Should Religion ever motivate a person to be cruel?

[Rainbow Mage]

I guess this is an issue I have with more fundamentalist forms of belief, is that I often see opposition to other worldviews and groups that could be called cruel or hateful.

I guess a good example of this is some Christians supporting ex-gay conversion therapy for teens and kids, when such 'therapies' are known to use excessive methods like induced vomiting or hitting.

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

Your thoughts...

 

[Sees]

I think it's a true expression of religion but a particularly nasty style of it. We would need universal agreement that religion is to serve people/life first and foremost to start to clip it out of history. As it is now, many seem to hold more to the idea that religion is to serve God...the results might not be so great at times - we'll get victims depending on what they think that God wants/demands.

 

[Quintessence]

How is it my business to be passing such judgements?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

How is it my business to be passing such judgements?

Well how people practice their beliefs does effect the world around them, for good or ill. You don't have to if you don't wish to.

 

[Katzpur]

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

NO! NO! NO! Religion should bring out the best in people, not the worst.

 

[Quintessence]

Well how people practice their beliefs does effect the world around them, for good or ill.

True. A question I have then, is what purpose does passing judgements like this serve? What is the point of doing it? People are going to do what they do regardless of any judgements passed by outsiders, so what purpose does passing judgement serve? What does it facilitate?

Pardon, I'm being at least somewhat rhetorical here. We know it facilitates an "us vs them" attitude, a "right vs wrong" attitude. And, by extension, it often facilitates efforts to destroy the "them" and the "wrong" as perceived by the person doing the judging.

The behaviors of the judging - the self-righteous crusades against other people's ways of life because they are deemed "invalid" or "unworthy" - usually make me much more nervous than the judged. It leads to behavior by the judgmental that is hardly better than those being judged. Oh, irony.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

True. A question I have then, is what purpose does passing judgements like this serve? What is the point of doing it? People are going to do what they do regardless of any judgements passed by outsiders, so what purpose does passing judgement serve? What does it facilitate?

One possible purpose is that it will give people a new general idea of religion's potential, and the good it can be used for. I believe religion can be, and often is a great force for good. I also find it difficult to believe that a person is going to do what they do regardless of what others think. They may keep doing what they do for the most part, but most people are effected by other people's criticisms, and sometimes people do change. I've seen it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I guess this is an issue I have with more fundamentalist forms of belief, is that I often see opposition to other worldviews and groups that could be called cruel or hateful.

I guess a good example of this is some Christians supporting ex-gay conversion therapy for teens and kids, when such 'therapies' are known to use excessive methods like induced vomiting or hitting.

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

Your thoughts...

To me, any religion and worldview that promotes limiting the rights of other people who have not broken the "law of the land" only their religious laws is not worth my adopting.

Whether it be christianity to some forms of Dianic Wicca, it doesnt matter. If humanity is of lesser value than the Source, its not worth my devoting my life to it even to my death.

 

[Tumah]

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

Considering that religion is a point of personal considerations and not popular opinion, I don't think these particular questions are valid.

 

[McBell]

True. A question I have then, is what purpose does passing judgements like this serve? What is the point of doing it? People are going to do what they do regardless of any judgements passed by outsiders, so what purpose does passing judgement serve? What does it facilitate?

Pardon, I'm being at least somewhat rhetorical here. We know it facilitates an "us vs them" attitude, a "right vs wrong" attitude. And, by extension, it often facilitates efforts to destroy the "them" and the "wrong" as perceived by the person doing the judging.

The behaviors of the judging - the self-righteous crusades against other people's ways of life because they are deemed "invalid" or "unworthy" - usually make me much more nervous than the judged. It leads to behavior by the judgmental that is hardly better than those being judged. Oh, irony.

In cases of actual physical and or mental abuse of others, I would like to think it is EVERYONE'S business.

Perhaps that is just me...

 

[McBell]

I guess this is an issue I have with more fundamentalist forms of belief, is that I often see opposition to other worldviews and groups that could be called cruel or hateful.

I guess a good example of this is some Christians supporting ex-gay conversion therapy for teens and kids, when such 'therapies' are known to use excessive methods like induced vomiting or hitting.

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

Your thoughts...

Tough Love
^^link^^

The thing is that there is a difference between "tough love" and abuse.
Though sometimes it can be difficult to draw the line.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Considering that religion is a point of personal considerations and not popular opinion, I don't think these particular questions are valid.

What makes such questions not valid when the way religious people live directly effects the world around them? Now sure, one might say religious teachings aren't subject to popular opinion as far as they're concerned, but there's reasons they can't help drawing popular opinion.

 

[Tumah]

What makes such questions not valid when the way religious people live directly effects the world around them? Now sure, one might say religious teachings aren't subject to popular opinion as far as they're concerned, but there's reasons they can't help drawing popular opinion.

Its the way you phrased it. Questioning whether another's personal opinion is valid is not a valid question. Questioning whether expressions of that opinion should be curtailed perhaps would be more valid.

