Ethnocentrism ?

[yewchapel]

Or like sending missionaries to Africa, South America, and Asia?

Absolutely! White missionaries impinging their culture and religion on non-white people is just as wrong. Saying that, the country that produces the most missionaries after the US is South Korea, so a country with a non-white majority population. While I am opposed to proselytizing in any case, that does bring up interesting questions of race.

[debrand]

No, being white does not automatically make somebody racist but it does mean they have white privilege and therefore it is inappropriate for them to decide what is best for non-white people - like in the case of white atheists dismissing mostly non-white religions.

Regarding it taking religion to make good people do bad things, it seems very strange that religion is singled out as being the only thing that does that. Anything that inspires strong emotion in someone can do that. I am NOT denying that religion is used for evil, but religion by itself is neutral - it can be used for good or evil.

I'm not certain if Christianity is a mainly white religion but evangelical, right wing Christianity does earn most of my ire. My knowledge of other faiths is limited so I can't make adequate arguments against them. For the most part, I have a positive view of Hinduism and Buddhism but I don't know how accurate my views are. However, it would be unethical not to speak out against things like genital mutilations or women imprisoned or killed due to being victims of rape. Wouldn't that show extreme racism on my part to be silent just because the victims aren't white? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I dislike most evangelism anyway so we seem to agree on that part, yewchapel. Christians seem more likely to be evangelical than atheists.

[August]

No, being white does not automatically make somebody racist but it does mean they have white privilege and therefore it is inappropriate for them to decide what is best for non-white people - like in the case of white atheists dismissing mostly non-white religions.

Regarding it taking religion to make good people do bad things, it seems very strange that religion is singled out as being the only thing that does that. Anything that inspires strong emotion in someone can do that. I am NOT denying that religion is used for evil, but religion by itself is neutral - it can be used for good or evil.

Yawn. So there's a fundamental difference between white people and brown or black people, is there? Let's criticise the Mormons, but we'll leave those quaint animists to their own devices? You feel like we should maybe have lower literacy and moral standards for non-whites? I'm smelling racism here indeed.

[August]

I'm not certain if Christianity is a mainly white religion but evangelical, right wing Christianity does earn most of my ire. My knowledge of other faiths is limited so I can't make adequate arguments against them. For the most part, I have a positive view of Hinduism and Buddhism but I don't know how accurate my views are. However, it would be unethical not to speak out against things like genital mutilations or women imprisoned or killed due to being victims of rape. Wouldn't that show extreme racism on my part to be silent just because the victims aren't white? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I dislike most evangelism anyway so we seem to agree on that part, yewchapel. Christians seem more likely to be evangelical than atheists.

Most Catholics live in Africa, Central and South America (prb.org)

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/TheCha ... olics.aspx

[2xx1xy1JD]

[ As Steven Weinberg said, it takes religion to make a good person do bad things.

I've heard that quote before, and I'm calling bullshit on it.

Let's think about it.

1. How do you define a person as good or bad? What does it mean to say that a good person does bad things, if you are not defining a person as good or bad based on their actions?

2. Are the people who start rioting after a sports game all bad people? With something like the Vancouver Stanley Cup hockey riot, it was pretty clear that some people were breaking windows and engaging in violence and looting, even though they had no prior history of doing so. Is hockey included in your definition of religion?

3. During the Cultural Revolution in China, plenty of ordinary citizens would inform on others. Was the entire country made up of bad people? If so, how could they have rejected Maoism after his death? Is Maoism included in your definition of religion?

4. During wars, people will sometimes do bad things that they would have never done if they hadn't been in a wartime situation. Are they are bad people? Is war included in your definition of religion?

Instead, I would say that most people do what most of the people around them are doing, most of the time.

If you live in a peaceful, orderly society, you tend to follow the rules and act that way.

If you are surrounded by violence and anarchy, you tend to join that.

If you live in an authoritarian or totalitarian society, you tend to follow the rules of that society.

If there is a break in that norm - anything from a hockey riot to a war - then people's behavior may change as well, as people are no longer constricted by the old norms.

So, what does religion do? It does a few things. In some places, where it is the dominant force, it influences norms and shapes what most people do. In places where a religion or denomination is not the dominant force, it can influence people to go against the societal grain.

Is this a good thing or bad thing?

