Insuting faith

[Rapscallion]

http://www.fratching.com/showthread....300#post157300

Figured a separate thread for this. Part of me initially jumped to the whole 'well, he would say that' aspect.

Can anyone come up with a decent reason that ideas cannot be mocked? For me, this seems to be about separating the person from the idea.

Are you refusing to accept the idea of something, in which case the person takes offence? Are you responsible for someone taking offence at a concept?

In the case of drawings of mohammed that sparked this latest comment from the current pope, is it the fault of those who take offence or those who do things they know will cause offence? Offence is in the eye of the perceiver, I would say, but is it ever something worthy of a death sentence?

Your thoughts.

Mine are pretty simple. If you have a belief, it doesn't affect others. You aren't allowed to draw a particular religious figure, you don't. Someone else who isn't following the rules you've voluntarily accepted is under no such restrictions and shouldn't face the punishment you would face.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

Certainly you *can* mock the faith of others, no matter what the Pope says. There are times when it's even important to do so, and whether it is or not, you certainly can't go around killing people for it. And it's not something the government should censor or punish.

But because the thread title can also be read a different way, this seems worth mentioning. (I'm having a bit of trouble seeing quite how to phrase it, though.) I've seen it argued that, since believing things that are untestable is idiotic,* calling people out on that idiocy shouldn't be considered rude. (In the areas of life where it currently would be.)

*There are, of course, quite enough threads on that already!

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I have no reason why an idea can't be mocked.

That said, mocking itself is not necessarily dialogue. So it's important to keep in mind that mockery can in itself simply be an oppressive tool if it's indiscriminate and drowns out other speech. It's not really any different in geopolitics than it is in the school yard.

[Kheldarson]

I think it's more that faith is an emotion, in a way. It is a feeling, a belief. You can't really mock someone's emotional makeup.

You can, however, mock and challenge the tenants of that faith.

[Andara Bledin]

I think it mostly depends on the intentions.

Satire and black humor are one thing.

Mockery just for the sake of showing off assumed superiority is just the person in question being a dick.

Satire such as political cartoons are using the images to try to convey a message, usually one of disapproval of actions taken.

So, really, it has nothing to do with the person's faith as much as the actions they've taken that are claimed to be based on that faith.

Fun fact: you're not supposed to depict Muhammad because it was supposed to avoid the potential for idolatry that you see so often with Jesus and Mary. Only, in the zealous following of that restriction, those who enforce it are doing precisely that very thing that was supposed to be prevented. Some of the hadith actually ban images of all living things, not just the prophets, but I strongly suspect that along with the fact that they don't seem to care much about depictions of other prophets, they utterly ignore images of people or animals.

[Hyena Dandy]

Figured a separate thread for this. Part of me initially jumped to the whole 'well, he would say that' aspect.

Can anyone come up with a decent reason that ideas cannot be mocked? For me, this seems to be about separating the person from the idea.

Religion isn't just an idea. It's part of someone's cultural and personal identity. It is, in part, who they ARE.

Having said that, I feel like the word 'cannot' here is being used more colloquially. Less "You can't fly without assistance" or even "You can't drive on the left in the US," and more "Oh my god, Karen, you can't just ASK people why they're white." Not "This is impossible/illegal" and more "This is a dick move." And when you go insulting someone's faith, you're making a dick move.

[Rapscallion]

Religion isn't just an idea. It's part of someone's cultural and personal identity. It is, in part, who they ARE.

<SNIP>

And when you go insulting someone's faith, you're making a dick move.

Are you saying that someone not of your faith shouldn't act in a certain way because of your faith?

Rapscallion

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

IMO it depends why you're doing it.

It's not any different than someone sitting for the National Anthem. If you're making a statement or you devoutly believe something, that's a good exercise of freedom of speech. If you're doing it for no particular reason other than you just feel like saying something... yea, dick move.

It's basically baiting a reaction and pretending its for a reason.

In religion, it's why I don't offer to shake hands with a Hasidic Jewish woman (or notice when I've made that mistake) and I don't constantly reference when a Muslim coworker is gone praying or schedule meetings when I know that's happening. Sure, I don't have to do any of those things, but I am saying what I think of them personally with either choice. Either I value them enough to be culturally sensitive or I don't.

The equation changes a bit though if someone is asking me to partake in an article of faith though. That I have no problem declining since that is where I would expect them to be culturally sensitive to me.

[siead_lietrathua]

...In religion, it's why I don't offer to shake hands with a Hasidic Jewish woman (or notice when I've made that mistake) and I don't constantly reference when a Muslim coworker is gone praying or schedule meetings when I know that's happening....

see, maybe this is just IMO, but to me this is not necessarily respecting their religion, so much as their individual preferences. for example, you can schedule meetings around an muslim coworker, or around someone's medical needs. you can not shake the hands of a woman because of her faith, and you can also not shake hands with the resident germaphobe. all these things come from the same sense of politeness.

however, being a decent and respectful human to other humans does not mean we have to default to respecting all concepts as sane or equal. and if we find something stupid or abhorrent, we should be allowed to voice our concerns or derision. after all, if we can mock scientologists or YEC for being "out there", to deny others the same option to mock us would be hypocritical.

[Rapscallion]

IMO it depends why you're doing it.

It's not any different than someone sitting for the National Anthem. If you're making a statement or you devoutly believe something, that's a good exercise of freedom of speech. If you're doing it for no particular reason other than you just feel like saying something... yea, dick move.

It's basically baiting a reaction and pretending its for a reason.

In religion, it's why I don't offer to shake hands with a Hasidic Jewish woman (or notice when I've made that mistake) and I don't constantly reference when a Muslim coworker is gone praying or schedule meetings when I know that's happening. Sure, I don't have to do any of those things, but I am saying what I think of them personally with either choice. Either I value them enough to be culturally sensitive or I don't.

The equation changes a bit though if someone is asking me to partake in an article of faith though. That I have no problem declining since that is where I would expect them to be culturally sensitive to me.

I think I'm more or less on the same page as you. Baiting a reaction is generally something I don't do.

The way I see faith these days, even that which is patently ridiculous, is that if it doesn't affect someone else in the short term, then I tend to ignore it.

However, it's the objective definition of insulting/being a dick that bothers me.

Where I am quite happy to judge others are those instances where it's not a personal thing. There have been examples of pharmacists refusing to dish out prescribed birth control due to their religious convictions. Faith should be a personal thing - I believe this, it affects me, not others. It shouldn't mean that I refuse a service to others because of my beliefs. It's expecting you to partake of an article of their faith.

The Hebdo thing - if you're a muslim following the standard elements of islam (whether they are or not - the image thing is debatable), then they don't draw pictures of their prophet. However, that obviously went into the territory of 'my faith affects what you can do'.

There has been at least one recent instance of orthodox jews stopping a flight because of their religious beliefs preventing them from sitting next to women, and only settling down when threatened with arrest (working from memory here, details slightly fuzzy).

In the above examples, it's pretty obvious to me who is pulling the dick move. However, where does the fact that someone feels insulted actually become a 'dick move'.

Western media traditionally uses imagery to accompany stories, so a picture of Mohammed etc isn't that far out. However, feeling insulted over this - where does that actually become a cause to say someone should be prevented from their freedoms because someone else doesn't like it?

For me, if you're a pharmacist and not willing to dole out birth control, either find a new job or make accommodations at your current place of work for someone else to cover those tasks. If you don't like the image of your prophet in newspapers, boycott those newspapers and don't read them. Don't like to fly sat next to women - again, avoid flights that have women on. It's just as much of an insult in the other direction.

On the smaller stuff - I'm usually happy to let stuff slide. Someone doesn't want my wife talking to me because I'm a bloke, it's a choice for him and her - not me, and not my problem (for example).

Choosing your battles is a good concept.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Well said, Raps.

I'd like to add on to this bit:

Choosing your battles is a good concept.

Additionally, working to be self-aware enough to understand one's own biases is also a good idea.

[Panacea]

Here's the thing, from a Christian faith perspective.

The First Amendment in the US (and others laws in developed nations) protect the right of free speech.

As a person of faith, my faith is pretty damned weak if I cannot tolerate legitimate criticism of my faith, or mocking of my faith.

Granted, as a human being I sometimes get angry. But I shouldn't. According to Scripture, I should love my enemies and turn the other cheek when injured.

That means that in Christianity, it is a sin for me to retaliate against someone who offends me by attacking my religion. It also means that I should not attack or insult the religious faith of other people, because it is divisive.

But I have the legal right to do just that.

Just because I can do something doesn't mean I should. I think it's OK for religious leaders to say it is wrong to say hurtful things about other people. If I were to say something offensive against someone else, I should try to reconcile.

But the legal right to free speech must be defended and upheld, even when that speech is reprehensible. I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. I just won't say it myself.

[Hyena Dandy]

Are you saying that someone not of your faith shouldn't act in a certain way because of your faith?

That's totally how I mean that, yes. >_<

I'm saying that insulting my faith is exactly the same as talking about f*ggots and n*ggers. So yes. If that's how you want to see it. Bigotry's bigotry.

[Andara Bledin]

I always find it amusing when those who aren't religious invest so much energy in religion-bashing.

Ideology is ideology, whether it's based on religion or science or gut feelings, etc. And once ones personal ideology passes the bounds of the personal, it should be fair game for anyone who would object to such things.

Unfortunately, those who object are often the same people who would impose their own ideologies upon the other side, with the idea in their minds that they're more right and therefore have the upper hand and a greater right to do so.

Of course, there's also differences in insulting a faith in general and a person's faith specifically. As I said earlier, pointing out inconsistencies with a person's belief system (this goes for non-theists just as much as theists, though on a different scale) can be done respectfully or not.

Unfortunately, most people just find someone who "thinks differently" and just attack them for not knowing The Right Way to do things because they're assholes with superiority complexes and tiny egos that need to beat someone down to feel good about themselves and prop up their own belief system.

[Rapscallion]

I always find it amusing when those who aren't religious invest so much energy in religion-bashing.

I can't speak for any other atheist out there, but as I noted earlier, I'll bring it up if I see something new/grievous. In this case, I thought the Hebdo situation was decent grounds for a discussion on a broader subject.

I think it amusing that without theists, there are no atheists. We don't have a specific term for non-golfers, or non-homeopaths for examples.

Of course, there's also differences in insulting a faith in general and a person's faith specifically. As I said earlier, pointing out inconsistencies with a person's belief system (this goes for non-theists just as much as theists, though on a different scale) can be done respectfully or not.

Unfortunately, most people just find someone who "thinks differently" and just attack them for not knowing The Right Way to do things because they're assholes with superiority complexes and tiny egos that need to beat someone down to feel good about themselves and prop up their own belief system.

Who decides what is too offensive? I think that's the key here. Anyone could claim that something is insulting to their faith and control others not of their faith that way. I'm not 100% sure, but the UK laws require intent to be proved for hate speech etc.

Rapscallion