"It's my religion/culture/country"

[Meow Mix]

"Who are you to tell us what to do? We do x because it's our religion/it's our culture/it's our country. You have no business saying we shouldn't do x."

There is a difference between respecting someone's religion/culture on matters such as food, dress, and other things and respecting someone's religion/culture when it comes to people somehow getting hurt.

It was Aztec religion/culture to remove a sacrificial victim's heart* (sometimes a volunteer, but often not). It's Christian Science to prevent a child or disabled person from receiving medical care. It's various sects' religion to allow children to handle venomous snakes. It's in various holy texts' interpretations (at least the Abrahamic ones) to stone or otherwise murder people for things like homosexuality or adultery.

And yes, I'm going to bring out this card with the promise that I'm not comparing the severity of these atrocities but rather just the concept -- it was Nazi culture to exterminate entire groups of cultural "undesirables."

My point is that sometimes I see and hear people defending horrific acts and attitudes by saying "who are you to judge, this is my country" or "my religion" or "my culture," and "you have no business telling us what to do."

I strongly disagree with this notion. All of humankind are my brethren and sisters. Having a country, or culture, or religion does not give people a free pass to the rest of humanity to cruelly harm other human beings even if they think they fall under "their jurisdiction."

Not only is it my business (and all other peoples' business) to stand against cruelty and barbarity -- it's our duty to do so.

If Aztecs were still around, it would be the world's duty to try to get them to stop ripping out peoples' hearts. It's the world's duty to make sure the dependents of Christian Science get medical care. It's the world's duty to protect children from venomous snakes. It's the world's duty to stop Nazis from murdering Jews, homosexuals, Russians, gypsies, the disabled, etc. It's the world's duty to stop religious zealots from stoning people for homosexuality or adultery.

"It's my country/religion/culture" is not an excuse. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

I've struggled with this notion for a long time because tolerance for things like religion and culture is a very good thing -- but it makes me cringe when I see it used as an excuse to allow attrocities.

For debate: does having a country, religion, or culture (or anything else) protect people from scrutiny or even intervention when they're doing something heinous? Should it?

(* -- EDIT: Someone later pointed out that it wasn't that simple with Aztec culture, so please take that example with a grain of salt and just understand the purpose of the example rather than the particulars!)

 

[Breathe]

It should not.

I can understand criticism and so on in such cases. Religion, culture, history, culture, country, whatever, should not be permissible as a way to be inhumane. One's religion or culture, or tradition, or country, does not give them a reason to cut people's hearts out and dance with them, and so on. That's not right.

However, what about when it's things like, "It's my religion, I can wear a hijab. I'm not forcing you." or "It's my religion; we don't cut our hair and we wear the turban. You don't have to, but we do."? Do non-believers of this religion have any right to tell people what they can and cannot do with things like this?

What about when it comes down to things like "It's my religion; we keep a short sword on us."?

 

[Sunstone]

The line that religions must not be crossed is unwarranted harm to others. Same line all of us must not cross. No one gets a free ride.

 

[Breathe]

The line that religions must not be crossed is unwarranted harm to others. Same line all of us must not cross. No one gets a free ride.

Short and sweet, but nicely said.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I draw the line where a threat or a harm is involved.
If it has no effect on any one else at all, it would be hard to give a rational argument against it.

However even an apparently harmless belief, like the belief in a "young earth" can have a seriously bad effect on a nations education.

Whilst carrying a ritual weapon might be statistically insignificant, and could on balance be beneficial.

 

[Meow Mix]

However, what about when it's things like, "It's my religion, I can wear a hijab. I'm not forcing you." or "It's my religion; we don't cut our hair and we wear the turban. You don't have to, but we do."? Do non-believers of this religion have any right to tell people what they can and cannot do with things like this?

What about when it comes down to things like "It's my religion; we keep a short sword on us."?

