On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

I am not opposed at all to democratising church structures. You don't seriously believe that you achieve increasing democracy in a society if you suppress churches' influence, do you? In a political climate where human life increasingly only is worthy of protection and dignity if it is useful and productive, what political forces would fill the vacuum left if churches no longer had a voice?

It is a cute idea to fight authoritarianism by more authoritarianism, by the way.

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 04:54:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

Well, many established churches are entirely okay with treating human life as only worthy of protection and dignity if it is useful and productive or being made to feel guilty for not being so, and that includes even charity workers (see my example downthread).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:31:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

You don't seriously believe that you achieve increasing democracy in a society if you suppress churches' influence, do you?

You don't seriously believe that you can increase democracy in a society by giving power structures favorable to psychopaths privileged access to political discourse, do you?

Once the mainstream churches are not overwhelmingly authoritarian right-wing organizations, they should of course have coequal status with other self-defined special-interest groups, like retirees' associations and motorists' associations.

Even then, however, trade unions remain a bad comparison. In a well-run industrial society they are party to core macroeconomic planning functions that churches have neither the qualifications nor the scope to participate in. Trade unions, in a properly run industrial society, are part of a special but difficult to define group of semi-official civil society organizations, along with media houses, banks, professional associations and scholarly organizations. I really don't see what religious groups have to contribute to that simply by virtue of subscribing to a particular creed or doctrine.

But that's all theory - as long as churches are governed by psychopathy-favoring power structures, they don't belong near the levers of power.

In a political climate where human life increasingly only is worthy of protection and dignity if it is useful and productive, what political forces would fill the vacuum left if churches no longer had a voice?

You are presuming facts not in evidence. Namely that churches' use their current political privileges in a way that is net favorable to the protection and dignity of human life.

It would be nice if we lived in that world.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 02:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

I wasn't thinking of further empowering power structures. Perhaps you missed that I said structures of state and church exercising power must be separate. I object to a political discourse excluding contributions of churches (all religious organisations) and of of individuals who take a religious point of view in their argument. Additionally, the act of excluding--the shift in the political balance as opposed to a static view--opens up opportunities for the nastiest forces.

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 03:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

You're expressing a very Enlightenment-inspired view of the nature of power, when you (implicitly) insist that the exercise of power is confined to the formal bureaucracy of the state.

On most subjects, espousing Enlightenment ideology would win points with me. Unfortunately on the subject of power, Enlightenment philosophy is incredibly naive. Naive in some ultimately very destructive ways.

I object to a political discourse excluding contributions of churches (all religious organisations) and of of individuals who take a religious point of view in their argument.

The problem with that is that in a society which observes freedom of religion, arguments couched in religious assumptions carry no universal validity. Because religious freedom means that the underlying religious assumptions carry no claim to universal validity.

Rule of law requires the law to be universal. That's the whole point of rule of law, a concept of which I personally am quite fond.

Which means that from the perspective of political discourse in a free society, religious discourse has no valid arguments, only a series of ad hoc demands.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 04:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

JakeS:

The problem with that is that in a society which observes freedom of religion, arguments couched in religious assumptions carry no universal validity. Because religious freedom means that the underlying religious assumptions carry no claim to universal validity.

So what? I can, from my underlying ethics, come to the same conclusion as you, from your underlying ethics, which is not the same. In that case we can agree on a law, though for different reasons. If our respective conclusions are not the same, we would have to talk about the underlying ethics. If we cannot do that, because I am excluded, you can hope that my position is too exotic to be strong or else prepare for something nasty. Was that really necessary to point out that democratic procedures serve to maintain peaceful relations in a state?

by Katrin on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 04:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

So what? So nothing, unless you aspire to a political culture which is more than a shifting set of ad hoc coalitions between more or less ghettoized special interest groups, which only need to justify their actions internally and not in terms recognized by any common language of public reason.

That is one possible version of democracy, but it is not one I find very attractive.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:10:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Nice word, "ad hoc coalition". Doesn't interest me though, and has nothing to do with what I said. "ghettoized special interest groups" comes a bit nearer to my point: I reject your notion that I belonged to a "special interest group", but I am consistently arguing against a process of ghettoization or marginalisation. So far you have denied that groups are becoming excluded (or marginalised or ghettoised). There is a spark of hope if you now concede it. It would be even better if you deplored that exclusion and wanted to reverse it.

My point was not about universal law or not. My point is how we decide if we need a certain law at all, and what for. In short, what direction we want our society to take.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 05:57:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

I reject your notion that I belonged to a "special interest group", but I am consistently arguing against a process of ghettoization or marginalisation. So far you have denied that groups are becoming excluded (or marginalised or ghettoised).

You're going to have to dig out quotes to that effect.

What I have pointed out, repeatedly, is that under freedom of religion, religious rhetoric cannot be a language of public reason. Because under freedom of religion, religious doctrine is not a valid standard of lawmaking or jurisprudence.

People who advance religious rhetoric in the public debate are therefore either erecting a ghetto around themselves wholly of their own making, or they are objecting against freedom of religion.

Neither is a wholesome and desirable way to influence the direction we want our society to take.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 03:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

My own application of the above to a practical example: if a Christian group objects to GMOs on the basis that it violates God's monopoly on creation, then they can form one part of a coalition against GMO, but their argument is restricted to religionists of their own stripe, and thus it means nothing to other members of the anti-GMO coalition or to proponents, and won't be useful as basis for public debate. But, if this Christian group understands the logic of marching under one flag, I'm not sure this amounts to an objection against freedom of religion, though.

