Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by CelesJessa

How is western Europe/America any more safe, stable, prosperous than successful Asian countries? Japan is one of the most modern asian countries there is, yet there are so many things that they haven't changed from ancient times. Shinto is still their #1 religion, even though their "god" was debunked forever ago. They visit the shrines regularly and pray to their anscestors. Women are still the "baby raisers", even today, older Japanese women won't walk next to their husbands, but maybe a step behind. I don't see preservations from their past beliefs/ethics holding Japan back any. As a matter of fact, Japan is one of the safest countries in the world, with a .4-.6% murder rate, while the US has a 6%




They do realize that people come from other places (and other religions). I quote from my textbook about Indian and Hindu culture: "...religions which recognize the existence of multiple dieties have traditionally been among the world's most religiously tolerant. Hinduism remains arguable one of the more tolerant of such religions."

And you shouldn't be telling what India "needs" to do when some could tell you that you need to recognise that different countries base their laws, culture, and such on different things, such as religion, tradition, etc. "Modernizing" society may mean one thing to me, and a million different things to someone halfway across the world. Who's to say who's opinion of "modern" is correct? If I'm not correct, Japan's society is VERY modern, yet they still place a ton of emphasis on their ancestors, and ancient traditions from forever ago. They still have tea houses where Geisha host, and only people who were recommended to the Geisha houses can visit (meaning no out-of-country visitors, unless you made a big impression) It doesn't make their society any more or less modern from our society.

American laws are just as based on our ethics and beliefs as any other country. We may not be as religion-specific, but if our ethics didn't reflect our laws, we wouldn't have them. So if we expect foreigners to abide by our laws, we'd better damn well abide by their laws.



No, it would only be equivalent if we actually had working laws in place forbidding people from doing such things. It wasn't just culturally insensitive what they did, it was against the law.

It would be more like if someone from a culture where taking someone's stuff out of their house was okay came over to America and stole something. Hey, it's okay there, but it's not morally, ethically, or legally correct here. Are we going to cut them slack because they were ignorant?

I don't think they should get huge prison time, like 42Petunias said, but they shouldn't get off just because of "ignorance" or lack of caring about that nation's laws.

You don't know as much about Japanese culture and history as you think you do. The emperor is no longer a god, there is no samurai elite warrior class holding power over a vast opressed peasantry, women have total and equal rights to those of men, their government is totally accepting of foreign cultures and people, and the Japanese themselves can be whatever they desire without persecution. Go back to 1850 and none of these facts were the case. While Japan is still quite Japanese, it is also highly modern and tolerant - it's basically the perfect example of what I'm talking about. They didn't abandon Japanese-ness, but they did move forward.

Would you be singing the same song were we talking about human sacrifice in Mexico? You may think this is an extreme example, but it isn't; it's another country's traditional culture, but that doesn't mean it's something that should be held onto and maintained indefinitely.

Also, no, my example is much more accurate. Both activities are culturally insensitive, but it just so happens that being a jerk is a crime punishable by jail time in India. My point was that she could do something equivalent in the US or Western Europe without facing criminal charges. People might be pissed off and stop liking her, but so what.

The dude pushing the charges is being a whiney dick. He wasn't forced to participate or even look at the fucking pictures, get over it. I doubt he'd be screaming for Liz Hurley's husband to be punished or ostricized had he broken some British taboos.

[CelesJessa]

Originally Posted by Mannix

You don't know as much about Japanese culture and history as you think you do.

Being a Japanese major and one credit hour away from completing an Asian studies minor, While obviously I don't know everything, I would like to think that I at least know something about Japanese culture and history. But whatever you say.

The emperor is no longer a god,

Yes, I know, That's why I said that their religion was debunked, yet shintoism still the number 1 religion in Japan. If that's not a sign of non-changing, I'm not sure what is.

women have total and equal rights to those of men,

Legally, yes. Socially? Not as much as we would see in America. In a list of 22 different countries (both asian and western) Japan rates as the most masculine country, masculinity meaning social gender roles are clearly distinct, men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success and women to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality. If you added up the scores on the chart of Singapore, Indonesia, West Africa, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, South Korea, they don't even get HALF of the masculine score than Japan got.
"Masculinity in Japan is asserted against the opposite sex. In public, the husband initiates and the wife follows." -Asian culture and traditions- Asian 102 textbook.

Even when holding a job, Japanese women are expected to do the housework. Geisha is supposedly the only career where women are higher up than men. The rest of what I said as far as the women walking a step behind, I'm just going off of what my Japanese professor and my asian studies professor have said.

Go back to 1850 and none of these facts were the case. While Japan is still quite Japanese, it is also highly modern and tolerant - it's basically the perfect example of what I'm talking about. They didn't abandon Japanese-ness, but they did move forward.

