Is It Wrong To Hate Abrahamic Religion?

[gsa]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized? And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

 

[Looncall]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized? And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

Sure it's acceptable. It's more like a civic duty.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

My only comment is that Hate and perhaps anger are wrong ...

Neither one solves the differences between people, they tend
to cause injury (distress, anxiety, blood pressure etc.) to the
angry person ...

 

[Madhuri]

I think that hatred in general reduces the ability to use reason so I would never recommend it. If a religion, or any group/institution, is overall harmful, then of course it's wise to either avoid it or act to change it (or educate people).
I personally think that there is both fantastic and harmful teachings in Abrahamic religions but it's too generalised to lump them all in together. Those which are more universal in their philosophy and those which do not seek to impose themselves on others are perfectly agreeable to me.

 

[Lyndon]

Even though I don't really follow an organized Abrahamic path, I prefer to have close friends that are Abrahamic religions as I find them more trustworthy and honest, and less likely to want to cause drama, I have no problem at all with religious people that are much more devout than me, as I run a small business with expensive violins for sale, and I have had trouble especially trusting less or non religious people, not as a rule but as a trend.

 

[Riverwolf]

If it were inherently depraved, then I would expect to see all followers of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, and all others to act in similarly depraved manners.

However, I don't see that at all.

Therefore, I would classify it as not just wrong, but dangerously misdirected.

Personally, I hate puritanical thought, which doesn't need any specific religion, or even religion at all, to manifest. H.P. Lovecraft is well-known as both a puritan and staunch atheist. I've seen it in all sorts of people, religious and anti-religious alike. I've seen it in myself, both in the past and present, and have been working on discarding such elements from my thinking.

Ideas of absolute, objective good/evil binary, wholly good or wholly evil, inherent evil unless 100% "purified", etc... all of these are toxic. And it leads to the exact sorts of conclusions that I see in the OP, in addition to the things the OP is deriding. Two houses, both alike in dignity.

 

[Thana]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized? And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

So your idea to combat bigotry is with bigotry of your own?

Mmhmm.........

 

[Deathbydefault]

Growing up, I was told repeatedly by Christians that we need to draw a distinction between the sin of people, i.e., the sin of homosexuality, and their "status" as a beloved image of God. So I propose that we invert that formula and see where it takes us.

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable? I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans? Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized? And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

It's up to each person as to whether or not hating something is wrong.
I don't see it as wrong, nor do I see it as right. It is only natural.
-
I have a deep dislike for the lackey and overly gullible main mass within the Abrahamic religions.
The only type I can say I hate are the fundamentalists.
That being said, there are also those whom are very smart and easy to get along with.
-
I find some of what the bible teaches immoral and somewhat idiotic.

I feel as though such a thing should be taught in its respective building and there alone.
Not in science class, only in church.
And only when the child reaches a certain age.
Childhood indoctrination is 100% bad.
-
I have no issue bad mouthing the Abrahamic religions.
I keep more of a leash on it here (and fail a lot of the time) but I'm much more open about it elsewhere.
-
So long as they aren't enslaving people and buying women, I have no real issue with their practices.
Over the top things should be illegal, the entire thing should be discouraged, but the religion itself will always be allowed.

They are all entitled to their views, and are allowed to hide behind whichever book they so please.
I, on the other hand, will not be doing such a thing and will think less of those who do, as I am also entitled to my views.
Not that they have to care what I think, it'll be a fair playing field if they don't, I suppose.

 

[Laika]

Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized?

No. But this depends entirely on your definition of "deeply immoral". I voted "other", as you're re-defining what is moral in the process of answering this question as you'd have to reject the morality of Abrahamic religions as well which is a complex process. I am undecided on the issue because of that as it represents quite a nihilistic place to be.

The only serious objection you should give consideration is the liberal one. You are saying that some authority (most probably the state) has the right to determine what individuals believe. The states right to determine what is moral therefore takes precedence over an individuals right to believe and reject the offical neutrality of secularism in favour of anti-clericalism or state atheism.

There is an argument that secularism is not neutral and is biased towards religious belief, because it is percieved as more 'natural' that atheism and liberalism will bias pretty much anything is you argue it's natural. e.g. slavery as the natural order due to the innate superiority of the white man over the blacks; denying women the vote; etc, etc, etc. the cliam of liberalisms moral superiority is based on a large degree of hypocrisy and pseudo-religious assumptions that because they are the "natural order" "god is therefore on their side".

if you are seriously willing to entertain that possibility, the big question is whether you can seperate persecution of the belief from persecution of the believer. I tend to think the answer is no as, the 'idea' of religion exists in peoples heads. So for this reason, I hesitate to endorse state atheism; hatred of religious belief becomes hatred of the believer. I would argue hatred is immoral because it is driven by fear of the belief, an unconscious feeling of inferiority and powerlessness that makes someone desperate to attack that which they feel threatened by. As such Hatred is not compatable with reason, even if there are solid rational grounds to be angry at something. anger and hatred are tow different things; anger can be rational, hatred almost never is.

