Respect and Religion

[atiguhya padma]

I wanted to post this on the 10 commandments thread but notice that it has been closed. So I've decided to create a new thread

On the 10 commandments thread amuse said:

<let atheists be atheist and christians be christians, hindus be hindus, and the undecided be undecided. freedom of expression is so important.>

I think that is an admirable statement, provided it means that these groups should be free to criticise each other, free to express themselves in an open and transparent way.

In the UK, there is a big debate going on at the moment regarding incitement to religious hatred. The Govt, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, are trying to placate many of the religious groups in the UK, especially, it is believed, the Muslims. Many people have written letters of complaint against this bill, including the comedian Rowan Atkinson, the author Salman Rushdie and many others.

When the BBC aired Jerry Springer the Musical, a concerted protest was orchestrated by a Christian group, who circulated BBC employees addresses and other personal details among activists, because of the irreverent nature of the piece. Salman Rushdie himself has had his life threatened over writing a novel, and had that novel burned publicly in the streets of Britain. In Birmingham, there was a public disturbance by Sikhs a little while ago, protesting against a play being staged there, which showed scenes relating to bride burnings in India. These are just three incidents off the top of my head, where religious people have caused public disturbance, offence and even violence because someone somewhere has dared to criticise their belief. Can anyone give me an example where atheists or agnostics have done the same when a religious person or group has staged a nativity play or presented biblical mystery plays or dramas?

The fact is, religious groups are getting support from political parties which is itself threatening freedom of expression. It may soon be an offence in the UK, for someone like me to make a statement against a religion that a follower finds offensive.

It is despicable that religions should be granted such protection. Does anyone protect us atheists? No. And I'm sure we wouldn't want it either. If your belief stands up to scrutiny, then that is the best protection you can have. As I have said before, and as Salman Rushdie recently wrote in this article http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-5-57-2331.jsp , it is important to be able to criticise, probe, even ridicule a belief, whether religious or secular, if the content of that belief is flawed, invalid, improbable etc. There should always be a distinction made between a person and a person's belief. I recently wrote this to a friend:

<I would not condone an individual being persecuted for his personal, spiritual or religious beliefs. I would condone the ridicule of, or argument against, religious doctrines which are either illogical, inconsistent or degrading to other people, sexes, etc. I think there is plenty of reason to be vigorously against much in the OT, the Koran, some of the NT and even Buddhist scriptures (don’t know anything about Hindu scriptures unfortunately). If you can argue vigorously against a religious doctrine, can that be interpreted as prejudice? Can it be seen as incitement of hatred? And even if it can, should it really be wrong to hate such religious doctrines as the stoning of adulterers? Or the stoning of rebellious offspring? Surely there is a difference between hating religious doctrines and hating people. As long as the proposed bill can establish that distinction, then it might well be a piece of positive legislation. I am not at all convinced that it can.>

[Logos]

atiguhya padma, you have linked to opendemocracy.net which is a site that has religious and political etc. forums to discuss such on.

There are many other religious websites that _do_ allow discussion of the very content you have addressed here, a lot of which are of political nature. It is very difficult to not avoid politics if you're discussing religious freedom.

I'm not sure how this topic of yours can be discussed whilst avoiding the polarisation of political/democratic ideology, but I'll leave it open for now.

Much like discussions that have come up in the George Orwell forums, this website is not a free-for-all, Admin is our benevolent dictator, who has rules set-forth as to how he expects us to use it.

[amuse]

i very much agree with your distinction, AP, between a person and their belief. (it's something i often had to keep in mind last semester.) your last paragraph is rather humane, i think.

[byquist]

One might read Erasmus' "In Praise of Folly" and thereby approach religion (or the absense of religion) with a little more humor and a lot more forebearance towards others, and with constant courtesy. If we all had the mind-set of Ghandi or Martin Luther King towards others, we could one-by-one put these types of disagreements, which you mentioned as transpiring in England, to rest. Comraderie, and no anger, must be repeatedly contemplated, hour by hour and minute by minute.

[subterranean]

Understand that there may be a "clash" between the need to let people be free with their beliefs (and respect them as well) and the need to protect freedom of expression, including to say "negative" opinions about other people's beliefs. I think these two interests can only be achieve, when we are able to throw good arguments and be open enough as well. Regarding, the 10th commandments thread, I can't see any constructive arguments which can be taken as inputs to enrich faith/religious discourse. 'Tis merely a bad joke.

[amuse]

yes, byquist, but by the same token, i state again that it would be courteous if forum members weren't to proselytize.
after which statement the earlier thread was closed...i'm not sure what i said to get it closed...

