Criticizing religious beliefs. A fundamental human right.

[Looncall]

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?

What is real is not settled by vote, it is settled by testing. I suppose there was a time when every human thought the earth was flat. They were all mistaken.

 

[stvdv]

to critique religion, and to do so outside of these forums is terribly rude. However, people have a right to be rude.

I always say "people have the freedom to be rude .. not "the right to be rude" .. (human I ascociate with humane .. not with demonic/animalistic....)

You also don't say "people have the right to kill other humans", do you? They have the freedom .. that's different (exceptions are soldiers...)

Humans have the right to be friendly, this I can agree on. Not the right to be rude, you can ask any judge. They have the freedom to do so.

 

[stvdv]

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.

I fully agree with that. You have all rights to criticize actions done by people. I was only talking about "his belief" (what he thinks/believes). All are free to think/believe whatever they like. When thoughts are put in words/actions towards others then those can be criticized

 

[Skwim]

My 2 cents

Take it from one who's often brought a belief up for scrutiny; finding fault with a religious belief is frequently taken as personal criticism, and with some justification. Unlike political belief, people sometimes assimilate their religious beliefs to such a degree that they become part of their identity, and to such an extent that any criticism immediately brings out a knee-jerk reaction. Be that as it may, it's never been reason enough to back away from the scrutiny. If people regard the criticism of their belief as personal criticism that's their choice. The only drawback is that their responses sometimes lack reason and coherency, which can bring the exchange to a quick end.

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I fully agree with that. You have all rights to criticize actions done by people. I was only talking about "his belief" (what he thinks/believes). All are free to think/believe whatever they like. When thoughts are put in words/actions towards others then those can be criticized

If a belief is never put into action in any way, how would anyone ever hear about it? When we're talking about criticism of beliefs, we're almost always talking about beliefs that have been put into practice.

 

[Yerda]

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

From what I've read on the wiki page the majority of the original abstentions were from Western, mostly Christian countries.

 

[Earthling]

What is real is not settled by vote, it is settled by testing. I suppose there was a time when every human thought the earth was flat. They were all mistaken.

Testing? Hmmm. Not that there's anything wrong with testing, I think it should be a part of the individual personal responsibility of the believer, not entrusted to any other group who could claim to perform such a task.

 

[Earthling]

If a belief is never put into action in any way, how would anyone ever hear about it? When we're talking about criticism of beliefs, we're almost always talking about beliefs that have been put into practice.

But I don't think it's fair to lump in every Christian or Muslim etc. belief with every fraction of that belief that has been put into action. Should Christianity or any other religious belief come under scrutiny because of one small radical group, or even, like I believe I've seen in the Western world for the last 30 years, a fabrication and exaggeration of radical Muslim behavior?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.
And I'd even expand this to become a rule for RF, ie,
argue against the post, but no personal attacks upon the poster.

 

[syo]

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

WINNER.

 

[Earthling]

Agree totally, religion is fair game just like politics is.

Politics is autonomous in nature. You, as a part of a governed body, have the right to speak out against policies which you are governed by. Likewise, a religion to which one adheres to is subject to criticism and possible reformation on policies therein, but when you are outside of that political or theocratic body, you kind of don't have the authority to make or influence policy change.

That in itself isn't criticism, though.

 

[Earthling]

I agree.
And I'd even expand this to become a rule for RF, ie,
argue against the post, but no personal attacks upon the poster.

That is the rule of thumb, if not an actual rule.

 

[YmirGF]

good luck, because when someone criticizes a core value, it will most often seen as a personal attack.

Due to the often ignored emotional investment people have in a given idea.

 

[Altfish]

Politics is autonomous in nature. You, as a part of a governed body, have the right to speak out against policies which you are governed by. Likewise, a religion to which one adheres to is subject to criticism and possible reformation on policies therein, but when you are outside of that political or theocratic body, you kind of don't have the authority to make or influence policy change.

That in itself isn't criticism, though.

Yes, but in my country, religion tries to influence policy. In areas like euthanasia, family planning, abortion, education it seeks to make me and my family adhere to their dogmas. So, religion has chosen to be political.
I don't try to influence change of the religions but I maintain the right to tell it to, "Stay out of my life"

 

[Shad]

From what I've read on the wiki page the majority of the original abstentions were from Western, mostly Christian countries.

Nope. Soviet nations of the Eastern bloc did. Nations which destroyed their Western and Christian culture due to communism ergo not Western.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, but in my country, religion tries to influence policy. In areas like euthanasia, family planning, abortion, education it seeks to make me and my family adhere to their dogmas. So, religion has chosen to be political.
I don't try to influence change of the religions but I maintain the right to tell it to, "Stay out of my life"

Yeah. There's the rub. My interpretation of Christianity is that as Christ's followers we are no part of the world. That's why I don't vote, fight in wars, or influence legislation. I'm often critical of government, though, as well as Christians who try and be a part of the world in that regard, but the question is, regarding criticism. I think you have a right to criticize political factions, such as Christian or Muslim, but, it's tricky. Matters of the church and state.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I always say "people have the freedom to be rude .. not "the right to be rude" .. (human I ascociate with humane .. not with demonic/animalistic....)

You also don't say "people have the right to kill other humans", do you? They have the freedom .. that's different (exceptions are soldiers...)

Humans have the right to be friendly, this I can agree on. Not the right to be rude, you can ask any judge. They have the freedom to do so.

Shabbat Shalom!

It's not the same thing. Committing murder is a criminal offense. Being rude is just socially unacceptable. You don't like it you walk away and shine it on. You don't make them pay a fine or throw them in the joint. So when *I* say they have the freedom to be rude, what I mean is that it isn't against the law.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Personally i do not criticizing other religions or belief systems, But i can ask a religious person why they believe in the teaching of the path they follow.
And i respect that other people want to ask question about the path i follow

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Good for you!!!!!
If you are a theist, you are likely in the minority.
I use voting as part of my protest. I vote for those who are less likely to allow religion beliefs to influence education or the legislation of laws. I try to vote for those who seem to be more scientifically literate than their opponent. I have written letters, I have made phone calls, and I debate and discuss online. Now that I am retired, I have more flexibility to engage personally, so may do that as well.

 

[Earthling]

Good for you!!!!!
If you are a theist, you are likely in the minority.
I use voting as part of my protest. I vote for those who are less likely to allow religion beliefs to influence education or the legislation of laws. I try to vote for those who seem to be more scientifically literate than their opponent. I have written letters, I have made phone calls, and I debate and discuss online. Now that I am retired, I have more flexibility to engage personally, so may do that as well.

What does being scientifically literate have to do with politics?