Saturday, May 5, 2012
Recurrent Features
In Thursday's class, we discussed the objection that some traditionalist Muslim families make to their daughters' ideas of going off to college or coed workplaces - namely, that they do not want their daughters to spend time around men. One possible (and likely, I think) reason for this might be that they believe men are simply primitive, uncontrollable type creatures when in the presence of women. This is essentially the same as one of the many justifications for mandatory veil-wearing. I wonder if there was any particular event or societal tendency in ancient Middle Eastern (perhaps Bedouin) history to prompt such a view. Does anyone have any ideas?
One Potential Upside
The perception of veil-wearing women by Americans seems to be primarily negative, but with a significant minority opinion which is neutral. It does not, however, appear that many (if any) people think that anything about veil-wearing could be positive. In spite of this, and in spite of the many possible negative causes or effects of veil-wearing, I can think of at least one effect which is (in my opinion) positive. This is the idea that veil-wearing, due to the fact that it often conceals much of women's bodies, may encourage potential romantic partners to focus on the women's personalities rather than their looks. In modern American culture, and in many modern first-world cultures, the media and society place an inordinate amount of emphasis on the importance of body image. This is particularly true in regards to women, although it does affect men as well, and is doing so with increasing frequency and severity. The idea of women wearing veils (and men wearing similarly modest and concealing garb) might help offset this probably unwise focus. Obviously, it does not always do so, and may not do it terribly often, but it could be one out of numerous positive results of veil-wearing.
Response: Human Variation
In response to Martha Bruso's post on May 5, 2012:
It depends on what you mean by misconceptions. Certainly, many Middle Eastern nations are quite sexist, and much of the discrimination that the American media loves to portray does occur. However, I do not think it is nearly as widespread, or in many cases as severe, as the media implies. This is largely because the media implies universality, a concept which rarely exists in regards to humans. Humans are quite variable; even within one nation, or one state, or even one county or town people's outlooks on life and various social, religious, and ethical views vary. In one single, Massachusetts town you might find people who are radical, vegan, LGBT-friendly, atheistic liberals, and other people who are strict, patriarchal, homo-and-trans-phobic, highly religious conservatives. There is no reason to think that Middle Eastern countries cannot contain similar variability, although perhaps not quite to the extent found in America (due to the heterogeneous nature of American society).
It depends on what you mean by misconceptions. Certainly, many Middle Eastern nations are quite sexist, and much of the discrimination that the American media loves to portray does occur. However, I do not think it is nearly as widespread, or in many cases as severe, as the media implies. This is largely because the media implies universality, a concept which rarely exists in regards to humans. Humans are quite variable; even within one nation, or one state, or even one county or town people's outlooks on life and various social, religious, and ethical views vary. In one single, Massachusetts town you might find people who are radical, vegan, LGBT-friendly, atheistic liberals, and other people who are strict, patriarchal, homo-and-trans-phobic, highly religious conservatives. There is no reason to think that Middle Eastern countries cannot contain similar variability, although perhaps not quite to the extent found in America (due to the heterogeneous nature of American society).
Response: Finding Balance
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Response to "Where have all the prophets gone?"" (May 4, 2012):
I think that people often go too far in another way, as well; namely, they go too far for the supporters of the standing system to allow. With the current state of society, it is sometimes very easy for the rich or powerful to regulate what information the public can access. Thus, if someone writes a book presenting potentially revolutionary ideals, publishers may not publish the book, or schools may not hire the author to make presentations. Jesus and Muhammad, of course, faced similar problems, although in a far more direct manner; they were both at risk of assassination or execution. While I doubt that things go that far very frequently in modern American society, I think that messages which would pose too much of a challenge to an existing power or economic structure still often end up failing to reach their intended audience; namely, the majority of the public. As such, those who wish to communicate their ideas may have to censor them somewhat, toning them down for the sake of accessibility.