Well, if you are influenced to commit violence against an otherwise-peaceful society, it's obviously a bad thing. On the other hand, if you are influenced to refrain from violence even with it is the societal norm, it's a good thing. I don't think it is accurate or fair to make blanket statements about religion which only focus on the first and ignore the second. There are plenty of examples of social movements and opposition to oppression that have been fueled by religion.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the above poster's point (although maybe I do -- haven't thought it through enough), but I think you're missing something in your logic. "It takes religion to make a good person do bad things" is not the same thing as saying "Only religion makes people do bad things." It's saying GOOD people only do bad things if influenced by misguided religious teachings to do so. So the answer to your questions would be that those people who do bad things not motivated by religion are bad people.

Of course, it could also be argued that anyone who does bad things is a bad person, and pointing to their religion doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

So if someone born and raised in a North Korean prison camp informs on his family and reveals their escape plans to prison officials, you would dismiss that by saying "oh, he must be a bad person"? Context matters here, and that context was extremely authoritarian but not religious.

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/mo ... elman.html

[valsa]

I find it weird to think of atheism as a white thing when, iirc, Japan, China, and Vietnam are all countries with a much higher population of atheists than the U.S.

[August]

So if someone born and raised in a North Korean prison camp informs on his family and reveals their escape plans to prison officials, you would dismiss that by saying "oh, he must be a bad person"? Context matters here, and that context was extremely authoritarian but not religious.

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/mo ... elman.html

Go and watch the doco on netflix about him. He is not developmentally normal. Being raised in that environment twisted him, it would anyone. Would you blame a Romanian orphan for having RAD?

But you cannot argue that the North Korean regime is not a religion. It's the epitome of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Kore ... ersonality

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think that any strongly held belief that tells one group they are superior to others is wrong and can possibly lead to abusing others. Religion has been used in the past to separate groups into us and them. That doesn't mean that all religion is evil but very few people mistreat others in the name of atheism. The individuals might be atheists but they don't normally use their lack of beliefs as a justification to commit evil. Sometimes religious people use their faith to justify hurting others. In all fairness, religious people also use their beliefs to justify doing good. Whether or not the good done in the name of religion outweighs the bad, I can't say.

1. Is religion itself truly the cause of people separating into groups, or does religion just act as a sort of "team jersey" in many cases to identify competing groups?

I'd argue that many religious conflicts are actually of the "team jersey" variety. There is a human tendency to form group alliances (tribes, clans, teams, nations, ethnic groups, religious groups, etc.) and compete with other groups for power, resources, dominance, etc. The Troubles in Northern Ireland, the civil war between Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka, the whole war in the Balkans - these were disputes between religious groups, but the conflicts weren't about theology.

2. Yes, people have certainly mistreated others in the name of atheism. Look at the history of the former Soviet Union, for starters. I don't consider that regime to be "very few people", and a good chunk of the people in my area can tell stories about having to practice their religion in secret, having relatives die in gulags because they were openly promoting Jewish practice, etc. For an even more recent example, see China's treatment of the Falun Gong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Go and watch the doco on netflix about him. He is not developmentally normal. Being raised in that environment twisted him, it would anyone. Would you blame a Romanian orphan for having RAD?

But you cannot argue that the North Korean regime is not a religion. It's the epitome of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Kore ... ersonality

That's why I asked how we define religion. Is it something different than ideology or cult of personality? Does it require a deity?

Certain movements, like Communism or Nazism, do have elements that are similar to religion and can be thought of as secular religions - but they also had anti-religious elements.

North Korea is an example of an extreme totalitarian state. That's why (other) religions are banned - they would encourage thought that wasn't controlled by the government and that might encourage people to go against the party line. In a place like North Korea, it could take religious belief to give someone the courage to go against the regime, since doing so would mean prison, torture and death.

[debrand]

quote="2xx1xy1JD

1. Is religion itself truly the cause of people separating into groups, or does religion just act as a sort of "team jersey" in many cases to identify competing groups?

Although I don't think that religion is the only reason that people view outsiders as enemies, it is behind some people's justification for doing so. I don't know what you mean by 'team jersey' variety. I've come across quite a few Christians who believe that nonbelievers are less moral than they are. In all fairness, I've come across jerkish atheists who felt that they were superior also. However, religion tends to give an extra justification based on an all powerful authority

There is a human tendency to form group alliances (tribes, clans, teams, nations, ethnic groups, religious groups, etc.) and compete with other groups for power, resources, dominance, etc. The Troubles in Northern Ireland, the civil war between Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka, the whole war in the Balkans - these were disputes between religious groups, but the conflicts weren't about theology.

