Should We Respect Religion?

[SkinWalker]

I'm still not going to restrict free speech with regard to people's opinion about religion. As long as their are no ad hominem remarks, profanity, spam or links to illegal sites/porn.

 

Religion is superstition and a virus of the mind.

[The Source]

I'm still not going to restrict free speech with regard to people's opinion about religion. As long as their are no ad hominem remarks, profanity, spam or links to illegal sites/porn.

 

Religion is superstition and a virus of the mind.

Well, I take offense to your last statement. You did it intentionally, and you are trying to provoke a reaction. I find your comment insensitive to anyone who has a belief, and provoking a flame war is against forum rules. Am I wrong?

[The Source]

I'm still not going to restrict free speech with regard to people's opinion about religion. As long as their are no ad hominem remarks, profanity, spam or links to illegal sites/porn.

 

Religion is superstition and a virus of the mind.

Well, I take offense to your last statement. You did it intentionally, and you are trying to provoke a reaction. I find your comment insensitive to anyone who has a belief, and provoking a flame war is against forum rules. Am I wrong?

[ET Warrior]

Actually, he did nothing against forum rules. The rules state that "You cannot, in any way, insult (or "flame") someone else on the board."

 

Skinwalker has not insulted anybody on this board, he has made clear his opinion on a subject. If you were to react to his statement by making attacks against HIM, as opposed to his opinions, then you would be in violation of the rules.

 

There is also a forum rule "Do not hound current moderators or admins." Which you seem to be intent on doing in this thread. I would advise that you desist, and either leave this thread, or helpfully join in the discussion.

[ET Warrior]

Actually, he did nothing against forum rules. The rules state that "You cannot, in any way, insult (or "flame") someone else on the board."

 

Skinwalker has not insulted anybody on this board, he has made clear his opinion on a subject. If you were to react to his statement by making attacks against HIM, as opposed to his opinions, then you would be in violation of the rules.

 

There is also a forum rule "Do not hound current moderators or admins." Which you seem to be intent on doing in this thread. I would advise that you desist, and either leave this thread, or helpfully join in the discussion.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Are we being morally responsible by telling someone that their religious or social beliefs are flawed?

That depends on their social view. I find it irresponsible to indoctrinate a person into disliking homosexuals, but I'd welcome it if someone was to reassure a Holocaust denier that the horrific acts in the Death Camps actually took place.

 

How would you feel if an influential name like Lucas was being used to promote to your kids that their religion is evil?

That would depend entirely on my view on religion.

 

Bottom line: Religion/mythology is not more sacred than politics. Yes, it's emotionally sensitive, but hey, aren't politics as well? Haven't they always been?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Are we being morally responsible by telling someone that their religious or social beliefs are flawed?

That depends on their social view. I find it irresponsible to indoctrinate a person into disliking homosexuals, but I'd welcome it if someone was to reassure a Holocaust denier that the horrific acts in the Death Camps actually took place.

 

How would you feel if an influential name like Lucas was being used to promote to your kids that their religion is evil?

That would depend entirely on my view on religion.

 

Bottom line: Religion/mythology is not more sacred than politics. Yes, it's emotionally sensitive, but hey, aren't politics as well? Haven't they always been?

[Totenkopf]

I'm curious as to what form of moderation you have in mind SW. Face it, American pop culture is hardly restrained in it's expressions of disdain for religion (at least as far as Christianity goes). There is no public prohibition on people mocking, deriding, or otherwise ridiculing such beliefs in the forms of literature, movies, plays, editorials, music or even the internet. You can say just about anything w/regard as to how regressive "organized religion" is and suffer little/no penalty.

[Totenkopf]

I'm curious as to what form of moderation you have in mind SW. Face it, American pop culture is hardly restrained in it's expressions of disdain for religion (at least as far as Christianity goes). There is no public prohibition on people mocking, deriding, or otherwise ridiculing such beliefs in the forms of literature, movies, plays, editorials, music or even the internet. You can say just about anything w/regard as to how regressive "organized religion" is and suffer little/no penalty.

[Jae Onasi]

I hate it when I accidentally hit the close button _before_ hitting submit reply....

At that point in the discussion, I was referring to "someone" of cognitively capable age. I would no more presume to convince a young their religious beliefs are superstition than I would to convince them that safe-sex is a good practice. They're both valid ideas, but as you so rightly point out, their cognitive skills probably aren't developed enough yet.

Ah, got it. The 'safe sex' discussion would be really funny because my son's at the age where kissing is equivalent to handling raw sewage in disgusting-ness. Actually, I take that back. Boogers and body fluids/noises are seriously cool, and kissing is to be avoided on pain of death or embarrassment, whichever comes last.

 

Then you aren't teaching them stories about sky-gods, Santa Claus, and Jesus?

Of course I teach them about Christ--there are a lot of great lessons to learn, and the Bible has had a tremendous influence on history, culture, and literature, aside from the spiritual aspects. Did you expect anything different from a Christian? Sta-puf guy is Right Out, though.

 

Surely this is the best time to teach them through repetition the belief system that you want them to accept out-of-hand as adults. Teach them critical thinking skills later, after they've been thoroughly indoctrinated in whatever superstitions are necessary to perpetuate the virus of faith. That way, they'll be more likely to be skeptical about everything except what you don't want them to be.

As soon as they've developed enough to think critically, I'll work with them on that, because the sooner they can develop a 'crap detector', the better. I don't teach them the critical thought processes for the defense of Christianity--arguments by people like Lewis and Craig would be way over their heads. So we spend time on things like the Good Samaritan and other positive things Christ did. Since I don't subscribe to Dawkin's views on the rather amusing and a bit over-the-top description of the 'virus of faith' (people can choose to be different faiths or no faith, cells can't choose to become uninfected), I don't have issues with instructing my kids in the basics of Christianity. That does not preclude them from learning about other religions/belief systems, however.

I'm not picking on you as an individual, Jae.

I generally try not to take these things personally. Being perpetually 29 helps, though I don't always succeed, particularly if I've had a really crappy day over in the realm of Real Life. If I get ticked off, I'll try to remember to ask if what you're saying and what I'm understanding are the same since the lack of non-verbal cues makes it harder at times (can't promise I'll remember on that but I'll try) and I usually don't have a problem letting someone know I'm annoyed.

As a meme, religion is a powerful one. Most of the religious accept their beliefs and wouldn't dare question them simply because they've believed them all their lives. They've been told time and again by the people the trust most that this is the truth.

Questioning beliefs can be a major paradigm shift for some, but if God struck down those of us who did ask questions, a lot of us would be very dead right now. When my kids have questions, I don't plan to berate them for some lack of faith--that would be counterproductive. I plan on working with them so they can resolve the issues, and if resolving those issues means switching religions or dropping religion, I can live with that.

This is why Muslim parents teach their kids Muslim beliefs; Christian parents teach Jesus beliefs; Hindu parents teach reincarnation and karma; Andean highlanders teach of Apu; and so on. They can't all be right, otherwise there wouldn't be so many different, often contradictory, religions. There would be one.

Now there's another thread topic.

 

And children are naturally credulous, which is probably an evolutionary advantage so they accept these beliefs without inquiry. If a parent tells their child not to play near the street; run with scissors; to avoid talking to strangers, it is not advantageous to test these assertions.

Of course, it doesn't always stop kids from doing those things.

I think to children growing up in places like Ireland who attend schools that are comprised only of Catholics or Protestants. Is it any wonder that these children grow to be adults that still have difficulty working out their differences?

I think that may be making the Irish situation far more simplistic than it actually is. We have school systems in parts of the US where 1 school is predominantly white and 1 predominantly black, but both are made up of Christians. They have difficulties getting along together as adults, too, so it can't be merely a religious issue. The Irish conflict can't simply be a fight over whether bread and wine are transubstantiated or not. Drifting into the absurd....I've never seen any rally signs that say "Eucharist ftw!" or "Down with the Confessional!" It's a fight over who controls government and the land, and therefore the power.

How can you label a child as Catholic or Protestant or Muslim when they haven't the cognitive ability to understand the beliefs they are assigned? We can no more say a child is of a particular religious faith than we can say a child is a Republican or Democrat.

Well, my kids go to church every week, and they identify with the place of worship and our choice of faith at this point in their lives, even if they don't completely understand everything. If we went to political rallies every week, they'd probably identify themselves along those lines, too, though they wouldn't fully understand that, either.

Is it a "Christian base" or an indoctrination?

I have the sneaking suspicion that one person's 'Christian base' is another person's 'indoctrination'. I doubt we'll be able to change each other's minds on that.

At the end of the day, I'd be willing to be that my daughter and your kids had values that are very similar.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were very close to the same.

I agree with nearly every single moral value that Jesus is attributed as having taught. But I see these and others as humanist values. I don't teach my daughter that she should treat others with kindness and act with charity or turn the other cheek because a religious figure did. She learns this is the right way to be because her parents live this way.

Then the only real difference is that in our family we acknowledge that there is something out there that's greater than us who sent Christ to serve as a virtuous example (among other things), but agree with most of the fundamental values Christ represents. Is that difference enough to engender ridicule?

And when I make mistakes, I'm usually quick to point them out to my daughter if I think she'll understand so she can learn from them and see that humility and honesty are virtues of a good leader.

Oh, yeah, been there, done that, have the rueful smile to prove it. I've always felt that refusing to admit I'm wrong is dishonest to my kids and breaks their trust in me. But you'll get me going on parenting philosophy and I'll end up seriously derailing the thread talking about kids.

[Jae Onasi]

I hate it when I accidentally hit the close button _before_ hitting submit reply....

At that point in the discussion, I was referring to "someone" of cognitively capable age. I would no more presume to convince a young their religious beliefs are superstition than I would to convince them that safe-sex is a good practice. They're both valid ideas, but as you so rightly point out, their cognitive skills probably aren't developed enough yet.

Ah, got it. The 'safe sex' discussion would be really funny because my son's at the age where kissing is equivalent to handling raw sewage in disgusting-ness. Actually, I take that back. Boogers and body fluids/noises are seriously cool, and kissing is to be avoided on pain of death or embarrassment, whichever comes last.

 

Then you aren't teaching them stories about sky-gods, Santa Claus, and Jesus?

Of course I teach them about Christ--there are a lot of great lessons to learn, and the Bible has had a tremendous influence on history, culture, and literature, aside from the spiritual aspects. Did you expect anything different from a Christian? Sta-puf guy is Right Out, though.

 

Surely this is the best time to teach them through repetition the belief system that you want them to accept out-of-hand as adults. Teach them critical thinking skills later, after they've been thoroughly indoctrinated in whatever superstitions are necessary to perpetuate the virus of faith. That way, they'll be more likely to be skeptical about everything except what you don't want them to be.

As soon as they've developed enough to think critically, I'll work with them on that, because the sooner they can develop a 'crap detector', the better. I don't teach them the critical thought processes for the defense of Christianity--arguments by people like Lewis and Craig would be way over their heads. So we spend time on things like the Good Samaritan and other positive things Christ did. Since I don't subscribe to Dawkin's views on the rather amusing and a bit over-the-top description of the 'virus of faith' (people can choose to be different faiths or no faith, cells can't choose to become uninfected), I don't have issues with instructing my kids in the basics of Christianity. That does not preclude them from learning about other religions/belief systems, however.

I'm not picking on you as an individual, Jae.

I generally try not to take these things personally. Being perpetually 29 helps, though I don't always succeed, particularly if I've had a really crappy day over in the realm of Real Life. If I get ticked off, I'll try to remember to ask if what you're saying and what I'm understanding are the same since the lack of non-verbal cues makes it harder at times (can't promise I'll remember on that but I'll try) and I usually don't have a problem letting someone know I'm annoyed.

As a meme, religion is a powerful one. Most of the religious accept their beliefs and wouldn't dare question them simply because they've believed them all their lives. They've been told time and again by the people the trust most that this is the truth.

Questioning beliefs can be a major paradigm shift for some, but if God struck down those of us who did ask questions, a lot of us would be very dead right now. When my kids have questions, I don't plan to berate them for some lack of faith--that would be counterproductive. I plan on working with them so they can resolve the issues, and if resolving those issues means switching religions or dropping religion, I can live with that.

