Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[hokageji]

Agreed.
I think the problem is what accounts for blasphemous...
For instance, saying something like "believing that jesus died and resurrected in 3 days in bullshit" vs saying "christians are idiots, they believe.." Its a fine line between what constitutes as free speech and what constitutes as hate.

Thats one thing the world should adapt from communism, forced abandonment of religion atleast in the public space.

 

[kkck]

Agreed.
I think the problem is what accounts for blasphemous...
For instance, saying something like "believing that jesus died and resurrected in 3 days in bullshit" vs saying "christians are idiots, they believe.." Its a fine line between what constitutes as free speech and what constitutes as hate.

Thats one thing the world should adapt from communism, forced abandonment of religion atleast in the public space.

I would argue that blasphemy shouldn't be illegal, period... I know countries have that but... in the western world that is basically an anachronism. Also, how are either of those things blasphemy? Blasphemy is basically an offense to god... Saying you don't believe something or that a group of people are stupid is not a crime. And it can't be a crime. This is the sort of thing that society can deal with without turning to legal action.

What exactly would that entail? Expression of religious views in public spaces is perfectly fine. If anything, it's also free speech, a right people have. What you shouldn't have is a government endorsing, promoting or adopting religion. A government that forces abandonment of religion in public spaces would be as backwards and shitty as one that bitches about macron's response in protection of France's secularism.

 

[z.5]

The right to not offend is no right at all. I do not believe there should ever be rules specifically against being offensive, as it is far too easy for people to find offense

I, for one, am offended by a great many things, but that doesn't mean that people should not be able to discuss/joke about/do them - obviously there are limits, but those limits are miles further on from a cartoon/newspaper article

This is especially true when one wishes physical [read: permanent] harm upon another; solely due to them feeling that they, or something they hold dear, is being disrespected - this is true for individuals and is even more so for governing bodies

Want to draw a picture of Muhammad as a terrorist?
Well done, you've proved that you are an arsehole. You should expect people to dislike you, insult you, write/say rude things about you... but not to kill you

tbh, the fact that people can in any way suggest that a shitty drawing deserves death... or that it gives even the smallest degree of justification/excuse for murder, really says more about the lack of humanity that some people posses (and what shitty people they, themselves, are), than it does about how much of a dick the author [of said drawing] might be

 

[shionoro]

Aren't the cartoonists okay with stuff like drawing Mohammad? I think if religious people don't like that, whether Muslims, Hindus, or otherwise, then people should respect their wishes. But anyway, the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan is disgusting, and I'm glad that at least, USA is open-minded enough to not tolerate that shit.

Why? With that logic, you can ban every satire alltogether because some people who are target of it dont like it.
And ban free speech right after.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 12, 2020, Original Post Date: Nov 12, 2020 ---

Yes. Yes. It was. Coming from a Muslim myself, I’m fine if someone made a joke about the Prophet so long as it’s actually tasteful and funny. Depicting the prophet as a progenitor of mass murderers, is not. What people are doing by defending the likes of Charlie Hebdo and Jyllands-Posten, they are enabling the likes of Trumpists around the world. If this keeps up, you will eventually find Europe in the same boat as the US one day. You’re close, but luckily dodged a bullet in recent years.

It won’t last long, however.

How are Charlie Hebdo comparable with Trump?
Charlie Hebdo's whole point when publishing carricatures like that is to expose the reaction of muslims towards it.

If nobody would freak out, they wouldn't do it. But the point is that for harmless cartoons, you get deaththreats (and serious deaththreats).
While you would not attack someone for doing jokes about mohammed, I am very positive about a movie like 'life of brain' being done about mohammed would lead to terror attacks, no matter how funny and true it is.

And that is the whole point here: It is unacceptable that people get blamed for harmless cartoons while their attackers kill people.

I might agree that Charlie Hebdo cartoons are not exactly funny and are unnecessarily offensive.... If they would crank them out every week without any violent reaction. Like that, it is very clear who the dangerous people are: The ones committing violence, not the ones drawing cartoons.
Charlie Hebdo is not in any shape or form comparable with trump, they do not rally anyone to violence or try to incite fear. Terrorists do.

 

[kkck]

Honestly, the reaction to this whole thing should be cartoonist of the world drawing, wearing and publishing even more offensive cartoons. Mostly for the sole reason of exposing lunatics who would kill over this as such...

 

[shionoro]

Agreed.
I think the problem is what accounts for blasphemous...
For instance, saying something like "believing that jesus died and resurrected in 3 days in bullshit" vs saying "christians are idiots, they believe.." Its a fine line between what constitutes as free speech and what constitutes as hate.

Thats one thing the world should adapt from communism, forced abandonment of religion atleast in the public space.

