Respect and Religion

[enigmaT120]

When people here ask for respect when it comes to religion, it has nothing to do with acceptance of our beliefs. We simply do not appreciate being stereotyped or ridiculed based on the factually incorrect assumptions of people not genuinely interested in exploring the topic deeper.

What he said. Except for me, I'm pretty thick skinned. Though I don't feel particularly blessed by it, either.

[fiby41]

"
in practical reality and daily life, "western freedoms" are a complete farce. they're like a mental wall keeping westerners in.
...
in many countries that are decidedly not western, and that have very eastern cultures thousands of years old, people have many more freedoms, more compassion, and more tolerance than in the average western country."

@GankK @Thrifty:

Western secularism has also come out indirectly of religion but is diametrically opposite to religious doctrine. It does not exist due to the west having some high moral ground, tolerance or some such, but because invention of protestant church coinciding with gun powder reaching europe.

They found out the hard way, after a bloodbath of religious wars, like the Farmer's War that wiped out 1/3 of German population or the 37 Years War, etc that it was much easier to kill each other off with guns than swords.

So it is more of a compromise.

This is different than religions with tolerance and acceptance of more than one paths to god, as part of the doctrine itself.

Nor is any of the freedoms you mention unique to west, either in scripture or practice.

Example:

In the Skanda Puran, the devta (gods) get bored in svarg (heaven) after discharging their duties. With nothing to do, one of them comes up with the idea of watching a play. The subject of play is decided to be a war they had fought with the asura (demons.)

They stage is constructed in North South direction but by the time the play begins, enraged asuras reach the scene, wreaking havoc among the audience and charging toward the stage.

Indra promptly orders the guardian devta:

Ishanya (North-East)
Agneya (South-East)
Nairutya (South-West)
Vayavya (North-West)

position on the four corners of the stage to hold guard and declares:

"the stage will be the place where a person worthy of it (the stage) can offend without fear of harm."

Yeah no but FoE is a modern western idea.

[enigmaT120]

So it didn't start in the French Revolution?

[fiby41]

was talking about why need of what we may regard today in hindsight as western secularism, or a precursor to it in 1500s europe arose along with Thrifty's "enhanced freedoms, liberties, compassion, empathy, tolerance" which GandK asked brute to elaborate on.


The word secularism itself was coined in early 1800s.

French revolution happened in late 1700s, so above may help understand how the right political climate was created for western secularism to take root.

[thrifty++]

I'm interested in the point you and dragline have raised about western morality arising out of Christianity. I will need to research it in some detail now. I am not sure though as so many philosophers have contributed, both religious and nonreligious.

[BRUTE]

I'm interested in the point you and dragline have raised about western morality arising out of Christianity.

in brute opinion, it's not western morality that arose out of christianity, it is western moralism. plenty of other religions preach tolerance, ethics, not to kill humans and take their stuff, and loving thy neighbors.

the one thing that seems decidedly western to brute is that all other humans are savages and must be convinced, by diplomacy or force, to subject to the exact same specific moral code that the west currently prescribes to.

this has led to a lot of "moral values" in the west like "sex is bad", "fun is bad", which some other religions simply never had, but still haunts the west, especially the US (latin cultures like the French seem to have never fully believed it). the west basically required secularism to fight its way out of these super restricted, absurd medieval religions "morals" that other cultures never had a huge problem with. or maybe they solved it 3000 years ago.

[fiby41]

Example of what brute said above,

There are proposals to criminalize martial rape here currently. Problem is already there are four laws favouring/giving benefit of doubt to women, there are no witness and it will lead to blackmailing of men.

Instead of reaching those for whom this might be a real problem, hardly have to time and money to fight these costly court battles with each other. Whereas, it may become a way of exacting revenge for those with enough spare time for it.

But biggest blow would be dealt to the institution of marriage, or what is left of it, of only one religion. As a certain other religion has Sharia and personal law board for themselves in which triple utterance of talaq by men is legal divorce.

These vehement attacks on institutions of this religion are so systematic that it leads one to believe they are coordinated.

[BRUTE]

...martial rape...

wow talk about a police state

[GandK]

...martial rape...

wow talk about a police state

Oh, wow. Coke Zero up the nose, LOL.

[fiby41]

*marital

autocorrect...

[BRUTE]

Oh, wow. Coke Zero up the nose, LOL.

brute is glad to be of service

[Riggerjack]

I also do not think it is merely coincidence that innovation has increased on an exponential scale in the last 100 years and that such innovation has aligned with a marked decrease in religion in the countries where almost all the innovation has come from. I also notice that the largest amount of innovation in the USA comes from states with low levels of religion, eg West USA and Massachusetts etc, not the South.

Seriously? You think it's religion that caused this difference? Forget studying Philosophy, or Economics, you would do well to brush up on basic US History. There was a failed Second American War of Succession (rebranded as a Civil War) and occupation, in which that which failed to burn the first time was shipped home by the occupying army.

But yeah, freedom from religion in Massachusetts (home of Puritans, Calvinists, and Irish Catholics) must have been the recipe to success.

In my experience, you have your cause and effect reversed. Economic prosperity, and technical culture weaken religious ties, but religion doesn't effectively suppress economies or tech culture.

