It could range from friendly mocking mirth to vicious skewering. I heartily approve of the former, despite the risk it could be taken the wrong way.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In Defense of Insulting People and Ideas...
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
The OP started with the question of censorship, and that's the context I've been using. It seems that some of these responses have drifted towards day to day civil discourse? That's a very different context.
Do I think that in day to day civil discourse insults are a good strategy? Usually not.
Do I think that people who aggressively promote dangerous ideas and behaviors should be satirized and insulted? Often that's the most humane path. (It's very clear that reasonableness seldom works.)
Do I think that in day to day civil discourse insults are a good strategy? Usually not.
Do I think that people who aggressively promote dangerous ideas and behaviors should be satirized and insulted? Often that's the most humane path. (It's very clear that reasonableness seldom works.)
Understood.
My quibble with your post was more semantic than point, most likely. However, to clarify;
1) Religion is not about God, and the belief or disbelief in God. At least, not only that. It's something a polytheist would immediately recognize.
2) Not all control is governmental in nature. Churches can directly apply strong influence on behaviour directly from the pulpit (so to speak). Any organised body may try to do this, of course, and in general terms that body is politicizing itself. But based on your quoted definition of politics, this falls outside what you mean by 'politics'. It is still important to recognize and understand the impact of this.
I dont generally find dictionary definitions too helpful, to be honest, but can see the importance in defining terms. Assuming those you posted are taken from a dictionary, it would generally be good form to post the source.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Religion is about believe in God, or if you like, gods or even Gods, or Godesses, or even goddesses.
As someone once said on TV, Everything is politics. It is all about polictical agenda, where ever it might be. And sure, there is some good and some bad. If religion is to blame, then two thirds of the planet would be fighting, or if you think it is only Muslims, about 2 billion. So clearly belief is not the answer. But what we do with that belief, in other words the political agenda behind it is important. It is always politics and those who wish to rule, possess etc
Dictionaries are there to show meaning to words which we use.
If you type in a word with definition, it comes up at the top of the screen. I could not see an address.
So, like I said, mostly I agreed with the thrust of your post, but not the specifics, perhaps. Defining religion is hard. Its certainly not just about God, which a particularly monitheistic (and sometimes atheistic) mindset. Recognizing polytheism is important but it still doesnt go far enough. I actually dont know how I'd completely define it. This (from the Australian government) is useful for pointing out the difficulty in defining religion...
1266.0 - Australian Standard Classification of Religious Groups (ASCRG), 1996
For me, its really just a mindset thing. The diversity of religion is important to keep in mind. Yeah, I know that sounds like I'm lecturing, but apologies. I honestly dont mean to, just explaining my position.
Theres a lot I agree with there, including the universal nature of politics, but my conclusions don't seem to match yours. To give religion a free pass on this is as incorrect as to blame religion, I think. It's a factor.
As comparison, unionism allows groups of peoole to take political action. Whilst this action then falls under the umbrella of politics, it also still fits under the umbrella of unionism.
To my mind, no-one really thinks religion isn't capable of promoting changed behaviour in people (else what's the point?). They differ in the nature of this change.
Sure. In much the way the nightly news tells us what happens in the world. Useful, but not exhaustive.
Faitlr enough.
Last edited:
Maldini
Active Member
I love Europe for being this free. For years Religious nuts have had so many things exactly the way they wanted but now they can't even bear the idea of meeting the other side halfway.
The only indecency is coming from the people who expect special treatment because of their own selfish reasons beleifs.
The only indecency is coming from the people who expect special treatment because of their own selfish reasons beleifs.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Okay
To make it clearer, I am not saying that religion is not a factor, anymore than I am saying atheism isn't a factor in their atrocities. But belief or non belief is only the foundation that it pulls from. It is not anything in itself. It is what we do with these beliefs, and that is politics. Who would care about the politics of the government if they had no power? No one. It is not what they believe, it is what they do with that belief that counts.
Put it this way, if we suddenly don't believe in God anymore, and there is no religion, then do we really think that anything would change? Not one bit! Human nature depicts what we will do, that is why we are here in the first place.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I'm sure Romania and Russia are now loved for being free of atheist ''nuts'' etc etc.
That is an unusual view for a theist though (rightly or wrongly).
