If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It sometimes comes to a case, as mentioned of female genital mutilation. In that case, you're arguing individual rights of the woman versus the group rights of the tribe or community practising it. So far as I know, FGM is not in the Koran or part of Islamic law?
There are cultures globally who have practices which violate the most basic and fundamental of human rights. Whether or not you believe in the same set of human rights is a case of the individual. There have always been arguments between universalists and cultural relativists.
Wise up and use your common sense.
I dont see why you would say that as a response to what Namaste said??
I do, she states the bleeding obvious, yes there are various different cultures and they have different values. STOP THE PRESSES, then she goes on to say that because of this we can't really say what's barbaric or not then totally contradicts herself by saying that there are obvious human rights violations. Anything that violates human rights, especially to this degree is barbaric. Simple as, so remind me, what the fuck are you two arguing for again?
Perhaps you would like to argue your point exactly what is 'barbaric' from a universal perspective? And why your beliefs are right and the beliefs of somebody else are wrong?
Are we calling states barbaric? Communities barbaric?
Are we calling human beings barbaric or some other cultures or just a few isolated cultural practices?
You can't expect somebody who shares a room with their whole family and who farms for a living and only leaves their community to collect water to have the same values as yourself. We live in a world of white privilidge and technological advancement. Just being able to debate this online is a huge blessing in itself.
It's not so simple as some ways of life being 'barbaric'. It's far more complicated.
Dead on our kid. :thumb:
Sorry, I was expecting a reply of some substance, rather than a patronising bunch of smilies.
You really can be a plank sometimes.
Communities, individuals and States alike who adhere to Sharia Law are barbaric. Do I need to spell it out for you?
I was just curious is all...
Do you think states which have Sharia law are any more barbaric than secular states like China?
Is it Sharia law in general you dislike or just aspects of it?
I still don't think it is as easy as "I am right and you are barbaric", that implies intolerance. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the separation of religion and state, but I also believe that we should distinguish between religion, culture, the individual and the state to avoid creating two dimensional stereotypes of human beings.
Nope. It's a fallacious argument anyway, I didn't mention China so why bring it up? That's twice you've brought China into the debate.
Aspects, of course with Sharia, you really can't pick and choose which parts you wish to adhere to and which you don't.
It's not stereotypes, I'm expressing an opinion that those who adhere to Sharia Law are barbaric. If you don't like that opinion then fair enough but all this bollocks about different cultures and shite is irrelevant and I thought I'd pull you up on that. Plus I'm hungover and feeling argumentative, sorry. :thumb:
I was asking because of your comment to people following Sharia being barbaric and comparing it to a secular country with a bad, if not worse in many cases, human rights record.
It's more the term 'barbaric'. What does it mean? How do we define an act of barbary and where do we draw the line in judging what is a barbaric way of life?
Wiki
Uhm yes it is. You're basically calling whole nations of people barbarians and saying the way they live is wrong. That's a pretty broad and ignorant statement to live imo.
I do actually, and I'll tell you why. It's simply a question of motive. I'd generally give the Chinese government the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the reason for their human rights abuses are because they care about the prosperity of the country, and ultimately, the standard of living of the people. Now you can call them misguided, you can call their actions barbaric, but I don't think their motives are evil, just like I don't think that George Bush is motivated by anything other than what he thinks is best for the people of America (debatable, I know, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt for a second). Sharia law on the other hand, is only implimented with the intention of pleasing a non-existant god, and as a motive, I find that pretty reprehensible when you consider the human rights abuses that are carried out in the name of that cause. It is concerned with the ultimate selfish aim of getting into heaven. So sharia law could lead to the greatest society in the world (it doesn't, it has failed in delivering anything but failed societies so far) but there would still be no morality in the motives.
It is, always has been and always will be about maintaining power for a minority of people.
The means may be different, but the ends are the same.
With all due respect, it is naive to think otherwise.
Try actually reading what I wrote first.
That's how the system is set up. It doesn't mean that those are the motives of the politicians in power. I don't think that anyone gets into politics thinking, "you know what, I really think BP need a bit more cash." Hell, you claim you're getting into politics. Is this to maintain the power of the owners of the world, or improve the lives of the people? But the fact is that the system is set up so that the wellbeing of the people is reliant on the profit-making abilities of a select few. And politicians know this, which is why they often do things that appear to be for the benefit of big business. They may feel that they have no choice, or that this genuinely is the best system for the good of humanity. But I still think that is the ultimate motive for the vast majority.
