Views on being too religious

I think religion is a great way of leading a good moral life. However, I would never force my religion upon someone else. If they wanted to join a religion or were thinking about it, they would have asked about my religion themselves or did their own research. It annoys me when Jahova’s Witnesses come knocking on my door and pester me to join their faith. I believe everyone has the right to make up their own minds and follow a religion that they strongly believe in. If they don’t believe in that religion, then what is the point in them being faithful members of that faith? It also annoys me when certain faiths believe their religion is the right one to follow, as opposed to others. To be honest, I find this quite insulting to my own religion. If I choose to follow my faith, then I should be allowed to do so, and not be accused of being a sinner because I’m not following the faith that the person expects me to. It’s not like I’m worshipping the devil. Yes, I believe in God, but I just happen to believe in certain ideas of my own religion. I won’t follow a religion I don’t believe in because I won’t agree their ideas. I won’t be specific about this because I don’t want to offend anybody.
I also believe that a religion shouldn’t take over one’s life. One can follow their faith and also be free and be themselves. For example, I prey to God once everyday, but I still enjoy my life by going out and having fun, as long as I don’t harm anyone.

Link

http://atheism.about.com/od/jehovahswitnesses/a/SocietyControl.htm

Cults: faith or frivolous?

Cults have been causing a lot of controversy, not only for their ridiculous beliefs, but also for their money grabbing schemes. For example, the Church of Scientology have been receiving a lot of backlash from the media, courts and governmental bodies. It has been accused of exploiting its members and harrassing its critics (see second link). Not to mention, Scientologist follower Tom Cruise has been mocked by the media for his irrational behaviour, which then resulted in him being sacked by Paramount studios.

I found a website on cults (see first link), here are a few examples:
The Moonies
The Findhorn foundation
The exclusive Brethren
Scientology
Chaos Magick
The Humanist Movement

Personally, I think some of beliefs of these cults are too extreme. For example, The exclusive brethren forbids television, radio and the internet. How these people pass their time, I will never know. I also feel that some of these cults contradict themselves, as they believe that spending money is evil, yet they are more than happy to give it to the person in charge.
However, isn’t it the individual’s choice to follow these faiths? I think if these people were forced into that cult, then it’s very wrong as everyone is entitled to make their own choices and decisions. But if the individual has chosen that faith to follow, then he or she has the right to practice that faith despite how controversial it is. If they want to pay large amounts of money to these faiths, then let them.
However, I feel cults such as Scientology are disgusting as they only make a mockery out of the term ‘religion’. Religion shouldn’t expect money from anyone. It should give guidance to its members and help them live a moral life. However, businesses such as Scientology that disguise themselves as religions are just as bad as scams as they are only there to exploit people into parting with large amounts of money. However, if the individual chooses to ignore accusations fired at these cults and want to spend that much money, that’s their choice.

Link

http://hubpages.com/hub/Religious-Cults-and-Their-Beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

You're so vain....

Everyone is vain to a certain extent: we make sure our hair is neat and that we dress presentably. But to what extent is vanity bad? Is it when we spend three hours perfecting our expensive hair style? Or is it when we resort to plastic surgery?
I personally have no problem if someone spends hours in front of the mirror. There is nothing wrong in looking after yourself and to feel confident in the way you look, whether it takes an hour or an entire morning. If anything, some level of pride is healthy as the person won’t suffer from negative unhealthy emotions such as discontent, anxiety which stems from low self-esteem.
However, vanity can lead to arrogance or egotism and I think that’s a form of being bad because it can lead to other bad behaviour such as bullying and snobbery. These types of behaviour are bad as it does harm to another person’s self worth and esteem.
I think the media’s obsession with vanity is quite cruel to those who don’t and never will reach the standards of those in the modelling or film industry. What’s more disgusting is that they increase people’s insecurities by airbrushing actresses and models to an oblivion, creating images of flawless perfection that hardly exists.
However, this could be seen as acceptable as the media only gives the public what they want. If there was an over-weight person on the front cover of a magazine, would people buy it? No, they won’t. So are we responsible for the stresses we are under with regards of being physically accepted? Or are the media’s obessesion with raising the stakes that makes people more anxious. Lets face it, vanity sells. If we were all taught to be content with ourselves and love our flaws then there would be no beauty industry. No-one will buy magazines because they wouldn’t have any interest new trends or the latest diet that will enable the reader to lose 5 pounds in two weeks. And there certainly would be no need for beauty products. Companies need to invent better and more effective makeup in order to keep their businesses running. So we end up rushing to the store to buy the latest mascara that make our lashes look like sky scrapers. So because of this, I guess vanity in this day and age has become publicly acceptable, despite how disgusting our obsession with it has become.

