Mainstream & NonMainstream Religions and the Parameters of Reasonable Outrage

Great Debates
1

Let us assume a culture in which at least a modicum of freedom of religion exists, e.g., contemporary American society. Each individual has the freedom to embrace or reject the religion of their family of origin, or to embrace or reject one of the others that the come into contact with. (And this includes opting for None Of The Above).

I myself was raised in a family that loosely if specifically embraced Christian Protestantism (subforms=Methodist and Baptist), and chose my own eclectic brand of Wicca/Paganism instead. Let us posit hypothetical persons “A” and “B” as follows – “A” was born into a nonreligious family in the American northeast in a large city and adopted Christian Catholicism; and “B” was born in a small village in northern India where everyone in the family of origin and in the village as well was of the Sikh religion, and “B” continues to embrace it.

Segue to commercials such as discussed in this thread and other possible occasions of one’s religion being slighted, stereotyped, made light of, misrepresented, or openly derided and insulted.

Do I, and persons “A” and “B”, have reason to expect and demand that other people refrain from making any remarks or depictions of our religions that generalize, make fun of, or disparage them, or us for having chosen them?

My take on it: if (and only if) the religion of person “B” is a rare religion in the current culture and the background of the people who embrace it makes their religion an inextricable part of their culture, then person “B” has some grounds for demanding more tolerance. Person “A” and I, on the other hand, usually have no ground to stand on.

If I’m going to go around demanding that Wiccan holidays be official business holidays everywhere that Christian or Jewish hoidays are, or get offended when someone puts up cardboard cutouts of witches and pumpkins around halloween in the office, I deserve to be dismissed and laughed at. Wicca is not an established institutional religion, and some of the valid reasons for embracing it and using words like “Wicca” and “witch” to refer to myself and my beliefs have to do with attacking the concept of orthodoxy itself, and of turning the notion of heresy on its head. Having essentially said “I’m embracing as ‘good’ that which has been defined as ‘bad’ by the conventional established religion that is dominant in my culture”, I think I look pretty silly turning around and saying “I want my religion to be accorded the benefits of conventional established religions”.

If Person “A” rails against depictions of his/her religion as narrow, oppressive, sanctimonious, and/or hypocritical, Person “A” deserves to be dismissed and laughed at, too. Insofar as Person “A” has embraced a mainstream religion, that religion has a political and social impact on the world, and therefore, like a celebrity grousing about possible libel or slander, it is fair game for all but intentional lies. And since Person “A” was free to embrace or not embrace it, I think Person “A” looks pretty silly turning around and taking it as a reprehensible attack akin to racism when someone describes that religion and/or its adherents in uncomplimentary ways.

That leaves only the right not to be subjected to differential treatment or regulation specifically targeting your chosen religion without justification or debate. You should not be able to restrict me from running for office or fire me from my job because I am a self-described Wiccan. That’s what freedom of religion is all about.

Not my right not to be offended by what you may think about my religion.

2

All in favor?

[counts hands]

22,273. Opposed?

[sound of crickets chirping]
:smiley:

3

You make choosing a religion sound rather like choosing a brand of soft-drink, something that is possibly undertaken with some thought, but which can be changed if and when needed. I didn’t choose my faith (which happens to be one of the popular ones) because of the fringe benefits of being a believer, I chose it because I believe it to be the truth. My life has changed as a result of my faith, and I do consider it to be “an inextricable part of [my] culture”.

While I agree that many people are overly sensitive about fun being made of thier religious beliefs, I think that it is perfectly reasonable to be upset by someone mocking them. I guess it would depend a great deal on the tone of the joke - its purpose, if you like. Poking light fun in order to sell a product is one thing while making it appear that the follower/pratitioners of that faith are foolish or deluded is quite another.

You can think whatever you like, when you start expressing your thoughts in a manner that causes me to be offended, and I point this out to you, then the decent thing to do is to consider whether I have made a reasonable request and modify your behaviour accordingly.

Gp

4

I’m with grimpixie on this one. There’s a difference between “making fun” and “mocking”

As I am Wiccan, I feel very qualified to address your OP. I do not embrace “Wicca” to fly in the face of mainstream society, but because it is the only path that is “true” for me. For years I even hid it, because I was afraid of people’s reactions. Even in a country where you can sue for being fired from a job for your religion, many people feel forced to hide it, because discrimination is very hard to prove.

If you’re talking about good-natured humour about religion, fine. All religions look silly from the outside, when they’ve been reduced from the direct spiritual experience to their more theatrical elements.

But if you’re talking mocking and derision, and actual discrimination, then you have a problem. Universities in this country are, for example, required to give students time off for their religious holidays. Usually employers, too. I’ve always had a hassle getting Samhain, Yule, and Bealtaine off – no one takes my faith seriously. I’ve given up even trying for the lesser Sabbats, because of the hassle.

The Sabbats are not an excuse for a holiday, I usually spend these days in ritual and meditation.

I’m not saying the calendar should be altered to include our holidays, but I have a right to take my own days off. And I have the right not to expect discrimination on the basis of religion in housing, employment, or school.

Legally, I’m protected in this country, but laws without public support are difficult if not impossible to support. I don’t care if the rest of the world doesn’t consider my path the “true” religion, just so long as they recognize it is a religion. And I think I have a right to be outraged when they don’t.

5

I sort of want to take a middle course. You (generically, no one poster specifically) have the right to have whatever beliefs you want, and I have the right to think your beliefs are wrong, criticize you for your beliefs, and try to change your mind. I’m not talking about discrimination here…I don’t have the right to deny you a job or not rent to you because of your beliefs. I’m just not obligated to respect you or take you seriously.

And, of course, you have the right to be pissed at me if I don’t.

6

You call that the middle road? That type of behaviour is what makes many people upset with Christians. I say: believe whatever you want and I’ll respect your beliefs, just don’t try to push them down my throat.

7

I said that I have the right to do that…I didn’t say that it would be right of me to do that.

8

Yes, but I didn’t think that in this thread we were talking about rights; the subtitle is The Parameters of Reasonable Outrage. That is, certainly you (generically) have the right to be a jerk, but would it be reasonable of me (generically) to be outraged?

Omigods, I’m writing akademikspeak! :wink:

9

I take my religion seriously, too, and under circumstances that involve serious discussion of beliefs I will insist that mine be taken seriously (unless for some reason I don’t take the other people very seriously & therefore don’t give a damn what they think).

But if someone tried to get me to sign a petition against the performing of MacBeth because of how it portrays witches, I’d laugh at them.

If the discussion isn’t really about beliefs and spiritual truths and is instead about churches and synagogues (institutions), my chosen faith does not manifest itself in that fashion (blessed be for that) so if the existence of my religion were ignored or dismissed, even with a sarcastic or belittling comment, I would not take offense, and in most cases I’d tend to roll my eyes if someone else did.

Theologically speaking, one of the central attractions for Wicca for me is its anti-dogmatic stance. (Appropriately enough, I can only speak of this as an observed tendency within the tradition as I’ve known it, precisely because there isn’t a Wiccan Catechism or Official Holy Book in which such a stance might be written, and if it were it would constitute a paradox). I would go beyond describing it as more than merely a non-dogmatic religion, though–to me there is a fundamental incompatibility between any sort of orthodoxy in which people believe things because those things are what you are supposed to believe and this religion which emphasizes that the Divine and the experiencing thereof is natural and its methods will come naturally to the person who seeks it, who is free to develop his or her own expressions and observations.

Believing that does not make me right about Wicca, of course. On the other hand, if enough people calling themselves Wiccan describe and define it differently, I’ll call “it” something else instead rather than getting immersed in a long argument about “Wicca” per se. To me that is logically and theologically consistent with my position in general.