Yes, they changed, but India, etc are not exactly the same either. No country has stayed completely stagnate from their ancient days. India has changed as lot as well. India went from a state of constant warfare, with invaders constantly sweeping over and killing, to gaining their own independence through a non-violent mass movement. I have to conceed and say that I probably worded that part in my prievious comment hastily, (not being able to say what's in my mind better.)

If you would like me to scan the pages about India's history, I'd be happy to do so.

Would you be singing the same song were we talking about human sacrifice in Mexico? You may think this is an extreme example, but it isn't; it's another country's traditional culture, but that doesn't mean it's something that should be held onto and maintained indefinitely.

I support change in a society, but my point is is that we can't have a clear cut definition of what change is "good" and what cultural aspects should stay the same. That is for the country alone to decide. We can't hold every single society, or even a group of similar societies by the exact same standards because each society has a different history, belief, culture.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by CelesJessa

Being a Japanese major and one credit hour away from completing an Asian studies minor, While obviously I don't know everything, I would like to think that I at least know something about Japanese culture and history. But whatever you say.


Yes, I know, That's why I said that their religion was debunked, yet shintoism still the number 1 religion in Japan. If that's not a sign of non-changing, I'm not sure what is.


Legally, yes. Socially? Not as much as we would see in America. In a list of 22 different countries (both asian and western) Japan rates as the most masculine country, masculinity meaning social gender roles are clearly distinct, men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success and women to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality. If you added up the scores on the chart of Singapore, Indonesia, West Africa, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, South Korea, they don't even get HALF of the masculine score than Japan got.
"Masculinity in Japan is asserted against the opposite sex. In public, the husband initiates and the wife follows." -Asian culture and traditions- Asian 102 textbook.

Even when holding a job, Japanese women are expected to do the housework. Geisha is supposedly the only career where women are higher up than men. The rest of what I said as far as the women walking a step behind, I'm just going off of what my Japanese professor and my asian studies professor have said.


Yes, they changed, but India, etc are not exactly the same either. No country has stayed completely stagnate from their ancient days. India has changed as lot as well. India went from a state of constant warfare, with invaders constantly sweeping over and killing, to gaining their own independence through a non-violent mass movement. I have to conceed and say that I probably worded that part in my prievious comment hastily, (not being able to say what's in my mind better.)

If you would like me to scan the pages about India's history, I'd be happy to do so.


I support change in a society, but my point is is that we can't have a clear cut definition of what change is "good" and what cultural aspects should stay the same. That is for the country alone to decide. We can't hold every single society, or even a group of similar societies by the exact same standards because each society has a different history, belief, culture.

actually, i believe we can hold different societies to similar standards. if a society is moving in a direction that limits choice or freedom, or increases barbarism (i recognize parts of our own culture are moving that way, so don't think i'm just picking on non-whites) or violence, or sexual objectification (think sexual slavery), we can almost universally say those are bad. when a society moves in the opposite direction - people being free to think as they like, and speak (and act) as they think, you'll find almost nobody outside of extremists that consider that a bad direction. Yes, every culture is different, but that doesn't provide an excuse for violation of human rights. This is why the UN charter is applicable globally. Cultural relativism is only appropriate to the point where inalienable rights are infringed.

on a side note i'd be interested in seing that masculinity report. i have a hard time believing japan is more macho that latin america, frankly speaking. especially since androgeny has always been so highly valued by the japanese.

just so you know i'm not just some random asshole, i was a pacific rim history major unofficially minoring in world religion and i've lived in south korea for 3 years.

edit: from what i remember of my study of japanese religiosity, most people don't subscribe to one particular religion. the average japanese person goes to shinto shrines for national holidays, buddhist temples for other occasions, and christian churches for weddings and the like. i forget the numbers, but some stupidly large majority of japanese identify themselves as a-religious.

edit 2: the indian independence movement wasn't entirely non-violent. ghandi, while highly respected, wasn't in charge of the majority of the independence minded indians, and there were several groups that used large amounts of violence to try to run the british out. ghandi died after a hunger strike trying to convince two groups in bombay(?) to stop fighting each other.

[CelesJessa]

Masculinity vs Femininity:

from what i remember of my study of japanese religiosity, most people don't subscribe to one particular religion. the average japanese person goes to shinto shrines for national holidays, buddhist temples for other occasions, and christian churches for weddings and the like. i forget the numbers, but some stupidly large majority of japanese identify themselves as a-religious.

That is true. Generally, nowadays, Shintoism is more of their code of ethic/way of life than an actual "religion" (since there is no "god") so a lot of them are both Shintoist and Buddist. (or some other mix)

edit 2: the indian independence movement wasn't entirely non-violent. ghandi, while highly respected, wasn't in charge of the majority of the independence minded indians, and there were several groups that used large amounts of violence to try to run the british out. ghandi died after a hunger strike trying to convince two groups in bombay(?) to stop fighting each other.

