Is It Wrong To Hate Abrahamic Religion?

[leibowde84]

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.

Intolerance is not being willing to put up with something. So, are you willing to put up with racism, sexism, etc. Or do you think there is value in fighting it?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Well, if I'm a bigot for despising cultural practices like female genital cutting, throwing homosexual men off buildings to their deaths, and selling girls into sex slavery (which are deeply correlated to sexism and homophobia), then so be it. Call me a bigot then. I still despise systemic violence and prefer to fight it and it's roots rather than worry if my reputation is good or if I'm still likable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

It was intended to draw attention to the comical - or, perhaps, instructive - ambiguity of your comment, which could easily refer to the ignorant intolerance found in, e.g., Leviticus, or the bigoted intolerance articulated by @gsa . I suspect that you are far more tolerant of the latter.

 

[Thana]

Intolerance is not being willing to put up with something. So, are you willing to put up with racism, sexism, etc. Or do you think there is value in fighting it?

Smooth.....

You know how you completely glossed over everything I said and just went on the offence to distract from my previous post.

Kudos.

 

[leibowde84]

It was intended to draw attention to the comical - or, perhaps, instructive - ambiguity of your comment, which could easily refer to the ignorant intolerance found in, e.g., Leviticus, or the bigoted intolerance articulated by @gsa . I suspect that you are far more tolerant of the latter.

I see. Fair enough. I try to be tolerant of everything that is not inherently intolerant itself.

 

[leibowde84]

Smooth.....

You know how you completely glossed over everything I said and just went on the offence to distract from my previous post.

Kudos.

Your use of the word "bigot" is mistaken, which I should have pointed out. A "bigot" is one who disagrees with any views BECAUSE they are different than their own. My point was that I am intolerant of views BECAUSE they are intolerant. On the other hand, I am not intolerant of tolerant beliefs or views simply because I don't hold them myself. Big difference.

For example, intolerance of homosexuality in Catholic Church is based on their view that homosexuality is against God's will. This is "bigotry" because their reasoning is based solely on their homosexuality going against their beliefs. Now, those who are intolerant of this view BECAUSE they are against discrimination of any group cannot be termed "bigots" because their intolerance is based on the protection of others, not on disagreement with their own subjective beliefs about God.

 

[Thana]

Your use of the word "bigot" is mistaken, which I should have pointed out. A "bigot" is one who disagrees with any views BECAUSE they are different than their own. My point was that I am intolerant of views BECAUSE they are intolerant. On the other hand, I am not intolerant of tolerant beliefs or views simply because I don't hold them myself. Big difference.

For example, intolerance of homosexuality in Catholic Church is based on their view that homosexuality is against God's will. This is "bigotry" because their reasoning is based solely on their homosexuality going against their beliefs. Now, those who are intolerant of this view BECAUSE they are against discrimination of any group cannot be termed "bigots" because their intolerance is based on the protection of others, not on disagreement with their own subjective beliefs about God.

Ugh, semantics. And seriously? You think your interpretation somehow trumps the dictionary definition of a word?

Either address my post directly or drop it, I'm not interested in playing games.

 

[leibowde84]

Ugh, semantics. And seriously? You think your interpretation somehow trumps the dictionary definition of a word?

Either address my post directly or drop it, I'm not interested in playing games.

No need to get fired up. I am not using my own understanding of the term "Bigot". This is the definition I am using from Miriam Websters Dictionary:

Bigot (n): a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

If a person is intolerant of the intolerance of others, not because of their own beliefs, but because of their interest to protect those who are victims of intolerance, they cannot accurately be labeled a bigot. That term only applies to those who base their intolerance on their own subjective beliefs and prejudices.

 

[Thana]

No need to get fired up. I am not using my own understanding of the term "Bigot". This is the definition I am using from Miriam Websters Dictionary:

Bigot (n): a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

If a person is intolerant of the intolerance of others, not because of their own beliefs, but because of their interest to protect those who are victims of intolerance, they cannot accurately be labeled a bigot. That term only applies to those who base their intolerance on their own subjective beliefs and prejudices.

You do have beliefs in regards to homophobia, sexism and racism. It's all subjective.

one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

How are you not, in all ways, literally this very definition that you provided in regards to your beliefs about homophobes/racists/sexists?

 

[leibowde84]

You do have beliefs in regards to homophobia, sexism and racism. It's all subjective.



How are you not, in all ways, literally this very definition that you provided in regards to your beliefs about homophobes/racists/sexists?

I never said anything about being intolerant of anyone. I explicitly said that I was intolerant of homophobia, racism and sexism, not those who practice them. Minds can always be changed, and no one should be abandoned. But, no one should simply "put up" with racism, homophobia, and/or sexism as practices.

 

[Deidre]

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.

No one should 'tolerate' racism, sexism and homophobia. Tolerating it is the same as condoning it. Perhaps, you meant we shouldn't hate racists, sexists and people who are homophobic. The concepts though, we should not tolerate.

The irony is that most of these concepts stem from the Abrahamic religions.

 

[George-ananda]

Is Abrahamic religious thought depraved and deeply immoral?

I vote 'No'. At its core it is intending good.

 

[gsa]

It was intended to draw attention to the comical - or, perhaps, instructive - ambiguity of your comment, which could easily refer to the ignorant intolerance found in, e.g., Leviticus, or the bigoted intolerance articulated by @gsa . I suspect that you are far more tolerant of the latter.

