Disrespect towards Religions?

So I saw this photo while scrolling through facebook:

I really didn't want to be one of 'those' Christians, but I actually got offended by this. Scrolling through the comments I saw "Christians are hypocrites, get over it" and "Religion is dead anyway, who cares?"
It actually made me very sad to see that so many people have yet again stereotyped an entire group of people based on what a few have done. The majority of us are accepting of everyone, and those who aren't as accepting are learning to be.
But this will not be a thread defending my religion. I'm more concerned about secularism and if it has spawned a certain amount of disrespect towards religious groups. Just because religion is not a part of everyone's lives does not mean it shouldn't be respected. This picture actually annoys me a lot. Comparing a slice of pizza to a sacred text? Maybe not to you but to some people? It annoys me a lot.

I know I'm targeting Christianity here but there are definitely other religions that are disrespected like this as well.

I am also aware I'm getting too worked up about a tumblr post but it bothered me. Maybe society will always have some underlying sense of unacceptance, disrespect and hypocrisy. But I really don't know.

PS I'm sorry if this seems to jump all over the place, I hope you can understand what I'm concerned about

 

The photo, and comments are really making me feel bad. I agree that using a sacred text to some people as a plate is very disrespectful. It's sad how much disrespect religion can get nowadays. Most people stereotype religions and more often that not they end up saying the wrong thing. Religion can mean a lot to some people, and to have people directly insult or disrespect that religion would make them no better than the religious people who disrespect certain groups, and the religious people who do this are only a small part of the entire religion. Seeing that picture just makes me very sad to see how some people, who don't believe in religion, treat others who do.

 

I' m glad you opened that discussion because it will allow me to tackle a lot of issues I' ve often felt I should talk about here.
First, that picture. I' ve cracked a similar joke here, sort of, and apparently offended the person it was adressed to. I tried to explain to him why it shouldn' t offend him in a PM but I' m not sure I did a bang up job.

Yes, I know that the Bible is sacred to you, but surely what' s sacred to you is the message you read in the bible, not the object itself ? That' s just a bunch of ink and paper. I could wipe my ass with torn bible pages all day long, it wouldn' t diminish or damage that message in any shape or form. Ideas don' t burn. Unless the bible in that picture was yours it shouldn' t be that hard to dismiss it as a joke. Not a funny one, even I agree on that, but whatever. It' s troll bait, do not feed the troll.

As for the comments, well, I' ve watched dozens of vids about atheism on youtube but never left any comments. Three guesses why. Welcome to the internet.[DOUBLEPOST=1390320890][/DOUBLEPOST]Another thing, I' ve sometimes seen religious people feeling rejected by mere criticism of their religious texts, although the criticism was aimed at the bible, not them. The reason is quite simple, most religious people cherrypick their religious texts. How many christians are suggesting to stone adulterers ? Pretty much none. Their moral values come from a secular place, just like mine, when they read the bible they merely pick and chose what mirrors their own opinion. What they call God was really them all along, so when someone criticize God ...

 

I'm not Christian, I should start off. I'm not majorly religious, I blame the modern lifestyle for that, a lack of time to reflect on everything, but I take people treating religions disrespectfully a bit personally. But I consider myself to be aligned to a religion if pushed.
It's self important to believe you're better than any other group just because you can not understand them, or don't want to, or have that amount of hate in you or any silly reason that calls for rudeness. Religion has no real thing to do with it. Would you insult a schizophrenic as stupid for believing their delusions? Or for the scientists with gut feelings in the unproven? Idiocy to insult or jump to conclusions about a group as a whole. Not all Germans during WWII were Nazi's or believed in the Nazi's goal. Schindler's List is a good example of a misrepresentation of such a thing.

I read 'The Star' by Arthur C. Clarke recently. Nice little short story. Contains a message about such a sort of ignorance that people put forward. It takes the point of view of one religious scientist who's looked down upon by his peers because of his beliefs. They're exploring space realising the extinction of all life is coming, including us on Earth and are returning home:

I believe similar, nothing proves or disproves God, so judging one way or the other is a personal choice, not a divine or scientific right.