Link:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/fashion-beauty/2007/11/13/are-women-obsessed-with-their-looks-86908-20099263/

Art or Crime?

Over the weekend, I went to a friend’s house. We started talking about art and he showed me some of the stuff he was interested in. So he opens up a folder on this computer and up comes thumbnails of vivid street-style bubble writing that all can recognise as graffiti art.
This suddenly reminded me of this module. Most would consider graffiti art as bad and even tasteless. The latter is true. Nasty scribbles that look as though they’ve been done by a five year old are an eyesore, especially those that depict obscene or offensive messages. But the more artistic ones that had taken a lot of time to do are quite cool, as well as the fluid street-style scribbles.
But I do disagree with graffiti art that’s applied on someone else’s car, house or fence. This is because it’s unauthorised. The artist hadn’t asked the owner to draw on their property and violates the owner’s right to have their property the way they want it: nice and clean. Not to mention, it is the owner who has to pay to get the unwanted scribbles removed, not the artist.
I think this sort of behaviour is considered bad because the artist isn’t considering the fact that the owner of the house doesn’t want their property damaged. After all, you wouldn’t draw on someone’s clothes because you feel like it? And you certainly wouldn’t smash someone’s window because you think the house would look better if the window was smashed?
So why else is graffiti art considered bad? I think it’s because of its connotations with delinquency and the fact that it’s done by poor youths with ASBOs. After all, have we ever seen a well behaved rich kid spray-painting a wall?
What annoys me about graffiti art on public transport is that the tax payers have to pay to get it removed, so we waste money every year for something that we’re not responsible for and doesn’t benefit anyone. I’m not dismissing the art itself, if anything I think it should be showcased somehow. According to Alex Rayner in the Guardian, “curators, dealers and buyers now accept graffiti as worthy contemporary art”. It would be a shame for such impressive work to be dismissed and looked down upon because of its association with crime.

Link:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/01/status_symbols.html

Cash, rockstar lover..drugs?

It seems that drugs are becoming more acceptable these days with models and artists such as Kate Moss and Amy Winehouse having being reported in indulging in some nose candy.

Despite the feirce critisism during her drug scandel, the media were quick to forgive Kate Moss as they praised her for her Roberto Cavalli photoshoots. If anything, the media coverage has just made her more famous and more sucessful as more campaign deals comes flooding on her doorstep. So the question is "Are the media resonsible for making drugs acceptable and to some extent cool??" It is known that the tabloids make more money from celebrity scandels. Hugh Grant taking a stroll isn't exactly going to sell papers, but throw in an article about Winehouse's latest drug problem and the shelves would be empty. Maybe it is the public who have a morbid curiosity in drugs and the papers are just giving them want they want.

What I find shocking is that Britain is now Europe's biggest cocaine consumer alongside Spain. Plus cocaine use in Britain has doubled among 16- to 24-year-olds in the past 10 years. There is no definate proof that these statistics are linked to the glamourisation of drugs in the media. But I wonder if there is a link? Anything that has an association with glamour or success is going to make young people want to copy - like in the 1940s glamourous film stars made smoking look cool and sexy. Maybe smoking isn't enough these days. I find it quite sad that young people need to emulate a model of success in order to have a morsel of glamour in their lives. Snorting cocaine isn't going to make anyone as cool as a supermodel or a singer. Snort cocaine and you're status is just as ordinary as everyone else. The only difference is that you'll be gaunt and hooked onto something that'll make your life hell.

Link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/18/wcoke118.xml

Judging a book by its cover

I was watching the Wright Stuff this morning, and they bought up the subject of ‘Judging a book by its cover’. Are having negative assumptions about people without knowing them a form of ignorance? Or is it natuarally our human instinct?

