The Problem with Protecting the "Sacred"

If I had a statue of Umbridge I would at least place it in a bonfire a few times.

Few literary characters have ever inspired such hatred. Everyone hates Umbridge.

Anyway, I think the Anti-Blasphemy laws are rather stupid.

Not that I'm going to blaspheme(?) anyway. It's rather rude and hurtful to people of the religion in question.

Unless, of course, it's someone like Westboro Baptist Church or similar crazed and offensive religious groups. I would probably insult them volubly, thunderously and at great length.

But most people are nice and don't try to shove religion down everyone's throats, so I see no reason to avoid doing things like blaspheming. It doesn't harm or cost me anything, so why not be polite?

edited 12th Jun '12 2:27:45 PM by Matues

You would insult them, though, not Jesus or God. That's what they do by stating that God stands for their nonsense.

Yes, but I can't promise I wouldn't say something like that. Especially if I thought It would offend them.

I'm petty and spiteful when I'm angry.

<cautious antitheist hat on>

The problem is, a given religion can by itself be a source of frustration for some people. When those people wish to lash out at the source of their frustrations, is it not better that they attack the symbols of the religion itself rather than its adherents?

<cautious antitheist hat off>

edited 12th Jun '12 2:42:39 PM by pagad

@Carcio: Well, here's the problem. Why are they allowed to say that the LGBTQ are everything that's wrong with the country if we're not allowed to say that their god is everything that's wrong with the country?

I don't think I'd ever burn a Bible or anything like that. At least, I wouldn't do it for no reason.

Once, I and my dad cleaned up our cottage, we piled all kinds of stuff into a huge bonfire and spred the ashes as fertiliser on the area where we were planting trees. If there had been a Bible in the house, I might very well have burned it among the other trash. Especially if it was in a bad condition.

But I wouldn't burn a Bible just to spite someone, that'd be pointless.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Spain is a party, says:

It looks to me like Spain has decided to violate an international treaty.

You shouldn't do either if you're a decent enough person. As for why...history and sheer power. That is why. The various churches happen to hold a bigger base of power and, like with orientation and gender identity, people get pissy if you insult their faith. Hopefully one day we can live without such accusations being made, especially so lightly.

As for attacking symbols as opposed to people...This is preferable yes, though I feel it is more that you should attack particular behaviors and ideas than the symbols. I don't believe it's so much that it's Christianity as a whole that causes issue, but certain views of the faith and the thought patterns said views can bring up that is the issue at hand.

You don't believe that, no. Other people aren't necessarily going to deflect their placement of the blame for a particular grievance on a more external factor like how the tenets of the religion in question are interpreted. Yes, personally, I believe the root cause for this kind of stuff lies closer to home, but that's neither here nor there - what you or I believe in this regard is irrelevant. The point is that people are not going to agree on what they believe is an acceptable target.

And I'm fine with that. They can voice their opinions and I will voice my belief that they are misguided and only worsening the situation.

(I thought my role in this thread is finished, but I'll just leave here this picture◊)

I wonder how long this law would be supported if the Pastafarians decided to make use of them.

I can't imagine the judge's face though.

Here's the deal though, there are different ways to show respect.

One of the best ways to show respect in my opinion is to ignore them. I try and ignore the Gideons who would come on my campus. But sometimes they were just damned pushy.

I'll never forget hearing how my two Atheist professors when offered a bible answered. One said he had already read it. The other said he had already disproved it. That day there were tons of bibles found all over campus stuffed behind benches, in the restrooms, and in the trash.

I will respect the person but their gear is fair game to me. The very professor who said he disproved the bible is also the same one who would throw a bible and jump on it at the beginning of certain classes to weed out the people who couldn't handle what he was about to teach them. I don't see it as rude, I see it as those in the class who did have faith were at least smart enough to study philosophy objectively. Those who left were rather immature in being able to handle real world situations.

There is a difference though between burning a bible and burning a building.

I don't see anything wrong with burning a flag, but there is something wrong in breaking the Congress.

There's something wrong with burning any of those things depending on whether or not it offends people and your intent in doing so. If you're intent is malicious and hateful then you are in the wrong. If it is to chase out immature students this is fine. I may not like it much but at the least it is not being done to harm the people specifically for no reason beyond malice. I do not and will not accept the actions of those who spit on religious symbols out of malicious reasoning to be "fine".

edited 12th Jun '12 4:36:38 PM by Aondeug

I don't think I've ever met a pushy Gideon. Like, ever. A smile and "no thanks" is enough.

And I'd see that as not only rude, but extremely immature himself. I wouldn't want any part of a class, philosophy or not, taught by a man who starts things out by making a spiteful gesture just to piss off a subset of his audience. Furthermore, I'd consider walking out to not only be "able to handle a real-world situation", I'd consider it the correct response in a real world situation because I refuse to allow that kind of childish obnoxiousness to be normalized, accepted, expected, or implicitly encouraged in professional circles.

edited 12th Jun '12 4:57:44 PM by Pykrete

I'm not sure if I would leave myself. It could be useful training in remaining composed at all times and, if I can help it, emotionally subdued near completely. That is my goal. Complete composure and tight reign over my emotions along with doing what I feel to be right. Namely that which reduces suffering and advances people and other creatures in terms of knowledge, wisdom, physical stature, and living conditions.

On the other hand it may result in further stress that I am not capable of dealing with. Which could result in my acting out in some fashion that I do not find to be acceptable. Namely any form of passionately emotional outburst or emotional defense.

edited 12th Jun '12 4:48:53 PM by Aondeug

I think people have the right to be malicious. That's why as much as I find the WBB to be a bunch of idiots, they have protected rightsto be.

