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

[Sandman]

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

Originally posted by aneeshm
Simple enough question.

Today religion enjoys a special place in public discourse. Criticisms of religion are often muted, specially when of a religion which is "controversial", or "beloved of the pseudo-liberals", such as Islam.

I don't think this is true. Lots of things are mild or strongly taboo in various countries, there's nothing specific about religion.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
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.

Correction: the logos of the eternal trinity made incarnate in the form of a resurrected rabbi from the ass-end of the Roman Empire. Or, alternatively, a bunch of eternal Superfriends representing different aspects or attributes of the universal One of which we are all part. How about if I call your crack-brained oversimplifications rubbish? Is that rude?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Elok


Correction: the logos of the eternal trinity made incarnate in the form of a resurrected rabbi from the ass-end of the Roman Empire. Or, alternatively, a bunch of eternal Superfriends representing different aspects or attributes of the universal One of which we are all part. How about if I call your crack-brained oversimplifications rubbish? Is that rude?

Well, I guess that makes my point about what is and isn't considered rude in religious discussions, now doesn't it?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm

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.

That sounds exactly like traditional Judaism. Hillel vs Shamai, the Maimonideans vs the mystics, those who accepted the authority of the Shulchan Aruch vs those who rejected it, the Lithunians vs the Hassidim.

Its unfortunate, IMO, that since 1800 our disagreements have hardened into denominations, and I choose my own in part because of its commitment to plurality and debate. I do understand that there continue to be debates within Orthodoxy, but I dont agree that their limits to debate are wide enough for modern times.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
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.

Part of it is ones original relation to the tradition. Its one thing for someone familiar with a religions tradition and law, to call out a specific custom or belief that he determines to be wrong on the basis of that tradition and law.

Its quite another for someone largely ignorant of the tradition to mock it based on the approaches of his OWN culture.

NOw then there are world historical individuals or groups - Buddha, Jesus, the rabbis of the period of the Mishnah - who transform and revolutionize a tradition, and establish new bases for evalutating it - though even they keep links to the old. Few people are like this though, and its silly when some internet crank thinks their banal critiques make them a new Buddha or Jesus Christ.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


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

.

Though doing it without understanding its historical and cultural significance, the philosophies (not all misogynistic, by any means) which have evolved around it, or the role it actually plays in the family lives of those who follow it, would be silly, and would justify dismissal of your opinions by anyone who cared about the tradition. While critiquing of it by someone who WAS informed, would be worth listening to.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


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.

the first isnt a belief, its a prohibition.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Well, I guess that makes my point about what is and isn't considered rude in religious discussions, now doesn't it?

No, employing strawmen is considered rude in all types of discussions, not just religious ones.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the first isnt a belief, its a prohibition.

I know. I was pulling from this part of the OP:

Similarly, commandments on morality, food habits, and other temporal things should be open to the same rational criticism as any other ideology dealing with these things would be.

My example falls into that category.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Elok


No, employing strawmen is considered rude in all types of discussions, not just religious ones.

Obviously, Elok, I'm mostly yanking your chain (and without malice; you seem like a good guy). However, I would suggest that my crass oversimplification (minus the crassness) actually corresponds to the beliefs of more Christians than your elegant theological formulation.

[Jon Miller]

Most people, practicing Christians or not, don't put a lot of work/thought into their beleif structures. Instead, they spend their time buying the new object or watching the celeb do that thing that they wish they were doing.

JM

[Elok]

I was wondering if you were serious, Rufus. But I looked at the line in your sig and figured you'd gone off on a hard-atheist jag. Sorry about that. Really, though, most Christians do believe Christ was the son of God, and the obscurity of His incarnate form plays a rather prominent part in their beliefs. We expected a conquering general and got a small-time preacher--a small-time preacher who conquered Hell nonetheless. Idiosyncracy is part of the deal.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

My point is similar to Jon Miller's: people regard their religion as beyond criticism, yet they give less thought to the nature of their beliefs than they do to which American Idol contestant really deserves to win. Yet if one suggests those beliefs are, basically, crude superstitions, a half-step removed (if that) from astrology -- one is being "rude."

Hence the wonderful quote from Gibbon in my sig, which denigrates not Christianity but the lack of intellectual engagement most believers have with their own faith.

As for me: I'm no kind of athiest, led alone a hard one.

[Jon Miller]

One of the central points of Christianity. (in reponse to Elok's point about Christ)

JM