We have been discussing religious beliefs on this forum ever since (and even before) I have been a member here. I have observed that most people here (including myself) get more defensive about their own beliefs that they begin disrespecting each other's beliefs (and even each other). My question that I put forward for us all is:
How do we discuss religious texts, concepts, and questions without being so cut throat and demeaning toward each other?
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
Peace in our times, hey?
I think that is only possible if people stay in the realm of the factual.Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
For instance, questions like "What does the Bible say about this?" or "What does this section mean?" can be answered (more or less) factually and without offense, so long as people stay to the topic and no one injects arguments as to whether or not the religious text is to be believed.
"How do we discuss religious texts, concepts, and questions without being so cut throat and demeaning toward each other?"
Simple. You discuss religious texts, concepts, and questions without being so cut throat and demeaning toward each other. There's no global "how"; everyone's completely in control of the words they type, and everyone makes a choice to be civil or snarky or worse, so any "how" is personal and internal.
My own way was to adopt a nic that describes not what I am, but what I'd like to be. My natural state is sarcastic, misanthropic, and in general impatient with people. However, I long ago realized that 1) this is counterproductive in discussions and 2) this is not the way I want to be or should be anyway, so I use Calidore (the Knight of Courtesy in the book with the least manly title in all of literature, Spenser's Faerie Queene) as my alias in newspaper comment sections and on this forum. As a result, when tempted to respond with pointless negativity to something, I would ask myself, "Would Calidore write that?" and put the brakes on. Now, after years of this, I'm seldom tempted anymore, and when I am, it's much easier to stop. It's just a matter of changing one habit for another.
All of which is more than I intended to type when I started. Was there a Knight of Brevity also? I could use that one as well sometimes.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
"What does it mean to respect another's religious beliefs?"
Surrender and defeat.
That's interesting Calidore. A good way forward.
Just discuss the ideas - not the people. Ideas can't be harmed, offended or damaged. Ideas, in fact, don't even ask to be respected. It's the people who hold the ideas who warrant respect.
It's entirely possible to challenge an idea aggressively without lacking respect for the person holding it. The problem comes, I think, when either the person doing the challenging has a shot at the person holding the idea rather than at the idea itself; or when the person holding the idea identifies so closely with it that he feels any attack on the idea is an attack on himself.
This is what makes it so difficult to talk about religion - it's an idea that defines people, so an attack on the idea is easily taken for an attack on the person holding it - and, actually, sometimes that's what it is.
Last edited by MarkBastable; 08-09-2011 at 04:06 AM.
Religious people are always quick to claim the high moral ground whenever all hell breaks out because of their bullying and bluster. Respect that, never!
I now feel like I know a little bit more about the history of Calidore, and I quite enjoy it.
I agree with cl154576 and MarkBastable 100%.
I find the above ideas spot on. I'm not sure I can add anything new, but to achieve my necessary word count I'll just add...
1) Someone can be an awesome, smart, nice person and still be completely wrong. I need to remember that when addressing them. If they can be nice and still be no less wrong than they would be were they a troll ( or even, say, an ogre) and wrong, then I have no interest and no need to attack or bash the person. Political discourse fails at this almost always and too often discussions on religion do as well.
2) While I understand what MarkBastable is saying and agree it is an observation often accurate, I find on the personal level to function differently. I find I have a more emotional response to attacks on ideas I hold to be true than I do to attacks on my person. But regardless of what my emotional response is, I need to separate my emotions on a topic from my reasons (unless, of course my reasons are emotional, but that's another topic entirely).
The problem with religious people is, one minute they're rams, the next minute they're lambs.
Ditto. Thanks to you and Paulclem for the kind words also.
Mark especially made a good point that conflict can originate with the listener as often as the speaker.
"Respect," not "adopt." There's no surrender or defeat in respecting another's beliefs, at least provided those beliefs aren't thenselves inherently disrespectful of others. Which, granted, many people's beliefs are, but when you overgeneralize and attack everyone, you're doing exactly what the people you claim to deplore are doing.
{edit}
Last edited by Scheherazade; 08-10-2011 at 04:43 PM. Reason: quoting a deleted post
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
The OP asks:Please share your opinions if they are directly related at the topic at hand.
Those posts who contain inflammatory, personal and/or off topic remarks will be removed without further warning.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
God has spoken, and we must listen?!
Please address the topic of this thread, instead of mere randomness.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
