- This topic has 153 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by RudeBoy.
-
why can’t we criticise religions or religious people without getting grief
-
mrsflashFree Member
I’d guess that a CofE church would be less homophobic than the average building site, police station or school…
going by what I know of my friend’s wife who is a vicar and her parish and her vicar friends (several of whom are gay) I’d say that was probably right.
miketuallyFree Membergoing by what I know of my friend’s wife who is a vicar and her parish and her vicar friends (several of whom are gay) I’d say that was probably right.
But let’s not let reality get in the way of shrill hysteria and crass stereotyping, hey? 😉
buzz-lightyearFree Member“Religion doesn’t come into morals”
I thought this was an interesting remark. Through self examination, I have found faith necessary to secure my moral foundation: “Deliver us from temptation”, and all that.
My understanding is that newer religions have co-opted ideas/memes from older religions – an evolution of religion, you might say. I believe what is happening today is an evolutionary spurt in religious ideas. It remains to be seen if Atheism becomes the dominant religious species or whether there will be a new and powerful hybrid.
Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition
Latest Singletrack VideosFresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...RudeBoyFree MemberAdamW; I see your point, re your sexuality, and I believe it is wrong for anyone to criticise such an aspect of someone’s individuality, and it’s one of my main issues with many religions. Surely, we are all equal on Earth, and therefore in society?
I don’t have a problem with atheism; I’ve considered the issue surrounding the existance of God, and I’ve made my own decisions that I believe are right for me, as have you, and most other people.
There are too many people living in societies which are intolerant to alternative views, and who can’t express themselves freely or be who they really are themselves. This is not right.
But this is less to do with religion itself, and more to do with the manipulation of dogma, and the way religion is used as an instrument of control, by those in power.
Lots of fascinating views from all sides.
But a lot of ignorance and fear, too. Therefore, things should be discussed. But simply slagging off someone’s religion, because it conflicts with your own views, or you see it as a threat when in fact it is not, is wrong.
As is often the case with STW religious ‘discussions’, some of the most ignorant and divisive views seem to came from those who claim to be atheists. It’s just an observation.
Maybe some people aren’t quite as confident and secure about their own beliefs, as they claim to be?
AdamWFree MemberWhat percentage of suicides/attempts are from children raised in religious homes? What percentage from secular homes? Where’s the evidence that religion leads to suicide? Britain has one of the highest suicide rates in Europe, I believe, yet it is arguably the most secular country.
Source please? I’d say that France is a more secular state – look at the hoohah regarding the wearing of islamic dress…
As a source on my behalf (though not looked at in detail):
But, looking at extremes and then using extremes to characterise all religion is not helpful, useful or constructive.
That is a poor attempt to avoid answering a question. I was not using extremes to characterise all religion. I was asking a specific question, which you attempted to broaden and hence ignore. You asked me if bringing a child up in a religious household could be deemed abuse. I answered ‘sometimes’. I take it then that in extreme cases such as this you must agree with me but didn’t want to actually say it. Unless you mean that bringing up a child in a religious household – regardless of the religion or extreme within – is good?
And I repeat. You can believe anything you want. Just don’t ask me to either agree with you. (you meaning ‘anyone’ – English is crap at only having one ‘you’!). And if it impinges upon human rights (pope/condom etc.) then I will make my political stand against you.
And I still stand by my point. A foetus cannot be of a certain religion. A small baby cannot be. Only when a person has reached a level of maturity to question, analyse and accept/reject views could they in all honesty be called of a certain religion.
I was asked to be a godfather for a child. I agreed with the caveat: “I will not teach him only about christianity as you know I don’t believe, but about *every* religion, including none. When he’s old enough to make up his own mind then fine.” They agreed. I did. Hopefully the young man will grow up questioning everything until he forms his own opinions.
CoyoteFree MemberMaybe some people aren’t quite as confident and secure about their own beliefs, as they claim to be?
Excellently put.
mrsflashFree MemberI was asked to be a godfather for a child. I agreed with the caveat: “I will not teach him only about christianity as you know I don’t believe, but about *every* religion, including none. When he’s old enough to make up his own mind then fine.” They agreed. I did. Hopefully the young man will grow up questioning everything until he forms his own opinions.
that is the ideal for everyone surely?
El-bentFree Membersure some of of these people use ‘religion’ to legitimize their actions, but thats hardly the fault of the religion itself is it?
