h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Otto again: >...they're starting to remind me of theists...<

Yes, they hold their virulent convictions with a fervour that can only be described as religious

"I say religion gives believers the reassurance that life has a meaning beyond their exsistence"

I think it's possible to believe that life has a meaning beyond one's own existence without believing in religion. As a character in one of Camu's novels asked, "Is it possible to be a saint without god?" I'd say yes.

What religion provides is a convenient, easy, comfortable, socially popular vehicle for self-delusion, imho.

(vaguely steering the thread back)

How can a woman voluntarily ascribe to a religion that says she is a lesser person?

It seems atheism is beyond all reason

"(vaguely steering the thread back )"

Herewith, the Christian Science Monitor's take on our topic: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1020/p01s03-woeu.html

Interesting piece, but all it demonstrates is failures in dealing with Muslims.

Whether you aim for integration, multiculturalism or indifference, every approach fails. I'm sure we would agree that the cultures of France, Germany and the UK (not forgetting Sweden which has a problem also) are all very different. All have tried to deal with Muslims in different ways and all are failing to a greater or lesser degree. In fact, is there a single European culture that hasn't got a problem specifically with Muslims?

Working on the proviso that the answer is no, (correct me if I'm wrong), why is this? Why are the disparate cultural identities of Europe looking at themselves and saying "What are we doing wrong?". Are 460 million Europeans wrong?

Might it be that, although the majority of Muslims are peaceful, every influx brings the baggage of those with a different agenda?

Moving on from that point, are we in fact seeing the break-up of national identities? When we have people who identify themselves by their religion first, ethnic origin second and country of residence third, are they in fact the forerunners of a new cosmopolitan identity?

Much has been made of the question what does being British mean, with some very confused answers. Should we be looking at this in the past tense? Are we now all European Liberals?

SWL: "How can a woman voluntarily ascribe to a religion that says she is a lesser person?"

She might. I'll come back to that.

First, does Islam (for that is what you're talking about, I'm sure) actually say that women are lesser people? Some strands of it might, perhaps. But only very few. Other, far more, strands may imply it to a greater or lessar extent. A common interpretation of Islam (and Christianity, it must be said) is that women are lessar people than men. But that's only an impression. Other people may look at the same facts, the same teachings, and garner a different impression.






And now, to answer the question you actually asked. Let us postulate a religion which teaches many things: It teaches how the world was created; it teaches the existence of gods/a God; it teaches that there are standards set down by the Creator(s) for humans to live by; and it teaches what those standards are. And those standards, those rules, give women fewer rights than men. (Or vice versa: that would work equally well for our hypothesis.)

So, a rational, intelligent adult examines this religion. Are its teachings internally consistent? Does what it says about the existence of God/the gods chime with reality? Are its arguments for the validity of its moral teachings sound? (Is there evidence that the prophet speaks from divine inspiration? If the prophet is no longer with us, and his words are recorded in a book, is there evidence that the text of the book has not been tampered with? If the prophet's words are vague, is your teacher's interpretation of them the only reasonable one? Et cetera.)

And, on examination, you come to the conclusion that this religion teaches the truth. Now, having reached that conclusion, you have, as Otto Fisch and Bouncy pointed out, *no choice* but to believe in that religion. Your belief is assured.

You do still, though, have a choice. You can choose whether or not to allow your life to be guided by that religion. It is perfectly possible to believe in the existance of someone with both the power (because he's God) and the authority (because he's our Creator) to impose standards, and to believe that you know what those standards are, but still to ignore them.

This can be for several reasons. Maybe you have the sort of brain which cannot "reason from B to C" in Josephine Tey's phrase*, which cannot see the consequences of your actions, or which cannot look beyond the here and now. Maybe you really don't like the creator's standards, and make a principled stand to resist them, though you are convinced that you will be punished for that stand later. Maybe all sorts of things.

But, if you are a person of integrity, and accept that the creator knows better than you and has your best interests at heart (these last two are elements of the teachings of most religions), you will follow the standards of the belief system (religion) which you have come to see as true.

"I trust I make myself obscure."

TRiG.

*The Daughter of Time, a fascinating novel by J. Tey.

The crucial part of that is "accept that the creator knows better than you and has your best interests at heart ".

Once you have people truly believing that, you have carte blanche.

You can set up a boss figure who can set up further rules,(the Pope)
You can tell people that dying brings rewards.
You can tell people that curable diseases are best left untreated.
You can treat 50% of the population as second class.

Basically, a benign totalitarian dictatorship where personal choice is barred.

SWL: >Basically, a benign totalitarian dictatorship where personal choice is barred.<

Exactly the same as Mao's Atheist China - with no trace of the benign.

"Exactly the same as Mao's Atheist China - with no trace of the benign."

Not much trace of the benign in powerful religions either, as you could learn from talking with anyone who was burned at the stake or stoned to death for heresy.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. whether it's government or religion. The only reason many religions today are relatively benign is because they're also relatively powerless.

"many religions today are relatively benign is because they're also relatively powerless."

Golly! S'pose this could be seen as proof that there really is a god after all and that he/she is relatively benign?

But we're getting off track here. It's too easy to get wrapped around the axle of why religion. Let's just get back to discussing all the problems religion is causing for British society today, or something of the sort.

