Anti-homossexual parade in Warsaw - June.

Remove all ads!

Maybe. But it's not in contradiction with what you've said in the slightest - you've made generalizations time and again, and expressed quite a strong reluctance to adjust your views at all.

Based on what you've said in this thread, it's hard to believe compromise is the foundation of your world view. Even when I suggested ways for the two opposite ends to take steps towards each other, you said it's better to eliminate the problem. Compromise doesn't mean everyone else adjusts to your views; it means both sides adjust towards each other. Of course you could believe in making compromises with everything else besides gays, punks, leftists, relativism and other things discussed in this thread, but you haven't really implied such. Bear in mind this thread is my first encounter with you and your views.

Just so you know, I don't subscribe to the most extreme form of relativism. Certain concepts that are defined with wordings such as "within a majority of a given population" are by their very definition not relative. If a concept is based on what one person or several people *think*, you can't relativize by saying "well I don't think that person thinks that." Legitimacy is to my knowledge defined by 1) what is legal, 2) what is accepted by the majority of the population. You can't relativize what a person thinks. You can relativize whether they are right. It's not relativism to say "well in my opinion he doesn't believe that." It's relativism to say "I don't think his belief is correct even though he's convinced his belief is the universal truth." Things like exterminating gays or punks would not be legitimate, because they don't fill the two requirements. One might *think* they do, but legitimacy is defined in such a way that it requires the majority to agree.

Views which are sensical to you are views you agree with. And do you agree with *everything* that has historical/cultural legitimacy to them?

Tolerance. Oh, that's rich. Tolerance towards people who live like the religion says they should, that's all the tolerance it teaches. This is, of course, if we're talking about the world's main monotheistic religions. There may be others that actually do teach tolerance.

If someone's "heritage and culture" includes discriminating other people, it makes perfect sense to me to look down on those parts of the heritage and culture. And note that I said "those parts." I'm not against traditions, per se, but I believe tradition for its own sake, as an inherent value of its own, is nonsensical. The good things in heritage and culture don't need to be taken away at all, but it makes no sense to maintain a tradition that is harmful.

Just an as example, have you read about circumcision on girls, that is a tradition in certain African countries? It's a procedure that is dangerous, harmful, and has no benefits whatsoever - but it's a tradition, so they do it just the same. Should a tradition like that be cherished?

I really don't think integration should include forcing a religion on someone. And I find it hard to believe that subscribing to a certain religion is really a "condition" of being Russian. Aren't there Russians with other religions, or ones that subscribe to none? Or are they not "real" Russians?

 

I can claim these same signs to my generalisations. Things that repeat time and again... People expressing a strong reluctance to adjust their behaviour, culture etc.

My compromise to my ideology is self evident. Nationalism implies commitement and compromise.

Unsurprisingly, you are wrong once again. Firstly, from a relativist perspective, one can relativize what the other thinks. This is something Psychology does all the time.
Secondly, legitimacy and legality are concepts apart since the French Revolution. Royalists believed in the legitimate right of the monarchy to rule the country, while the liberals claimed for a goverment grounded on the legalityof the Napoleon Code.
Legality is exclusively a juridic concept, whose technical-formal condition is a requirement to the existance of the juridical system itself, revealing it's own dogmatic structure, counterpointing the authority of it's dispositions in conformity to the positive legal text.
It assumes the axiological neutrality, and the universality of principles in accordance to security and order - we are talking about modern state-of-law countries - which are the foundation of modern western societies. Thus, legality is the exercise of a given action in harmony with certain limits of pre established laws.
Legitimacy is to be undestood as an "attribute of the right of power". Implicates a substantive and ethic-political notion, whose existance moves around the realm of beliefs, convictions and valorative principles. It's power lies not in norms or juridical precepts, but in the interest and the ideological will. As a material concept, legitimacy relates to a situation, attitude, decision or behaviour inherent or not to the manifested power, whose specificity is marked by the equilibrium between the actions of individuals and social valours.
The only part of your quote which is not absurd is the relation between legitimacy and consent - what the majority accepts as right. Of course this is not as poor as that.
There are different types of legitimacy: charism-based; ensured by tradition; and even a rational legitimacy, which although relates itself to legality, can not be confused with it. The rational legitimacy is objectivelly guaranteed by the validity of the positive law, but it exists outside it's sphere of influence, nonetheless.
Legitimacy, unlike legality, implies some moral foundations as well. Something might be accepted by the majority, and even be legally assured, but still not legitimate. There are countless examples of barbaric procedures accepted by the majority of the population in some muslim countries, but they are not legitimate.

Sensical relates to what is logical, not to what I believe is right. Maybe you will echo the words of someone who said before logic is also relative?
As long as it a real historical/cultural legitimacy, and not one artificially created, then mostly likely yes. You would have to be more specific though.

What do you know about Orthodoxy to generalise the monotheistic religions like that?

If these "discriminating" parts of heritage and culture are the ones which ensure the preservation and continuity of the heritage and culture themselves, I fear we stumbled upon a ideological barrier, which can not be trespassed.
And by harmful you mean to whom? The traditions should benefit the people who practice these traditions themselves, because tradition is in itself a exclusive and specific concept. Exclusive and specific in the sense that they - traditions - are inherent to a part - as opposed to the whole - a group of people who share them.
I have a nice recipe to anyone who finds ours traditions "harmful", stay the hell out of here, and no one will be "harmed". I can not accept, though, that aliens come here and wish to change cultural/ethnical aspects of society, on the basis that they are offensive to them.

As I said, traditions are shared by a group of inter-related people. I don't share their traditions, I am not part of their group. It is not to me to say these traditions should be abolished or not, and I don't give a damn.
If they, sometime in the future, decide that this tradition is barbaric and ought to be banned, good for them. However, I won't accept that commandments of UN twits interfere within my own society, as if they have any legitimate right to decide for ourselves if tradition X or Y must be eliminated, on the basis that it is "discriminaiting" or "disrespectul to human rights".
So the question will always be, "harmful" to whom, and who has the right to decide anything?

Russians subscribing to other religions are most certainly not Russians. It is a condition to being Russian to be Slavic and culturally Russian. Protestant Volga germans are germans, not Russians; zhids are zhids; muslim tartars are tartars. They are all Rossyanie, but not one of them is a Russkie.
As for ethnical non-religious Russians - or those who regard themselves as "pagans" - are certainly Russians themselves, although I would dare to say they are not fully culturally Russian, as an important part of that they miss. They are "real" Russians, but should not complain about the Orthodox nature of Russian society, or if their children have lessons on religion in school - unless this is an anti-Orthodox approach to religious teaching.
---------------------------------------------------

Maybe yours don't?

I am touched by your words! How is it I have never realised before we are all a big and happy human family!

 

But there's a difference in predicting what one person does based on what that one person has done before, and predicting what one person does based on what some other person has done before.

Compromise to what? The ideology you already subscribe to? That's not the kind of compromise I was referring to.

I am aware that legalism and legitimacy are separate concepts, but what I said was legitimate things are often legal as well. The definition you provided was, however, broader than my hazy recollections of filosophy classes.

I really don't see the logic in strong anti-gay attitudes.

I'm basing this view on the strongly anti-gay views you have presented. It applies to most monotheistic religions. Churches teach intolerance towards gays.

Harmful to the people being discriminated, such as gays. Not everybody has the luxury to choose where to live. With the female circumcision example the harm is quite obvious in the form of health hazards in giving birth and the inability to enjoy sex. As for who has the right, that is a more complex question, but I for one think that the benefits in interfering with harmful traditions like those stated above outweigh the inconvenience of people having to give up on a tradition.

