Reply
Wed 31 May, 2006 10:31 am
If we disagree over politics, we can debate/argue without too many feelings (provided the exchange is a civilised discussion of views).
However, when it comes to religion, it is generally taboo to question the belief systems of another person, call into question their faith, the practices they follow or the structures of the religion to which the person belongs.
Why is this? Are we afraid of offending someone on religious topics because the arguments are all to "personal"? Should be treat politics in the same way?
A free and frank exchange of views would be greatly appreciated.
Oddly enough, I believe we are taught from childhood to "respect" religious persons while at the same time, but in private, condemn any who differ from ourselves. I think it's very common for, say, a methodist upon encountering a catholic priest to address him as "father so-and-so" then in the evening relate to his wife (and children) how he met a papist. Likewise we have the baptist who describes to his circle of friends how when he went to the city he saw a bunch of those christ killing jews but he got a great deal on the gold bracelet he bought for his wife. People are freakin' weird two faced bastards for the most part. (except me 'cause I'm an anarchist)
Well Dys, I have to agree with you up to a certain point. Some are like that but not all.
I think everyone gets so upset about it because it is such a personal and sacred thing to people. I am not one that gets into the telling others that their doctrine is not the correct doctrine. I do not think one single person in this world has 100% of the whole truth about God. There are too many interpretations because of personal bias and other understandings.
I think the thing to do is convey what you believe to someone and why and back it up with scripture and let it alone. Arguing with someone about what is the correct doctrine does nothing but close everyone's minds.
There is definitely the perfect doctrine out there somewhere. I just don't think anyone has found it yet.
What Dys meant to write is that he is the Antichrist.
People often invest their entire self-image in their religion, and create from it an entire world view. If you question that, they perceive that as a personal attack on the most fundamental level. The United States is a religiously tolerant, pluralistic society with a secular government. That bothers some religious extremists, but mostly, i think people act in the manner which Dys described. Publicly, they behave in a tolerant manner; privately, they trot out their sneers and their bigotry. There is a perception that everyone's religious beliefs ought to be respected. I don't buy this, though, as i consider belief sets of any description to be fair game for criticism. In the United States, there is a huge hypocricy going on in the last five years--among themselves, Americans must be religiously tolerant, but so, so many of them loudly and viciously condemn Islam. Me, i have scant respect for any religious doctrine, and if i respect a person of religious conviction, it will be despite and not because of their religious fervor. Religion never made a bad man good, and no good man was every made bad by a want of religion.
MA, I'm quite happy to accept that as your view but, if I decided to take the perspective that NONE of the texts written in the Christian religion or any other was worth any more than, for example, "Lord of the Rings" (which Tolkein specifically denied as being a religious parable), then it could be seen as a deeply personal attack on you and all believers.
Whereas, if I stated that I think the merits of economic growth arising from free trade and capitalism are fundamentally flawed and that in the long run we'll all turn to a socialist model, that would merely be a point of debate.
Wherein lies the difference? Is it that the facts of a religion are so unclear (in terms of the subject of belief and the relevance of commentary thereon) that it is simply undermining a believer to challenge their views?
KP
Setanta wrote:Religion never made a bad man good...
As skeptical as I am about most religions, I know of too many counterexamples to entertain this idea. I have several friends whose lives have been saved by religion. This also means that they now espouse beliefs with which I adamantly disagree, but if I have to choose between friends with whom I agree but whose lives are in shambles and friends with whom I disagree but have their lives in order, I'll choose the latter every time. Other friends of mine who are evangelically atheist have tried to convince me that religion itself didn't save these people, it merely led to them to find the determination in themselves. They could very well be right, but I'll let the philosophers worry about that while I'm spending quality time with people who aren't suicidally depressive anymore.
Shapeless, i am no evangelical atheist, and in fact, despise that type. However, i continue to assert that religion never made a bad man good. You describe people who made bad choices, and learned to stop doing so. You haven't described a process to which religion was the sine qua non for success, and have no basis upon which to assert that they could not have changed without benefit of clergy.
Setanta wrote:You haven't described a process to which religion was the sine qua non for success, and have no basis upon which to assert that they could not have changed without benefit of clergy.
You're right, I haven't, which is why I didn't assert it. As I mentioned in my post, that is of secondary importance to me. It may very well be that they could've found help some other way. It may also very well be that they wouldn't have lived long enough to do so. I am thankful to the "clergy" (not quite the right word in the cases I'm thinking of, but I realize it's metaphorical) for not making us have to find out.
Religion is family. Whether it is logical or not it is almost tribal as questioning the religious texts almost means questioning the culture. We obtained religions when our ancestors were ignorant, illiterate and gullible. It just became a custom without questions being asked and celebrated. All our childhood experiences arevtied up with XMas gifts, parties, Easter Egg hunt, etc. To negate all that would be to wrench out our happy childhoods and sense of belonging. Itis an emotional experience. Politics is what we learned as adults so we are not so emotional.
well religion is about your life task and finding your way to truth, much more personal.
politics on the other hand need alot of opions bouncing of eachother, we need a balence to make sure communism or anarchy doesnt happen. Polotics wouldnt work if it was used the same way as religion is.
EpiNirvana wrote:well religion is about your life task and finding your way to truth, much more personal.
politics on the other hand need alot of opions bouncing of eachother, we need a balence to make sure communism or anarchy doesnt happen. Polotics wouldnt work if it was used the same way as religion is.