Now this is a fascinating distinction. Leviticus is ignorant intolerance (considered the infallible and/or inerrant Word of God by perhaps a billion or more human beings mind you), and my commentary and inversion of Leviticus is "bigoted intolerance" because, why exactly? I should know better, and am therefore not excused, while they are ignorant primitives who cannot be faulted? I dare say, that does sound somewhat bigoted...

 

[Father Heathen]

There is nothing wrong with abhorring particular beliefs and ideas, but not those who might be misguided or misinformed by them (unless they act upon those beliefs and ideas in a way that victimizes innocent people).

 

[Thana]

No one should 'tolerate' racism, sexism and homophobia. Tolerating it is the same as condoning it. Perhaps, you meant we shouldn't hate racists, sexists and people who are homophobic. The concepts though, we should not tolerate.

The irony is that most of these concepts stem from the Abrahamic religions.

Homophobia, perhaps.
But are you really going to put sexism and racism at the feet of Abrahamics? I'm pretty sure those concepts predate even Judaism.

And I'm not sure how one can be intolerant of the concept but tolerant of the practice of the concept?

 

[Deidre]

Homophobia, perhaps.
But are you really going to put sexism and racism at the feet of Abrahamics? I'm pretty sure those concepts predate even Judaism.

And I'm not sure how one can be intolerant of the concept but tolerant of the practice of the concept?

That is true, lol But...the Abrahamic faiths don't do much to stifle those concepts, instead they seem to encourage them. Even indirectly, at times.
I wish very much that all people were treated fairly, kindly and with compassion. We all deserve that, and if someone touts him/herself as following a faith that preaches love, then those concepts should not be a part of their life.

 

[Thana]

That is true, lol But...the Abrahamic faiths don't do much to stifle those concepts, instead they seem to encourage them. Even indirectly, at times.
I wish very much that all people were treated fairly, kindly and with compassion. We all deserve that, and if someone touts him/herself as following a faith that preaches love, then those concepts should not be a part of their life.

I can't say much to that, But I don't think the world's problems can be blamed on Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Without these religions the world would be a very different place, And that probably wouldn't be a good thing.

Life is complicated and nothing is ever truly black or white. Those concepts were created for a reason and to this day they prevail for a reason. Expecting people to hold your ideals and considering yourself 'better/progressive/moral' whilst being intolerant of them is more frightening to me than their ignorant bigotry.

 

[Deidre]

I can't say much to that, But I don't think the world's problems can be blamed on Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Without these religions the world would be a very different place, And that probably wouldn't be a good thing.

Life is complicated and nothing is ever truly black or white. Those concepts were created for a reason and to this day they prevail for a reason. Expecting people to hold your ideals and considering yourself 'better/progressive/moral' whilst being intolerant of them is more frightening to me than their ignorant bigotry.

Atheists/Agnostics don't have any ideals, really. They don't try to define morality for others, like religious people do. You don't hear about atheists in the news not serving customers because the customers are gay. You don't hear about atheists in the news putting up a fuss about gay marriage. You hear this about religious people though, turning people away because they won't have anything to do with people who don't follow the rules of their faith. This isn't to say that there aren't atheists like Richard Dawkins in the world, who are very vocal against religious people and religion, in general. But, the vast majority are not interested in convincing others to come over to their way of thinking. Religious people are much more inclined to acting 'holier than thou,' than non religious people.

But, religious freedom is still an important value to me. I wouldn't want to see religion, even the Abrahamic versions, banned. As long as it doesn't trespass into others' lives, then people can believe as they wish. Unfortunately, that's often not the case.

 

[Thana]

Atheists/Agnostics don't have any ideals, really. They don't try to define morality for others, like religious people do. You don't hear about atheists in the news not serving customers because the customers are gay. You don't hear about atheists in the news putting up a fuss about gay marriage. You hear this about religious people though, turning people away because they won't have anything to do with people who don't follow the rules of their faith. This isn't to say that there aren't atheists like Richard Dawkins in the world, who are very vocal against religious people and religion, in general. But, the vast majority are not interested in convincing others to come over to their way of thinking. Religious people are much more inclined to acting 'holier than thou,' than non religious people.

But, religious freedom is still an important value to me. I wouldn't want to see religion, even the Abrahamic versions, banned. As long as it doesn't trespass into others' lives, then people can believe as they wish. Unfortunately, that's often not the case.

No, Atheists don't have any set doctrine. But that doesn't mean they don't have ideals and prejudices of their own and that certainly doesn't mean they don't think to impose or convert others to their way of thinking, Nor does it mean they haven't inflicted oppression and pain onto the masses. And honestly, self-righteousness is practically a prerequisite for Atheism.

But let's not play "Who's worse" because the hard truth is that we're all human and we're all equally terrible

 

[Deidre]

No, Atheists don't have any set doctrine. But that doesn't mean they don't have ideals and prejudices of their own and that certainly doesn't mean they don't think to impose or convert others to their way of thinking, Nor does it mean they haven't inflicted oppression and pain onto the masses. And honestly, self-righteousness is practically a prerequisite for Atheism.

But let's not play "Who's worse" because the hard truth is that we're all human and we're all equally terrible

lol okay, you are right on that.