Does the rise of religion mean the end of debate?

**


I believe that we are all just human beings. That we should and maybe can work together to improve this world.

That any problem has a rational solution within this real world.

That while force might have to be used, it’s use is an admission of failure.

That how people are treated has a real impact on how they will treat others and that politics is about moulding institutions, plus the social, economic and cultural environment to bring that about.

That education should be about the seeking of understanding by questioning not just about the blind acceptance of taught ‘truths’.

**

To me religion is against all that.

**

There are moral and immoral people and that is set.

The immoral ones can only become moral by giving themselves over to the moral dogma of the moral’s religion.

As long as you stick to the moral code of the religion, nothing else matters in this world except the spreading of the religion or the enforcement of the codes.

That people are moral or immoral.

The answers to all questions are known because the answer to every question is in a book or in belief in a god.

**

I’ve argued many times that Americans seem to have a simplistic either/or approach to questions I think that religion just reinforces that trait.

Any discussion on an issue is not about the differing possible causes and the myriad possible ways to best deal with it, but comes down to a simple matter of agreeing with their religious view or not.

 

i think political correctness destroyed debate.

You cant talk about anything without being labeled a racist, a bigot, a religious zealot....

 

**


If someone is saying that you would not debate your views because they think others might think them racist.

How do they know that they are not racist?

**

The thing that always pops into my head as soon as someone brings up “political correctness” is that they just haven’t got an argument and probably know they haven’t.

If someone claims they will not say something because they fear that it will be seen as a racist (or bigoted), then they must think that what they are to say must be in some way racist (or bigoted). If they didn’t think it was and so thought it could be defended against the charge, why not say it? If that’s not the case then shouldn’t they ask themselves if the view might actually be racist (or bigoted)?

Are those saying that political correctness destroys debate really saying that they hate not being able to sprout unfounded racist and bigoted comments without being pulled up about it?


**

 

Well, religion is a problem because it can't be proven wrong. You can't debate it, really, because the religious person always has that "god did it" wildcard. You cant corner them cuz they have faith. That's a problem when it gets into politics. They claim to have the upper hand and the higher blessing, and there's no convincing them otherwise. Look at Bush and his holy war against the Muslims.

As far as political correctness, it is bullshit. Yeah, maybe if you're that concerned about being branded a racist or whatever, maybe you don't have much of an argument. But when there's people misconsturing all that you say because they're so worried about people being biased against them, then almost anything you say, unless it's very roundabout and overly cautions, is going to be construed as bigoted. I don't agree with this. If someone's feelings are that fragile that saying "black" rather than "african american" (for example) is that offensive, they need to see a therapist. Get over yourself, you know? I agree that we shouldn't disrespect people, but geez, don't go overboard on the PC. It's like a bunch of little kids out there, scared of words. PC really is sort of childish. Sanitation engineer? No man, your a garbage man. Get over it.

 

Take Affirmative Action for example, i've been called a racist probably a dozen times just because i said i'm against affirmative action.

I see no room in our society for reverse racism. I'm tired of the shitty arguments of "well they suffered for 500,000 years, so they need the help.' Its absolutely bullshit. We are like 7-8 generations removed from slavery in this country. Ontop of that, so many people came to this country AFTER slavery, why should they have to pay for the crimes of someone else? Why should anyone be given reparations if they were not a slave? AA had its day in the sun to help integrate this society, but its day is long gone. We need to go back to rewarding people on merit.

Take abortion next, if you're pro life you'll most likely be called a religious zealot trying to push your views on someone else. It has nothing to do with religious views. IT has to do with the fact thta you believe life starts at conception and that a HUMAN LIFE is being taken.

I know several professors at my university who have insurance because they are scared to death of being called a racist/sexist when they give a person a bad grade. We have come to the point in this society that we cant criticize anyone, except the catholic church and white men.

Meg: I'm against AA
Idiot01: You're a racist.

RandomChristian: I'm against abortion
RandomFemale: STOP TRYING TO SMOTHER ME IN YOUR RELIGION YOU FREAK FANATIC AND STOP TRYING TO CONTROL MY BODY


yeah..kinda makes debates..interesting.

 

**

Meg

You show how stereotypical and blinked is your thinking.

What you choose to call examples of ‘political correctness’ I would call simplistic thinking and ignorance and no one side or group has a monopoly on that.

I would be rich if I had a nickel for every time that I’ve mentioned some left wing view and been accused of loving Stalinism or been accused of anti-Semitism for criticising Israeli government policies or anti-Americanism for getting at those of the Bush admin. Many here have been told to ‘love it or leave it’ even me and I’m not American, don’t live in the US and frankly don’t want to.

Also Affirmative Action has been argued here before and I’m against racial AA, which I think divisive and would favour an economically based AA system. You say you favour merit but how would you bring about the very high levels of equality of opportunity that is the only justification for having a meritocracy?

Please reprint you argument in a new thread so the ideas can be explored?

As I said those that claim that they don’t argue because they fear there views being attacked should wonder why they have views that they seem unable to defend. I mean do they truly believe that anything they say must be simply accepted without argument?

