Religion Anti-Religious Threads. Alternate views.

[Mikawa Ossan]

On the "Anti-Religious Threads. Enough Already?" thread, this issue is being discussed, but it has been raised that sabro and SVF are not allowed to respond to each others' threads. Due to this, at least a significant part of the discussion is being missed.

Therefore, I have opened this thread so that SVF (and perhaps others) also have a place to expouse their views. I think it only fair.

 

[kirei_na_me]

In one way, I really hate to see this thread, as it is a rebuttal to a rebuttal thread, and all these rebuttals are making me dizzy. It's so much like the petty behavior when you are mad at someone you're right next to, and you use a third party to do the talking for you, even though every word you say can be heard by the one you don't want to talk to. Know what I mean?

On the other hand, though, I like this thread, because even though I think it's kind of bad to be so condescending toward other people's religions, I do think all sides should be discussed. We can't show favoritism to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, etc. Each should have their say-so, BUT, each one should have their say-so without being nasty about it.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Well, hopefully this issue can be resolved soon. I certainly hope so. This thread has been started with the intention of facilitating that resolution. I agree 100% that there is no need to get nasty. That goes for all parties involved.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Thanks, Mikawa, for opening this thread.

First of all, I do not accept the terminology of "anti" as it pertains to my threads. The prefix goes about to make the person putting thier view across as negative for something rather than positive for something. That is why "pro-life" supporters do not accept the label "anti-abortion" by the pro-choice side because they do not accept being defined as such. "Pro-choice" persons would also object to being defined as "anti-life." As it comes to religion I am clearly "pro-choice" -- as each person has the right to decide for themselves what to believe.

At the same time I am pro-freedom of speech and expression -- so long as people do not incite panic and others to commit acts that result in violence that could cause physical injury or death. I would never say anyone has the right to scream, "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre.

 

[Revenant]

Freedom of speech and expression definitely have their cons as well as pros. Can someone make another angry, depressed, or unconfident with but a few words? Absolutely! We hope that those who enter into debates of a heated nature would carefully think things through and sugarcoat their objections. The point is discussion, and not prosecution, interrogation, or any of that other stuff.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Now, some seem to think that religion should only be talked about in an academic sense. Well, what does that mean and who is going to be the judge of what an academic sense is? I am a college graduate and have 4 years of experience of being taught by professors of academia(again, whatever that means) and my professors ran the gauntlet of various styles of instruction.

Some were boring as they were so politically correct from tip toeing across peoples` feelings that some slept in class, cut class after a few weeks, or just dropped the course. I also noticed that those were the professors who had fewer and fewer persons enrolling in their courses.

On the other hand though, those professors that did step on peoples' toes with some very controversial remarks, witticisms, and strong positions and even sometimes relentless positions with strong debate styles in instructing their students, were quite popular, causing few to sleep, and even fewer to cut classes. Their courses were always full and few people dropped out. I, and I suspect most people, do learn more from those kinds of professors.

Of course there are those who like the boring style of verbose meandering sentences with words where you have to work hard to decipher what they are saying. Those persons who do like those will find those professors entertaining, but I am one who does not. I don`t think anyone should be forced to change their style of controversy and witticisms to the perceptions of someone elses` definition of academic -- thinking that examining the root words and the meanings of biblical words is what qualifies something as academic and all else not so.

When I see comments insinuating things should be discussed "academically" according to what they think is an "academic" discussion by their opinion (and boring and a chore by mine), then I view those comments as snobbery.

A question to ponder though, what if someone joins the forum tomorrow and wants to discuss religions but has no academic background whatsoever? No college, no highschool or even no junior high school, but has just the ability to read and use their own mind of reasoning? Should that person not be permitted to put forth their opinion? Do they have to just take the cue and lead from others who proclaim themselves as conversationalists in academia[/b]? Are those persons supposed to sit on the sidelines of the discussion just because they can`t, never had the opportunity to learn or experience academic styles of discussion?

To suggest that, which is the implication which has been offered, is snobbery and censorship in that it attempts to silence and exclude or limit discussion.

 

[Revenant]

When I see comments insinuating things should be discussed "academically" according to what they think is an "academic" discussion by their opinion (and boring and a chore by mine), then I view those comments as snobbery.

You're just stepping all over toes today!