I don't see why it would be hate to say people who subscribe to a certain worldview are idiots.
I am saying that about people who believe in Qanon, some people call their political opponents like that. Why should it be illegal to say that about religion?
Religion is a worldview like any other.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 12, 2020, Original Post Date: Nov 12, 2020 ---

Honestly, the reaction to this whole thing should be cartoonist of the world drawing, wearing and publishing even more offensive cartoons. Mostly for the sole reason of exposing lunatics who would kill over this as such...

We kinda already had that, and it (to a lesser extent) happened this time too. Lunatics are gonna lunatic.
The problem is not the cartoonists, there are enough brave people.
The problem are really people who, even the slightest bit, excuse violent behavior because somebody was offended.

I am all for finding consensus. I am for islamic education in schools (for those who opt it), halal food in any cafeteria, for the utmost inclusion of muslims in schools and workplaces with rooms to pray in their pauses. All fine by me, it should be encouarged.
But the second somebody says he has special rights, especialyl the right to be violent, because of his religious feelings, one has to rebuke it completely and severely. The same is true for excusing the violence of somebody else, even when there is some 'i dont encourage it' put in front of the 'but i can understand it'.

 

[hokageji]

I don't see why it would be hate to say people who subscribe to a certain worldview are idiots.
I am saying that about people who believe in Qanon, some people call their political opponents like that. Why should it be illegal to say that about religion?
Religion is a worldview like any other.

Its not hate, and i am not saying they are idiots, to be clear. Its just an example how people distinguish what is and what isn't hate speech, and @kkck, even for your response, you are going by the text book definition of blasphemy. There are countries where people are murdered just to celebrate their beliefs which may be opposite of their own held, and that was accepted lawfully under blasphemy law.
When even questioning god can be considered blasphemous, you think people won't be offended by saying things like Jesus resurrecting is bullshit? Its easy to live in the western world and have that distinction while those lines are a lot blurr..

And regarding hate speech, India's constitution is secular and doesnt have blasphemous, but under hate speech is what the example would fall under. Their secularism making everyone equal and rightfully, protecting minorities which is better in some ways, but something that can only apply to the diverse issues the country has but the flipside allows things under hate speech. American journalists had pointed this issue 5 yers before the issues came up in India. I am sure France is doing better with their law and doesn't make changes to accommodate minority populations.

Honestly, the reaction to this whole thing should be cartoonist of the world drawing, wearing and publishing even more offensive cartoons. Mostly for the sole reason of exposing lunatics who would kill over this as such...

Number of cartoonists vs number of radical islamists... round 2 begins.... we know how that'll turn out.

That's a novel thought but the government must intervene no matter what the repercussions are.

 

[shionoro]

Its not hate, and i am not saying they are idiots, to be clear. Its just an example how people distinguish what is and what isn't hate speech, and @kkck, even for your response, you are going by the text book definition of blasphemy. There are countries where people are murdered just to celebrate their beliefs which may be opposite of their own held, and that was accepted lawfully under blasphemy law.
When even questioning god can be considered blasphemous, you think people won't be offended by saying things like Jesus resurrecting is bullshit? Its easy to live in the western world and have that distinction while those lines are a lot blurr..

And regarding hate speech, India's constitution is secular and doesnt have blasphemous, but under hate speech is what the example would fall under. Their secularism making everyone equal and rightfully, protecting minorities which is better in some ways, but something that can only apply to the diverse issues the country has but the flipside allows things under hate speech. American journalists had pointed this issue 5 yers before the issues came up in India. I am sure France is doing better with their law and doesn't make changes to accommodate minority populations.


Number of cartoonists vs number of radical islamists... round 2 begins.... we know how that'll turn out.

That's a novel thought but the government must intervene no matter what the repercussions are.

Ah, now I get you.
I think anti blasphemous laws are generally mistakes unless they have very clear limits.
For example, I am fine with laws against defacing a church or a mosque, or that outlaw disrupting prayer in a church or mosque.

But there cannot be any laws against mocking the belief of someone else. That would put religion on a pedestal compared to other worldviews and give a very dangerous precedent.

We see this game in other countries and not just with religion. You can go to jail in turkey for mocking erdogan.
There are already laws in many countries against inciting violence or hate against a group of people (including religious groups). I do not see why that should be extended.

For example, in Germany it is outlawed to claim that Muslims are parasites for the German state or similar things. That can be put into concrete policy (it is, in broad terms, outlawed to incite violence against a subgroup of people or generally incite hate against a subgroup of people by going against their value as human beings.
It isn't enough to just complain about people, you have to attack them in their value as human being, which is a relatively high hurdle (it wouldnt be enough to say that Islam is a dangerous and violent religion, but it would be enough to say that muslims do not deserve asylum because they are not worth it (and there are some more hurdles as well)).

But I do not see why we need laws to protect a worldview from mockery (and why only religion should be protected).
And let's be honest: It really isn't like the people who scream loudest when someone draws mohammed are the ones that would be very respectful towards other beliefs, especially nonbeliefs.

