Ban the Bible and the Qur'an?

[arthra]

Bear with me for a moment. This isn't as crazy or evil as it may at first sound.

The Bible and the Qur'an represent the holy books of the world two largest religions, as well as various denominations and their predecessor Judaism from the old testament.

Whilst the concept of banning these two books flies in the face of our conceptions of personal liberty, there is a social evolutionary factor in this. The bible and the quran are both texts far removed from our own time and literal readings of them as truth are a hindrance on scientific advances as well a source of moral philosophies that struggle with questions in our technological age.

Banning the Bible and the Qur'an is in my view asking Western civilization (I include both Islam and Christianity as contributors) to have a lobotomy. Our cultural history is largely based on both Holy Scriptures. They represent the striving of spiritual seekers well over three thousand years. The fact that some have misinterpreted the Holy Scriptures does not detract from their value.

The experiment to suppress religion was attempted over a seventy year period by the old Soviet Union and failed miserably.

 

[McBell]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be jerkish- but I found it a weird question and wasn't sure if you were deliberately screwing with me. You obviously weren't and I misjudged it.

The purpose of such a ban is to compel conformity. The nature of controls on thought and speech rarely changes a person's "intent" immediately but instead get an outward appearence of observing the law. Generally, this works. So for example, you can have traffic laws to keep traffic flowing, but that doesn't stop road rage. Nor can any law prevent all traffic accidents. Rather the conformity in behaviour keeps the traffic moving and make the roads safer. It simply creates a framework for people to work around.

The reason I found your argument puzzling was because no law (or ban) can ever be 100% effective due to the physical limits on law enforcement. They can't be everywhere or control everything. I didn't accept the premise that a law had to be effective to be necessary or justifiable so your asking for evidence of it struck me as a bit absurd. It is simply that the ban is considered a desirable change in behaviour and therefore worth the effort of enforcing it. That is more authoritarian and perhaps not a common view.

So if you take an example like prohibition of alcohol in the US, it was never going to completely eliminate alcohol in the country but the outward change in behaviour was considered desirable. It however was disasterous for law enforcement because it gave big bussiness for organised crime like Al Capone, etc. However, if prohibition had eliminated alcohol from the US and turned that conformity into acceptence of the immorality of alcohol in the long-run (say over a generation) it would have been successful.

The point of banning of quran and the bible (aside from trying to get people to think outside the box) would be to get people to conform to the law and then create an oppurtunity in which new ideas could fill the gap.

Anyway- My bad for reading your message the wrong way. This is the first time I've suggested banning something in a debate topic on RF so I misunderstood the difference in our views. You could call that a blind spot I guess.

For the most part I would agree with you.
IF it was not religion you were looking to ban.

The thing is, people will believe what they believe.
The Bible and Koran can and have been used to guide said beliefs.
From what I have seen, mostly for the better, but with some times for the worse.
However, the worse is, IMHO, the exception, not the rule.

Seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that your proposed ban is aimed more so to curb the extremists.
If so, I have to wonder how many non-extremists will turn into extremists to protect their beliefs?

 

[McBell]

To be honest most of my knowledge about religions comes from independent reading, rather than on here.

Same for me.
However, my reading material concerning religions has greatly expanded from my time on RF.

 

[Laika]

For the most part I would agree with you.
IF it was not religion you were looking to ban.

The thing is, people will believe what they believe.
The Bible and Koran can and have been used to guide said beliefs.
From what I have seen, mostly for the better, but with some times for the worse.
However, the worse is, IMHO, the exception, not the rule.

Seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, that your proposed ban is aimed more so to curb the extremists.
If so, I have to wonder how many non-extremists will turn into extremists to protect their beliefs?

I guess it is the reverse: that Christianity and Islam inherently contain the potential for fundamentalism and literalism and that this is Sufficently dangerous now given how potentially destructive these sorts of beliefs are with modern technologies that we have to look at the whole beliefs, not just parts of it. So its aimed at the whole religion, rather than just the fringes.

The utility of such a law depends on how you weigh its potential to turn moderates into extremists. The assumption I'm making is that the next generation would have different beliefs to its parents through public education and using that as a measure of "success". The backlash would burn out if that is the case.

I don't accept that people's beliefs cannot be changed- but certianly force is the least effective method of achieving it. A large part of our beliefs come from socialisation, so if we create a society where such beliefs are less tolerated it will change in time.

I'm more open to the view that people's beliefs should not be changed by the government given its potential for abuse- but the alternative isn't simply individual thought but that peoples minds are changed by corporations and religions as private entities. So actual free thought in terms of original outout developed in isolation by an individual is increasingly unlikely as the media makes us think more alike based on sharing the same information. Given that, the government has a case to act against organised religion.