[Logos]

It wasn't what you posted amuse that I decided to close it.

[baddad]

****my two cents****

Protection from ridicule of one's beliefs? I vote an absolute NO/nyet/non!

I also vote NO to critisizing anothers beliefs solely on the basis that they may not be 'rational/strictly-logical.

To me, it would seem only good manners, etiquite enough, to allow alternative thought. On so many levels, perspective/belief is a personal and singular affair.

But condoning acts of violence for any reason, under any dogma, must never stand.

Violence comes in many forms, sometimes disguised, sometimes in indistinct versions and shapes, and sometimes words manifest themselves as acts of violence...... Also, violence can stem from any dogma, including the secular versions.

***** I enjoy A.P's comments for many reasons, not the least of which is my faith in finding that his etiquite is usually never lacking. I may have missed something here, but I detected nothing truly objectionable in these posts......

Logos: thanks for keeping an eye on us.........."Ya do good work"


Words can be violent. The secular community too must heed this truth.

[Sitaram]

You must be careful, when you leave your tent-door open at night. All sorts of things may creep in while you are not looking; a camel who feels cold, for example, or Sitaram with his bizarre ideas.

I spent several years debating and arguing and studying religions full time on the Internet. I remember one of my early encounters with a Muslim whose screen name was "Titanium," a very strong metal immune to rust and tarnish. Titanium attempted to assert that Hindus condone poor treatment of women, and therefore Hinduism is bad because such perpetrators are a product of that belief/ideology. I raised the subject of Sarah giving her handmaiden Hagar to Abram. I pointed out that nowhere is it said whether Hagar had any say or consent in all this. Various onlookers cheered at the brilliance of my rhetorical fencing parry.

One day, a Christian was trying to criticize Hinduism on various criteria. I pointed out the great irony, which one rarely sees mentioned, that in the Old Testament, one of the most heinous crimes was to join in the worship of Moloch and pass one's own child through the fire as a sacrifice. Yet what do we see in the New Testament but a monotheistic God who is a Trinity of a Father offering His only begotten to the sacrifice of a crucifixion.

I suppose my point in all this, aside from amazing and entertaining all of you, is that there are always ways to get inside of any religion or philosophy or ideology, and find that it contains within its very fabric the contradictory seeds of its own destruction.

Mathematician Kurt Gödel did this with the axiomatic systems of mathematics, in his dispute with (oh who was that? Ah yes, Hilbert) another mathematician who asserted that any proposition which is TRUE must certainly be PROVEABLE. For millennia, mathematics was considered to be the one hope of humanity to access absolute truth. Socrates and Plato and the Pythagoreans looked to number and geometry as the haven and refuge of eternally infallible assertions. There seemed to be only one little flaw in Euclid's geometry, namely, the Fifth Postulate, that, given a plane, with a line in it, and a point in the plane not on the line, there can pass through that point one and only one line which is parallel to the first line, never intersecting with it in either direction, though we extend it as far as we please. The word postulate comes from the Latin "postulo" meaning, "I demand or require." In monasteries, the POSTULANTS are those of whom demands are made as the are tested for suitability to make life-long vows. Hence, in geometry, a POSTULATE is something which we demand that you accept without any sort of proof in a theorem, but simply on the strength that it is intuitively obvious. And, may I add, it is intuitively obvious that were we to attempt to prove EVERY assertion in some axiomatic system by means of a theorem, why then the number of theorems would be INFINITE, and we abhor an infinite regress on the grounds that we haven't the time for such nonsense. By the way, this little tale which I am narrating, of the incompleteness theorem and the failure of mathematics (failure to live up to our expectations) is far more important a tale to be included in every young person's curriculum vitae than any tale of angels, or apples, or gardens, or flying mounts, or nights of power or third heavens. Yes, those were the "good ole' days" when we were certain that the earth was the absolute center of the universe, about which all else revolved, and mankind was the special concern of the Almighty, and mathematics was the pristine reservoir of absolute truth unsullied and untainted by the corruption of the material world below the lunar sphere.

