Should religion be a subject of criticism?

[kasse]

Very interesting read http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/7636

I think everything should be critcized. Nothing is holy! If you choose to follow certain doctrines, you can't expect others to respect those doctrines simply because you believe in them.

I think the current devlopment is scary, in particular in Europe, where everything is done to avoid offending muslims.

 

[Astronuc]

I think the issue is defamation, as opposed to criticism. The two are different.

I think the conflict lies when legitimate criticism of something is labeled as defamation.

 

[kasse]

From a religious point of view, I think all criticism will be classified as defamation.

 

[Astronuc]

From a religious point of view, I think all criticism will be classified as defamation.

Not at all. A valid criticism would to point out (criticize) inconsistencies in practice and profession. For example, if one were to espouse universal love and claim to be peaceful, but then commit acts of violence and murder, one's acts would be inconsistent with the profession of universal love and peace. It would not be defamation to point out that inconsistency.

Similarly if one professes adherence to a meager or humble lifestyle while living in opulence and aquiring great wealth, that would entail an inconsistency.

 

[kasse]

If I criticize the morality of Muhammed or God's behaviour in the Old Testament, would that be criticism or defamation?

 

[arildno]

Well, Astronuc:
If a religion happens to declare that infidels are to be fought until they are either killed, or in fear of their petty lives accept humiliating living conditions as dictated by the believer's community, and, essentially, that the community of the faithful retains the right to change those conditions at will, can we THEN criticize the religion without defaming it?

Note in particular that such a religion could be perfectly consistent..

 

[Kurdt]

Depends specifically on what you were saying. I didn't realize we Europeans went out of our way to avoid offending muslims.

 

[Topher925]

From a religious point of view, I think all criticism will be classified as defamation.

I agree. Anyone serious about their religion will take any negative or destructive criticism as defamation.

Depends specifically on what you were saying. I didn't realize we Europeans went out of our way to avoid offending muslims.

We americans do.

 

[kasse]

Americans try to avoid criticizing Christianity. In Europe (with a few exceptions like Denmark and the Netherlands) people are more afraid of offending muslims.

 

[Astronuc]

If I criticize the morality of Muhammed or God's behaviour in the Old Testament, would that be criticism or defamation?

If one were to claim a religious position was ****, then that would be defamation. If one were to take the position, analyze it, and the make a statement of disagreement, then that would not be defamation, but criticism.

The issue defamation seems to arise when a religion or some component (precept) is misrepresented.

If a religion happens to declare that infidels are to be fought until they are either killed, or in fear of their petty lives accept humiliating living conditions as dictated by the believer's community, and, essentially, that the community of the faithful retains the right to change those conditions at will, can we THEN criticize the religion without defaming it?

Certainly.

There was recently an article on Catholic and Muslim scholars who began to study together to better understand each other. Why can't people do that instead of fighting?

Why must animosities from historical conflicts persist?

Take religion out of the picture and one still has racial and ethnic differences, or class differences, or cultural differences. Pick a difference, and it seems that some people will use that as justification for conflict.


Nevertheless -
Catholics and Muslims Pledge to Improve Links
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07pope.html

VATICAN CITY — Catholic and Muslim leaders worked on Thursday to deflate suspicion between their two faiths, pledging at a high-level seminar here to work together to condemn terrorism, protect religious freedom and fight poverty.

The meeting came a year after 138 Muslim leaders wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI after he offended many Muslims by quoting a Byzantine emperor who called some teachings of the Prophet Muhammad “evil and inhuman.” In turn, top Vatican officials have worried about freedom of worship in majority-Muslim countries, as well as immigration that is turning Europe, which they define as a Christian continent, increasingly Muslim.

But on Thursday both sides said they hoped that the seminar would open a new and much-improved chapter in Catholic-Muslim relations, as the two groups said they might establish a committee that could ease tensions in any future crisis between the two religions.

“Let us resolve to overcome past prejudices and to correct the often distorted images of the other, which even today can create difficulties in our relations,” Benedict told the Muslim delegation. He called the gathering “a clear sign of our mutual esteem and our desire to listen respectfully to one another.”

Addressing the pope on behalf of the Muslim delegation, Seyyed Hossein Nasr of Iran, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University in Washington, said that throughout history, “various political forces” of both Christians and Muslims had carried out violence.

“Certainly we cannot claim that violence is the monopoly of only one religion,” he said.

The three-day forum brought together nearly 30 Catholic clerics and scholars, led by Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue; and as many Muslim clerics and scholars, led by Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina based in Sarajevo.

The meeting “exceeded our expectations,” said Ingrid Mary Mattson, the director of the Islamic Society of North America and a professor of Islamic studies at the Hartford Seminary.

“The atmosphere was very good, very frank,” said Tariq Ramadan, a professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford University. A celebrated intellectual in Europe, Mr. Ramadan in 2004 was denied a visa to the United States on the grounds that he had donated to two European charities that the State Department later said gave money to Hamas.

Mr. Ramadan said the thorniest questions the group tackled were “apostasy” and “freedom of worship in a minority situation.” Some Muslims believe it is apostasy to convert out of Islam.
. . . .

It doesn't hurt to talk.

 

[arildno]

There was recently an article on Catholic and Muslim scholars who began to study together to better understand each other. Why can't people do that instead of fighting?

Why must animosities from historical conflicts persist?

Hmm..what if those animosities are celebrated as prime virtues in the holy books, and that lying and deception are glorified there as admirable tools in order to ultimately defeat the infidels?

 

[Kurdt]

Americans try to avoid criticizing Christianity. In Europe (with a few exceptions like Denmark and the Netherlands) people are more afraid of offending muslims.

I don't know if there is any source for that or if that is just your personal opinion, but it is certainly not my experience.

I do think that religion as with everything should be open to criticism.

 

[arildno]

It doesn't hurt to talk.

That depends on whom you are talking with, and what that person is actually doing, and advocating, on the sly..

 

[kasse]

There was recently an article on Catholic and Muslim scholars who began to study together to better understand each other. Why can't people do that instead of fighting?

They cannot do that without ignoring their own religion. Religion and tolerance don't go hand in hand.

 

[kasse]

Hmm..what if those animosities are celebrated as prime virtues in the holy books, and that lying and deception are glorified there as admirable tools in order to ultimately defeat the infidels?

Which is the case. For religious people - people who really believe in the doctrines of their religion, people of all other faiths (or lack of faith) represent a threat. The ultimate goal will always be to deefeat the infidels. Peaceful coexistence between the religions of the Middle East is never going to happen. Before we can have peace, we must get rid of religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are making threats against religion. It seems that you are the one out to defeat someone.

 

[WarPhalange]

The religions of the world didn't become what they are today because they were criticized, okay? I think if we started that now, they'd all collapse one by one.So let's get started.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems that religious people have a right to feel threatened and respond in kind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would suggest that there are two sides to the coin: Religious fanatics, and anti-religion fanatics.

They all look the same to me.

 

[MissSilvy]

Why even have this law at all? Freedom of speech theoretically covers all sorts of speech even if it is criticizing or harshly negative. Defamation would be like me saying "Roman Catholicism is a cult that manipulates its members". It is a statement that makes a false claim in order to give a sect of religion a negative image. Nevertheless, it's still perfectly within my rights to say. This proposed law is absolutely idiotic.

 

[kasse]

I'm not making threats against other people's rights, I'm defending them. There's something called freedom of speech that now is under attack thanks to Islam.

 

[WarPhalange]

I would suggest that there are two sides to the coin: Religious fanatics, and anti-religion fanatics.

They all look the same to me.

If someone started a thread in your Skeptic forum saying "The universe is controlled by a supreme being that only those who want to can hear him." you would close the thread. What does that say about religion?

Or better yet, "I would suggest that there are two sides to the coin: Conspiracy theory fanatics and anti-conspiracy theory fanatics".

You're essentially comparing people who desperately believe that an old book and some myths are fact and people who desperately believe that an old book and some myths are not fact.

In that case, yes, I am an anti-religion fanatic. Just like I am an anti-Santa-Clause fanatic and an anti-creationist fanatic.

 

[kasse]

Well said.

You've got a problem, Ivan, if you can't distinguish between a brainwashed islamist willing to kill himself and others in defence of an evil ideology disguised as a religon, and a peaceful secular humanist whose weapons are nothing but words.

