Here’s a thought to discuss:
1) “I don’t like Group X because it’s an icky ethnicity:” bigotry
2) “I don’t like Group Y because it’s an icky religion:” bigotry
3) “I don’t like Group Z because it’s an icky political ideology:” not bigotry
OK, I get #1. Despising a group for their genetic heritage, something the members can do nothing about, is at best silly. And I get #3… some political ideologies are so obviously horrendous (Stalinism, Maoism, fascism spring to mind) that despising them makes all kinds of sense… in part because the believers in that ideology *choose* to believe and can change but don’t.
But how about #2? Why is disliking a particular religion considered to be necessarily bigotry on the scale of racism? There’s no such thing as a religion that people are born having. Every single religion is a set of beliefs and principles of no greater “depth” than political beliefs and principles, and there’s no such thing as a religion whose adherents are physically impossible of leaving.
Discuss. I’m kinda busy fighting off some horrible plague, so I’ll leave it to y’all. Feel free to ask others to join in. I’d really like to know why it’s ok to hate Nazis and/or Nazism (based on facts) but not ok to hate Whateverology (based on facts).
7 Responses to “An Ethics Question”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Why not hate the entire group that buys into a religion that is bad? To do that saves time and energy that would otherwise be wasted trying to sort the deluded from the psychotic.
Isn’t this an application of “hate the game, not the player”? Most of this sort of thing always seemed — to me — to be attempts to make everyone feel good no matter how dangerous or nasty or silly they were.
Wow. I clearly put my finger on the pulse of society with this one…
I’m a little surprised there was no more reaction, too.
Add a fourth: “I don’t like Group ZZ because they’re Democrats/Republicans.” That combines politics and religion, thereby providing even more emotional content.
The religion question has aspect of both 1 and 3.
Classically, religion has been the government / political system. Consider the similarities between eating kosher and the FDA, or running for Pope, or a madras and public schools. (there that hit the big three!)
Also people really do inherit there religion. They tend to get it from their parents via indoctrination at an early age. (okay there is that one where maternal lineage is so important)
Yet another view is in that in this country people have a tendency to pick and choose pieces of the religion. (orthodox, reformed, holiday etc..) so disliking the ‘members; of a group because of your perception of the group, regardless of the individuals beliefs, is bogus.
Lastly, political system make the rules, in the competitive nature of politics, the rule makers decide its okay to slam their opponents.
Yea, hate the individual, not the group. Be suspicion of an individual in a group 😉
And Scott, is there anyone that you hate more than that particular Atheist ?
nope, me either.
-Gar.
I have to assume that an adult who is a devout member of his faith believes in its tenets, whether he got his faith from his parents or not. After all, political ideology can also be gained from parents, even though I admit it is easier to change one’s political ideology than one’s religion.
I had this debate with myself… I don’t remember when. Probably around 2004, since that was the first year I could vote. I’m pretty sure the religion in question was Mormonism, and I was trying to figure out whether it was rational or bigoted to not vote for a Mormon because of his religion. I eventually decided that insofar as one’s religion influenced one’s worldview and political decisions, then whether I was called a bigot or not I’d have to take that religion into account. And back then, I probably would not have voted for a Mormon.
Today, whether I voted for a Mormon would depend on the Mormon. And I would have no problem with a non-looney Christian or Jew, or most of the other religions. But there would be no way in hell I’d ever vote for a devout Muslim.
As someone who was brought up in Roman Catholicism, it’s pretty hard to break free of a world-view that you take for granted from being very young; Like, for instance, when Catholics are taking communion, they aren’t partaking in some sort of symbolic relationship with God, but actually _are_ eating his son’s body and drinking his blood.
An idea so warped that it formed the basis of this hilarious article from “Ain’t It Cool News” regarding zombie movies:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=17222
I was brought up in a Methodist household. Maybe the church I was taken to was unusual, but when I was a child I was taught the basics of Judaism and Roman Catholicism. What we were told that in order to be a Methodist one must know what the Reformation meant, and in order to understand the Reformation one must know the Roman Catholic beliefs; to understand all that one must know what it meant to be a Jew. (My mother taught Sunday School, and I still have a book given to her by the rabbi.) My view of religion is therefore a bit unusual.
I never really saw much difference between the religions, except the food. Catholics tend to eat better than the others. Islam, however, seems to be a religion in the same way that communism is a religion.