I agree it is a human tendency and something that we should fight against. It is part of the reason why I get alarmed when I read atheist lump all religious people together also. Not only is it unfair but it is something that we should be very wary of doing

2. Yes, people have certainly mistreated others in the name of atheism. Look at the history of the former Soviet Union, for starters. I don't consider that regime to be "very few people", and a good chunk of the people in my area can tell stories about having to practice their religion in secret, having relatives die in gulags because they were openly promoting Jewish practice, etc. For an even more recent example, see China's treatment of the Falun Gong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong.

[debrand]

That's why I asked how we define religion. Is it something different than ideology or cult of personality? Does it require a deity?

Certain movements, like Communism or Nazism, do have elements that are similar to religion and can be thought of as secular religions - but they also had anti-religious elements.

North Korea is an example of an extreme totalitarian state. That's why (other) religions are banned - they would encourage thought that wasn't controlled by the government and that might encourage people to go against the party line. In a place like North Korea, it could take religious belief to give someone the courage to go against the regime, since doing so would mean prison, torture and death.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

No, being white does not automatically make somebody racist but it does mean they have white privilege and therefore it is inappropriate for them to decide what is best for non-white people - like in the case of white atheists dismissing mostly non-white religions.

But plenty of non-white people who grow up under those various mostly non-white religions also criticize those religions.

On the English-speaking internet there seems to be this idea that only white (generally male) Westerners are atheist and everyone else is happily "traditional" (with actual culture, which of course the white Westerners don't have) and their beliefs would not change except for by colonialism from these white Westerner atheists. It's a very, well, Western POV, IMHO.

Again it's like expecting some people to live frozen in amber, or skirting with a sort of a idea that equates modernity with that same "white, Western" idea, as if the two choices are to be "white, Western" (and colonialized) or "traditional." As if you can't really be something else and modern at the same time, that people don't ever on their own in their own countries (in their own non-English parts of the internet which don't really CARE about the English parts of the internet) criticize religion or "traditional" practices or do cutting edge science.

I find it weird to think of atheism as a white thing when, iirc, Japan, China, and Vietnam are all countries with a much higher population of atheists than the U.S.

Indeed. Plus there are plenty of people who are just minimally religious if anything - just like plenty of people in the US who celebrate Xmas and Easter because it's just the thing to do and it's a commercial holiday that comes around every year, but don't particularly seriously believe in it. Or they're just secular.

Meanwhile I think it's a perfectly valid position to be against the Chinese government persecution of people for believing in Falun Gong while still thinking Falun Gong itself is nonsense. Similarly I think it's possible for people in North Korea to have their minds opened from brainwashing without turning to Christianity to do it.

[C Potter-Pirbright]

I wonder how she would feel if a Hindu couple adopted a child from a Christian mother? Would she say the Hindu couple couldn't share their faith with their newly adopted child?

I get the feeling that because the original girl in question has stated that her mother was 'white' the girl in charge of this tumblr has placed that parent automatically as Christian and therefore this girl can't really share the faith, she concedes that the girl can follow Dharmic teachings but will never actually be Hindu because you have to be 'born Hindu'.

Am almost curious as to where in India her family comes from because I've never really ever encountered anyone so rigid in their beliefs while discounting the beliefs of millions of others.

I've been told that there are atheist Hindus, for example. Not being very familiar with Hinduism, I don't know if that is true.

I'm not sure how someone is an atheist Hindu? Not to quibble but since Atheism is the belief there is no god/deities, its pretty fair to say that someone who identifies as Atheist, does so regardless of what their original or family religion may or not have been? If you meant are there people who are Atheist in India whose families identify as Hindu etc , then of course there are. Anyone can identify as atheist can't they?It can be as private or public as they want? Of course having surnames in the region that align you with a culture and a religion complicate matters, but it doesn't stop many people from just not being interested in religion.

[2xx1xy1JD]

debrand:

I'll try to explain my "team jersey" comment. Anyone more familiar with any of the conflicts than I am, please feel free to comment.

The Troubles in Northern Ireland was religious in the sense that it pitted Catholics against Protestants. It wasn't, however, fueled by super-devout folks praying and having an honest belief that they were required to kill, oppress, bomb, riot, etc. other Christians who happened to have different views on the pope, etc. It had a lot more to do with the historical exploitation of Ireland by England, fears of the Protestants of what would happen to them if Northern Ireland became a part of the Irish state, concerns about discrimination, and it built up as the conflict grew bloodier and the list of grievances grew longer. At some point, Catholic and Protestant wasn't about actual religious belief at all - it was just a shorthand way of identifying the two sides. A team jersey.

