Re: Criticizing Religion/Beliefs
Originally posted by Storm
It' s becoming more and more popular to argue that there is something fundamentally inappropriate and/or intolerant about criticizing religion and (religious) beliefs. It sometimes seems as if no serious and pointed criticisms are permitted against what people believe if those beliefs are part of religion, regardless of how bigoted or nasty those beliefs are.People can level very pointed criticisms against a movie or play without censure. Similarly pointed criticisms against a political or social ideology are also readily accepted as part of public debate. If anything even remotely similar is said about religion and religious beliefs, though, the critic will be tarred as intolerant, bigoted, anti-religion, and anything else which people can come up with.
If it' s legitimate to use ridicule and mockery to point out problems in a political leader, institution, or ideology, why should it suddenly be illegitimate to do the same in the context of religion, religious leaders, religious institutions, and (religious) beliefs?
Is there any good reason to think that the standards and rules for dealing with religious beliefs should be any different?
Source: about.com
The part I hate is that "they" seem to think they understand something that the rest of us have missed.
Them: But Jesus DIED for you!
Me: Yeah?
Them: But you'll burn in hell if you don't drink this kool-aid!
Me: I'll take my chances
Them: No, no, no. If you don't believe it, you'll burn forever!
Me: We'll see.
Them: No, no, no...Jesus died on the cross for you!
Me: I didn't ask him to.
Them: But he did it anyway!
Me: yeah, I heard you the first time.
Them: Then what don't you understand?
Me: Nothing. I get it.
and the whole thing starts over again. Bible thumping, preachy christians remind me of those obnoxious truckers that block the passing lane or the shoulder when there's an accident that's backing up traffic.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Classic example of controled opinions in regards to religion is the emrgance of ''Islamophobia''.
Religion, nd in my example Islam, is an ideology.Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents.
Islam is not unversaly agreed upon, and thus calling it 'phobia' is a fallacy. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.
Such would apply for any Ideology or more precisely religion in this case.
This embodies far larger meanings, mostly about what we understand as freedom of religion. But this freedom of religion right overshadows freedom of expression and opinion.
Or rather tends to.
Yes, I think a certain Alliance needs to realize this 😆
Religion has a large part in determining how people's lives are lived. Religion, like politics, tradition, and other idealogies, not only effects those who participate within the religion, but unfortunately, also effects those who do not directly participate within the religion.
Therefore, like all things, Religion should definately be subject to criticism, and to label criticism of a religion and/or religious doctrine as "phobia" or "bigotry" is, as Lil B stated, a fallacy.
Phobia and Bigotry can only be applicable to the feelings and perceptions of people. Not against idealogies, actions, or traditions.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How do you rationalise Religous morals in the first place?
When there is nothing more to rationalize against them. As long as you are on "100%" solid ground, you can push back.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If they are good morals, you will not have to rationalize them. 😄
👇
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Yes, I think a certain Alliance needs to realize this 😆
Maybe you Islamophobes need to realize you're doing more than disagreeing with ideology.
Originally posted by Storm
It' s becoming more and more popular to argue that there is something fundamentally inappropriate and/or intolerant about criticizing religion and (religious) beliefs. It sometimes seems as if no serious and pointed criticisms are permitted against what people believe if those beliefs are part of religion, regardless of how bigoted or nasty those beliefs are.People can level very pointed criticisms against a movie or play without censure. Similarly pointed criticisms against a political or social ideology are also readily accepted as part of public debate. If anything even remotely similar is said about religion and religious beliefs, though, the critic will be tarred as intolerant, bigoted, anti-religion, and anything else which people can come up with.
If it' s legitimate to use ridicule and mockery to point out problems in a political leader, institution, or ideology, why should it suddenly be illegitimate to do the same in the context of religion, religious leaders, religious institutions, and (religious) beliefs?
Is there any good reason to think that the standards and rules for dealing with religious beliefs should be any different?
Source: about.com
There is no institution that has killed more innocent people than the church, which claims to act according to the bible (/religion).
Ludwig the XIV. (Fourteenth was right, right?) was the (and I am just translating it from German as I know it) King of the Sun and claimed to act on the will of God.
G.W. Bush also claimed to be in power because of God's will.
Here religious and political respectively ideological believes intertwine and as I would criticize any regime built on religious beliefs I hence would also criticize religion.
I think it is always okay to speak your mind and if anyone is offended simply by someone saying he or she doesn't believe in the same thing, they just lack intelligence in my opinion.
Questioning/criticizing religious beliefs is legit, arguably even necessary to prevent cognitive ossification. But due it respectfully. Disrespect diminishes the criticizer, at times rendering his/her point null and void, if not an outright self-contradiction.
The same holds, of course, for those who are religious questioning the areligious.
Originally posted by Alliance
W
Maybe you Islamophobes need to realize you're doing more than disagreeing with ideology.
And maybe you Christianophobe and Buddhistophobe need to release you're doing more than disagreeing with ideology.
...
the stupidity of the term (ideology)phobe is just remarkable.
As Piers Benn said -
Islamophobia foster an environment "not intellectually or morally healthy",
"appears that critical scrutiny of Islam as somehow impolite, or ignorant of the religion's true nature", encouraging "sentimental pretence that all claims to religious truth are somehow 'equal', or that critical scrutiny of Islam (or any belief system) is ignorant, prejudiced, or 'phobic'
No other religion, apart from Islam has a name for its chritics in the form of phobe. None.
You don't hear Christianophobes, or Hinuphopes, or Buddhistophobes. Why? Because its a moral, intelectual and gramaticall fallacy.
A stunning rebuttal. Feeling "dirty" lately?
I disagree with the practicies of a minority of Christians, but I recognize that they are an unrepresentative minority subject to other influences besides religion. I'm also sensative on where I get my information. That is more than I can say for you and other nuts that share similar viewpoints.
My problem is that criticize becomes antagonize after extended conversations about the flaws of a religion. That is where the flaw in all of this lies. Just like recently with the "Atheism=Stupid" thread, people jumped on his back?
Was that a simple criticism? In his opinion is was just that. To others it was an insult.
There is nothing legit about criticizing the beliefs of another because they will never totally get what you are trying to get across to them. It is a logical fallacy to think so.
Originally posted by Alliance
A stunning rebuttal. Feeling "dirty" lately?I disagree with the practicies of a minority of Christians, but I recognize that they are an unrepresentative minority subject to other influences besides religion. I'm also sensative on where I get my information. That is more than I can say for you and other nuts that share similar viewpoints.
That brings a new question - which Christian "beliefs/(church?)" are the majority? Some Christians even believe that Jesus was not the son of God (although that throws out the Holy Trinity...).