**

In you opinion is being called a racist or a communist the end of it?

Meg: I'm against AA
Idiot01: You're a racist.
Meg: My argument against AA is not racist it is about X, Y and X

If the idiot just keeps saying, “You’re a racist” without any further arguments to back that statement up then they’re a troll and a moderator should be notified. If however they argue that Y is a racist argument because of A, B, and C it means you have a debate on your hands.

**

Take abortion next, if you're pro life you'll most likely be called a religious zealot trying to push your views on someone else. It has nothing to do with religious views. IT has to do with the fact thta you believe life starts at conception and that a HUMAN LIFE is being taken.

Meg please try and stop thinking in such simplistic terms as either / or.

Why do people get pregnant with unwanted children?

Why do people decide to terminate those pregnancy?

(and if you want to reply please do so in the Abortion thread)


**

We have come to the point in this society that we can’t criticise anyone, except the Catholic Church and white men.

If you think you have a valid argument fucking well come out with it don’t hide behind crap statements like that. What I fear is that many people us this kind of misdirection as a way of getting out of having to test their views in debate.




**

 

**


To carry on the theme of my last post and the subject of this thread the question is:

Since religious belief is not based rational or reasoned argument can a religious belief be tested in debate?

For example if racism and religion are mixed, if a religion dictates that a racial group of chosen and therefore superior to other racial groups, can that view be tested in debate?

They don’t accept rational or scientific argument since their gods word is superior.

If the belief is scripture based you might try and argue with them over different prophet’s words or the meaning of a story, but to me that isn’t rational argument it is theology.

So can there be any meaningful debate with someone with religiously not rationally held beliefs and if so how?

How do you have a political debate with someone who believes they’re utterly right and who cannot be swayed by rational viewpoints?

**

Do you think the US constitution can protect Americans from the influences of a religious movement that believes it has the god given answer to all of the US’s ‘problems’?

**

 

i think that this argument requires a rather narrow and mininformed defintition of religion. there are several assumptions here, that don't necessarily have anything to do with religon, or that may only apply to certain followers of certain branches of certain religions, and yet are being used to paint them all with the same brush.

right here is an assumption that doesn't necessarily apply to many religions. not all religions consider it their business to determine what is moral and immoral for other people. for example, my religion concerns itself more with responsibility and personal ethics than with a moral society. but then, we're a small, rather disorganized faith still considered "fringe" in many places, so that may be just because we aren't big enough to go pushing our views on others. personally, i hope that day never comes.

again, some religions put more emphasis on dogma than others. many religions do not seek to convert or enforce their beliefs and practices on other people. actually, aggressive conversion is only a problem with a few (unfortunately large and vocal) fundamentailist, evangelical branches of some religions. i mean, really, it's not like you're likely to be attacked by radical Buddhists weilding Dharma in a threatening manner.

once again, this statement reveals how little you know about religious diversity and the teachings of many faiths. once again, not all religions are founded on sacred writings, and not all of those that are are evangelical. all thought there are literalist, fundamentalists to be found in almost any faith, that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire religion claims the words in its book are absolute and to be taken literally.

**

again, you paint all religons with the same brush and that's not really fair. not all faiths take an absolute, either/or approach or embrace ideas like "good" and "evil". do you think they yin/yang symbol is just something that hippie kids wear to look cool? their are a lot of taoists who find deeper meaning in it.

could it be perhaps that what is bothering you, the real problem, is not religions, not even fundamentalist evangelical religions, but the dominant religious culture in this country? let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

I never said either side had a monopoly on it. Though, it tends to happen more on the elft, IMO.

Thank you for further proving my point.

I would much rather have an economic AA system too until we can eliminate that too. Economic AA isnt based on the color of the skin and helps the poor whites/asians out who are treated like dirt because they are white/asian.

nah, you can.

It has nothing to do with being unable to defend. It has to do with being called a racist/sexist/bigot because you dont agree with them. Dont tell me it doesnt happen, it happens all over.

In my opinion, yes. I am not going to continue on with someone who calls me a racist because i said i disagree with AA.

I have better things to do than waste my time than with someone like that.

Debate whether I am a racist? Might be thrilling for you, its not for me. I dont care to waste my time with a fool and defend myself because PC has taught him that anyone who argues against something favorable to the blacks must be a racist. No, i wont, sorry.

**

relevance?

relevance?

It has nothing to do with hiding, it has to do with being called a racist(atlesat for me).

sorry, maybe debating is more important to you, but i dont care to be personally attacked in real life by some fool because his only defense is "you're racist."

 

Megara, im gettin awfully sick of your attitude, your racist, religious zealot, stop pushing your pro-life, racist beliefs on me.......

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

**

Kitty

Cheers for the correction, the ‘religion’ I was talking about I thought was defined by time and space, but I should have made it clear that I was talking about the ‘moralistic’ religious groups that have become such a part of US right wing politics.

