Should We Respect Religion?

Should we moderate free speech with respect for religious opinion and belief?

Edit: "we" in the sentence above refers to society, not SciForums or the moderators at SF. "Moderate" in this context has nothing to do with the word "moderator." The definition I'm using is "to tone down/make less intense."

I've participated on this and other internet forums where those that criticize and even ridicule religious belief are themselves criticized for their words. Somehow, religious thought and belief gets a pass from criticism in a politically correct fashion that states it is impolite or improper to criticize the beliefs of others.

I'm not suggesting that religious people should be disrespected. Private beliefs should have respect. But when people make a public spectacle of their beliefs, criticism is warranted, particularly when these beliefs affect others. At this point, criticism and ridicule of the person should be expected. If, say, my neighbor persists in "witnessing" to me, should I refrain from offering my own opinion about his beliefs? If religious superstition is used to decide public policy, should not this superstition be challenged with criticism even ridicule? If an openly religious elected official has admitted to believing in superstitions regarding the Second Coming and other apocalyptic mumbo jumbo, shouldn't his dedication to the future of our nation be questioned? Wouldn't his decision to invade a nation governed by a theocracy that differed from his own be questionable?

It's been suggested by the politically correct that the Muslim religion cannot be blamed for 9/11, the London subway bombings, or the Madrid bombings. Yet, in each of these cases, the perpetrators were Muslim and committed the acts for their religious beliefs. We are constantly reminded by the politically correct that these Muslims represent a few fundamentalist-extremists, yet when faced with criticism and ridicule, a very large number of Muslims emerge as "extremists" in their overreaction to a few benign cartoons. Violence erupted throughout Europe and the Muslim world and a bounty was offered by the "pious" leaders of various Islamic cults for the cartoonists and editor's death.

In the United States, where religious fundamentalism presents itself with usually less violent but still kooky manner, nuts like Pat Robertson have a following of millions of viewers of his 700 Club, a pseudo-news show that gives him the pre-paid opportunity to share his opinions about how his god is angry at the citizens of a city and therefore directs a hurricane to them.

By now, many of the believers that have read this far have decided that I'm wrong. I hope there are some believers that agree with me, because criticism, even ridicule, of religion is essential for freedom of religion. I'm sure, however, that there are many who find my statements just more callous remarks from a godless heathen and that I'm utterly wrong in calling for ridicule and criticism of religious beliefs.

But I wonder if those same people would be willing to apply the same logic to other human institutions? Could we say, for instance, that freedom of speech should be moderated with respect for science? Or what about political ideology? Would we expect to simply respect science and not question the work of scientists? Not be willing to ridicule bad science? Should there be no cartoons of scientific themes? Should political cartoons be banned from the editorial pages of newspapers? Should editorial comments be censored to restrict criticism of a politician's agenda and ideology? Should we not be free to question, criticize and ridicule politics and science if warranted?

Islamic leaders incite violent opposition to criticism and ridicule whenever it becomes public. Public offers of reward for the death of Salmon Rushdie years ago with his publication of Satanic Verses were made in Great Britain. The British government did nothing that I'm aware of to charge them with incitement to murder. Mainstream publications in the United States refused to publish the very benign cartoons of Muhammad. Is the Muslim god that weak that he can't take a joke? Or is the Islamic hierarchy simply afraid that criticism will open eyes and turn people away from their cult. It is, after all, still an offense punishable by death to convert from Islam to Christianity in many Muslim countries as is apostasy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Religion has not earned any respect. The beliefs themselves are simply rediculous. They motivate people to absurd political policies, ignorance of science, intolerance, bigotry and violence in many cases.

Obviously there are the fundies and the moderates, but the moderates are just lazy, and I have been far less impressed by their skewed logic and excuses rather than the fundies straight down the line honesty. I can not make up my mind wether or not fundies or moderates are the most damaging - without moderates there would be no barrier to prop up the fundies. As for moderate muslims, I don't think there is such a thing - it's extreme then extreme-y-ist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wasn't aware that freedom of speech was curtailed regarding religion - criticism of any sort has its proper application in time place and circumstance by dint of the intelligence on the part of the person offering the criticism however

- as it regards criticism against religion on this forum, how much of it is based in ideological premises and how much of it is based on ad hom and insult?? (like for instance suppose there was a criticism of some principle or idea in science, history or sociology to the effect of "you are deluded, you are unintelligent, etc etc" - what would be the response to such "criticism"??)

I would offer that the nature of criticism against religion on this forum is indicative of the nature of criticism of religion in the extended world, thus it is met with a kind of rebuttal you indicate due to its unconstructive foundations.

you assert people should not be disrespected, but that is precisely what happens , and acting in an inappropriate fashion tends to provoke an inappropriate result

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well sometimes it is a difficult distinction. If religious people say that the Earth is 6,000 years old, how can you criticize their belief without also criticizing their intelligence?

With me, I think of it as criticizing the persons beliefs and ignorance. My mother is a supernatural nut who believes in just about everything but reality. I constantly ridicule her beliefs without of course trying to insult my mother. I think I balance it pretty well. There are people however, that hold deep idiotic beliefs, and any bad word against their beliefs and they will be offended... that is completely unavoidable and something they will just have to get used to in a world that seems to be becoming polarized by rationality and superstition.

 

I don't think rationality ever polarizes in that way. When tension arises over beliefs, it is because of the unwillingness of the participants in a discussion to question them. If everything is fair game, then nothing should be sacred, right? One wouldn't be offended if something not sacred to him was questioned.

 

of course, but when it is sacred, they get offended.
if people dont want their believes ridiculed. they should not have such ridiculous believes.
it is extremely hard to not appear condescending in the face of such believes, especially when the beliefs are so laughable.

 

Never.

No, you should tell him exactly how you feel, if that is your wish. Of course, ignoring him should not be any less an issue.

Absolutely!

Seriously questioned!

Absolutely!

Of course they would, that is why they are hypocrites.

Never.

Everything can and should be questioned, irregardless of the topic.

That is the hypocrisy of religion, Islam included, that they are perfectly willing to criticize others and their beliefs but are not willing to hear criticism themselves. That is only too apparent even on these boards.

 

Public schools have mandatory science classes, yet not mandatory religion classes. In these 'science' classes teachers are allowed to manipulate the facts any way they want to make their point. In your query/argument you seem to be making the suggestion that science be treated as a religion, or religion as science, in goverment, politics and media. Should intelligent design be given the same respect as science in our schools?

A bold statement 'benign'.

Ridicule is a tool of the arrogant.

Your query/argument throws the term 'criticism' and 'ridicule' around as if they were synonomous. It confuses the point, IMO. The cartoons can best be described as ridicule, IMO.

 

Well I envy your country, because religious classes are mandatory in all/most schools in the UK.

But largely, religion at birth, is mandatory. I was a Catholic for the first 11 years of my life before I learned to think for myself and became an atheist. So I wouldn't go complaining that religion is being unfairly left out, as it is unfairly forced on most newborns.

If any teacher is found to be manipulating science being a science teacher, then they should be held accountable and be sacked. Hopefully you can go into more detail about what you mean. I'm guessing that because you have a beef with evolution, you think teachers should not be teaching it. Shame on your ignorance.

Intelligent Design had it's day in court, and genuine scientists proved the ID activists wrong point for point. The judge recognised ID as pseudoscience. The only way ID could be given the same respect as science in schools is if it stood up to scrutiny, peer review, and scientific consensus - it can not under any circumstances jump straight into school textbooks considering it doesn't withstand the scientific proceedure. Which is why it is not science.

Wash out your brain please.

 

A man must not do reverence to his own sect or disparage that of another sect without reason. Deprecation should be for specific reason only, because the sects of other people all deserve reverence for one reason or another. By thus acting, a man exalts his own sect, and at the same time does services to the sects of other people. By acting contrariwise, a man hurts his own sect and does disservice to the sects of other people.

-Ashoka (Rock Edict XII)

http://www.humanistictexts.org/asoka.htm

 

That is hiliarious, what facts do the teachers manipulate; up is down, left is right, gravity doesn't exist, what exactly?

Of course, in a religious classroom, anythings possible.

 

anything they want

 

It has nothing to do with being wrong or right in the eyes of science.

 

Well you have to look at what is the appropriate forum for the presentation of questioning - like for instance suppose I was questioning something in science and I introduced my premise by saying "before I start, let me tell you that you and your ideas are a joke and your beliefs are laughable" - it hardly sets the scene for a civil discussion because the real issue is obviously ego ( ..... and then a person wonders why they were reciprocated with in an inapropriate fashion)

If you think you can discuss anything without the medium of respect you are not looking for a discussion - you are looking for a fight.

 

Your hoping and guessing alot in that post. Skinwalker suggests that science and religion be dealt with the same way in the media and by goverment (I infer) and I questioned how far that should be taken.

 

No. They're not. A teacher cannot, for instance, manipulate science to teach students that remote viewing is a fact; nor can that teacher manipulate astronomy to teach that our solar system was part of a galactic war a few million years ago. Such a teacher deserves not only criticism but ridicule and, if it were my daughter's teacher, I'd be the first to ridicule him/her at the next PTA. The extent of that ridicule, however, would not be what you probably assume. I would raise questions that invoke sense of embarrassment. And this is what a truly progressive society should aspire to when it comes to religion. It should be embarrassing for religious believers to share their beliefs in public.

'Intelligent' design is superstition pretending to be science. It has no place in school except to demonstrate critical thought and to offer example of pseudoscience. But since the nutters that assert this idea claim it to be "science," it deserves the same critical analysis that real science gets. When that is applied, ID fails. Miserably. Moreover, it has been demonstrated to be a deception. If we accept ID as legitimate science, then we must also accept ghosts, astrology, tarot, new age witchcraft, etc. as science -for they are equally factual.

Not bold. Simply accurate. Have you seen the cartoons? They are far less racy than the average political cartoon in Newsweek or the Wall Street Journal. The Danish Muslim Cartoons

Ridicule is a time-honored tradition. Here's a taste: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/galreligion.htm

I agree. The cartoons are ridicule. Criticism is the discussion that this thread is using. But they can be synonymous.

 

I'm saying that both science and government are ridiculed, lampooned, and definitely criticized. Yet, somehow, this standard is not applied to religion. This, I assert, is hogwash.

 

Where do you get that idea? I've heard and read just as much ridicule and criticism of religion as I have governments or politics. I don't see nearly as much of that with science, however. But religious beliefs? ...geez, they're criticized all the time, both here a sciforums as well as the news.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information ...could you elaborate?

Baron Max

 

Compared with political beliefs, religious ones are seldom criticized in the news. A look at any editorial page of a major newspaper will reveal, almost certainly, political cartoons and op-ed pieces about that ridicule and criticize political ideology. I doubt you'll find a single cartoon that lampoons religion and seldom any criticism that goes beyond arguing church/state separation.

Surely you don't believe that open criticism of religion as a superstition is present in mainstream media? If you do, perhaps you can point me to this media outlet.

 

Movies, tv shows, computer games, newspaper articles, talk shows, discussion groups all over the internet, .....and I'm sure in other things that I've not even mentioned.

No, I think you're wrong ....or you're just not looking in the right place or you're simply not seeing it for what it is.

Baron Max