Your definition of who's a Russian and who isn't doesn't really sit well with me, but it's probably due to two things - I don't know the country's history, and that I don't have nationalistic views. I have a question, though. What about the time preceding the Orthodox faith? If the people back then weren't proper Russians, wouldn't them becoming such mean they abandoned their former culture, traditions, identity?

Edit:

But you would have a problem with outside influences interfering with these illegitimate barbaric procedures? If those moral foundations are such that widely accepted local customs can be illegitimate, haven't you answered your own question of who has the right to decide what's harmful?

[ November 24, 2005, 19:27: Message edited by: Susipaisti ]

 

Not just someone else, but someone who shares strong likeness to him.
Regardless, even if there is a difference between this kind of typical generalisation, and what you have done - which I won't deny there isn't - what do people have against generalisations? The fact that they are unfair, no? The way you generalised my way of thinking was unfair - as yourself admitted so. What is objectively relevant, if this is a typical generalisation or not, or the fact that you were unfair to me?

Am I supposed to read your mind or something?

You did not say often before. One can always repent for his mistakes though, as long as they are willing to admit they were wrong.

This does not sound well. I was talking abstractly, and you are reducing what I have said to the concrete case of anti-gay attitudes. The transition between the defition of sensical as in logical - as opposed to what is agreeable - and anti-gay attitudes being logical is a conclusion one can not make out of my words - unless you tried really hard to read between lines.

So, if that is what the Catholic - or islamism, judaism - church preaches - which is something I am entirely taking your word for it - then the Orthodox church has to do the same? Now that is a generalisation which can be applied in the pure and "typical" sense.
By the way, monotheistic religions teach the "laws" of God. In the case of the Christian church, it preaches Jesus teachings. Now I found out the role of these religions is to spread intolerance against the poor and eternal gay victims.

You did omit most of my citation though. It goes both ways, as the traditions are intended only to the sole group it encompass. If you feel harmed by the traditions of a different Nation, you have your free will not to go there. Traditions are particular to each Nation. The only thing which is general and unforgiving are UN resolutions, which are impositive and disrespectul to the will of the parts. Traditions can always be overcomed, because they are not supposed to engulf the particularity of other parts; unlike the UN "totalizing" measures, which are supposed to be universal and sole.
As to whom has the right, I think the answer is clear. The group encompassed by these traditions are the only ones legitimate to do it, and if that comes naturally, then all cheers for them. It should not be forced upon them by outside hands such as the UN, which self entitled themselves defenders of "human rights".

They were not Russians. There were Slavic tribes, who had little in form of unity. Kievan Rus, which is the original state from which Russia descends, was Christianized in the year of 987. From then on, the Russian identity developed, and Orthodoxy is certainly the central ground/bastion of Russian Culture, which is not to say the pagan traditions were fully destroyed or engulfed, or left no inprint on the Russian life; which only makes Russian's souls all the richer. Russian's identity and Culture is the result of all this intermingle and development.

They are illegitimate to my moral standards, but no, I have no will to change them, because I do not even have the right to do so.

 

I don't think even a strong likeness warrants such generalizations, and there is a...how shall I put this...a difference in the degree of unfairness in these cases. But answering the question, the unfairness is the more important issue, and I did admit of being unfair with the comment.

Well, as a seasoned *implier* of things instead of answering plainly, yeah...no, really. The kind of compromise I've been talking about is finding ways of coexisting peacefully with those you don't agree with. This kind of thing usually involves both sides giving in somewhat, softening their views or the practical applications of their views.

Yes, I was a bit off. To be honest, I wasn't initially sure whether it should be "often" or "normally" or "always" or what. It's been a while since those philosophy classes. As I said, I was aware there is a difference, but your explanation clarified it somewhat. Thanks.

