Religious sensitivity

[Dean]

I've noticed that it is a very common theme to be offended by certain statements against one's religion, where similar attacks on ideologies don't draw near as much criticism. I wonder what you think about that - should religious beliefs be treated differently in this way? should we try not to offend the religious people? If you are religious, do jokes against your religion bother you?

Personally, I am a bit split. On the one hand, I am not particularly infuriated by others having religious beliefs, like some here are, so I have sympathy for those who get offended when people attack their ideas in crass ways. On the other hand, it seems like people get more upset than they should a lot of the time.

[phil22091991]

You make a fair point but it is important that it dos'nt go to far as to casue racial tension in an already fragile situation

[Yardstick]

As one of the religious people here, I'll say I don't take any offense to my religion being made fun of. I think it's important to be able to laugh at yourself.

[freakazoid]

As one of the religious people here, I'll say I don't take any offense to my religion being made fun of. I think it's important to be able to laugh at yourself.

Basically the same.

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

I think the big difference between one's feelings about a political party and their religion is that one's political party hasn't NEARLY the influence of one's religion. When a politician "switches" from Republican to Democrat, his philosophies CHANGE. Since no one has the exact same political philosophy on government there is no absolute belief between EVERYONE of that party. And one's philosophies are always KEEN TO CHANGE.
Whereas with religion, mainly with the Abrahamic religions, there are MANY absolutes: there is ONE GOD, Jesus WAS the son of God (Christianity), Muhammad was the last and true prophet of Allah (Islam), etc. These absolutes are solely due to the organization and hierarchies of these beliefs. Someone "switches" political parties, but people "convert" to religions. I think that is why when you call a Republican (US) a "bleeding heart liberal" they get annoyed, but get over it; whereas if you call a Christian a satanist or whatnot they go NUTS because the absolutes of Christianity are said to REJECT Satan. That's the real difference between politics and religion, is the wide range of difference when it comes to absolutes and fundamentalism.
One thing politics and religion has in common is when one has found their political system and is active in politics they are prone to encourage and even force their beliefs on others, as is also common with religion.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ¡Viva la Libertad!@December 26, 2007 03:49 am
I think the big difference between one's feelings about a political party and their religion is that one's political party hasn't NEARLY the influence of one's religion.
That depends entirely on one's priorities. Some people pretty much define themselves by party affiliation (labourites and tories tend to be the best at doing this).


When a politician "switches" from Republican to Democrat, his philosophies CHANGE.

When a person "converts" from Buddhist to Muslim, hir philosophies CHANGE.


Since no one has the exact same political philosophy on government there is no absolute belief between EVERYONE of that party. And one's philosophies are always KEEN TO CHANGE.

Actually there is a lot of stagnation in some people's political views - especially with tories, Republicans and whatever the local equivalent of right wing hack is in whatever country.


Whereas with religion, mainly with the Abrahamic religions, there are MANY absolutes: there is ONE GOD, Jesus WAS the son of God (Christianity), Muhammad was the last and true prophet of Allah (Islam), etc.

So? The Abrahamic religions share a philosophical basis - so what? Parliamentary party politics share some philosophical assumptions, these would be (in England) that the Prime Minister should come from the party with the most elected representatives, the Queen is the head of state and that all laws must go through both houses. Leftism starts with different assumptions, as does right-libertarianism and again market liberalism it all depends but it doesn't make the beliefs any more or less strong than religious ones.


Someone "switches" political parties, but people "convert" to religions.

That's just semantics.


I think that is why when you call a Republican (US) a "bleeding heart liberal" they get annoyed, but get over it; whereas if you call a Christian a satanist or whatnot they go NUTS because the absolutes of Christianity are said to REJECT Satan.

That depends on the person saying these things and how seriously the other person takes them. If you called someone of the Libertarian party a "fascist fuck" they'd be up in arms, possibly moreso than most Christians who get called satanist.


That's the real difference between politics and religion, is the wide range of difference when it comes to absolutes and fundamentalism.

The only difference is that religion can influence politics but not vice-versa and of course that political ideologies do not make ontological claims about the universe and God.


One thing politics and religion has in common is when one has found their political system and is active in politics they are prone to encourage and even force their beliefs on others, as is also common with religion.

They also share a certain amount of dogmatism in certain areas and the fact that people can be attached to them in varying degrees.

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

Jazzratt, I'm curious, what are your views whn comparing political and religious viewpoints? I'm not trying to interrogate you, I'm just curious.
Although you do make a point, in that religion and politics share many characteristics that define who they are, there is a core difference between changing one's political views to one's theological views. Just how they're practiced around the world shows their universal adaption to different cultures and people. Which, overall, really matters, that culture affects how religion is practied: whether it is practiced at all, for one; whether it is embraced and intertwined with government; whether it exists in a secular society; or whether it is abolished altogether. And in some existing cultures the theology and politics are so together that a theocracy is put in place, seeing the ruler as some divine figure. The same sorts of divisions also is relevant toward how political parties function within a specific culture.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:13 pm

That's the real difference between politics and religion, is the wide range of difference when it comes to absolutes and fundamentalism.

The only difference is that religion can influence politics but not vice-versa and of course that political ideologies do not make ontological claims about the universe and God.
Politics certainly influence religion. consider liberation theology, or the islamophobia and flag waiving characteristics of southern white baptist churches (at least those around here). Plus, are we really sure that abortion and homophobia came primarily from churches?

Also, political parties are often very theological, and make claims about god and the universe. Those qualifications seem to be all that something neds to be called a religion - but is that realistic, when some things which make such claims attempt to be atheistic?

Really, politics and religion are so in league - religion does eclipse three quarters of one's political mind.

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

Hey, never said that politics aren't influenced by religion. All I am really saying here is that people treat their respective religion and political party quite differently from each other in terms of how they practice it. But then again they are essentially two different variables that affect that person.