For centuries, generation after generation of mathematicians tried their darnedest to PROVE the fifth postulate of Euclid. They thought, "If only we could PROVE it, then geometry will be perfect, without that little blotch of doubt on it's otherwise irreproachable escutcheon of convincing accuracy." One day, a Russian chap by the name of Lobachevsky said, "I know! I will ASSUME that there is MORE than one line passing through the point which never meets the first line, and I shall reason on and on from that premise, until I arrive at some obvious contradiction, and then I shall have PROVED the Fifth Postulate by REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM." But Lobachevsky's clever tactic never yielded the much desired fruit of contradiction. Instead, Pandora's box opened again, and a swarm of different geometries flew out like a swarm of Harpies to defile our mystical last supper feast of communion with the Logos. How disillusioning. Geometry was no longer the unassailable bastion of certainty. The earth was no longer the center of the universe. Soon, humankind itself would be dethroned from the seat of honor by notions of Evolution.


http://www.math.yorku.ca/Who/Faculty.../lecture.shtml

When does questioning and doubt become disrespectful? My suspicion is that it becomes disrepectful the moment it becomes too successful and persuasive. Was Copernicus disrepectful to Ptolemy? Was Darwin disrepectful to Moses and Aristotle?

I should have entitled this post "Respect and Science" but I find cold desert nights and nomadic tents far more romantic, don't you?

Santayana once said, I think, something about how one of human-kind's greatest abilities is the ability to feel self-contempt, self-loathing. He may have also been the one to say that our skepticism is like our virginity, and we must not too easily surrender it to the first idea which comes along.

Our writings, ideas, theories, heritage and culture are very much like children to us. We are very proud of them and very attached to them. We are very protective. It is often difficult for a mother to see her child as really quite naughty and culpable.

An idea or theory must earn our respect. Even a God must earn our respect and become worthy of worship in our eyes. Ever since Eve took her famous bite from that apple of knowledge we have been saying that a tree is known by its fruits.

Of all the Deities who have ever claimed omnipotence, none has ever claimed the power to force or enforce belief. Belief is a banquet table which is "invitation-only" and no invitation is effective unless we exercise our freewill, accept and R.S.V.P. It took the genius of a Kierkegaard, the father of Existentialism, to point out, in "Fear and Trembling," that it is Abraham's free will choice, and THAT FREEWILL CHOICE ALONE, which ultimately empowers the voice from heaven commanding sacrifice.

Now, you may well ask, "What sort of tapestry is this Sitaram weaving for us with his work-in-progress allegory of his about a cold desert night and a tent with the entrance left open?"

Well, a desert is barren. Cold is lifeless and enervating. The darkness and gloom of night obscures all details. A tent is a shelter which harbors warmth and light. Now a cold camel, as we know, is a crafty beast who at first begs that only one hoof gain entrance to warm for a moment. But the end of all rhetoric is that the camel winds up filling the tent, and we are pushed out into the night cold.

A lobbyist for the interest of the Boxing League once spoke out against those who would ban the sport by demonstrating how boxing is really of universal interest. He explained, "Suppose you are walking along a street, and you notice that, on the other side of the street, a husband and wife are having an argument which suddenly breaks out into a knock-down-drag-out fight, with kicking, biting, scratching.... no holds barred. Well, do you look straight ahead and keep on walking? No, of course not. Your eyes are glued to the spectacle, along with all the other passers-by, until a huge crowd gathers."


We like fights. We enjoy seeing something or someone get the daylights beat out of it. This is way all those Survival shows and Trump shows are now so popular.

People enjoy a good fight, a good argument. Hmmm.... well, let us be somewhat discriminating. Fighting is not good, because violence is a poor way to settle differences (unless we annihilate all opposition to the status of extinct, at which point all disputation ceases.) But reasoned argument is interesting and educational and is sometimes actually instructive, whenever we can learn something new, or see things in a different light, from a different perspective.

One thimbleful of Truth is always seasoned with bushels of falsehood. Wheat is always rubbing shoulders with Tares (weeds). The famous Homilist, John Chrysostome (the golden mouthed), of the 4th century, once stated that the Tares are left side-by-side in the Wheat until the final day of harvest precisely because until that final judgment day, mystically, tares may be transformed into wheat and, conversely, wheat may be transformed into tares.

The "proof of the pudding" is knowing a tree by its ultimate fruits of a lifetime.
Maximus, in the Philokalia, wrote "Do not say that you are the temple of the Lord, writes Jeremiah; nor should you say that faith alone in God can save you, for this is impossible unless you also acquire love for God through your works. As for faith by itself, 'the devils also believe, and tremble' (Epistle of James, 2:19)"

[Sitaram]

We should note with some interest the word "persuaded" in Paul's statement: "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38-39

Who was it that persuaded Paul? What was it that persuaded Paul? What does the word "persuasion" mean to you?

