[Pan-users] Re: OT: freedomware vs... Was: Building Panon Windows?

[Duncan]

Steven D'Aprano posted on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:39:44 +1100 as excerpted:

> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 04:23:58 pm Duncan wrote:
> 
>> That I know.  What I don't know is whether there's a "salvation by
>> faith" parallel that can be claimed (if only by some relatively minor
>> sect) for Islam or most other religions.
> 
> Of course there is, in some form, although Islam does include a much
> stronger emphasis on good works and righteous behaviour. It's not enough
> to merely have faith, you actually have to do good deeds and follow the
> rituals as well. But without faith and submission to God's will), good
> deeds and behaviour is meaningless.

In the context of JZ's reply, it's interesting to see Judaism without an 
element of salvation by faith at all, Christianity coming along and (at 
least in most modern versions) stressing it, and Islam coming along after 
and perhaps finding a middle ground, with both elements but a strong 
emphasis on "works".

> Whether their idea of "salvation by faith" is exactly the same as what
> you mean by it is unlikely, but then if you take a Catholic, a Mormon,
> an Anglican and a Baptist, I doubt that they would precisely agree
> either.

You're definitely correct there.  In fact, the degree of emphasis on faith 
vs works is the primary distinction between many denominations, altho most 
pay at least lip service to both.

>> > As Richard Dawkins points out, it would be the strangest thing if
>> > people referred to small children or even new-born babies as
>> > "Republican" or "Democrat", but all over the world people think
>> > nothing of talking about "Jewish babies" and "Catholic babies" or
>> > "Hindu babies". It is ridiculous and wicked.
>>
>> I'm aware of infant baptism in Catholicism, [...]
> 
> I'm not merely talking about baptism, although of course many religions
> do practice early baptism (or the equivalent).
> 
> I'm talking about the practice of describing religion as something you
> inherit from your ancestors, like blood type or eye colour, or
> ethnicity/race. If your parents are Druze, you are Druze, and if not,
> you can't be. If your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew, no ifs buts or
> maybes. You might be a non-practicing Jew, or a lapsed Jew, or even an
> atheist or a Christian Jew(!), but you're still a Jew. And if your
> mother isn't a Jew, then you aren't Jewish -- even if you convert, which
> most rabbis don't allow and even those who do make it very difficult,
> you'll always be a Jew by conversion and not a "real" Jew.

Perhaps you've seen this a bit more than I, or perhaps you place a 
different emphasis/interpretation on the same actions.  In my experience, 
with exceptions, it's mostly a question of heritage and culture, not so 
much religion.

IOW, taking the Jews as an example, the term can refer to religion, 
ethnicity, or culture.  Often it's a mix of the three as they tend to 
appear together, to some large extent.  But were I to hear the term 
"Jewish baby" in conversation, unless prevented by the context, I'd tend 
to internally translate that as "Hebrew baby" (ethnically and culturally, 
also potentially nationally).  The presumption on my part, at least, would 
be that the kid would make his own decision in regard to religion, as he 
grew up, and perhaps change it one or more times as an adult.  
Statistically, there'd be a recognition of Jewish religion probability, 
but that's what it'd be, statistically, with those generally aware of such 
things reading that into the reference all along.

Similarly with the Sikhs and Druze, perhaps especially the Druze, as 
they're culturally Christian so religiously could be classified that way 
instead/as-well.  Christian... not so much as they're so widely 
diversified culturally and ethnically... but by the same token, the term 
"Christian baby" is rare enough in my experience that it'd stop me short 
as I examined the context to try to determine the intended meaning.  
Catholic... perhaps, but then again, there's that infant baptism thing, 
which is opaque enough to me I couldn't defend even in a role as devil's 
advocate.  "Charismatic baby"... I'd have to call that religio-cultural, 
not a religious classification per se.  "Amish baby"... strong culture so 
definitely cultural, with sub-ethnic overtones as well.  "Mormon baby"... 
that one could be an exception due to unique beliefs.  "Witness baby"... 
based on the below you tell me, but I'd say DEFINITELY NOT ethnic (I'd 
call that a good point), but certainly religio-cultural.  Maybe religious 
as well, but generally described as a hope or in the context discussed 
below.  "X Orthodox baby"... generally cultural/religio-cultural, often 
with ethnic overtones as well depending on X.

> I don't mean to pick on the Jews. The Sikhs are similar, as are many
> other groups, and even in secular Western states, the default assumption
> is that children have the same religion as their parents. Even if
> they're not formally baptised. Nobody ever asks a small child what
> religion they want to join when they grow up. It would be a shocking
> thing to say in most of the world (and might even get you killed), and a
> bizarre and unusual thing in much of the rest.

In the secular Western states, I'd say it's definitely a legal recognition 
of guardianship.  The parent is considered the adult and their decisions 
-- and responsibility -- legally hold in many areas.  Religion is only one 
of them.  But as the child matures, particularly at that "legally magical" 
age of 18 where they "magically" switch from legally being a kid a minute 
before midnight, to legally being an adult in most ways a minute after, 
THEN the individual is classified by their own choice, no longer that of 
the (former) legal guardian.  IOW, I see that as generally a legal matter.