Is that how you see it too or are you more restrictive?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 06:04:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

In principle, I find it troubling when a political faction mobilizes large numbers of adherents using their own parallel language. In the same way I find it troubling that well over two thirds of all Fortune 500 CEOs are McKinsey alumni, and five of the last five US Treasury Secretaries are Goldman alumni.

In practice, any successful change coalition needs to be a big tent, so as long as they don't start trying to boot people out of the big tent I'm not going to start trying to boot them out.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 04:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Oh, and please quit insinuating that secular society is excluding you from political discourse by not crediting your religious talking points with any merit. You are excluding yourself by advancing arguments which are based on premises which nobody has any obligation to accept in a society which practices freedom of religion.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 05:15:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Katrin:

I object to a political discourse excluding contributions of churches (all religious organisations) and of of individuals who take a religious point of view in their argument.

But what is the nature of the exclusion to which you object?

Should people be forced to listen to religious organisations? (like in the old days?)

Is there some sinister movement seeking to censor the political expression of religious groups?

Do you imagine that secularists (such as myself) plan to silence or suppress church leaders?

What are you afraid of, exactly?

In a democratic society, advocacy groups are listened to if they make convincing arguments (in principle. Sadly, money buys a lot of influence.) It is probable that the established religions have excessive influence currently, because of their established position and because of direct or indirect subsidies. Once the playing field has been levelled (if we ever get there), then religious groups will presumably have the influence they merit.

Do you have a problem with that?

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 06:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

I am afraid of demagoguery taking over. A society so fragmented that the gaps can no longer be bridged. And then a campaign against one minority after the other.

A few years ago Islamophobes invented the slogan that there was a right to hurt someone's religious feelings. This infamous thing gained traction beyond the extreme right wing, and suddenly all the anti-religious, even otherwise fairly democratic people, embraced this. And if they have the right, that implies that their victims have to endure quietly, because if they defend themselves, they violate the right to hurt them, right? It meets Jake's demand of universality, too: you have the right to hurt my religious feelings, and I have the right to hurt your inexistent ones. But neither of us has the right to sleep under bridges.

I wouldn't be surprised if even here some people found that an entirely nice rule. Nobody has asked themselves what we need it for, though. Why a society that gives a right to hurt someone is a desirable society. I am still waiting for an answer to that. The question of where this society should move to is already marginalised.

You ask if people should be forced to listen to religious organisations. Why don't you ask if people should be forced to listen to anyone. Or you could have posed the question: should people be forced to listen to arguments from all corners, without prejudice. Why did you pose your question in the way you did? Perhaps because it is inconceivable for you that a religious organisation or a person taking a religious stance has something useful for everyone to contribute?

I assume you have seen how Rowan Williams' proposals to integrate Muslims in structures that already exist for Christians and for Jews were distorted. They were distorted, not debated. Should people be forced to listen what he says, instead of to the distortions? And remember: he was an archbishop. That's as privileged a position you can imagine. Now guess what happens to the argument of a brown-skinned immigrant woman defending her right to include the concept of religion in her personality and to do that publicly that by wearing a headscarf or veil or whatever.

eurogreen:

It is probable that the established religions have excessive influence currently, because of their established position and because of direct or indirect subsidies.

That's what the right wing in this city says too. Just this morning they have started a large campaign in the media friendly to them: the Lutheran church participated in the campaign for a referendum forcing the government to get our energy grid back (which in the meantime has taken place and which we have won). That was in the open all along, but now the "scandal" is that the church gave 42,000 € for the expenses of the campaign.

You ally yourself to racists and Islamophobes in the case of veils and to fossil fuel interests in the case of the position of mainstream churches. Have you ever asked yourself if you aren't just plain wrong?

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 06:23:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

A few years ago Islamophobes invented the slogan that there was a right to hurt someone's religious feelings. This infamous thing gained traction beyond the extreme right wing, and suddenly all the anti-religious, even otherwise fairly democratic people, embraced this. And if they have the right, that implies that their victims have to endure quietly, because if they defend themselves, they violate the right to hurt them, right?

I suspect (but I can't be sure, from your description) that you are talking about France. If so (and probably unlike Germany), anticlericalism is a long-established tradition, dating to the Revolution, and which was extremely active in the late 19th-early 20th century. It calmed down once the power of the (Catholic) church was definitively broken, but has remained an active current of thought ever since.

I suspect (again) that you are talking about Charlie Hebdo, its publication of cartoons featuring Muhammad, its comic books on the life of the Prophet, etc. This is nothing more offensive or extreme than the stuff they have been publishing about Catholicism for decades; and as left-wingers, they felt in no danger of being thought as allies or copycats of fascists or islamophobes. They reasoned that a special form of racism is at work if one particular religion must be exempted from criticism or satire.

This led to the firebombing of the paper, which is not a legal response to satire. And there was an overwhelming wave of support for the paper and its freedom of speech, from the left.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 07:26:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

You suspect a long list of things. I suspect I won't get an answer to my questions. I'll add some new ones:

Can I take a religious stance, such as preserving God's creation, or does that devalidate everything I have to say on the protection of the environment?

Would you have voted "no" in the referendum on the grid, because it was supported by the church, and the church has no place in the public, let alone politics?

