I am asking this question to see how others feel about society being forced to change because of a
person's religious beliefs. Are some changes okay? Should some changes be off-limits?
How far must a society go to accommodate an influx of any religious group?
There are a lot of good laws in practice that are somewhat faith-based; however, I think these are more natural human instinct than they are faith-based. For example-any law similar to the ten commandments(thou shalt not kill is a good example). Sure it's in the bible, but it's in countless other texts and laws far before the bible showed up. It just seems natural that we shouldn't want to kill or be killed by other humans. Same goes for stealing-it may be natural instinct for a lot of humans to want to just take something without having paid for it, but you don't want anyone stealing your things, so you want there to be a law and some prick from high school who gets paid to prance around in a uniform and harass everyone who is getting in a car at night.
These are all good laws-however there are a lot of things in society that should not be influenced by personal beliefs. One great example is fundamentalist christians wanting creationism to be taught in public schools. Sure they can keep saying that natural selection and the Theory of Evolution is a "belief structure", but they really aren't. Church and state should remain separate, and there is no benefit to teaching children false history as science. Evolution might have a few gaps-but there is at least a 99.9999% chance that it is the truth, when there is only a 0.0001% chance that creationists are right. It's just ridiculous to assume that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and just as ridiculous to say that everything was created in six days, or that there was a flood that covered the entire planet and killed everything not on some magical boat.
This is a great example of someone's personal beliefs harming society, as it will just make our children(and future adults/rulers of the world)even more ignorant than they already are.
This is my opinion only, so take it as you will.
But I feel that no, society should not change to accommidate religion. It goes back to the old saying "If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one."
No beliefs should ever have any effect on society. A country is comprised of borders, language and culture. The minute something changes that, it isn't the same country at all.
When people emigrate to a country, they are expected to integrate into the society. Otherwise, why go there in the first place?
| RT Cunningham wrote: |
| Otherwise, why go there in the first place? |
Probably because they like who they are and what they do but don't like the fact they can't get medicine or there is no work available or that their motherland is crap and they would rather come to a different country and try to make it theirs.
I wonder how Saudi Arabia or Israel would feel if millions of Christians went to their country and forced them to celebrate Good Friday. How might that go over? (rhetorical question expecting a completely negative answer).
But I agree that integration is key... not shutting down a city 5 times a day just because there are so many Muslims or closing for Rosh Hashanah or Good Friday or any other religious reason. I purposely left Christmas out as it is clearly no longer a Christian only holiday (as can be seen from 1000000 ads and even more Santa Claus costume clad well wishers).well it depends largely on the principles of the society in question.
noone should be forced to change for other people, however a compassionate society should accept and try to accomodate all religions as long as it doesn't harm that society's way of life.
i think all instances should be looked at on a case by case basis.
(useless yet relevant: celebrating good friday is illegal in saudi arabia, as with all non-islamic religous events, valentines day is the one day of the year you can't buy roses)
| Deuc wrote: |
I am asking this question to see how others feel about society being forced to change because of a person's religious beliefs. Are some changes okay? Should some changes be off-limits?
How far must a society go to accommodate an influx of any religious group? |
Society changes constantly with new people, new behaviours from existing people, new conventions, and new generations. This happens regardless of the ethnic mix, even in a very homogenous society. (All parents know that once the kids reach puberty then their music is no longer supposed to be accessible to them. In fact the child will often be mortified if the parent apparently likes the stuff and the sensible parent with contemporary tastes will pretend the stuff is ghastly and listen to it in secret when the kids are away). That is a very minor example of continuous change but illustrates the point.
There are some exceptions, of course; normally societies that are governed by strict codes of behaviour (such as the Amish for example). In those cases the society of people have made a conscious descision to adopt a different set of values and normally they do as the Amish and withdraw to a communal space which they can control for much of the time. This is rare, of course, and most people just 'get on with it' as best they can.
I believe that Legislation is not appropriate in this area in nearly all cases. The only exceptions that come to mind would be perhaps relaxing crash helmet legislation for Sikhs. Social codes, norms and peer pressure are the normal way that behaviour within society is moulded and constrained and this is a much more subtle and useful tool than legislation.
As far as the UK is concerned, it is supposedly based on Magna Carta and, again supposedly, would claim democracy and personal freedoms as two core values. Altering the political system to suit a sect, religion or other sub-group should, of course, never be even considered - such changes, if and where they are needed, must come from a broadly based consensus across the population and certainly not from one group or faction within that society, whether it be white protestants or Indian Sufis.
After that then it falls largely to the individual to make their own decisions about what behaviours they are prepared to tolerate in their own space and what they are not. In communal spaces then, again, legislation is a blunt weapon and where possible things should be left outside the legal framework and left to the more subtle control of social mores, agreed boundries and peer pressure. Thus it should be perfectly legal for (as an example) 2 gay guys to express their feelings in a public place by kissing or similar. It would not be 'appropriate' however for the same two guys to do this in certain spaces (outside the home of a raging homophobe, for example) and this would be clearly understood via the social interactions, that are part of normal life. People work these things out form themselves pretty well normally and as long as the underlying principle is tolerance coupled with a respect for an individuals own 'space' then it normally works out fine.
Regards
ChrisForced, no, but I am convinced that personal beliefs adapt to culture regardless. Force is not neccessary, only time is needed. Your beliefs, if surrounded by other beliefs will at least begin to accomodate those other ideas around you.