For the record, I'd identify as Agnostic Atheist, I don't know there's no god, but I doubt it.

And most of the antireligious posts I see here are just Intellectual Liberal flag waving. I don't object to the image of the Southern, Christian, Pro life, AntiEvolution, Ignorant Redneck, as often portrayed, because I recognize this behavior for the flag waving it is.

I guess, I should speak up more when I see it. But please don't confuse this with respect for someone's need to believe in an invisible "sky father".

[Dragline]

Now, free will is a purely Christian idea invented by priests to explain the perfect nature of god.
If god is perfect and all powerful, then how does he allow for so much evil to exist?

In comes first mentions of free will 300-400 years after death of Christ clarifying that god loves you. So he gave you choice to select between good and evil. Oh but, humans are born sinners. So make sure you don't default on your 10% tithe/bribe to church, so we may talk him out of sending you to hell.

The ideas and debates about free will predate Christianity -- you might want to Google "free will and antiquity" sometime if this topic interests you.

[Dragline]

I'm interested in the point you and dragline have raised about western morality arising out of Christianity. I will need to research it in some detail now. I am not sure though as so many philosophers have contributed, both religious and nonreligious.

You'll want to consider to the confluence of modern psychology (Jonathan Haidt) who coins the term WEIRD to describe modern Western cultures, anthropological literature (Rene Girard), and of course our old friend Nietszche: http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... irding-way

with some additional assistance from Emile Durkheim, a modern Italian author and Nobel Prize winner Elias Canetti: http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... metic-mind

Hope you find it informative.

[Dragline]

And most of the antireligious posts I see here are just Intellectual Liberal flag waving.

I see most of this as a Dunning-Kruger effect problem -- knowing enough to spout something, but not knowing enough to know about what you don't know.

For example, if you are interested in Christianity, you would study traditional Catholicism/Orthodoxy and how it has changed, liberal Protestantism and how that developed and modern fundamentalism.

Likewise, if you are interested in atheism, you would study the three current flavors, pretty well represented by Dawkins/Harris, John Gray and Alain Botton (School of Life). If you haven't got that far, you are going to sound pretty ignorant to people who have done so and may not be able to have a meaningful conversation beyond basic flag waving. Of course, there's always a question of which flag you are waving. The colors of these flags may be the same, but they represent different things.

Most professed atheists that I hear on the interwebs are stuck in Dawkins/Harris and never get beyond that because it gives permission to throw rocks/shun the believers, and that's great fun in a genetically primitive sort of way.

[thrifty++]

(*) The kicker is: What if people believe in things that harm others ... to which degree should that be accepted?

So what are peoples thoughts on this issue?

[7Wannabe5]

For me, religion is like music, so the truth in any or all of them is found when it is like using true wood to construct a violin which emits a true tone:

'Tis the gift to be simple,
'tis the gift to be free,
'tis the gift to come down
where we ought to be,
and when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gained
to bow and to bend we shan't be ashamed,
to turn, turn, will be our delight
till by turning, turning we come round right.

So verily with the hardship there is relief, verily with the hardship there is relief – Quran Ch 94:5-6

True. True. Respect. Respect.

I started out by believing God for a newer car than the one I was driving. I started out believing God for a nicer apartment than I had. Then I moved up. Jim Bakker
l

“There are no jokes in Islam.
There is no humour in Islam.
There is no fun in Islam.” -Khomeini

False. False. Boo.Boo.

I guess I'm something like a non-practicing Unitarian Universalist at this juncture.

[Riggerjack]

@ dragline,

The anti religious posts I was speaking of are not about religion. They come up in any political thread. Jacob's thread about an anti science movement is the last I remember.

It wasn't a thread about religion, it wasn't a debate centered on religion, but a certain amount of us vs them flag waving was going on. In the posts and in the links. Us was intellectual liberals, and them was their strawman opponent, the Ignorant Republican Bible Thumpin' Masses.

If it was PC to shout down derogative remarks remotely connected to religion, the way it is with race, this would show alot, here and elsewhere. It's not, so it doesn't.

I don't have any skin in this game, and religion itself isn't of any interest to me except as a historical influence. I only point it out, because I see it, think it's the source of the bruised feelings around here, and it didn't come up before now in this thread.

As to JP, GANDK, and the others of faith here, am I right? Are these the posts that bug you?

[Riggerjack]

. jacob wrote:
(*) The kicker is: What if people believe in things that harm others ... to which degree should that be accepted?



So what are peoples thoughts on this issue?

Beliefs are beliefs. Actions are actions. If actions cause harm, the beliefs that may have caused them are irrelevant. When actions cause harm, appropriate response is dependent on the action and the harm, bot the beliefs.

[jacob]

Beliefs are beliefs. Actions are actions. If actions cause harm, the beliefs that may have caused them are irrelevant. When actions cause harm, appropriate response is dependent on the action and the harm, bot the beliefs.

Normally we punish intention, not consequences, or rather we tend to lean heavily towards intention in when it comes to morality. Compare manslaughter to murder.

We also tend not to excuse ignorance or denial when it comes to intentions---at least not when it comes to adults who are demonstrably recalcitrant when it comes to avoiding predictable harm. Compare the discussion of luck and agency when it comes to indolence.