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

Thanks for the advice, what I do is try to see who is coming to the door through the peephole.We all human (Terran) and we all have our shortcomings and there is no better than one else. I had a so called family friend who perscuted me and my family for 5 years when we are living in Ashington. She would force down beliefs and say if we did not what she said bad things would happen to us. She made me and my families life a misery, she practicaly came in everyday unannounced (just open the door and comme in). Once she told us to switch off the tv because she did not approve what we were watching on the television. It really made me ill and even now I still have the scars of her rantings. Both my parents have suffered for her obession with religion as she kept on telling us it was a great privilege for her to come to us and talk to us. She was always attacking everything we did. One thing that do not like is anti-homosexual remarks. I am not ashamed of the life style I have chosen and do not want to be told by anyone that being a lesbian is morally wrong ie Mormans, etc.

"I am not ashamed of the life style I have chosen" - good No-one should be ashamed of themselves. Some friend, she sounds like an awful person. If there were a hell it would be inhabited by people like her. You're right, everyone has worth and no-one is any better than anyone else. I don't think anyone should make someone else feel worthless, it's the sort of behaviour I find hypocritical, to condemn someone as a sinner for their lifestyle choice that effects no-one else, but to make people miserable by your attitude and what you say. Makes me really angry.

The problem with that - and I do *not* condone what our new friend has been subjected to! - is that there are some things which one *must* do something about.

For example, if you all knew that I had seriously assaulted a child, could you dismiss my paedophile leanings as a lifestyle choice of mine? In this day and age, I don't think you could. [And my personal view is that you would be quite right not to ignore it.]

Consider now someone who considers homosexual behaviour to be such a serious infraction that it - as above - could not be dismissed as a lifestyle choice. I am not such a person , but there are such people, as we've heard from JFA.

Although I believe such people to be quite wrong, I find it difficult to tell anyone that they should ignore something they genuinely consider to be a serious wrong. I wouldn't do it. Can I ask them to?

This is a nasty one.... Can anyone see a morally acceptable route out of this impasse?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think this is about the difference between harming other people by your lifestyle choice and simply annoying them because they disagree with you. Assaulting a child is not just considered immoral by most people but is also illegal and damaging to another, therefore there is a duty to report it. Other behaviours aren't harming anyone and people should keep their views to themselves. In defence of Christians, just to prove I'm not always having a dig at them, very few would persecute someone because of their sexuality, I believe the saying they use is, 'hate the sin love the sinner'.

"Although I believe such people to be quite wrong, I find it difficult to tell anyone that they should ignore something they genuinely consider to be a serious wrong" - so why aren't these people complaining vociferously about people that don't honour their father and their mother then? This is one of the Ten Commandments, the most important set of laws set out in the Jewish, Christian, JW, Mormon, etc. religions. The mention of homosexuality in the Bible is rather difficult to find and not mentioned obviously, yet people focus more on it than on the commandments 'God' considered most important. If these people feel a little jealous when their neighbour gets a new car or a colleague is promoted over them, do they realise they've committed a terrible sin? I don't think it's always about following their religion, it's quite often more about finding excuses for their bigotry.

<>

I'm trying to think of an alternative example to paedophilia - one which would probably offend a typical person, but which harms no-one else. I'm sure there is one, but I can't think of it just now. What if myself and a consenting friend indulged in *really* exotic sexual practices in our local supermarket? Just a thought.

<<"Although I believe such people to be quite wrong, I find it difficult to tell anyone that they should ignore something they genuinely consider to be a serious wrong" - so why aren't these people complaining vociferously about people that don't honour their father and their mother then?>>

I don't know, but I agree with you that they should - from *their* perspective, that is.

<>

Got your perceptive head on, eh deackie?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I's got my dancing head on actually, that would probably explain some of my postings

"What if myself and a consenting friend indulged in *really* exotic sexual practices in our local supermarket?" - now we're just being exposed to the realms of your personal fantasies :-p I think there would be grounds for complaint using our harming others argument. It doesn't sound very hygienic around all that food.

Which supermarket do you usually shop in? I might try and avoid that one

And what do you do when all the five-year-old kids in the supermarket start watching?

I guess a lot of people would be surprised what five year olds get to see anyway...

I mean... I cannot stand a lot of the stuff I could get to see on TV... that´s why I haven´t got one...

I think pattern chaser's point is significant. On the face of it we can distinguish between paedophilia and homosexuality on the grounds that one does harm to someone and one does not. But there are subjective factors at work here. To make that judgement we're assuming (a) a definition of the word child (this is not a trivial point), (b) that children as defined cannot give any sort of sexual consent (and the morality of this statement entirely depends on the previous definition), (c) that adults can give such consent. This is the situation as it exists in UK law (I think). However, a religious person might say that adults cannot give consent to homosexual sex. Legally, this would be a tenable position. I think that in UK law you are not allowed to give consent to a sexual act that involves mutilation. If memory serves correctly, there's a famous case about this. (I think it involved a group of men hammering nails through each others' penises, and I think it was decided that it was illegal.)

I don't think there is a universal, morally acceptable route out of this impasse, and actually, like many issues, it goes to the root of what liberal democratic societies should be about. The general question, which is pretty much the same as any specific example like this one, is an exceptionally hard one (probably the hardest problem in political theory, and one that nobody has the answer to). I don't know the answer either (I suspect it comes down to something to do with overlapping consensus but I haven't read Rawls' book on that subject so I don't know if I agree with it or not.)