Re the former Soviet Union:

The dominant ideology of the state frowned upon religion. While it was possible for some Jews to lead relatively decent lives (by the standards of that place and time), authorities put severely restrictions on religious practice and many religious leaders found themselves in gulags or dead. This was official policy, based on an ideology that was against religion.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Re the OP:

While the first law against Sati did come from the British, India is now an independent democracy. It has not chosen to legalize sati, and in some cases new laws to prevent it have been enacted. How, then, is that ethnocentric?

While many in India are Hindu, India is also home to large Muslim and Sikh communities. These other faiths oppose Sati. As a democracy, all faiths participate in the Indian government.

Sure, contact with the West has influenced traditional views and cultural practices within India. At this point, India has been independent since 1947. The people themselves are choosing not to be isolationists, but to engage with the rest of the world and an ever-increasing rate. Sometimes, that leads to social changes - but these are changes that people are choosing to make.

If we compare sati to assisted suicide, we see that even folks to believe that individuals should have the power to end their own lives believe that there need to be some safeguards in place. How do we know that the instances which occur (which are increasingly rare) are truly voluntary? Can you say that it is voluntary if family are pushing it, if there may have been threats, if she feels that she has no alternative?

I believe that refusing to support women who are fighting against violence against them from their own cultures is itself racist.

[C Potter-Pirbright]

Re the OP:

While the first law against Sati did come from the British, India is now an independent democracy. It has not chosen to legalize sati, and in some cases new laws to prevent it have been enacted. How, then, is that ethnocentric?

While many in India are Hindu, India is also home to large Muslim and Sikh communities. These other faiths oppose Sati. As a democracy, all faiths participate in the Indian government.

Sure, contact with the West has influenced traditional views and cultural practices within India. At this point, India has been independent since 1947. The people themselves are choosing not to be isolationists, but to engage with the rest of the world and an ever-increasing rate. Sometimes, that leads to social changes - but these are changes that people are choosing to make.

If we compare sati to assisted suicide, we see that even folks to believe that individuals should have the power to end their own lives believe that there need to be some safeguards in place. How do we know that the instances which occur (which are increasingly rare) are truly voluntary? Can you say that it is voluntary if family are pushing it, if there may have been threats, if she feels that she has no alternative?

I believe that refusing to support women who are fighting against violence against them from their own cultures is itself racist.

I hope by the OP you mean the girl who posted on tumblr? If not, I agree with you? Sati was abolished in 1829 in the Bengal Presidency and thankfully that continued to the other princely states and then onto independent India. I have an amazing respect for the secular aspects of Indian culture and deplore secretarian (sp?) violence that I have seen. And I agree that an exposure to the wider world has helped with social changes, especially those that have been chosen and fought for by the people themselves rather than "imposed", the Sati ban for one was fought for and backed by the Bhramo Samaj of which my fathers family has been a part since its start, I don't view the ban on sati in any form as a omg crushing someones rights. Human rights are human rights.

In my view ( and this is strictly my view) there is absolutely nothing romantic or noble about Sati or Juhar, the world has very much moved on from the raping and pillaging hordes of the 16-17th century etc. The societal pressures that made women feel pressured to die alongside their husbands (drugged or not drugged), whether economic, pressure for the 'families honor' by the in-laws etc do not have to exist today and if it takes laws and education and social welfare programs to continue to make this the case I am all for it.

I do believe in assisted suicide, but I'm loathe to see Sati as that, not with its history and connotations but thats just me.

[2xx1xy1JD]

My comments about assisted suicide were just to show that EVEN WHEN there is support for the idea that people have the right to choose to die, there is still a sense that there need to be tons of safeguards because it is just too easy for people to be coerced, and most supporters of assisted suicide do not in fact support the idea that suicide is a valid choice in all circumstances. So basically, we agree.

BTW, so you have a link to that tumblr?

[C Potter-Pirbright]

Definitely agree with you.

The tumblr is youarenotdesi.tumblr.com

She is currently yelling at people who disagree with her.

[yewchapel]

I'm not certain if Christianity is a mainly white religion but evangelical, right wing Christianity does earn most of my ire. My knowledge of other faiths is limited so I can't make adequate arguments against them. For the most part, I have a positive view of Hinduism and Buddhism but I don't know how accurate my views are. However, it would be unethical not to speak out against things like genital mutilations or women imprisoned or killed due to being victims of rape. Wouldn't that show extreme racism on my part to be silent just because the victims aren't white? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I dislike most evangelism anyway so we seem to agree on that part, yewchapel. Christians seem more likely to be evangelical than atheists.

