Religious throw babies off building

[shalomsteph]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/indias-baby-dropping-ritu_n_99587.html

Muslims in western India have been observing a bizarre ritual - they've been throwing their young children off a tall building to improve their health. The faithful have been observing the ritual at a shrine in Solapur, in western India's Maharastra, for more than five hundred years. They believe it will make their children strong and say no accidents have ever happened.

[CFLarsen]

Oddly enough, it doesn't mention that it is Muslims and Hindus. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3666328#post3666328)

Or, maybe not so oddly.

[gtc]

Or, maybe not so oddly.

Do tell. Why don't you think it is odd that the Huffington Post wouldn't mention the Hindus?

[CFLarsen]

Do tell. Why don't you think it is odd that the Huffington Post wouldn't mention the Hindus?

Because a story becomes a much better story when it only deals with Muslims.

[Skeptical Greg]

Do tell ..

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112624

[gtc]

Because a story becomes a much better story when it only deals with Muslims.

Even on the Huffington Post?

I am not a liberal (in the American sense) but this is the first time I have heard that the Huffington Post has an anti-Islamic bias.

[CFLarsen]

Even on the Huffington Post?

I am not a liberal (in the American sense) but this is the first time I have heard that the Huffington Post has an anti-Islamic bias.

It doesn't even have to be about deliberate bias. In today's media world, the story is far better when the Hindus are left out of the story. Instead of harping on religion (always a touchy subject), harp on a religious group that it is de rigeur to harp on.

This is a perfect example: A stupid and downright dangerous religious custom, used by both Muslim and Hindu believers, suddenly become something entirely Muslim.

"Muslim Bad" sells. "Religion Bad" doesn't sell quite as well. Sad, but true.

[gtc]

Sad, but true.

Prove it.

You have made the claim that the Huffington Post omitted the Hindus from the story because their audience would prefer to read stories about "Muslim Bad" rather than "Religion Bad".

Prove it.

You have also made the claim that religion is a always a touchy subject. Therefore, you are saying that the Huffington Post is wary of criticising religion.

Prove it.

Even demonstrate that there is some reason for you to suspect this to be true in this specific case.

I bet you can't.

[CFLarsen]

Prove it.

You have made the claim that the Huffington Post omitted the Hindus from the story because their audience would prefer to read stories about "Muslim Bad" rather than "Religion Bad".

Prove it.

That's not a provable claim. That's an opinion.

You have also made the claim that religion is a always a touchy subject. Therefore, you are saying that the Huffington Post is wary of criticising religion.

No, I am not. I specifically said that criticism of a currently unpopular group, Muslims, sell better than criticism of religion in general.

Even demonstrate that there is some reason for you to suspect this to be true in this specific case.

I bet you can't.

I bet you can read, even understand, what I said: In today's media world, the story is far better when the Hindus are left out of the story. Instead of harping on religion (always a touchy subject), harp on a religious group that it is de rigeur to harp on.

If you disagree, let's hear your argument.

[gtc]

That's not a provable claim. That's an opinion.

Rubbish. You made the claim, you were very specific. You can't now claim that it is merely an opinion.

No, I am not. I specifically said that criticism of a currently unpopular group, Muslims, sell better than criticism of religion in general.

Rubbish. I have highlighted where you made the claim and underlined the specific claim.

I bet you can read, even understand, what I said: In today's media world, the story is far better when the Hindus are left out of the story. Instead of harping on religion (always a touchy subject), harp on a religious group that it is de rigeur to harp on.

If you disagree, let's hear your argument.

Ha, ha, ha. Now you want me to prove your claim wrong. Ha, ha, ha.

Believing something without having any reason to believe it.

Refusing to back up claims.

Sounds like the sort of thing that people around here call, what's the word?, starts with a double you, rhymes with poo?

hmm, what could it be.


Why don't you just admit you were wrong; that you had no reason to believe that the Huffington Post would pick on the Muslims because being critical of religion in general is a touchy subject.

I bet you wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for your beliefs. I was right. I will go one further. I bet you can't admit you were wrong to jump to conclusions.

Prove me wrong.

[CFLarsen]

I am not interested in discussing your wrong interpretation of what I said.

[tumnus]

Rubbish. You made the claim, you were very specific. You can't now claim that it is merely an opinion.

Rubbish. I have highlighted where you made the claim and underlined the specific claim.

Ha, ha, ha. Now you want me to prove your claim wrong. Ha, ha, ha.

Believing something without having any reason to believe it.

Refusing to back up claims.

Sounds like the sort of thing that people around here call, what's the word?, starts with a double you, rhymes with poo?

hmm, what could it be.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong; that you had no reason to believe that the Huffington Post would pick on the Muslims because being critical of religion in general is a touchy subject.