That image is insulting, but I agree with Patman, it's idiots being idiots. If you listen to the fools you'll become one. I use to take fat jokes semi-seriously as insults. In the end, I just made them about myself, and the power was with me on that subject. Or I ignored them. I do like the topic though, I've always hated it when scientists or writers I like come out with this bs about religion. All these smart people lacking empathy.

The symbol of the bible is representative of the words inside it. Disrespecting the book is like disrespecting the message. A lot of religions and their branches consider each text is holy, and disrespectful to mistreat it. Any sort of symbol being disrespected whether religious or not means that person is disrespecting all that is associated with it. If you really want to reduce what societal beliefs and borders we have, we should not have a concept of ownership, not be offended when someone uses our house without permission or eats our food. If I pissed on the McDonald's symbol, I'm disrespecting the company, its principles, its goods, its marketing, etc. I'm not just pissing on a sign. Ideas might not burn, but the intentions behind them are what matter.

Attacking a text someone believes in is like attacking their personal ideas. Like people attacking books they really like. I say Harry Potter is bad, because it tells me what is happening in the story and not showing me. People defend why Rowling does this, gets examples of the texts, selectively choosing parts that aren't like that, ignoring the bits that are, or saying a scene is emotional when written like in that manner. Saying Christianity is homophobic, for example, means Christians will defend themselves by quoting 'love thy neighbour' and so on, similar to what others would say to defend the text. It's a human reaction when it comes to shared and learned ideals. I don't think anyone should condemn a whole religion for a human defensive reaction.

 

While it is just a book, and it's the message, not the physical book itself that is important, it's the message that's thrown behind it from the person who took the photo. He is acknowledging that the book itself means something and be disrespectful in his actions.

While I am a Christian, I would like to believe I'm more tolerant than most. And when I say Christian, all I mean is that I believe in God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit. I personally don't follow any branches (catholicism, evangelicals, etc.) simply because a lot of it counters with my views. Having to explain how I see things to other Christians (the fact that I believe that all religions stem from the same place and that the way to get into heaven is not believing in one faith but doing something with the life that you are given), it turns into a heated debate.

My own personal rule is that if you believe in something and it's different from mine, you're cool with me UNLESS it brings harm to yourself or other people (WBBC for example). I like learning about other people's faiths, and I'm open minded in adopting some aspects into my own life.

I think it's wrong to disrespect someone else's beliefs simply because they aren't your own. Everyone has a different ways at looking at the world, so not everyone is going to believe the same things. I believe what I believe for my own reasons, and I extend that same courtesy to others.

 

Or he' s acknowledging the fact that the book is no more sacred to him than a plate. If you' re free to express how sacred it is to you then other people should be allowed to express how trivial or despicable it is to them, can' t have it both ways. I guess what I' m trying to say is that there' s a difference between respect and obsequiousness.

Warning : I' ll probably double post a lot, for some reason my PS3 caps the number of characters I can put in my posts.[DOUBLEPOST=1390342269][/DOUBLEPOST]

Although I' m not naive enough to underestimate the power of symbols maybe we shouldn' t let symbols hold too much power over us. A lesson that, unfortunately, people sometimes don' t want to hear : http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/30/t...flag-jesus-are-officially-no-longer-teaching/
Can' t seem to retrieve the article that explained that those were textbook demonstrations meant to spark a discussion about the power of symbols. Quite a bitterly ironic conclusion. Just like you said, don' t let them disempower you.

 

I started off with a very long post about how discrimination towards other religions and especially Atheists by Christianity, but I kept getting too sidetracked with similar topics. So let me just say this: at least here in America, every religion and non-religion can be the butt of a joke, but Christianity is the only one that isn't institutionally discriminated against on a national level so...yeah, I can't bring myself to feel sorry over a picture on tumblr. Now if the bible was actually microwaved and on fire then a) the poster is an idiot and b) that's a different story (see: Quran Burning Day).
The poster isn't the main offender here in my opinion, it's the disrespectful commentors that took something probably meant as an offensive joke, but a joke nonetheless (a joke is a joke, regardless if it's meant for you or not. Dark Comedy can actually be funny) and decided to make a statement about how great it is.

I know I always bring this up whenever someone says something like this, but this argument sucks. If someone had a hazardous way of looking at the world (men > women, whites > blacks, Aryans > Jews, etc.), then they shouldn't be given the courtesy of respect towards their beliefs. I understand what you're saying, but the sentiment is...flawed.

Also, this.

 

I will state now, and this is from personal experience, I only see American internet posters that take religious and national symbols that seriously on the internet. American citizens, Christians, Muslims, and so on all take their symbols very personally. Here (UK) I rarely see groups of people becoming so infuriated, at least publically. Not saying it doesn't happen but mainly only in political contexts which any country or people gets passionate with. I think we aren't socialised as patriotic as America, and I think that's the same for a lot of European countries. Just making an observation.

Symbols should be respected in social contexts. When it comes to education, I'm more than happy someone challenging my ideas and beliefs in an education context. I respect their decision to try that out, but they probably should've prepped it better.
Anyway, as long as it's respectful challenging, fine, but doing it for the butt of a joke, it's definitely not respectable.

And symbols will always have power over us. The written language is basically a bunch of symbols we've put meaning to. Unless we can pass information in a more sublime way, symbols will always be around. Even animals have symbols the marking of territory and such. It's just a basic thing. We shouldn't take insults seriously is what I would argue.

 

People have no respect to Religion nowadays.... I am honestly very offended by this, but I know that I cannot do a thing about it. I follow God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And like tummer, I am not exclusive to a branch of the church. If I have a friend who is not Christian but we both respect each other's religion, then fine. But defiling the objects that we consider holy, crosses the last straw.

And yeah, the texts is more important than the book itself, but this is just wrong...

 

You know, a lot of religious people are socially persecuted because they're considered annoying for "shouting" their religion. I am Catholic so I may have a bias; however, I feel that many, not all, nonbelievers and atheists do the same. For example, the student body says the pledge at my school every morning. At the part where it says "and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God...", some kid will say loudly "UNDER DEMOCRACY", obviously stressing it beyond need. Then there are some kids that call religious kids idiots just because of their belief. However, the kids that actually follow their religion don't insult someone for their beliefs. Let's take Catholicism for example. One of the core tenets is "Treat your neighbor as you would yourself". If the kid was religious and followed the beliefs of Catholicism, he wouldn't insult someone's belief if he respected his own. However, a secular person would have no restraints except the laws/rules that bound them in the situation they were in. I'm certainly not saying that believers are better than non believers. This is just an observation of mine.

Regarding the image, it is really offensive to a lot of people. I particularly don't care, but there are many people that do and I'm sure that tumblr user knows that (which is why a lot of tumblr people are annoying). Though, I don't like the word "respect" or "disrespect" because you don't have to have respect for everything. Respect is deep admiration for a certain quality something possesses. Like I have respect for Abe Lincoln due to his Emancipation Proclamation which freed all the slaves in the rebel states; however, I don't have respect for someone that is sitting across from me at Burger King simply because it's not a given. People earn respect and so many people automatically assume respect is a given. Anyway, I'm ranting too much.

People are offended by different things. Not everyone views the world from the same lens.

The Bible is not only a scared text, but also a symbol. It's similar to how people get offended when someone burns the American flag. It may not mean much to you, but to some, the Bible has saved their lives and to burn what has saved their lives is extremely disrespectful. The Bible/religion has given many people hope and to burn that is to burn their hope.

