Criticizing religious beliefs. A fundamental human right.

[Twilight Hue]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Firemorphic]

Sure

 

[shunyadragon]

An important issue is disagreements should not be taken personally as a personal attack.

 

[Woberts]

I wouldn't call it a fundamental right, but it's certainly a pleasant one to have.

 

[Yerda]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

It is.

Under Article 19 of the UDHR we have,

the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

I reckon that covers criticism of any beliefs, religious or not.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

Agree, although I'd prefer it to be broadened to simply indicate that criticism of beliefs is freely allowed.
For example, North Korea doesn't have religious beliefs allowed (something that should be criticized) and nor do they allow open criticism of the government.

Our ability to freely discuss the edifices around us with power and making decisions is what's fundamental. Just as I don't want religion elevated beyond other beliefs, nor do I want it attacked more than other beliefs.

 

[Axe Elf]

It's a fundamental right to THINK critically--although it is also a skill that requires practice.

Whether or not one always has the right to openly criticize is not so fundamental.

 

[Milton Platt]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

I agree, although I would not classify it as some sort of fundamental right. There is no reason a religious belief should not be examined the same way any other type of belief would be.

 

[Cacotopia]

An important issue is disagreements should not be taken personally as a personal attack.

good luck, because when someone criticizes a core value, it will most often seen as a personal attack.

 

[Brickjectivity]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

Fluid. You see, the human race has never, ever, ever, ever been this humanist. It remains to be seen whether we will all start chopping each other up. I am not kidding, so...it kind of depends on what happens. If people start acting like animals then humanism along with many basic freedoms will be regarded as privilege and withheld again. Also that might happen anyway, because people sometimes just take away your stuff.

 

[danieldemol]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

Agree, nothing should be above scrutiny

 

[shunyadragon]

good luck, because when someone criticizes a core value, it will most often seen as a personal attack.

No luck needed nor desired.

Which is the problem when discussing religions and religious beliefs. Yes, criticizing and disagreeing with core values(?) is part of the game. As was said before 'Nothing should be above scrutiny, disagreement or criticism.

 

[Augustus]

good luck, because when someone criticizes a core value, it will most often seen as a personal attack.

"Followers of [insert name of religion] are gullible, deluded morons who believe nonsense stories about sky daddies because they are weak minded sheep without an ability to think rationally or critically. Don't see that as a personal attack btw, I'm just stating facts here. It's the thought not the individual."

How could anyone see such things as a personal attack? Silly snowflakes...

 

[Earthling]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

I disagree. It's not our place to criticize other's beliefs. I have a respect for other's beliefs since I would want that for my own beliefs. For example, I don't criticize Buddha's alleged comment that there is no gods and if there are any they aren't going to help man. That statement is based upon his own personal observation and experience, so who am I to criticize it. I may disagree with it but I respect it. My God, Jehovah, offers everyone the choice of accepting or rejecting him. Either of those choices are granted by him, he doesn't force anyone's choice. So I respect either choice.

What I think is fair to criticize is the transmogrification, obfuscation, misrepresentation, or slander from willful ignorance of a belief. If someone says God, meaning a specific god, that of the Bible, for example, is something or did something which I think is false it's open for harsh criticism. If, for example, my statement above on Buddha's position on God were contrary to his actual position I would gladly accept criticism for having made the statement. If that criticism, in my opinion, from my own observation and experience, happened to be incorrect then I would protest it and feel obligated to explain it.

This is why I have such an animosity towards what I define as "militant" atheists. I believe their criticism to be, not only unfounded, but unfair, arrogant and disrespectful. That's what I react objectively opposed to. Not their rejection or disbelief, but their unfounded, unsupported, arrogant and unfair criticism.

 

[Augustus]

I wouldn't call it a fundamental right, but it's certainly a pleasant one to have.

Fair point. It's really a cultural value rather than a fundamental right.

While you can maker a case that certain rights transcend cultural boundaries, this one seems a bit too subjective to be fundamental.

An individualistic society would judge the right to free speech as being the greater good, a more collectivist one could value cohesion and protection of cultural values as being the greater good.

 

[Earthling]

I agree, although I would not classify it as some sort of fundamental right. There is no reason a religious belief should not be examined the same way any other type of belief would be.

I wouldn't disagree with that statement when applied to a general belief system as it appears in the public domain. For example, the separation of church and state is something I think is very important. If it's someone's belief that these should be joined to any extent then that belief is up for criticism. But that, to me, is different than criticism of an individual's belief. What would be the point no matter what that person's beliefs are, unless they actually threaten your own.

Notice I say threaten, not be contrary to or disagree with your own. For example, the Christian congregation has the "right," for lack of a better term, to refuse homosexuals. But not try and openly object to homosexuality in society. Likewise, society has no place to criticize their position on homosexuality.

It's problematic in that I do believe they have the right to criticize one another, but not to try and enforce some change somehow. If they have the right to believe, which I think they do, and the right to criticize, which I think they do, that's one thing. But for either to try and change that belief to their own belief is just ultimately asking for the same. Someone may come along and not like your beliefs. It's like freedom of speech. You may not like someone else's speech but you have to allow it if you expect your own to be allowed.

 

[stvdv]

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.
Agree or disagree?

Attack is violence: whether in deed, word or thought. I believe in "Hurt Never ... Help Ever", I do not believe in right to attack. Defence is fine.

I do not believe I have the right to criticize the belief of another person. Unless the other asks me to give my opinion on his belief
Everyone has the freedom to choose what he believes. Why should I criticize what someone else wants to believe?

I do have the right to criticize his harmful actions done in name of his belief

It's okay to criticize killing in name of Islam. It's not okay to tell a Muslim his belief is bad/wrong
It's okay to criticize a Christian imposing his belief on me. It's not okay to evangelize using emotional manipulation "Accept Jesus else you goto hell"

Believe is something you do in the silence of your heart, it's not something you broadcast (bothering/hurting others)
Believing "attack the belief is fine" is a natural reaction created by socalled evangelists "attacking others belief systems"

 

[Altfish]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

Agree totally, religion is fair game just like politics is.

 

[Milton Platt]

I wouldn't disagree with that statement when applied to a general belief system as it appears in the public domain. For example, the separation of church and state is something I think is very important. If it's someone's belief that these should be joined to any extent then that belief is up for criticism. But that, to me, is different than criticism of an individual's belief. What would be the point no matter what that person's beliefs are, unless they actually threaten your own.

Notice I say threaten, not be contrary to or disagree with your own. For example, the Christian congregation has the "right," for lack of a better term, to refuse homosexuals. But not try and openly object to homosexuality in society. Likewise, society has no place to criticize their position on homosexuality.

It's problematic in that I do believe they have the right to criticize one another, but not to try and enforce some change somehow. If they have the right to believe, which I think they do, and the right to criticize, which I think they do, that's one thing. But for either to try and change that belief to their own belief is just ultimately asking for the same. Someone may come along and not like your beliefs. It's like freedom of speech. You may not like someone else's speech but you have to allow it if you expect your own to be allowed.

We are in general agreement. I would add that if someone desires others to believe as they do, or desires to have their beliefs taught to other people's children in school, or to have public laws enacted that embody those beliefs which affect other people, then criticism is warranted. If they never divulge those beliefs but hold them privately, then it affects no one but them..

 

[IndigoChild5559]

2013 article from Psychology Today: Criticizing Religious Beliefs Is a Fundamental Human Right

I think people need and aught to call out any and all religious beliefs and be willing and forward enough to call and scrutinize any and all beliefs for what they are.

Beliefs themselves should never be regarded as a protected and insulated element to be willfully shielded from criticism and scrutiny from its critics, with the exception of course, to the people themselves who have the justifiable right and protections to believe in those things, without undue fear of being strong armed or unprotected by those who disagree.

Basically it's a fundamental right to attack the belief, but not the believer themselves.

Agree or disagree?

Great post.

I would also add that when criticizing a religion's beliefs, it is below the belt to:

1. Tell the person what they believe when they have already told you otherwise
2. Make popular false claims about a religion that are denied by their written teachings
3. Use inflammatory comments such as "demonic," "cult," or "of Satan."
4. Attack the person rather than the belief, including broad general statements about a certain set of people that are obviously only meant to attack, such as "Catholic apologists will lie to win an argument."