Prev: Hi and welcome to my new site
Next: Yet even more...
From: Evil_Nigel on 31 Jul 2008 07:25
x-no-archive: yes

On Jul 30, 10:12 pm, fergus <ferguscapewr...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Evil_Ni...(a)hotmail.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> >I disagree with parents irrepairably mutilating their children's
> >bodies in the name of religion, or teaching them that they are less of
> >a person if they don't wear a certain item of clothing or jewellery.
>
> I hardly think a bangle or a kippa or a turban  irrepairably mutilates
> children's bodies. That's just a red herring.
>

I was extending to encompass my hatred of people who inflict genital
mutilation on children in the name of religion (or custom).

In this particular case, the girl had difficulty reading the prepared
statement even though it didn't have any long or unusual words so she
doesn't come across as an intellectual, she's overweight and not
attractive by English standards. I can understand where she's coming
from, seeming to have no personal attributes to make her stand out. So
how can she make herself seem special and different? Religion, since
she's the only Sikh at the school. Unfortunately her childish
insecurity got hijacked by Sikhonazis and the rest is history. I
imagine it would have been different if there had been, say, ten other
Sikh girls denied the right to wear jewellery because then she
wouldn't have been so special.

Evil Nigel
From: Whiskers on 1 Aug 2008 07:36
On 2008-07-31, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> Tim <timjim(a)letterboxes.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Not sure about child abuse but certainly agree children should not be
>> indoctrinated with such stuff till ,as you say,they are old enough to
>> decide for themselves.
>
> I am sure it's child abuse to bring up a child to accept lunacy (aka
> `religious teachings') as `higher truth'.
>
>> I think some would be capable of doing that several years before 18 then
>> again quite a few wouldn't.
>
> I think it should be a criminal offence to indoctrinate anyone with
> religion until they've reached 18, or maybe 21. One should be given the
> opportunity to choose as an adult, rather than having brainwashing
> forced on you.

Tricky to achieve in practice, though, as whoever gets the job of 'caring'
for the kids will have some sort of belief system and moral code which
will rub off on the kids. No-one lives in a vacuum.

In practice, the best you can do is to introduce the concept that more
than one belief system and moral code can be conceived and that there are
many already in existence, and offering some information and examples
about some of them. Having kids going to the same school from a variety
of religious and cultural backgrounds makes that a lot easier to achieve -
and also means that the different 'systems' will sometimes clash. How
those clashes are resolved is a learning process in itself. Ultimately we
can hope that a mutually tolerated 'modus vivendi' will be arrived at.


> Thing is, all social conditioning is brainwashing, and we want some
> social conditioning to teach kids that murder is wrong (etc). Religions
> often do a useful job in that line.
>
> We've all been brainwashed one way or another - what brainwashing do you
> want your kids to have?

That indeed is the question.

> It's just that too many religions end up
> teaching hatred and exclusion and lunacy. Just look at Northern
> Ireland. It's been getting worse since the nominal start to the end of
> The Troubles.
>
> Rowland.

It isn't "religions" that are doing that - it's people. As far as
Northern Ireland is concerned, the damage is being done by criminals, and
they are doing a lot less damage now than they were when they were having
a war so that's an improvement, surely?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
From: Whiskers on 1 Aug 2008 08:00
On 2008-07-30, Ariel <esprite(a)mailhaven.com> wrote:
> Rosemary wrote:

[...]

> Every now and again I read something special in these groups which
> makes it all worthwhile, that, imho, is a brilliant post.


Seconded :))

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
From: Whiskers on 1 Aug 2008 08:11
On 2008-07-30, fergus <ferguscapewrath(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Evil_Nigel(a)hotmail.co.uk
> wrote:

[...]

>>I disagree with parents irrepairably mutilating their children's
>>bodies in the name of religion, or teaching them that they are less of
>>a person if they don't wear a certain item of clothing or jewellery.
>
> I hardly think a bangle or a kippa or a turban irrepairably mutilates
> children's bodies. That's just a red herring.

Genital mutilation isn't a red herring. Neither are the various tattoos
scarifications and other body modifications practised in some cultures.
How would a plate-lipped or giraffe-necked girl fare in a state school in
the UK? Or a Maori boy with a tattood face or a Brazilian with a bone
through his nose? (Perhaps it's significant that only the genital
mutilations seem to be done to kids living in the UK ...).

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
From: Whiskers on 1 Aug 2008 09:11
On 2008-07-31, fergus <ferguscapewrath(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:31:54 GMT, Rosemary
> <mentally_subnormal(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>Clothes? Sure, people can wear what they like IMO, with a couple of
>>exceptions. If you are part of an institution which requires a uniform
>>(such as British Airways), you adhere to the uniform. And you should
>>conform to the social requirements of the country. I would respect the
>>opinions of Saudis if I went to their country, and not walk around in a
>>mini-skirt and a boob-tube. But In return I expect that people who live
>>in the UK show their faces.
>
> I basically agree with you but there can be some give and take.
> Wearing a bangle seems inncouous enough. If it was a ceremonial dagger
> than that might be different.

There is provision in the (English) Criminal Justice Act for the carrying
of a knife for cultural (eg the Scottish skean dhu) or religious (eg the
Sikh Kirpan) reasons. I haven't heard of anyone trying to get away with
that in a school, though - which is interesting in the context of this
thread, and a Sikh who wanted to insist on wearing one of the obligatory
five Kakars (the bracelet) but makes no mention of another (the sheathed
blade).

> I find the increasing wearing of Islamic
> style clothing disturbing mainly because it feels like a take over by
> a foreign culture to the extent that I feel like an alien in the land
> that I, and my ancestors, were born in. Even more disturbing to me is
> that if I walk through the main street of the city and hear people
> talking ( or bellowing down a mobile phone ) then there is a high
> probability that it will be in a foreign language. We are being
> conquered. The issue for me in this case is identity and belonging,
> not belief.

I don't mind people using whatever languages they like for their personal
and private conversations, but I do think everyone living in the UK should
at least try to become fluent in at least one of the British languages.
But the British weren't very good at that when we were colonising the
planet, so we're on shaky ground if we try to be too insistent about that
point. However, it could be argued that if someone doesn't speak the
local language then it's up to them to provide their own interpreter.

As for clothes, I enjoy the variety of all the different styles I see
around me. I don't approve of covered faces, but if someone wants to be
seen as withdrawn from public life and seperated from society at large
then that's their choice - as is being treated as a security hazard. I've
heard veiled women claim that they feel more confident and secure with
their faces hidden; I think I can more or less understand that, to some
extent. Perhaps my full beard serves a similar purpose.

Certainly, putting on a burkha and nikhab is probably a lot less bother
than trying to decide what to wear today and then fussing around with
make-up for ages. Although I suspect just as much effort is put into what
the wearer looks like under the covering as if the covering were not to be
worn. It can also be intended as a political act, although how other
people are supposed to know why someone chose to hide behind a veil, I
don't know.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Hi and welcome to my new site
Next: Yet even more...