Whitewashing religions?

[danieldemol]

Saw this statement on another sub-section;
"We shouldn’t be trying to demonise any religion"
It was followed by what looked to me to be a complete whitewashing of all religious texts so I thought to myself, true we shouldn't be trying to demonise any religion because that would be both dishonest and harmful, but isn't it just as dishonest to whitewash religions and their texts? Could this not also be a potential source of harm through lowering the guard of one against peoples whose intentions are hostile towards them?

For example suppose I were to say - the theology of Islamic State never teaches anything but the love of God and humanity, to be of upright and virtuous character and to live in peace with one another. If people were to buy what in my view is such an evident dishonesty could they not be harmed by a people with clear intentions to militantly subjugate them theocratically if they were to let their guard down against such a people?

So I propose that when dealing with dogmatic narratives, rather than demonise them or whitewash them, we should simply seek to understand them accurately as we can, as to go to either extreme (of demonising or whitewashing them) is dishonest and potentially harmful as I see it.

Your thoughts?

 

[rocala]

I agree entirely. If anything, whitewashing can be worse. Demonising does at least make people aware of possible risks, but whitewashing can create traps for the unwary.

 

[Valjean]

"Demonizing" is ambiguous. It could mean different things to different people.
Is criticizing, questioning, or pointing out errors, contradictions or other problems demonization?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Thoughts. Yes.

the theology of Islamic State

clear intentions to militantly subjugate

In the same way that Christianity is not about scaring people into submission, torturing and killing anyone who expresses themself differently (recall the times of the Inquisition) or about any of all of those other forms of horror carried out by establishments believing themselves to be lead by Christian scripture; Islam is not about “militantly subjugating” anything.

We should clearly be distinguishing between theologies themselves and how certain different groups, in certain different places, at certain different times in history, all use [different] theology to assert dominion in their surroundings.

In truth, what such groups throughout history share with each other is not that they’ve based themselves on a certain theology, faith or scripture but that they’ve all been rooted in human fear, hatred and greed.

Consumed by such strong worldly emotions, all Man is blind and deaf to what any faith or scripture tells of. From fear… hatred… greed; nothing but warped interpretations can be taken from anything -whether experienced or told- in life.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Vinayaka]

Saw this statement on another sub-section;
"We shouldn’t be trying to demonise any religion"
It was followed by what looked to me to be a complete whitewashing of all religious texts so I thought to myself, true we shouldn't be trying to demonise any religion because that would be both dishonest and harmful, but isn't it just as dishonest to whitewash religions and their texts? Could this not also be a potential source of harm through lowering the guard of one against peoples whose intentions are hostile towards them?

For example suppose I were to say - the theology of Islamic State never teaches anything but the love of God and humanity, to be of upright and virtuous character and to live in peace with one another. If people were to buy what in my view is such an evident dishonesty could they not be harmed by a people with clear intentions to militantly subjugate them theocratically if they were to let their guard down against such a people?

So I propose that when dealing with dogmatic narratives, rather than demonise them or whitewash them, we should simply seek to understand them accurately as we can, as to go to either extreme (of demonising or whitewashing them) is dishonest and potentially harmful as I see it.

Your thoughts?

I concur, that is if you feel the need. It does take a lot of work though, (I don't know if I have the time or desire to wade through scriptures of other religions) and it's not often that necessary.
And, as Hermit Philosopher said, it's important to distinguish between the religion and the adherent. Sweeping generalisations never help.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is just silly and also unwise to simply protect a movement from any criticism just because they see fit to call themselves a religion.

 

[danieldemol]

Consumed by such strong worldly emotions, all Man is blind and deaf to what any faith or scripture tells of. From fear… hatred… greed; nothing but warped interpretations can be taken from anything -whether experienced or told- in life.

I find this deeply problematic. For starters the scriptures themselves were written by humans, some of whom were consumed by such properties as fear, hatred and greed in my view.