I think that people often go too far in another way, as well; namely, they go too far for the supporters of the standing system to allow. With the current state of society, it is sometimes very easy for the rich or powerful to regulate what information the public can access. Thus, if someone writes a book presenting potentially revolutionary ideals, publishers may not publish the book, or schools may not hire the author to make presentations. Jesus and Muhammad, of course, faced similar problems, although in a far more direct manner; they were both at risk of assassination or execution. While I doubt that things go that far very frequently in modern American society, I think that messages which would pose too much of a challenge to an existing power or economic structure still often end up failing to reach their intended audience; namely, the majority of the public. As such, those who wish to communicate their ideas may have to censor them somewhat, toning them down for the sake of accessibility.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Fuzzy Memories
When reading the book on Muhammad, I found the idea of the Qur'an's version of Hell being vague and undetailed quite interesting. I wonder if the Bedouin's belief that being forgotten is the worst thing which can happen to a person might have prompted this vagueness; if people do not even know much about the details of Hell, then of course they will not remember the names or lives of those who end up there. In this way, the worst part of Hell might not be the various tortures which Hell's denizens would presumably force one to endure, but instead the lack of remembrance in the minds of those still living. This may seem strange to modern readers of the Qur'an, particularly those in the United States, with its focus on punishment and reward which comes with capitalism and a retributive justice system. It reminds me somewhat of the apparent strangeness of the attitude people in Jesus' time would have had to crucifixion, with the worst part being the destruction of the body rather than the pain. However, the Bedouin were not the only ancient culture to emphasize remembrance; Viking culture, which may be more familiar to the contemporary American or European reader, also placed far more value on fame and memorable deeds than on physical comfort.
Response: Realism
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Protected Love" (April 28, 2012):
The question of whether it is better for women in Islamic countries (both historically and today) to marry for protection or to live without that protection requires something of a two-sided answer. While in an ideal situation, or even a situation close to ideal, of course women should choose for themselves who and when (if ever) to marry, the dangerous and sexist societal circumstances in Muhammad's time meant that women were frequently better off marrying for protection. Most people, and therefore most women, prefer living in less-than-ideal circumstances to dying or living in totally miserable circumstances, so marrying for protection would have been a preferable alternative one's enemies, or simply unscrupulous people, killing or taking advantage of one. The societal circumstances of today's world, however, are in many cases less harsh than those of Muhammad's time. This opens up the possibility of reforming the remaining sexist aspects of society, and therefore making it possible for women not to marry for protection out of necessity.
The question of whether it is better for women in Islamic countries (both historically and today) to marry for protection or to live without that protection requires something of a two-sided answer. While in an ideal situation, or even a situation close to ideal, of course women should choose for themselves who and when (if ever) to marry, the dangerous and sexist societal circumstances in Muhammad's time meant that women were frequently better off marrying for protection. Most people, and therefore most women, prefer living in less-than-ideal circumstances to dying or living in totally miserable circumstances, so marrying for protection would have been a preferable alternative one's enemies, or simply unscrupulous people, killing or taking advantage of one. The societal circumstances of today's world, however, are in many cases less harsh than those of Muhammad's time. This opens up the possibility of reforming the remaining sexist aspects of society, and therefore making it possible for women not to marry for protection out of necessity.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Evangelism
Is the idea of evangelism a good one? It is true that many religious texts (and some non-religious documents) advise readers to go out and attempt to convert others to a given belief system. Obviously, it is possible to take evangelism too far and try converting people by coercion, but that is not the kind of evangelism I am referring to; that sort is clearly wrong, and I don't feel any need to elaborate upon it. What, though, of more day-to-day evangelism?
In some cases, I do not think that there is anything wrong with it. Sure, it can be annoying to have someone pushing a pamphlet on you describing their religion, but it does you no great harm, and may make them feel better about themself. However, in other situations it can cause harm. For example, a father telling his young daughter that she will go to Hell if she does not subscribe to his religion can cause emotional distress to the daughter. Even if she does as her father recommends and follows his religion, it will be out of fear rather than clear-headed voluntarism. In such cases, I think that even purely verbal evangelism is unacceptable.
In some cases, I do not think that there is anything wrong with it. Sure, it can be annoying to have someone pushing a pamphlet on you describing their religion, but it does you no great harm, and may make them feel better about themself. However, in other situations it can cause harm. For example, a father telling his young daughter that she will go to Hell if she does not subscribe to his religion can cause emotional distress to the daughter. Even if she does as her father recommends and follows his religion, it will be out of fear rather than clear-headed voluntarism. In such cases, I think that even purely verbal evangelism is unacceptable.