But if someone had (or felt they had) a gripe with people who believe that an undefined and deliberately unofficial belief system is a good and valid theology, I think that I would have no excuse for resenting it or becoming outraged about it if they said, in essence, “Wicca and its adherents are evil wicked bad people because they adhere to and promote and undefined and deliberately unofficial belief system, and we need instead to have Official Truths set forth so we can know Right From Wrong”. I would not agree with them, but I would think that they were being logically and theologically consistent in saying so.

In a similar fashion, I think other people with other religions (mainstream and otherwise) are out of line whining when someone makes a broad attack on their religion because they have a fundamental opposition to its theology, or to how its theology plays out logically in the political and social arena.

10

I do agree with captain amazing. I see no reason why I should respect or take seriously your religion. I see no reason why I shouldn’t mock it.
If you think that no religion should be mocked because people take it seriously, then logically, no kind of belief or opinion should ever be mocked, because some people will always take it seriously. No piece of humor should ever be written, displayed, broadcasted, or told except if worded in an extremely careful and respectful way. That would include humor about social groups, political opinions, lifestyle, jobs (lawyers in the US for instance), countries, public figures, situations and life events (someone could be in this situation, take it seriously and be offended), etcaetera…
Why a particular category of opinion should be above criticism and should deserve a particular respect because it’s labelled “religion” totally escapes me. The only instances when someone shouldn’t be mocked, (or more exactly when a particular caution should be exerced) are IMO when the person being mocked has no control over the thing you’re making fun of (like he’s handicapped, or belong to some ethnic group) or when the person being mocked is particulary vulnerable for whatever reason.
But you choose your religion and you choose your political affiliation. Most probably, living in a democratic country, you’re in no particular danger because of your religion/political stance, either. So, I’ve no moral issue with making fun of your religion or party of choice.

11

I think clairobscur makes my points better than I do!

12

I wasn’t refering to verbal political correctness – a sort of control of speech I find abhorrent, because limiting speech limits thought. grimpixie drew a distinction between making light fun of something, and mocking it.

I don’t object to MacBeth’s witches. I don’t believe in censorship. I don’t even mind set-up-and-punchline jokes. All I’m asking for is that Wicca receive as much, or as little, respect as other religions are afforded. Too often, my faith is put in a sub-category, and Wiccans treated as lunatics or idiots, or rebellious teenagers. It’s not hard to see why discrimination follows.

Several people have mentioned separating legal and social discrimination. As I mentioned in a previous post, I don’t think they’re separable. The legal becomes unenforcable if the prevailing attitude is one of religious bigotry.

First of all, religions are always up for debate. The problem is the singling out of certain religions for a lower status. It’s arrogance. We generally assume we ought to respect other people’s religious beliefs, because religion is the subjective experience of the divine, and it’s impossible to argue the purely subjective.

By contrast, politics can be argued, because politics are something inside our shared reality. They can be argued with evidence, historical precedant, etc, in a way that faith cannot be. On this board lately, people have been trying to argue the subjective through pure logic, and without much success, so far as I can penetrate the abstract reasoning.

Which brings me to my second point – religion is different from political beliefs because politics affects others whereas religion, in a free society, is personal. I can see arguing religion in a country where Church and State aren’t separate (or are supposed to be separate, but aren’t in practice), but in a society where religion and politics are kept apart, attacking someone’s religious beliefs is just arrogant and cruel.

If someone tries to push their beliefs on to you, to force you to join their religion, you have a right to be upset. But in general, Wiccans don’t proselytize – in fact, we’re usually a little suspicious of “newbies,” and generally wait until they’ve been around long enough to “prove themselves.” Yet, if we ask to, say, take our most holy of holidays off, we can be accused of “pushing” our religion.

A third reason why religion is considered a special category is history. Specifically, the long history of religious violence and persecution. An atmosphere of intolerance makes discriminatory legislation easier, and makes illegal violence more likely. After centuries of warfare among Catholics and Protestants, among Protestants, and of persecution of the Jews, the majority of us have decided to leave religion as a personal matter.

The religious right, having dragged religion back into the political arena, are trying to overturn this historical compromise. I sincerely hope they fail. But I think the danger is not religion but the mixing of religion with politics.