It is far more common for me to be presented with arguments that belief or lack thereof in a God impacts behaviour, and thatcr religosity effects behaviour.
You really think belief in God or following a religion dont directly influence behaviour?
I think it should be clear that in a free society, that insults, whether they are intentional, not intentional, in fun, etc. are protected under free speech.
That said, people need to be aware of the consquences. If I were to say something to someone that person might find offensive, that person can react in many different ways: 1. He can laugh, 2. He could cry, 3. He could get angry, 4. He could get angry and shout, 5. He could get angry and punch someone's lights out, 6. He could get angry and blow someone away. I personally think people are way too sensitive about verbal insults. I've been told some pretty nasty things in my day and I just don't worry about what others say. I wish people were more thick skinned.
That said, people need to be aware of the consquences. If I were to say something to someone that person might find offensive, that person can react in many different ways: 1. He can laugh, 2. He could cry, 3. He could get angry, 4. He could get angry and shout, 5. He could get angry and punch someone's lights out, 6. He could get angry and blow someone away. I personally think people are way too sensitive about verbal insults. I've been told some pretty nasty things in my day and I just don't worry about what others say. I wish people were more thick skinned.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Wow ... great point. Why should homosexuality be fair game to criticism and insults, yet religious beliefs are not to be touched. And, also, if Muslims take criticism of their prophet personally, how are we supposed to criticize the beliefs of Islam?!
leibowde84
Veteran Member
huh?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I just think it is superb that, as a global society, we are finally recognizing that beliefs are subject to scrutiny in the same EXACT way that every other aspect of subjective thinking is.
are we to ban satire?
There will always be someone, somewhere, somehow offended.....we need to see it for what it is. Why should minority groups be protected by law from a joke?
In my country Charlie hebdo would have broken the law.....outrageous right?
Apparently australia is no Charlie hebdo thanks to current changes to federal law brought about by pressure on government from our Muslim communities that make it an offence to offend base on religion.
Don't let this happen in your country!
Apparently the pope says if someone offended his mother he would punch them.....what happened to "turn the other cheek"? A complete disregard for his basic teachings and he is the head of the church....
It time we took a good long look at religion meddling in politics and forcing Their moral standard on the rest of us.
It's a double standard. The religious have a right ( in my country) not to be offended based on their religion but atheists don't have a right motto be offended by religion.
There will always be someone, somewhere, somehow offended.....we need to see it for what it is. Why should minority groups be protected by law from a joke?
In my country Charlie hebdo would have broken the law.....outrageous right?
Apparently australia is no Charlie hebdo thanks to current changes to federal law brought about by pressure on government from our Muslim communities that make it an offence to offend base on religion.
Don't let this happen in your country!
Apparently the pope says if someone offended his mother he would punch them.....what happened to "turn the other cheek"? A complete disregard for his basic teachings and he is the head of the church....
It time we took a good long look at religion meddling in politics and forcing Their moral standard on the rest of us.
It's a double standard. The religious have a right ( in my country) not to be offended based on their religion but atheists don't have a right motto be offended by religion.
I know what you're saying. I really don't think it's a good idea to ban satire. Satire is usually harmless: It is one way for people to expel their anger, and to do it harmlessly. Satire has a purpose and a good one.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I literally am at pain saying this, but isn't there comedic value in making fun of the very rule of not portraying Muhammad's image? It seems to me that the rule does more harm than good, seeing how it was designed to prevent idolatry, which, I'm assuming, is no longer a substantial risk.
And, also, isn't this a great opportunity for Islam to be the "bigger man" and concentrate wholly on ridiculing the murders instead of even noticing the cartoons. I mean, there are a lot of people who, to the uninformed person, are standing in solidairy with ruthless savages who murdered a bunch of innocent unarmed civilians in cold blood. It seems understandable that even addressing the cartoons as wrong would be unlikely in the midst of these incomprehensible murders.
Just my two cents, but I am more than willing to back up these points if asked.
In an ideal world, no one would make fun of anyone else's religious icons. I see so many satires of Yeshua (Jesus) and although it does bother me to a certain degree at times, I try hard to not be offended by it.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Exactly, I feel the same way. But that is my problem. If I allow myself to get personally offended by insults to my religion, it only hurts me. You will live a much happier life if you try to have a sense of humor about everything.