Criticizing religious beliefs. A fundamental human right.

[IndigoChild5559]

We are in general agreement. I would add that if someone desires others to believe as they do, or desires to have their beliefs taught to other people's children in school, or to have public laws enacted that embody those beliefs which affect other people, then criticism is warranted. If they never divulge those beliefs but hold them privately, then it affects no one but them..

I would agree that we should not have a religious practice taught in public schools (although we should certainly teach *about* religion). I also agree we should not force a particular denomination or world religion on others through lawful decree. However, to say that religious expression should remain private is just ridiculous. Religion doesn't only happen in the Temple, Synagogue, Church or Mosque. It happens when one makes political decisions. It happens when one supports charities. It happens when we behave like decent people. It happens when we discuss religious topics with friends, such as on this forum. It's far from private. If my religion doesn't effect my public life, it's pretty irrelevant.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I do not believe I have the right to criticize the belief of another person. Unless the other asks me to give my opinion on his belief

I think there are appropriate forums (I'm referring to situations, not exclusively online forums) for people to critique religion, and to do so outside of these forums is terribly rude. However, people have a right to be rude.

I sometimes feel like telling people, "Don't be such a snowflake. We are adults. People disagree. People will be rude. Get a thicker skin." As a Jew, I routinely deal with Christians trying to convert me, some in places where it's just inappropriate. It doesn't bother me. I understand that Christians have a driving need to share their faith. As long as they let me practice my religion without fear and interference, I'm fine with it.

 

[Earthling]

We are in general agreement. I would add that if someone desires others to believe as they do, or desires to have their beliefs taught to other people's children in school, or to have public laws enacted that embody those beliefs which affect other people, then criticism is warranted. If they never divulge those beliefs but hold them privately, then it affects no one but them..

Where this is reasonable I agree. My beliefs include a desire for others to believe as they do in as much as the opportunity is presented to them. Your beliefs, contrary to mine though similar in that capacity hold that teaching children in school your belief would in effect, negate mine. That, I conclude, is fair, and if my beliefs are so weak to surrender then so be it. However, some people of a similar ilk to my belief, wield political leverage, which though contrary to my interpretation, are effectively organized where those of a similar ilk to your belief, are not. The result of which is your beliefs are negated in all fairness within the rules of the game you play.

Surely you are not so simple minded to deny these obvious facts. And so do you protest?

I don't vote. I won't kill for country or church. I believe in total separation of church and state. I don't seek to effect change through legislation. I don't protest abortion, scientific research, gay rights, or what is taught in school, and I'm against prayer in school.

And what say you, atheist?

 

[Looncall]

I disagree. It's not our place to criticize other's beliefs. I have a respect for other's beliefs since I would want that for my own beliefs. For example, I don't criticize Buddha's alleged comment that there is no gods and if there are any they aren't going to help man. That statement is based upon his own personal observation and experience, so who am I to criticize it. I may disagree with it but I respect it. My God, Jehovah, offers everyone the choice of accepting or rejecting him. Either of those choices are granted by him, he doesn't force anyone's choice. So I respect either choice.

What I think is fair to criticize is the transmogrification, obfuscation, misrepresentation, or slander from willful ignorance of a belief. If someone says God, meaning a specific god, that of the Bible, for example, is something or did something which I think is false it's open for harsh criticism. If, for example, my statement above on Buddha's position on God were contrary to his actual position I would gladly accept criticism for having made the statement. If that criticism, in my opinion, from my own observation and experience, happened to be incorrect then I would protest it and feel obligated to explain it.

This is why I have such an animosity towards what I define as "militant" atheists. I believe their criticism to be, not only unfounded, but unfair, arrogant and disrespectful. That's what I react objectively opposed to. Not their rejection or disbelief, but their unfounded, unsupported, arrogant and unfair criticism.

Why should one respect ideas that are clearly false? Respect must be earned, not demanded.

 

[Willamena]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

I agree to the extent that beliefs don't need to be shielded. To do so suggests immense insecurity about them.

I disagree that it is any sort of right to be allowed to attack beliefs. Criticism that cuts down beliefs is unjustified, in the face of constructive criticism. The latter is the critical thinker's tool.

 

[bobhikes]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

Agree but with 2 requirements, It also has to be a fundemental right to defend ones beliefs no matter what they are and if an individual or society crushes another individuals beliefs and it leads to their harm, the individual or society have to take responsiblity for them.

This is what is lost, we are only concerned with ourselves and our beliefs no matter how the indivdual is harmed we don't care as long as our beliefs are upheld. Religious, LBGT, Political, National...etc for most of us only our beliefs matter and those that oppose diserve the harm they get.

 

[Earthling]

Why should one respect ideas that are clearly false? Respect must be earned, not demanded.

And you are to judge what ideas are clearly false? What if the majority of people believe that God is true and evolution false? Or that Evolution is false and God is true?

 

[viole]

I disagree. It's not our place to criticize other's beliefs. I have a respect for other's beliefs since I would want that for my own beliefs. For example, I don't criticize Buddha's alleged comment that there is no gods and if there are any they aren't going to help man. That statement is based upon his own personal observation and experience, so who am I to criticize it. I may disagree with it but I respect it. My God, Jehovah, offers everyone the choice of accepting or rejecting him. Either of those choices are granted by him, he doesn't force anyone's choice. So I respect either choice.

What I think is fair to criticize is the transmogrification, obfuscation, misrepresentation, or slander from willful ignorance of a belief. If someone says God, meaning a specific god, that of the Bible, for example, is something or did something which I think is false it's open for harsh criticism. If, for example, my statement above on Buddha's position on God were contrary to his actual position I would gladly accept criticism for having made the statement. If that criticism, in my opinion, from my own observation and experience, happened to be incorrect then I would protest it and feel obligated to explain it.

This is why I have such an animosity towards what I define as "militant" atheists. I believe their criticism to be, not only unfounded, but unfair, arrogant and disrespectful. That's what I react objectively opposed to. Not their rejection or disbelief, but their unfounded, unsupported, arrogant and unfair criticism.

What do you do with ridicolous religious beliefs?

From my vantage point i am ecumenic for what concern the ridiculousness of religious beliefs , but what do you think? Do you think they are all not ridicolous?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Earthling]

What do you do with ridicolous religious beliefs?

Leave them alone in the knowledge that most assuredly your own beliefs, religious or not, are thought of as ridiculous as well by someone somewhere.

From my vantage point i am ecumenic for what concern the ridiculousness of religious beliefs , but what do you think? Do you think they are all not ridicolous?

Ciao

- viole

I think all religions become ridiculous. The appeal to the masses and the over-intellectualism or mysticism, or metaphysical appeals to certain types who like to see themselves as important in some way. The Guru, the Mystic, the Jim Jones, the David Koresh, The Pat Robertson, The Chuang Tzu, like Buddha starting out with a new middle path to escape the metaphysical over complexities of Hinduism, and his disciples end up changing it to perhaps even surpass those complexities.

I think any idealism of mankind, whether religious or political in nature are ridiculous.

 

[viole]

Leave them alone in the knowledge that most assuredly your own beliefs, religious or not, are thought of as ridiculous as well by someone somewhere.

Oh no, please. Do not say that here.

I do not desire to be left alone if someone finds my “beliefs” ridicolus. Not at all.

On the contrary. I want to be attacked, ridiculed, etc. it is great fun to be engaged in that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Firstly, I'm not going to accept that there are any fundamental rights. Who gives us these so-called rights?

A virtuous person will not give gratuitous offence to others, because it undermines the social cohesion on which we all depend, but they will criticise evil behaviour. In a public space, as opposed to a private one (such as a forum) it is one thing to say that it's wrong for Muslims to attack apostates and wrong for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals, but it's quite another to say that they are delusional in practising false religions.

I might set up my stall next to the JWs outside the supermarket, with a placard extolling the worship of the gods, but it wouldn't say that atheists are stupid, arrogant SOBs.

 

[Vinayaka]

An important issue is disagreements should not be taken personally as a personal attack.

Unfortunately it often is though. Disagreeing is far different than criticizing. I see no point in criticizing, but if you disagree, you disagree, and sometimes there is just no point in verbalising it, as that too leads nowhere.

 

[Earthling]

Oh no, please. Do not say that here.

I do not desire to be left alone if someone finds my “beliefs” ridicolus. Not at all.

On the contrary. I want to be attacked, ridiculed, etc. it is great fun to be engaged in that.

Ciao

- viole

New to that? Maybe, after about (looks at watch) 30 years you will grow out of that.

 

[viole]

New to that? Maybe, after about (looks at watch) 30 years you will grow out of that.

New to what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Earthling]

New to what?

Ciao

- viole

The great fun in being engaged in that. It will pass.

 

[Shad]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

Agreed due my existing belief that freedom of speech and freedom of religion include criticism of religion.

 

[Shad]

It is.

Under Article 19 of the UDHR we have,

the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

I reckon that covers criticism of any beliefs, religious or not.

A number of nations never signed this. The rational used by those nations was religion. Guess which one....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not believe I have the right to criticize the belief of another person. Unless the other asks me to give my opinion on his belief
Everyone has the freedom to choose what he believes. Why should I criticize what someone else wants to believe?

If a religion is subsidized or gets tax breaks, then I've paid for the right to criticize it.

If a religion tries to impose its beliefs on others through the law, then I, as a citizen of a free democracy, have the right to express my views about those laws and the beliefs behind them.

If a religion demands or receives special treatment by the government, then I have the right to express my views about the religion, its beliefs, and whether their special treatment is warranted.

 

[Shad]

My God, Jehovah, offers everyone the choice of accepting or rejecting him. Either of those choices are granted by him, he doesn't force anyone's choice.

I will just leave your own point here as a rebuttal to the above point

"What I think is fair to criticize is the transmogrification, obfuscation, misrepresentation, or slander from willful ignorance of a belief"

Most religion misrepresent the world so based on your own criteria these are fair game. Like Job in a whale.... Seems like willful ignorance dressed up as a fairy tale yet take as fact by many.

 

[Shad]

Firstly, I'm not going to accept that there are any fundamental rights. Who gives us these so-called rights?

No one. It is innate. The very fact you can think the above demonstrates this. Or did you ask for permission first?