In the news

C0DE:
How many sick and perverted Muslims here have condemned their parents to a "retirement home" ??

c0de, my father retires this year. Age 65. He has a good pension. He and Mom are looking to buy a place in a "retirement community." There, within the complex - if one of them becomes seriously ill - they can be moved to a full-care nursing facility, on site. My parents are independent-minded and have no desire to move-in with me and my kids. But should my parents' economic fortunes drastically change, I would take them in, in a New York minute. And I don't know any of my neighbors who would act any differently.

It is not something I have to think about. It is the right thing to do.
I have no clue ... upon what you base your sarcasm!

& & &

Sure, people in the west are busy and there may be some tendency to "warehouse the elderly."
(And, yeah ... Where government regulation and the training of personnel are inadequate, there will be abuses.)
As India and China and other 'developing' nations prosper, I have a feeling that traditional patterns of 'in-home care' for the elderly will begin to disappear, there, as well.
(Home-care of the elderly, in all traditional cultures of the past, was done as much out of dire economic necessity as it was out of 'loving' choice or out of strong moral conviction.)

Busy (yes, selfish) modern lives. But this all has nothing to do with religion (or with 'atheism'). Zero.
(It's human nature. And, c0de, you can't turn back the clock to a pre-modern world. I, for one, wouldn't want to.)

Same thing will happen in Islamic societies too, come broad-based economic prosperity and a large middle-class. Just watch.
(It's a function of global capitalism, c0de. Live with it.)
 
Penelope said:


Buying brides:
"Dotal marriage" (dowry paid to bride's family), as a practice, can only be found in 4% of world cultures - according to social-anthropologists. A practice found, here and there, in eastern Eurasia and in the Mediterranean basin.

But social-anthropologists also point out that the custom of 'paying for brides' (like the Palestinian instance) is a custom peculiar to economically marginal farming and herding communities in the Mediterranean basin. (Not Northern Europe nor the Americans nor Sub-Saharan Africa nor the Indian subcontinent.) It is part of an extreme "honor and shame" culture found broadly throughout the Mediterranean basin during ancient times, but found there - today - amongst only the most economically marginalized villages and nomadic herders. (There is an obsessive emphasis on keeping their marriageable women utter 'pure.' A brand-new unopened product. Far exceeding the 'virginity' mandates of most cultures.) This practice predates Islam, predates Christianity, predates Judaism (as a monotheistic religion). And was little changed by these religions, with passing of time. (Where this practice disappeared around the Mediterranean basin, it was probably due to urbanization. Not 'moral outrage.')

Northern Europeans and early Americans, yes, did (once upon a time) treat their women as economic property. But c0de is incorrect to assume that they did so in anything like the same manner. (Read on the subject: Julian Pitt-Rivers, Pierre Bourdieu, John Peristiany, Stanley Brandes, David Gilmore, Jane Schneider.)

& & &

Under a capitalistic free-enterprise system, a woman is considered an economic 'free agent.' Under capitalism, a woman should not marry till she is of-an-age when she can, conscientiously, make that decision for herself. And can do whatever economic bartering there is to be done, for her own personal benefit (not for the benefit of family or clan). She should have due say in any legal contracts she is party to.

Maybe it is just me, but - till a better system comes along - the capitalist system is a good economic model for a woman to live within. Free choice. (I just hope the 450 Palestinian women in Gaza had that same free choice.) It is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of rights.
Click to expand...


India still practises the dowry system [and presumably the Indian population outwith that country], a custom outlawed in 1961 but still de riguer; there is many a family living on the streets of cities having to flee their village owing thousands of pounds in dowry, outlawed.

Since when was rights not inextricably bound to the morals of a society?
 
.



What is it with people and messing with the color/font settings??

Don't they know only i'm qualified to do that?!




@ Penelope




Northern Europeans and early Americans, yes, did (once upon a time) treat their women as economic property. But c0de is incorrect to assume that they did so in anything like the same manner.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what you are attempting to correct me on here, since I was talking about the practice of "early betrothal" itself and not the "manner". In fact, I even stated (clearly) that all of these factors are a consequence of factors specific to the economic model of their respective societies (something you agree with). Obviously, this necessitates that the "manner" will be different.


I have no clue ... upon what you base your sarcasm!
Click to expand...
err... On facts, akshully..

