Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Farseer]

Am I the only one that finds it both odd and scary that we will happily allow people to be slaves to a religion, doctrine or culture? If the people that were raised in these cultures were raised in chains, instead, then we'd be the first to get the hammer out and smash them off, but the fact the chains are invisible (and more unbreakable) seems to make it "fine" that people can be heavily mistreated (almost as non-people) by people within their own culture group simply due to who they are.

If a person is raised within a fundamentalist (of any religion) household and is raised to believe they should act subservient to another person, why is that less like slavery than just shoving chains on them? We defend it with "it's their religion" or "it's their culture", but blatantly it's not THEIR'S - it's the person in control of them.

The worst part is when they use the defence of "a person should be allowed to believe in whatever they like", and I'm not denying that. But these people are rarely allowed an educated decision or even allowed to try out other beliefs or religions. They're indoctrinated at an early age to believe these specific beliefs and usually that comes along with "all other beliefs are wrong".

It just really irritates me to see (as an example) Muslim women going around in heavy clothing (which is actually an Iranian custom, but eh) whilst being completely subservient to their husbands because "it's their religion" (again, wrong, but the various radicalist Imams have managed to weave the Iranian culture of burqas etc into the religion). It's completely ridiculous.

What does everyone else think about this? I was thinking about it yesterday and getting kinda annoyed.

Spoiler: Disclaimer on Religions (click to show/hide)

No, I'm not saying all religions are bad and don't go saying, "You hate teh Muslims." What I hate is the rapid growth of the militant version of Islam that's happened since Hassan al-Banna died as his follower's became more and more fanatical that seems to have corrupted almost all Sunni Muslims. It's just silly.

[Max White]

I think thunderf00t's channel has already gone over this in more depth then ever required, ever.


But I ask you, what if you were to find a man chained to a wall, so you take your trusty hammer, and shatter the restraints that hold him, so he may do as he pleases, and he's only action is to morn the death of he's beloved chains? You know that he's life would be better in the free open spaces of free thought, but he has gotten used to he's life in captivity, and he is sad that you must walk the world carrying such a heavy hammer as independent thought, when he has others to do that sort of work for him.

What do you do when all can justify this strange ethical code with easy but yourself? Any sceptic would look at this and point out the distinct possibility that somehow you have missed the point, not them. Of coarse that puts me in the same boat as yourself, wondering what the hell am I missing for people to take such abuse and not even notice it, even cherish it! The only real way to explain how one can be proud of their situation is in the simple fact that they are who they are, and although you drink from the cup of freedom, and enjoy the sweet nectar, to others it is just not palatable.

[fqllve]

We are indoctrinated into much more than just religion as children. Many more things than we realize and most of them would not be considered bad. We're indoctrinated into language. We get no choice in the matter of whether or not we want to chain our concepts to words so they can be communicated. We're indoctrinated into specific systems of thought such as diatonic harmony or the organization of a story around a climax. We're indoctrinated into unspoken metaphysical and epistemic assumptions. In fact, child rearing consists almost entirely of indoctrination. We just only use that term when it's something considered bad.

But there's a difference between children and adults, adults are capable of questioning these things. That's what makes the belief a choice. It isn't that they chose to believe it in the first place, people rarely "choose" what to believe like a diner at a buffet chooses what to eat, rather they choose not to question their beliefs. And if they don't, then apparently they are satisfied with their beliefs as is. Then who are we to tell them they're misguided, indoctrinated, blind? Even if those things are true if the person wanted to believe something else then they always have the option.

[Enzo]

So...people should only be raised in a cultural environment that is considered appropriate by your own adopted ideology?

-snip-

Aww, someone who understands sociology beat me to the punch. Fqllve's right on all counts. If you think religion is the only thing indoctrinating people, you are deeply mistaken. As you are if you believe you can develop in any modern environment without being shaped by culture. It's also pretty dangerous to think any ideology is objectively right.

[Shadowlord]

If the people that were raised in these cultures were raised in chains, instead, then we'd be the first to get the hammer out and smash them off

If by we you mean the government of your respective countries, you would be wrong. There are 12 million plus people enslaved right now, and I don't mean "a member of a religion which gives them little or no rights." I mean modern day slavery, which, according to wikipedia, tends to be debt bondage or debt slavery (Which is basically "You owe us tons of money, plus interest on it. Now you have to work for us. Forever. Because you won't ever earn enough to pay what you owe, and bankruptcy doesn't exist here.").

The fact is, the various governments of the various first-world nations are a bit too isolationist to go around busting up third-world countries (and China, and India, etc, although China has been policing itself in that regard) in an attempt to find and free everyone who is being held as slaves.

What I hate is the rapid growth of the militant version of Islam ... that seems to have corrupted almost all Sunni Muslims. It's just silly.

What. Are. You. Smoking. And how is that a disclaimer? That's more of an anti-disclaimer! You just insulted 80-90% of muslims (the proportion which, according to wikipedia, are sunni) by saying that they're almost all militants! My Gods! Are you TRYING to get banned?

[Farseer]

What. Are. You. Smoking. And how is that a disclaimer? That's more of an anti-disclaimer! You just insulted 80-90% of muslims (the proportion which, according to wikipedia, are sunni) by saying that they're almost all militants! My Gods! Are you TRYING to get banned?

Are you trying to stir up trouble? I said that it's corrupted Sunni Islam, not that all Sunni Muslims are militant.

Massive difference.

[Shades]

The fact is, the various governments of the various first-world nations are a bit too isolationist to go around busting up third-world countries (and China, and India, etc, although China has been policing itself in that regard) in an attempt to find and free everyone who is being held as slaves.

Not that the first-world nations do enough about the slavery happening in their own countries either.

[Il Palazzo]

So...people should only be raised in a cultural environment that is considered appropriate by your own adopted ideology?

-snip-

Aww, someone who understands sociology beat me to the punch. Fqllve's right on all counts. If you think religion is the only thing indoctrinating people, you are deeply mistaken. As you are if you believe you can develop in any modern environment without being shaped by culture. It's also pretty dangerous to think any ideology is objectively right.

I don't think it's as simple as equating all cultural values, just because they all have the word "cultural" in them. Can we really not apply the utilitarian concept of moral "good"(the most happiness for the largest number of people) to other people's behaviour, simply because they have been raised and indoctrinated in a culture unlike our own?
It's not about calling some values objectively right, rather it's about weighing those values against each other, and telling which one is hurting people less.

[RedKing]

What. Are. You. Smoking. And how is that a disclaimer? That's more of an anti-disclaimer! You just insulted 80-90% of muslims (the proportion which, according to wikipedia, are sunni) by saying that they're almost all militants! My Gods! Are you TRYING to get banned?

Are you trying to stir up trouble? I said that it's corrupted Sunni Islam, not that all Sunni Muslims are militant.

Massive difference.

You stated,

that seems to have corrupted almost all Sunni Muslims

That's a big difference from saying "corrupted Sunni Islam". And even then, that would be a pretty damn big blanket generalization. It's on par with the fringe Protestants who claim that the Pope is an agent of Satan and therefore Catholicism is corrupted, and by extension, all Catholics are non-Christians.

It also disregards the wide variety of schools and movements within Sunni Islam (just as, in the above example, Catholicism has subgroupings that range from left-wing Socialists to right-wing social conservatives).

[malimbar04]

The quick answer is that religion wasn't the origin of slavery. Religion just jumped on the bandwagon, as most cultures around the world used (or uses) slavery regardless of religion.

Since we're talking about the evils of religious people, I thought I'd share a relevant video. This mentality in my experience is related to the idea of religious extremism = terrorism, as supported by the news and the governments. This position is flat out wrong though:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5701806759199654816#

Scott Atran is an anthropologist working at the University of Michigan, and he says that Terrorism has basically no basis in religion - and he has data to prove it.

[RedKing]

In response to the OP's general question:

Let me offer a counter-example. I eat pork. A good amount of pork. This is, in large part, because it's a cultural thing. Bacon, ribs, barbecue, ham, fatback, they're all a ready part of the Southern US diet.

A militant vegan/vegetarian might argue that I don't actually "like" pork, that I'm just brainwashed because I was raised that way and stuffed with bacon and ham as a child. That I'm a slave to my cultural upbringing. And I'm sure that what I was fed as a child plays a big role in what I like to eat as an adult. However...am I secretly suffering in silence, as I crunch down another slice of crispy, delicious bacon? NO. I like bacon. I like barbecue. I like ham. It's a free will choice to eat pork, despite the fact that it is also a cultural influence that was foisted on me at an early age.


I have Muslim friends. I have known Nigerian women who wore the full abaya, even here in the United States, because they WANTED to. It's what they know, it's what they feel comfortable with. I wore Western clothes in China, rather than trying to fit myself into some kind of Mandarin jacket and togs (of course, the vast majority of urban Chinese wear Western clothes now, so that's kind of a wash as an example). Assuming that someone who follows a cultural practice that you see as self-limiting or unfair is "enslaved" is a bit arrogant.

[mainiac]

There is a validity in saying that some cultural practices are repressive.  However the overwhelming majority of historical experience points us to the conclusion that we must be incredibly careful before deciding that an aspect of other people's cultures is so repressive as to be intolerable.

[Il Palazzo]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5701806759199654816#

Scott Atran is an anthropologist working at the University of Michigan, and he says that Terrorism has basically no basis in religion - and he has data to prove it.

That was very enlightening, the subtitle is quite fitting. I really need to watch this second BB symposium one of these days. I very much want to know what Sam Harris had to say about that.
I must say that I was pretty much convinced by Harris' claims about the Islam, as being conductive to violence(as opposed to many other religions), as expressed e.g. in this talk:
http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values
, but Atran's study invalidates quite a substantial bit of his argumentation.

But that's only remotely relevant to the topic at hand. The OP was more concerned with religion-enforced mistreatment of people(women, mostly, I think).
Regarding this subject, I really feel that there are objectively better ways of, well, living one's life, than what the radical Muslims propose, and indeed, indoctrinate - more or less as it's expressed in the main topic of the video linked above(Harris', not Atran's).

Still, I do realize that it's a very difficult problem, and as mainiac said, the ground is extremally treacherous.
I don't know if any of you have ever had a chance to read Elizer Yudkovsky's(of the Less Wrong fame) short story The Babyeating Aliens. It illustrates some of the pitfalls of "our ways are better" thinking quite expressively.

[Duke 2.0]

So...people should only be raised in a cultural environment that is considered appropriate by your own adopted ideology?

To further this idea;

Am I the only one that finds it both odd and scary that we will happily allow people to be slaves to a lack of religion, doctrine or culture?

[fqllve]

Regarding this subject, I really feel that there are objectively better ways of, well, living one's life, than what the radical Muslims propose, and indeed, indoctrinate

I agree. But apparently they don't because otherwise they would be seeking out those ways. If we want to turn this into a debate about the value of the repressive* practices of modern Islam that's fine, but when we're calling people slaves because they have been raised with ideas we disagree with, then we're stealing agency from those people.


*For clarity, I'm using this as a limiting adjective. That is, not all practices of modern Islam are repressive.