For a private person welcoming a private friend into their home I can understand catering to the guest´s sensibilities (although I don´t think it´s recquired).
For a head of state visiting a historical site on an official visit I find it ridiculous, especially if the guest demands the changes beforehand. You can handle the responsibility of oppressing your population and having people killed for adultery, but not the sight of a couple of bronze balls? Stay home then.
3 Likes
I started out with “Strange though it may be”. Its pretty well known that I’m the token loudmouth Orthodox Jew here so that should put my statement in context but I really do think that a guest should be honored according to their customs regardless of if the guest may be a head of a pariah state.
In any case I’d be surprised if there weren’t already such protocols of official diplomacy, again regardless if the visiting head of state is a pariah or not.
I get what you´re saying and I agree that there is probably a diplomatic protocol for situations like this.
Excessive sensibility by people who act insensitive towards others on a regular basis, by politicians no less, bothers me. I don´t like the self-righteousness implied in it, in this case the demand to cover up part of the host´s historical heritage, because the guest deems it offensive. I also dislike the blatant close-mindedness in this approach.
My opinion is not influenced by the fact that it´s the Iranian president we´re talking about either. I harbour no more ill opinions about him than about a host of other politicians from a broad range of cultural backgrounds.
Furthermore, these aren´t even real cultural sensibilities in question here, they are the sensibilities of religious extremists, for which I have even less patience. I would be interested to hear what the father of one of my best friends, who fled Iran in 1979, would have to say about the matter. Knowing him, it would be much less restrained than what I´m saying 
When I am a guest in another country or at the home of someone from a different culture, the last thing I would expect is for them to act according to my customs, much less send demands to this effect beforehand.
4 Likes
Exactly. Why even bother with the museum. Take him somewhere he’d prefer.
1 Like
Late stage anticapitalism.
1 Like
I’m sorry, I don’t see how the first one would be malicious. Well, if the Vatican were to enforce a secular environment, I would assume they had some ulterior motive, but otherwise…
When a religious person visits a secular environment, or a differently-religious environment, or a non-religious person visits a religious environment, there will be small “annoyances”. How accommodating to be is a difficult problem in general. As an atheist, I wouldn’t expect religious people to remove or cover up conspicuous religious symbols in their house when they invite me, but I would appreciate not being asked to join hands and say “Amen” to some prayer before the meal. Could I ask them to just skip the prayer entirely, or will I have to listen to them praying? That doesn’t depend on whether they are “malicious” and want to enforce a religious environment on me, but on how much they care about praying before a meal.
1 Like
Yeah. Like clean the bathroom.
I suspect I’d be considered a religious extremist myself what with all that fiddley kosher food, praying 3 times a day and whatnot.
You mention that you are an atheist and give an example of being expected to participate in a specifically Christian ceremony which is not what I pointed out. Flip the situation you proposed. If you as an atheist are hosting a known Christian and prevent them from performing their ceremonies by means of scheduling for example, maybe giving a speech and then everyone in the hosting party immediately starts eating. That said this is a flimsy example since Christians arent required by their religion to say a grace before meals or pray according to any specific schedule.
Of course ;-). Well, at least as far as self-reported adherence to religious rules is concerned, you would be more “extreme” than almost everyone I’ve met in the past five months. The only exception I can think of is a Catholic priest who is a good friend of my grandmother. And I’ve probably forgot about a few more.
But… I flipped it on purpose. You mentioned imposing a secular environment on religious guests. I wanted an example where I am on the side of the alleged “victim”, and so I chose an example of how a religious environment might be imposed on me.
I’m sure there are Christians somewhere who think they are. But on the whole, I’m more likely to accommodate the wishes of people who show a willingness to be flexible themselves, as opposed to people who feel they are subject to a non-negotiable “requirement” to do things their way.
1 Like
Book: Captain, do you mind if I say grace?
Mal: Only if you say it out loud
5 Likes
The quotes you use on the word requirement look like disdain or perhaps not understanding that for some people observations really are required.
Well, maybe it’s “disagreement on a fundamental level”.
Obviously, I don’t believe that any such requirements are real, that is a logical consequence of thinking that there is no God who could impose any such requirements. Do I understand that for some people observations really are required? No. In fact, I am convinced that they aren’t required for anyone. I do understand that some people think, feel, believe they are required. I understand that people care about such things.
When people around me care about something that I don’t care about, I usually make the effort to accommodate them. If we care about opposite things, we might try to find a compromise.
There are different reasons why people care about something, and different reasons why people care about something to the point of being unable to compromise.
But I cannot accept that religious reasons are better than other reasons, or that they inherently deserve more respect. You can’t expect me to consider “because God wants it” a better reason than “because a friend asked me to”. In fact, I respect the latter reason a lot more, because I’m quite likely to believe that this friend actually exists.
Ironically you come off as more strict than even the ayatollah in your views of absolutes regarding others and frankly less respectful of others. Let’s just close this out as a fundamental difference of views.
1 Like
True enough, but at the same time you probably want to avoid calling a Muslim (or a religious Jew for that matter) “Nimrod,” unless you’re trying to insult him far more gravely than its American meaning of “oaf.”
2 Likes
Now that’s quite… extreme. We are talking about that guy who holds most of the power in a country where people who think like me are threatened with execution.
I made one statement regarding absolutes. It boils down to “I believe that there is no God.” Not, “For me, there is no God, but for you, He may exist” (I don’t know if you subscribe to that sort of relativism; I know some people who do, but I don’t. The ayatollah certainly doesn’t, either). Is that what earned me the ayatollah comparison?
And I made one statement regarding respect. Which is, I respect secular reasons for caring about stuff more than religious reasons. I will try harder to help you do your duty by your friend than I will to help you do your duty by your God. What else would you expect from somebody who knows your friend is a real human being, but doesn’t believe that God even exists?
Do either of those things make me “more strict” and “less respectful” than the ayatollah?
3 Likes
Well, those must have been more enlightened times then?
I don’t know how “enlightened” you’d call TR, but he definitely had no need of a fainting couch, nor would he have taken diplomacy advice from anyone who did.