I am not academic, and actually far from it. Still, even though I am not terribly acedemic, I usually do manage to put across objections to someone in a non-offensive way.

To me, part of the draw of the Dalai Lama is that he can object to something in layman's terms without being offensive. Most everyone finds the Dalai Lama easy to listen to, and easy to read. Not many find him borng at all (never heard anyone speak badly of the Dalai Lama, and most come away having enjoyed his lecture).

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Freedom of speech and expression definitely have their cons as well as pros. Can someone make another angry, depressed, or unconfident with but a few words?

The forum community is a microcosm of the world. Yes, you are right, people can get angry, depressed, or unconfident because some words on a topic touched them in a way they did not feel pleasing. However, in formal debates in the real world people do at times debate harshly and at times do use humor and some mockery. They may do this to shock or entertaine or to even frazzle the opposition (not with the intent of insulting them, but with the intent on tripping them up in their line of reason as their emotions get the better of them)

I have seen and watched many debates, not to mention the many commentaries people give on subjects. And in the world, it is acceptable to be quite strong in debating as long as expletives, pajoratives, and threats are not issued. Rush Limbaugh (don`t like him), the most popular radio talk show host on the air with high support from the Christian right, routinely refers to his opponents in mocking manner, often giving them disparaging nicknames such as Swimmer (Kennedy, in reference to Chapaquita), Mr. Bill Clinton (in reference to Hillery) and a host of others. And he does not just stop with names. He strongly satires and parodies the democrats, environmentalists, and feminists. He does this consistantly over the years and his base of supporters, mostly Republican Christians approvingly give him the highest ratings in his market.

Now, you tell me why he is so popular amongst Christians when what he does is being criticised by some Christians or their qlique supporters here? If it is so bad then why is it permitted and rewarded on a national level?

I don`t agree with Rush` views on most things, but he has not used vulgar words, pajoratives, or threats, so I feel he is totally right and should be permitted to continue his style. It is up to him so long as he does not do those three above things.

Absolutely! We hope that those who enter into debates of a heated nature would carefully think things through and sugarcoat their objections.

I do think my words carefully through before I write them. Have I mispoke on an occassion or two? Probably. I won`t claim perfection. But I will not say I am violating some sacred line that exists in regards outside those three points above. And I do not agree that people should "sugarcoat" their objections. That is an opinion and I think many would not agree with that.

Personally, I think that arguments should make their points as if they are an ax coming crashing down (a quote by a famous person). A lot share that sentiment as well.

The point is discussion, and not prosecution, interrogation, or any of that other stuff.

It can be discussion, but it can also be debate, and it is well known by now by many who visit the categories I post in, that I debate strongly straight to the point and that I invite and seek it out in the categories that interest me.

"Interrogation" in the sense of a series of short choppy questions is quite all right and acceptable as a part of debate. I have seen it often used.

"Prosecuting" an idea is not bad either. Perhaps you are referring to PERSECUTING a person, which is. But to "prosecute" an idea or opinion you feel is wrong is merely destroying the premis it rests on so that it is neutralized.

I am of the opinion that all black leaders or any person who were against slavery or civil rights, when they put forth their rhetoric with emotions, they were fully right in doing so without sugarcoating their contempt for the system and way of life that was holding them down. Ideas are fair targets for one to take aim at with the intent of destroying. Likewise, I am for anti-whaling, and I could say that some comments in those threads or animal rights threads were insulting to me and my belief for the sanctity of life for animals, but that insulting feeling in me is my responsibility and those persons who said those things to me had every right to do so. Why should they be beholden to my degree of sensitivity? I don`t think they should and I don`t think any topic should be singled out for special consideration over any other. Because, what is dear to one person is not to another and what is not to one is dear someone else. It is a tangled web of emotions and sensitivities and equality must reign.

If you think an opinion is wrong, or one in which the world would be better off without, then by all means it is quite all right to undermine it with critical examination and skepticism on its claims in your debate with your debate partner. There is nothing wrong in attempting to destroy a person`s position on a topic when you are trying to move them on the spectrum of beliefs. "Sugarcoating" does not do the trick. And no great changes in history came about by "sugarcoated" words on things viewed as social ills by others.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

To me, part of the draw of the Dalai Lama is that he can object to something in layman's terms without being offensive. Most everyone finds the Dalai Lama easy to listen to, and easy to read. Not many find him borng at all (never heard anyone speak badly of the Dalai Lama, and most come away having enjoyed his lecture).

I am not the Dalai Lama and am not going to pretend to be him. He has his way. Fine. I have my way. Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio personality in the U.S. whose base of support is CHRISTIAN has his way (which shows much more harshness towards groups with his rhettoric than I have shown) and he is not rapped by Christians crying for tolerance and sensitvity for him for his targets of discussion.

This world is a salad dressing of different ways. I would hate to be in a boring world where all ways are exactly the same, just as Christians would hate to think they had to be in a world where all religions are the same -- if they were forced to be of only one sect (unless they were lucky and the sect forced was their own).

Again, I do not throw expletives, pajoratives, or threats at people. Those are the guidelines that allow freedom of speech to go on quite fine.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

If someone made threads and posting critical of Japan that offended me because I am in love with the country, I wouldn`t seek to say you have to not offend people who like Japan. If I believe that Japan did not committ all the atrocities people think they did and find it insulting that they post those crimes, should my opinion and sensitivity cause it to be stifled, in effect censoring it? I don` think so?

What about all threads or posts which are critical or hint at a negative view of Japan? Yasukuni, Comfort Women, Discrimination, North/South Korea, Apologising etc... What if the way those persons are discussing those topics bothers me? Should my sensitivities be allowed to bully down strong opinions against Japan? How about Europe, the U.S., the Iraqi War, etc...

I know some may say, "we are not saying you can`t be critical of religion, you can, but that your style offends some..."

And my reply to that is already written above in previous posts. Who judges and how can it be done so because why should one or a group of people`s sensitivities be given more weight than anothers or a group of others? It is all to subjective and all I have discussed in my way is not anything that could not or has not been discusssed in similar manner in public. Again, look at the rhetoric of many popular radio/tv personality hosts. Their commentaries are often biting and harsh and mine do not regularly even come close to matching their level.

The internet, more than traditional media, should seek to be even more inclusive and accepting than traditional media of voices for it allows an outlet for everyone and the many styles that exist amongst us -- not jus the snobby academics, but also the ones that talk straight to the point.

I have listed three things that should, and I think most people would agree ( expletives, pajoratives, and threats), never be used. Rhetoric targeting ideas and opinions are fine and styles should be permitted to be varried. Let those who like to write and read the "so-called academic" threads if they will, and let those who enjoy the spunky lively ones do the same for theirs as well. The forums are a large place with thousands of threads. IT is big enough to hold all of us.

There is the old maxim, "If you don`t like what is on TV, don`t turn it on. You have the power." People do not have to click on my threads or read my posts anymore than they have to turn on TV after seeing the TV guide that an objectionable show is on. They are empowered to scroll down or click on a different thread. I am not responsible for their lack of discipline.

 

[Revenant]

However, in formal debates in the real world people do at times debate harshly and at times do use humor and some mockery. They may do this to shock or entertaine or to even frazzle the opposition (not with the intent of insulting them, but with the intent on tripping them up in their line of reason as their emotions get the better of them)

But in actuality, if someone actually does have an excellent argument, but loses it due to being emotionally tripped up, have we not then lost an excellent point?

American politics have changed a lot, and I feel that witty remarks are held in higher esteem than reason in some debates. That to me seems wrong. I read a thread in which one politician actually apologized for misinterpreting what the other said, but that took place years ago.

As to Rush Limbaugh, I have only heard his name. From what I have heard, I don't think I would put much stock into anything he says, or even set aside any time to listen to him. He is simply a media hack, much like Michael Moore.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

But in actuality, if someone actually does have an excellent argument, but loses it due to being emotionally tripped up, have we not then lost an excellent point?

It is possible. But if the view of the debater who does not believe his opponent`s argument is such that he is seeking to move people on the spectrum of beliefs, his goal is to move people to his side and not specifically make it easy for his debate partner. Some debaters may not adhere to this, but some do. I don`t always, but there are times when I am not going to make it easy for my opponent. It is a decision call in each exchange and just merely strategy. To do so or not to do so is not wrong, it is merely a choice.

American politics have changed a lot, and I feel that witty remarks are held in higher esteem [than] reason in some debates. That to me seems wrong.

I think a mix is good. However you think on the topic, either one is not bad in itself. Listen to Bill Mahr or George Carlin talk about religion. They are not censored and they enjoy large followings for their witty comments on religion and other topics stepping on the toes of many sensitive people.

As to Rush Limbaugh, I have only heard his name. From what I have heard, I don't think I would put much stock into anything he says, or even set aside any time to listen to him. He is simply a media hack, much like Michael Moore.

Like I said, I don't agree with his views and do not put stock into them. However, it is naive to say that his rhettoric, often harsh and caustic to those he offends, does not cause people to be influenced and the fact that his supporters who are mainly from the Christian right do not try to reign him in, shows us that the call from Christians for sensitive tolerance is a hypocritical one wanting only such protection for when their group is under harsh scrutiny and subject to the same language and style their idol often utilizes.

He may be a media hack, but his popularity and his followers has defined what is acceptable as forms of rhettoric, discussion, and debate. The internet should not post stricter rules than what normal talk radio has for itself. The internet should be more inclusive to opinions and styles, baring, expletives, pajoratives and threats.

Come to think of it, I have never even called anyone a liar here. But, a certain person has and does seem to think that is acceptable to do even when they do not have any privy information to that person`s inner mind and intent. Calling someone an outright liar is pretty harsh.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Now, another member has brought up the concern that he feels the forum is less now because he thinks some Christians or Muslims were driven away by the critical style of discussion here when it came to raising questions about their faith. That is too bad that they could not handle the criticism of their beliefs, but they should not enjoy anymore protection than any other group here that has come under criticism for posts and threads directed at them.

I could say the same thing for environmentalists in the whaling category. They have been the target of some criticism which I personally could find offensive since that, too, is a subject dear to me. Have there been cries going up to set rules up and protect their sensitivities in that category? Of course not -- and their should not be -- just as there should be no special treatment or rules set up for the sensitivities of religionists.

Look at the threads critical of Japan. Should there be a special rule now set up to protect the sensitivities of those who love Japan? Of course not.

I don`t agree with flag burning, but should there be rules and laws passed all over the world to protect each countries flag as sacred and no one should be able to express their feelings about that country by using the flag to burn? I don`t think so and apparantly most do not think so. People who are too sensitive to ideas that are expressed and therefore seek some way to censor and control those ideas, either be it what they say or how they say it, are in effect being insensitive to the idea of freedom of speech.

If it does not throw expletives, pajoratives, and threaten, or even defame someone personally, all discussion and ideas should be respected and given the right to be put forth in the unique style of the presenter -- be it serious, humoruous, spunky, satiracle, parodying, "academic" (whatever that means and whoever values what they think that means <snicker snicker>), or a mixture of them -- should be respected and let to proceed without throwing up the roadblocks of cencorship.

 

[Reiku]

Frankly, I don't think religion should be discussed at all.

I yet to meet someone who could handle the subject maturely when faced with beliefs that directly contradicted theirs--myself included.

Discussing religion is a bit like having sex--it just shouldn't be done until you're mature enough to understand what you're getting yourself into.

...and since having sex is a lot more enjoyable than discussing religion, I just can't see any reason for it. :blush:

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As to religion should not be discussed at all:

That is a knee-jerk reaction and one of just fear.

It is quite ok to discuss religion and their sacred books so long as people do not use expletives, pajoratives, and threaten one another.

So many things in society have a religious side to it. Look at abortion. Pro-life supporters often base their belief that abortion is wrong and tie it to the sanctity of life and think it is in violation of "Thou shalt not kill." Look at the hijackers of the flights on 9/11 -- or many of the other terrorist attacks, not to mention regional troubles and animosities from decades and centuries past.

The news is teeming with articles that have religious undertones and causes to the stories. Surely, it is quite fine to discuss the validity of those beliefs which sometimes delude people into seeing 'truth' where that does not seem to exist for the rest of society grounded in reality.

For those who self admit that they are not mature enough to handle the topic, they are invited to not click on the threads of those topics.