What I would say is that any religion that becomes powerful can find itself, like most institutions, corrupted by the experience, something you seem astutely aware of.

I should also like to point out that I’m British. I read a survey on religion in the UK once and I think it turned out that only some 5% of the population had gone to a religious service in the last week compared with some 75 – 85% of Americans.

I think the dominant religious culture of Britain is football (soccer) or very much seems like it.


**

 

**

I never said either side had a monopoly on it. Though, it tends to happen more on the left, IMO.

Why is it that you think the left does it more? The three examples you say further prove your point were of the right wing attacking lefties. What you call PC is really just name-calling and if you let that stop debate is just plain stupid it means the hecklers win and really mate to let it effect you so much is a bit wimpish.

I could be wrong but haven’t you been one of the people that have actually said that my views are ‘typical of a liberal’?

**

It has nothing to do with being unable to defend. It has to do with being called a racist/sexist/bigot because you dont agree with them. Dont tell me it doesnt happen, it happens all over.

The thing is if you are not defending your views how do you know that the accusation isn’t true? I don’t know if you have noticed but I’ve been called a few things and accused of many others but I believe my views are worthwhile defending if yours aren’t just why do you have them? Also if you are going to run away at the slightest bit of disagreement then why come to a forum like this?

**

Why do people get pregnant with unwanted children?
Why do people decide to terminate those pregnancy?

You ask why these questions are relevant, but the thing is I don’t think you have actually looked at the issue.

You seem to be saying that to you it is simple, open and shut, black and white, but you have just taken the subject not actually thought about the subject, and those two processes are not the same.

(I’m not going to discuss the abortion issue here if you want to reply to this please go to the other abortion threads, thanks Balbus)

What you seem to be doing is common on the forum it is falling into the trap of over simplification. The problem is most things in the real world are not like that. Reducing things to either a good way or a bad way, to simple right and wrong, which brooks no compromise can so often lead to unrealistic assessments of the actual issues.

To me debate is a way of looking at an issue from many directions so that hopefully real solutions to real problems, in the real world might he found. What I fear is that some religious groups are griped by a dogma that feels that it does not need debate to any issue because it feels it has got the answers already.


**

 

A heckler never wins, by default he loses.

i dont think i've said anyones views are 'typical of a liberal.'

**

Because i know what the word RACIST means. I doubt most people in america knows what the word means.

I dont believe i am better than anyone because of the color of my skin. Nor do i think i am better than anyone bcause i am a guy.

The closest anyone could charge me with being a bigot is when i crack european jokes, but they are just that, jokes.

You dont seem to understand. I love debates. Throwing around racist/sexist/bigot IS NOT ARGUING. They are the ones who are fleeing from an argument by replying with personal attacks.

Tossing out an ad hom doesnt make you a winner in a debate.

**

Life is life to them, nuff said. I never said what my position was on abortion.

Oh, i'd LOVE to know how its simplifying the problem to say that AA is racist against whites/asians.

I agree. But ad homs are not a position on an argument.

 

that is WAY wrong.


Church Attendance: Who Goes, How Often?
Analysis by Dalia Sussman, ABCNEWS
Been to church this week? If you’re an older woman in the South, chances are you have.

Not counting weddings and funerals, 38 percent of Americans say they go to religious services at least once a week. But there are big differences across demographic groups, with self-reported attendance peaking among older people, women, Southerners and Baptists, among others.


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/101/story_10188_1.html

 

**

Meg

What is it you are trying to say, you have me confused?

Your original argument seemed to be that it isn’t religion but political correctness that destroys debate.

You seemed to back up this argument by saying that you would not debate if called a racist, bigot etc.

But you then say that you are not against debate, you love debate, but your still seem to be arguing that if people call you such and such a name that’s it?

Then things really did get weird, it left the rails and began rambling the back roads in search of a drink. I mean what does “Life is life to them, nuff said.” mean in this context or “AA is racist against whites/asians”?

**

As I said I don’t know if your views are racist or not, I don’t think we have discussed any subject where it might have come up and as to AA you say you don’t or will not talk about for fear of being called a racist.


**

 

***

I was doing it from memory - but

according to the pollsters Populus, for instance, only 2% of British voters go to church more than once a week, whereas 63% of Bush voters do.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1348341,00.html

The most striking contrast is over the scale of churchgoing. Nearly three fifths of Bush voters (58 per cent) say they go to church weekly, as do two fifths of Kerry voters (41 per cent). By contrast, a mere 10 per cent of Labour supporters, and 13 per cent of Tories say they attend church weekly.
http://inclusivechurch.net/news.html?id=181


**

 

I practice Buddhism which my husband says is more of a philosophy. I grew up catholic but do not agree with all of their ideals.

 

Responding to ad homs is not giving up on a debate. The debate was lost when the other person threw out ad homs.

No, i said i dont care to be attacked in real life. I am careful who i tell my opinions too. But notice, this isnt real life. So if you want to start a thread about AA, feel free, and i'll post my reasons for why i'm against it.

 

Does this shock you? We all knew that religion is more important to americans.