This is why Muslim parents teach their kids Muslim beliefs; Christian parents teach Jesus beliefs; Hindu parents teach reincarnation and karma; Andean highlanders teach of Apu; and so on. They can't all be right, otherwise there wouldn't be so many different, often contradictory, religions. There would be one.

Now there's another thread topic.

 

And children are naturally credulous, which is probably an evolutionary advantage so they accept these beliefs without inquiry. If a parent tells their child not to play near the street; run with scissors; to avoid talking to strangers, it is not advantageous to test these assertions.

Of course, it doesn't always stop kids from doing those things.

I think to children growing up in places like Ireland who attend schools that are comprised only of Catholics or Protestants. Is it any wonder that these children grow to be adults that still have difficulty working out their differences?

I think that may be making the Irish situation far more simplistic than it actually is. We have school systems in parts of the US where 1 school is predominantly white and 1 predominantly black, but both are made up of Christians. They have difficulties getting along together as adults, too, so it can't be merely a religious issue. The Irish conflict can't simply be a fight over whether bread and wine are transubstantiated or not. Drifting into the absurd....I've never seen any rally signs that say "Eucharist ftw!" or "Down with the Confessional!" It's a fight over who controls government and the land, and therefore the power.

How can you label a child as Catholic or Protestant or Muslim when they haven't the cognitive ability to understand the beliefs they are assigned? We can no more say a child is of a particular religious faith than we can say a child is a Republican or Democrat.

Well, my kids go to church every week, and they identify with the place of worship and our choice of faith at this point in their lives, even if they don't completely understand everything. If we went to political rallies every week, they'd probably identify themselves along those lines, too, though they wouldn't fully understand that, either.

Is it a "Christian base" or an indoctrination?

I have the sneaking suspicion that one person's 'Christian base' is another person's 'indoctrination'. I doubt we'll be able to change each other's minds on that.

At the end of the day, I'd be willing to be that my daughter and your kids had values that are very similar.

And I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were very close to the same.

I agree with nearly every single moral value that Jesus is attributed as having taught. But I see these and others as humanist values. I don't teach my daughter that she should treat others with kindness and act with charity or turn the other cheek because a religious figure did. She learns this is the right way to be because her parents live this way.

Then the only real difference is that in our family we acknowledge that there is something out there that's greater than us who sent Christ to serve as a virtuous example (among other things), but agree with most of the fundamental values Christ represents. Is that difference enough to engender ridicule?

And when I make mistakes, I'm usually quick to point them out to my daughter if I think she'll understand so she can learn from them and see that humility and honesty are virtues of a good leader.

Oh, yeah, been there, done that, have the rueful smile to prove it. I've always felt that refusing to admit I'm wrong is dishonest to my kids and breaks their trust in me. But you'll get me going on parenting philosophy and I'll end up seriously derailing the thread talking about kids.

[Q]

Religion is superstition and a virus of the mind.

For which there is no vaccination or cure for those infected.

 

BTW: Happy Reformation Day!

[Mace MacLeod]

I think to children growing up in places like Ireland who attend schools that are comprised only of Catholics or Protestants. Is it any wonder that these children grow to be adults that still have difficulty working out their differences? How can you label a child as Catholic or Protestant or Muslim when they haven't the cognitive ability to understand the beliefs they are assigned? We can no more say a child is of a particular religious faith than we can say a child is a Republican or Democrat.

That is taking the Irish school system just a bit simplisticly. The real divisions between Protestant and Catholic are predominantly up in the North and have far more to do with the legacy of bloodthirsty terrorist groups, British colonial bigotry and persecution against Catholics by the Unionist governmental authorities (ie Royal Ulster Constabulary) rather than just internalized sectarianism about the religious schism itself. But when you take away the violence, Northern Irish politicians are now being seen by the general population as the petty, squabbling, local-minded intolerant wankers they really are. Particularly the Rev. Ian Paisley, legendary champion of extremist Protestant loyalists and (among other things) the driving force behind the 1970's "Save Ulster From Sodomy" campaign. The newspapers are all agog over the new St. Andrews Agreement, which might just revive the Stormont government and finally allow real power-sharing between Protestants and Catholics in the North, but it's a bit of a downer that you still can't get Ian Paisley in the same room with Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness. However, I digress.