 

[kkck]

Number of cartoonists vs number of radical islamists... round 2 begins.... we know how that'll turn out.

That's a novel thought but the government must intervene no matter what the repercussions are.

Yeah, poor framing when I said cartoonists. I meant that more as in the vast majority of people doing this simply because they have unalienable right to do so.

 

[M3J]

Under normal circumstances I would agree. But if even 30% of the muslim world is ok with those murders... Then you are talking about a culture who is largely ok with any one of us being murdered over depicting their silly prophet. We are talking about a extremely basic human right...

No disagreement here.

All that bigotry muslims face.

You mean.

Like this.

...

Or were you referring to Trump's attempts to regulate illegal immigration?

As america lacks sufficient job openings to employ high numbers of illegals crossing the border?

As soon as that tweet said "liberal," I knew it'd be a dumb and ignorant tweet. And Trump did do that.

The right are taking away LGBT+ rights and protections, essentially killing them without physical violence, and they're taking away or trying to take away women's rights as well. Slavery is happening, and they're protecting slavery by siding with cops and prisons. Your lack of awareness is very embarrassing.

You also haven't proved me incorrect. Muslims face bigotry, and as result, Sikhs do as well because racists think they're the same as Muslims.

There were articles on how farmers were looking to hire people, but Americans either didn't apply or quit in few days because they couldn't handle the hard work. Immigrants, undocumented or not, are important and necessary. Though their importance shouldn't be based on whether they can work or not, but on the fact that they're humans.

Blasphemy laws are always a double-edged sword. On one hand, you could uphold it as a way to root out/discourage racism. On the other hand, it’s not uncommon for people to abuse it to suit their own interests, especially for political reasons. Again, it’s not completely infallible. Blasphemy laws on paper should work, but in practice, it’s often used a way for authorities and unsavories to abuse their power.

The real question is, how do we root out racism using legal instruments? How do we use punishment, (alongside education) to stamp out racism? Normally, you stamp out racism by discouraging it and using softer methods, but a hard rule of law could also be beneficial as well. That’s a thousand-year question.

Blasphemy laws should honestly be eradicated. There's no need nor justification for killing people just because they blasphemed.

Why? With that logic, you can ban every satire alltogether because some people who are target of it dont like it.
And ban free speech right after.

Talking about religion as that seems to be a very sensitive topic for many people. TOns of Hindus are raging at their deities being used in selling T-shirts and whatnot, like Laxmi and Kali Ma (I think?) kissing or having sex with each other.

 

[shionoro]

Talking about religion as that seems to be a very sensitive topic for many people. TOns of Hindus are raging at their deities being used in selling T-shirts and whatnot, like Laxmi and Kali Ma (I think?) kissing or having sex with each other.

Tons of people are raging about The last of us 2. That's no real point. Why should a society give in to rage and threats based dogmatic worldviews?

 

[M3J]

Because religions are shit, and people use religions to justify violence? I mean, I prefer abolishing religion altogether, but it can be useful at times.

 

[hokageji]

Because religions are shit, and people use religions to justify violence? I mean, I prefer abolishing religion altogether, but it can be useful at times.

That is basically what i mean't in my poorly stated "communism gets right" post... The problem with religion is only when it refuses to evolve. Change is natural and if religion accepts it, you'd have lesser problems.
It can be useful like therapy otherwise.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 13, 2020, Original Post Date: Nov 13, 2020 ---

Ah, now I get you.
I think anti blasphemous laws are generally mistakes unless they have very clear limits.
For example, I am fine with laws against defacing a church or a mosque, or that outlaw disrupting prayer in a church or mosque.

But there cannot be any laws against mocking the belief of someone else. That would put religion on a pedestal compared to other worldviews and give a very dangerous precedent.

We see this game in other countries and not just with religion. You can go to jail in turkey for mocking erdogan.
There are already laws in many countries against inciting violence or hate against a group of people (including religious groups). I do not see why that should be extended.

For example, in Germany it is outlawed to claim that Muslims are parasites for the German state or similar things. That can be put into concrete policy (it is, in broad terms, outlawed to incite violence against a subgroup of people or generally incite hate against a subgroup of people by going against their value as human beings.
It isn't enough to just complain about people, you have to attack them in their value as human being, which is a relatively high hurdle (it wouldnt be enough to say that Islam is a dangerous and violent religion, but it would be enough to say that muslims do not deserve asylum because they are not worth it (and there are some more hurdles as well)).

But I do not see why we need laws to protect a worldview from mockery (and why only religion should be protected).
And let's be honest: It really isn't like the people who scream loudest when someone draws mohammed are the ones that would be very respectful towards other beliefs, especially nonbeliefs.