Paul lists many and mighty things in his verse above, angels, principalities, powers, the whole of heaven and earth, BUT Paul does NOT mention PERSUASION, since the key which opened the door to let us enter is also the same key which can lock the door and keep us out.

Kierkegaard once observed that a suicide does not end their life with deliberation, but rather, they die from an EXCESS of deliberation (they think too much.)


Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation (as well as father of a number of children with a former nun) said that we must "pluck out the eyes of reason" lest we become, no longer PERSUADED but disuaded, and made appeal to the words of Jesus who said, "better to pluck out one's eye and enter into paradise maimed then for the entire body to enter into hell."

Here is an elaboration on Martin Luther's teaching:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm

Luther openly advocated the abandonment of using natural reason (Luther considered his use of theological reasoning different from natural reason, i.e., scientific reasoning) . His theological message to live by faith and to abstain from listening to reason has mentally enslaved the lives of millions of Christians to this day. Throughout his literary life he wrote statements such as, "Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason," "We must give reason a vacation and enter a different school. We must refrain from consulting reason. We must bid reason hold its peace; we must order it to be dead. We must gouge out its eyes and pluck its feathers...," "You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them."

I am about to say something in regard to the Mutakallimum Islamic school, and as I searched in google.com, I came across this url which may be of some interest, though it represents something of a digression:

http://www.emery.archive.mcmail.com/...2/occas16.html

What follows is a quote from "Islamic Theology: Traditionalilsm and Rationalism" by Binyamin Abrahamov, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-1102-9, Chapter 3, page 19:

We must bear in mind that some Muslim scholars have criticised the use of rational arguments in the interpretation of the Qur'an. They have prohibited the use of independent rational interpretation of the Qur'an (al-tafsir bi'l-ra 'y). A criticism of rational methods in the sphere of Islamic law is illustrated in the teachings of the Zahirite school of law which rebuked the use of analogical reasoning (qiyas) in deriving law from the Qur'an or the Sunna. In both cases, the criticism was directed against the VERY USE of rational arguments, not against their place in argumentation or interpretation.

The traditionalists' attitude towards rational arguments in theology is two-sided. On the one hand, rational proofs of the principles of religion, such as God's existence, His unity and attributes, are rejected by extreme traditionalists, but on the other, the traditionalists use rational arguments to prove principles derived from the Qur'an and the Sunna and to refute their adversaries. They oppose the tenets of the rationalists derived from Qur'an and the Sunna and to refut their adversaries. They oppose the tenets of the rationalists derived from speculative considerations, and also the inevitable consequence of using reason, namely, the diversity of the rationalists' theological solutions, as against the uniformity of the traditionalists' teachings.

The foremost target of the traditionalists was the Mutakallimun, the main body of Muslim scholars who used speculative ways of reasoning to formulate their theological tenets and also to attack the traditionalists' approaches.

We see how the traditionalists resemble Martin Luther with regard to "plucking out the eye of reason."

We must sometimes fight fire with fire. We fight Reason with reasoned arguments. A five volume study of "Fundamentalisms" from the University of Chicago observes on its very first page that, though Fundamentalists of every religion dislike science and technology, they all avail themselves of Internet and word processing to propagate their message.

Socrates was accused of making the weaker argument defeat the stronger argument as well as corrupting the youth.

An infant is such a blank slate. Place that infant in a Catholic home and in a few years it is saying the Rosary. Place the same infant in a Muslim home, and in a few years they are bowing towards Mecca and fasting the Ramamdan. Place them in an Hasidic household and they are studying the Torah and Talmud and facing Jerusalem in prayer.

If infants are such convenient, willing, cooperative blank slates, then why is it that culture and language and tradition are not inviolable and fixed but are ever changing and evolving and mutating?

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand inspired words are, for me at least, worth more than all the pictures in the world. Such inspired words are a dialectic process, which Socrates describes it as a weaver's loom, with warp and woof, and a shuttle with passes back and forth, creating a tapestry.

One of the greatests wonders is that, even though reality is build upon the random, bizarre twilight zone of Quantum, yet it remains intelligible and recognizable as a cohesive whole. Even if our perception of reality should ultimately prove to be illusion and error, yet it is miraculous if even illusion and mirage so orderly on a macroscopic level should arise from such frenetic discontinuity at a subatomic level.

"All things are possible, not all is profitable." Actually, that is not quite what Paul said. Paul actually said: 1 Corinthians 10:23 "All things are lawful for me,but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify."

Now, an EDIFICE is something we construct, similar to a tent, but more substantial. Sometimes, an edifice is a fort and other times it is an ivory tower. Sometimes ivory towers become Towers of Babel.

