Should religions which dictate material affairs be treated as any other ideology?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Serious answer:

Probably because economic or whatever philosophies not rooted in religion rely on some form of empirical calcuation - eg. doing X this way will demonstratedly lead to more prosperity, etc. When the philosophy is rooted in religion, it probably discards such notions in favor of what is deemed "morally" correct.

So, to use your economic example, someone claiming to be a secular economist would be suggesting some path because they're of the opinion that it will lead to a greater net outcome. Someone who claims that you shouldn't charge interest because it's immoral doesn't give a rat's ass about increasing prosperity (or at least doesn't put it as a primary concern), but only doing what is more morally correct. The only way to attack that from a secular angle is to attack the religion as a whole.

hardly. one could first analyze whether when the believer says its immoral hes thinking in terms of A. society benefits (Millsian) B. Impact on certain classes (Rawlsian) C. The nature of the act itself (Kantian) or the structure of society (Marxian) Any one of which can be rationally debated, and all but C empirically debated. One could also explore the attitude of his faith tradition toward those 4 approaches to social justice, and whether his view his even consistent with his faith tradition. All of which are fruitful areas for discussion. Now it might be that he would say borrowing for interest is okay by A-D, but is wrong simply because its commanded, and the believer has a duty to follow the creater (Like Jews and Pork chops) Then of course one would be left with simply that "its banned" leaving the old and not socially useful question of whether that is the same as "immoral" in the broader sense. I take it thats NOT what Muslims typically say about the ban on interest (just as its not what liberal Jews typically say about redistribution) Then one COULD argue as with any secularist.

[lord of the mark]

aneeshm is there any PARTICULAR position youre thinking of. I understand that keeping it abstract may help preserve the "veil of ignorance" and avoid making this be about, say "those fanatical muslims" but different faith traditions, and different groupings within faith traditions are so different in how they approach issues of economic and social justice, and even the relationship of religious law to general morality, that I fear an abstract discussion is useless.

[Kontiki]

Well then, there you go.

[DanS]

Re: Should religions which dictate material affairs be treated as any other ideology?

Originally posted by aneeshm
Criticisms of religion are often muted

Hah!

Not from around these parts, are you?

[Elok]

Re: Re: Should religions which dictate material affairs be treated as any other ideol

Originally posted by DanS
Hah!

Not from around these parts, are you?

QFT. Especially if by "these parts" you mean Apolyton OT forum. Honestly, though, let's cut to the chase. Why don't you just tell us how this argument proves that Hindu Civilization is superior to Islam and/or The West? There's no sense in always tiptoeing around what you want to say like this.

[DaShi]

Re: Re: Should religions which dictate material affairs be treated as any other ideology?

Originally posted by DanS


Hah!

Not from around these parts, are you?

I think he was being ironic as he's one of the worst offenders.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Any religion which required the suspension of thought and criticism could never be mine

My point was more like the mere concept of being religious has a tendency to suspend thought and critical thinking.

Admitted, there are exeptions, but religion has a tendency to taint peoples thoughts.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

All religions should be treating as ideologies, and nothing more. There is scarely any difference between fervently believing in what Marx has to say and fervently believing in what the Bible, or the Koran, or the collected texts regarding the Hindu Superfriends have to say. (Except for the whole thing about Marx being rational and occasionally being right about something, of course.)

[Kuciwalker]

I'm going to call BS on that last sentence.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm going to call BS on that last sentence.

But you'd be wrong to.

[Perfection]

Religion should be criticized just as much as anything else.

[Robert]

Obviously.
But once again, I'm against the right of freedom of religion anyway.

Freedom of speech and freedom of gathering covers it all. Ban everything that's against the law of the state or nation.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
aneeshm is there any PARTICULAR position youre thinking of. I understand that keeping it abstract may help preserve the "veil of ignorance" and avoid making this be about, say "those fanatical muslims" but different faith traditions, and different groupings within faith traditions are so different in how they approach issues of economic and social justice, and even the relationship of religious law to general morality, that I fear an abstract discussion is useless.

TBH, I really wasn't thinking of anything specific when I made this thread. The examples I used I used because they were the ones that most naturally suggested themselves to me.

I'm well aware that there is too much variation within traditions for any statement to be made. The liberalism of Kautilya, for instance, is in such sharp contrast with the orthodoxy of Manu, and their attitudes so entirely different, that it is difficult to discern, at a first reading, that they are motivated by the same fundamental principles. I'm sure there are other such examples in other traditions. My point was that Kautilya did not hesitate to criticise Manu, nor did Manu hesitate in very bitterly and harshly criticising Kautilya (and I speak of not the authors, but the traditions that had sprung up around them), even though both claimed divine or moral authority. That is, nobody was muted in his polemic due to the other basing himself on acknowledged authority.

The Charvakas were very, very mocking when talking about what could be called theistic traditions. There is a custom of offering food to the ancestors. They mocked this by saying, if food so offered reaches the ancestors, then travellers should not carry any food, they should just ask their family to make an offering to them every day. They also said that if the horse sacrificed in the AshwaMedha goes to heaven, then why does not the person conducting the sacrifice offer his own father instead? For all this, however, they were not considered somehow "lesser" than others.

The Buddha did not hesitate to completely discard and reject a huge number of revered traditions which he thought wrong. Nobody thought he was rude for saying that.

Should this not be the standard?

I made the thread because calling Communism rubbish will not make you look really rude, but calling a religion's commandments on the temporal world will.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by aneeshm


I made the thread because calling Communism rubbish will not make you look really rude, but calling a religion's commandments on the temporal world will.

No it won't. Calling a religion's prohibition on men touching menstruating women rubbish isn't rude.

But calling a religion's belief that the universe is ruled by a dead rabbi from the ass-end of the Roman empire -- or, alternatively, by a bunch of eternal Superfriends -- rubbish? Now, that's considered rude.

And when you think about it, the first belief isn't nearly as rubbish as the second.

[Jon Miller]

Implicit in your conclusion of it being rubbish is that it is false.

JM