Its what it has become, it is a weapon to be used rightly or wrongly. Religion is just another form of Human nature, attack what you don’t understand/can’t control/different from you.
Atheism is kind of the same. It falls into the same Human trap of attacking something that is different also.
Also I think you will find that a lot of the religious leaders/organizations in the world are actually trying to improve the situation for a lot of people
I’d agree with this, but at the same time Catholicism, Africa, Aids and Condoms spring to mind.
IanMunroFree MemberMaybe some people aren’t quite as confident and secure about their own beliefs, as they claim to be?
It’s an interesting thought, but it falls down on any examination. Let’s say you propose something prepostorious such as women aren’t equipped mentally to carry out important jobs. The fact that people laugh and pour scorn on your proposition probably wouldn’t be considered a sign of lack of security about their own beliefs on the subject.
StonerFree MemberThe argument that the ill that men do in the name of their god is a function of the human condition not their religion cant be used at the same time as the argument that moral guidance comes from religion and not society or human nature.
Humans are natually moral animals, we have the innate (and some say unique in the natural world) capacity for empathy and hence guilt, shame, and all the other effects by which moral choices are measured.
and
Maybe some people aren’t quite as confident and secure about their own beliefs, as they claim to be?
comes from the same school of argument as “closet gays are the most homophobic”.
mrsflashFree Memberwomen aren’t equipped mentally to carry out important jobs.
women, know your limits.
rightplacerighttimeFree Memberall religious people dangerous and deluded
That Dalai Lama, phycopathic thug.
miketuallyFree MemberThat is a poor attempt to avoid answering a question. I was not using extremes to characterise all religion. I was asking a specific question, which you attempted to broaden and hence ignore. You asked me if bringing a child up in a religious household could be deemed abuse. I answered ‘sometimes’. I take it then that in extreme cases such as this you must agree with me but didn’t want to actually say it. Unless you mean that bringing up a child in a religious household – regardless of the religion or extreme within – is good?
What’s going on in that household, I would characterize as child abuse. I would question whether it is religion at the root of it, however, rather that it is power, control, mental illness…
I have to admit to missing the ‘sometimes’ in your earlier reply.
miketuallyFree MemberOn suicide, a quick Google shows that there have been studies which have shown that religious people are less likely to commit suicide; it’s not something I’ve particularly researched however.
I still think that it’s rather a leap to state that a religious upbringing is tantamount to child abuse, which was darrell’s initial claim, with which you agreed. (Actually, darrell referred to indoctrination, though that’s a term often used to describe reading bible stories to kids…)
trailmonkeyFull MemberThat Dalai Lama, phycopathic thug
I’ve been stalking this thread, waiting for someone to mention the Dalai Lama. Tell me, what are your views on the Dalai Lama’s involvement in the removal of the infant Tashi Tsering from his family, to live a life amongst Buddhist monks, in the belief that he is the reincarnation of Khensur Rinpoche ?
richcFree Membersame as parents sending there children away to boarding school isn’t it? or are you against that too?
StonerFree MemberI imagine the childs destiny is going to be pretty much out of his control.
Boarding school is only temporary although you are put off Nice biscuits for the rest of your life….so I hear 🙂
richcFree Memberwhen the child comes of age, he will be allowed to do whatever he likes, the Dalai Lama offers advice to the Rinpoche’s, however he doesn’t tell them what to do.
So seem like the a win/win to me, the child will be highly educated and brought up in a very tolerant and peaceful environment and when he comes of age he can decide to live his life as he choses.
trailmonkeyFull Membersame as parents sending there children away to boarding school isn’t it?
No it isn’t. Parents send their children to boarding school by choice, not because of religious indoctrination and its related social pressures. Think of a better example if you wish to make a point.
miketuallyFree MemberParents send their children to boarding school by choice, not because of religious indoctrination and its related social pressures.
Or, parents send their child to boarding school because of social indoctrination and its related social pressures?
We’re rather drifting away from the point of the thread though, which is that religious people get upset when their actions/views are criticised 😉
footflapsFull Memberbuzz-lightyear – Member
“Religion doesn’t come into morals”
I thought this was an interesting remark. Through self examination, I have found faith necessary to secure my moral foundation: “Deliver us from temptation”, and all that.
Surely you can arrive at the same conclusion through logic e.g. ask yourself if everyone acted thus, would society be stable?
Do as you would be done by etc actually make sense from a logical stable society stand point. On a small scale, selfishness / short-termism can be sustained, but let it become too wide spread and society collapses. Hence policing society / practising self control is rational.