I bet you wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for your beliefs. I was right. I will go one further. I bet you can't admit you were wrong to jump to conclusions.

Prove me wrong.

Ouch, waspish and anally retentive, and rather over-the-top response to the observation made. Claus picked up on a (maybe even unconscious) trend to give a bit of spin on things. Which this article does do. It isnt an Islamic festival, but that slant gives it the impression it is.

That sort of lazy journalism doesnt help things like Sikhs getting beaten up or killed after 9/11 because 'they are muzzy ragheads' for example. (which would be a laughable irony if not for the tragedy) *not that doing that to random muslims would be acceptable, you get my drift?*

[Darat]

...snip...

Why don't you just admit you were wrong; that you had no reason to believe that the Huffington Post would pick on the Muslims because being critical of religion in general is a touchy subject.

....snip...

Given how the media reports stuff in this country (the UK) it doesn't seem at all a contentious or unusual viewpoint to hold. Indeed it is how the media tends to operate at all times i.e. pick on whatever it is fashionable to support or knock to try and attract their audience.

[CFLarsen]

Ouch, waspish and anally retentive, and rather over-the-top response to the observation made. Claus picked up on a (maybe even unconscious) trend to give a bit of spin on things. Which this article does do. It isnt an Islamic festival, but that slant gives it the impression it is.

That sort of lazy journalism doesnt help things like Sikhs getting beaten up or killed after 9/11 because 'they are muzzy ragheads' for example. (which would be a laughable irony if not for the tragedy) *not that doing that to random muslims would be acceptable, you get my drift?*

Precisely.

Always ask why. Why did they leave out the Hindus? Find the motive, then you understand better.

In this day and age, does anyone think it would have been the same story, if it had been Muslims left out, and the focus was on Hindus?

I think not.

[CFLarsen]

Given how the media reports stuff in this country (the UK) it doesn't seem at all a contentious or unusual viewpoint to hold. Indeed it is how the media tends to operate at all times i.e. pick on whatever it is fashionable to support or knock to try and attract their audience.

We get that too, here. Today, "2nd generation immigrants" has basically become synonymous for "young criminal Muslims, hell-bent on overthrowing Denmark".

[gtc]

We are talking about the Huffington Post, not the Daily BNP.

Claus clearly has not taken a moment to think about the source he is accusing of Islamaphobia, even after it was pointed out to him.

Claus clearly has not read the coverage which pointed out that it was an Islamic shrine and hence not unreasonable to assume that people participating in rituals at Islamic shrines are Muslims.

All I am asking is that someone shows one scerrick of evidence that the Huffington post is Islamaphobic or touchy about religion. Claus has failed but maybe someone could help him out.

[gtc]

Precisely.

Always ask why. Why did they leave out the Hindus? Find the motive, then you understand better.

In this day and age, does anyone think it would have been the same story, if it had been Muslims left out, and the focus was on Hindus?

I think not.

More assertions without any evidence to back up your beliefs.

We get that too, here. Today, "2nd generation immigrants" has basically become synonymous for "young criminal Muslims, hell-bent on overthrowing Denmark".

And why would racist Danes have anything to do with the Huffington Post?

[CFLarsen]

that it was an Islamic shrine and hence not unreasonable to assume that people participating in rituals at Islamic shrines are Muslims.

But Hindus also participated. Why leave that out?

Reuters had the story. They kept it.

[CFLarsen]

More assertions without any evidence to back up your beliefs.

No, not assertions. Opinions. Learn the difference.

And why would racist Danes have anything to do with the Huffington Post?

I was confirming that it also happened in Denmark, not just the UK.

[gtc]

No, not assertions. Opinions. Learn the difference.

You are wrong but why do you think that having opinions without any rational basis makes you less of a woo?

I was confirming that it also happened in Denmark, not just the UK.

So, why does your opinion that some Europeans are racist support your assertions, sorry, OPINIONS that the Huffington Post is Islamaphobic?

You still have no idea what the Huffington Post is, do you?

[CFLarsen]

You are wrong but why do you think that having opinions without any rational basis makes you less of a woo?

I beg your pardon?

Are you saying that no media is biased against Muslims?

So, why does your opinion that some Europeans are racist support your assertions, sorry, OPINIONS that the Huffington Post is Islamaphobic?

Whoa, whoa. Who said that Danes are racist? I didn't.

Again, you are putting way too much into my posts than is validated.

You still have no idea what the Huffington Post is, do you?

Yes, I do. I don't understand why you sanctify it so much, though. Why do you do that?

[gtc]

Yes, I do. I don't understand why you sanctify it so much, though. Why do you do that?

