< 1 2
 
   
 

Islam v Judaism

 
2Q17
 
Avatar
 
 
2Q17
Total Posts:  14
Joined  02-09-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 16:10
 

Of course it’s depend on the circumstances of the abandonment of religion, and lynmc is right that is doesn’t ensure a reduction in overall harm, but the argument is that the possibility of improvement can only really exist without the current state of religion as a whole.

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  104
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 16:15
 
2Q17 - 05 September 2017 04:10 PM

Of course it’s depend on the circumstances of the abandonment of religion, and lynmc is right that is doesn’t ensure a reduction in overall harm, but the argument is that the possibility of improvement can only really exist without the current state of religion as a whole.

Is that actually what lynmc is saying?  I wasn’t sure, which is why I was asking for clarification.

How about this: Is it possible to criticise a specific religion without fear- and hate-mongering?
Or, is it possible to criticise religion in general without fear- and hate-mongering?

 
2Q17
 
Avatar
 
 
2Q17
Total Posts:  14
Joined  02-09-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 16:24
 

No, I don’t think that’s what lynmc was saying. I sought to agree with them, but then state how it still fits in into the overall statement.

I do think it’s possible to criticize a specific, and religion in general without using fear and hate mongering, or receiving it in return. I don’t know what that way is, but I do believe it exists.

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  104
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 16:33
 
2Q17 - 05 September 2017 04:24 PM

I do think it’s possible to criticize a specific, and religion in general without using fear and hate mongering, or receiving it in return. I don’t know what that way is, but I do believe it exists.

Does that position seem at all tenuous to you?  Not knowing what something is but believing it exists sounds almost religious in itself smile
How about:  is it possible to criticise a specific idea, or ideas in general, without fear- and hate- mongering?

 

 

 
2Q17
 
Avatar
 
 
2Q17
Total Posts:  14
Joined  02-09-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 16:36
 

Absolutely

 
Kalessin
 
Avatar
 
 
Kalessin
Total Posts:  104
Joined  02-07-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 16:55
 
2Q17 - 05 September 2017 04:36 PM

Absolutely

OK.  But if that idea is religious, is it more difficult to avoid fear- and hate-mongering?

So, I can say - “some people think that competitive sports can be bad for children; I disagree because of x, y z ... “
Can I say - “some people think that eating pork is wrong because pigs are unclean; I disagree because of x y z….”?

 
2Q17
 
Avatar
 
 
2Q17
Total Posts:  14
Joined  02-09-2017
 
 
 
05 September 2017 17:02
 

It is much harder to avoid with an idea tied so closely to identity ,like religion of course.

I don’t think arguing aspects that aren’t universal to the overall argument provide tangible benefit.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19117
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
05 September 2017 18:25
 
2Q17 - 05 September 2017 05:02 PM

It is much harder to avoid with an idea tied so closely to identity ,like religion of course.

I don’t think arguing aspects that aren’t universal to the overall argument provide tangible benefit.

I’m a Christian, I’ve been here since 2007, and I don’t have a problem with people criticizing Christianity.  If you don’t like it, you don’t like it.  I have my thoughts about my religion, and you have yours. No reason to get mad about discussing ideas and attitudes.  It often does turn personal, but it doesn’t have to.  So in that respect, I agree with you that it should be possible to criticize a religion without lapsing into hate speech.

 
Dumaya
 
Avatar
 
 
Dumaya
Total Posts:  116
Joined  04-05-2017
 
 
 
07 September 2017 17:21
 

>all cut from the same, blood-stained, Semitic cloth

[ Edited: 07 September 2017 17:24 by Dumaya]
Image Attachments
 
apostacy_deuteronomy_13-9-10.gif
 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  280
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
10 September 2017 08:05
 
2Q17 - 05 September 2017 04:24 PM

No, I don’t think that’s what lynmc was saying. I sought to agree with them, but then state how it still fits in into the overall statement.

I do think it’s possible to criticize a specific, and religion in general without using fear and hate mongering, or receiving it in return. I don’t know what that way is, but I do believe it exists.

Well, yes, I agree you can criticize religious texts, however, its really up to the members of a faith to express what their faith says.  Whether or not it’s a literal reading.

If, say, Keith Ellison says the context for passages in the Qur’an supposedly advocating violence need to be taken in context (e.g.  violent defense is permissible when one is under violent attack but aggressive violence isn’t actually permissible), well, it’s not my faith, he’s the one who has the belief. 

If, on the other hand, some member of the Muslim faith said the same passages really say it’s permissible to attack non-Muslims anywhere, just for not believing, or force them to convert at gunpoint, well, that’s his belief.

I don’t particularly have any objection to the first one (that I’ve attributed to Keith Ellison), the second one I find horrible.

To go further, say some non-Muslim goes around saying
- the second one is the correct interpretation,
- and Muslims, for claiming the first interpretation is correct, are dishonest or deceitful,
- and the passages are the reason Muslims are prone to violent savagery (note: without evidence that Muslims are particularly prone to violence or savagery)

I would say that non-Muslim is a bigot, he/she is fear and hate-mongering

 
 < 1 2