First of all, it's pretty much against the law to stone people to death. Why? Because most countries aren't a theocracy. Also, stoning only occurred under specific instances where someone was liable. The most common is Numbers 15:36. Though this form of capital punishment is seen as extremely harsh, the stoning was necessary in this instance due to the man intentionally breaking the Sabbath. If this incident were to be considered negative, the writer would have most likely left it out if it were to make Christianity look bad. However, preceding the verse, it talks about unintentionally sinning and the consequences of it. This apparent paradox is actually a logical statement exemplified in the Bible. I don't want to go too much into depth because it'll just make me feel like I'm defending myself, but I think you have the picture. Jesus has shown many of examples of preventing stoning throughout the Bible. My point is that the example you listed was kind of hypocritical because you cherrypicked a specific example without any context.

I'll admit that many religious people don't really follow their religion and cherry-pick their texts; however, you can't generalize such a specific topic such as "people" since every person is different. Plus, many "secular values" originate from religious beliefs.

 

Some people here have a "Jesus is my savior bla bla bla copypaste in your sig if you agree" sig, their every post bring it up. Do you know how much problems I have with that ? Zero. And I think your exemple was ill chosen, the pledge is indoctrination 101 and I don' t look kindly to that at all.

If you punch the other babies in kindergarten you' ll quickly figure out no one wants to play with you anymore, long before you can even read the freaking bible or whatever. (to be continued)

 

I don't follow a certain religion at all. But this is honestly really rude to say that it's worth about as much as a plate, well knowing that it's a sacred thing to a lot of people.

They can joke, sure, but it's when it escalated to comments like those that it's just plain out meant to be insulting.

 

Could see that one coming as soon as I reread myself. I should have said "maybe you shouldn' t".

I already adressed this. Like you said not everyone views the world from the same lens.[DOUBLEPOST=1390349157][/DOUBLEPOST]

Could have picked the part saying you shouldn' t eat shellfish. When I said that they cherrypick it was a mere observation, not a criticism. I' m glad they do, it shows they can think for themselves. The bible is too self-contradicting anyway, you' re pretty much forced to try and spin it.

I meant I sometimes saw some religious people react like that, I thought the word "some" was implicit enough to not state it out loud.

 

Both of the examples you took of mine, you took completely out of context. Of course if you read them out of context they sound odd.

^That point isn't about whether or not you can see from a specific lens. It's a fact that many people see hope in the Bible, and for some, it has saved their lives.

Nuff said because this forum isn't about debating.

Shellfish caused a lot of health problems/food poisoning because of lack of technology. It was considered a "dirty food" because of this.

A majority of the things in the Bible are very colloquial and people don't take into account the background information. For example, the Bible mentions that slaves should obey their masters. Centuries on centuries ago, slavery was not awful in the documented areas Jesus visited. They were actually given homes, food, water, etc. The common depiction of "slavery" in the modern American's head is the image of the pre-CIvil War "slave". The difference is that American slaveowners were much more harsh than African slave owners.

 

Just to start/warn: I am very anti-Church, I believe in God, but I am against organized religion due to my own bitter history with it with my dad and partly my education. I won't go into details to why I'm against it, and if you ask and/or make a comment about my beliefs/anger towards it, I won't reply, it's tremendously personal and I don't post it.

I personally find it funny, and most likely my mom would, too. My dad would hit the roof and post probably worst comments than what is said here. But I just think of it as a joke. Is it a bad one? Not really, it doesn't show any disrespect, it was just a small joke that people took too personally in my POV. Does it disrespect religion? Probably not, the bible, no matter what else is said, is a text. People steal it from hotel rooms, (most stolen object known from hotels and most likely bookstores of all time.) Does it mean that it's disrespected because someone stole it and that the message: "Thou shalt not steal" make it more disrespected? Probably not.