I was trying to steer it back on the actual topic of the thread. Backtracking on what's been said, the abstract level came into the picture after comparing tolerance classes with enforcing laws and teaching religion. Pro-gay rights classes and law enforcement both involve an "authority" imposing an idea on people from above. You disagree with the former because it is unagreeable, agree with the other because it is logical, but with the former you also protest against the process, which is ultimately similar in the latter, and here's why:

Suggesting that the tolerance classes in America originate from UN orders seems strange, because in my country there are no such classes even though we're in the UN just like America is. The classes must originate from the country's government, just like laws - if the government just passed through whatever the UN tells them, the same kind of classes would be happening in other UN countries too, especially in countries as pro-UN as mine is. Further, there are plenty of UN-originated laws that I'd be surprised to hear you object to - things like outlawing torture as a method of interrogation. If that or some other human rights law strikes you as logical/sensical, you probably won't be making a fuss about the UN dictating what people should think in that particular case.

Based on what you said in your most recent post, I must dissect these two quotes a little:

So are sensical views (like logical laws) and views with historical/cultural legitimacy (like attitudes towards gays) entirely different things? Don't historical/cultural things, such as attitudes towards gays, need to have logic in them? Is it enough that they are a just a part of the culture, and don't need to be logical?

If the Orthodox church doesn't have a problem with gays, I stand corrected. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish faiths all say homosexuality is a serious sin. I'm fairly certain this is true with Islam as well.

So the churches are just teaching the word of God and don't spread intolerance? Well if the word of God includes intolerant views, the churches are among other things teaching intolerant views.

In the cases of female circumcisions, Sharia courts etc., it happens quite often that the recipients of the harm are the inhabitants of those nations. Some women facing death sentences for having been raped have actually succeeded in escaping their country, but many more have not been able to. It's not as simple as not having to go there.

Overcoming traditions "naturally" is a rare occurence. The kind of barbarism as mentioned above has gone on for centuries, and those in charge of those places (=men) strongly object to any development that the receiving end of the abuse inflicted by those traditions (=women) would wish. That kind of traditions will not be overcome naturally, even though half the population would probably wish it.

By the way, isn't nationalism as an idea about preserving traditions, and thus a bit contradictionary to overcoming traditions, naturally or no?

With each other, they probably had not much unity going on, but among themselves, they must have had cultures. Getting absorbed into a new culture means they gave up on their own, even if not entirely. I might post some thoughts on this in the nationalism thread, since it would digress completely off topic here.

 

Since I was born in an orthodox country and raised as an orthodox even I'm not orthodox now, I can very easily say that the orthodox clergy and tolerance are two things that walk on separate ways.

Few examples:
Christodoulos, Archbishop of Athens: "Homosexuals are abominations".

The same guy again: "These eastern barbarians (turks) must never join EU".

The priest who was teaching the religion's lesson in my high school: "This poor guy Hitler made the Jews soaps. I don't justify him but afterall they were jews".

 

The german protestant church is an exception, as far as I know.

Catholizism and the orthodox faiths, Judaism, and the Islam teach all that their faith is the pinnacle of religious teaching. All others are heathens (well, the Islam makes the exception of the book religions, i.e. christianism and judaism, which are considered better than heathens but not equal to muslims).

Non-tolerance towards other religions is inherent in every faith. That's why religions spread in the first place.

I don't know. Maybe your upbringing was full of said prejudices?

 

This somehow slipped my notice when writing my last post. What psychology does is different from the philosophy of relativism. Psychology might deal with things like denial, ways of how the mind works when fabricating ideas, but it's not relativism. It's not a matter of *opinion* what someone else thinks, only the values and right or wrong aspects of it. Psychology can question whether someone thinks a certain way or not, but it's not the same as relativism.

Whether homosexuality is acceptable or unacceptable is in the area of relativism. What is or isn't offensive (in a universal sense), also.

 

Nothing to add.

Imply is ok; to think something and write another is a total different thing.
Anyway, now that I know what kind of compromise you are talking about, I am not interested. Not in this particular case at least.