In the interest of getting back on track, this is from the front page of today's Washington Post (if anyone has trouble with the link, please let me know. I don't think you need to log in to view it.) 'Veil Debate in Britain Is Also Divisive for Muslims.' http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001569.html

Well, if they EVER try to make Connie Huck, the Blue Peter presenter, wear a veil there will be riots on the streets! No one that pretty should ever have their face hidden!
....oops, slap my wrist for an un PC remark, so sue me, lol.

I think most religions have a life span.

Inception - growth - consolidation - decline

Inception needs a charismatic leader
Growth can involve violence and absorbing ideas/cultures
Consolidation can mean formalising power structures

It can be argued that in order to grow, societies need an idea or identity to bind people together and work towards a common cause. Religion is a very powerful idea and has been used as a binding agent in most civilisations. The exceptions are China and the US, which used similarly strong ideas.

However, once a society has grown to its maximum sustainable size, religion becomes less relevant. With the struggle for growth past, people have time & resources to spend on education, which is anathema to religion. It is no coincidence that a rise in literacy rates leads to a corresponding fall in religious membership.

The only major religion in a growth period at the moment is Islam. In fact, it has never really had a consolidation period. Rigid adherance to the original spark that fired it, without any reformation to take in the reality of a changing world means the Islam of today is identical to the Islam of the 7th Century.

The brutality of a medieval mindset lurks just below the surface. Remember, this is the religion that slaughtered around 3,000,000 people in Bangladesh in 1971. It's laughable to expect Muslim community leaders to show outrage at a few placards when they can quite easily live with genocide carried out in their name.

From a Middle-Eastern viewpoint, the reaction to provocation in the UK is baffling and indicative of moral weakness. Extremists have agitated, plotted, outraged and murdered British people without any measurable reaction. And a reaction is precisely what the extremists want. We talk of Muslims being disparate and individuals in cases like the veil & clothing, but they are quick to unite and speak with one voice at a perceived insult.

I don't know what the answer is, other than to cut out the cancer of extremists in our midst*. As I've argued earlier, Sufis represent no threat to the UK and have shown a desire to integrate in the past, so a wholesale clearout of Muslims would be misguided.

*Many people here will regard me as an extremist I am sure, but my extremism is limited to MB debates and a personal boycott of Muslim businesses.

SWL

>>First up, I'm not the yikeser. Much better to point out foolishness than to run around with your hand up.

Didn't think it was you. Apologies if you took that implication.

>>Secondly, can you point out where I said "'All those people I see with brown skins in Dewsbury."

You didn't. Clarification deserved. I was cutting through the crap to suggest the true origins of your racism.

>>Muslims are not a race, so how can anyone make racist comments about them?

Scots case law suggests different. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2357681.stm Note that it wasn't appealed. It is a known tactic of the BNP and other racists to try and duck the law by saying 'Muslim' when they are clearly refering to ethnic groups identifiable by their traditional dress and skin colour. While making no assumptions about your political affiliations, It is clear to me that this is where you're coming from.

In the remainder of your post 241, you pretty much make my point for me. There is a problem with a dangerous but *small* subset of muslims. That problem is terrorism, not veil wearing. If you were to restrict your ire to where it's due, we could get behind you. But you don't. As a racist, your tactic is to imply 'They're all like that.'

No, you're off & running again. When I say "Muslim", believe it or not I mean "Muslim". If you choose to mentally translate that into "all brown people" it suggests that either my communication skills are poor, which I accept, or that the racism actually exists in your mind.

"I don't know what the answer is, other than to cut out the cancer of extremists in our midst"

Even assuming this was a universally accepted goal, how would you you set out to identify the extremists? Once word got out that you were looking for them they'd don their cloaks of invisibility, henceforth blending in nicely with their surroundings, right up until the moment the bomb went off, that is. A nasty problem of guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

I read the excellent link from the Washington Post, posted by JCNsmith. I was interested to read the following quote by someone called Razia, on the second page of the article

""The face is the main thing about a person," she said. "If you expose it, others will judge whether you are pretty or not....."

I was thinking that for many women today in the UK how much pressure this is to look attractive. There are many 'makeover' programmes on TV about face lifts, teeth veneers, etc. A whole industry is now flourishing paid for by womens' desperation to roll back the years. I recently talked to my dentist about it, and he said yes, it's unbelievable how many women are now asking him about where they can get their teeth veneered, and it costs £1000s to have it done, It suddenly occured to me that all that pressure about resisting the effects of aging is gone when you wear a veil. Not that I'm thinking of wearing one, but I do find the juxtapositon of different cultural forces on women to look a certain way quite interesting.

An interesting point! I can't argue with anyone claiming western societies tend to place too much emphasis on superficialities, which the veil would tend to counteract. Where can I sign up? This could be the answer to my social problems! And exactly why shouldn't men wear veils? Sex discrimination again?

Hey let's all wear veils!

No I jest, but in a funny way all that make-up, face lift stuff, teeth veneer whatsit is a kind of 'veil' in itself. Actually I very rarely wear make-up but I must admit I'm hankering after a face-lift. And I never thought I'd feel like that.