The bible in itself was written a 100 years after Jesus's death, a lesson I learned from a college student taking religion. I took ethics which turned out to be "Holy Bible 101", but I digress. I was telling her about the class and she spoke about her own learning, where in one of the first classes, it is mentioned the creation of the bible. It might not be the first religious text, but in that context, the premise wasn't based on Jesus's teachings, or loosely based, considering that a 100 years passed and by that point, most likely it was going by memory of a first or second generation, I'm guessing second due to the lifespan of people back then. Then you have it narrowed down to rich white men, monks and/or religious men (maybe at a stretch women) and men merchants. That brings it to a biased, any book, written at any time, will have it written in the person's hand as a bias unless you write down every single word that is in a said text. Which isn't possible for the first copy. I can't personally say if it is fully accurate because, well, I'm not over 2000 years old. But considering the source, I say it is somewhat accurate.

Some people see the bible as a beacon of hope. Some people see it, including myself as a outdated text that can lead to corruption and greed. Some people use the bible to improve their lives, some use it to improve others, some use it for sheer greed, some use it to ruin other people's lives, but I just see it as a book that I can't read through because even as a kid I got bored. Is this wrong? In a lot of people's eyes, one of the reason's I no longer bring up religion in conversation and it's banned from public with me, as yes, I am wrong for my beliefs. That I should be part of some religion and not have the anger I have towards it, I can't see that changing. And most likely will take things like this as a joke more than most people would.

I personally think it's funny, and take with a large grain of salt due to my childhood some people would find offensive. But from that person's POV, he probably just found it as a small joke that he could share and get some laughs. Which some people need more than a "slandering" of a book.

Sorry if I offended, I tried not to. *bows*

 

To add to what Patman has been saying, it can be really difficult to wrap your mind around an object being sacred or holy if you are not religious. My own beliefs aren't very set in stone, but for simplicity's sake, I'm an atheist. The idea that a book has some magical or spiritual quality to it just doesn't make sense to me (and, to be honest, I found the picture funny). To me, a book can be valuable--I have a century old copy of Pride & Prejudice that I'd be enraged to see covered in pizza--and it can have a valuable message, but the core idea that an object is divine... I just really cannot wrap my mind around it. When you really get down to it, to me, a book is two things: ideas and paper. And if you disagree with the viewpoints within the book, its value diminishes faster and faster.

That said, I can accept that other people see an object that way, and therefore respect their viewpoint, and try to relate in some way. The picture is in poor taste and I really wouldn't take one like it myself. Though, it's important to note that a lot of things on tumblr are in ridiculously poor taste--and sometimes it's humorous and other times it's quite offensive. It depends on who is looking, really.

It's also important to consider intent. Quran burnings are absolutely malicious, whereas this seems more like a fun jab (but again, that's to me). What isn't okay is how some of the commenters replied. Unfortunately a lot of non-religious people have a habit of acting very superior. I've certainly been guilty of it, still am a lot really. Religions like Christianity just fundamentally do not make any sense to some people--and I don't think faith is the type of thing that can be described, or understood by someone who hasn't felt it. Which, being offensive out of ignorance obviously still isn't okay, but I just feel like it's important to explain this.

 

Whew.

First, I am generally an atheist. Perhaps agnostic by virtue of understanding the complexity of the existence of concrete factors, even. This is irrelevant to the rest of the post but let this frame everything as you wish, my dears. I am sleepy, it is midnight, so please bear with this inconsistent post.

As Misty and Patman have addressed throughout the thread (and I will momentarily address), I do not feel much personal connection with the book. I am particularly apathetic towards the joke. However, I understand its implications for being offensive towards others. While it can certainly be considered a joke by some, I am not quite a fan of the negative intent it seemed to intentionally spark over social websites -- especially something such as volatile as Tumblr of all places -- knowing that individuals feel a connection of faith towards the book and this is highly disrespectful to their personal philosophy. It is true that people should take things as humorous as they can, and the like, and personally I feel the world may be all better for that. But this is unfortunately not the case, and people feel real enough connections or emotions to certain beliefs and the symbols that represent them to understandably feel offended at something, even if it were a joke. This is not restricted to religion, but restricted to many personal philosophies. Though some examples may make for some mismatched comparison, and well enough people consider their some of their thinking beyond a personal philosophy, the fundamental idea of offending a personal philosophy stays the same. I will address the implications of this in a bit. Hold on for the ride.