In fact, in a twisted kind of way, it's even the same for Islamic extremists in power. If you honestly believe that women who wears something outside of a building will burn in hell for all eternity, then making her burn alive inside the building is quite a good way of saving her. But the motive of getting into paradise is clearly an insane one. Like I said on the other thread, it's the way of thinking that's the problem, not what you think.
I think the term 'extremist' is a difficult one (but best not derail the thread), but if you believe in hell, reincarnation or nothing after you've died, that's irrelevent. At the end of the day, you'd probably think very differently if you were brought up in Sudan and may even consider atheism absurd.
Your argument about intent is interesting, but at the end of the day if you're rotting in a prison, if you're having the crap kicked out of you by policemen, if you're in the gallows then it really doesn't matter what the intent is. You are suffering, people are being exploited and for the benefit of only a few. It's all the same for the victim.
We can't tackle human rights by standing there and saying "the way you think is wrong" or "I find it less barbaric that they torture in a secular state than in your own Sharia state". That's called prejudice.
I hope that wasn't aimed at me....
Thought I heard you mention that you'd considered it. Maybe not.
Well of course. But then atheism is generally compatible with having rational arguments for acts that impose on others (taxes, law enforcement, etc). Religious faith isn't, and yet still imposes on others.
If you take every action on it's effects on the victim, then you're saying that a soldier that accidentally shoots a civilian is just as bad as one who actively targets civilians (i.e. most suicide bombers). Taking it one step further, you're saying that someone who accidentally kills someone in their car is the same as someone who runs someone over and kills them on purpose. To me, even attempted murder is a far worse crime than accidentally killing someone. But by your definition, the latter is worse, because motive isn't taken into account.
I can. My opinion is that torture is always unnecessary. But let's take the less extreme option of prison. I can and will say that someone being put in prison for criticising the prophet Muhammed, or criticising the actions of a certain dictatorship is far worse that putting someone in prison for what I would consider an actual crime. And that's the point. Faith-based thinking allows the punishment of people for "crimes" for which there is no rational argument. It would be prejudice if I was basing it on the religion, but I'm not. I am equally opposed to people being imprisoned for faith-based reasons in this country too. Some include inciting hatred, smoking particular substances, selling certain media to adults, or having sex with bicycles in private hotel rooms. These are laws that haven't been justified rationally, and so I oppose them. But obviously this country has a much shorter list than others. This isn't a thing based on country or one particular religion at all, it's just that this particular thread is about Sudan and Islam, and so I'll criticise Sudan and Islam (I'm sure I could find a dozen similar incidents in the past week or so from other countries and about other religions if you'd like
Tackling human rights is extremely difficult. But one thing it does require is an end to faith-based justification of anything. It's far more difficult to get popular support for human rights abuses using rational argument (look at Guantanamo Bay) than it is justifying it through religious (or other forms of) irrationality. It often seems that as soon as the justification is religious, everyone suddenly goes into their shell and say "oh, okay then, if that's what you believe, I'm not going to challenge it." And the only way to do this is to challenge religious ideas in the same way that you would challenge political ideas, and in the long term, oppose the religious indoctrination and labelling of children (and adults) at every level. That's something you can do in this country, even if you have no say in what happens in Sudan.
But I do believe that states violate human rights in order to keep a certain structure which favours them. It isn't a question of good and evil, it's a question of what some people perceive to be as survival, access to resources, socialisation and ethics.
Mmmm nah (not to pull this thread on an 'all about Namaste' side track). I'd like to work in human rights and read a lot on it. But on campaigning, which I guess is political.
It depends on what you call rational. You can be an atheist and still believe in eugenics. Instead of arguing which parts of a religious texts to have, we're arguing Machievelli(spl) or Hobbes. Atheism is not synonymous to rationality, it's just a belief in the absence of God(s).
Which by your definition (I assume) then it would be worse if the soldier was fighting in a religious war than in one over territory?
I'm talking about human rights abuses specifically, not war casualties. Nor am I comparing different types of pain, but the same scenario with different perpetrators.
I'm confused as to how you've come to this.