One man came onto the show and his face was coveredin tattoos – he said that he usually gets negative reactions from people. Personally if I saw this guy walking down the street I wouldn’t give him dirty looks at all. But I would avoid looking at him, as it’s rude to stare. But although I wouldn’t show any signs of condemation towards him, I do have my assumptions. Seeing a guy like that, I would assume that he was a biker into heavy metal and probably a tattoo artist, considering that he shows a love of body art. However, the shocking thing was that this guy works with children and does volenteer work.

But why do we assume that because someone wears something in particular, that they are bad? For example, as bought up on the show, if one saw a 13 year old boy wearing a hoodie, they would automatically assume that he is up to no good and is capable of mugging or stabbing someone. However, a lot of my friends wear hoodies and they have no intnentions to commit crime. It’s just something that young people wear these days because it’s easy to wear and they think its cool. But as Wright argued, since there is an inherent connotation to a particular garment and the person knows of this, then surely its their own fault for getting those unfair reactions from people?
This is a fair argument. I used to know someone who was a goth. She told me that the negative reactions she gets from people sometimes annoy her. But if this was the case, wouldn’t she stop being a goth to avoid that?? Or is it society simply being ignorant and their inabilty to accept that everyone is into different things and should be themselves as opposed to conforming to societies norms. This in a way, is a form of control. We are told what clothes we should wear, how to behave, how to be feminine or masculine. Things like this can cause anxiety for some people, especially if they lack money, or are sexually different. For example, someone could be looked down upon because they don’t have the money to afford designer clothes in order to fit in. Or gay person could be mocked and ridiculed because hes not considered masculine. However, because this is an inherent part of everyday life, it’s not considered bad. It’s just something we have to put up with.

A phycologistt called onto the show and he said that is human nature to judge. As children we make quick judgements about which strangers to talk to and not to talk to. However, some judgements are influneced by environmental factors, such as the media’s portrayal of certain people. Of course the media have a habit of portraying youths wearing hoodies as thugs as well as creating a guide of what is acceptable and what isn’t. Since when had the media glamourised long leather jackets and tongue splitting? We assue that a goth is a devil worshipper, or we might assume that someone with big boobs is a slut. Yes, these are prejudices that are inherent to society, but when that prejudge stretches to discrimination, it is considered bad. At the end of the day, you don’t know that person and by observing their clothes, one can’t assume that they’ve got that person figured out.



Link:

http://blogger.com/www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/aesthetic-judgment/

Are Racist Jokes funny???

We all know that Racism is a sensitive issue. Lest us take the reactions towards the Big Brother rows between Jade Goody and Shilpa Shetti and we have a good idea of the uproar this subject causes. But why do comedians tell racist jokes?? To what extent are these jokes acceptable??
If a white comedian made a joke about Asian people, then people would take offense. However if an Asian person made that joke, it would be acceptable. The best example I can give of this is ‘Goodness Gracious Me’, written by and Asian person and performed by Asian actors. The sketch basicly makes fun out of Asian stereotypes. In the example provided (see second link), it raises the issue of the pressures young Asain people get from their parents and the show uses irony for this comedic effect. Also the fact that the audince can relate to the situation makes it humourous as well. The intent here is to make fun out of themselves as opposed to making fun out of people in their community. So, I guess these sorts of jokes are acceptable. But, I’ve known people who’ve taken offense and there had been critism that the show was racist. However, I think people can be very hypersensitve. The jokes in the show were never told in a malignant manner that showed opposition to someone of a different colour or race. But at the end of the day, everyone has a different idea of where the tabbo line of racism lies.
Personally, I feel there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. For example, Ann Winterton’s train joke (see link) is very offensive. I’m not of Pakistani origon, but I do think this crosses the line of rascism. Firstly, it’s told by a white woman. And secondly, she states that the “Englishman” throws the “Pakistani” out of the window. How I took it was that the white man has no regards for Pakistanis and that he feels that they aren’t worth living. I also think bigotry like this only encourages racism, which the government had spent years trying to abolish. I find it shocking that some people find this joke acceptable. But despite how much we argue about this, we can never change the fact that what is racist and what isn’t racist is debatable.

Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1972565.stm

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vFL0w1ruiCM

Body Modifications

We discussed body modifications in the previous session. It was interesting, because I merely assumed that body modifications were tatoos, piercings and surgery. But apparently, there is a wide spectrum of modifications that we often over look because they are acceptable. For example, dieting, make-up, weight training, hair cutting/bleaching or dying. So to what extent are body modifcations unacceptable?

Personally, I feel that body modifications, despite how painful or bizzare they are, are acceptable, as long as it is the individual’s decision. Some people think tattoos look nice, others do it to get kicks from the pain, some do it in rebellion or even as a form of control of their own lives. What ever the reason, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, its fine.
However, in some countries, body modifications are imposed on the individual in order to gain control. For example, the rings that are worn by African tribes women are done in order for men to gain control. If a woman was found cheating on her husband, the ring would be removed, causing her neck to break as punishment. I feel examples such as these are unacceptable, as the individual has no choice in whether they want it done or not. This opinion can be considered ignorant because it is the African tribes’ way of life and I have no right to comment on that. But if that was the case, would we allow forced marriages in certain faiths, or even sacrifice in other more extreme cults? I’m very understanding of all faiths, cultures and traditions, but I do feel that some beliefs are very wrong and can lead people to becoming unhappy or even in danger. I believe everyone has the right to make their own decisions, be they right or wrong and shouldn’t be forced into anything.

Reasons why body modifications are considered deviant were also bought up in class. Tattoos are considered immoral in some religions such as Judiam, Christianity and Islam. They believe that modifiying the natural body that God has created is a sin. I understand that some religions put an emphasis on what God has created and having an appreiciation of that. However, God has also given us choice. I’m not saying that because of this, everything is acceptable because some things are immoral or wrong and can cause grief or pain on other people. In the case of the latter, yes, the individual should be punished to compensate for what they’ve done to the victim. However, tattoos cause no pain except for the individual who decides to have it done. And they choose to undergoe that pain.

Some people consider body modifications as wrong because they don’t fit in with society’s expectations or norms. For example, in the 1950s, tatoos were considered unfashionable. However, everyone has a different idea of what beauty is and what it isn’t and so amount of reprimandation or disapproval is going to change that. I feel that people are very stubborn of what they think is acceptable or attractive. I think because of this, some people feel like rebelling because they don’t want to look like a pattern free, scrawny celebrity. I’ll be honest, I find some body modifications unappealing such as tongue splitting, genitial piercing and tattooos literally covering every part of the body. But I wouldn’t show disgust to these people who choose to do it. At the end of the day, if they like it, they like it. But according to an article I found (check the link), some people have negative attitudes towards tatooed or pierced people because they under go pain and thus must be sadist, fetish or narsisistic. But as I believe, never judge a a book by its cover.

Another form of body modification we dicussed was surgery such as liposuction and breast enlargment. I remember discussing this with a college tutor and she said that people should apprieciate who they are as opposed to paying thousands of pounds for something so shallow. I think that if it makes the person's life better, then let them do it. That way, they won't feel the anger, discontent and anxiety that some people feel when they are dissatified with what they see in the mirror.

Link:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/is_7225_319/ai_58614613

Cheating

I found this article that looks at reasons why couples embark on affairs.
Due to long hours away from the spouse and being in the company of others, its not surprising that there are temptations, especially when one is stuck in a humdrum marriage. Plus new age communications such as mobiles phones make it easier to cheat.
Does flirting count as cheating? In my opinion, No. If theres no genuine feelings or sexual intimacy involved and is done as a trivial hobbie, then it’s OK. As long as the two parties are OK with this and know their limits, then flirting is fine. However, if one party doesn’t feel comfortable with this, then the other should be respectful of this and avoid it. Besides, isn’t this a relationship is about? Compromise?
How about meeting up with someone of the opposite sex while in a relationship? Again as long as there are no intimate feelings or contact that’s fine. However, there is a risk that this could lead to emotional infidilty, especially of the pair meet up too many times and the spouse is neglected.
What struck me the most about this article is that there are now sites that hook unhappy maried people twith others who want to cheat. Shocking. Seems like everyone has forgotten the importance of trust and loyalty. Some people do it to feel young again and have the excitement of relationship at start. But I’m wondering if this is immature and selfish thinking? I think sites like these just encourage marriage break-ups which can seriously affect the children. Yet people in affairs very rarely think about this, which is sad. Whenever I hear about an affair, not only to I feel sorry for the cheated, but also for the children who are stuck in the middle of this. If there was more communication in the relationship, surley both parites will be much happier and no one gets hurt? Personally, I feel it’s better for the couple if they talked about ways in which they can spice up marriage as opposed to getting it elsewhere.

Link:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,1509033,00.html