|
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think one would be taking an exceedingly simplistic view of any religion to reduce it to a series of taboos. |
To clarify, I do not hold that religion is only a series of taboos, but I see their transmission as well as religion's transmission as the same. Innumerable factors and influences constitute an individual and their views, but when people agree on something - whether that agreement is sealed in terror or compliance - a node of information is created, wrapped up in rhetoric, then administered to others in an attempt to convert those sympathetic to it. It is how any belief spreads, and both taboo as well as religion are merely systems of belief.
| quote: | | I will admit that there is great overlap and things that were taboo independent of a religion often become taboo within that religion and other things that are contrary to the prescribed path to a good and righteous life within a given religion will often become taboos as well; however, all the great faiths endeavor to teach a moral code based on things that should be done as opposed to things that should not be done (with the exception of Judaism under which morality is equally defined by what one should not due as by what one should do). Thus I would argue that the foundation of religious observance is in the positive rather then the negative, which is to say in the recommended activities rather then the prohibited. I think societies and individuals adopt taboos because it is easier to have a hard and fast list of things one ought not do rather then a nebulous description of what one ought to do. |
I'll concede that many religious systems use fables, metaphors, parables, etc.(better not say 'myths' though, or I'll be offended!) to demonstrate appropriate behaviour, but sin and taboo are often expressed in the culture of any religion, the difference there being textual evidence and the far less concrete, but nevertheless powerful, maintenance of folkways established by the same transmission which impels people to seek religious understanding of their world. Yes, religions often define themselves through approved tenets which rarely seem to vary in an ultimate sense, but just the same, they seek to curb human behaviour through the establishment of sin and of offenses. This being from the perspective that religions are most often the product of their respective cultures and political aspirations, but once more, I'm not sure we can align our particular beliefs on this.
What I will object to is taboo as a hard and fast list for people's ease. I do not believe we are doing anything terribly more efficient by universally outlawing any sort of behaviour, it is merely the dominant wrest of popular opinion as some indoctrinated hysteria that has lead to the current state of things... of course, it has always been that way, but I believe most taboos to be arbitrary, and we would do just as well without many of them, albeit differently.
| quote: | | There are many taboos that have little to do with sex; however, I will agree that taboos were developed to control behaviour. I would contend that most taboos addressed a very important need during the time in which they developed, beyond curbing violence. For example; the taboo against homosexuality is ancient, it has been present since the time of very small bands of humans living in isolated groups with high mortality rates. Given this social reality it is makes sense that these isolated populations would have a need to increase their population in order to improve the chances of their band surviving. If increased numbers are needed then procreation is the easiest way to reach that goal... homosexual acts cannot result in procreation but do satisfy sexual urges... thus they are contrary to this goal. In order to curb these acts social pressure was brought to bear. Perhaps adultery as a taboo would be a good example of a sexual taboo that developed over a need to put an end to jealousy over sexual partners resulting in violence. |
The taboos on incest and on menstruation are the only nearly universal taboos I can think of. These appear in most every culture in some way or another.
When I say that taboos control violence, I speak of violence as a high concept. It is not merely bloodshed, but the violation of another with intention. This could include rape, dismemberment, insult or a great many other acts. The point being that violence is one of the most prevalent forces throughout the whole of history and also one with the most taboos regarding it. The violence of sexuality even, of the taboos, probably one of the most violated in this post-Victorian limelight.
I would argue that the taboo on homosexuality is largely due to the act characterizing its participators and the status of it participators as a minority. Were, say, 75% of the population homosexual, it would be normal due to the relative abundance of it, and thus not a taboo. But then again, I see religion as a primarily social faculty that is merely used by people to justify their taboo-inspired prejudices and arbitrary sensibilities. But this is a tired, old song from me.
| quote: | | Maybe it's your definition of natural and unnatural that's throwing me off here. It seems you believe taboos to be entirely natural whereas love is unnatural in that is stands (often) in contradiction to taboos. I would argue that love is an innate emotion and therefore natural whereas taboos are a response to a societal problem (most of which have outlived their usefulness incidentally) and are therefore social constructs, which make them unnatural. |
Though I agree that taboos are most often social contructs that probably at one time served a purpose, their existence being "natural" so far as the right of prevalence is concerned, I do not see love as being something necessary to social functioning. Perhaps it exists simultaneously - perhaps not - but emotional appeal has its place seperate from love. Yes, our definitions of what is 'natural' and what isn't are probably differing here, but I see the concept of love as a transcendance of mere emotional burden, all-too often confused with its baser incarnations.
Perhaps you and I hold the concepts of God and of love as the same thing with different names and slightly different meanings to the both of us.
___________________
|