[Sitaram]

Well, back to allegory of our well-lit warm inviting tent in the cold, dark, barren desert night. Existential absurdity is the bleak cold barren darkness which is torment to light-loving, warm-seeking, purposeful, rational creatures such as we.

[crisaor]

In the UK, there is a big debate going on at the moment regarding incitement to religious hatred. The Govt, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, are trying to placate many of the religious groups in the UK, especially, it is believed, the Muslims. Many people have written letters of complaint against this bill, including the comedian Rowan Atkinson, the author Salman Rushdie and many others.

I read that article by Rushdie, and I agree with it. Not because I do not feel that there should be some sort of laws that prevented religious hatred, because I do. I agree because it sets a precedent and opens a door to easy manipulation of the law and potencially gives a lot of power to organizations (it doesn't really matter what religion they represent, or if they actually represent it) who don't deserve it and certainly don't know how to use it appropiately.
Anyway, funny you should speak about tolerance, when you normally preach the exact opposite thing in these forums.

[papayahed]

Can anyone give me an example where atheists or agnostics have done the same when a religious person or group has staged a nativity play or presented biblical mystery plays or dramas? .....

Yep, every year nativity scenes are challenged under the seperation of church and state concept here in the US. Also, every once in a while there is an uproar over our money having the phrase "In God we Trust".

The fact is, religious groups are getting support from political parties which is itself threatening freedom of expression. It may soon be an offence in the UK, for someone like me to make a statement against a religion that a follower finds offensive....

....It is despicable that religions should be granted such protection. Does anyone protect us atheists? No. And I'm sure we wouldn't want it either....

The only reason Athiests don't have such protection or wield such power is because your not a group. Nobody knows how many Atheists there are, but religions affiliations knows exactly how many members they have which can have a great influence on government officials (just check out our last election). I'm sure if the Atheists formed a group it would turn into the same type of force that the religious groups currently enjoy, it would be inevitable.

[atiguhya padma]

Scheherazade said:

<I am not sure why you feel the need to criticise others for their beliefs...>

It is for the same reason that I would criticise a racist for his beliefs or a Nazi for theirs. Just because a belief is a religious belief, does not igve it any special meaning for me. A false belief is a false belief whether it is religious, political or whatever. When a false belief has the strength of political or religious ideology, and can lead to unhealthy ways of thought and behaviour, then I think it is important to criticise that belief. Yesterday, I saw a woman standing out in the snow, in my local High St, staring into nowhere, shouting out how we are all sinners and that we all need to repent. She was not even looking at anyone. She had no audience other than myself. In my book, her behaviour is bordering on the psychotic. A little while ago, somebody with a megaphone was shouting out at people who were entering the London Underground at Oxford St. His message was that we are all going to hell, that the world is a mess because we haven't accepted Jesus, and other nonsensical rantings. Again, I think this behaviour is mentally unhealthy. Religious ideology has this kind of power. Religion promotes this kind of behaviour.

Crisaor said:

<Anyway, funny you should speak about tolerance, when you normally preach the exact opposite thing in these forums.>

This all depends on what you mean by tolerance. I do not preach persecution. I am intolerant of religious belief, just as I would be intolerant of any ideology that I consider harmful to the world in general. I cannot stand by, just being a spectator and watch people degenerate into delusional states. This is essentially what I feel happens when people become religious.

In the road where I live, a church declares that its mission is to bring the fear of God into people's hearts. As I walk past, I hear people screaming, wailing, in various stages of trance-like behaviour. For all I know, the woman acting psychotically in the High St yesterday came from this very church. Like the man shouting through the megaphones, she would certainly feel at home there, I'm sure. I would not feel comfortable with an adult who believed in unicorns or fairies, Santa Claus etc. Why should I be expected to feel comfortable with people believing in God?

[amuse]

well, AP, i love God dearly, as i stated before, but i respect your right to dislike that love. and i agree with you on many counts...when i first moved to Philly i was surprised to see people with bullhorns in center city giving shout-outs to God, much like this woman you've mentioned. is it anyone's business if i'm going to hell for not believing in their God? i think not!
but neither am i put off by you being uncomfortable with people such as me who believe in God. we are all here on this little planet together. i have no interest in imposing my beliefs or being imposed on, and therefore find things remain fairly stable for me in this department. it seems only when people start lobbying/getting emotional that there's dissension.
why should you feel comfortable with people believing in God, you ask? isn't that for you to answer? but do you need to defend it? i think not. it is your belief, after all.