Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

A post on another thread got me thinking.


Why is it considered taboo to openly criticise another persons religion in most societies but yet perfectly ok to criticise a persons political convictions?

I am not sure that the assumption embedded in your question is correct. Which societies are your "most societies" ?


Kim

[edited for clarity]

If you do it in America, you're labelled a bigot. There is an old saying that there are three things you don't discuss: a person's children, politics and religion. Until fairly recently, you could have added a person's sexual orientation. Here in the south I've seen fistfights break out over religion. Years ago Richard Dawkins almost got mob lynched when he came to the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (my home town) to debate evolution vs. creationism. And I'm not speaking metaphorically. Security was barely sufficient to get him to his car. I still wonder if to this day if he knows just how close he came to being strung up like a pinata?

BB

I'm not sure that this is the case at all; it all depends on the society, and the nature and setting of the criticism. Some political questions have been off limits in many societies - questions concerning the desirability of communism in the former Soviet Union, for example, or the validity of particular nation-states, were not for the faint-hearted. Conversely, there are settings where any form of religion is openly reviled, especially on the internet. (The "Belief" section of the Guardian "Comment is Free" website
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief
is interesting in this respect. "The world's leading liberal voice", indeed...)

In so far as religion is more taboo in certain settings than politics, it is probably because political questions are discussed within certain social conventions which are grounded in discourse and "nondecision-making". People can argue and ridicule because they know the limits, and the rules which define them. In the case of religions, however, differences are often manifested when we confront unknown cultures, and we are not familiar with the terms of engagement. We know how opponents are likely to react when we ridicule the appearance of their party leader, but have no idea whether we can similarly ridicule (say) the prophet Mani or the local god-man.

clw_uk wrote:A post on another thread got me thinking.


Why is it considered taboo to openly criticise another persons religion in most societies but yet perfectly ok to criticise a persons political convictions?

Discussing politics gets the same kind of stigma in a number of situations. For example, speaking out against McCarthyism in the 50s. Bill Maher losing his show after 9/11 for quibbling as to whether or not the terrorists were cowards. I think it comes down to how threatening people find the conversation. After an attack on their country, talking about changes that effect someone's fiances, etc are all discussions that will get you labeled as a social skunk, as would criticizing religion in certain places.

Speaking from a history of ideas standpoint, I think it may have something to do with the realization since Pascal that religion is not so much a matter of reason, it is something to take on faith. So why bother discussing it when it typically goes nowhere and can easily make people angry?

Because religion is much more important to most people than politics. That's the first reason. The second reason might be that criticizing a certain religion is reason to fear for one's life. If it wasn't for this case in particular, criticism of religion would be a much more natural activity _ although another reason is even more powerful, which I interpret to be the mental defense mechanism of reactive formation in most left wing people.

Modus.Ponens wrote:Because religion is much more important to most people than politics.

I think you will find a large portion of the human population of planet Earth disagree with you. Religion and politics supply people with their needs and desires. Politics is all about who gets what, somethng that goes to the core of human nature.

Samma wrote:Speaking from a history of ideas standpoint, I think it may have something to do with the realization since Pascal that religion is not so much a matter of reason, it is something to take on faith. So why bother discussing it when it typically goes nowhere and can easily make people angry?

Same reason why I would try and persuade someone that sacrificing a goat won't lead to happiness

Kim OHara wrote:I am not sure that the assumption embedded in your question is correct. Which societies are your "most societies" ?


Kim

[edited for clarity]

Theocratic societies and societies where traditional values, I.e. religion are upheld and criticism thereof looked down upon. Also the political correctness that is creeping into the west, at least in the U.K., where you have to be careful what you say about a persons religion, otherwise you are intolerant, say of Christians, or "racist" in the case of Jews and Muslims.


For example if I criticise Islam I can be labelled "Islamaphobic" or "racist" as If a criticism of an ideology was an attack on an ethnic group.

So if I say that I think that Jesus was insane, or that Mohammad was an ignorant con-artist, or delusional, I can be labelled intolerant or racist.

I hope I don't have to show the illogical fallacy lurking there.

Hi Clw
Is that because religion is more subjective and the politics are more objective?

SarathW wrote:Hi Clw
Is that because religion is more subjective and the politics are more objective?

Well everything seems to be subjective/emotive.

You cant seem to prove with certainty that anything is objectively true, not even Buddhism.

clw_uk wrote:A post on another thread got me thinking.


Why is it considered taboo to openly criticise another persons religion in most societies but yet perfectly ok to criticise a persons political convictions?

Could it be that religion reveals ultimate reality and politics reveals conventional reality? Where is tiltbillings anyway?

chownah

chownah wrote:

clw_uk wrote:A post on another thread got me thinking.


Why is it considered taboo to openly criticise another persons religion in most societies but yet perfectly ok to criticise a persons political convictions?

Could it be that religion reveals ultimate reality and politics reveals conventional reality? Where is tiltbillings anyway?

chownah

And how do you distinguish?

chownah wrote:

clw_uk wrote:A post on another thread got me thinking.


Why is it considered taboo to openly criticise another persons religion in most societies but yet perfectly ok to criticise a persons political convictions?

Could it be that religion reveals ultimate reality and politics reveals conventional reality? Where is tiltbillings anyway?

chownah

No idea lol