Oh, My source says that Ghandi was assinated by a Hindu fanatic.
(Top of the page, some of it got cut off the very top, sorry)
Or were you just meaning that he died after his hungerstrike, not he died because of it? (I may have been misinterpreting you)

But for the important part:

actually, i believe we can hold different societies to similar standards. if a society is moving in a direction that limits choice or freedom, or increases barbarism (i recognize parts of our own culture are moving that way, so don't think i'm just picking on non-whites) or violence, or sexual objectification (think sexual slavery), we can almost universally say those are bad. when a society moves in the opposite direction - people being free to think as they like, and speak (and act) as they think,

While I agree with that, where I have a problem with that is, with something like violence, it is it a lot easier to cut a line and say "This violence is wrong", but with "free speech" (included in this is ability to act as they like), it's a lot more hazy. Because even with the most free countries in the world, things are still barred. So it all depends on a matter of opinion what specifically counts as "god given freedoms" so to speak, or otherwise.

Also, just as a side note, I have to apologise if I sounded hostile earlier. After getting away from the discussion and sleeping for the night, I realize I might have sounded a bit know-it-all-ish or hostile, so apologies for that.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by CelesJessa

Masculinity vs Femininity:



That is true. Generally, nowadays, Shintoism is more of their code of ethic/way of life than an actual "religion" (since there is no "god") so a lot of them are both Shintoist and Buddist. (or some other mix)


Oh, My source says that Ghandi was assinated by a Hindu fanatic.
(Top of the page, some of it got cut off the very top, sorry)
Or were you just meaning that he died after his hungerstrike, not he died because of it? (I may have been misinterpreting you)

Frankly It's been a while since I read about Ghandi, but my recollection was that he had died of complications stemming from his old age and the hunger strike. The fanatic is ringing a bell though.

Originally Posted by CelesJessa

But for the important part:


While I agree with that, where I have a problem with that is, with something like violence, it is it a lot easier to cut a line and say "This violence is wrong", but with "free speech" (included in this is ability to act as they like), it's a lot more hazy. Because even with the most free countries in the world, things are still barred. So it all depends on a matter of opinion what specifically counts as "god given freedoms" so to speak, or otherwise.

free speach is relatively easy to define as well, though. basically if i recall it's anything short of yelling fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire. it's bed time where i am so i'm too sleepy to go dig up the UN definition (even though it would probably be easy). this has been the main stumbling block to turkey's enterence into the EU. They have laws, and people currently in prison for violation of said laws, that make it a criminal act to 'insult turkishness' which has been broadly interpreted by their judiciary. i think it was jefferson that said 'you can't limit free speech without losing it.' there's no such thing as 'free-ish' speech.

Originally Posted by CelesJessa

Also, just as a side note, I have to apologise if I sounded hostile earlier. After getting away from the discussion and sleeping for the night, I realize I might have sounded a bit know-it-all-ish or hostile, so apologies for that.

between the two of us you aren't the one that should be worrying about sounding hostile.

[Tommathy]

Sort of off the main thread of the conversation, but relevant to current events: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/19/18451/0971

[ZAKtheGeek]

So what this shrewd fellow's realized is that a highly logical view of the universe has no emotional appeal?

Damn. He's got us there. Really did hope no one would ever figure out that one...

[RaiRai]

News Story.

Okay, before we kick this off, let me just remind everyone that religious debates outside of the Big Big Thread of Religion is frowned upon. However, I realize that this topic may involve some religious theory compared to other theories. I'm going to allow it, but as soon as it gets out of hand, this thread gets canned and people, depending on input, may get banned. (*Insert more rhyming*)

Basically, the link is to a news article about the 'creationism museum' in Kentucky. This museum refutes the theory of 'evolution'. It's hi-tech and rather fancy-schmancy, with the animated dinosaur models and huge cinema screens with seats that move and shake.

Now, I don't believe that theories such as this one should be disbelieved even if you're not a firm religious believer, but some teachers are worried that children will go to this museum, see the fancy flashy gizmos and accept the theory as fact without giving the evolution theory a chance. I'd like to believe that all theories can be taught and kids can make up their own minds, but hell, I'm living in a fantasy world.

I'm curious to know peoples views on this, perhaps which theories sound more believable. Again, I'd urge people to be careful with the religious discussion.

[Seil]

I don't believe that it matters so much why we're here, but that we're here. Too much time is donated to the eternal questions such as

"Why are we here?"
"Who am I?"

While both of those can be answered in the lick that your pet dog gives your face after you feed him, or the smile a child gives you when you act as Santa for the local mall.

[Nikose Tyris]

Comparatively, Creationism is still banned from being taught in some schools. I like the idea a lot. The arguements that I read are very similar to the arguements creationists made against evolution being taught in schools with no creationism allowed- it being presented as fact rather than a theory itself being the major one I'm seeing.

Also, the petition they mentioned seems like malarky. Yes, I don't see how the theory of evolution may be the deciding factor on which someone couldn't pass science into the college level. :/ I'm going to go read this again a few times and see if I can't find the old stuff on banning creationism from schools or teaching evolution in schools, just to see exactly how similar the arguements are.