Asking you to support your assertion that the Huffington Post is Islamaphobic is not sanctifying it.

More woo.



I beg your pardon?

Are you saying that no media is biased against Muslims?

Yes, that is clearly what I am saying. You are so right, it hurts.


This is sarcasm by the way.



Whoa, whoa. Who said that Danes are racist? I didn't.

You quite clearly implied that at least some Danes were Islamaphobic.

[gtc]

Claus has shown that he had no basis for his claim that the Huffington Post is Islamaphobic and, worse, no ability to admit that he was wrong. Until he provides some evidence or admits his mistake, I will refrain from continuing this derail.

[CFLarsen]

Asking you to support your assertion that the Huffington Post is Islamaphobic is not sanctifying it.

More woo.

No? I may have misunderstood you (see? I admit I could be wrong about what you said. How about you admitting the same?), but I got the clear impression that you argued that the HP had no bias against Muslims.

How do you explain that the HP left out that Hindus also participate in the ceremony?

Yes, that is clearly what I am saying. You are so right, it hurts.


This is sarcasm by the way.

Okie doke. So, what is your problem?

You quite clearly implied that at least some Danes were Islamaphobic.

Of course some Danes are. If you thought that no Danes were, you'd be living a dream world.

Claus has shown that he had no basis for his claim that the Huffington Post is Islamaphobic and, worse, no ability to admit that he was wrong. Until he provides some evidence or admits his mistake, I will refrain from continuing this derail.

It's "Islamophobic".

[ddt]

If it helps anything to widen the scope of the discussion: This story was also carried a couple of days ago by the 8 o'clock news of Dutch public TV. They also only mentioned the ritual being done by Muslims.

[negativ]

Nifty -- even at JREF, Muslims are the Noble, Unduly Put-Upon Persecuted Victim caste.

[hgc]

Nifty -- even at JREF, Muslims are the Noble, Unduly Put-Upon Persecuted Victim caste.


Translation: I do not care if I am being misinformed, since ... hey, look over there! Those idiots think Muslims are victims!

[I Ratant]

From what I saw on CNN, it's just a time-honored ritual of little danger to the children, but probably very important to the adults, mindlessly prolonging a stupid ritual, because thinking about it would be too painful, or cause one to be ejected (and they eject with extreme prejudice) from the peer group.
"Stupid is as stupid does".
Self-victimization isn't a crime.

[CFLarsen]

"Little danger"?

You wanna try throwing babies 50 feet off a building where you live and see what happens?

[Civilized Worm]

When I saw this story on the news it just said that indians were doing it and made no mention of any religious involvement.

[I Ratant]

"Little danger"?

You wanna try throwing babies 50 feet off a building where you live and see what happens?
.
If you can lift the beam out of your eye that prevents you from recognizing that those adults in the images have survived that ritual, and are participating willingly, then consider that there truly are different strokes for different folks.
Cultures/religions will less violent underpinnings don't do that kind of thing, bu do have rituals one must perform to be included in the group.
Whatever cultural need that ritual satisfies would be proscribed here, but theyr'e not here, they're there, and it's their ritual.
Don't join the group if it, or anything else, offends you.
I find baptism, circumcision, witnessing, all to be offensive to my intellect, and don't belong to any groups that foster those superstitions.
I, and they, can do that.

[CFLarsen]

If you can lift the beam out of your eye that prevents you from recognizing that those adults in the images have survived that ritual, and are participating willingly,

Are the babies participating willingly?

then consider that there truly are different strokes for different folks. Cultures/religions will less violent underpinnings don't do that kind of thing, bu do have rituals one must perform to be included in the group.

Who says that they have to perform this particular ritual to be included in the group? What group is that?

Whatever cultural need that ritual satisfies would be proscribed here, but theyr'e not here, they're there, and it's their ritual. Don't join the group if it, or anything else, offends you. I find baptism, circumcision, witnessing, all to be offensive to my intellect, and don't belong to any groups that foster those superstitions. I, and they, can do that.

Don't you think there is a hell of a difference between a baptism and throwing out babies from 50 feet up?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line for these religious rituals? Obviously not when there is a clear and present danger for the babies.

[petra10]

On the news here it just said "it is done for religious reasons" no mention of what religion.
I dont care what religion did or didnt take part I just cant believe men would subject little babies to this sort of thing. There were no women in the news footage.


Who is looking after the babies rights? They werent asked if they wanted to be thrown 50ft down on to a sheet. The baby who was held up over the edge was screaming, I know the baby didnt relise what was happening but he sure was upset about it.

So what happens now, do they wait till an accident does happen before its stopped. Who knows if the babies have suffered any brain damage.