I disagree with the former because it suits an ideological agenda, and I agree with the latter because it is mandatory for the existance of any state, and I do not support anarchy; in other words, for pratical reasons.
The less laws all the better though, and I do not support laws which are meant to impose anything other than what is necessary to ensure security and order to the society.

Maybe you don't have those classes, but 1) it does not mean your educational system is not heavily influenced by UN resolution and 2) it does not mean the UN is not pushing for those, only that there is still a focus of resistance against the internationalist nature and purpose of it - gladly.

Because something does not need to be necessarily logical to be acceptable, but something inherently ilogical can not be accepted when deailing with such important issues, like national ideology or politics. And yes, something might be something other than logical, but not ilogical itself. Faith is a good example of that.
So, to answer your question, a cultural aspect does not need to be logical to be legitimate, but to push ilogical policies - which don't even have a cultural justification to them - is not acceptable.

The Orthodox Church does not; Jesus did, and we follow his teachings. The ROC preachs the word of Jesus, which are God's own. If people apply humane concepts - such as intolerance - to Jesus words - which come from God - it is a different matter.
To say the ROC spreads intolerance is a pretentious and ignorant statement, and twists the nature of the institution itself.

"Intolerance" to sin is the duty of any church. I am not a big theologist though, and I am sure a friend of mine could do a much better job than I explaining to you the stances of the ROC, so I will leave it at that.

To force your view on what is right upon them is to negate relativism itself. Aren't you a supporter of relativism - albeit not of it's "extreme" form? What is your proposition, to invade and push your ways into them? If your only point is to claim some traditions are unhealthy and un-moral though, and should be revised, then I can even agree with you. For instance, by the time my ancestors were heathens, they had as many "wives" as they wished; I think that is un-moral, and so did they after a while, which is way they abandoned this cultural aspect. This is the natural development of the mindset which occurs in any Nation; to the better, in my opinion.

Not quite rare. Just read the example I gave you above. Another one: at the time we were heathens, it was not unusual to deal slaves with the Arabs, which is totally un-moral and unacceptable. This also naturally developed. There would be countless examples, so I don't think your argument holds water.
Just as a side note, don't underestimate the power traditions have upon the people encompassed by them, even the ones allegedly harmed by them. I would not be surprised many woman support or don't even mind those practices.

Not really. Nationalism is about caring for your people and culture. Preserving traditions is an important part of it, but not the sole justification to it. It goes deeper than that. For example, why shouldn't anti-National traditions be washed away - like dealing your own people as slaves - now that would be essencialy anti-Nationalist.

No. I said clearly before the Russian Culture has a strong inprint of our pre Christian traditions. Their culture was not destroyed, by any stretch of imagination.
We maintain many festivals which have lived to these days, like Maslenitza - winter comemorations - because unlike internationalists intent, ours was never to destroy what has come before us.
Even in the people's mindset, our folk culture, costumes, art etc we can see the remnants of their inprint and legacy.
I don't hold anything against heathens particularly. I used to be one when I was 14.

I see your point, but relativism deals with notions of truth and perception. Self denial is itself a false truth, or a misperception. It is in this context I say that.

Well, I fear we have been digressing too much, so if you want to further discuss this, please open a new topic dealing with religion, ancient culture or whatever title you find most suitable. By the way, if you want me to keep discussing this point, don't bother posting in the Nationalism thread, as I won't be joining it.
---------------------------------------------------

Dude, so is the atheistic dogma. The purpose of all dogmas - and atheism is certainly a dogma - is to present the truth. People either follow the dogma or they don't. However, this BS about "all religions are intolerant dogmas, spread with the purpose of disregarding different views, wherein our atheistic and open minded view of the world is not dogmatic or intolerant" is plain fallacious. "God does not exist" is as dogmatic as is "God does exist". "Accept homosexuals as equal human beings" is as much a dogma as "homosexuals are sinful creatures".

Yes, I was not enlightened by your post-WWII western "humanistic" approach to the world yet. Maybe once I will see the merits of hippie ideoloy though.