Many believe that the title above is valid. They will argue that established customs, or practices arising from what are regarded as holy sources, are of greater importance than man-made rules or modern viewpoints.
Is this so? Does culture or religion give excuses for any behaviour outside of the acceptable norms of society, even to the extent of barbarity?
What is a barbarian? The commonest definitions will include a person who is ‘primitive’, ‘savage’, ‘uncivilised’, ’ignorant’, ‘uncultured’, ‘inferior’, ‘backward’, and variations on these themes. In modern society, a barbarian is a misfit. It is a mystery, therefore, why behaviour is condoned or tolerated in the name of ‘culture’ (ironic) or religion which amounts to barbarity.
Genital mutilation, male or female, falls within this scope. So does human or animal sacrifice, ritual slaughter, or any practice which causes undue suffering or discomfort to anything with sentient life. Hunting for sport, foxhunting, bullfighting, cockfighting, and dogfighting all come under this label. This also includes any equestrian sport placing the horse in undue danger of injury, such as extreme steeplechasing, jumping or cross-country. Potential injuries to riders are not of consequence.
In bullfighting, an inventive village in Peru has even got the innovation of tying their naughtiest dog onto the back of the bull, so that both may be killed in the ring. Care 2 have started a petition to have this practice outlawed.
The keeping of slaves is still sanctioned by religious writings, and is part of existing ‘cultures’. The inherent inferiority of women is a concept also deeply rooted in custom and religion. Does that make these OK?
Similarly, the Afrikaner culture regarded all those of black African origin or blood as inferior, and in some of the most ridiculous sets of laws and rules ever formulated ordered that separate facilities be used by them — while still being quite happy for their food to be prepared by such ‘inferior’ or ‘unclean’ people. Ludicrous, but they found any amount of ammunition in religious texts to support their viewpoints. On this basis it became the inculcated ‘custom’ for blacks in South Africa to defer to whites, and call them ‘baas’ (master). It was also the custom of whites to go to all office jobs in a sweltering climate wearing a jacket and tie. If such customs can be abandoned for moral or practical reasons, surely so also can others meriting change?
All those indulging in any of the listed practices should now apply their intelligence and weigh such things in the harsh light of common sense. Do they have the slightest merit, and are they worth propagating? Are they morally defensible? Did they truly arise from divine edict or are they just one of the many carryovers from primitive ages? Are they not, in fact, simply disgusting?
Colonialist's Blog 
I agree with you and that is because it is in direct conflict with the instinct of survival. As a race we tend to be governed by selfish ambition and this has led to a pyramid of wealth. At the top the elite and at the bottom the destitute , while each layer struggles to climb upwards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m always wary when the word true is put infront of anything , true Christian , true intelligence, true meaning , etc. Let’s say high IQ the test that was devised to distinguish between knowledge and intelligence. Is it contrary to logic to kill to eat ? or to chop down a forest to grow crops? What is logical will depend on your viewpoint it is not absolute. Fundamentalism is a mind-set that can be suffered by any one , that is its great danger. It locks the person into a fixed behaviour pattern governed by a set of rules or an ideology.
Regarding well-being you are right it would need watching like everything does , the well-being of the few may be put above the well-being of the many.
LikeLike
Indeed. There are no absolutes except for the absolute that there are no absolutes.
The greater good for the greater number is a maxim which seems, these days, to be increasingly ignored.
LikeLike
‘ Applying intelligence ‘ is a useless concept. There are many very intelligent members of ISIS. Intelligence can be quite dangerous since it can condone any moral action it wishes. A much better moral yardstick is well-being as suggested by the well known atheist Sam Harris.
LikeLike
Depends on how one defines ‘intelligence’. Fundamentalist religionists do not demonstrate true intelligence, no matter what their backgrounds and accomplishments. Their ability to accept as truth things which can be disproved beyond doubt is evidence of this.
I would say Sam Harris falls far short on that yardstick. From Aristotle, the term has been bandied around in the context of morals, but behaviour which is contrary to logic and can be regarded as despicable is still capable of inducing wellbeing.
LikeLike
alas. common sense is often lacking… or perhaps the ability to move with time and open your eyes. loooved the views of the midlands btw, felt quite jealous
LikeLike
They even lack uncommon sense!
The Midlands is something special.
