This is my first time starting a new thread in GD, so go easy on me guys. Guys?
Anyway, here goes: What makes an acceptable belief system that people can not criticize you for having it?
Look at the following belief systems:
[ul]
[li]Nazism – not OK to believe it, not OK to not criticize it[/li][li]Communism – while sort of OK to believe it, certainly OK to criticize it[/li][li]Islam – ok to believe it, but is it OK to criticize it?[/li][li]Christianity – ok to believe it, but not necessarily OK to criticize it[/li][li]Judaism – ok to believe it, can be considered antisemetic to criticize it[/li][/ul]
So what is the breakoff point? We have freedom of religion, but does the fact that an ideology has a God behind it mean that it is immune from criticism?
Is it not OK for me to criticize Islam’s involvement in terrorism and such a vast number of the world’s violent conflicts because it is somebody’s religion? But I can make the exact same criticisms of pre90s Communism?
Hang on there. You can criticize or defend anything you want. There’s no big gang that goes around and forces you to not do so. OK by whose standards?
The point is that you criticism or defence needs to be logically sound and your principles/axioms carefully stated. When this happens, we quickly find that most people today would reject Nazism. Straightforward.
I would criticize Judaism in similar ways to my criticism of Christianity. Both would be based around logical arguments stemming from my personal framework. Both would be criticisms of the religion itself or the ideology it espouses. At no point would I actually begin to express dislike, let alone hatred, for Christians or Jews themselves. That’s what distinguishes criticism of a faith from anti-semitism, say.
There is no “immune from criticism”. There is no unacceptable philosophical idea. The method by which one pursues them however is a whole other ball game.
I agree with what kabbes said. There is no belief system that is immune to criticism.
You can believe in whatever you want, even if it doesn’t have a sound basis.
One can criticize anything one wishes to. The difference is when you actually do something about it. The nazi extermination of the jews for instance. Criticize all you want but that is when it goes too far. You’ve “crossed the line” at that point.
There is no unacceptable philosophical idea, nor an unacceptable means of pursuing one, except from within a philisophical idea.
[sub]thanks for trying to calm me down in the pit, btw, but this is the first time I am actually sure I’m right![/sub]
At any rate, there is no line to cross until one draws the line, and no lines are drawn until one has a belief system.
Well said. I’m not sure that the OP was actually looking for this to turn into an epistimology thread, but it was definitely worth saying. Until one has a belief system, one cannot evaluate any belief systems.
I feel that the OP was looking for more practical advice on the social implications of discussing unpopular beliefs. From that persepective I feel that my point was an acceptable compromise. But as I say - well said anyway.
pan
[sub]All calmed down now? I certainly didn’t expect to see YOU of all people bent out of shape by such a relatively minor provocation! I’m sure I’ve said worse to you myself![/sub]
I agree with your idea, though, kabbes[sub]sheesh, did I really kill this thread?[/sub]. It has been pretty much the idea behind the times, even if acted on in a shitty manner, to tolerate different beliefs.
I think the problem the op suggested is that certain beliefs cannot simply be tolerated without edging in on being obnoxious.
Mormons door to door, for example (never had the privilege of Jehova’s Witnesses, but I’ve known a few and we always chatted it up so I wouldn’t care), can seriously get on a guy’s nerves. I was even nice to these particular Mormons (as I would presume they don’t necessarily reflect on their brethren) and had a good discussion about Satan, their perception of Heaven and Hell, etc, for a good half hour.
I made it very clear, both before, during, and after the conversation, that this was a mere intellectual conversation and in no way implied that I actually believed in heaven, hell, or Joe Smith. That did not stop them from returning once a week for the next two months. I even mentioned, in a desperate attempt to rid my porch of their feet, that even if I started to believe in God I’d be a Catholic, thinking that surely such a comment would send them yelping. To no avail, as the mood of the tale implies.
At any rate, I still think its a personal matter of how much we can tolerate. As the op mentioned here:
Indeed. Our tolerance as a society definitely varies in practice with individuals!
Communism would be the perfect government if people weren’t corrupt and greedy. I’m probably wrong, but it seems that communism never worked because of the greed and corruption of people.
I wouldn’t think it’s OK to criticize Islam’s involvement in terroism. It’s the people that are the terrorists, not the religion. They might be doing it in the name of that religion, but there are plenty of Muslims that do not think the same way. So I think you’d want to be careful there, you wouldn’t be criticizing the religion, you’d be criticizing the people that were using the religion as motivation for their terrorism.
