally defined in mainstream/western culture. Thank you for confirming my point.
…you bought up religion in response to my general point that “leaving human remains on the moon is something that should be a matter of public debate".
I was talking about all stakeholders.
You ignored all stakeholders and made it just about religion.
I reminded you that religion has always been a stakeholder here, and gave two examples of thousands of different examples that exist.
This is exactly what I had in mind when I said that we need a strong, ratified, and enforceable international treaty regarding the moon. The problem is that “should get” is not the same as “will get”. The reason being that the objection to putting the cremains on the moon comes from a small and easily ignored entity. Objections to “disturbing human remains” would likely come from a very much broader and much more powerful political faction. It’s much easier to not create the problem in the first place.
Again, as I pointed out above, that asymmetry only exists because the particular superstitions of the other side are already privileged by the governmental authority that shares their cultural assumptions. Namely:
White people generally think it’s fine and dandy to put (appropriately sanitized) corpse remains any old where that they have legal access to.
The US government historically defaults to the cultural assumptions of white people.
Therefore, the US government has no problem with putting appropriately sanitized corpse remains on the moon.
And therefore, the US government authorized the Celestis company’s plan to do so.
The asymmetry is rooted in the fact that the government’s authorization already endorsed the superstition preferences of mainstream culture, even before the Navajo representatives requested consideration for the superstition preferences of their own culture.
Wow, that’s quite a leap to a conclusion I never implied. I don’t “reject” the outlook you’re calling “Utilitarianism” here, neither for the reason you suggest nor for any other reason.
It’s admittedly difficult for any of us to see the cultural specificity of our traditionally dominant culture, which we think of as “just the way things are”, “the way things actually work in western civilization”, the way the world naturally operates. It’s like the proverb about fish trying to see water as a specific physical medium, rather than just “the way the world is”.
But pointing out that we’re swimming in water is not the same thing as declaring that water is unacceptable and we have to replace it with something else.
No, there’s a much more straighforward asymmetry that doesn’t depend on any cultural privilege. Celestis is not telling the Navajo they should not do something because it offends Celestis. The Navajo are the only side here claiming that two superstitions are incompatible and that one should trump the other.
Imagine that two religions both hold Jerusalem sacred. One set of believers says that they have no problem with adherents of the other religion being present, that they have no problem sharing. The other set of believers says it is a deeply offensive violation of their beliefs for the other to be present, that it “harms” them to share. Should the tolerant and intolerant beliefs be given equal consideration?
…I wasn’t talking about “legislating based on religious beliefs.” I was talking about things that should be a matter of public debate. It’s a matter of democracy. The people of the Navajo Nation should have the same rights as everyone else to have their say. That includes you and me. That includes the voices of people we disagree with.
And unrestrained capitalism will always be a greater danger to society than the voices of the Navajo Nation, one of the most marginalised groups in America. There are degrees at play here.
Thanks for Whitesplaining what it’s like to be a minority.
I happen to be very familiar with that trend, as someone who is often on the receiving end of it.
What I am saying is, great, we zoomed back and examined both perspectives. But we don’t live our lives in that zoomed out state. At some point we take our fresh perspective back down to Earth, hopefully taking what we learned into account and adjusting our stance accordingly.
Then what is your point? I understand that we are swimming in water. It really isn’t all that novel of an observation. But fine, granted, we are all viewing this through an acculturated lens.
Now that we are all agreed that we are fish in water and that it is possible to exist outside of water… I say that having considered that fact, and having weighed the alternatives, I still support staying in the ocean.
My preferred government attitude toward religion is to pretend it doesn’t exist. Like, you get to do whatever you want as long as it’s not hurting people, and your reasons for doing so are your own. If you want to bury your body on the moon because your religion demands it of you, or because you lost a bet, it’s all the same to the government. And if you want to stop me from burying my body on the moon because your religion demands it of you, or because you hate me and want me to be sad, it’s all the same to the government.
The Navajo religion may object to defiling the moon, but that’s not what the government should consider: it should simply consider that some people don’t want bodies on the moon. If that desire suffices to prevent lunar interment, great; if not, too bad.
…my response to the idea that this is only “about one side” is that this isn’t only about one side. It isn’t “religion vs non-religion.” It’s something we all should have a say in.
The Navajo Nation only got a seat at the table because they played the only card they had. If they hadn’t, none of us would have even known about it until either it landed on the moon, or it (as it appears to have done) failed spectacularly. That isn’t how these things should play out.