It makes Micheal Jackson's little Blanket getting hung over the balcony seem harmless.

[RandFan]

Translation: I do not care if I am being misinformed, since ... hey, look over there! Those idiots think Muslims are victims!People are throwing babies off of buildings and... hey, look over there... someone is picking on Muslims.

I don't give a damn if they are Mormon or Southern Californian.

They are throwing babies off of buildings!

[Diagoras]

I find baptism, circumcision, witnessing, all to be offensive to my intellect, and don't belong to any groups that foster those superstitions.
I, and they, can do that.
Bull. No they can't. Not ethically at least. There is no way to ethically justify chucking a baby off a building or mutilating a baby's genitals, when they have no say in it. I mean, really, come on. How is it okay to subject somebody to harm or potential harm if they do not/can not consent to the act? I don't care if it's part of their cultural tradition. It's plainly immoral. If I started playing William Tell with babies or starting chucking the mentally disabled off buildings, you'd try to put a stop to it, wouldn't you? Even if I had expert marksmen and sturdy nets, it would be wrong.

And I don't buy that there have been no accidents in 500 years either. Nobody's aim is that perfect.

[Rasmus]

And I don't buy that there have been no accidents in 500 years either. Nobody's aim is that perfect.

Even if. So *****' what?

To quote RandFan: " They are throwing babies off of buildings!"

So maybe the retards have been incredibly lucky for a few hundred years - doesn't make it any less dangerous or deranged: The next innocent baby might break that proud record and plummet to death. Or break an arm, or a leg, or a skull to possibly never fully recover. Or it might just be scared out of its young mind due to a treatment that *here* would result in the proud parents finding themselves answering for their mistreatment in court.

ETA: Diagoras, my anger is of course not directed at you!

[I Ratant]

Any "accidents" would be Big Sky Daddy's chlorinating that gene pool, of course.
Momma/Poppa, whoever is the tosser, didn't have enough faith.
Look up "ashura", another time-honored uncivilized practice that is engaged in willingly.
As for the "willingness" of the tossed child, or the children mutilated by the bris, or slashed at Ashura, the parents have had that done themselves, and by god, that's the way it's done.
God, or his self-designated representative here says so.
Until some reason can be found that shows these barbaric practices are exactly that, pointless to the extreme, all anyone can say is "I won't do that to my child, nor let you do it to my child".
The continuation of Stone Age barbaric rituals in the 21st Century should be repugnant to all, were all allowed to think these things thru.
But the priests, rabbis, mullahs, shamans, prevent thinking if at all possible, both to preserve these acts of barbarism for the control they have over the faithful in accepting these acts of violence, and maintaining their easy life style as the self-appointed vicars of BSD on earth.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Religious throw babies off building

Look, you guys can banter back and forth about Claus said this and gtc said that and was it Hindus or is it Muslims, but isn't anyone worried about the bathwater?

[Rasmus]

Look, you guys can banter back and forth about Claus said this and gtc said that and was it Hindus or is it Muslims, but isn't anyone worried about the bathwater?

My god, no! You're right! Why do we hate America? uh.. I mean: Nominated!

[CFLarsen]

Any "accidents" would be Big Sky Daddy's chlorinating that gene pool, of course.

So you don't mind if babies are killed, just as long as they are religious?

[Diagoras]

Any "accidents" would be Big Sky Daddy's chlorinating that gene pool, of course.
Momma/Poppa, whoever is the tosser, didn't have enough faith.
Look up "ashura", another time-honored uncivilized practice that is engaged in willingly.
As for the "willingness" of the tossed child, or the children mutilated by the bris, or slashed at Ashura, the parents have had that done themselves, and by god, that's the way it's done.
God, or his self-designated representative here says so.
Until some reason can be found that shows these barbaric practices are exactly that, pointless to the extreme, all anyone can say is "I won't do that to my child, nor let you do it to my child".
The continuation of Stone Age barbaric rituals in the 21st Century should be repugnant to all, were all allowed to think these things thru.
But the priests, rabbis, mullahs, shamans, prevent thinking if at all possible, both to preserve these acts of barbarism for the control they have over the faithful in accepting these acts of violence, and maintaining their easy life style as the self-appointed vicars of BSD on earth.
We have laws against child abuse for a reason. You can't just beat your child senseless because that's the way it's always been done in your family. The law will come after you, and rightly so. I don't quite understand your point. You seem to recognize that these are barbaric acts, yet you don't think we should intervene to stop it, by force if necessary? Just because a barbaric tradition is born of ignorance and that ignorance persists is no reason to let it go unchecked. If a parent thinks beating their child senseless is the only way that child will grow up into a responsible adult, or that marrying their 14-year-old daughter off to some pedophile is God's will, we don't bow to that parent's belief. We take the child away and try to make sure it has a non-abusive upbringing somewhere else.