 

[George-ananda]

I guess this is an issue I have with more fundamentalist forms of belief, is that I often see opposition to other worldviews and groups that could be called cruel or hateful.

I guess a good example of this is some Christians supporting ex-gay conversion therapy for teens and kids, when such 'therapies' are known to use excessive methods like induced vomiting or hitting.

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

Your thoughts...

Well I guess one man's 'cruelty' is another's 'the end justifies the mean'

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well I guess one man's 'cruelty' is another's 'the end justifies the mean'

So you don't think there's a pretty near universal idea of what cruelty is?

 

[George-ananda]

So you don't think there's a pretty near universal idea of what cruelty is?

There pretty much is near universal agreement; but many will argue it is sometimes necessary to be temporarily cruel to further a greater good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My question is- is this a form of religion worth having? Is this valid? Is this a true and proper expression of religious faith?

I'd rather people be nice to each other than not, so I'd rather people don't follow cruel religions. However, I'd also rather people in religions that have rejected cruelty expunge its remnants from their teachings. For instance, there's a lot of anti-gay and anti-woman stuff in the Bible, so people who go around evangelizing and telling everyone who will listen that the Bible is inspired by God share the blane for Christian misogyny and homophobia, even if these go against their personal consciences.

"Is this valid?" is a weird question. If it's logically consistent with itself and its sources (scriptures, traditions, etc.) - or at least as consistent as religion tends to be - then sure: it's just as valid as any other religion.

I have no idea what measure we could use to tell whether a religion is "proper" besides sincerity. Are people who do cruel acts in the name of their religions sincere? Often yes, IMO.

Beyond that, the only measure of "true and proper religion" I can think of deals with factual truth and justification by evidence; IMO, "nice" religions are just as likely to have problems with this as "nasty" ones.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We need to be careful when assuming what religion "should" or "shouldn't" do, especially when it relates to abstract and largely subjective criteria such as cruelty. It is a common perception (at least in the west) that "real religion" should teach all the positive stuff, and any of the negative stuff isn't "real religion". It's a sentiment I have seen echoed by many people, religious and irreligious included, and it reminds me of when individuals claim "So-and-so person/group are not 'real' Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists/etc." purely on the basis that they do not practice the particular framework of that belief supported by the speaker - even if the speaker isn't even a member of that religion. Religion is not under any requirement to teach any particular ideological position. It isn't inherently peaceful, or just. Nor is it necessarily inherently violent or unjust. Religions are frameworks that are set up to define the moral and ideological barriers, regardless of whether or not those barrier encroach on the moral or ideological sensibilities of others.

Cruelty itself is far too subjective a measure to use to judge religion from. For example, "spare the rod spoil the child" is seen as a cruel moral lesson by many, but to many others allowing the child to be raised not in accordance with Biblical teachings is far more cruel, because they believe it would condemn that child to hell. On a personal level, I find the very concept of hell and the idea that almost anyone deserves to be sent there to be inherently cruel, and yet I have many close personal friends who not only believe in hell, but (reluctantly, in most cases) believe I am destined to end up there - and even some who openly believe I deserve it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True. A question I have then, is what purpose does passing judgements like this serve? What is the point of doing it? People are going to do what they do regardless of any judgements passed by outsiders, so what purpose does passing judgement serve? What does it facilitate?

Pardon, I'm being at least somewhat rhetorical here. We know it facilitates an "us vs them" attitude, a "right vs wrong" attitude. And, by extension, it often facilitates efforts to destroy the "them" and the "wrong" as perceived by the person doing the judging.

The behaviors of the judging - the self-righteous crusades against other people's ways of life because they are deemed "invalid" or "unworthy" - usually make me much more nervous than the judged. It leads to behavior by the judgmental that is hardly better than those being judged. Oh, irony.

But we're already doing it through our laws:

- churches, merely on the strength of their religious nature, get treated like charities for tax purposes.
- clergy, merely on the strength of the religious nature of their jobs, also get special treatment for taxes.
- here in Ontario, the Education Act gives any member of the clergy the right to enter any public school "in the area in which they have pastoral charge" without the normal requirements for criminal background checks, etc.
- your government has an "Office of Faith-based Initiatives"; mine has an "Office of Religious Freedom"

As long as these sorts of laws and institutions exist, we're going to have to make decisions about which religions are "valid" and which aren't, or which religions are worth supporting and which aren't.

At some point, we have to make a decision about whether a Discordian Pope gets admitted into a school, or whether a shaman gets a housing allowance deduction from his taxes. Implicit in these sorts of decisions are value judgements about which religions are valid and which aren't.

... as long as we're given preferential treatment on the basis of religion, of course.

 

[Quintessence]

But we're already doing it through our laws:

You're quite right. And I wish that we didn't. Governments validating "religion" merely serves to enshrine particular notions of what religion is, thus it hardly serves all religions equally, much less irreligion.