Skip to main content

View Diary: Sometimes You Have To Be Allowed To Criticize Faiths (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thats pretty lame (0+ / 0-)

    The term religion has to be general, otherwise I would be implying that only certain religions are capable of spawning deviant or dangerous movements, or that only some or certain religions are capable of labeling scapegoats or persecuting other members of society.

    And that would be a false statement, not to mention an insulting one, to which ever religion out there, I chose to blame for all our social ills.

    Schisms are as natural to religion as swimming is to a frog. And when you have schisms, you obviously have splits, disagreements about dogma or doctrine. And sometimes those disagreements are over very important things like if a group should adhere to the law, or be non-violent, or how they treat women or or sinners, or new members or who they decide is demonic or evil.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 04:49:14 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't understand (0+ / 0-)

      what you're saying:

      The term religion has to be general, otherwise I would be implying that only certain religions are capable of spawning deviant or dangerous movements, or that only some or certain religions are capable of labeling scapegoats or persecuting other members of society.

      And that would be a false statement, not to mention an insulting one, to which ever religion out there, I chose to blame for all our social ills.

      I think I agree with the first part inasmuch as you are saying that one religion can't be separated from another as being "good" or "bad."  I don't understand the second part, are you saying that you do blame a certain religion for "all our societal ills?"
      Schisms are as natural to religion as swimming is to a frog. And when you have schisms, you obviously have splits, disagreements about dogma or doctrine.
      So why are "schisms" so "natural" to religion?  It is because there is no objective authority on religion, because there can't be.  Religion is entirely subjective from one religion to another and from one religious person to another, that's by the very nature of religion, which relies entirely on the concept of "faith," i.e. the belief in something that isn't supported by evidence.  When beliefs are shaped by myth and fantasy rather than evidence and reason, there can be no objective authority to say who is right and who is wrong and that is the problem.  That is my point.

      There is no way to objectively draw a line through all of religion and say that everything one this side is acceptable and everything on that side is not.  There is no way to get consensus or agreement on where that line should fall because there is no objective authority to consult.  If a line is to be drawn, it should be drawn in a circle to include all of religion or it should not be drawn at all.

      And sometimes those disagreements are over very important things like if a group should adhere to the law, or be non-violent, or how they treat women or or sinners, or new members or who they decide is demonic or evil.
      Again, who is the authority that says this disagreement is important and this one is not?  Who is the arbiter?  That is exactly why there are so many religions and so many schisms within them, because it is not possible to arrive at an objective answer, it's all one person's or group's interpretation against another.

      Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

      by democracy inaction on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 12:53:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Religion is a general term (0+ / 0-)

        It is not a term that denotes a specific sect or tradition.

        All Catholics are religious, but not all religions are Catholic.
        All Hindus are religious, but not all religions are Hindu.

        See what I am saying about general?

        And when one uses the word "Religion" and uses it in a possessive term, then one is speaking of the rules and policies of that group, enacted by the people therein.

        Their behavior is dictated not only by what we understand as human behavior from a psychological standpoint, but also a religious perspective contextualized by the group's unique worldview.

        For example (and keep in mind I

        So if a religious group, a religion (note general) decides that (another group) doesn't deserve the same rights as other people, because they are immoral and demonic--and then justify this stance with their own scripture or traditional wisdom, then we know that group sees a problem, but scapegoats those (Other) people for that problem.  (see Othering)

        If the religious group in question decide to beat people up who are suspected of being (of that other group) or who are known to be (of that other group), that makes them a violent group.

        If the religious group in question actively attempts to deny suspected or actual members of that (other) group, their human or civil rights by twisting or ignoring the general, secular laws of the land, then that too is scapegoating and could quickly escalate to violence at some point. (so still a deviant, dangerous group)

        If the religious group in question originally split from a mainstream (parent) group that doesn't espouse violence, and  then decide to emphasize other teachings as their core vision-especially teachings that glorify violence or cleansing society, then that makes them deviant as well as dangerous.

        There are examples of this right now and have been in the past. However, I use the general term religion, because any group of people are capable of mob violence, any group can descend into this kind of darkness, not because religion in itself is bad, but simply because people are prone to falling prey to all manner of beliefs that can allow evil acts to flourish passively, or cause evil directly.

        This can depend upon religious interpretations of hard times--war, famine, disease, poverty, or other resources denied or in shortage that can cause people to not only look for a religious answer to their troubles, but who seek a variable they need to eliminate to bring the world back into balance as per their unique sectarian world view

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 02:27:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site