 

[Revenant]

Despite a lot of subtle or overt protests, you obstinately refuse to change your posting style. So unless someone can change your mind, or the administrators decide to set different rules to these discussions, we are then just going to have to accept that these discussions have moved from civil discourses with both sides attempting to understand each other, to 'Rush Limbaugh' style posts (don't think Rush leaves much room for understanding or friendly discourse with non-Christian Liberals). One obviously doesn't need pejoratives, expletives, or threats to negate opportunities for friendly debate.

 

[Mars Man]

Wow...at first sight I had thought this thread a double take or repeat of some sorts.

Mikawa san, I'm not sure if this is a thread that I could add to much (or should be on) unless you could please explain your purpose for opening it with a little more explanation. Of course I think I know what you had in mind, but that OP seems to leave a bit too much wandering room.

I would appreciate your help there. Thanks !

But, a certain person has and does seem to think that is acceptable to [call another a liar] even when they do not have any privy information to that person`s inner mind and intent.

Yes, strongvoicesforward san, that is right on the mark. As I had struggled to help you see back on the 'Virgin Mary' thread, it is the intent within the mind of the source that makes the reality. Good point !!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Despite a lot of subtle or overt protests, you obstinately refuse to change your posting style.

I would reword it to: Some people are obstinately refusing to accept free speech, unique styles and are continually lobbying for special treatment of their special interest. I have extensively outlined all those points in detail above and instead of addressing them each you are deciding to make a general statement.

General statements are good for glossing over the details, but in most cases, they are done so so as to not to have to deal with the argument at hand on the points relevant to it. You have left a lot unaddressed.

So unless someone can change your mind, or the administrators decide to set different rules to these discussions, we are then just going to have to accept that these discussions have moved from civil discourses with both sides attempting to understand each other, to 'Rush Limbaugh' style posts...

I am civil. Of the more than 1,000 posts I have here, you may find one or two, possibly three breeches -- if that. Surely more than 95% of all my posts are civil. The style is straight to the point without tip toeing, that is for sure -- but that does not define something as uncivil.

You have missed my point on using Rush Limbaugh in my paragraphs above. I used him to show what is acceptable in public forums. I have not said I go to his level. He clearly takes more liberties than I. Besides from using him as an example as to what is allowed in public forums, I also pointed out that since his audience of supporters are mostly Christian Right, that the bounds for what is acceptable by Christians is clearly more than my style here.

(don't think Rush leaves much room for understanding or friendly discourse with non-Christian Liberals).

lol. That is because he has a "dump button" and a "screener" to keep them from him so they can`t address him. If he did, you would probably find that his opponents are more disciplined than him. However, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that unique styles, even when somewhat abrasive, are acceptable to a degree in public forums -- and the large majority of Christian Right support Rush. They do not censor their own for reigning them in when they are insulting others, but when they are the topic at hand for criticism, they want protection.

Again, look at the whaling thread. A lot of flippant and sometimes things said there I could see as uncivil. No crying for protection. And I don`t see you crying for protection over there. Why are you being selective? Is it only the sensitivities of religionists that should be protected? I don`t think so.

One obviously doesn't need pejoratives, expletives, or threats to negate opportunities for friendly debate.

Friendly debates can be straight to the point of the matter. They do not have to tip toed about and just because things heat up a little in no way makes it an unfriendly debate, until those three parameters above you just listed are violated. Those are good yardsticks to measure by because they are concrete and not very open to interpretation.

Just saying that "you can`t say something to offend the sensitivities of someone" is too subjective. I don`t think it is right that someone can voice there opinion in an absolute if that is what they believe. Why should everyone be required to add, "I think," or "IMO" to every statement?

Some get offensive at things and not others. We can@t be in a rule where we are guesssing at what everyone can handle.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Mikawa san, I'm not sure if this is a thread that I could add to much (or should be on) unless you could please explain your purpose for opening it with a little more explanation. Of course I think I know what you had in mind, but that OP seems to leave a bit too much wandering room.

I think it is quite self explanatory, MM. But, if Mikawa-san feels he has failed in clarity, I guess he will expand upon his reason for it.

Others were agitating for censorship and that agitation was unwarranted, I thought. It is no mystery that those comments were referring to me since I am apparantly the one who has prompted the posting of them. This allows me to explain why all those comments were and are without merit.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for the reply there strongvoicesforward san, let's see what happens.

Am I correct in taking your referent for "comments referring to me" to be those that sabro had posted on his 'Anti-religious threads--enough?' thread?