Criticizing religious beliefs. A fundamental human right.

[Milton Platt]

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.

Perhaps I overstated what I was trying to get accross. I am not saying that your religion should not affect your personal life, or public life. but it should not affect the lives of others, unless specifically invited, of course, such as in this forum.
And of course, I see no reason one cannot simply state their beliefs to anyone. That certainly is not what I was meaning. If I believed that, then what would be the reason for me to even be on this forum? Yes, beliefs (religious and otherwise) affects political choices. My issue is with those who hold office and desire to put into law those beliefs when those laws affect others who do not share the beliefs.

 

[Milton Platt]

What does being scientifically literate have to do with politics?

Politicians pass laws that affect the well being of everyone. When those politicians do not have a grasp of the science they deny climate change, deny evolution, divert funding from science projects and classrooms, etc. When hear a legislator state (as one has) that we don't need to worry about the climate because god can fix it, I cringe.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Perhaps I overstated what I was trying to get accross. I am not saying that your religion should not affect your personal life, or public life. but it should not affect the lives of others, unless specifically invited, of course, such as in this forum.
And of course, I see no reason one cannot simply state their beliefs to anyone. That certainly is not what I was meaning. If I believed that, then what would be the reason for me to even be on this forum? Yes, beliefs (religious and otherwise) affects political choices. My issue is with those who hold office and desire to put into law those beliefs when those laws affect others who do not share the beliefs.

I can't agree with you. I think it would be wrong to pass laws requiring others to follow a particular religion, but not wrong to pass laws based on the ethics of a faith. What is the alternative? To have laws based entirely on secular materialism? Do you not see how that is the same thing?

Let me give you an example of what I mean. In the Torah there are many laws which guarantee that no one will go hungry: a farmer may not harvest the four corners of his field and may not glean, a hungry person can enter any field or orchard and eat to their heart's content, and there is a ten percent tax to pay towards the temple staff and the poor. The underlying idea is that everything we have is God's which he then allows for us; a part of what he gives us is entrusted to the poor -- it is their money and we are simply holding it on their behalf, and our job is to get it to them. I take this ethic with me to the ballot box when I vote for things like disability, welfare, food stamps, and health care.

This kind of religion informing public policy is not only allowed, it is BASIC. It is how we function as human beings. You can't expect religion people to turn around and leave our ethics at the door and vote as if we are secular materialists when we are not.

 

[Milton Platt]

I can't agree with you. I think it would be wrong to pass laws requiring others to follow a particular religion, but not wrong to pass laws based on the ethics of a faith. What is the alternative? To have laws based entirely on secular materialism? Do you not see how that is the same thing?

Let me give you an example of what I mean. In the Torah there are many laws which guarantee that no one will go hungry: a farmer may not harvest the four corners of his field and may not glean, a hungry person can enter any field or orchard and eat to their heart's content, and there is a ten percent tax to pay towards the temple staff and the poor. The underlying idea is that everything we have is God's which he then allows for us; a part of what he gives us is entrusted to the poor -- it is their money and we are simply holding it on their behalf, and our job is to get it to them. I take this ethic with me to the ballot box when I vote for things like disability, welfare, food stamps, and health care.

This kind of religion informing public policy is not only allowed, it is BASIC. It is how we function as human beings. You can't expect religion people to turn around and leave our ethics at the door and vote as if we are secular materialists when we are not.

I do not believe that basing laws on logic and reason is the same as basing laws on antiquated religious text. Would you be okay if your country was majority Muslim and they decided to go by sharia law?

You do not need the Torah to come to the conclusion that taking care of then less fortunate improve the wellbeing of a society on the whole.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I do not believe that basing laws on logic and reason is the same as basing laws on antiquated religious text. Would you be okay if your country was majority Muslim and they decided to go by sharia law?

You do not need the Torah to come to the conclusion that taking care of then less fortunate improve the wellbeing of a society on the whole.

I would expect a Muslim to take inspiration from sharia law, but translate it into 21st century American culture, same as I did with the Torah. For example, while a 21st century American Muslim would not try to enact cutting off hands and stoning, they would be very hard on crime. I think it goes without saying that I think this ability to "translate" into 21st century culture is key.

The point is that for most people, their religion informs their ethics. You can't get away from that.

 

[Milton Platt]

I would expect a Muslim to take inspiration from sharia law, but translate it into 21st century American culture, same as I did with the Torah. For example, while a 21st century American Muslim would not try to enact cutting off hands and stoning, they would be very hard on crime. I think it goes without saying that I think this ability to "translate" into 21st century culture is key.

The point is that for most people, their religion informs their ethics. You can't get away from that.

Some muslims would indeed include cutting off hands, stoning people, killing non-believers. It is evident even today. It happens in countries where that law is observed. A muslim in America is constrained by secular laws that would cause him to be prosecuted.
If you are not going to take the Torah, or whatever book one reveres as having literal meaning and just cherry pick and or interpret it to mean what you want at the time, then you don't need the book. Just act according to the overall wellbeing of mankind. If an act increase well being it is good. If and act decreases wellbeing, it is not good. if it does neither, it is amoral and doesn't matter.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Politicians pass laws that affect the well being of everyone. When those politicians do not have a grasp of the science they deny climate change, deny evolution, divert funding from science projects and classrooms, etc. When hear a legislator state (as one has) that we don't need to worry about the climate because god can fix it, I cringe.

I suspect this isn't much of having a grasp on things as much as it is just for the sake of pandering to ensure they get votes by telling people exactly what they want to hear and at times following through on it without caring for the consequences or repercussions that may happen.

 

[Milton Platt]

I suspect this isn't much of having a grasp on things as much as it is just for the sake of pandering to ensure they get votes by telling people exactly what they want to hear and at times following through on it without caring for the consequences or repercussions that may happen.

Yes, there's also that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Some muslims would indeed include cutting off hands, stoning people, killing non-believers. It is evident even today. It happens in countries where that law is observed. A muslim in America is constrained by secular laws that would cause him to be prosecuted.
If you are not going to take the Torah, or whatever book one reveres as having literal meaning and just cherry pick and or interpret it to mean what you want at the time, then you don't need the book. Just act according to the overall wellbeing of mankind. If an act increase well being it is good. If and act decreases wellbeing, it is not good. if it does neither, it is amoral and doesn't matter.

Sometimes an act increases personal wellbeing, but diminishes the wellbeing of another/others/society.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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?

We are not allowed to bury our dead in local cemeteries we must take them to the desert and our businesses are forced closed. If we are found out to be Baha’is we are expelled from university.

We are imprisoned for lengthy jail terms. What crimes have we committed?

Exhuming the Grave and Removing the Body of a Deceased Baha'i in Gilavand - Iran Press Watch

Violation of Baha'i Citizenship Rights Disgusting and Disgraceful - Iran Press Watch

UN Resolution Calls for End to Iran’s Rights Violations Against Baha’is - Iran Press Watch

This is freedom to hate, to discriminate and ostracuse, what is happening to us. So we must be careful lest freedom to criticise be seen as a green light to hate. It’s a right to a point but carried too far can result in atrocities like noted above.

 

[dfnj]

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 mildly disagree. People hold their beliefs to be sacred. For many people, attacking someone's beliefs is often taken as a personal attack. Many people do not have the distinction that what they believe is not who they are. So for some people, it is an attack on the believer.

Everyone has their own personal dogma. Beliefs are like clothing. Unless you've tried it on you may not really understand how it looks in the mirror. I don't think any one dogma can be objective to proven to be better than any other dogma. So I would then argue everyone's dogma is sacred and should be respected. I think what this thread should really be saying is, "everyone has the right to choose what they believe."

I think attacking someone's sacredly held beliefs is generally kind of rude. And my grandmother used to say in a Edith Bunker like voice, "If you don't have anything nice to say shut your God damn mouth!" My grandmother never stopped trying to teach me to be a polite person. She was really into being polite and considerate of other people. After she died I stopped arguing with her about her philosophies.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don`t mind if someone want to disagree with my beliefs or they want to make critique of what i stand for in life. But i have no need to make critique of others belief or non belief.

I just wonder why do you want to make critique of something i believe in and you don`t, if you don`t believe then why do you want to discuss what religious people have a personal belief to?

 

[Quintessence]

So it's a fundamental right to be an $#@% hole. Got it.

In America, I suppose that is, for better or worse, generally true. Up until the point it becomes harassment, that is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Do you actually think I was suggesting we should do this?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Would leave living FAITH alone?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don`t mind if someone want to disagree with my beliefs or they want to make critique of what i stand for in life. But i have no need to make critique of others belief or non belief.

I just wonder why do you want to make critique of something i believe in and you don`t, if you don`t believe then why do you want to discuss what religious people have a personal belief to?

For me, a lot of it comes through government:

- my head of state is the head of a church
- we have taxpayer-funded religious schools
- we subsidize religious organizations and religious people in various ways
- religious organizations/people get preferential treatment under our laws in various ways

I demand a right to a say in my government. If you've inserted your religion into my government, then I demand a right to a say in your religion, too.

 

[Spirit of Light]

For me, a lot of it comes through government:

- my head of state is the head of a church
- we have taxpayer-funded religioys schools
- we subsidize religious organizations and religious people in various ways
- religious organizations/people get preferential treatment under our laws in various ways

I demand a right to a say in my government. If you've inserted your religion into my government, then I demand a right to a say in your religion, too.

Religion and politics does not go hand in hand. the politicans should not govern over religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion and politics does not go hand in hand. the politicans should not govern over religion.

If you're saying you support secularism and a wall of separation between church and state, I agree with you.

If you're saying that even religions that interfere in politics should be free to do as they please, I disagree completely.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you're saying you support secularism and a wall of separation between church and state, I agree with you.

If you're saying that even religions that interfere in politics should be free to do as they please, I disagree completely.

I say that Religions should not mingle with politics and politics should not mingle with religion.

 

[Vinayaka]

In my view, there is a massive difference between criticizing beliefs, and criticizing the actions that result from those beliefs.