Yes it is. But I am arguing that putting somebody in prison for criticising the state religion and putting somebody in prison for criticising the state ruler is no different. It is still a violation of freedom of expression.
We're very lucky to live in this country and I agree. Some laws in this country are a joke.
Of course. I was replying on what you wrote about how you feel it is worse to imprison people on the principle of religion than on a secular ideology. I took the approach that there's no difference. I do not intend to make you out to be a hate mongerer or anything.
And I could also provide you with several articles and books about human rights abuses in secular states. It wouldn't make any difference would it.
I disagree. That is a very ethnocentric over-simplification of human rights in my view. We need to be working within religious and cultural frameworks, not trying to abolish them. I don't think it's helpful for us to bitch at countries to separate religion from state, instead though I think it's important to be offering support to movements inside religious states for the progress of women (for example). Secularisation may come after time though.
But how do you propose we end faith-based justification anyway? And how would this impact on the good work some faith-based organisations are doing to help people? (e.g. Red Cross/Red Crescent)
And how would you do this?
I do believe in education, but I think it's also very difficult. I think that women in some countries would benefit in being educated, especially as regards to HIV and the rights to their own bodies. This does not mean that we need to be fighting religion, but certain cultural ideas which promote oppression of groups.
But I think you're right, both religious and political ideas should be challenged (obviouslly taking a holistic approach as cases differ).
Atheism is rational, atheism in an individual doesn't equal rationality of course. I never claimed it did. Look at Stalin. Atheism tends to come as a side-product of rationality though.
Can I change that from territory? Because fighting for territory for territories sake would be somewhat irrational. But I would say that a soldier fighting in a religious war would be worse than one fighting for their independence from a dictator, the liberation of a nation, the removal of a group of rebels considered to be dangerous. All of these will generally have a secular, rational argument as to why they're fighting (though national pride is often one of the reasons, and is equally rational - it's also the most common methods of recruitment in non-religious armies).
And so yes, I think that someone who commits torture because the believe that someone knows the code to deactivate a bomb that will kill thousands, is on a higher moral playing field than someone who tortures someone to cleanse them of their sins, or whatever other religious reason you might have for it. This would be based on the assumption that there was scientific proof that torture would is an adequate way of gaining information, which afaik, there is no proof for. Which is the secular argument as to why torture is no longer allowed, not because it's "immoral" (it's always been immoral, but immoral acts can be justified if the results prevent a greater injustice from occuring, if you get what I mean).
It is. You seem to think I'm specifically picking on religion here. I'm against irrationality, not religion. It depends on the arguments for restricting people's freedoms, because there are secular arguments for restricting freedom of speech, I just disagree with them, and don't believe there is enough evidence to justify them. We restrict freedom in this country. You can't buy certain products, and some are age restricted. There are rational arguments for restricting freedoms, and they're made with moral, rational goals, even if you disagree with them. Misunderstanding evidence, or simply disagreeing on it's conclusions isn't the same thing as faith-based thinking, which encourages people to ignore evidence. Someone saying that you can't criticise the leader of the state, purely because he's the leader of the state, is irrational of course. Someone saying you can't criticise the leader of the state because it might lead to violence or coups is a rational argument (one I disagree with, but it is a rational argument). Believing that the Emperor of Japan is sacred and divine is irrational but not religious. And I would oppose any arguments made on that irrational assumption too. Similarly, I wouldn't oppose any secular, rational arguments made and actions taken by a person or a state, purely because they happen to be religious. The point is whether or not the motive is religious.
Nope. They may or may not be irrationally-based, whether or not they're religious. And if they were, I'd give them the same criticism as Sudan's regime. If not, then I'd analyse their secular arguments for doing so, and agree or disagree.
Well the solutions are always harder than the problem. But like I was saying, I think the most important thing is for people in these countries to be able to openly criticise the religion without fearing lashes, prison or being teared limb from limb by an angry mob. You can talk about education and women's rights all you want, but unless it comes in an environment where people are free to openly discuss ideas, then it's not going to achieve anything (well actually, the liberation of women would lead to economic prosperity, which is usually another way of achieving the same thing).
Well in this country, just get to a stage where religious beliefs are given the same sort of scrutiny and lack of respect as political beliefs. As for the Red Cross and the like, there are perfectly good secular arguments for carrying on the work they're doing, so they won't be affected. There aren't any good secular arguments for some Catholic charities lying about condoms though. Charity will always still happen.