The fair point on religion is that it is essentially framed by years of personal interpretation. It is a series of philosophies that can be applied to a lifestyle but simultaneously inspired by it. It is part of the reason why many religions around the world have a billion and one different sects and interpretations and what have you, and the richness of all of these are a fun tantamount for the complexity of actual personal philosophies among people. Even then, we have a plethora of individuals who do not fit categories. Well enough we could consider every individual to be a unique being harbouring his or her own idiolect of a philosophy that is unique only to them alone, framed by experience and environment, but that goes deeper into questions of identity.

Regardless, understanding that it is the people that define beliefs themselves rather than the original works; it is these philosophies that constantly shift and turn and adjust the ideas of the people, and what have you, makes it fairly obvious that stereotyping a belief (or lack thereof) on the basis of original scriptures seems more a reflection on the assailant's own (rather negative) ideas of the belief in question. It is why the claim that "All Religion X-ers are bad lads" leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. What does it mean to be of the Religion X when philosophies and beliefs become that personal? Are you disliking the belief or the person, and if you are disliking the belief, are you expressing your dislike for it based on your own personal experiences with it?

So, I understand your offense, and I would no doubt feel perhaps a bit offended were I in your position. Not all Christians are hypocrites. Not all religious folks are hypocrites. People can be hypocrites, and religious folk are people first and foremost, and looking through the internet some comments occasionally forget this very basic tenet of humanity. But (as Patman mused about) this is part of why I decide to stay away from those sorts of lads and lassies.

Simply judging an entire belief based on a few factors that themselves are up to interpretation feels a bit silly to me when its current state worldwide is a great amorphous being consisting of a million different thoughts and practices. Some even blended together. My grandparents practiced a blend of Islam and Hinduism, actually. Religion, and personal philosophies, are as miscible as the individual believes or intends them to! So then, why would we generalize an entire system of belief based on one factor?

Secularism or not, the bitter spice of discrimination between people always manifests itself in different flavours. Inter-religious violence is fairly common; the Central African Republic is (very sadly) currently having its own numerous, very bloody problems regarding this as I type these words. Although the more widespread acceptance of atheism has made the dislike towards religion more visible, it seems to me simply another factor of "scaling up" the amount of secularism everywhere. With the few extremists there might be, there are still a good number of people who are highly tolerant of religion while still being secular. Arguably, some secular states (let us take Canada, or Sweden, for example), though they have had their share of religious tension in the past, contain groups that are generally free enough to express their religion -- their personal philosophy as individuals -- through the existence of a state that does not require the need of sticking to one or two beliefs.

Ah, as was said before, and by framing the OP's image, even with explanations, some people just see a certain situation nearly fundamentally differently, and explaining may do little. Misty's post has a good explanation of this. I also see a bit of this stonewalling in abortion debates, but that is another issue entirely.

Even symbolism rests in the individual, to some extent. It is why even in this thread we see differences behind the range of offense among our members. Wiping your bottom with the Bible or another such book is acceptable to some because they may feel little about diminishing its actual practices as it might just be a material representation of so-and-so and this ties into the previous point on personal interpretation. At the same time, it represents something different for other folks who take the book seriously. Now, you can wipe your backside with Leviticus and your neighbour might put it on a pedestal, those are your personal considerations for the Holy Book. The problem arises when lads and lassies in general seem to vocalize some kind of negative or even destructive intent with their practices. Sometimes this happens accidentally and one can hardly fault them for it. It is part of the difference between say, burning the Quran or accidentally saying something negative about Islam without knowing much of the social cues of the place. Social factors and social environment are what play a major part. Ross may have addressed this in his post as well but even if one has personal non-destructive beliefs about a particular factor, it may be wiser to not intentionally instigate something with the intent of negativity. Now you already addressed this enough in sixteen other posts so the point has been made.