Such as the ones I stated in my first post: (recap)

Congress takes aim at elder abuse
Scoop: Minister breaks the silence on elder abuse
Goar: The myths surrounding elder abuse - thestar.com
Elder abuse often goes unnoticed | Flint News - - MLive.com


Busy (yes, selfish) modern lives. But this all has nothing to do with religion (or with 'atheism'). Zero.
(It's human nature. And, c0de, you can't turn back the clock to a pre-modern world. I, for one, wouldn't want to.)
Click to expand...
excuse me... but I was the one who was saying this isn't about religion (!!!)

Perhaps it was my mistake for wording my responses in sarcasm which threw you.... but there is no way I am apologizing 4 that... (cuz thats just how I roll...)


Same thing will happen in Islamic societies too, come broad-based economic prosperity and a large middle-class. Just watch.
(It's a function of global capitalism, c0de. Live with it.)
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

no duh! Ms. Weber : p

Assuming, of course, the system can sustain itself that long.

But here's the 1000 trillion dollar question: ..... Will it?

(I don't think it will.)
 
nativeastral said:
India still practises the dowry system [and presumably the Indian population outwith that country], a custom outlawed in 1961 but still de riguer; there is many a family living on the streets of cities having to flee their village owing thousands of pounds in dowry, outlawed.
Click to expand...
Hi Nativeastral.

The Indian 'dowry,' you are referring to, is the kind of dowry far more prevalent amongst world cultures (including those of Europe):
A chunk of money is given by the family of the bride to the new husband (or his family).

However, regarding the 'Mediterranean basin' and 'eastern Eurasian' "dotal marriage" dowry (referred to, above), the money goes in the opposite direction:
From the husband's clan to the clan of the bride.
(The family of the bride gains money, in the nuptial transaction, rather than looses it. The girl-child is a commodity, a goldmine to be fiercely guarded - till sold.)

Sorry, NA, for the confusion.
 
nativeastral said:
Since when was rights not inextricably bound to the morals of a society?
Click to expand...
Yes, NA, 'rights' and 'morals' do seem to go hand-in-hand, don't they?

But that is one of the deep problems with modern society ...

Think about it:

Every society's 'morals' derive from ancient secular tribal rules ('mores,' customs, traditional codes of conduct toward others) which, generally, predate that society's religion.
Standards of behavior for members of the tribe.
(Part of the survival-codebook in ancient times: 'if they are not members of our tribe, they are enemies and you must hate them.')

Yes, 'morals' were (and still are) a hypocritical set of values. Tribes (ancient Israelites or modern street-gangs) socially operate by 'us' versus 'them' worldviews. There is one standard of behavior directed toward another member of the tribe ('one of us') and a different standard of behavior directed at any outsider ('one of them').
'We' are the only humans, 'they' are somehow less than human.
(You do not mistreat nor kill a 'fellow human' but, when it comes to those 'less-than-humans' ... the rules are different.)
Thus there is a kind of hypocrasy or 'moral' bigotry at work, whenever anyone takes it upon themself to make a moral judgment.
( ... As c0de pointed out regarding the barrage of western blogs regarding the Palestinian marriages. This bigoted 'we' are superior to 'them' underlying assumption.)
'Traditional morals' are insideous modern holdovers of an ancient world of 'hate.'

Most modern religions overlay an ethical element on top of these ancient tribal rules, suppressing the 'hate' and mitigating much of the presumptiveness (about what it means to be human or not-human) embedded within these ancient codes of conduct. But these twisted values regularly well out of the subconscious (the subconscious of individuals or subconscious of collectives), taking the form of 'moral judgments.' (Taking the moral high-ground in the eternal battle against evil 'enemy values.')

Religious laws and tribal rules coexist too comfortably in most societies. People too easily compartmentalize their religious values separate from their ancient 'morals' - put a wall between sacred values and secular ones - and blindly (hypocritically) fail to see the contradiction, when it comes to personal attitudes and day-to-day behavior.

Nativeastral - that's why I say: the proper question to ask, regarding the 450 Palestinian brides, is not a question of 'morality' but of 'rights.'

'Morals' need a secular cure. And this is why I trust 'rights' as a cure to 'moral' bigotry. Religion is only partially effectual. John Locke and the Enlightenment saw that failing and devised a new principle to guide interpersonal conduct. 'Basic human rights.'

'Rights' in the Classical world applied to civil society - to individuals living in population groups much larger than tribes.
(But in the classical world, the only persons with those rights were 'citizens.' The Enlightment, by implication, extended the Classical idea of 'citizenship' to every individual born on the planet. Believing - correctly, in my opinion - that this should be a First Principle of every society upon this planet. Innate 'rights' every individual is born with, and not the narrow code of 'morals' one adopts as being part of a suppossedly 'superior ingroup.')

In short:
'Every individual on this planet has the same rights as everbody else.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top