As for asking a kid what they want to be when they grow up, unlike the job 
they might fancy, few kids (at least pre-adolescent, when asking what they 
want to be when they grow up is an accepted question) have much of an idea 
beyond what their parents are, so the answer is predictable and therefore 
uninteresting, so it doesn't tend to get asked.  (I'd also posit that 
where that would NOT be the case, the issue is strongly enough felt that 
the answer isn't hidden, and there's again no need to ask, because the 
answer is again predictable, even if it doesn't fall under the normative 
case.)


> E.g.:
> 
> "Is a Baptized Jewish Baby Still Considered Jewish?"
> http://judaism.about.com/od/asktherabbi/p/all_baptism.htm

I found reading this one rather interesting.  There's several variations 
on the theme covered there, and I found the sensitivity yet firmness 
encouraging.  There's certainly a recognition of the cultural issues.  
What stood out to me, however, was the cross-religion recognition of the 
value that Catholics themselves place on infant baptism.  Again, that's a 
practice I can't condone and couldn't defend even as devil's advocate, 
likely due to ignorance, but by recognizing the value that Catholics 
themselves place on the ritual, the position of the Jewish Rabbis is 
clarified and simplified.

It's worth quoting this paragraph from Rabbi Goldwasser in one of the 
answers:

Now, I take religion seriously -- my own religion and the religions of 
others. It seems to me that if your child is baptized, you will be doing 
one of two things: 1) You will be declaring your daughter to be a member 
of the Catholic Church. Or, 2) You will just be "going through the 
motions" of a ritual that means nothing to you. The first is a choice of 
apostasy, the second is a choice of hypocrisy. 

Now, consider who is making the choice and held to be responsible, and 
under what principles: The parents, under legal and moral guardianship 
principles.

Of course, the Catholic side may be somewhat different, but as I've said, 
I can't and won't defend that even playing devil's advocate, as I simply 
don't understand the position at all, let alone well enough to do it 
justice trying to defend it.

> "THOUSANDS of Muslim babies in Scotland have been injected with a
> derivative of pork contained in a major child vaccine..."
> http://www.sweenytod.com/rno/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=644

No question, this one's legal guardianship related.  It's primarily an 
issue because the legal guardian can be presumed to object STRONGLY.  That 
the objection is religion based is only a minor matter.

> "Sikh babies were significantly longer and heavier than Moslem and Hindu
> babies..."
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1777447/

Lifestyle and therefore (religio-)cultural... Presumably the legal 
guardian is making the decisions factoring in, as well, so legal 
guardianship related too.

> I was especially amused (in the sad, angry way) by the number of
> websites publishing the supposed "Protocols for Hindu Leaders", which
> include this little gem:
> 
> "Sexual relationships with Muslim women to be encouraged to ensure the
> production of Hindu babies within Muslim communities."
> 
> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.politics.misc/2008-04/
msg00074.html

Unfortunately, that one gives me a 404 error.  (FWIW I'm updating kde in 
the background and konqueror isn't working due to that; the 404 is the 
result of attempting to open it in namoroka, aka generic firefox.)

Unfortunately, because that one looked rather interesting...

But that said, Hindu could be said to be in the exception category, due to 
their reincarnation belief.  Hindu babies aren't simply babies, but the 
reincarnation of individuals in a continuing cycle of death and rebirth 
with the ultimate goal of reaching nirvana, merging with the one/whole.

In that context, there's the previous history of that individual to be 
considered as well.  From that viewpoint, I can certainly see how this 
could be a legitimate concern for Hindus.

>> Actually, I did study with the JWs and only recently decided it wasn't
>> for me.
> 
> Ha, funny about that, I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. Don't worry,
> I got better :)

Interesting...

>> And I'd assume given the Dawkins reference that you're likely either
>> atheist or at least agnostic?
> 
> Atheist.

Good, I read the hint correctly. =:^)

Based on a similar thread in Cox's (My ISP's) newsgroups, someone sent me 
one of his essays as (IIRC) a PDF.  They had trouble believing that given 
my logical bent, I wasn't an atheist.

Funny, that, now that I think of it, as that's almost exactly the same 
thing one of the JWs said when I told him it had come down to the 
Trinity... and after study I'd realized that either side had its proof 
texts and explanations -- interesting when the proof texts are the same 
ones! -- but that the matter was ultimately resolved, surprisingly to me 
as well, quite differently, using the "by the fruits" principle, as 
observed in my own life.  Of course, an atheist would observe the emphasis 
on positive thinking in my current church and attribute the difference to 
that alone, and I recognized positive thinking has quite some power, but 
obviously, I believe it to be more than that.

OTOH, recognizing the power of positive thinking, it could be argued that 
in the absence of a God, if believing in one is what it takes for some 
people to have that positive thinking...

Anyway, I'm supposed to read that PDF one of these days...

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman