Now if you want to treat homosexuality as a disease, or a biological "mis-programming"
Of course it is. You have to be nuts to think that anyone would "choose" to be gay. There is no benefit to doing so. Its the old problem of motive in crime. But if you are of that view, thats not what I'm trying to convey here, so drop the gay angle and just look at the treatment of women in conservative American religion.
And no one has the right to be "born" into a religious belief.
Of course you are born into religion. Simply look at the fractional members of any religion which convert to it vs those born into it which convert to other religions. I doubt there is a better supported statistical judgement in all of social science then that our beliefs are formed by upbringing. Thats why the ME is full of Muslims. They were born into Muslim families and raised in a Muslim culture. If you took ME babies and adopted them to Irish Catholics, they would turn out Catholic. No surprise there.
You're attempting to turn parochial rights of a group or organization into INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
All I'm pointing out is that groups define membership in ways that are exclusionary. If you differ in X, you are not welcome here. No one has handed any human being a divine list of what constitutes individual rights vs group rights. Its something we muddle through as best we can.
The ENTIRE reason we did well in the USA with democracy is that the original colonies had many and diverse groups who had suffered exactly such problems in Europe, and they were keen to avoid further suffering. You could say that our democracy was the direct result of multiculturalism, abhorrent though that thought be to some. Iraq is also multicultural, but they have not yet got it through their skulls that it is best for all concerned to accept that. Instead, each group (well, maybe not the Kurds) would prefer to have a culture controlled, and agreeable, to their view.
So for that homosexual Baptist, the suggestion is obvious. Form your own Baptist church for gays.
Which is what happens when the main group decides it cannot tolerate diversity. It is IMO, what will happen in Iraq as well. In the example above you advocate such a solution, but I know from other posts you deplore it in Iraq. Be consistent!
The "fundamental problem" is that Iraqi identity as a multi-cultural people must be emphasized by the Iraqi government, or democracy is doomed to fail. Only when people have a common interest in preserving a state that will tolerate and protect their individual rights can democracy function and tolerance and compromise occur. People must surrender some of their parochial ambitions versus rivals in the interest of preserving their individual human rights.
You do get it in the above. IMO though, it is a big problem and for the same reason I have been trying to get across to you in the gay/feminist vs Baptist analogy. The beliefs that oppose a solution are to much a fundamental part of those peoples lives to allow any solution. It can happen over longer time periods, such as Mormons and blacks as an example. But anytime a religious tenet says hate thy neighbor, no amount of external strong arming results in much love.
Either everyone will ultimately live in an democratic society with an accountable government, or democracy will be snuffed out on our planet.
My own guess is that we tend towards ethnic democracies, and multi-ethnic ones. The USA is one of the best multi-ethnic ones, and headed even more so. If Iraq heads towards the 3-state solution, it might also end up peaceful and democratic, but very ethnic. Ethnic states can also be quite tolerant of minorities, provided the minorities are suitably small. So I think that approach is not all bad. Problems pop up if population dynamics are on trajectory for change. Fiji is an example of this IMO. Look at their problems and approach to solving things over the last decade. I suspect the world might see more such approaches. |