For seconds it is an ad-hominem argument and a sweeping generalisation to say that all those who honestly seek to read a scripture for what it is actually saying as opposed to what they want it to be saying to say they are all blind, consumed by fear, hatred and greed etc. In my opinion.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I find this deeply problematic. For starters the scriptures themselves were written by humans, some of whom were consumed by such properties as fear, hatred and greed in my view.

For seconds it is an ad-hominem argument and a sweeping generalisation to say that all those who honestly seek to read a scripture for what it is actually saying as opposed to what they want it to be saying to say they are all blind, consumed by fear, hatred and greed etc. In my opinion.

Yes, scriptures are certainly written down and spread by humans and yes; they are frequently used by fearful, hateful and greedy establishments as means to control and subdue. The same goes for historic, scientific and indeed most widespread, existing types of narratives - and yet, that is far from always their original purpose.

It is as misleading and dangerous to say that the theology behind X faith is one of violence, because Y violent establishment claims to be acting upon it, as it would be to say that the science behind genetics (or perhaps biology in general) is fascist, because the nazis used eugenics as their argument and means for committing genocide.

We must distinguish between an actual idea and what it is at times [mis]used for.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[LuisDantas]

We must distinguish between an actual idea and what it is at times [mis]used for.

Even more important is to acknowledge the ideas themselves.

Not all so-called religious narratives are nearly as respectable as they want to be perceived as being... and most receive far, far too little criticism and show way too little willingness to course-correct when the need presents itself.

That is a serious flaw and a serious danger.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Even more important is to acknowledge the ideas themselves.

Not all so-called religious narratives are nearly as respectable as they want to be perceived as being... and most receive far, far too little criticism and show way too little willingness to course-correct when the need presents itself.

That is a serious flaw and a serious danger.

If you live somewhere where one may not criticise religion, that is of course unfortunate and I fully empathise with it as a problem.

This thread however, asks whether Islam is theologically violent because violent establishments claim to act from it. The answer to that question is no.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[LuisDantas]

If you live somewhere where one may not criticise religion, that is of course unfortunate and I fully empathise with it as a problem.

This thread however, asks whether Islam is theologically violent because violent establishments claim to act from it. The answer to that question is no.

Humbly,
Hermit

And why would that answer be no? What do you sustain this answer on?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

And why would that answer be no? What do you sustain this answer on?

Eh… Shall I copy-paste or you good to scroll back? Sorry about laziness. Those are my reasons anyhow.

 

[LuisDantas]

Post #8? That is utterly obfuscative, misinformed at the most charitable.

Was that even meant to refer to Islam? At all? Or even to any actual, existing movement that claims to be a religion?

The way I see it, you did not make the attempt.

 

[siti]

Sweeping generalisations never help.

 

[siti]

...complete whitewashing of all religious texts

So I propose that when dealing with dogmatic narratives, rather than demonise them or whitewash them, we should simply seek to understand them accurately as we can, as to go to either extreme (of demonising or whitewashing them) is dishonest and potentially harmful as I see it.

First of all I agree about seeking to understand...

...however, understanding must involve critical analysis - i.e. we have to make an assessment of the assumptions, biases and credibility of the texts and narratives - and call them out where we perceive them to be baseless, unwarranted or lacking (respectively).

Unfortunately, neither the texts nor the religions (in the case of the monotheistic traditions of the West at least) seem to encourage that...indeed, some of the texts seem to be at the very least discouraging (if not outright forbidding) any attempts at criticism.

Quran 4:140: ‘He has already revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s revelations being denied or ridiculed, then do not sit in that company unless they engage in a different topic, or else you will be like them. Surely Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell'

2 John 1:10-11: 'If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.'

Revelation 22:18-19: 'I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.'

My understanding, based on those texts, might very well be to assume that the texts "demonize" themselves (and those who follow the religions based on those texts) by invoking hell fire and plagues on anyone who has the temerity to criticize the content.

It's pretty hard to (successfully) 'whitewash' a text that insists that people will be subjected to an eternal punishment in hell-fire for the crime of disbelieving the book that contains it.

But I don't suppose that will prevent someone from attempting to do so...OK - go on then...

 

[danieldemol]

This thread however, asks whether Islam is theologically violent because violent establishments claim to act from it.

Technically it asked whether the group known as "Islamic State" aka ISIS, ISIL etc is theologically violent rather than Islam itself (assuming the two can be separated since one is an interpretation of the other).

 

[siti]

This thread however, asks whether Islam is theologically violent because violent establishments claim to act from it. The answer to that question is no.

How is this...

"...Those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of Fire. Over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back, and (it will be said), "Taste the Penalty of Burning!" (22:19-22).

...not "theologically violent"? How is it not intended to invoke hatred for disbelievers in the minds of the mindlessly faithful? How is it not meant to spawn violent acts?

 

[vijeno]

In the same way that Christianity is not about scaring people into submission, torturing and killing anyone who expresses themself differently (recall the times of the Inquisition) or about any of all of those other forms of horror carried out by establishments believing themselves to be lead by Christian scripture; Islam is not about “militantly subjugating” anything.

I contend that this is based on the same fallacy as the opposite position.

However, I also think that it is practically unavoidable.

Let me explain:

A religion - at least one large enough that we would mention it here - is a huge conglomeration of ideas, semi-coherently gathered around some more-or-less central ideas.

The tricky parts are the "semi-coherently", and the "more-or-less". There is no clear, agreed-upon, rational principle of organisation in a religion, but intuitions, tradition, authority, all mixed up with some semblance of rationality.

It is equally justified to say that Islam is about subjugation, Christianity is about torture, as it is valid to say that they are about love and peace. They are about both of those things, or they are of neither, depending on your viewpoint and on what interpretation you look at.

When Europeans used Christianity to justify their colonization of North America, were they "abusing" Christianity? Eh. Maybe. Maybe not. I can point to bible verses in either direction, and we can debate them for hours and hours, and we will likely end up discussing some intricate detail of some Hebrew verb, or the philosophy of history. When some unsung hero helps the homeless, are they "using" Christianity correctly? Well, I certainly like that version much more. But who is to say that this is the right one? Even if god existed, none of us can read her mind. Maybe she's racist, who knows.

There is an "ideal version" of Christianity (and of Islam, and Buddhism...). We have it in our heads, but real-world Christianity can never live up to it. The positive, as well as the negative "ideals" are oversimplifications.

Ultimately, I think you project your own morality onto your religion; but that morality has also been formed by it. It's a dialectical system of reinforcement. It can create stunning beauty and great moral deeds, or bring about war and destruction.

I don't believe that religion is inherently evil; I believe that it is arbitrary.

To note, I am not exempt from generalizing. I have my intuitions about "right devotion", spirituality and the numinous just like you do, and I generalize just as much. I try to be conscious about it, but of course I fail.

Those generalisations are unavoidable. We cannot always keep in mind how nuanced and subtle reality is. We need simplification for orientation. When pressed, I will say that Christianity is oppressive and Islam is even worse.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Technically it asked whether the group known as "Islamic State" aka ISIS, ISIL etc is theologically violent rather than Islam itself (assuming the two can be separated since one is an interpretation of the other).

My point is that we must differentiate between Islam the religion and [the] “Islamic State”, because the latter is not a religion and far from all Muslims interpret the Quran as they do. These are important differences, that should not be ignored or trivialised.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

How is this...

"...Those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of Fire. Over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back, and (it will be said), "Taste the Penalty of Burning!" (22:19-22).

...not "theologically violent"? How is it not intended to invoke hatred for disbelievers in the minds of the mindlessly faithful? How is it not meant to spawn violent acts?

All religious scripture, read from a worldly perspective in a literal (non-spiritual) manner, becomes violent. That is unquestionable.

But if you wish to, you’ll notice that Man (humans) is not an agent in the extract. It does not say that Man should “cut out” or “pour over” or indeed do anything to another. Furthermore, literally speaking “garment of fire” for instance, means nothing and that is because the language of scripture in general is spiritual as opposed to mundane.

Religious text is of no atheist significance; it has no literal meaning.

When we study religious scripture as Scripture, we do so theologically and in calm spiritual reflection; not as we would an archaeological piece of work, analysed academically.

Humbly,
Hermit