RudeBoyFree MemberI imagine the childs destiny is going to be pretty much out of his control.
What about it’s density?
footflapsFull MemberNB I consider following religious mantra to be irrational…..
trailmonkeyFull MemberOr, parents send their child to boarding school because of social indoctrination and its related social pressures?
Very possibly and it’s a reasonable argument. However, I think it only goes to prove that both religious and social indoctrination and it’s related pressures are morally wrong.
miketuallyFree MemberWhat about it’s density?
Now there’s something we could characterise as child abuse over and above religion!
richcFree MemberVery possibly and it’s a reasonable argument. However, I think it only goes to prove that both religious and social indoctrination and it’s related pressures are morally wrong.
do you agree that ultimately the child will get a better education/start in life because of these social indoctrinations?
If so is that a bad thing? and why is it morally wrong to want the best for your child?
trailmonkeyFull Memberdo you agree that ultimately the child will get a better education/start in life because of these social indoctrinations?
If so is that a bad thing? and why is it morally wrong?
The child has been removed from it’s family. The family did not ask for this to be done but would be under impossible social pressure to allow it. This is morally wrong. Every benefit that the child stands to receive, in your argument, are material. The feelings of the child’s family or the future psychology of the child are not accounted for.
If that’s enlightenment, I’m happy to be in the dark.
richcFree MemberThe family did not ask for this to be done but would be under impossible social pressure to allow it.
but what if the family want it? as it would lift their child out of poverty and allow them to have a life they could never have provided?
you seem to be superimposing your own western middle class safe values, onto Tibetan/Nepalese peasant family whose concerns aren’t what matching bits they can get for their bike, but instead how to get food on the table and educate their children.
In that situation, what parent wouldn’t want their child to be chosen to lead there people and be educated by the elite of their society.
trailmonkeyFull Memberyou seem to be superimposing your own western middle class safe values, onto Tibetan/Nepalese peasant family whose concerns aren’t what matching bits they can get for their bike, but instead how to get food on the table and educate their children.
Not at all, I’m going on the evidence of my degree course material, which stated very clearly that the family were distressed by the event.I think it’s perhaps your own western middle class safe values that are making you feel that a Tibetan/Nepalese peasant family are incapable of bringing a child safely and happily into the world and need any kind of external help in making it possible.
activeDutyFree Memberso, Darrell et al, I go to church on Sundays, have a belief in the Christian God, mind my own business about it, have a responsible job in the public sector, a couple of science based degrees and accept the theory of evolution rather than being a creationist, and you want to equate me with somebody who touches up little girls?
Obviously no parents amongst you, or else you have a misplaced sense of the absurd. Vomit inducing, really. You’re the one preaching hatred, not me.
kennypFree Memberi personally think that all religions are obscene and all religious people dangerous and deluded. In particular i take great offense that parents brainwash and indoctrinate their young children and i think this is tantamount to child abuse. To put unfounded faith over science and evidence, insults me and bankrupts our society.
I think you pretty much answered your own question. Semi-literate drivel like that is just as offensive as some of the more extreme religious views. By all means put forward an opposite view to religion, or aspects of religion, but please try and do it in a reasoned and intelligent manner. And if you aren’t capable, do try and get someone to write it for you.
BigButSlimmerBlokeFree MemberPoking at religion with a stick is fun
Organised religion is anti-funSimple, really.
rightplacerighttimeFree MemberWell, clearly I was being flippant. I don’t know anything about the Dalai Lama’s involvement in the removal of the infant Tashi Tsering from his family, to live a life amongst Buddhist monks, in the belief that he is the reincarnation of Khensur Rinpoche.
But then again, probably better than being brought up by Fred and Rose West, who I don’t think were overly religeous.
BTW, before eanyone goes off on one, obviously I am being flippant again.
activeDutyFree MemberOrganised religion is anti-fun
From the tone of some of the posters on this thread there’s not much room for fun in the atheist world either..
BigButSlimmerBlokeFree MemberMy my, the child’s getting stroppy – late again with our schoolwork are we?
RudeBoyFree MemberYou’re the one that responded, when I poked fun at you!
Lovely!
😆
BigButSlimmerBlokeFree Member..and if replying to being poked at proves something, you’re point would be?
BigButSlimmerBlokeFree Membersorry your point – damn me and my apostrohe addiction
The topic ‘why can’t we criticise religions or religious people without getting grief’ is closed to new replies.