No, it wouldn't be racist for you to speak out on things like rape or FGM because those are not things inherently tied to a particular race or culture. It WOULD be racist to speak out on those things in way that suggested that the non-white women were victims due to an inferior culture and needed to be more like secular Western cultures, even though rape and FGM happen here too.

[yewchapel]

Yawn. So there's a fundamental difference between white people and brown or black people, is there? Let's criticise the Mormons, but we'll leave those quaint animists to their own devices? You feel like we should maybe have lower literacy and moral standards for non-whites? I'm smelling racism here indeed.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the right for self-determination for people. When did I ever say that non-white people should have lower literacy and moral standards? :?

[yewchapel]

But plenty of non-white people who grow up under those various mostly non-white religions also criticize those religions.

On the English-speaking internet there seems to be this idea that only white (generally male) Westerners are atheist and everyone else is happily "traditional" (with actual culture, which of course the white Westerners don't have) and their beliefs would not change except for by colonialism from these white Westerner atheists. It's a very, well, Western POV, IMHO.

Again it's like expecting some people to live frozen in amber, or skirting with a sort of a idea that equates modernity with that same "white, Western" idea, as if the two choices are to be "white, Western" (and colonialized) or "traditional." As if you can't really be something else and modern at the same time, that people don't ever on their own in their own countries (in their own non-English parts of the internet which don't really CARE about the English parts of the internet) criticize religion or "traditional" practices or do cutting edge science.

Indeed. Plus there are plenty of people who are just minimally religious if anything - just like plenty of people in the US who celebrate Xmas and Easter because it's just the thing to do and it's a commercial holiday that comes around every year, but don't particularly seriously believe in it. Or they're just secular.

Meanwhile I think it's a perfectly valid position to be against the Chinese government persecution of people for believing in Falun Gong while still thinking Falun Gong itself is nonsense. Similarly I think it's possible for people in North Korea to have their minds opened from brainwashing without turning to Christianity to do it.

My concern is for self-determination of people. Of course people can be non-Western and modern! I'm certainly not questioning that. I do understand the points you are making - my main concern is with atheism = superiority in general but also especially when applied to countries that are mostly religious. Perhaps this is a European perspective - Japan, China and Vietnam have a higher population of atheists than the US, but this is surely mostly down to sheer population size. Certainly, Europe is much more secular than the US so perhaps this is having an impact on my views, especially with France's aggressive secularism and Islamophobia.

[Shoobydoo]

The world would be such a boring place if all we were allowed to think about was ourselves, our own culture, our own religion. Yeah, it's disrespectful to run around wearing the religious garb of other religion when you have no idea what it's about and don't believe it at all, but really? This woman sounds like she's prevent other people from knowing Hinduism EXISTS if she could.

I am waiting for mitres to become high fashion now. Heck, I'd wear one, you could probably hide all kinds of stuff inside one of those.

[Shoobydoo]

The world would be such a boring place if all we were allowed to think about was ourselves, our own culture, our own religion. Yeah, it's disrespectful to run around wearing the religious garb of other religion when you have no idea what it's about and don't believe it at all, but really? This woman sounds like she's prevent other people from knowing Hinduism EXISTS if she could.

I am waiting for mitres to become high fashion now. Heck, I'd wear one, you could probably hide all kinds of stuff inside one of those.

I realized this post might look a bit flippant and then FJ went down before I could come back and add a note. :oops: Cultural appropriation is a real problem amongst the numerous cultures that have suffered at the hands of white colonialism, but I feel like a lot of the time when people try to stop it it feels like they're trying to build an impenetrable wall between (for this example)my culture and theirs. Heaven knows it's well within their right to want to get rid of anything to do with Western culture, but I don't feel like building walls is a solution that will benefit anyone in the long term. I am having trouble putting words around the feelings in my head on this subject, so I hope that actually made sense.

[debrand]

No, it wouldn't be racist for you to speak out on things like rape or FGM because those are not things inherently tied to a particular race or culture. It WOULD be racist to speak out on those things in way that suggested that the non-white women were victims due to an inferior culture and needed to be more like secular Western cultures, even though rape and FGM happen here too.

We agree.

The idea that a culture is inferior because its members aren't westernized is something that I have seen articulated by right leaning people regardless of whether they are religious or not.