Does Religion Bashing Serve Any Useful Purpose?

[Quintessence]

Well, bashing of anything, religions or otherwise, is useful in that it may accomplish:

• Polarization different groups and a reduction of inter-group cooperation or harmony. Some folks actually intend to sow discord and chaos in their wakes.
• Shoring up and affirming their own positions or stances. As suggested above, this effect will also tend to happen in the maligned group (aka, polarization).
• Release bottled up emotions and frustrations that every human experiences. Whether or not this particular expression of release is healthy is debatable.
• Development of stereotyped propaganda that can successfully undermine the targeted group as many humans don't bother to do research and fact check.

Probably a few other things I'm not thinking of - some of the above was inspired by things others have already mentioned in the thread.

 

[SomeRandom]

It was Zeinab Badawi, who was (some might say "unfortunately") paired with Ann Widdecombe. I think your observation would fit them accurately, so perhaps it's him you're thinking of.

Oh yes you're right!! I came away thinking that that particular gentleman was a credit to his religion and the lady was Catholicism's version of Delores Umbridge!!

 

[icehorse]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions. Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.


As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

I agree that some people will dig in their heels, and I agree that for some it's just catharsis.

But I think it can also shift the "Overton window". I think that at some level all politicians know this, and use it quite effectively.

 

[stvdv]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions. Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.

As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

Whoever says "you goto hell unless you change to my religion" = "bashing" the others' belief system [atheism = belief system to not believe].
Belief system is personal. So bashing the others' is useless and disrespectful. Walk away is my way to stop this arrogant violent behaviour.
IMO: Working bees trying to evangelize is out of "hell" fear. The ones in charge are in it for power, control and money
[Of course they will sugar coat it by claiming "we care for you, and wish you get in heaven too" ["that's why we scare you with hell"]]

Agreed that it's useless to debate "arrogant people". Spiritual arrogance is even worse. Isolate them [walk away] or kill them will solve the problem. If it's just about difference in religion I see no point to change someone's view. All are free to believe whatever they fancy. If it gets political and violent then trouble starts.
[e.g. Practical example on high level bashing/critisizing is Kim+Trump. Kim and North Koreans think He is God [so critisizing can be seen as an example of religion bashing, and we have seen it is not working]. Fear to kill might work, because under arrogance lies fear IMO. So Trump stating "I have a bigger red button" might have woken Kim up. But Trump can't go soft now, then Kim's arrogance will flare-up again (but Trump with IQ 156 will know this). Kim is also not stupid and won't start fighting, so He will just play His "chess game", and Trump has to accept he can't conquer Kim and subdue N.K. and walk away or he has to nuke Him. I don't think Kim trusts Trump enough to accept the latest "Kim can stay in charge"].

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh yes you're right!! I came away thinking that that particular gentleman was a credit to his religion and the lady was Catholicism's version of Delores Umbridge!!

It probably didn't help that they were paired up against one of the greatest orators of our time (whatever you think of Hitchens, the man was an excellent and compelling speaker and debater), and another man who is widely considered a national treasure in Stephen Fry. Of all people in the world to get into a battle of wits and words with, I can't think of any two more formidable people to be poised against.

 

[WalterTrull]

Kinda depends on the religion. I would probably bash the one where you throw babies into the volcano. Most times though, no..

 

[Trackdayguy]

My conviction is religious people invite criticism by insisting their right, have the truth and everyone else is in need of redemption. Even those who dont say it believe it. I agree with the comments that often they become even more committed to their false ideologies. In my experience (I was once a hard liner fundamentalist) religious people are probably the most closed minded people I've ever encountered. I guess if you've talking to someone who isn't listening your talking to yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bashing is only really useful regarding those who already agree with you, especially if you are trying to motivate some kind of action (although this requires it to be coupled with such a call).

And that's what I'm talking about: motivating other people to act in ways that contain the harm by stopping people who would do harm in the name of their religions (or other ideologies - this isn't just about religion) from being able to do what they want to do.

... and if these people end up doubling down on their faith as a result and end up devout and frustrated... oh well. As long as they don't have the ability to harm others, I'm okay with that. Go ahead and have moderate, reasoned debates with them about the merits of the tenets of their faith once they aren't hurting other people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, bashing of anything, religions or otherwise, is useful in that it may accomplish:

• Polarization different groups and a reduction of inter-group cooperation or harmony. Some folks actually intend to sow discord and chaos in their wakes.

More like marginization. And for the right group, I'm fine with that. I don't want peaceful ecumenicalism with anti-choicers, gay-bashers, or white supremacists. I'm not interested in a negotiated compromise with any of these groups, because any compromise of these issues is a defeat for fundamental human rights. Their positions are so far beyond the pale that they shouldn't have a seat at the grown-up table.