Mocking religion will always exist till there are no religions... Religion plays a significant psychological role in people's lives... I am what i call a good weather atheist.. when things are going good in my life, i dont pray and all, but the minute i get pulled over by the cops, i instantly do a namaste pose and in my mind say "god, not another speeding ticket"... but yea, i should' pray to Joe Pesci instead..

Even the catholic confession box, that's such a brilliant method to talk to people. if the priest is trained in psychology, that can help people. There are examples of such things in most religions that bring postive and a lot of us are thus wired to believe that god can help us. So the freedom to practice what makes us feel better shouldn't be curbed.
But at the same time, human mind can corrupt with power. So the government has to intervene and understand things through human rights.

I think a law must cover these things in specific manner, and even allow hate speech. We cannot pick and choose what's free speech and what's not.
The burkha ban in France was dumb, 100% People have the freedom to wear anything, so why restrict a burkha. Even if its a beach, its the people's choice and putting a restriction in a public place would be wrong. That's what France has gotten wrong in the past.

Talking about religion as that seems to be a very sensitive topic for many people. TOns of Hindus are raging at their deities being used in selling T-shirts and whatnot, like Laxmi and Kali Ma (I think?) kissing or having sex with each other.

Yea, and the irony is, gods have been represented in a sexual manner for ages... The mythology even covers weird shit that in present days would sound weird as fuck.... but the people who get offended have nothing else to do, or are politically motivated so that a story can go viral on whatsapp..

 

[M3J]

That is basically what i mean't in my poorly stated "communism gets right" post... The problem with religion is only when it refuses to evolve. Change is natural and if religion accepts it, you'd have lesser problems.
It can be useful like therapy otherwise.

I think it's mainly people who refuse to evolve. I know a lot of Muslims who are disgusted by the beheading, and a lot of Christians who are pro-LGBT+ rights, but there are also religious people/fanatics who support the violence against blasphemers and the LGBT+ communities, and they're the main problem.

Yep, you have people like HBK who found religion and became better as result.

Yea, and the irony is, gods have been represented in a sexual manner for ages... The mythology even covers weird shit that in present days would sound weird as fuck.... but the people who get offended have nothing else to do, or are politically motivated so that a story can go viral on whatsapp..

Ah, I didn't even remember that when I saw people whining about it! I guess the main issue is that it's used as a money-making scheme and feels disrespectful?

 

[Sanity Check]

The right are taking away LGBT+ rights and protections, essentially killing them without physical violence, and they're taking away or trying to take away women's rights as well. Slavery is happening, and they're protecting slavery by siding with cops and prisons. Your lack of awareness is very embarrassing.

Democrats, media and the left said Trump would put LGBTs in concentration camps if he were elected President in 2016.

People forget argentina legalized gay marriage despite having a population that is 80% roman catholic.

People also forget Stalin and leftists punished homosexuality via 5 years in prison labor camps.

I mean, my main reason for being so defensive is because of all the bigotry Muslims face every day

Because religions are shit

I wonder where anti religious bigotry comes from.

Could NEVER figure it out.

 

[shionoro]

I would really differentiate between religion and faith.

There are religious people who have faith, but faith, to me, is the spiritual guidance you apply to YOUR OWN life because you realize it is right and you try to make sense of it as well as you can.

I have talked to many religious nuts of all kinds.
I saw many violent and hateful muslims.

But I have never met a violent and hateful muslim who i judged as actually faithful and pious. The people who are deeply rooted in their faith geek out about quran suras and try to get ever more insight into the details of their faith. They don't argue with stranger in the internet and they also don't try to beat up women for not wearing a hijab, because they are busy with optimizing themselves.

The same is true for christians and other generally religious people. The people who are serious about faith are usually too busy with themselves to be a threat to others.

The problem starts when religion stops being faith but starts being politics.

 

[M3J]

WHen has religion never been politics? Ilhan Omar gets bullied by bigots for being Muslim, while Republicans try to use their outdated Christian ideals to dictate laws and all

 

[shionoro]

It is regrettable that religion plays such a huge role in politics in the US. It is not like that everywhere in the world.

The point still is that there is a difference between living out your faith and making religion a political worldview.
There is a big difference between living your life as you think god wants to or putting more effort into fighting those who do not agree with you rather than following your faith.

 

[ninjabot]

I'm one of those "respect people, not ideas" types. I do understand it's hard for people to parse the difference though, because when I say things along the lines of "religion is stupid", a devout Christian or Muslim might interpret that as me saying that THEY are stupid, which isn't my intention.

But... the alternative to getting all huffy and upset is proving me wrong. Just prove the existence of your respective chosen deities. Shouldn't be hard.

:3

 

[Sanity Check]

Why You're Christian - David Perell

David explores how Christianity forms the basis of Western thought, even among the non-religious. Read here.

perell.com

Great read for anyone interested in discussing religion.