Exercising any sort of influence outside of the UK is difficult, so let's get our own back yard in order first.
1: Faith schools must be come secular and R.E. must be a lesson where kids discuss religions as beliefs that some people have, and when you're old enough, you can make your own mind up.
2: Oppose any rights for people to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs (Catholic B&B's/chemists).
3: Oppose tax-breaks for religious organisations - that means CAFOD aren't speading their filth around Africa when a more competent secular organisation could be actually helping people.
That's all I've got so far.
(This is another debate for another thread?)
You think atheism is rational, a Christian may think Christianity is rational.
I don't think it's as simple as that again.
Ok, to put it another way. Do you think it is any worse to ethnically cleanse a group of people because of your religious values? Or because you think that they're genetically inferior?
Obviously an extreme example.
But this is a question of defending people and cleansing sins (although am with you on the argument about torture not working).
I don't think that is a moral argument, but more of a pragmatic one. A moral argument may be taken from either Kant or Machiavelli who are unlikely to agree on something like torture and who are both from secular view points.
I think that religion has a supportive role in many communities, something which can be very positive. It can be a force for maximising happiness without oppressing other groups.
For sure, although I think the main problem with faith schools is not only the values some teachers pass on to children, but the fact that it segregates them from other communities rather than forcing them to mix.
A Catholic B&B could not legally discriminate against anybody, especially now the Goods & Services Bill has been passed.
Nope, because both are based on something for which there is no scientific evidence. Although it's interesting you should mention that, because capitalism itself is set up on the basis that some individuals (not groups) are superior at certain things than others, and their value to society should be rewarded as such. That's the theory anyway. Now you can agree or disagree with this solution, but you can't argue that it's not a rational theory.
Yes, and one's a rational goal, and one isn't. Defending people is something which is possible, and cleansing sins is something that nobody has any evidence for in the first place, never mind any evidence that the proposed methods of cleansing would achieve that goal.
No I was just saying that there's never been any argument as to whether torture is moral or not. It's always been immoral, it's just a question as to whether the alternative would be more immoral (torture a man, or let a building full of innocent people blow up, for example).
I don't see any evidence that religion maximises happiness at all. I'm not saying it makes everyone miserable either, but I certainly can't see any proof that it does. Spirituality on the other hand, apparently does. Which incidentally is why the big religions have long since banned any other forms of spirituality as witchcraft, or whatever else they wanted to call it. Psychadelic drugs and other religious and spiritual practices were all banned by religion, and it was so effective that to this day, many people still think that spirituality = religion = spirituality. But it is quite a seperate entity from religion, it's just that religion has maintained a monopoly on it by banning anything else that might deliver a similar experience.
Absolutely. You can't stop kids from inheriting the religious values of their parents, but lets not do their job for them.
And a good thing too. But there are an awful lot of non-Catholics who believe they should be able to purely on the merit that "it's their religious beliefs" who would otherwise oppose any discrimination of customers. Of course "their B&B, their rules" is the rational, secular equivalent, and an acceptable view in my point, even if I don't agree with it.
When a thread ends up being a series of posts where each one is formed like QUOTE-REPLY-QUOTE-REPLY-and so on, I think it's time for everyone to just stop replying in it unless they want to say something irrelevant to the posts I just described. Especially (but not only) if these posts are just between two people.
Again, maybe for another thread... But I would say that feudalism is closer to this based upon divine right and that capitalism is entirely about means of production. It has also gone from organised to disorganised in industrialised societies... ect ect
There are lots of benefits to religious communities though, they can be very supportive. I grew up with the church and yes, whilst Christianity has some controversial views I have never known such a supportive community. Of course that is my experience. There are a lot of religious organisations and events where people fundraise too.
There are good ways and bad ways in which religion can be implemented, but if you believe that (for example) campaigning to end Africa's debt is a good thing because your God says all people are equal and you should love your neighbours, then that's better than nothing. If people are happy living this way and do not hurt others, whether or not we share the same values, so long as they are not hurting others I don't see a problem.
There are a few theories behind this actually, some to do with medicine, some feminist theories and others to do with what you've mentioned... But at the end of the day, it was society at the time that banned it. People's perceptions of religion change over time.