Which is why the biggest thing I have to say about your comment here is not the above paragraph but rather my agreement in the trolling we see in the OP picture, pff.

But it really is up to interpretation at times. That being said, there are various levels of difference in intent and manipulation of social factors between things like the image in the original post, or Piss Christ, or Innocence of Muslims. But you know, all three things there have some level of controversy to them.

Like you mention later, this is advantageous to both practitioners of a world philosophy like religion, and the philosophy itself. It keeps things fresh, dynamic, and ever-accepting (mostly). Because these things become fairly personal, we see change and difference among different beliefs not only in groups of people but through different time periods as well.

Fair enough. Like was said previously, the difference lies in the negativity of intent through intentional manipulation of factors in a social environment with these things, but this runs into a slippery grey area. How far are we willing to go with expressing dislike or even hate with something? Should all of it be condoned under a freedom of expression, or only some? Are we willing to extend this towards personal philosophies?

Interesting article. I am not quite sure what to say about the actual removal of the teachers; in both cases it did not appear to be directly related to how they taught the class but rather previous circumstances/student reactions and threads, but I understand what you mean. It may have been a bit adventurous to teach a class the transience of symbolism among people in that very specific and personal manner, but I suppose it goes to show how deeply symbols can affect humans on a fundamental level. Fair warning to say that it is good to think for one's self, but even believing in symbolism is a personal thing that leads to personal interpretations. Not every Muslim sent death threats to that particular Floridian pastor who burned the Quran even if they felt an equally symbolic connection to it. Even then, that might be hard to compare, since personal philosophies are fairly individual things. But it obviously never justifies folks who make death threats and racist comments towards whom they believe is the offender. Something like that might even put them on the same level as the sort who intentionally offend, but situations like these really depend on the circumstances surrounding everything.

I understand what you are trying to say, and I generally do agree. But in the frame of this particular topic and your agreement with Patman on someone expressing how beliefs might be despicable, should we not extend hazardous beliefs to include those that might intentionally target or direct hate towards religions and other philosophies? Now, I am not talking about the joke picture in the OP, but again, it offers a grey area when one understands that much of the roots of calamitous situations on the basis of a characteristic lie in hazardous beliefs that are allowed to perpetuate. I have seen as many militant atheists and evangelicals alike.

This is a nice post (along with tummer's) because it frames the idea of personal philosophy regarding religion. Neither of you two explicitly restrict yourself to a particular church denomination but you still feel connections with parts of the belief you ascribe yourself to, which is a personal thing as an individual. Even if you identify as Christian, you still might have as many differences with your beliefs as say, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. But at the same time things like the OP post feel like an affront to what you believe in, even if it is an individual thing. It would be nice if more people tolerated all kinds of viewpoints on the spiritual, or even lack thereof.

Very nice point. Like I mentioned earlier, I have seen as many militant atheists as I have extreme evangelicals, at least on the internet. Maybe by its nature of pooling together similar-minded folks in small clusters, but there you go. Any extreme side of the coin is not fun to interact with, religious or not. Fundamentally it implies that it might be better in the long run for many to be more tolerant, but there you go.

Arguably, all humans possess an innate sense of ethical consideration, religious or not. In fact, the universality of some positive ethics in religions all across the world can just as easily be attributed to this innate humanism rather than the other way around. The personal ethics of folks are what helped perpetuate certain positive morals in religions. So a secular lad or lassie would have just as many personal restraints as a religious person. There are no explicit rules that stop me from badgering my mother to get me a glass of milk this instant, but I do not do that not because of any rules or laws but because I try my best to be considerate and understanding of others and I would not want my poor mother putting in all that effort for no reason. A sense of courtesy. Religion just serves to frame what already exists, more than anything, but it still exists even if you take it away.