The state does have the power to ban the symptoms of religious belief, but cannot actually ban religious belief itself. They can engage in practices of "thought reform" as happened in the People's Republic of China, but this ussually descends into forms of torture. it also doesn't work. This is why such a position is dangerous because it does ential human rights abuses. There are "ways" around it because the conception of human rights is derived from liberalism which is also largely deried from the Abrahmic tradition. If you want to attack religious belief, you will end up attacking liberalism and secularism.

here's a litmus test for you: Would you ban Christmas? Is giving presents to other people on december 25th an offense worthy of going to jail? Christmas is outwardly harmless unless you believe that the belief that it promotes and perpetuates is harmful in itself. It's a festival of an Abrahamic religion, that is 'deeply immoral' and by banning Christmas it would discourage the religion and penalize it. its also based on a celebration of an event that involves a virgin birth, that didn't take place on decemeber 25th but more likely in the spring (february I think) but is celebrated on Christmas because it hurts rival pagan holiday. I tried this on a far left forum I was on where about 60% were atheists, and the overwhelming answer was "no".... becase.... "I like Christmas"....

 

[Godobeyer]

Even though I don't really follow an organized Abrahamic path, I prefer to have close friends that are Abrahamic religions as I find them more trustworthy and honest, and less likely to want to cause drama, I have no problem at all with religious people that are much more devout than me, as I run a small business with expensive violins for sale, and I have had trouble especially trusting less or non religious people, not as a rule but as a trend.

I feel the same thing with you .

 

[MARCELLO]

Hatred towards anything is of course not recommendable and wrong. But there are thousands of reasons to dislike abramix ( well done to me ,I invented this term) religions. Show me one case when abramix brought peace to people

 

[Aupmanyav]

Agree with you and like the new word coined by you - Abramix, better than what is generally used, Abrahamics..

 

[leibowde84]

So your idea to combat bigotry is with bigotry of your own?

Mmhmm.........

I think there is something to be said for the saying, "we should not be tolerant of intolerance".

 

[Quintessence]

If I think that Abrahamic religion, all of it, is a depraved path to child sexual abuse, religious ignorance and intolerance, etcetera, isn't that perfectly acceptable?

Only if you find it virtuous to be a bigot.

I mean, isn't it equivalent to the way that mainstream Abrahamic leaders/institutions treat homosexuals, feminists and pagans?

No, it isn't.

Is there any moral objection to believing that Abrahamic religion is deeply immoral and should be discouraged and, where possible, penalized?

I really don't care about morality, but I have several objections grounded in common sense and the factual realities of the Abrahamic religious landscape. Not to mention my honor and virtue.

And if that is somehow taboo, how is that any different from how Abrahamics view minority religions, genders, or sexualities?

And how do Abrahamics view these things, exactly?

I know! Let's make a bunch of generalizations and presume that the majority of the people on the planet somehow have the same opinion about all of these things! That sounds like pure genius! We'll even ignore the fact that they come from completely different countries with very different cultures! We'll also ignore all those annoying confounding variables like other cultural patterns that are influencing their lives, things like socioeconomic status, and personality traits! Who cares about that anyway?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So your idea to combat bigotry is with bigotry of your own?

I think there is something to be said for the saying, "we should not be tolerant of intolerance".

Was that an unclear statement of agreement with @Thana or a muddled polemic against the line quoted?

 

[Thana]

I think there is something to be said for the saying, "we should not be tolerant of intolerance".

Please tell me you don't actually think that being 'Intolerant of intolerance' is anything more than pretentious drivel.

 

[leibowde84]

Was that an unclear statement of agreement with @Thana or a muddled polemic against the line quoted?

I find the demonization of homosexuality to be intolerant. I think there is nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance. That's all I meant. No polemic, just an honest comment.

Was your comment just a pitiful attempt to get under my skin? Or, were you actually that confused by my post?

 

[leibowde84]

Please tell me you don't actually think that being 'Intolerant of intolerance' is anything more than pretentious drivel.

Sorry to disappoint, but intolerance of things like homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. is honorable, imho. Do you disagree?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I don't think hating is necessary. You should try to avoid it. If you hold onto hatred, it ends up poisoning your soul and you end up turning into something your not. You can just disagree with it, but don't despise the people because they follow these religions. Nevermind that there's numerous branches within these religions, some are more lenient than others. But hating doesn't do anything productive. Even if you focused on hating the religion, you'll end up hating others who practice it, even though you only focused on the religion itself.

 

[Thana]

Sorry to disappoint, but intolerance of things like homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. is honorable, imho. Do you disagree?

I do disagree.
You can hate/despise/dislike homophobia, racism, sexism, etc but to be intolerant of them just makes you one of them. A bigot.

So no it's not honourable, it's hypocritical.