Response: Widespread Extremism
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Koran by Heart" (April 21, 2012):
The concept that there are both conservative and more laid-back or liberal Muslims is certainly worth taking note of, as it is both true and woefully unknown amongst many Americans today. Additionally, it raises the idea of extremism in other belief systems. While almost all religions (and lack thereof), I believe, contain valuable advice and information about human nature and how to live one's life, all of them tend to become more negative than positive when followers take them too far. Numerous examples of this pepper contemporary society: Christians who follow Jesus' teachings versus the Westboro Baptist Church, atheists who hold their views due to lack of evidence versus anti-theists disguised as atheists, Muslims who follow Muhammad's teachings versus the 9/11 bombers, agnostics versus... agnostics who claim all other belief systems are silly, perhaps? I'm not certain about the last one, but it seems likely that even agnosticism can go too far. Ultimately, I think that there are very few beliefs which are inherently bad; it is simply fanatic adherents who commit atrocities, falsely, in the name of the belief.
The concept that there are both conservative and more laid-back or liberal Muslims is certainly worth taking note of, as it is both true and woefully unknown amongst many Americans today. Additionally, it raises the idea of extremism in other belief systems. While almost all religions (and lack thereof), I believe, contain valuable advice and information about human nature and how to live one's life, all of them tend to become more negative than positive when followers take them too far. Numerous examples of this pepper contemporary society: Christians who follow Jesus' teachings versus the Westboro Baptist Church, atheists who hold their views due to lack of evidence versus anti-theists disguised as atheists, Muslims who follow Muhammad's teachings versus the 9/11 bombers, agnostics versus... agnostics who claim all other belief systems are silly, perhaps? I'm not certain about the last one, but it seems likely that even agnosticism can go too far. Ultimately, I think that there are very few beliefs which are inherently bad; it is simply fanatic adherents who commit atrocities, falsely, in the name of the belief.
Response: Deliberate Lack of Understanding
In response to Adam Tobin's post "The Western Bias" (April 21, 2012):
I agree that the American educational system strongly encourages students to remain ignorant about and prejudiced against other cultures and religions. However, I do not think that curriculum makers do this to shelter the youth of the United States; instead, I think that they do it to ensure that adult Americans will possess a strong, and probably unjustified, sense of patriotism which enables them to ignore the atrocities that America may commit against other nations, often in order to procure resources to boost the economy. As an example: if most Americans believe that all Muslims, and all people in the Middle East (if they are ignorant enough, they may assume that the two are synonymous) are evil fanatics who want to bomb America until no one there is alive, they will not object when the government sends troops over to the Middle East. They will assume that the troops are there to fight the evil, American-hating, backwards, and ultimately fictional people who live there, rather than realising that the war may instead be primarily for economic reasons. Furthermore, if in the process of 'winning the war' in the Middle East, America acquires access to large amounts of fossil fuels, they will simply claim that these are just spoils of war, and that America has every right to them.
I agree that the American educational system strongly encourages students to remain ignorant about and prejudiced against other cultures and religions. However, I do not think that curriculum makers do this to shelter the youth of the United States; instead, I think that they do it to ensure that adult Americans will possess a strong, and probably unjustified, sense of patriotism which enables them to ignore the atrocities that America may commit against other nations, often in order to procure resources to boost the economy. As an example: if most Americans believe that all Muslims, and all people in the Middle East (if they are ignorant enough, they may assume that the two are synonymous) are evil fanatics who want to bomb America until no one there is alive, they will not object when the government sends troops over to the Middle East. They will assume that the troops are there to fight the evil, American-hating, backwards, and ultimately fictional people who live there, rather than realising that the war may instead be primarily for economic reasons. Furthermore, if in the process of 'winning the war' in the Middle East, America acquires access to large amounts of fossil fuels, they will simply claim that these are just spoils of war, and that America has every right to them.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Off Topic: Good Company
(This is not directly related to the topic of Islam, but I thought it merited a blog post.)