I'm proud to be an anti-religon fanatic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If someone started a thread in your Skeptic forum saying "The universe is controlled by a supreme being that only those who want to can hear him." you would close the thread. What does that say about religion?

S&D is for discussion of alleged unexplained phenomena. We don't talk about politics either.

Or better yet, "I would suggest that there are two sides to the coin: Conspiracy theory fanatics and anti-conspiracy theory fanatics".

What is your point? Conspiracies have always existed. If you are saying that there are no conspiracies, then you are incredibly naive.

You're essentially comparing people who desperately believe that an old book and some myths are fact and people who desperately believe that an old book and some myths are not fact.

I am referencing people who think it is their way or the highway.

In that case, yes, I am an anti-religion fanatic. Just like I am an anti-Santa-Clause fanatic and an anti-creationist fanatic.

Fine, but according to the Bill of Rights, we have a right to faith if we choose. There is a logical basis for faith, and no matter how loud you yell or how hard you kick, it won't go away. Making threats only makes the problem worse.

 

[Kurdt]

From what I've seen of this thread so far, the original point made by the OP was never really meant to be discussed and they set out to deliberately bash religion. I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a logical basis for faith, and no matter how loud you yell or how hard you kick, it won't go away.

What is the logical basis for faith?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well said.

You've got a problem, Ivan, if you can't distinguish between a brainwashed islamist willing to kill himself and others in defence of an evil ideology disguised as a religon, and a peaceful secular humanist whose weapons are nothing but words.

I'm proud to be an anti-religon fanatic.

You didn't limit this to religious extremists, you included all people of faith, which includes a majority of this country.

 

[kasse]

Fine, but according to the Bill of Rights, we have a right to faith if we choose.

Have I ever suggested that you ought not to have that right?

There is a logical basis for faith

No. Faith is belief without evidence. That's the opposite of logic.

 

[kasse]

You didn't limit this to religious extremists, you included all people of faith, which includes a majority of this country.

You mean pick-and-choose Christians? Well, to be quite frank, I don't consider them religious. They hope more than they believe. But still, they make the world safe for fundamentalists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is the logical basis for faith?

We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic. But if one understands that faith is a choice, and if one understands that faith is something accepted without proof, then there is nothing illogical in making that choice.

It is all a matter of how we weight the evidence.

 

[WarPhalange]

I am referencing people who think it is their way or the highway.

So if someone comes up to you and says "I think birds fly because trees are green", you'd accept that as a valid response?

I'd like to introduce you to a little concept called "science", where it is the right way or the highway.

Seeing as how the default position is that there is no god (i.e. no inherent proof), someone asserting the existence of a god should have to provide evidence. You can have any opinion you want, but when you start treating it as fact, then you need to be put into a straight jacket.

Fine, but according to the Bill of Rights, we have a right to faith if we choose. There is a logical basis for faith, and no matter how loud you yell or how hard you kick, it won't go away. Making threats only makes the problem worse.

No there is no logical basis for faith. Maybe you meant biological? Then I'd agree, humans are wired to have faith. But we're also wired to laugh when other people are laughing. Our bodies aren't exactly beacons of reasoning and excellence.

 

[WarPhalange]

We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic. But if one understands that faith is as choice, and if one understands that faith is something accepted without proof, then there is nothing illogical in making that choice.

No, what you just said is "Faith is illogical. Therefore by understanding that, it is logical to have faith." You just pushed it aside. Faith is accepting something blindly. Personal experience doesn't count as proof. You know that.

 

[kasse]

We can make a logical leap of faith based on personal experiences or the experiences of others. If we accept something blindly, then by definition there is no logic. But if one understands that faith is a choice, and if one understands that faith is something accepted without proof, then there is nothing illogical in making that choice.

It is all a matter of how we weight the evidence.

What kind of personal experience can justify the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No. Faith is belief without evidence. That's the opposite of logic.

Not necessarily. Faith is belief without proof. You are also assuming that people of faith perceive no tangible advantage in following their faith.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What kind of personal experience can justify the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

There are as many faiths as there are people of faith. You can't limit this to one particular belief or another. For example, there are many Christians who don't believe most of what the bible says, and most Christians only believe certain aspects of biblical teachings.