Again, as the above implies, symbolism is powerful. Even if it might be for the best, or not for the best in the end, the power of symbolism still resonates among individuals today, and even in acknowledgement of symbolism one can still think individually and rationally, the difference being that their thoughts are framed by what they feel is so symbolic about the object in question.

I feel Pat's example there was simply to show how religion is up to personal interpretation, but he may have been clear with the other post.

See a few paragraphs above, friend; it may actually be the other way around in my view, but that does not devalue either religion or a secular individual's sense of ethics. It might complement both, actually.

Personal interpretation is truly what makes the cake of belief taste sweet.

Now now, this is golden, and it is nice to talk about different views like this. Debating is welcome anywhere here.

This is a good point on why religions and other things should generally continue on their path of individual interpretation, which happens passively by our very human nature. Many of the things written in scriptures from centuries ago, be they the Vedas or the Quran, generally deal with what was acceptable at the time. I have also noticed that many of these scriptures that justify certain practices actually have very rational bases to them. Shellfish being one example, Hinduism espouses the prohibition of beef because, among other reasons, cattle at the time of the religion's first steps were considered much more productive to the food supply if used for their milk rather than their meat.


In retrospect and looking over all the other things so far, it generally seems well enough to sum up the argument as tolerance of beliefs should be a thing, you are free to believe or disbelieve, but insulting or even, dare I say, attacking someone over some aspect of their character, personal philosophy or not, especially in the light of social circumstances that would most definitely lead to negative or offended reaction is simply not courteous. Free speech and everything yes, but there is a difference between expressing your disbelief to a person and expressing your disbelief to a person by hitting them over the head with something you know will offend them deeply and intentionally. Now, some people may interpret it all differently -- like I said, different philosophies are uniquely individual at times -- but unless you intentionally want to strike some controversy for whatever reason (like I assume the picture in the OP did, but it is the internet), it would be wiser to try one's best to acknowledge differences in belief and the social cues/circumstances that come with them, because some people might react to situations differently than others. Being offended by something is not limited to a book, either. There have been many times in the past where individuals can either joke about something, let us say, gruesome, or they can feel almost traumatized by it. Respect boundaries. Try to see other view points.

This also goes for:

This lovely point, where it is true that some people might see the world fundamentally to the extent that your consideration of an object or symbol might be different from another person's. In situations like these it might be best to try your hardest to be aware of social circumstances, or more importantly the circumstances of the person. Religious or not. They might be offended by that murder joke you made. It might not be your fault, you did not know. But if you do know something like that might get them, it seems odd to make it unless you truly want to prove some sort of point. The world has no reason to perpetuate excessive insensitivity when we can change it and it harms nobody.

 

Totally, however the line between expressing a personnal, tolerant viewpoint and hate speech can be quite blurry, especially in the guise of comedy. France certainly has its hands full with that very problem right now :

I' ve been on the fence for some time, the guy deliberately stays in the gray area, but the longer he does that the more suspect it gets. The more I find out about him the more I think he' s an asshat. Problem is censoring his shows might have been a Pyrrhic victory, it only advertized him an rallied even more support in his favor.[DOUBLEPOST=1390810074][/DOUBLEPOST]

Yes thank you. I didn' t quote the full thing but that' s exactly what I was hinting at.

 

I admit that trolling theists stops being funny after 16 and that deliberately offending any group is in poor taste, but a photo such as this isn't worth getting worked up over. You're probably giving the person who posted this exactly what they want.

Just because a text is sacred to some doesn't mean all of us should treat it that way. Expecting that is in itself disrespectful. If someone makes clear that something you hold dear is of no more value than a dinner plate to them, grow a spine and strut along. Yes, you may base your entire life off that book, but ask yourself this. Isn't the notion that the Bible's teachings in their entirety are being crapped on by a single picture a bit absurd? I'd say it is. If someone genuinely wanted to criticize your way of life, they'd attack the content rather than the package.

So no, you are not entitled to feel offended any more than I would when someone showed me a picture of my family's heads on monkey bodies, or placed me in a phylogenetic tree next to the sponges.