?

Log in

No account? Create an account
[links] Link salad Saturday serving - Lakeshore
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2008-04-19 09:57
Subject: [links] Link salad Saturday serving
Security: Public
Location:Nuevo Rancho Lake
Mood:busy
Music:the_child muttering as she makes up a board game
Tags:cars, cool, links, personal, photos, politics, religion
DC-3 conversion van — Ok, I want this. Real bad. Real, real bad.

The Kentucky Space Program

APOD with another lovely and thought-proving image

Texas polygamist sect is accused of indoctrinating girls — "Girls in the west Texas polygamous sect enter into underage marriages without resistance because they are ruthlessly indoctrinated from birth to believe disobedience will lead to their damnation" How is this different from any other religion? That's a serious question, not snark. The followers of virtually all religions raise their children within their religious framework, and impose the moral and behavioral rules of their faith on their children. Why is this different? If you're going to give social approval to religious upbringing, where does the line fall in picking-and-choosing? From my atheistic point of view, it's all indoctrination, after all.

Pentagon institute calls Iraq war 'a major debacle' with outcome 'in doubt' — Damned liberal traitors have infested the Pentagon now. Where's Joe McCarthy when we really need him?

John McCain's tax returns — Note his wife's were withheld. I wonder how Your Liberal Media and conservative America would feel about Hillary withholding Bill's tax info.




4/19/08
Time in saddle: 20 minutes
Last night's weigh-out: n/a
This morning's weigh-in: 271.8
Currently reading: The Cater Street Hangman by Anne Perry Powell's | Amazon ]


Post A Comment | 49 Comments | | Link






Twilight: Daria
User: twilight2000
Date: 2008-04-19 17:56 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Daria
ok -- first, fwiw, this new layout is REALLY hard to read (yea, that may just be me, but it's no less true because of that ;>).

Second, and more to the point, "yes" and "it doesn't matter," let me explain ;>.

Yes, that is to a greater or lesser extent, what most religions do. But it's also what most cultures do, again to a greater or lesser extent. Indoctrination isn't the most extreme label one can put on it, that'd be brainwashing.

It Doesn't Matter. That is, while all religions and cultures practice some level of indoctrination, for good or for ill, when a subset practices indoctrination that is sufficiently out of step with the encompassing culture in which it exists, the encompassing culture reacts.

Whether the reaction is "appropriate" or "within reasonable guidelines" or "fair" often depends on one's perspective.

However, when the subset practices (and indoctrinates said practices) that are illegal by the laws of the encompassing culture, the encompassing culture is all but required to respond by saying "that is illegal" or there's not much point in having the laws in the first place.

Now, in this culture, we can (still) argue whether a law is just or fair or should be, but until the law is changed, if one violates that law, one is liable for it's consequences, which may mean jail time or property seizure the dissolution of one's group.

Forcing (indoctrinating, brainwashing, pick your word as at this point semantics matters little) girls/women/females to marry under the legal marrying age of the State in question is illegal. Beating one's children, as defined by our laws, is illegal. Marrying multiple women is, in this country, is illegal.

There are penalties for all of these, regardless of one's religious dictates. If these things can be proven (and in this case, clearly my points 1 and 3 can be, the courts are currently trying to prove that #2 can be as well), then those who perpetrate this violations of law must be punished for the culture to be able to function by Rule of Law (which, historically, most cultures function under/within)*.

Whether religious exemptions to laws are a good thing is another argument and one I'm deeply conflicted over. But at the point where "harm to others" (as defined by the encompassing culture in which you choose to reside) is the result of your religious dictates, it becomes the concern of the encompassing culture.

So by the laws of the encompassing culture (as currently rendered), worshipping at midnight isn't illegal. Neither is wearing a turban, a lace mantilla or a head scarf. Neither is wearing a pentacle, a cross or a star of david. Forcing your underage children to be raped (as defined by the encompassing culture's laws) by their own fathers as a "teaching tool" and marry under the age the State dictates and beating your children are all illegal.

That the encompassing culture is also horrified by these choices makes it an easier story to sensationalize and is, in some part, what drives the laws in the first place. That doesn't (in an odd reverse from most arguments) make it immoral or wrong to stop the behaviour of the subset if it violates the laws of the encompassing culture. It may be distasteful to some -- but that, I suspect is an argument of a different sort.

------------------------
*Not incidentally, the State is also trying to prove, in this particular case, that this particular subset of culture creates a "pervasive environment" where this type of breaking of the encompassing culture's laws *must* be violated to continue as part of this cultural subset, thereby rendering this a "dangerous environment" for all the women and children in this subset.

Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances