Religious Hatred

[James Connolly]

There seems to be an untethered aura about this subject for the left.

The question is, should we persecute religious hatred like we do racism, or should such hatred be an open practice?

When I was younger, and a strict militant Atheist, I burned several copies or the Quran and Bible. I, of course, now view such actions as detrimental to the cause, as it antagonizes Socialism to religious Proletariat. Would such actions be considered 'religious hatred?'

[Zostrianos]

Religious hatred and fundamentalism is a major societal evil in the modern age, and should definitely be fought.

[Aristophenes McTwitch]

I think if what you are saying is blatantly unscientific, unsubstantiated in fact, and hasn't been proven yet, you can't be allowed to say you believe in it without facing ridicule or derision. Its downright dangerous for a society or civilization to tolerate such blatant lies from clergy.

[Blake's Baby]

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Our target can't really be 'the religious' or even the symbols of religion. Burning the Koran is no more useful than burning the flag. It's a symbolic protest that's all, in most cases I'd think a counter-productive tactic.

Arguing against idiocy, however, is right and proper. That doesn't require stunts but a cool head.

Should people who beat up other religions be allowed to do it? No.

Should the desecration of religious symbols be allowed? Yes, just like burning flags should be allowed. No-one is harmed by the desecration of symbols. Should we do it, if we're think we're so smart and have the future of humanity in our hands? Of course not, it's stupid.

[Philosophos]

It's not religion's fault or God's existance (even in the heads of the religious people) that causes all this bad things happening in this world. It's all about the stupidity of people and how the big heads each time want to manipulate the small people.

In dark ages church was the main institution so they guys in charge of everything used the church to gain all the benefits they could. The same goes today but people are not manipulated from church but from companies (ofcourse there some idiots extremists that want to burn queers, jews, blacks and everything different than them but they were and always be here we can't really do something about it). As for muslim extremists you can't really blame most of them they basically live in the dark ages.

So once again we have to fight stupidity not religion itself. If someone wants to believe in any god that's he's personnal opinion.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There seems to be an untethered aura about this subject for the left.

The question is, should we persecute religious hatred like we do racism, or should such hatred be an open practice?

When I was younger, and a strict militant Atheist, I burned several copies or the Quran and Bible. I, of course, now view such actions as detrimental to the cause, as it antagonizes Socialism to religious Proletariat. Would such actions be considered 'religious hatred?'

That particular act of burning religious items in protest of basically conservative beliefs embedded in some of the major religious institutions of those religions... is a symbolic act against some ideas. I don't think it's helpful for us for the reasons you state as well as in particular because anti-Islamic arguments are used to bolster racism and imperialism in the US, UK, and France to name a few. In addition the kind of crude anti-Christian sentiment that has become more widespread thanks to the Bush Admin (Ironically) I think tends to divert real concerns over homophobia and sexism to simply blaming "backwards religious people" which leads to some elitist ideas but even if it doesn't it let's the ruling class and the realities of how these ideas take hold in our society off the hook. Often the people here in the Bay Area who are most anti-christian right, forget the "right" part and blame "religious fanatics" for what is really a secular bi-partisan agreement by our leaders - the religious right just acts as a propaganda machine and organizer of a social base for these poltics, it doesn't drive these policies.

In general though I think hating a religion or religious members needs to be evaluated based on the circumstances surrounding it. Is it the same are racism if gay activists target and protest christian organizations or religious groups who back anti-gay policies? The right-wing has this new argument that to allow gay people to be teachers and teach christian children or to allow gay people to be doctors or just to be openly gay is the same as "persecuting Christians". There's a lawfirm here in Oakland that is trying to set precidents in the law for removing gay teachers or allowing students to opt-out of classes taught by gay teachers on the basis of "it goes against their religion". This is utter bunk and the usual bizzaro upside-down arguments common with apologists for oppression who always try and paint themselves as the "real victims" of intolerance.