Things like this reinforce my opinion that everything should be handled on a case-by-case basis. No two cases are exactly alike; why make a blanket ruling that tries to cover every single one? Well, probably it's just not practical (or even possible?) to handle each situation case-by-case. But that doesn't stop me from possessing my opinion!

s and s,
~Wes

ELD: <>

I think it can be useful to go over a general case, to establish and explore the issues involved. But I agree that to go further, and establish blanket rulings, is inadvisable. When we get down to individual cases, each *should* be (and usually is?) treated on its merits. (How else could an individual case be treated?)

Leaping back a few notes, deackie responded to my provocation: <<"What if myself and a consenting friend indulged in *really* exotic sexual practices in our local supermarket?" ... I think there would be grounds for complaint...>>

So there might be circumstances where you would try to prevent actions you felt were morally unacceptable, even though there was no obvious victim? This was my point.

<< Which supermarket do you usually shop in?>>

Whichever one has the biggest marrows.... What a shame you won't be joining us!

And MaW wondered <>

Carry on selling tickets? Seriously, that was what I was trying to construct. Some would say that exposing children to certain situations is immoral, even if they are not directly involved.

Well said, ster! Those were the points I was struggling to make.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P-C: "So there might be circumstances where you would try to prevent actions you felt were morally unacceptable, even though there was no obvious victim? "

As I pointed out, it sounds rather unhygienic around all that food Have you considered hardware stores?

"What a shame you won't be joining us! " - I don't like it when other people have been handling the fresh produce, it makes it all bruised and mushy!

As far as religious justification for homophobia goes, I think the critical issue is that if it was such an 'abomination' why isn't it listed under the Commandments? If we are to take the bible seriously, not honouring your parents is a far greater sin than b*****y.

It's that whole recursive logic thing, that I've tried to explain to several rather severe Christians without success: When you interpret the Bible you have to make objective decisions as to which parts are valid and which should be discarded due to changes in society. However, most people make subjective decisions:

1) I believe homosexuality is wrong because the Bible tells me so.
2) The passages in the Bible that refer to homosexuality are still valid because I believe homosexuality is wrong.

Madness.

And if anyone tries to tell you it's 'unnatural', that's you clue to lauch uproariously and start listing all the animal species that exhibit homosexuality (It might be handy to keep a list in your wallet, although the writing would have to be very small).

I heard the word cult bandied about earlier, and there was some discussion as to how it should be defined.

For me, there are several key things that would mark a religion out as a cult:

* Small membership
* Indoctrination that includes techniques from brainwashing, abandonment of property, abandonment of personal determination or targetting of the young or vulnerable
* Barriers to leaving the organisation (spiritual or physical)
* Secrecy of membership and rituals
* Physical or emotional isolation of members
* Charismatic leadership of reduced numbers
* Submission of the individual to the whole taken to extreme levels

Obviously, there's no hard and fast rule, but the more of the above the organsition displays, the more cultish it is. I don't know enough about the JW to classify them in this way, but (for example) the Church of Scientology is a cult.

Incidentally, there was also discussion of bringing up children into a religion. It's true that the parents would wish to bring up children in their religion, but I think there should be very keen limits on how far to go. The Bar Mitzvah happens at an early age (earlier than I would consider appropriate for a religious decision) but it is a coming of age ceremony, when the boy formally joins the Tribe. Infant Baptism, however, I have real problems with.

I don't agree it is the responsibility of the parents to bring up their children in their religion. It's their responsibility to equip their children to make the decision themselves when they are ready. Any upbringing that promotes one religion to the exclusion of others is a betrayal of that trust, IMO. Moderate religious upbringings are sufficiently liberal to enable the child to make that decision. Of course, it's not the place of any government agency to try and enforce this (other than compulsory comparative religion classes in school) as it is so loosely defined.

I don't intend to bring up any of my children in a particular religion, faith, or atheistic standpoint. Instead, I will tell them about them when they ask, and let them make their own decision. Then, I will know that whatever path they choose it is their path, not one I forced them on or one they chose as a backlash against mine.

<>

No. What with all that steel and nylon webbing... Hmmm.

<>

Then what, pray tell, is a cucumber for?

Enough of this silliness! The point is that whether or not something is sufficiently unacceptable that one must do something about it depends on the observer, and their personal morality. Thus it may be that certain people might feel obliged to act against (for example) homosexual behaviour. And they would be right to do so, although *I* would feel they were over-stepping the mark.

Like I said, this isn't a clear-cut issue, by any means.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hi.

I've been off flying around for a couple of weeks, and the backlog here is now... sizeable. I'll skim through it and all, but if there's any page business to take care of (new members, additions to library), could someone please let me know?

Now I suppose is as good a time as any to do my semi-annual reminder about the FFFF Library, a collection of links to entries by you, the FFFFers, about topics such as those we discuss here. Your entry can be Edited or Unedited, Fact or Opinion, Objectively Subjective or Subjectively Objective, Totally Heretical or Only Slightly Heretical. Just let me know that it exists, and I'll add it to our homepage.

I think I might put a couple of my recent ones up there, while I'm thinking about it...


GTB

PC: "Then what, pray tell, is a cucumber for? " - what you do with it once you've paid for is up to you

Did you really have to mention cucumbers like that?

Hi GTB,

Welcome back! Never mind the story - tell us all about your cold.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

If it's the one I had, it was trouble.