horrors of religion

[Storm]

And patriarchy has nothing to do with that, nothing at all....

 

[tumbleweed41]

Richardlowellt,

Can you directly tie female infanticide in India to religion?

One of the causes of female infanticide is the traditional dowry system. As infanticide is more prevalent in poor rural areas, a correlation can be made to the tradition of paying a large dowry when your female child is given in marriage. Although this is a Hindu tradition, it is not mandated by any Hindu dogma. Thus it is more of a cultural tradition than a religious mandate.

 

[richardlowellt]

Why? Why should you care whether or not someone is spiritual about art? From my experience, it doesn't affect the end result in any way.

EDIT: And did you read my post where I requested that you direct me to your music? I would like to hear it.

I'm not sure what kind of music you enjoy, I compose and arrange a variety of different styles. Large ensemble Jazz pieces, small group Jazz and swing music, arrangements behind vocalists, some classical music with a synthesized string orchestra. For swing music you can hear some sound bits by going to Bombay Jim & The Swinging Sapphires - swing / jazz, Boston a swing band I play with. Coming out in the late fall a project for a very nice female vocalists of which I am the musical director and arranged 4 of the songs on the CD.

 

[Valjean]

Agree with Tumbleweed, Indian infanticide more cultural than religious -- though the two are hard to seperate sometimes and, in primitive societies, indistinguishable.

As far as a skewed sex ratio goes, this should tend to self-correct, to a degree. It's basic supply and demand. If you have 50 bachelors and one eligible woman, she, or her family, should be in a pretty strong position.

 

[Riverwolf]

This report from RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE Ontario Consultants On Religious Tolerance: Disclaimer----It is our policy to not criticize any theological belief of any religion, we do however criticize behavior like sexism, racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance. That is we do not criticize beliefs only practices that harm others, the following two examples by Hindus fall into that category.

Infanticide has been widespread in India for centuries, RJ Rommel reported.

In the rigid caste system young girls were murdered as a matter of course. When statistics were collected in the 19th century it was discovered that in some villages, NO baby girls were found at all, in a total of 30 other villages 343 boys and 54 girls were found. In Bombay the number of girls alive in 1834 was 603.

A study of Tamil Nadu by the Community Services Guild Of Mandras, found that female infanticide is rampart in that state, though only among Hindu. Of the 1,250 families covered by the study, 740 had only one girl and 249 agreed directly that they had done away with the unwanted girl child.

According to UNICEF a report from Bombay in 1984 on abortion after prenatal sex determination states that 7,999 out of 8,000 of the aborted fetuses were female. Sex determination has become a lucrative business.

Although this practice is now outlawed in India, very few of the local authorities enforce the law as the tradition is so well established.

Okay, then.

Now, tell me WHICH Hindu religion is most responsible for this practice, and then tell me which scripture sanctions it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Personally, I think it's better to criticize someone's reason for belief rather than their belief itself..

 

[Riverwolf]

Personally, I think it's better to criticize someone's reason for belief rather than their belief itself..

Agreed.

 

[Rightmind]

First post. Here's hoping I don't muck it up.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't China also have a staggeringly large female infanticide rate? What with it being a largely secular nation I find it hard to believe that religion is the sole cause of the problem.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

everything has a its faults, both science and religion have their shares of evil. But religion's evils severely outweigh its benefits, especially when they have pull within governmental functions.

 

[elisheba]

The problem is people add things and subtract things from their religions instead of just following the writings(in their original languages).

 

[nonbeliever_92]

literally or figuratively? either way though, is not the best way elisheba

 

[tumbleweed41]

The problem is people add things and subtract things from their religions instead of just following the writings(in their original languages).

Quite the opposite I think. When people have a dogmatic attachment to their religion and ancient writings, without regard to modern knowledge and the progressive changes in society, it tends to be a drag on society rather than the boon it could be.

 

[Riverwolf]

everything has a its faults, both science and religion have their shares of evil. But religion's evils severely outweigh its benefits, especially when they have pull within governmental functions.

The same could be said of science.

I say both science's good and religion's good outweighs (but not by far) their bad, as both have helped people live good lives AND helped shape civilization as we know it, yet both have been responsible for catastrophes.

 

[Riverwolf]

The problem is people add things and subtract things from their religions instead of just following the writings(in their original languages).

Kinda hard to do when you don't have access to ways in which you can learn the original language. It also doesn't help that many texts do not exist anymore in their original languages.

 

[dogsgod]

The same could be said of science.

I say both science's good and religion's good outweighs (but not by far) their bad, as both have helped people live good lives AND helped shape civilization as we know it, yet both have been responsible for catastrophes.

Science is neutral. A scientist might pick up a rock to study it and should someone pick up a rock with the intention of bashing someone's head in, what does that have to do with science?

 

[Riverwolf]

Science is neutral. A scientist might pick up a rock to study it and should someone pick up a rock with the intention of bashing someone's head in, what does that have to do with science?

The person who picked up a rock to bash someone's head in has nothing to do with science. A scientists who realizes that a rock can be used to bash someone's head in publishes his findings, and people who are violent by nature pick up on that, and start bashing each other's heads in with rocks.

Using the OP's logic, that means it was the fault of the scientist for either realizing the rock's destructive capabilities or the fact that he published his findings. I think you know as well as I do that it is not the scientist's fault, therefore not the fault of science directly.

Religion is the same way.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Science is neutral. A scientist might pick up a rock to study it and should someone pick up a rock with the intention of bashing someone's head in, what does that have to do with science?

Um . . . the nuclear bomb was created by science for the sole purpose of destruction.

 

[Nepenthe]

Science is neutral. A scientist might pick up a rock to study it and should someone pick up a rock with the intention of bashing someone's head in, what does that have to do with science?

Um . . . the nuclear bomb was created by science for the sole purpose of destruction.

This is almsot a copy/paste post I made in the Dawkins thread but I think it's relevant here. Engineers and politicians were strictly responsible for nuclear weapons, not science. Science is a method of inquiry, the application of that method's discoveries may be used by engineers to make weapons, but that is distinct from science. The fault lies more with the social and political attitudes that apply those machines or ideas maliciously. Science discovers how atoms work, engineers build nuclear weapons, politicians, influenced by a host of societal pressures including religion, implement those weapons.

So yes, science is neutral and has no moral bearing on how those discoveries are ultimately applied.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is almsot a copy/paste post I made in the Dawkins thread but I think it's relevant here. Engineers and politicians were strictly responsible for nuclear weapons, not science. Science is a method of inquiry, the application of that method's discoveries may be used by engineers to make weapons, but that is distinct from science. The fault lies more with the social and political attitudes that apply those machines or ideas maliciously. Science discovers how atoms work, engineers build nuclear weapons, politicians, influenced by a host of societal pressures including religion, implement those weapons.

So yes, science is neutral and has no moral bearing on how those discoveries are ultimately applied.

Pfft, and I suppose you're going to tell me that it wasn't science I saw stealing my newspaper this morning?

Enabler.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Pfft, and I suppose you're going to tell me that it wasn't science I saw stealing my newspaper this morning?

Enabler.

Nope, that was me, sorry.

Sincerely,
Albert Einstein