[articulett]

I think I Ratant pointing out the harms of faith...

When we coddle faith as a means of knowledge, we can't be expected to be taken seriously when folks say-- "your faith is bad" or "your faith is making you do bad things".

If you believe or encourage the notion that god "works in mysterious ways" or "there are divine truths"-- then you forfeit your right to scrutinize other such "truths" in a way you don't want yours scrutinized.

This is a harm caused by "faith"-- or at least a potential harm caused by faith. It seems that people go out of their way to pretend that faith is "harmless" or even good for something or other.

[Safe-Keeper]

If they have been doing it for 500 years without accidents, that's enough empirical evidence to me to sanction the practice. Babies are sturdier than many give them credit for.

But then again, this is very likely not the case. "No accidents in 500 years" might as well mean "no accidents in 500 years, not counting, of course, those idiots who didn't have enough faith. Stupid people".

We have laws against child abuse for a reason. You can't just beat your child senseless because that's the way it's always been done in your family.Ex-ac-tly. Thousand points and a cookie.

That's why I'm so against cultural relativism. Fair enough to say it's impolite to laugh at Buddhist monks going "ohmmmm" or to say Chinese music is ugly or whatever. But when you say things like "it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, it's their culture/traditions/religion/whatever", you're being dangerously naive.

I read an interview in a Norwegian newspaper with two girls in their twenties who had their private organs mutilated when they were kids. What really stuck with me after reading that was how the two girls didn't consider what was done to them abusive until they came to Norway. Consider the implications of that. If they'd stayed where they were and the rest of us had been all huggy-muggy politically correct, they'd never have had those operations that made their parts normal again. And they'd have done the same to their kids. Who'd done the same to their kids. Heck, if it wasn't for Christians in the early 1000's, we might still be killing each others with swords when insulted over here because "that's how we do it in Norway".

All cultures have features that are so ingrained in them that they're not questioned. If they're harmful, they need to be questioned from outside. Turning it into a "if you criticize them, that obviously means you think our culture is better than theirs" thing or a "racist" thing, you're misunderstanding things pretty severely.

As was said, we've got child abuse laws for a reason. Likewise with laws about spousal abuse, assault, forced marriage, etc. Because humans have value and you don't have the right to impose sufferings on others. Why on Earth does that suddenly stop counting when it's foreigners? Isn't that pretty "racist" in itself?

If I attack my hypothetical kid's vagina with a knife, I need to be stopped.
If a guy in another country attacks his hypothetical kid's vagina with a knife, he needs to be stopped.

What's so bloody hard about that to understand:confused:?

[CFLarsen]

I think I Ratant pointing out the harms of faith...

When we coddle faith as a means of knowledge, we can't be expected to be taken seriously when folks say-- "your faith is bad" or "your faith is making you do bad things".

If you believe or encourage the notion that god "works in mysterious ways" or "there are divine truths"-- then you forfeit your right to scrutinize other such "truths" in a way you don't want yours scrutinized.

This is a harm caused by "faith"-- or at least a potential harm caused by faith. It seems that people go out of their way to pretend that faith is "harmless" or even good for something or other.

Good thing nobody in the thread has "coddled faith" or "pretended that faith is "harmless", then.

[Rasmus]

I think I Ratant pointing out the harms of faith...

Possibly.

But there is nothing in his/her posts that suggests that it ought to be stopped. (Granted, the posts could be read differently, especially if he/she really thinks that the ritual doesn't endanger the babies.)

[Safe-Keeper]

It seemed pretty clear to me that his post was sarcastic.

[articulett]

Yes, but we aren't particularly good at stopping perceived harms of other faiths in our own countries... by what means would you step in to stop it in another? I think indoctrinating kids into the idea that faith is good or a means of knowledge is harmful. I think threatening kids with hell is harmful. But I don't get to stop others-- I can only express my opinion on the subject... and it's not always taken politely. So I'm quite sure that our opinions would be received similarly towards such people. They would see others as interfering with their rights to practice their faith.

I agree it's wrong. I agree that genital mutilation is horrifyingly wrong. But I don't know how you deal with the mind of the faithful-- they supposedly answer to a higher law. In many countries, that is not an excuse for causing some kinds of harms to a child... but still others seem to go unquestioned... Look how long the Polygamists in Texas were impregnating teens before the law intervened...

I think all religious abuses ought to stop... all faith coddling needs to stop. We should insist on reason from others and stop this nutty deference to faith. But the problem isn't these people... it's this nutty notion that there are divine truths and divine beings that need to test our faith in assorted ways, isn't it? Their ignorance is based on their "faith"-- how much abuse is committed in the name of faith? Faith should never ever be a tolerable excuse for any mistreatment of a sentient being as far as I'm concerned.