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 08:05:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Katrin:

You suspect a long list of things. I suspect I won't get an answer to my questions. I'll add some new ones

Go ahead and ask. Until you clarify what you are referring to here :

A few years ago Islamophobes invented the slogan that there was a right to hurt someone's religious feelings.

... which I made a carefully qualified assumption about, I'm not able to answer any of them. (The last two questions frankly don't deserve answers; in particular, unlike you apparently, I don't believe in guilt by association.)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 08:48:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

I can think of no reason why you can't answer my questions without first knowing the origin of the awful notion I cited. I remember the phrase from a particularly disgusting piece by Henryk Broder and the background was the Danish cartoons. I have since heard the phrase again, and not only by outright right-wing extremists. Apparently you agree on the latter point when your assumption locates it at what you call a left paper. Do you agree with the notion too? That there is a right to hurt people's religious feelings?

Will you now invent a new subterfuge for not answering my questions, I wonder?

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 09:22:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Katrin, we have had this discussion before. I am reluctant to replay it again, because I am quite sure that your feelings would get hurt. My answer, of course, is yes. (Any other answer, of course, would be evidence of religious privilege. But we've been there.)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 09:36:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Do you have a right to hurt my feelings by saying

You ally yourself to racists and Islamophobes

? Of course you do. (and yes, it hurts.) You would like to use your religion as a shield, to forbid me from formulating such a shameful, hurtful lying insult against you or your god?

And why should I accord you that (religious) privilege? In the name of your god?

(I was going to add a rhetorical suggestion of what you should do with your god, but I changed my mind ;)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 09:46:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Do you object to the word "ally" in your ugly language that, remember, I struggle with, or do you object to the notion that you have the same demands as them, a ban on Muslim veils?

If I haven't made clear enough that I am aware that your reasons for advocating the same measure are different from their reasons, I am sorry. You do advocate the same thing though, and that was my point.

As to your last sentence: it would leave me cold. Fire away if it makes you feel better.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 09:54:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

Don't play games. You know what an ally is.

Your diary itself is framed in insulting, inflammatory language which I have carefully avoided analysing or responding to. But your final provocation -- asking innocently if I think it's OK to insult religions -- made me crack.

I apologise to anyone else still reading this rubbish.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Eurogreen, I am sorry (I really am!) but I have no idea what has happened. And I meant my words exactly as I have explained, not as you obviously read them.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

So, when you wrote

A few years ago Islamophobes invented the slogan that there was a right to hurt someone's religious feelings.

... who were you talking about? Salman Rushdie, perhaps?

You see, I object strongly to the notion of such a right having been "invented", a few years ago, by islamophobes. One might ascribe this to ignorance and parochialism on your part (perhaps it's against the law to hurt someone's religious feelings in Germany?)... But no, because we have discussed this very issue before, more than once.

So I don't see any alternative to reading it as a deliberate attempt to inflame the debate.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

eurogreen:

... who were you talking about? Salman Rushdie, perhaps?

As I said, Broder and his ilk. And more important than the question by whom it was invented or introduced or whatever: debating along the line whether such a right exists or not deflects from the question what it should be good for.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:51:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Well, the reference to Rushdie was ironic, but he came before your friend Broder. And as you may recall, he nearly died at the hands of those who considered there is no such right.

And where ideas come from is very important indeed. The idea that the right to criticize religions might have been invented by the islamophobic right is just grotesque.

As for what a right is good for : what are human rights for, after all? They are to be used as the human sees fit.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 11:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

The idea that the right to criticize religions might have been invented by the islamophobic right is just grotesque.

Yeah, all those proto-Nazi 18th century philosophers...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 11:23:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

"your friend Broder": I find that worse than "ally oneself with". And if for a native speaker it is not, I can't know.

"the right to criticize religions" is not what we have been talking about. It is different from a (disputed) right to hurt person's religious feelings.

eurogreen:

what are human rights for, after all?

A foundation for freedom, justice and peace in the world. That's the underlying goal, as quoted from the UN Declaration of Human Rights. All laws and rules have such goals, and these should be open and transparent. Their debate is directly related to the ethical concepts in a society, and these latter are often (but not always) informed by religious values.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 11:34:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

"the right to criticize religions" is not what we have been talking about. It is different from a (disputed) right to hurt person's religious feelings.

But my dear, you have demonstrated over and over again that the two are inseparable!

If I criticize religion (ANY religion), your feelings get hurt. I have no control, nor any responsibility, over how you receive my exercise of the right to criticize religion. If you wish to censor my right to speak about religion in such a way as to avoid any offense, then my freedom to criticise religion no longer exists.

Here's a thought experiment for you : Salman Rushdie, who is of Islamic heritage, used that heritage in a novel. It appeared in a pirate edition in Iran, where it apparently hurt some people's religious feelings. This resulted in a death sentence, etc...

Should Rushdie have been subjected to censorship? Should novels be read before publication by jury of a priest, a pastor, a rabbi and an imam? If not, what mechanism do you propose to prevent people's religious feelings from getting hurt?

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 11:45:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

eurogreen:

If I criticize religion (ANY religion), your feelings get hurt.

Nope. That's probably the reason why we haven't understood each other's messages. I don't know how criticism of religion can make sense--it is there and you believe or not, but such criticism doesn't hurt. What Rushdie did, was criticising behaviour and social attitudes, by the way. Not because he wants to parade the backward natives, but in order to take part in a discourse he has a place in. Perfectly legitimate. That is different from the anti-immigrant discourse of European Islamophobes.