Absolutely not -- nobody has any right to tell people they can't wear hijab, or how to cut their hair or wear turbans or kimonos or whatever. I STRONGLY disagree with the French burqa ban* and some European bans on minarets (with the addendum that I understand some places have building codes, but banning ANY sort of minaret is just oppressive).

As for keeping a short sword on them, I don't see how that's anyone's business unless they USE said sword to cause harm. Conceal and carry laws are something I *would* consider in the jurisdiction of a given country where it's no one else's business, for instance.

However, when it comes to human misery, pain, and death -- that's everyone's business. When human rights are violated, that's the world's business. Every country, every religion, every culture should be accountable.

Even the USA -- USA government has done some horrific things that they need to be held accountable for.

* -- (Edit): However, if there were a place that was *forcing* people to observe customs (like wearing a burqa) then that's an instance where rights are being infringed and it should be denounced. To keep with that example, if a woman wants to wear a burqa then that should be her right (with reasonable exceptions such as at an airport, on an ID, etc.); but no one should be able to force others to observe customs if they don't want to observe them.

 

[Meow Mix]

I draw the line where a threat or a harm is involved.
If it has no effect on any one else at all, it would be hard to give a rational argument against it.

However even an apparently harmless belief, like the belief in a "young earth" can have a seriously bad effect on a nations education.

Whilst carrying a ritual weapon might be statistically insignificant, and could on balance be beneficial.

I can see where you're coming from on apparently harmless beliefs potentially having negative effects; but we can't strip people of rights because of "potentials." I believe it most definitely should be anyone's right to believe in a young earth if they want and even to be public about that opinion if they desire.

 

[Breathe]

However, when it comes to human misery, pain, and death -- that's everyone's business. When human rights are violated, that's the world's business. Every country, every religion, every culture should be accountable.

I do agree.

 

[Meow Mix]

I just in some sense don't understand several notions of national sovereignty. We are all human beings and we all deserve certain fundamental rights -- no government or culture or religion should be able to forcibly remove those rights from anyone -- especially when that involves harming people.

It breaks my heart to read comments on Fox and CNN when something is happening somewhere and people say "who cares, it's all the way over there" or "who cares, not my country." A "country" is such an artificial thing -- we are all part of the same species, we are all part of the same planet, we are all sentient and sapient beings. I care just as much if someone is being hurt in Luxembourg as I do if someone is being hurt in Kansas. Little artificial boundaries don't mean that someone has the right elsewhere to hurt people or to prevent them from having rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

I might be accused of being American-centric, and I might be accused of trying to press American values on the rest of the world -- but I don't think that's true. These rights aren't just American rights, they're human rights. America doesn't exactly have a sterling record as far as human rights are concerned, anyway.

 

[idav]

It is ok to have boundaries so if you want your country or culture to be sovereign, it is a right. However this sovereignty should not be used to protect or shield atrocities that occur. Though I hardly know what to do about it. We can't really invade our neighbors any time some atrocity happens.

BTW I heard last night on the news that someone got stoned to death in our neighbor country in Juarez. (can't find a source it was the tv news)

 

[Meow Mix]

It is ok to have boundaries so if you want your country or culture to be sovereign, it is a right. However this sovereignty should not be used to protect or shield atrocities that occur. Though I hardly know what to do about it. We can't really invade our neighbors any time some atrocity happens.

BTW I heard last night on the news that someone got stoned to death in our neighbor country in Juarez. (can't find a source it was the tv news)

I do agree with national sovereignty in most regards. It makes sense for nations to decide how to handle (or refrain from handling) their economies, to set up how they want to handle civil laws (as long as rights are protected), etc. It just doesn't make sense for a nation to be able to say "We want to kill group x" or "Let's hurt people severely for x petty crime."