Of late, I have been communicating with an individual who follows a very strict version of Christianity. Some of the things he has to say are reasonable (i.e., don't drink or do drugs), others blatantly offensive (even thinking about self-harm or suicide will get one sent to Hell, homosexuality is a sin, etc.), and still others quite interesting. One of these was the idea that one should not associate with those who do not conform to one's own system of religious beliefs. Personally, I am quite opposed to this idea. If one refuses to investigate alternate theological viewpoints, one is far more prone to be intolerant, confused, or even violent towards people who do not follow one's belief system. Furthermore, by failing to so much as spend time with people of different or no faiths, one will undoubtedly miss out on many valuable relationships - as evidence, most of the people I know are of different faiths than their best friends.
Of late, I have been communicating with an individual who follows a very strict version of Christianity. Some of the things he has to say are reasonable (i.e., don't drink or do drugs), others blatantly offensive (even thinking about self-harm or suicide will get one sent to Hell, homosexuality is a sin, etc.), and still others quite interesting. One of these was the idea that one should not associate with those who do not conform to one's own system of religious beliefs. Personally, I am quite opposed to this idea. If one refuses to investigate alternate theological viewpoints, one is far more prone to be intolerant, confused, or even violent towards people who do not follow one's belief system. Furthermore, by failing to so much as spend time with people of different or no faiths, one will undoubtedly miss out on many valuable relationships - as evidence, most of the people I know are of different faiths than their best friends.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Balancing Religion and Secular Life
While I am not opposed to atheism, I think that religion can be a worthwhile and positive aspect to people's lives. However, this tends to be true only in moderation. Devoting oneself wholly to one's religion is admirable, but only tends to work if one takes measures to remove oneself from the regular world, by joining a monastic order or by secluding oneself away from mainstream civilisation. Attempting to practice one's religion in an extreme way while remaining an active part of mainstream society usually results in unhappiness both for one, and for the people around one.
As most people are not interested in joining a monastic order, they usually attempt to balance their religion with their secular life - although of course, the degrees to which they succeed vary widely. If anyone reading this would like to share their experiences balancing religion with secular life, I'd appreciate it!
As most people are not interested in joining a monastic order, they usually attempt to balance their religion with their secular life - although of course, the degrees to which they succeed vary widely. If anyone reading this would like to share their experiences balancing religion with secular life, I'd appreciate it!
A Different Level
In class, we discussed the difference between the popular conception of Buddhism's regulation of emotions and the reality - the former that it simply removes the highs and lows of emotion, and the latter that it causes one's emotions to exist on a totally different level. I still wonder, however, how much actual joy is involved in achieving a disconnect from all attachment. It seems to me (and I could be wrong, of course) that the most significant joys in life are connected to attachment - stargazing with a good friend, for example. If one was not attached to such a friend, I would imagine that one would appreciate their company less; not to say that one could not appreciate them, but that a significant element of the appreciation would be gone.
Perhaps a middle ground between attachment and disconnection would be the ideal state for emotions. If one does develop attachments, and thus does feel loss when those attachments fail, but then learns to eventually let go of that loss, one can experience the best of both worlds.
I am not certain of my ideas here, so if anyone has comments I'd appreciate the input!
Perhaps a middle ground between attachment and disconnection would be the ideal state for emotions. If one does develop attachments, and thus does feel loss when those attachments fail, but then learns to eventually let go of that loss, one can experience the best of both worlds.
I am not certain of my ideas here, so if anyone has comments I'd appreciate the input!
Response: Extremism and Visibility
In response to Lauren Feeney's post "The Thing About Christians" (April 14, 2012):
Very interesting article! I agree that many people are obsessed with Christianity, probably because it has become such a visible force in politics today. It does seem as though the most extreme Christians are the ones making policy these days - for example, the Vatican has some ridiculously strict doctrines, but most people I know who identify as Catholic are much more moderate in their views. This extremism, I think, is not only detrimental to atheists, agnostics, and non-Christian theists, but to any Christians who have less extreme views than those visible few. In fact, it may do more damage to such moderate Christians, because it may cause many non-Christians to assume that every Christian is a fanatical extremist (like Fred Phelps, or someone similarly awful).
A quick side note - I could have missed it, but reading the article, I didn't notice Seven mention Catholicism. It seems like he was commenting on Christianity in general, not Catholicism specifically.