 

Down here in the Republic of Ireland where my family has lived for about a year and a half now, my daughter attend a Catholic school, not that we really have any choice in the matter. We aren't Catholics or even Christians ourselves, and as such, (not so) little Miss MacLeod isn't required to formally take the religion or Irish Language classes, but she's still in the room when they teach them. Now do we, her parents, have a problem with that? No. Ireland is a Catholic country, and we all knew that when we moved here. I don't believe it to be a matter of indoctrination into Catholicism just because they teach religion in schools here, nor do I treat the national spirituality to be some sort of mental virus to be shunned at all costs. Now, if they demanded she pray daily to a large picture of St. Patrick or Bobby Sands, then I'd have a problem.

[SkinWalker]

Thank you for that clarification. I was most definitely viewing the situation more simplistically than it would seem to be.

[The Source]

Actually, he did nothing against forum rules. The rules state that "You cannot, in any way, insult (or "flame") someone else on the board."

 

Skinwalker has not insulted anybody on this board, he has made clear his opinion on a subject. If you were to react to his statement by making attacks against HIM, as opposed to his opinions, then you would be in violation of the rules.

 

There is also a forum rule "Do not hound current moderators or admins." Which you seem to be intent on doing in this thread. I would advise that you desist, and either leave this thread, or helpfully join in the discussion.

Couldn't I take his comment as an insult to my religion?

[Rogue Nine]

You can take it however you like. The fact remains that it is his opinion and not directed against a specific person thus, he has not violated any rules. You are free to disagree with him, but any ad hominem remarks are not allowed. I recommend you follow ET's advice and contribute with substantive arguments, rather than baiting staff members, which will get you nowhere fast. And what ever happened to "I am going to let everyone continue to debate about this issue"? Seems to me like you were about ready to leave when you made this statement. Similar things can be said about your signature.

 

On-topic: I believe religion should be afforded the same amount of respect that an opinion or belief holds. Opinions may be criticized and debated upon reasonably and without resulting in insults and hurt feelings in spite of the often provocative nature of opinions on religion. I believe in one thing and you can say I'm wrong and debate with me about it, but I trust that you'll respect the fact that that is what I believe.

[SkinWalker]

Couldn't I take your religion and opinions as an insult to my rationalism?

 

Look, take my comments the way you want. Any society that starts moderating itself with regard to the sensibilities of every group that comprises its multicultural makeup is a society that is in its beginning stages of decline. If my neighbor from Sudan believes that female genital mutilation is okay, should I be sensitive to his beliefs knowing that when his daughter turns twelve, she'll be held down for a clitorectomy -or worse? That's an extreme example, to be sure, but this is a religious belief that is held by people who have immigrated to the United States. Understanding this and your complaint of insult begs the question: where is the line to be drawn with regard to criticism of religion. I can reference and source my assertion that your religion is superstition and mythology, making it a fair criticism. That would, however, be another thread.

 

In the end, you don't have to read the thread. Therefore, you need not endure the insult. And your worry of the sensibilities of others, while admirable, isn't your responsibility. This is the internet, not a daycare or elementary school. If you infer an insult because your religion is criticized, then that says more about your faith than my criticism. It occurs to me that what people who fear criticism of religion are truly afraid of is apostasy, and I'm reminded of the religious nutters that killed nuns and priests because the Pope dared discuss the words of a Byzantine religious leader whom he clearly indicated a disagreement with.

 

Another contentious point in this thread centers upon ridicule as a legitimate form of criticism. My assertion is that, while it isn't necessarily favorable in many situations, it is legitimate as criticism. I admit that it isn't always done well and frequently can be very tasteless, but there are also many instances in which the ridicule is warranted and appropriate. Political cartoons are a form of ridicule, yet I see not a single objection. Comedy skits on Saturday Night Live and late night television are forms of ridicule, yet most people accept these for what they are: satirical and comedic perspective of people who probably take themselves far too seriously.