I can understand why some people wouldn't like this approach, but consider this. I live in the Bible Belt, specifically the southern baptist majority surrounds me.

It is very hard in a secular academic setting to try and teach religious studies without pissing people off anyway. These kids sign up for the classes thinking it's theology, they can cite their preachers on papers, and that we'll all begin class with a prayer. This isn't the case.

They will hear things they don't want to hear. They will have to objectively study other religion's texts and cannot use their religion to justify their arguments. They have to use logic and objective, peer reviewed scholarship. There are plenty who can't handle it. They cry when they get an F for writing a paper on how Muslims are going to hell when they are supposed to be doing research on the Mughal Empire's use of Islam as a diplomatic policy.

That is the level of insulation and ignorance I am surrounded with down here. I would love to move to a place were the setting can be more open and people are less paranoid about learning about other cultures.

I wish this attitude was limited to my community, but I know that this is just a human attitude that only varies in degrees wherever you go.

I don't believe that maliciousness is acceptable under any circumstances. Merely understandable in why it occurred. That and anger are to be avoided though if they do rise up we must seek to stifle in and keep it in check. And in fact all emotions in check. Just keeping a more watchful eye on those that are more dangerous for the self and those around you.

I must search for other more peaceful avenues with which to communicate and reason with those who are paranoid or hateful towards other cultures and belief systems. Only when I can protect and teach in a nice calm will I be truly nearing my goals and standards of what I consider to be good and appropriate. Though even that is just a small step towards letting everything go.

I don't judge the anger and malicious actions of others as harshly as I do my own. As they may not believe as I do and be striving towards what I am. I will try to curb their hurtful actions or emotions if I can though. To prevent incident and hurt.

edited 12th Jun '12 5:13:26 PM by Aondeug

If people are thumping bibles on assignments, call them out on it when it happens. It's not an excuse to be a vindictive, unprofessional prick in the meantime.

When people live in a coccoon, sometimes the shock treatment is exactly what they need.

To each their own, but I found that it really helps in the long run. Your faith shouldn't be centered on things. Bibles, prayer beads, icons, these are supposed to be tools to help a person focus on their faith, not sustain it. Almost every student I talked to of his was greatful for the experience. Not only did they actually learn something, but they learned how to appreciate and handle those who may believe opposite of themselves with the same zeal they carry for their beliefs.

Unless you are worshiping something like the Amityville Toaster. Then maybe that won't work too well *laughs*

By and large they shouldn't be focused on things. Especially not Buddhism. I do not feel that that is acceptable for the most part and should be avoided unless kinder methods have proven useless in the past. And even then it must not be done with any malicious and hurtful intent. Only with intent to aid and teach. That is all. If pain is needed then pain is needed and must be applied carefully and calmly.

Now that this topic is finally open for discussion I need to get this off my chest. Taoist (if you're still in the thread) you're actually doing what you're complaining about. You're privileging belief over non-belief and thus the idea of the sacred. Replace atheist with Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, practitioner of Santarea (is there are noun for them?) and see if the above quote doesn't seem a little wonky.

It falls into the idea of belief and faith (in the religious sense as opposed to a synonym for trust) being inherently worthy things that automatically require respect. This is an automatic assumption that is culturally ingrained, at least in the vast majority of the anglosphere. This is part of why I think people like the Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens) because they not only disagree with individual religious tenants but the idea that belief is good.

Pykrete, would you walk out before or after finding out why the professor did this? Because if before... then I don't think that's the grown-up, reasonable response. I think its part of the problem of putting religious ideas on a pedestal and giving them undue deference and denigrating anything or anyone that does not bow before them.

(Edit: Bah, ninja'd)

Let's play a hypothetical (one that doesn't seem too far-fetched given what we've been told) that after this little stunt the professor goes on to address the class saying, "Now this reason I did this is that this class will be dealing with ideas, themes and opinions that are shocking, confronting and quite possibly offensive, especially to those of strong religious sensibilities. I chose to illustrate this with such a provocative demonstration as opposed to simply a verbal warning specifically so that you could realise what was coming on a visceral and emotional, not just intellectual level and decide if you were willing to continue."

If given such a speech would you still walk out thinking it spiteful, rude and a gesture of 'childish obnoxiousness'?

Also I feel that this thread is an appropriate to bring this speech up for discussion: Sacking the City of God.

edited 12th Jun '12 5:38:46 PM by KnightofLsama

I would stay if such a reasoning speech was made in a polite manner. Depending on how the teacher acts and thinks he may end up being someone of high regard and respect as well. May. That is highly situational and requires study of the person in question.

He is the Dean of Philosophy and Head of Religious Studies, with multiple publications and academic honors. He is pretty well respected across the American education system.

I have never seen it done in person. Though I would have paid money to. He does explain what he's doing, but from what I understand he explains it after the fact, that way he feels more confident that those who stay have already made a step to open their mind and at least consider why someone would do such a thing.

Awards and respect from others isn't enough. Only personal experience (either through in person contact with the person along with their actual writings and findings or both; both is preferable if you can manage it), study, and analyzation of the person and their words is enough to decide whether or not they are respectable and what they say is true and carries worth. I'd have to meet him myself to truly judge though knowing that he at the least explains the act and appears to be doing it for a reason other than "I wish to be a dick" or "I don't like these people" makes that act in particular, and those similar to it in practice and intent, fine.

edited 12th Jun '12 6:32:34 PM by Aondeug