So obviously here is a case of "religious persecution" that is not in any way persacution and is, in fact, using religious beliefs as a smokescreen for reactionary politics. So if people attack the religious ideas rather than specifically the politics, then I think it's a weak and misplaced approach, but it's not the same as oppressing people because of their religion.

So when considering this question, I think the relationship to the religion and the religious group to the actual material conditions of society and the ruling order of that society are the most important things. It's possible to on the one hand defend Irish Catholics from 2nd class status due to their religion in one instance while also protesting the Catholic church for support of repressive regimes or anti-woman policies etc. The difference is not in the ideas or beliefs obviously since they are the same in both examples, the difference is the context and relationship to various ruling orders.

If a non-ruling religious minority is being attacked in a way that's legitimately oppressive, I think we need to defend those people in principle. First such a defense will counter any benefit the ruling class gets from dividing people against each-other, second it will earn us legitimacy and respect for our principles and solidarity and through fighting oppression I think we can also show people that the response to religious bigotry doesn't need to be more insularity and turning more towards the religious group, but that that insularity actually hinders things and it's much more effective to fight back openly and politically.

[Thirsty Crow]

There seems to be an untethered aura about this subject for the left.

The question is, should we persecute religious hatred like we do racism, or should such hatred be an open practice?

When I was younger, and a strict militant Atheist, I burned several copies or the Quran and Bible. I, of course, now view such actions as detrimental to the cause, as it antagonizes Socialism to religious Proletariat. Would such actions be considered 'religious hatred?'
As far as your actions are concerned, it seems to me that they're somwhere in the gray area since no actual call for a kind of violence (directed to religious communities; anyways, I can't see that it was from your post) was involved.

And in general, this doesn't relate as much to emotions (hatred in itself), but to ideological expressions aimed at producing certain action. This is why I cannot subscribe to the naive and abstract notion of the absolute freedom of speech - because in practice it is aimed at destructive results for a particular community. And I think this should be persecuted, but I won't get bent out of shape screaming at the representatives of the bourgeois state that they should sign an act. In other words, I think that emancipatory power and ability of self-defense of endangered communities should be fostered without open reliance on the state (of course, you won't cry, nor argue against, the pigs taking away a racist scumbag and locking him up) and political calls aimed at it.

But I also think that hate speech is context dependent. I don't see a reason why should such a person be persecuted if it were clearly shown that the great majority of those people he/she address are actually against such ideas and actions. Keep an eye on him/her, but I don't see a need for an immediate regulatory action.

[Goblin]

Militant atheism is just as bad as militant theism. so yeah.

[Blake's Baby]

People keep answering this question as if the OP means "should 'hatred by the religious' be tolerated?" when I'm now absolutely certain that the OP means "should 'hatred of the religious' be tolerated?".

[Clarion]

Assuming you mean what I think you mean, no.

The freedom to criticise religion must not be restricted.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'm not in favor of promoting hatred of practitioners, but criticism of religious attitudes is healthy and improves the human condition if it grounded in sound theory. A Christian listing the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, for instance, aside from practicing hypocrisy, is perpetuating attitudes that, in the West at least, serve as justifications for imperialist intervention and racism.

[Rottenfruit]

Depends on what is meant by hatred, psychical violence,immidtation,discrimtonray policiyes no illegal.

But harsh criticism of religion,ridicalue,and even mean spirited mocking of relegious sects yes of course of legal

[Rottenfruit]

Militant atheism is just as bad as militant theism. so yeah.
WHich has killed more and caused more suffering in the world ? :laugh:

[StalinInAScarf]

Without Religion, we wouldn't have as many wonderful hats. What has Atheism given us, Hats? I don't think so.


A campaign to inform those of their Religions errors, and textual fallacies is a good start. Those who rely on Faith alone, well, I don't see them ever changing unless something truly shakes that faith.

[Niall]

I voted yes because I dont agree with hating someone based on their religion

[Luís Henrique]

People must be free to hate whatever, unless it leads to actual action.

Trying to guess what is in people's minds and punish them for whatever is there is much worse than any hatred.

Luís Henrique