 

[McBell]

I'd like to know how banning certain Scriptures would be preferable to requiring only one Scripture for everyone?

Because if you ban all but one set of scritures you end up ith

I guess it is the reverse: that Christianity and Islam inherently contain the potential for fundamentalism and literalism and that this is Sufficently dangerous now given how potentially destructive these sorts of beliefs are with modern technologies that we have to look at the whole beliefs, not just parts of it. So its aimed at the whole religion, rather than just the fringes.

The utility of such a law depends on how you weigh its potential to turn moderates into extremists. The assumption I'm making is that the next generation would have different beliefs to its parents through public education and using that as a measure of "success". The backlash would burn out if that is the case.

I don't accept that people's beliefs cannot be changed- but certianly force is the least effective method of achieving it. A large part of our beliefs come from socialisation, so if we create a society where such beliefs are less tolerated it will change in time.

I'm more open to the view that people's beliefs should not be changed by the government given its potential for abuse- but the alternative isn't simply individual thought but that peoples minds are changed by corporations and religions as private entities. So actual free thought in terms of original outout developed in isolation by an individual is increasingly unlikely as the media makes us think more alike based on sharing the same information. Given that, the government has a case to act against organised religion.

Seems that the new generations are moving further from the previous generations adherence to the Bible or Koran.
Thus the reason for the influx of extremism.

The older generations fearing their religion is going the way of the dodo getting extreme in an attempt to "save" their beliefs.

I would worry that speeding the change up through violation of seperation of church and state will end up more in a nation wide Helter Skelter situation than anything more managable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I guess it is the reverse: that Christianity and Islam inherently contain the potential for fundamentalism and literalism and that this is Sufficently dangerous now given how potentially destructive these sorts of beliefs are with modern technologies that we have to look at the whole beliefs, not just parts of it. So its aimed at the whole religion, rather than just the fringes.

You could easily replace 'Christianity and Islam' in your post with 'Communism', in terms of being an ideology with fringe elements who've shown a propensity for extremism, and fundamentalism.

 

[Laika]

Because if you ban all but one set of scritures you end up ith

Seems that the new generations are moving further from the previous generations adherence to the Bible or Koran.
Thus the reason for the influx of extremism.

The older generations fearing their religion is going the way of the dodo getting extreme in an attempt to "save" their beliefs.

I would worry that speeding the change up through violation of seperation of church and state will end up more in a nation wide Helter Skelter situation than anything more managable.

That is a real danger (as the repression of religion in Communist countries demonstrates). This isn't a great idea but it seemed worth throwing out there to see what would happen and if it got any support. I wasn't expecting any honestly.

You could easily replace 'Christianity and Islam' in your post with 'Communism', in terms of being an ideology with fringe elements who've shown a propensity for extremism, and fundamentalism.

Yeah. But Communism doesn't have over 3 billion adherents.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah. But Communism doesn't have over 3 billion adherents.

It has fair few in Asia alone.
But its kinda besides the point. Do you think a smart strategy is waiting until something is overwhelmingly large and THEN banning it?

 

[Laika]

It has fair few in Asia alone.
But its kinda besides the point. Do you think a smart strategy is waiting until something is overwhelmingly large and THEN banning it?

the "smart" thing to do is to beat up the little kid who can't fight back, nobody likes and steal his lunch money. Its alot easier and will make you very popular as no-one will care or object because they don't think the little kid deserves protection if they are "stupid" enough to dissent from the mob for wanting to be different in the first place. Its easier to blame the victim when you don't like them or when they can't fight back.

But should you measure your principles based on cynical calculation, or does doing the right thing remain the right thing even in the face of overwhelming odds against a superior force?

 

[Notanumber]

As is well documented in authoritative Islamic sources Satan (Shaytan) put words on Muhammad’s tongue when he was reciting the Quran casting its authenticity into doubt.

 

[Laika]

As is well documented in authoritative Islamic sources Satan (Shaytan) put words on Muhammad’s tongue when he was reciting the Quran casting its authenticity into doubt.

Thats news to me. Do you have a link for that?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

the "smart" thing to do is to beat up the little kid who can't fight back, nobody likes and steal his lunch money. Its alot easier and will make you very popular as no-one will care or object because they don't think the little kid deserves protection if they are "stupid" enough to dissent from the mob for wanting to be different in the first place. Its easier to blame the victim when you don't like them or when they can't fight back.

But should you measure your principles based on cynical calculation, or does doing the right thing remain the right thing even in the face of overwhelming odds against a superior force?

Interesting response. Me, I'm not advocating banning anyone's books. Or beating anyone up, metaphorically speaking.

How this could be construed as cynical calculation is anyones guess. My point was more along the lines of 'he who's in glass houses...'

 

[psychoslice]

I say ban anything that goes against freedom, we just don't need it.