[articulett]

It seemed pretty clear to me that his post was sarcastic.

I agree.

[RandFan]

That's why I'm so against cultural relativism. Fair enough to say it's impolite to laugh at Buddhist monks going "ohmmmm" or to say Chinese music is ugly or whatever. But when you say things like "it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, it's their culture/traditions/religion/whatever", you're being dangerously naive.Agreed.

[Ateius]

(Never mind. Angry rant that drifted off-topic. Child abuse is bad, mmkay?)

[RandFan]

(Never mind. Angry rant that drifted off-topic. Child abuse is bad, mmkay?)Damn I wish I would do this. Probably save me a hell of a lot of headache. :)

[I Ratant]

We have laws against child abuse for a reason. You can't just beat your child senseless because that's the way it's always been done in your family. The law will come after you, and rightly so. I don't quite understand your point. You seem to recognize that these are barbaric acts, yet you don't think we should intervene to stop it, by force if necessary?

.
It ain't our damn country!
We have recently interfered in the internal affairs of Iraq, for specious reasons, and consequently hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because our intervention disrupted the way that sovereign country was conducting its internal affairs.
Your extremely short-sighted knee-jerk response would have us add India, the second most populous country, to the vile criminal disgusting activities done for pure greed, under the cover of religion that the US is now infamous for?
YGBSM!

[RandFan]

Let me be the first to say I'm against invasion. There are worse offenses around the world and invading is costly and problematic.

I'll just stick to declaring the practice silly, superstitious and unnecessarily dangerous for the child.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, but we aren't particularly good at stopping perceived harms of other faiths in our own countries... by what means would you step in to stop it in another? I think indoctrinating kids into the idea that faith is good or a means of knowledge is harmful. I think threatening kids with hell is harmful. But I don't get to stop others-- I can only express my opinion on the subject... and it's not always taken politely. So I'm quite sure that our opinions would be received similarly towards such people. They would see others as interfering with their rights to practice their faith.

I agree it's wrong. I agree that genital mutilation is horrifyingly wrong. But I don't know how you deal with the mind of the faithful-- they supposedly answer to a higher law. In many countries, that is not an excuse for causing some kinds of harms to a child... but still others seem to go unquestioned... Look how long the Polygamists in Texas were impregnating teens before the law intervened...

I think all religious abuses ought to stop... all faith coddling needs to stop. We should insist on reason from others and stop this nutty deference to faith. But the problem isn't these people... it's this nutty notion that there are divine truths and divine beings that need to test our faith in assorted ways, isn't it? Their ignorance is based on their "faith"-- how much abuse is committed in the name of faith? Faith should never ever be a tolerable excuse for any mistreatment of a sentient being as far as I'm concerned.

So what are you going to do about it - besides write the same lengthy posts on an Internet forum for skeptics?

[Rasmus]

.
It ain't our damn country!
We have recently interfered in the internal affairs of Iraq, for specious reasons, and consequently hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because our intervention disrupted the way that sovereign country was conducting its internal affairs.
Your extremely short-sighted knee-jerk response would have us add India, the second most populous country, to the vile criminal disgusting activities done for pure greed, under the cover of religion that the US is now infamous for?
YGBSM!

Calm down, have a cup of tea and then slowly count to one thousand one hundred forty-three. After that, kindly point out where anyone demanded or even suggested military intervention. Thanks.

No, it's not my country. Even if it was, I probably couldn't do much about it. But their government - any government - ought to prevent these things from happening, punish any transgressors and remove the children from them into a safe environment if necessary.

[I Ratant]

Calm down, have a cup of tea and then slowly count to one thousand one hundred forty-three. After that, kindly point out where anyone demanded or even suggested military intervention. Thanks.

No, it's not my country. Even if it was, I probably couldn't do much about it. But their government - any government - ought to prevent these things from happening, punish any transgressors and remove the children from them into a safe environment if necessary.

By Diagoras: yet you don't think we should intervene to stop it, by force if necessary?
.
Do step back up the message file and read and comprehend.
It's heathens from Barbaria doing things we won't permit here.
Amazingly enough, there's many more of them then there are of us.
Maybe there's something to this idea of husky babies?
Sometimes the old ways had their charms...
From the Book!:
"An order for parents to take a stubborn and rebellious son before the town elders to be stoned."
This would have a beneficial effect today, I'm sure.

