4 ms·

I brought up the Hopi very specifically because of their religious practices.[1] Children among the Hopi are raised to believe literally that the Kacina dance

I brought up the Hopi very specifically because of their religious practices.[1] Children among the Hopi are raised to believe literally that the Kacina dancers are literally gods from somewhere else who have come to work miracles on the village. Once every 3 years, the children ages 7-9 are gathered together for induction into the religious community of the village. This induction involves ritual beating and betrayal (showing that what they have been taught all their lives is a carefully constructed lie), and thus induction into the religious community is also a somewhat temporary and violent initiation into atheism as well. However this tearing down of belief in relatively visceral and violent ways is considered necessary for passing on the Hopi understanding of religion. The problem I have with this sort of international humanism is that it leaves no room for cultures like that. I mean Think of the Children!!! They are being abused!!! and so we go out of our way to impose our own culture on everyone else in the way of proving that nationalism and ethnocentricity must go. [1] see Gill, Sam D. 1996 "Disenchantment: A Religious Abduction." In Readings in Ritual Studies, edited by Ronald L. Grimes, 230-39. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Joeri 13y ago
If there was a tribe who considered cannibalism and ritual sacrifice an essential part of their religion, would you also defend that practice? There is a line which cannot be crossed, we're just debating where it should be drawn. I don't think religion has any bearing on whether something is acceptable or not. The Hopi may beat their children for religious reasons, but plenty of parents beat their children for non-religious reasons. What matters in the question of whether this should be allowed is not the reason why they do it, but the consequences of doing it. Laws regulate actions based on their consequences, not based on their motive.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Religion is an integral part of culture though, so an attack on religious practice is an attack on cultural integrity. This is why I support the Supreme Court's decision in Yoder v. Wisconsin, holding that the Amish in the US have a right to educate their children to Amish religious standards instead of the standards the state sets, even if, as Justice Douglas noted in his concurring opinion, this means someone raised as an Amish will never be able to be an astronaught. The fundamental question is how much deference we give to culture generally and who is making these decisions. Do we want white folks telling Hopi they can't have what remains of their culture anymore? Do we want folks from China and India telling white Americans what should constitute free speech? My view is that if we don't allow for local culture and decisions about such things to be made at the local and cultural level then we lose our basic humanity. For cannibalism or ritual sacrifice, if it is internal to a population group, I think that this is for that group to work out. If it is between groups, well then that's cause for war..... A lot of things in culture are really structurally variable. For example is it a human right to be able to choose not to ever have children? Does this mean that cultures that expect retirees to be cared for by their children are violating human rights and every culture must have something like social security? Now, if you agree that's a cultural issue, then something like same-sex marriage also must be a cultural issue too. (Religion, in my view, isn't about God. Religion is about community.)
Vivtek 13y ago
Actually, I suspect Americans in general should be subjected to this ritual. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
vidarh 13y ago
I still don't see any contradiction between different moral norms and the claim statement that people deserve a government of the same standards and access to the same opportunities. Perhaps you interprets "standards" as "moral standards", which I didn't. That said, I don't for a second believe that there's any reason for us to accept that all cultures are worth saving, or that some cultural norms should not be actively fought. However I see that as an entirely orthogonal issue to the first.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  The problem is that standards of government, education, and so forth are cultural standards, and when one says everyone should have the equal opportunity, then there is no opportunity for the Amish or other more traditional groups. Additionally if you think as many do that if you call something "child abuse" that it impacts potential for many years of life, that impacts things too. So I don't think you can separate off standards of morality. These are deeply connected to economic and social realities and the interplay between moral standards and economic opportunity goes both ways. For example, think about this: why do we regard abortion as a right? Is it tied to the realities women face in our economy? Or were hunter gatherers who did not have access to abortion violating human rights? I don't think the second viewpoint is remotely defensible, so it must be the first. > That said, I don't for a second believe that there's any reason for us to accept that all cultures are worth saving, or that some cultural norms should not be actively fought. The question is who has the right to fight them and how. It's one thing to critique another culture. It's something else to go out to try to force them to see the error of their ways. The problem is that the latter is usually just an exercise of nationalism if we define nationalism as hating other national/cultural groups. The question is, how sure should an outsider be of the context of an action? Or is this better left for the members of the culture to navigate and evolve as meets their needs? I side generally with the latter unless it involves conflict between cultural groups. That's different and poses different problems.
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    I've been thinking about this issue of Hopi "child abuse". Is it more abusive to subject children to a single coming-of-age ritual designed to teach them to think, or to allow children to transition to adulthood physically unharmed yet full of ideas designed to hold them back from full enjoyment of their faculties? It seems that the Hopi would be entirely justified in saying that all other Americans are guilty of child abuse.

Joeri 13y ago

If there was a tribe who considered cannibalism and ritual sacrifice an essential part of their religion, would you also defend that practice? There is a line which cannot be crossed, we're just debating where it should be drawn. I don't think religion has any bearing on whether something is acceptable or not. The Hopi may beat their children for religious reasons, but plenty of parents beat their children for non-religious reasons. What matters in the question of whether this should be allowed is not the reason why they do it, but the consequences of doing it. Laws regulate actions based on their consequences, not based on their motive.

einhverfr 13y ago
Religion is an integral part of culture though, so an attack on religious practice is an attack on cultural integrity. This is why I support the Supreme Court's decision in Yoder v. Wisconsin, holding that the Amish in the US have a right to educate their children to Amish religious standards instead of the standards the state sets, even if, as Justice Douglas noted in his concurring opinion, this means someone raised as an Amish will never be able to be an astronaught. The fundamental question is how much deference we give to culture generally and who is making these decisions. Do we want white folks telling Hopi they can't have what remains of their culture anymore? Do we want folks from China and India telling white Americans what should constitute free speech? My view is that if we don't allow for local culture and decisions about such things to be made at the local and cultural level then we lose our basic humanity. For cannibalism or ritual sacrifice, if it is internal to a population group, I think that this is for that group to work out. If it is between groups, well then that's cause for war..... A lot of things in culture are really structurally variable. For example is it a human right to be able to choose not to ever have children? Does this mean that cultures that expect retirees to be cared for by their children are violating human rights and every culture must have something like social security? Now, if you agree that's a cultural issue, then something like same-sex marriage also must be a cultural issue too. (Religion, in my view, isn't about God. Religion is about community.)

Vivtek 13y ago

Actually, I suspect Americans in general should be subjected to this ritual. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

vidarh 13y ago

I still don't see any contradiction between different moral norms and the claim statement that people deserve a government of the same standards and access to the same opportunities. Perhaps you interprets "standards" as "moral standards", which I didn't. That said, I don't for a second believe that there's any reason for us to accept that all cultures are worth saving, or that some cultural norms should not be actively fought. However I see that as an entirely orthogonal issue to the first.

einhverfr 13y ago
The problem is that standards of government, education, and so forth are cultural standards, and when one says everyone should have the equal opportunity, then there is no opportunity for the Amish or other more traditional groups. Additionally if you think as many do that if you call something "child abuse" that it impacts potential for many years of life, that impacts things too. So I don't think you can separate off standards of morality. These are deeply connected to economic and social realities and the interplay between moral standards and economic opportunity goes both ways. For example, think about this: why do we regard abortion as a right? Is it tied to the realities women face in our economy? Or were hunter gatherers who did not have access to abortion violating human rights? I don't think the second viewpoint is remotely defensible, so it must be the first. > That said, I don't for a second believe that there's any reason for us to accept that all cultures are worth saving, or that some cultural norms should not be actively fought. The question is who has the right to fight them and how. It's one thing to critique another culture. It's something else to go out to try to force them to see the error of their ways. The problem is that the latter is usually just an exercise of nationalism if we define nationalism as hating other national/cultural groups. The question is, how sure should an outsider be of the context of an action? Or is this better left for the members of the culture to navigate and evolve as meets their needs? I side generally with the latter unless it involves conflict between cultural groups. That's different and poses different problems.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  I've been thinking about this issue of Hopi "child abuse". Is it more abusive to subject children to a single coming-of-age ritual designed to teach them to think, or to allow children to transition to adulthood physically unharmed yet full of ideas designed to hold them back from full enjoyment of their faculties? It seems that the Hopi would be entirely justified in saying that all other Americans are guilty of child abuse.