Of course nations can't invade others every time some atrocity happens, and I definitely wouldn't even want that (war itself is an atrocity IMO). My argument is mostly just that the rest of the world does have a right to condemn, it does have the right to say "you shouldn't do that." It's not being the aggressor to stand up for someone's rights or protect them from cruel and unusual punishment -- it's not sticking our noses where they don't belong, but rather the opposite: our noses very much belong there, because it's all of our duties as sapient, sentient beings to protect fellow sapient/sentient beings.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Real good intentions and I agree in principle. The thing is, we take our freedoms in America for granted.

I see it all the time. Americans travel and believe the rights they grow up with travel with them.

I could not wear a cross in Saudi Arabia for example.

I could not take some over the counter cold medicine with me to Japan.

Your positions are noble, but very naive.

We can't even get equal rights for our queer friends in our own country, how on earth do you propose to achieve rights in certain third world countries?

Lastly, the best you could hope for is democracy. What if a country votes and is happy with things you dislike?

What do you want to do about it?

 

[Meow Mix]

Real good intentions and I agree in principle. The thing is, we take our freedoms in America for granted.

I see it all the time. Americans travel and believe the rights they grow up with travel with them.

I could not wear a cross in Saudi Arabia for example.

I could not take some over the counter cold medicine with me to Japan.

Your positions are noble, but very naive.

We can't even get equal rights for our queer friends in our own country, how on earth do you propose to achieve rights in certain third world countries?

Lastly, the best you could hope for is democracy. What if a country votes and is happy with things you dislike?

What do you want to do about it?

But I'm not arguing that our country's okay and that it's other countries that need this -- I'm arguing the world needs this regardless of country. As you noted, our country has its own fair share of injustices -- and I believe it's everyone's business, even other countries, to remind America of its injustices, and vice versa.

As for democracy, PURE democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. As long as a country has protections for the minority then it's not my business whether or not they vote for policies I agree with or not. It's only my business if they're hurting people.

 

[Meow Mix]

Here's an example of something I don't agree with at all: whoever's killing Iran's nuclear scientists.

I think a nuclear Iran is scary (but I don't want to debate that here -- maybe another thread), but killing a scientist is REALLY scummy. I don't want to debate who's doing it here either, just using it as an example of something I *don't* condone whatsoever.

 

[Nepenthe]

It was Aztec religion/culture to remove a sacrificial victim's heart (sometimes a volunteer, but often not).

While I understand the point of the OP and for the most part agree with most aspects of it I have to admit that the Aztec example isn’t the best argument. The issue of human sacrifice in Mesoamerica is a controversial one for anthropologists, but suffice it to say the reports were likely exaggerated and used as religious and political propaganda by Europeans and the Aztecs’ enemies. The reports of sacrificial atrocities are not pre-Colombian but anecdotes from natives who converted to Catholicism (the Florentine Codex is a major source here) as well the Spanish soldiers and clerics. It’s important to note also that these anecdotes were recorded and censored through the Consejo de las Indias, the authoritorial ecclesiastical group that processed and filtered information on the Spanish conquest. In 1521 King Charles the V ordered that all documents written in the New World must be reviewed by the Ecclesiastical and Inquisitorial Councils including the codices that were written by natives who had converted to Christianity. Hardly an unbiased source here.

Bernal Díaz del Castillo, a conquistador rodeleros(shield soldier) was one of the major contributors to the allegation that the Aztecs practiced mass sacrifices. But his Historia verdadera de la Nueva España is full of mistakes and raises questions about his impartiality. Many of the confessions from natives concerning sacrifice were also brought about by torture- the Alcalde Mayor Don Diego Quijada, the Jesuit Friedriche Spee Von Langenfeld and Franciscan missionary Fray Francisco de Toral are all documented as admitting claims of human sacrifice were drawn from torture victims despite the lack of evidence.

Bishop Diego de Landa, famed genocidal madman who was responsible for ordering the slaughter of innocent Mayans, admits in the now infamous Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán that he as head torturer was responsible for many confessions but also believed it validated the veracity of native’s barbarism. Ironic no? The Spanish Catholic worldview presumed the savagery of the indigenous peoples so stories about mass human sacrifices were easy for them to accept and perpetuate.

Bartolomé de las Casas defended the Aztecs against the accusations and said that none of the Spaniard’s claims were accurate as they never witnessed any actual sacrifices firsthand. He wrote the “language of the Spanish who write of horrible deeds with the intention of defaming the various Native Nations to excuse, the violent cruelties, thefts and massacres that they have made as never before seen.”

And then there are the remains of sacrificial victims to consider. There are extensive human remains assumed to be sacrificial in nature found in the Cenote Sagrado of Chichén Itza- it has long been assumed that these are the remains of sacrificial victims, yet other anthropologists have recently argued that the location is actually a sacred burial place for war heroes and heads of government instead. Jill Leslie McKeever Furst (professor of Art History and consulting scholar in the American section of the University of Pennsylvania Museum) has studied the Codice Vendobonensis Mexicanus extensively (an influential codice that contains many images that are presumed to be human sacrifices) and she argues that the images are not literal but metaphorical representations of the changing of the seasons and not a historical documentation of human sacrifice. (her book is extremely rare and hard to find but it is fascinating).

Remember, the Church has also had a history of concocting stories about Jews practicing human child sacrifice of gentiles- human sacrifice and cannibalism are a historically common means of smearing one’s enemies. While the vast majority of historians and anthropologists believe human sacrifice did occur in Aztec culture, many are now questioning how pervasive the act was as well as what motivated the sacrifices- causes ranging from ecological to political have been proposed in lieu of a religious basis for human sacrifice. Suffice it to say the traditional model of Aztecs practicing mass human slaughter as a major element of their religion is highly exaggerated and an oversimplification of the complex socio-political and ecological circumstances of the time.

If Aztecs were still around, it would be the world's duty to try to get them to stop ripping out peoples' hearts.

They are still around. There are over a million indigenous Aztecs in Mexico today and some still speak Nahuatl. And I assure you the vast majority have never ripped the heart out of anyone in the same way the vast majority of today's Jews are not kidnapping gentile children, slitting their throats and drinking their blood.


eta: apologies for the ****ed up formatting- I wrote and copied from notepad and I'm too lazy to gussy it up.

 

[Meow Mix]

While I understand the point of the OP and for the most part agree with most aspects of it I have to admit that the Aztec example isn’t the best argument.

Thank you for that very informative post! I'm sorry if I spoke out of ignorance regarding Aztec culture -- I was only hastily trying to make a point.

So, I'd like everyone to know that I didn't intend to smear or misrepresent Aztec culture. Hopefully the context of what my point was still makes sense, though. IF a culture were to incorporate murdering people, THEN it would be everyone else's business.

They are still around. There are over a million indigenous Aztecs in Mexico today and some still speak Nahuatl. And I assure you the vast majority have never ripped the heart out of anyone in the same way the vast majority of today's Jews are not kidnapping gentile children, slitting their throats and drinking their blood.

That was terrible wording on my part -- I know that they are still around. I had only meant their culture, or rather -- as you pointed out -- my misconception of their culture/a common myth associated with their culture.

I don't know about Jews, but I enjoy a good amount of child's blood in my cereal... (only kidding )

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't care what your country, culture or religion is, if you clash like this there oughta be a law.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Seriously though there are certain human rights that no country, culture or religion should be allowed to violate.

 

[Caladan]

I think that sometime we don't even consider ourselves to be part of a religion/culture/country unless someone enforces stereotypes on us.
I know that I have no interest to be designated on an internet forum as 'Israeli' or 'Jewish' unless someone promotes preconceived notions about me because I happen to be Israeli.
I am Jewish or Israeli when I give my side of the story. but I can tell you that my time can be spent much better than that. I much rather engage in interesting discussions than political arguments as if it is a matter of life and death.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The funny thing is that the type of people who tend to use an argument like "you can't tell me what to do, it's my culture," are often the same people who have no problem with trying to tell other people what they can/should and cannot/should not do.