For groups like the alt-right and creationists, a major goal of their strategy is to get to the point where their platforms are seen as legitimate positions in the marketplace of ideas. Engaging with them reasonably helps them achieve their goals.

Sometimes, polarization and lack of compromise is a good thing.

 

[crossfire]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions. Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.


As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

That is the adversarial approach that strengthens. If you want to weaken something, you hype it up as the greatest thing ever, then people will discard it after the hype passes and it becomes passe. (See Tao Te Ching 36.)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions. Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.


As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

Religion bashing is ignorant, I prefer to say things like "X religion has elements of truth in it, but if it teaches we perfect ourselves via religion, that is illogical. Jesus Christ will perfect people who trust in Him, IMO, for salvation and eternal life."

 

[Quintessence]

My conviction is religious people invite criticism by insisting their right, have the truth and everyone else is in need of redemption. Even those who dont say it believe it.

Why do you believe this is the case? How do you square this with the many religions that do not insist they have "The Truth" or lack a salvation/redemption concept?

 

[Jesster]

It could be useful. Maybe it depends on the context. It could also be counterproductive. I don't involve myself in it, unless you find criticism of key points as "bashing".

 

[Fool]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions. Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.


As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

no because some actions by a religion can be positive. bashing a religion as a whole would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. i do believe questioning and criticism can strengthen a religion to be better by competition, or contrast.

 

[pearl]

In a forum such as this it allows one to vent in a way that one would not do personally, sort of hit and run and of course, anonymously.

such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them

I agree but I think a critical approach is not to be feared and may actually strengthen one's faith.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions. Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.


As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

If there was not vocal moral outrage against racist ideologies draping themselves in the vestments of religion (e.g. the Aryan Nation church), would they be as unpopular as they are today? Moral outrage has it's place, but it certainly isn't a strategy to be used indiscriminately.

 

[dianaiad]

Does religion bashing serve any useful purpose? By "bashing", I mean here wholly condemnatory criticism of a religion or religions. Emphasis on the word "condemnatory". When you condemn something, as opposed to merely criticize or critique it, you take a one-sided approach to it that sees nothing at all redeeming in it. At least, that's how the term is being used here.


As for myself, I think religion bashing so defined serves little or no useful purpose other than to indulge oneself in the masturbatory exercise of recreational outrage. Science has demonstrated again and again that such criticism tends to provoke people to reflexively double down on their views and beliefs rather than to critically examine them, let alone change them. So I guess religion bashing would actually be useful if your purpose were to strengthen someone's faith.

Two things...both practical.

1. NOTHING cements an idea more firmly than opposition to it. Martyrs are not made by people who are being kind.

2. Oh, look at my sig file. Enough said.

In sum, if the purpose is to defeat the target belief, then the best way to do that is be tolerant and watch 'em all assimilate. If the purpose is to make one feel 'better than thou," then attacking with all ammunition live is the way to go about it. That will ensure that there will always be an enemy to feel superior to.

And that is pretty much that.

 

[SomeRandom]

It probably didn't help that they were paired up against one of the greatest orators of our time (whatever you think of Hitchens, the man was an excellent and compelling speaker and debater), and another man who is widely considered a national treasure in Stephen Fry. Of all people in the world to get into a battle of wits and words with, I can't think of any two more formidable people to be poised against.

Well I can't argue with that. I remember always being enamoured whenever I saw Hitchens debate someone. I might not have always agreed with him, and he was sometimes an ******* admittedly, but I did admire him.

And Stephen Fry is basically this generation's Oscar Wilde. Hmm now there's a conversation I'd pay good money to see happen.

 

[LuisDantas]

But what if you see very little or nothing redeeming in a particular religion? You aren't necessarily out to 'bash' it for no purpose at all (or a cathartic or just-for-the-sake-of-it purpose), it could be that the only critical approach you can take is that one-sided approach. One can still be one-sided in this way but also logical and indeed respectful to the other if not their beliefs. Perhaps we need to distinguish this kind of 'bashing'/criticism from that which is not even respectful to the other person or persons?

Also: Is it even possible to criticize, say, statements about eternal damnation of LGBT people in a way that is somehow objectively non-bashing?

 

[Katzpur]

That being said, within an organizational unit, we can take the whole unit as its own entity for many purposes. For instance, even though I know many Catholics or Mormons who look favourably on LGBT people - or may even be LGBT themselves - their tithes still help to pay for a church leadership that acts on LGBT issues in harmful ways.

I get what you're saying, but... every time a person donates money to any group, be it a religious group, a political party or any one of a myriad of charities, he can pretty much be guaranteed that the group isn't going to be spending that money in 100% the same way as he would himself. If I believe that 95% of my tithing funds goes to worthwhile causes, I can excuse the fact that 5% of it goes to a cause I do not support. Without that 95% times all of the people who tithe, there a lot of very positive things that take place that wouldn't otherwise be able to take place.