Very interesting article! I agree that many people are obsessed with Christianity, probably because it has become such a visible force in politics today. It does seem as though the most extreme Christians are the ones making policy these days - for example, the Vatican has some ridiculously strict doctrines, but most people I know who identify as Catholic are much more moderate in their views. This extremism, I think, is not only detrimental to atheists, agnostics, and non-Christian theists, but to any Christians who have less extreme views than those visible few. In fact, it may do more damage to such moderate Christians, because it may cause many non-Christians to assume that every Christian is a fanatical extremist (like Fred Phelps, or someone similarly awful).
A quick side note - I could have missed it, but reading the article, I didn't notice Seven mention Catholicism. It seems like he was commenting on Christianity in general, not Catholicism specifically.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Response: Theological Curiosity
In response to Ryan Walters' post "Respect" (April 8, 2012):
I do not think that attending a church, and/or participating in its activities, without belonging to that church's denomination is disrespectful at all. Unless the church states that only members of the religion are allowed within, you are simply taking advantage of an open invitation. In fact, I think that many churches would probably welcome visitors, due to the chance of gaining new members of the faith. Curiosity about other systems of belief is an indication of an admirable sort of open-mindedness, I think. As long as you do not take the opportunity of being in a church to cause disruption amongst the other attendees (for example, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church shouting and throwing rotten fruit in a Unitarian Universalist church), there is no reason not to attend churches (or other places of worship) for all the religions you wish to investigate.
I do not think that attending a church, and/or participating in its activities, without belonging to that church's denomination is disrespectful at all. Unless the church states that only members of the religion are allowed within, you are simply taking advantage of an open invitation. In fact, I think that many churches would probably welcome visitors, due to the chance of gaining new members of the faith. Curiosity about other systems of belief is an indication of an admirable sort of open-mindedness, I think. As long as you do not take the opportunity of being in a church to cause disruption amongst the other attendees (for example, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church shouting and throwing rotten fruit in a Unitarian Universalist church), there is no reason not to attend churches (or other places of worship) for all the religions you wish to investigate.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Descartes and Buddhism
I find it interesting that one of the central ideas in Buddhism is the non-existence of the self. This is in direct contrast with Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum' idea, which states that the existence of the self is the only thing that one can be certain of. I wonder how a Buddhist would respond to Descartes' reasoning - would they say that the apparent self is actually just a collection of attributes which can under certain circumstance break apart? Would they say that the consciousness perceiving the (possibly illusionary, by both theories) world is not the self, but a universal consciousness that is simply manifested in parts?
Not being sufficiently well-versed in Buddhist doctrine myself, I cannot make any assertions about the answer with any confidence. If anyone would like to suggest ideas, I would very much appreciate it!
Not being sufficiently well-versed in Buddhist doctrine myself, I cannot make any assertions about the answer with any confidence. If anyone would like to suggest ideas, I would very much appreciate it!
Response: Buddhism's Compatibility
In response to Brian Fitzpatrick's post "On Rerererererereading the Dhammapada" (April 5, 2012):
The non-mystical, detectable results of practising Buddhism are, I think, a very large part of its appeal. Particularly to those who grew up with traditions such as Christianity (wherein the results of belief and practice do not become manifest until after death), getting actual results within this lifetime may seem like a refreshing change. Furthermore, I think that the compatibility of Buddhism with other religions may also seem welcoming to many, as they do not have to abandon their previous religious affiliation in order to practice at least a large portion of the advice of the Buddha.
While Buddhism does contain some metaphysical and spiritual elements which contradict the doctrines of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and so on, the actual practices (meditation, letting go of attachments, etc.) do not clash at all with these religions. As such, it is possible for someone who is, for example, Muslim, to also practice Buddhism as part of their daily life.
The non-mystical, detectable results of practising Buddhism are, I think, a very large part of its appeal. Particularly to those who grew up with traditions such as Christianity (wherein the results of belief and practice do not become manifest until after death), getting actual results within this lifetime may seem like a refreshing change. Furthermore, I think that the compatibility of Buddhism with other religions may also seem welcoming to many, as they do not have to abandon their previous religious affiliation in order to practice at least a large portion of the advice of the Buddha.
While Buddhism does contain some metaphysical and spiritual elements which contradict the doctrines of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and so on, the actual practices (meditation, letting go of attachments, etc.) do not clash at all with these religions. As such, it is possible for someone who is, for example, Muslim, to also practice Buddhism as part of their daily life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)