[Darth Rotor]

[claus mode parody]
If I see someone plainly trying to throw babies off a mosque, I'll shoot them.
[/claus mode parody]

[cynical salt]
You are all missing the long term silver lining to this cloud: reduced carbon footprint.
[/cynical salt]

As Imam Allam Fahoud Nitetzsche once said: "That which does not kill you makes you stronger walk with a limp for life."

DR

[Civilized Worm]

Has anyone actually confirmed that this is a religious ritual? It seems to me that it may just be a cultural tradition.

[Herzblut]

But then again, this is very likely not the case. "No accidents in 500 years" might as well mean "no accidents in 500 years, not counting, of course, those idiots who didn't have enough faith. Stupid people".

No, it might not.

[Herzblut]

Has anyone actually confirmed that this is a religious ritual?
No, it's presumed.

[CFLarsen]

No, it's presumed.

What makes you say that?

[Herzblut]

Hello CFLarsen,
What makes you say that?
sorry, I should've added "by many".

[CFLarsen]

Hello CFLarsen,

sorry, I should've added "by many".

No, I meant: Are you saying that it isn't perceived as a religious ritual by those performing it?

[Herzblut]

No, I meant: Are you saying that it isn't perceived as a religious ritual by those performing it?
It's certainly part of a local "folk belief", which might be called religious. I'm not sure. And what that bizarre ritual shall have to do with Islam or Hinduism is beyond me.

The article cited in the op is very poor, so I checked a few movies on youtube, one of which you find below but which unfortunately is difficult to capture for me. Would you help? What does it say exactly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blRs_eOSwIc

Thanks alot.

H.

PS Maybe you have other sources.

[CFLarsen]

It's certainly part of a local "folk belief", which might be called religious. I'm not sure. And what that bizarre ritual shall have to do with Islam or Hinduism is beyond me.

The article cited in the op is very poor, so I checked a few movies on youtube, one of which you find below but which unfortunately is difficult to capture for me. Would you help? What does it say exactly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blRs_eOSwIc

Thanks alot.

H.

PS Maybe you have other sources.

The sources said it was Muslims (and Hindus).

[Rasmus]

The sources said it was Muslims (and Hindus).

That doesn't make everything these people do a religious custom. It might be a local custom or superstition, but it doesn't have to be religious.

[CFLarsen]

That doesn't make everything these people do a religious custom. It might be a local custom or superstition, but it doesn't have to be religious.

And the difference is....? ;)

[Rasmus]

And the difference is....? ;)

Nobody said there would be a difference - or at least, none that matters.

These people are throwing babies off of buildings. I don't give a [rule x] if they do that because of their religion, a separate superstition, simply to be part of the local in-group or whatever else.

Still, I think it would be inaccurate to assume that everything a religious person does is automatically part of or caused by their religion.

This seems to be a local phenomenon, performed by members of two distinct religious groups that their respective peers in other areas do not take part in. I clearly view that as a local custom, and I see nothing that suggests that their god has anything to do with it.

[Darth Rotor]

And the difference is....? ;)
Religious practices tend to vary with locale, and some customs are not necessarily bound to a religious practice. Let me offer a similar difference in local custom within a larger community preferring a given religion.

Within the generally Christian community, in England, in 1830, there was no custom for setting off fireworks displays and holding parades on the Fourth of July. (Might have been a custom of having a few pints in celebration of good riddance, not sure, more research needed.)

Within the generally Christian community, in the USA, in 1830, there was a local custom for setting off fireworks displays and holding parades on the Fourth of July. Being of a generally similar religious preference or practice does not mean that all local customs will be identical across the entire population of persons practicing a given religion.

Is that pedantic enough for you? ;)

DR

[I Ratant]

It is the custom in the Beggar Caste in India to mutilate children to make them more pathetic as they beg. This is passed on thru the generations.
There's not only "child abuse", but "discrimination", the caste system itself, to wax roth about.
If only there was oil in India, we could go into there and make it a democratic country... oh, you say it already is?

[Darth Rotor]

It is the custom in the Beggar Caste in India to mutilate children to make them more pathetic as they beg. This is passed on thru the generations.
There's not only "child abuse", but "discrimination", the caste system itself, to wax roth about.
If only there was oil in India, we could go into there and make it a democratic country... oh, you say it already is?
Democracy does not guarantee the presence of altruism.

Altruism does not guarantee the emergence of democracy.

So, I have to ask, what are you driving at?

DR

[Herzblut]

The sources said it was Muslims (and Hindus).
Didn't they call the observers so?

I found this:
Devotees at a Muslim shrine in India observe a bizarre ritual, dropping
babies from a tower for good luck.