 

Ridicule is a device of criticism that seems to get the most objections from the credulous. I think this is likely because there is a fear that the ridicule is well-placed. The credulous have a hard enough time defending their credulity against reason without having to deal with being laughed at. As someone once said, "who can refute a sneer?" But ridicule is a powerful form of criticism, and one that many societies throughout history have used with success in maintaining societal order. The !Kung San of the Kalahari still use it (assuming any of the !Kung remain) as do several Polynesian societies that I can think of.

 

If the position of the credulous was worth what they insist it to be, then goofy notions like goblins, ESP, dowsing, witchcraft, reiki, alien abductions, gods, 'intelligent' design, talking to the dead, fortune telling, magnetic insoles, tinfoil hats, and so on would all be able to withstand the test of ridicule. Religious nutters like Kent Hovind and Pat Robertson ridicule science and scientists all the time -nearly every time they speak in public. Very few scientists pay them a bit of attention, because in the grand scheme of things, the ridicule of a few religious nutters doesn't threaten the validity of science.

 

Regardless of your personal opinion about ridicule, I'm curious if you would advocate legislation that restricts any public remarks that are considered to be "rude" to religious feelings? Earlier this year, the British Parliament nearly passed a Racial and Religious Hatred bill that included provisos that would have made it illegal to be rude toward a religion or religious person. This would have included insulting words or jokes about religion. The bill lost by a single vote, ironically the bill's chief proponent was Tony Blair, who had gone home early and didn't vote. But in Britain, the BBC isn't even allowed to use the term "Islamic Terrorist," even though the subway bombings were conducted by terrorists who were Islamic.

 

 

 

In the spirit of ridicule in the form of criticism, I offer the following cartoon;

 

[Jae Onasi]

(Jae lays the back of her hand on her forehead in a swoon)

I'm so deeply offended at the lack of sensitivity in the portrayal of dress of my Native American ancestors, I just can't begin to imagine what to do.

[SkinWalker]

Not all ridicule is deeply offensive.

 

Though, there are undoubtedly those who find such a cartoon deeply offensive (or make a display as though they do).

[Nancy Allen``]

The last thing anyone wants is a repeat of the Mohammed cartoons, or be so wrapped up in their religion that they act like the bastard who said Western women deserve to be raped because they don't wear abayas. That bull**** shows you are intolerant. Take your religion, or lack of it, seriously by all means, as seriously as you want. But be open minded enough to be able to accept other people's views, even if you think they're wrong. I disagree with a lot of Muslim views (treatment of women for example) but that's their way of life, I just have to wear it. If it were harmful I'd protest.

[Jae Onasi]

Not all ridicule is deeply offensive.

 

Though, there are undoubtedly those who find such a cartoon deeply offensive (or make a display as though they do).

 

Every now and then I have to practice on my over-the-top 'Southern Belle Swoon' lest I become rusty up here in the Great White North. I miss my Texas buddies.

In regards to above--

We don't live in the Kalahari or Polynesia--what they do with ridicule in their culture can't necessarily be applied here.

The problem with ridicule is a number of people don't know how to draw the line between doing something to satirize and doing something that is intentionally hurtful/insulting in the name of satire. The former I can deal with--I've certainly done idiot things that I've laughed at myself over. The latter I find objectionable, whether it's directed at religion, atheism, political figures, or any other group.

 

And just for fun...

(Copyright Gospel Communications International, Inc - http://www.reverendfun.com)

[Emperor Devon]

Oh, ha ha ha. How funny.

[Jae Onasi]

Oh, ha ha ha. How funny.

Hey, I thought the one SkinWalker put up was amusing, too.

What do you expect from someone who got together with her hubby out of a mutual love for puns?

[Emperor Devon]

Hey, I thought the one SkinWalker put up was amusing, too.

 

It's funny in that sort of way.

 

What do you expect from someone who got together with her hubby out of a mutual love for puns?

 

That's a point...

[Mace MacLeod]

I used to be an atheist, but I gave up. No holidays.