LikeLike
I’d like to tie the bastards who tied that poor dig to the bull to the back of a crocodile, I cannot think of anything which has disgusted me this much
LikeLike
Tied to a crocodile is far too kind. Out of reach of the eating end, and they’d simply drown. Tied over an ants’ nest, of the particularly ouchy variety, would seem more appropriate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now why didn’t I think of that? Have you seen the size of the Australian ants nests?
LikeLike
One doesn’t want too big a one. The end wouldn’t be lingering enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reason that no huge UFO has ever landed on the White House lawn, in Red Square, or anywhere for that matter, is because the human race (generally) are a bunch of arse holes, and are not fit to receive a visitation from extraterrestrials. Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a united Earth (Star Trek) will only happen long after Homo Sapiens, as the dominant species, have departed this mortal coil.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And made way for a far more worthy species. There are any number of excellent contenders.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For their honesty, loyalty, and the way that they care for their elderly – the wolf and the African wild dog – and by extension, the domestic dog.
LikeLike
I was thinking on similar lines. I greatly admire cats, but they have rather self-centred personalities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh-no, cats would never do!
LikeLiked by 2 people
The picture of the dog on the bull made me wince. Killing for sport or ritual is, to me, what makes me ashamed to be human. I treat everyone (including any live being) as I wish to be treated—with kindness. I won’t try to hug an angry bull; I will leave it alone and try to ensure its safety, though.
If everyone in the world would ask a simple question before they did or said anything even bordering on cruelty or harm, I believe our world would be so much better: Would I want someone to do/say that to me?
LikeLiked by 2 people
A simple but highly effective question. There are, however, always the idiots who would have their ‘buts’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Every word you wrote reverberated with me… there just aren’t any arguments against what you say … and I include horse racing… the strain put on horses means so many injuries resulting in death as they are stretched past their endurance from a young age…
I do believe that respect for all life is part of the raising of consciousness of the human race and is an indicator of where we have got to in our evolution.
As for the cruelty which seems to be part of so many religions… what beats me is that so many apparently intelligent people are relying on Bronze Age writing or injunctions to dictate their behaviour in this day and age !!!!
Hope many people read what you have written…
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me that some people are simply more advanced than others when it comes to thinking for themselves on such issues. It does not only depend on book learning and knowledge or on the amount of brainwashing received in youth. Some minds simply latch onto these myths and they stick like burrs. Others soon reject them.
I was brought up in a society which glorified hunting. In target practice I could outshoot all of my fellows; when it came to shooting at game I would always miss without conscious intention — but my heart simply wasn’t in it. Later I grew to abhor the concept, other than when it was genuinely out of necessity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s an argument, isn’t there, that people adhere to customs and religious practices because they sanction their culture, their traditions and beliefs — they have an emotional investment in such ways of thinking and acting, and therefore there is no point trying to use logic or rational discourse to change their minds.
But then I think of my own instincts — of respecting others, of support for justice, of abhorring bullying behaviours — and wonder, for all that I use logic and rational discourse to justify them, whether equally these are symptoms of my own emotional investment?
I’m not arguing for relativism here– saying that one emotional point of view is as good as another — not at all. But what it boils down to its morality. There is a morality based solely on local society (the root of the word is of course mores, Latin for societal customs) but there is also the morality of a wider-based community, humanity.
And, as so many religions and philosophies emphasise down through the ages, true morality is about loving your ‘neighbour’ and showing compassion. Slavery, racism, misogyny, cruelty in all its forms — how can a narrow view of morality ever trump that wider, more universal morality? Logically and emotionally surely they cannot?
A timely post, Leslie. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good points. It is sad that philosophies with main messages of humanity and morality have had bits added in which mention smiting and revenge and penalties and bestiality, and that so many people eagerly focus on those as ‘customs’ to the exclusion of the core doctrine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly, you have it in a nutshell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, Leslie
LikeLiked by 1 person
The converted will think so. How I hope a few hitherto unconverted will read this and actually engage their minds thereafter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The word ‘Cruelty’ just about covers every form of unacceptable behaviour. I am prepared to respect any culture, as long as it doesn’t include (or encourage) cruelty.
I agree, there cannot be any arguments about this. Not valid ones anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do agree that ‘cruelty’ covers it all. The invalid arguments are offered daily by the hordes who carry out or endorse the various practices listed.
LikeLike
Good one Col. But are you looking for arguments? There are none.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately there are millions who believe that there are, and refuse to accept that they are invalid.
LikeLiked by 1 person