What the fuk does this mean? Is there, somehow, disguised by bullshit, a coherent sentence in the above?
dyslexia wrote:EpiNirvana wrote:well religion is about your life task and finding your way to truth, much more personal.
politics on the other hand need alot of opions bouncing of eachother, we need a balence to make sure communism or anarchy doesnt happen. Polotics wouldnt work if it was used the same way as religion is.
What the fuk does this mean? Is there, somehow, disguised by bullshit, a coherent sentence in the above?
Like you could distinguish coherence from bullshit. Couldn't tell it to read 99% of your posts....
Setanta wrote:
Me, i have scant respect for any religious doctrine, and if i respect a person of religious conviction, it will be despite and not because of their religious fervor.
What is it about religion, any religion, that sets your teeth so on edge, Setanta? Are people 'worse' because they are adherents of a religion?
najmelliw wrote:Setanta wrote:
Me, i have scant respect for any religious doctrine, and if i respect a person of religious conviction, it will be despite and not because of their religious fervor.
What is it about religion, any religion, that sets your teeth so on edge, Setanta? Are people 'worse' because they are adherents of a religion?
Whew. Baton down the hatches, buddy. Set doesn't see that about his reactions to religious folk.
Re: Religion and Politics - why so different?
kitchenpete wrote:If we disagree over politics, we can debate/argue without too many feelings (provided the exchange is a civilised discussion of views).
However, when it comes to religion, it is generally taboo to question the belief systems of another person, call into question their faith, the practices they follow or the structures of the religion to which the person belongs.
Why is this? Are we afraid of offending someone on religious topics because the arguments are all to "personal"? Should be treat politics in the same way?
A free and frank exchange of views would be greatly appreciated.
In my opinion, I think people stop questioning others belief systems bc they have given up. Or, their own beliefs do not allow to 'hear' the other side.
Automatic defence mechanism go up. It becomes very much a part of one's core identity.
It's frustrating. It's frustrating to ask a sincere question about someone's religious belief, only to be told "It's too personal" or *insert a block of repetitious quotes here*.
If someone does not want to exchange ideas, it becomes more trouble than it is worth to question them openly.
It's easier to speak about it in more tolerant company.
For politics: I think a lot of people can openly debate/argue without too much feeling bc it becomes an outlet (rarely has much to do with the actual issues).
However, sometimes it's reversed. Sometimes politics become 'taboo' or not worth the effort. If it is taken to heart or a creed of a person's true life values.
I'm just riffin'.
p.s. EpiNirvana, why
must we make sure communism and anarchy don't happen?
Is it your belief that communism and anarchy are undesirable, bad, or destructive?
Is it simply a preference of yours?
dyslexia wrote:
What the fuk does this mean? Is there, somehow, disguised by bullshit, a coherent sentence in the above?
alright, its a little perplexing and im sorry it was done in such a crapshoot way.
Politics is about balance, all rebublican would be a communist dictatorship and conspiracy, all democrat would be everyone siting on there dar-y-air while the government paid us. We need the constant back and forth in government.
While religion is kinda about getting everyone one the life boat so you don't get served a fiery tomb for eternity. Same with ethics, you want everyone to be good and do good.
Still crappy? well thats as easy as i can say it...
EpiNirvana wrote:dyslexia wrote:
What the fuk does this mean? Is there, somehow, disguised by bullshit, a coherent sentence in the above?
alright, its a little perplexing and im sorry it was done in such a crapshoot way.
Politics is about balance, all rebublican would be a communist dictatorship and conspiracy, all democrat would be everyone siting on there dar-y-air while the government paid us. We need the constant back and forth in government.
While religion is kinda about getting everyone one the life boat so you don't get served a fiery tomb for eternity. Same with ethics, you want everyone to be good and do good.
Still crappy? well thats as easy as i can say it...
I understood you perfectly the first time.
The fact that debates and discussions can become just as heated and taboo as those of a religious sort says quite a bit about the two, with the word can being the key. More discussions remain civilised and less remain so in religion because of, as I see it, the bases upon which they lie. Political debates, as we like to think of them, thrive on, hail and celebrate 'freedom of speech' and 'difference of opinion', even two people of very different political persuasions, given it's a civilised discussion, will often acknowledge and be thankful of his opposite numbers views and rationale because ultimately, this is how we move forward, which is at the centre of politics.
Moving forward, right here, right now. It's practical in the nitty, gritty of every day life. Sure it's not a free for all, you can say things and get attacked, there are taboo's, of course but to me, there seems to be a certain mystery/unknown about it all if you'll follow my line of thought, that is, the idea is to progress as best we can, people may claim to know what's best for everyone but at it's heart there is always someone to oppose, giving us this progression of discussion.
It's interesting to note the way in which discussions with general deists, rather than those who subscribe to some objective moral code set in stone, may or may not differ in terms of civility.
Religion as I think EpiNirvana was eluding to, often seems to be merely about getting everyone on board, it's about doing this, that and the other, because we say so (or God, whatever) and because it's objectively right. Good is good. An eternity spent in the presence of the devil in the fiery pits of hell being advertised as the outcome of going against the grain is the extreme example. Put simply though, the room amongst many in religion for discussion is limited, well, either that or fruitless & pointless depending on who you're talking to. There are a huge variety of religions, arguing against each other, sure, one religious claim may be countered by another but at it's heart, as I see it, is a want for acceptance and at best, a tolerance for disagreement rather than a celebration of it.
Should we all eat fish on Fridays? (religion)
Should we heard all people of Jewish decent into camps and burn them all? (politics)
I dunno, I think politics can be every bit as sensitive as religion. It's the degree of difference and the impact of the consequences that seems to matter.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace