I'm pro-telescope, but not pro-stabbing.No, it won't... much like deciding to not stab someone again does not erase the scars from the last time one stabbed them.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm pro-telescope, but not pro-stabbing.No, it won't... much like deciding to not stab someone again does not erase the scars from the last time one stabbed them.
Sometimes something is worth doing, even if it does **** people off.No. But we can't heal the wounds by inflicting new ones.
I'm pro-telescope, but not pro-stabbing.
It's an analogy. And from the perspective of these indigenous people, probably an accurate one.
They can still understand things by worshiping the mountain.Sad irony is that "mountain worship" is a mode of understanding the universe. One that Westerners fail to value, and thus see fit to stab repeatedly until it dies.
Sometimes something is worth doing, even if it does **** people off.
Tools for understanding the universe trump mountain worship for me.
It's a value judgement.The stars will pretty much always be there. people, their cultures, beliefs, traditions and histories won't be. we die at a much faster rate and our ideas die with us. we've done an aweful lot already to erase past cultures based on notions of our superiority. We cannot fully understand who we areas a species unless we understand our past and that is part of the collective inheritence of the human race. the vastness of space challanges our sense that we have a special place in the universe and makes what we do on this planet perhaps more, rather than less significant. The implications of our knowledge of space are not simply scientific but also moral.
Even if there was some way we could set off a space craft now, we probably won't find intelligent life in the universe for a very long time given the vast distances we'd have to cover and the technologies we'd need to do it. We'd be crossing a vast and lifeless desert. Till then, all we have is each other. We need to get our planet in order before we exporting our problems when we finally colonise Mars, or some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. We sort of owe it not simply to our ancestors but to our descendants to get it right this time round. Space can wait a little bit longer till we sort ourselves out.
Sometimes something is worth doing, even if it does **** people off.
Tools for understanding the universe trump mountain worship for me.
It's a value judgement.
Besides, I don't think we'll ever "sort ourselves out".
We'll always be a quagmire of human depravity.
But at least we can investigate the universe while we suffer.
Here is one Hawaiian's answer....How many telescopes are there in the world (and even in space)? Is this one really going to make a substantial difference in the 'progress' of humanity, one which couldn't be made anywhere else?
Churches don't advance anyone's understanding.You probably wouldn't be too happy if someone built a church in your back garden with the excuse that they saved you a bit of lawn so stop complaining.
Catchy titles are always misleading & infuriating us.The article calling it sacredness v 'science' seems a bit hyperbolic also.
My enjoyment of astronomy trumps their enjoyment of a telescope free mountain.It's sacredness v a big telescope. In the grand scheme of things, this telescope means nothing, and they could probably find somewhere else to build one just as good but it will be 'inconvenient' for some scientists to do so. Better to inconvenience the 'primitive' locals, whose beliefs are a bit of a 'joke'.
In the grand scheme of things, it is about as important to build a telescope there as it is to build a cinema. It is really just for the enjoyment of some people after all.
European influence on Hawaii led to large localised depopulation due to influenenza, smallpox, measles in the 19th century. When Captain cook "discovered" the island there were around 80,000 to 250,000 Hawiians. By 1900, it was reduced to 37,656 of full or partial of native Hawaiian ancestry. Hawaii was annexed by the US illegally in 1898 inspite of the fact the annexation treaty wasn't passed in the US Senate and produced widespread opposition amongst hawaiians. it wasn't recognised as a US state until 1954, but in the meantime was ruled by sugar plantaton owners. Only in 1978 did the Hawaii state constitutional convention create the office of hawaiian affiars to promote indigeonous langauge and culture. In the 2000 US census it showed that there were 283,430 resistents of native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders ancestry out of a population of 1.4 million (2014 est.)
The fact they are a minority is down to historical de-population as the result of European contact, so in a historical context, your argument that they lost their right to defend their traditions because the descendants of europeans outnumber them doesn't hold much weight.
How many telescopes are there in the world (and even in space)? Is this one really going to make a substantial difference in the 'progress' of humanity, one which couldn't be made anywhere else?
You probably wouldn't be too happy if someone built a church in your back garden with the excuse that they saved you a bit of lawn so stop complaining.
The article calling it sacredness v 'science' seems a bit hyperbolic also. It's sacredness v a big telescope. In the grand scheme of things, this telescope means nothing, and they could probably find somewhere else to build one just as good but it will be 'inconvenient' for some scientists to do so. Better to inconvenience the 'primitive' locals, whose beliefs are a bit of a 'joke'.
In the grand scheme of things, it is about as important to build a telescope there as it is to build a cinema. It is really just for the enjoyment of some people after all.
The back yard scenario you laid out supports my point. If the indigenous people owned the mountain we wouldn't be having this conversation. The question is who has priority, those who own the property or those who claim they should by some ancient tradition. This is a case of the local "place indigenous people of any kind here" claiming your back yard is a ancient sacred site and you can't put in the garage you want to construct.
The state 'own' the land.
The government could sell off all the green spaces in your town to private landlords and makes some money from it, would that be for the best?
You think that you should have access to green spaces through some 'tradition', but why not sell them to rich people who can use them for their personal enjoyment?
Lots of historical sites sit on 'valuable real estate', sell them off too. History and culture aren't important, just commercial exploitation.
Anyway, it's just indigenous people; they don't really have any culture because they are backwards. Best they get with the program.
Anywhere where there are minorities, the majority should just move them on. Get the Christians and the Yazidis out of Iraq, the Islamic State own their land now. They think they own it by some ancient tradition, but times change. Muslims could use their land better. they're just backward people who refused to assimilate into the majority culture.
Best they don't stand in the way of progress.
All your snide comments aside... that is the way the world works. Ancient traditions die and the world moves on. The minority has the same right as the majority to buy or lease the land. But if we just handed it to everyone who had a historical claim, we would soon find ourselves owning nothing but swampland and mountainsides.
That was the view of some Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke who thought that the Native Americans had no right to their land as they had failed to commercially exploit it, and thus Europeans had every right to exterminate them.
It formed the basis for the field of 'scientific' racism; something that apparently still finds favour with some on this forum.
It's not a matter of favor. It's a matter of practicality. Practically speaking, using a mountaintop for a telescope is a no brainer when compared with the desire for a "sacred" site that may be visited by a few hundred people a year. On the one hand you have a telescope valued by scholars, educators and students. On the other you have a site where people can "commune" or "worship". Telescopes need to be placed as high as possible and as far from light as possible. There are limited ideal sites on which to put one. Realistically, the loss of this site for the local people means what?
The intelligent choice if I were one of the locals would be to move for a cooperative effort. Something where they could still visit the site and the telescope/observatory could have a limited impact on the area.
But if the choice is one or the other, I give it to the astronomers every time.
Not just personal values, the values of a cultural majority that has systematically stolen the lands which were legally by priority owned by the native inhabitants under their system of law, by imposing at gunpoint a foreign system of ownership and law that denied their right to ownership in favor of the invading peoples. Yes, historically, that often happens; it still doesn't make it right, and we as a nation and often as individuals continue to impose that same imperialistic system on the native peoples who Western culture has repeatedly robbed and raped, by continuing to do it over and over again just to prove that we can, and for whatever reason reason we choose. Most Americans favor the values of the dominant culture over any and all minority cultures, especially those that still survive despite the efforts to wipe them out.Regardless of whether or not you describe your perspective as the "practical" choice or the "intelligent" choice, at its root this perspective is grounded in your personal values. That makes it a matter of favor: favoring your personal values over those of others.