SHOWS: (W1) SOLAPUR, INDIA (APRIL 29, 2008) (ANI - ACCESS ALL)
1. DOME OF THE BABA SHEIKH UMAR SAHEB 'DARGAH' (a Muslim Shrine) AND PEOPLE
THRONGING THE PLACE
2. INTERIOR OF THE SHRINE
3. DEVOTEES PLACING THE CHILD ON THE MAUSOLEUM
4. PEOPLE HOLDING CHILDREN
5. A CHILD BEING DROPPED FROM THE TERRACE
6. A MAN DROPPING CHILD
7. PEOPLE HOLDING THE DROPPED CHILD
8. PEOPLE HOLDING THE BEDSPREAD ON WHICH CHILDREN ARE BEING DROPPED
9. CHILD MID AIR
10. CHILD LANDS ON THE BEDSPREAD

STORY: Devotees at a Muslim shrine at Solapur in western India's Maharastra
observed a bizarre ritual of throwing infants for good health from a height of
50 feet on to a cloth sheet held below on Tuesday (April 29).
The faithful have been observing the ritual at the shrine for over five
hundred years.
The age-old ritual is practised by couples who are blessed with a child
after taking a vow at the Baba Sheikh Umar Saheb 'Dargah' (the Muslim place of
worship) in Musti village of Solapur.
The devotees dismiss the ritual being attributed as superstition and
believe that it is good for the health of the child. They believe that the
whole exercise makes the children strong, but the onlookers at the ritual site
are bewildered - and somewhat unsettled - by it.
Locals claim that there has been no untoward incident and a child who
has gone through this 'ritual' doesn't suffer from any physical
disability.
The ritual is observed by both Muslims and Hindus every year and takes
place amidst tight security.
Rationalists term the centuries-old ritual as 'illogical' and are
surprised over the authorities not interfering to stop it.
Interestingly, the ritual is held on special days, not only in Solapur,
but in some other parts of the country as well.


http://rtv.rtrlondon.co.uk/2008-05-01/37e62d3a.html

[Darth Rotor]

Rationalists term the centuries-old ritual as 'illogical' and are surprised over the authorities not interfering to stop it. Interestingly, the ritual is held on special days, not only in Solapur, but in some other parts of the country as well.
1. Rationalists seem to suffer from the "You're no fun anymore" syndrome.

2. Maybe the authorities have better things to do with their time.

How many babies die from this? Didn't see a stat on that one.

DR

[Civilized Worm]

Why is this suddenly news? Hasn't it been going on for some time?

[I Ratant]

Democracy does not guarantee the presence of altruism.

Altruism does not guarantee the emergence of democracy.

So, I have to ask, what are you driving at?

DR
.
It's different strokes for different folks.
Throwing babies around, cutting off the clitoris, strapping on bombs, people do these things to their own and others, because it's "right".
Unless there's some way to determine what is really "right" in every circumstance for every person, then all we can do, morally and ethically, is point out that there can be other ways to do those things, from our viewpoint.
Forcing our views about these repugnant (to us) practices on those cultures that aren't ours is immoral!

[quixotecoyote]

That's why I'm so against cultural relativism. Fair enough to say it's impolite to laugh at Buddhist monks going "ohmmmm" or to say Chinese music is ugly or whatever. But when you say things like "it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, it's their culture/traditions/religion/whatever", you're being dangerously naive.

You are not objecting to cultural relativism. You are objecting to the popular anti-intellectual strawman of cultural relativism, which through no merit of its own is much better known.

Cultural relativism does not mean approving of child abuse in other cultures. In fact, by their own argument, cultural relativists would probably condemn acts in other cultures that run counter to their own values.

Cultural relativism is about recognizing different cultural systems/value systems exist, not about abandoning your own.

I Ratant is going a few steps beyond cultural relativism in his most recent post.

[I Ratant]

...
I Ratant is going a few steps beyond cultural relativism in his most recent post.
.
Can you expand on this?
It could lead in an informative direction.

[quixotecoyote]

.
Can you expand on this?
It could lead in an informative direction.

Sure! You state that:


Forcing our views about these repugnant (to us) practices on those cultures that aren't ours is immoral!However, all cultural relativism states is that cultures operate on different sets of subjective belief/moral/value systems. It says nothing about how to interact with them.

In America, recognizing that FLDS is a different culture with a different set of beliefs about the role of faith, marriage, sex, and the age of consent is a valid application of cultural relativism. However, nothing in that recognition prevents us from applying OUR set of beliefs about the role of faith, marriage, sex, and the age of consent and shutting the child ****ers down.

Basically cultural relativism is the "is" and you are promoting the "ought." In this case I believe they ought to not throw children off buildings but it is part of their culture to do so. What action I chose to take on the matter hinges on my ability to influence the situation as well as how much my culture values non-interference with other cultures.