With Nazism, yes it’s OK to criticize it (like with any belief system), and while you probably don’t agree with facism, your main beef is probably with Hitler’s whole “kill all the Jews” policy and not so much with the National Socialist German Workers’ Party its self. (I’m not promoting or supporting Nazism [Ferris Bueller]or any ism[/Ferris Bueller] in this paragraph)
In these two cases I think (could be wrong of course) you’re getting mixed up with having a criticism of one aspect, or one group of the belief system and interpreting it as a criticism of the entire belief system.
I think you can criticize any belief system if (as has already been said) you have one of your own to compare it to. Although, I think that the more common a belief system is in a place, the less it’s accepted to criticize it. For example, I think you would find more people (in the US) willing to accept someone criticizing Islam or an atheist’s beliefs (or lack of) than you would find willing to accept criticism of Christianity.
ssj_man2k, I’ve heard that a lot too, but I’ve never read Marx or anything like that so I don’t know how true it is.
Obviously, my starting point here is not an objective philosophical one, but rather a contemporary Western one. (That is why I can say it is “OK” to criticize or believe something - from the contemporary Western standpoint.)
Maybe my question could be better phrased if I put it this way:
Take every ideology, religion or cult. And lets say I choose to vote or not vote for someone because of their belief system. Would that be OK?
I think the same scale still applies. Legitimate not to vote for someone who is a Nazi, Communist, or Facist. Not legitimate not to vote for someone because they are Moslem, Christian or Jewish. Why? Because their ideology has a god attached to it?
Why is this true? Why can’t I substitute Communism for Islam and ideology for religion in the same sentence?
curwin, I’m not entirely sure what you mean, but I was just using Islam as an example. You can vote (or not) for anyone that want to if you don’t agree with them.
Hmmmm, I’ve written a couple of responses and none of them make any sense, it’s probably too late/early for me to be trying to think. Maybe I’ll be back. Apologies if what I’ve said doesn’t make any sense.
You mean to say that if someone on Meet the Press got up and said that no one should vote for Joe Muslim for governor of Ohio, only because he is a Muslim, that wouldn’t cause a national uproar?
Or that if someone got up on Meet the Press and said that you should vote for Joe Nazi, even thought he is a Nazi, that would be considered OK?
Well, as arbitrary as it may seem, the distinction I would make is that in criticizing Muslims you criticize religious conviction, while in criticizing Nazis you criticize political disposition.
Along with greed you have basic selfishness, not in a negative form, but just in that people (at least in the Western world) think of themselves as individuals… Though in certain situations (ie: unions) people are willing to give up certain individual rights for the comforts it can bring, the basic problem with communism is that it requires all people to. It worked pretty good at the beginning in Russia because everybody was pretty poor, but you couldn’t, say, turn the U.S. communist because what white-collar stock-broker wants to be on a level field with the assembly-line worker from wisconsin?
Agreeing with Dignan, the Muslim’s I know vehemently disagree with those who would drag the name of their religion through the mud by killing innocent people. The Qur’an does give its followers the right to defend themselves, but truly not to the extent at which people “proclaiming” themselves to be good muslims have done. Lots of Christians do really stupid things in the name of Christianity (Inquisition ring a bell?) but you wouldn’t get yourself into trouble by criticizing it because anyone who truly follows Christianity would agree that those responsible for that atrocity were way out of line.
As for the OP, I think what I would have said has been stated quite clearly already by everybody else so i won’t bother
You can criticize either…The only difference is that people are usually less attached to their political ideologies (presumably cause it doesn’t mandate their place in the afterlife), so they would be more willing to admit other possibilities
Some would argue that modern religion arose as a form/support of government…If you look at certain parts of various holy books you’ll see parts that seem to be geared more toward preserving order than leading the individual toward a peaceful existence/promising afterlife.
Sure, kaje, you’re right. But my point is that religion itself gives an ideology to follow. The extention of that ideology into the social arena is politics. It doesn’t suprise me that religions were a means of control; what else is an ideology for? Historically, even, rulers were apprehensive about religions in their domain. In was a fear of uprising from devoted followers which kept most rulers from smashing the popular religions. But still, underhandedness and treachery come hand in hand with practical applications of politics. Rulers never wanted religions to get too powerful.
At any rate, I think the distinction remains. We may ctiticize how a person extends their beliefs but not the beliefs themselves.
That is, we don’t mind that Nazis only liked themselves, its when this Manichaean principle gets involved that things get messy.
I’ve been thinking about this. I think the point in religion is that it is such a personal part of your life that it becomes a definition of who you are. True adherents of a religion participate to better themselves and to focus on an internal agenda. Wheras, a political ideology is more of a viewpoint oftentimes attached to an external agenda that is subject to changing from time to time.
When someone criticizes a religion, the criticism goes deep into the person, whether or not it was intended to be hurtful. Criticism of a political party is more of a disagreement on a specific line of thought.