It is also not only big religions that have banned other religions. Secular states have done so too. Again (imo) it's about power and control.
Yes, but there are atheists who would not like LGBT people or other groups in their B&B too. My old boss used to say "I don't mind them, but it's not natural and I don't want to see them do it in public". I bet there are people of all walks in life who don't wanna see gay folk, Muslims or any other group on their turf.
Some people may say "because God told me", others might say it's perverse, some may make stereotypes and imply danger. At the end of the day, it's still discrimination.
Like spirituality, the argument for the benefits of the things that surround religion aren't an argument for the positive effects of religious beliefs themselves (not that positive effects are any measurement on their validity of course). My grandma used to go to church on Sunday, and a group that wasn't church-based on a Thursday to meet up with friends. They both essentially served the same function. Cup of tea and a chat with friends. I imagine the Ku Klux Clan or the Church of Scientology offer quite a nice support network too. But then so might your local community group or book discussion group.
But the point is that the good things tend to exist anyway. Who doesn't believe that you should treat other people as you would like to be treated? However, I believe there are a number of bad things that would never happen without religion. I believe that people are inherantly good. And as such, I also believe that the vast majority of people who give money to charity because their religion commands it, would probably do so anyway, because it feels good and they're good people. However, I doubt that the same people would support the discrimination of homosexuals, bombing of abortion clinics, banning of stem cell research, or lies about contraception in Africa, without having their morals "guided" by religion. They may do of course, but I think that religious beliefs can create moral "guides" that wouldn't necessarily be there without it (especially stem cell research - never heard a non-religious argument against this) and more often than not, these tend to be the negative ones. That's just my opinion though, I have no way of backing it up. But the other alternative is that whether or not religion exists, people will do good and bad things. So at worst, we're left with the question, what is the point of religion. At the very least, the upkeep of the organisations themselves are a waste of money that would be less likely to occur in a secular charity.
I dunno about that. There are plenty of things that people try to get banned because they're "blasphemous" or "promote sin." There are plenty of people who believe that certain things will lead people from the "righteous path" in the same way that witchcraft did.
It's about one irrational way of thinking not wanting to have any competition, yes. I think in terms of secular states, it's more about control, but in religion, it's usually more about what is instructed in the texts. Followers of some religions would never dream of banning other religions, because there is nothing that instructs such actions in their teachings. Others will, because there is. I think we have modern secular society and the advancement of science to thank for the acceptance that they're just personal beliefs, not truths. But there are still plenty of theocracies in the world where they are considered truths.
Yep, but only one group gets any sort of popular support, and that's the one who's "right to practice religion" is being infringed upon. Same with the adoption agencies.
ETA: I should just mention this, because it's a somewhat important point. It's all very well pointing to the vast majority of religious moderates who don't inflict their beliefs on the rest of us (well, kinda, unless faith schools and tax breaks for religions count). However, remember that every fundamentalist was at one point in their life, taught by a religious moderate that faith is a virtue, and that a particular book is holy. The moderates are the ones that lay the groundwork for someone who interprets it differently to them to genuinely believe that it's the exact word of god and act accordingly. [And if you have any doubts that these people genuinely believe what they say they believe, listen to this story: The man who drove the car into Glasgow airport and then lit himself on fire, was brought to hospital. He had severe burns on the whole of his body, every body part, with a one exception; his genitals. He had protected them by wrapping them in flame-retardant materials, ready for all the virgins he would get in heaven.] That's why my main issue is with the respect for faith-based thinking itself, rather than the specific beliefs, which can be good or bad (I could tell you another story of people bending over backward to accomodate religious beliefs, complete with death threats from just yesterday in Holland, but I sense everyone is getting bored of them now - and I'm also sensing you can guess the religion involved). I don't see an issue with encouraging people to think critically as often as possible. I think it improves everything tbh, including reducing susceptibility to secular propaganda and methods of control.
She actually apologised for causing offence in her statement. Absolutely unbelievable. I hope when she's back, and safe, that she says what she really thinks about the farce.
I do wonder what got her released, however. Did our spineless Foreign Office finally threaten to withdraw aid to Sudan? Regardless, that must now happen. If Sudan's people choose to thank Britain for £326million worth of aid in recent years by demanding the execution of one of our own citizens, I for one, would not wish to see them receive another penny in aid.