Find out what you criticise. A religion, or religion as such? Religious communities and organisations? The power exercised by religious organisations or institutions? Religious mores? Behaviour of believers? Religious feelings of persons?

Huge differences.

Exercising power, rules and mores, behaviour are open for criticism, and here public debate is necessary. Beliefs in my opinion cannot be discussed, but attempts don't hurt, they are just boring. The feelings of persons are to be respected.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 12:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Find out what you criticise. A religion, or religion as such? Religious communities and organisations? The power exercised by religious organisations or institutions? Religious mores? Behaviour of believers? Religious feelings of persons?
Huge differences.

The obligation to maintain that distinction cuts both ways. When religious adherents conflate criticism of religious power structures and authority figures with criticism of their religious community, their religion, or religion in general, then such distinctions get really blurry, really fast.

My very clear impression is that secularists are not the greater offenders against clarity in this distinction.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 03:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Katrin:

Find out what you criticise. A religion, or religion as such? Religious communities and organisations? The power exercised by religious organisations or institutions? Religious mores? Behaviour of believers? Religious feelings of persons?

OK... for a few days I was under the false impression that you wanted laws or regulations against hurting people's religious feelings. If we're talking about rules of discussion, I'll try to clarify mine.

Criticising a religion, or religion as such, is out of bounds for me : something I hope I don't do. Religious communities and organisations : I reserve the right to criticise their practices and influence, the way they are organised or funded etc, to the same degree as I would criticize any other constituted body, no more, no less. Religious mores, I reserve the right to criticise, insofar as they impinge on others. Religious feelings of persons are none of my business, and not very interesting to me.

Behaviour of believers, or as I would prefer to call it, religious praxis, is of interest to me, and not exempt from criticism. When religiously-motivated or -justified behaviours are strongly at variance with societal norms, then this will inevitably be a subject for debate. Is it is a legitimate subject for debate? If it has negative effects on people -- outside the religious group, or within it -- then yes.

Random example : in my home country, I remember a controversy concerning Jehovah's Witnesses who refused blood transfusions for their children.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 04:59:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Criticising a religion, or religion as such, is out of bounds for me

Wait, we can criticise (say) Austrian Economics on logical or epistemological grounds as a system of thought, but "a religion" is out of bounds?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 05:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

I agree with a lot of this.

"When religiously-motivated or -justified behaviours are strongly at variance with societal norms, then this will inevitably be a subject for debate. Is it is a legitimate subject for debate?"

Of course it is. If you criticise the behaviour of a persecuted minority, you must tread carefully though. And you cannot violate their human rights (I know that you don't see bans on headscarves as such, but you will at least concede that your view is controversial, right?) and start a nice unprejudiced talk about their religious praxis at the same time. You will have to decide which you want. With strong Islamophobian movements around you can't have a discourse with Muslims without rejecting the Islamophobian attempts and actively defending the Muslims' rights.

"Random example : in my home country, I remember a controversy concerning Jehovah's Witnesses who refused blood transfusions for their children"

Which is a matter of weighing different, conflicting rights against each other, not a matter of making a minority rightless.

by Katrin on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 08:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

With strong Islamophobian movements around you can't have a discourse with Muslims without rejecting the Islamophobian attempts and actively defending the Muslims' rights.

That cuts both ways: With strong fundamentalist and anti-secular movements around, you cannot have a discourse with secularists without rejecting fundamentalism and defending secular society.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 14th, 2014 at 09:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hypothetical point (none / 0)

JakeS:

That cuts both ways: With strong fundamentalist and anti-secular movements around, you cannot have a discourse with secularists without rejecting fundamentalism and defending secular society

You don't happen to claim that there are any fundamentalist and anti-secular movements around whose strength can in any way be compared with the Islamophobian movements all over Europe, do you? Muslims are assaulted, their Mosques are vandalised, and there are wide-spread campaigns for various legislation taking away more of their rights. The latter item gets support from people who should know better, which is my point.

by Katrin on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 10:23:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hypothetical point (none / 0)

You don't happen to claim that there are any fundamentalist and anti-secular movements around whose strength can in any way be compared with the Islamophobian movements all over Europe, do you?

I abso-fucking-lutely do.

When the Pope no longer has preaching rights in parliament; when the Russian patriarch no longer peddles partisan propaganda from the pulpit; when the League of Polish Families is no longer represented in parliament; when the Opus Dei no longer runs banks representing a gross asset portfolio comparable to the annual outlays of a small sovereign, then I might begin to take the notion seriously that anti-secularists should be given a free pass in the interest of making common cause against racists pretending to be anti-Islamists.

But until then, I'm taking the view that having a discriminated-against skin color is not a valid excuse for supporting religious privilege.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 01:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hypothetical point (none / 0)

Is that fundamentalism for you or unwholesome influence of large organisations?

And I want no fucking violence and harassment, and we are only at the beginning of that. You and Eurogreen are playing with matches and there are explosives all around you.

by Katrin on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 03:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hypothetical point (none / 0)

Says the lady who is on record defending the Russian Orthodox patriarch from having his religious feelings hurt by the people he's busy directing his followers to throw broken bottles at...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 05:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Salman Rushdie, who is of Islamic heritage, used that heritage in a novel. It appeared in a pirate edition in Iran, where it apparently hurt some people's religious feelings.

The way I know it, it was more personal: while the campaign against Rushdie was based on the parts of the book that re-told Mohammed's life according to the Quran within the nightmares of an apostate, Khomeini could find something much closer to home in another nightmare about an exiled Muslim high priest re-taking his country (which was much more unflattering than Muhammed's portrayal).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 07:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

"the right to criticize religions" is not what we have been talking about. It is different from a (disputed) right to hurt person's religious feelings.

Not in any practical realpolitik sense.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 03:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 4)

Katrin:

Do you agree with the notion too? That there is a right to hurt people's religious feelings?

eurogreen:

(Any other answer, of course, would be evidence of religious privilege. But we've been there.)

Only if there is a general right to insult. Of which I am not to sure.

First, if the right to insult means anything in practise, the right is related to actions of the state. I see a couple of different reactions from the state to insults.

So first, some speech is punished by the state. This includes some insults, for example slander and hate speech.

Second, most speech is allowed by the state, though you are not particularly protected if other take offense, other then that those can be punished for illegal actions. This includes some insults, for example yelling "your team lost because it was bad" at soccer fans or yelling "you are going home alone because you are ugly" at people existing a drinking establishment at closing time.

Third, some speech is protected by the state. For example political manifestations by parties accepted by the state can get police protection in order to be able to perform their speeches.

Fourth, there appears to be demand for some speech to get a free pass from legal consequences of what is said. The state generally does not enforce that.

Now, far as I can see, the demand by rightwingers of a right to hurt muslems religious feelings tends to be cathegory four. If the boycott against Denmark was horrible and motivated reprintings in full, then it is cathegory four.

I - and it appears the UK - would myself place Rushdie at cathegory three. He made much more then a provocation, even if it provoked.

Most provocations against muslems I would place in cathegory two, though it appears the states often disagrees with me. If your aim is to provoke and people get mad at you, though luck. Yes, the police should act to prevent crime, so report threats to them. But don't be surprised if police resources does not stretch very far.

Some provocations against muslems are also clearly hate crimes and should be treated as such.

I guess this is my longwinded way of saying that if the "right to hurt people's religious feelings" should be the same as the "right to hurt soccer fans feelings". In effect, the state won't stop you from getting people mad and should prosecute crimes against you that results from you getting people mad. Doesn't stop it from being stupid though. Claiming wider protection for religious feelings is a claim of religious priviledge, but claiming wider rights to hurt feelings because they are religious claims an anti-religious priviledge.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 04:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

This had very practical consequences in the UK until fairly recently, and still does in some countries (Ireland?) which have blasphemy laws.

British law was unusually tolerant:

The dictum "if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without the writer being guilty of blasphemy" was followed in R v Boulter (1908) 72 JP 188.
In the case of Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406, Lord Sumner, echoing Hale's remarks in Taylor, summarized the position using the Latin phrase, deorum injuriae diis curae, "offences to the gods are dealt with by the gods": blasphemy is an offence against the (Christian) state, and is prohibited because it tends to subvert (Christian) society; offence to God as such is outside the reach of the law.

But then there was a famous trial in 1977, in which the judge decided that blasphemy wasn't bad because it was insulting, but because "The offence belongs to a group of criminal offences designed to safeguard the internal tranquillity of the kingdom."

Or in other words, it could be held to be criminal if 'liable to cause a breach of the peace.'

Practical law seems some way ahead of the debate here.

But there's been no serious interest in pursuing blasphemy cases since, and there's no general principle that religious feelings deserve more respect than any other feelings - that idea hasn't really been taken seriously for at least two hundred years in the UK.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 04:29:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 3)

i remember in india a sign in the chai shop with NO DISCUSSION OF RELIGION OR POLITICS written on it.

guess they were tired of cleaning up the broken glass

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 05:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

deorum injuriae diis curae

Sounds like a sig line to me.

With an optional "Cavete ad iram deorum", or something.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 03:48:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

The insulters of soccer fan feelings would get to feel the reaction themselves. In the case of the religious feelings insulters, most likely someone else would be victim of the reaction. I am not thinking about how to prevent or prosecute at the moment, I simply want to reject the notion when it is used argumentatively: no there can't be a right to hurt any person's feelings. A society granting such a anti-social "right" is not desirable.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 06:41:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

An additional dimension of distinction is whether the insult felt was an insult intended.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 06:51:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

"I'm sorry my insult offended you in unintended ways"

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 07:15:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

But a strong tenet of Western(TM) jurisprudence is that while intent can influence the severity of a crime, it is generally considered problematic to classify something as a crime solely on the basis of intent.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 04:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

It appears both you and Migeru are thinking of the distinction between voluntary manslaughter and murder. However, I was more thinking of the distinction between excusable homicide and murder: a religious person may perceive something as an insult to her religion even if it wasn't meant to be insulting her religion (Rushdie's case or, I believe, Pussy Riot's case) or even an insult at all (almost anything attacked as attack on Christmas).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 12th, 2014 at 07:53:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

I'm not familiar with "justifiable homicide" as a legal distinction. It exists as a political distinction, but jurisprudence does not, and can not, map directly to political legitimacy.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 12th, 2014 at 07:15:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Not "justifiable homicide" but "excusable homicide". The former is something borderline like self-defense, the latter includes accidental homicide like a train driver hitting a suicide jumper (and the latter's relatives suing with the mistaken assumption that the driver could have braked in time).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 02:59:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

But in that case intent does not matter: If I use proportionate force to repel a clear and present danger, the intent to kill does not matter to the legality. Of course if I apply force with the intent to kill, I am much less likely to apply proportional force, but what I will go behind bars for is the disproportionate use of force, not the intent to kill per se.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 12:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Katrin:

Can I take a religious stance, such as preserving God's creation, or does that devalidate everything I have to say on the protection of the environment?

this is illogical, surely you see that? if you do then you are being disingenuous, if you don't, then you have a block against taking on board what others are saying, as if you always see something to attack in what they say, and there is nothing to learn from them, even from those who have lent you their support in their comments. this makes you seem to come here just to impose your POV, rather than enjoy an intelligent debate about important issues.

Would you have voted "no" in the referendum on the grid, because it was supported by the church, and the church has no place in the public, let alone politics?

sigh... this is starting to feel like a whine that

a. people who don't believe as you do are all out to get you and make you feel bad because respect for your opinions

b. anyone who does believe in equality would (in fear of offending your sensitive self) acknowledge that all groups of opinion-holders have equal valence in a democracy. this apparently does not appeal to you as much as insinuating that anyone who for reasons of social harmony and better assimilation makes any rules at all the poor poor victims are going to be women, and (extra-painful!) religious women. therefore anyone who doesn't agree with you is a patriarchal, authoritarian atheism-privileged ENEMY who much be stripped of their hypocrisy and denounced as social trolls. and that is the noble mission you have chosen to carry like a cross.

because you are a nice person and therefore have to harangue anyone who disagrees and re-educate them to your infallible way of thinking.

is it possible you are projecting here?

there are some comments in this thread that do come off as fairly rude, and i regret that, the kitchen does get over-warm here at ET, but i notice that your response to this rudeness is clever always, but -if less obviously- quite rude too.

maybe it's bad etiquette to critique others' debating techniques, i apologise if this post itself seems rude, it is not my intention.

i would like to point out patterns and give you a different perspective... i think your points would be made better if you take what others have to say on board more rather than seeing them as folks to be out-argued in some points-winning kind of way.

sincerely, all the best for what you do to help womens' and childrens' rights.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 09:37:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

melo:

this is illogical, surely you see that?

Absolutely not. Why is it illogical?

melo:

anyone who does believe in equality would (in fear of offending your sensitive self) acknowledge that all groups of opinion-holders have equal valence in a democracy.

But they would still ask questions like "Should people be forced to listen to religious organisations?", not "Should people be forced to listen to anyone?" or so.

melo:

i think your points would be made better if you take what others have to say on board more rather than seeing them as folks to be out-argued in some points-winning kind of way.

That's not my intention. I am trying to get answers that one can move on from. I get repetitions of replies that not answers for the point I made. It is quite possible that my posts are not clear enough and too easily misunderstood. It is quite possible that my interlocutors' posts are unclear. Or both.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:14:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Katrin:

Absolutely not. Why is it illogical?

because the point is that it doesn't matter what aegis the group is coming together under, they can be the dominant regional church or the trainspotters' club, as long as they aren't naziskins or something equally abhorrent. there's no extra weight behind anyone's opinion, their affiliations or belief-systems notwithstanding. don't you see the implied victimology in your question? why would you ask it unless you were trying to provoke some kind of aggrieved response, (from someone to whom the mention of religion is a trigger for some past unpleasant event, like some holocaust survivors who can't hear the word 'gas' without getting the horrors) which then justifies your prejudice that expects that reaction?

i do think it's admirable that you want to protect peoples' feelings and avoid unnecessary constraints on peoples' choices but rather than changing peoples' minds here i think your posts tend to harden them.

we can have ideas about how to make societies more harmonic and disagree without using religion as a virtual cudgel or a plea for extra compassion.

to atheists religious talk shuts down their comprehension circuits, if you need religion for your argument it means you don't have one.

i happen to think you do, but your bringing religion into the discussion makes your goal of communication to anyone more distant rather than closer.

when religion enters the public sphere it should tiptoe, as its track record has so many errors it should stay humble, otherwise you are going to get heavy pushback from people who feel that religion is irrelevant and like sufferers of centuries of PTSD just don't want to go there.

how many of us in this discussion have had ancestors burned as witches, or conversely had their lives saved by some religious person for religious reasons?

religion is very complex and probably pre-rational, which doesn't mean post-religious secularism has all the answers, which is why freedom of religion is tolerated, as long as it doesn't get too big for its social boots.

teenagers are going to want to individuate, not always in friendly ways. i know your efforts are to remove causes for bullying, and it is becoming a terrible problem these days, so i hope you are successful in your work, there is no excuse for it.

we are all bullied by rules we didn't sign up for...

Katrin:

That's not my intention. I am trying to get answers that one can move on from

that implies finality. unlike this thread ;)

interesting to observe whether you get what you are attempting to obtain.... some kind of closure perhaps?

a ringing last chord? tonic resolution?

you may be arguing with your own shadow!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 08:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

melo:

to atheists religious talk shuts down their comprehension circuits, if you need religion for your argument it means you don't have one.
i happen to think you do, but your bringing religion into the discussion makes your goal of communication to anyone more distant rather than closer.

Actually I have not very often brought religion into the discussion. Once, rejecting the notion that everyone here is an atheist. No, I am not. I was very shocked at the arrogant reaction. I have since tried to avoid all threads where any religion played any role, often with gnashed teeth, because I would have had something to say, but knew how it would be received. It is not true that I use religion for my argument, though. I just don't want to have to hide the fact that I have one, and I strongly object to all attempts to outlaw visible religiosity. The treatment a religious contributor on ET tends to get is a minor nuisance compared to the danger European Muslims are in though. Muslims are the victims of discriminatory laws and of a real wave of hate crime, but on ET they are discussed as oppressors, even if that oppression is only their clothes that insult the eye. I value ET enormously, including contributions of those who in the question of religion oppose me most. I cannot put up with how a blind eye is turned to this injustice and danger though, because it doesn't fit their worldview.

melo:

there's no extra weight behind anyone's opinion, their affiliations or belief-systems notwithstanding.

That's a good idea. So far I have missed that spirit here. I know I have made many mistakes on this thread, but don't think I hadn't tried to avoid them.

I cannot put up with suggestions Muslims hide part of their personality if they don't want to be persecuted. Or that all Muslims had to tolerate being stereotyped as long as the government of Saudi Arabia doesn't respect freedom. And I cannot put up with suggestions that personal freedom is irrelevant with the problems humanity faces. Whatever I say on the topic here is being taken as if it was exotic and only explicable because I have a belief too. There aren't many options thinkable to get out of that situation, are there?

by Katrin on Sat Feb 8th, 2014 at 10:35:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 3)

I agree that ET is critical of and often hostile to religion, especially, but not only, to revealed religion and always to claims of authority based on religion. I am agnostic in that I cannot prove there is no God, but atheist in that I believe that the deity portrayed by popular Christianity is too absurd to be taken seriously. I went to Protestant Sunday School for years and learned the basics of the belief and of the history of religion. And I am generally glad of the experience, though I rejected the theology. As it turned out I developed views quite similar to those of my father, with whom I had an otherwise difficult relationship prior to his death about two weeks before I turned 13. My mother had been raised in the same denomination which I attended but did not accept all of the beliefs, including that her husband was going to Hell for his disbelief. The compromise was that I would attend Sunday School and make up my own mind. This all occurred in the oil patch of north central Oklahoma prior to my leaving for college at 17 in 1960.

A physics major in college only reinforced my secular/rational beliefs, but I did make friends with a fellow student of Armenian descent who had attended a year of seminary. We saw Elmer Gantry together and some Bergman films and enjoyed discussing issues that arose. And I was glad of my religious education, such as it was, when I enrolled in a Master's program in history at the U of Arizona in Tuscon, where my family had moved after I started college.

Later, in Los Angeles, I met people interested in Indian religion, especially the Vedanta Society. Many of those religious leaders were great syncrotists, wanting to show similarities between their tradition and the Christian tradition. They emphasized the role of mental states in religious experience. Finally something that made sense! I still think that there are aspects of our minds that we could profitably cultivate, but ET is not a good vehicle for such discussions.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Feb 8th, 2014 at 12:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 7)

"Can I take a religious stance, such as preserving God's creation, or does that devalidate everything I have to say on the protection of the environment?"

No, of course not everything. But if you'd, for example try to get non-religious people to support environmental protection by framing it as "preserving God's creation" you'd likely get one of two reactions:

a) "God's creation"? What's that? That's not a term I recognize.

or:

b) You mean we shouldn't trash our planet because it was created by God? Well, I don't believe in God, so that's not really going to convince me.

tl;dr: If you base your argument on a tenet from your religion, it will lose merit for those who don't share it.

by ComradeFrana on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 4)

This whole debate is about framing. Katrin wants to argue in a religious frame. Most of the rest of the debaters want to argue in secular frames.

So the disagreement is not actually on the headscarf ban. The headscarf ban arguments expose that there is a difference at the level of frames.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:20:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Migeru:

Katrin wants to argue in a religious frame.

I want the freedom to argue in a religious frame. I don't usually do so (for the reasons ComradeFrana cites: it distracts from the message), but I don't want to be sorted in the reactionary corner when I do.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:31:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

Into which corners have you sorted people who don't want to reason in a religious frame, and a fortiori don't want to allow civil law to be based on religious frames?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:33:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

hmm OK, so you are claiming the right to determine how people are allowed to react to your religious views.

Without claim religious privilege...

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

I can't determine how people react to my religious or other views. But I am free to make my own judgement of such reactions when I meet them, am I not?

You are right in one point: the topic has been in the discussion before, and always highly emotional. I have tried a few things, including avoiding all threads where the topic religion cropped up, which wasn't alyways nice. The heap under the carpet then became too big, and that's why I made this diary. The alternative would have been to leave ET

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 11:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 3)

Implying that nobody's going to come out of this discussion with a changed frame. They may change their mind on a whole variety of other topics, including exceptionally on the headsvarf ban. But they will rationalise their change of mind within their frame.

Changes of frame are as rare as religious conversions.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:31:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

As someone who went through one and back again, I'd say a religious conversion is one heck of a change of frame.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Eurogreen was flippant when I said in an earlier comment that religion is deeply personal. But it really is. It's a more closely held frame than a political ideology.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Welcome to ET, ComradeFrana.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:25:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Beat me by 1 second.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 2)

Training for the Olympics.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:33:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

That's so gay.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:35:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

New piefight starts HERE.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:36:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Don't make me post a barechested picture of Putin.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Er... No.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

On whoresback.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:47:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Welcome to ET, ComradeFrana

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:25:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 3)

People arrive at truths from all sorts of different angles. When a goal is clearly shared (e.g. preserving the environment), it's perfectly legitimate to form alliances with people or groups who have different motivations.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:29:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hallelujah (none / 0)

Couldn't you have said that earlier?

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:34:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hallelujah (none / 1)

Let's see how you framed that question again :

You ally yourself to racists and Islamophobes in the case of veils and to fossil fuel interests in the case of the position of mainstream churches.

i.e. you had already answered the question for me : making the extraordinary assumption that I would vote against my convictions in order to spite the church!

Have you ever asked yourself if you aren't just plain wrong?

... and now you're channeling Cromwell! (joke)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:51:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (4.00 / 3)

"When a goal is clearly shared"

Yeah, I guess. I just wanted to illustrate why religiously framed arguments can be received poorly among the non-religious.

(That's why "secular" arguments are preferred. Not because of some kind of religious intolerance, but simply because religiously framed arguments, by definition based on some personal beliefs, lose their cogency in eyes of people that do not share those beliefs.)

by ComradeFrana on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 01:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

Quite. There are still different motivations in every debate, religious and non-religious ones, and proposals may be essential for one group and unimportant but tolerable for the next. Or essential for one group, beyond the pale for another. This is why I focus on which underlying ethics and norms groups are driven by.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 01:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

This is why I focus on which underlying ethics and norms groups are driven by.

Hmmm.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 03:23:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh I missed this... (none / 0)

the "scandal" is that the church gave 42,000 € for the expenses of the campaign.

Whose money was it?

If it's contributions from church members, then fine. If it's government money, one way or another, then that's a problem.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 10:55:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh I missed this... (none / 0)

Is that a question how churches in Germany get their funds? Complicated... The "scandal" is framed as there goes our church-tax. Could have funded a military chaplain in Afghanistan, I guess. (Joke. I know that the church gets paid for them by the state.)

by Katrin on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 02:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh I missed this... (none / 0)

Well, if it's "church tax" then it's OK by me, insofar as it's a voluntary tax (though the fact that the state collects it on behalf of the church is problematic). If members of that church disagree with the contribution to a cause, then it's an internal matter for that church (and a test of how democratic it is, perhaps).

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 04:00:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh I missed this... (4.00 / 2)

You have to actively apply to get out of paying it (if you grow up in Germany. Otherwise, make sure to put "none" for religion when you register). But it's still tax-deductible, meaning that other taxpayers are still paying for your religion (though this is no longer specific to Germany).

In Italy you can redirect where this tax goes to, but you can't get out of paying it.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 04:06:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh I missed this... (4.00 / 2)

Those members who have a problem with it are the most right-wing faction of the CDU. They can't make careers in that party without being paying church members, but they don't like the positions the church takes. It is a problem for sure, but it is NOT my problem, to put it mildly.

by Katrin on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 06:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh I missed this... (none / 0)

I wouldn't say "fine" without knowing a bit more about the collection of the churchgoers' money. If it was collected under false pretenses, then it's definitely Not Cool.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 03:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh I missed this... (4.00 / 2)

Church members fees (church tax) fund a budget that among other things has an item "democracy education and support of democratic initiatives". The money was taken from this title of the budget. The provost okayed that. The synod wasn't asked (would have been optional). The bishop wasn't asked either (optional again).

by Katrin on Sun Feb 9th, 2014 at 05:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

It meets Jake's demand of universality, too: you have the right to hurt my religious feelings, and I have the right to hurt your inexistent ones.

Well, yeah. Mockery, derision and public shaming and humiliation all have their place in the political arsenal. To believe otherwise is naive in the extreme.

You ask if people should be forced to listen to religious organisations. Why don't you ask if people should be forced to listen to anyone. Or you could have posed the question: should people be forced to listen to arguments from all corners, without prejudice. Why did you pose your question in the way you did?

Because bogus arguments (and in a society which practices freedom of religion, doctrinal political arguments are definitionally bogus) don't get to demand an equal hearing. Creationists should not get equal time to teach the (non-existent) controversy, Catholics should not get equal time to spew lies about condoms being ineffective, or abortions causing cancer. Public discourse does have some obligation to discriminate between what is likely and possible and what is puerile fantasy and fairie tales.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 04:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

JakeS:

Creationists should not get equal time to teach the (non-existent) controversy, Catholics should not get equal time to spew lies about condoms being ineffective, or abortions causing cancer.

or pols telling us solar doesn't work, or that harvesting free energy from the wind is more expensive than getting it from nukes or gas or coal.

and if religious people help out in social issues they get kudos for that, and that alone, not because they scored brownie points with their religion for doing so and demand recognition more for that than the noble action itself, which needs no further justification than simple humanity.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Feb 7th, 2014 at 05:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

A blog policeman's lot is not a happy one

The Amazing thing that's happening in the US Presidential...

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Recent Diaries

EU War Hawks Competing w US Congress

Seals Special Operations Mali

Dissuader l'Iran? | par Le Monde |

Post WWII: Building a Terror State Inside Europe

Tampered AP-900 Pagers Explode Across Lebanon

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Hasbara Content U.S. State Dep't Briefing

Trump's Loomer Agent Provocateur

Dominique De Villepin Se Rend Immortel

Al Jazeera Documentary Egyptian Icon Inji

Jewish Terror and Genocide - Israel Firster

Impunity the New Judeo-Evangelical Coalition

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

The EU In Inevitable Economic Backslide

Incoherent On Morals and Law & Order

Dutch Cabinet and Israeli Threats to ICC Prosecutors

Alan Dershowitz the Closet Republican

Israel Murders Peace Activists

GS: MAGA Policy Hits EU Economy Hard

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Occasional Series