Religious Bashing--What it is and isn't.

Just leave out the belittling and ridiculing adjectives, name-calling, etc....

*shrug*

OK, let me know if you see me using any.

OH!!! Me Too!!! If somebody catches me "bashing" religion I hope they bring it to my attention. I much prefer the labels "destroyer" or Annihilator"...or exterminator".. I find the term "bashing" weak.
 
It appears there is a disagreement with calling the RC Church evil and saying that those in the Church have done evil.

You should never allow discussions about religion and politics to become a personality contest of a war between two posters.

The facts are that the Church hid the truth instead of punishing the guilty or handing them over to the law.
Human being will always do evil, it really does not matter how you dress it up.
The Church or any other organisation is not responsible as such.
Because the people make their own decision to do wrong.

HM

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Even if there is not an official decision by an organization at the highest levels to do something wrong and evil, that organization DOES still bear responsibility for actions taken by its members while representing it in an official capacity.
 
Depends how you look at it.

Many non-believers would view christians saying "all non-believers are going to burn in hell for eternity" as non-believer bashing, and I can't think of any worse kind of bashing than that. And TONS of christians believe that.

Personally I don't think saying snakes can't talk, or evolution deniers are silly, or living inside a whale is impossible is religion bashing. No atheist thinks any christian belongs in an area of infinite torture in the worst area the mind can imagine for all eternity.

But I think there's a difference in the ideas of Bible bashing and religion bashing. The Old Testament has some of the most immoral concepts in human history, but most christians don't take a lot of the Old Testament seriously. So I can't bash christians for the Bible when the worst aspects of it they take as seriously as I do as an atheist, in other words they more or less ignore it.

How telling is it that you took the time to capitalize the word "Bible" and the words "Old Testament" but not "christian"?

The question is, does it tell us he's an ill-mannered cretin, or just an illiterate one?
 
I've gotten the impression from a couple of posters, that they consider any criticism of the institutions of Christianity to be religious bashing. That doesn't make sense to me.

For example, is it bashing to say the Roman Catholic Church is wrong for harboring pedophile priests? Is it bashing to say the Magdalene Homes in Ireland, Catholic institutional imprisonment and slavery of young women and girls is wrong? Is it bashing of the Pope to say that he is wrong for saying that ordaining women as priests is as harmful to the Church and as deep a sin as priests who are pedophiles?

Your thoughts?

Is it EVER ok to criticise the institutions of religion without it being considered "bashing"?

IMO, there is a difference between criticism and bashing. I consider what Scott Lively did, in writing a book, The Pink Swastika, that claims gays caused the Holocaust to be gay bashing. The difference is Lively is not telling the truth.

But is not Criticizing a religion/members of the faith and "bashing" a religion basically the same?
 
I've gotten the impression from a couple of posters, that they consider any criticism of the institutions of Christianity to be religious bashing. That doesn't make sense to me.

For example, is it bashing to say the Roman Catholic Church is wrong for harboring pedophile priests? Is it bashing to say the Magdalene Homes in Ireland, Catholic institutional imprisonment and slavery of young women and girls is wrong? Is it bashing of the Pope to say that he is wrong for saying that ordaining women as priests is as harmful to the Church and as deep a sin as priests who are pedophiles?

Your thoughts?

Is it EVER ok to criticise the institutions of religion without it being considered "bashing"?

IMO, there is a difference between criticism and bashing. I consider what Scott Lively did, in writing a book, The Pink Swastika, that claims gays caused the Holocaust to be gay bashing. The difference is Lively is not telling the truth.

But is not Criticizing a religion/members of the faith and "bashing" a religion basically the same?

No. For one thing, criticism connotes a thoughtful, well-reasoned examination of flaws based on facts and logic, whereas "bashing" would be mindless attacks for no purpose other than to be offensive and hurtful.

For another, I am not my religion, any more than I am my race. I am an individual human being, and if I happen to be a bad person in one way or another, that hardly applies to ALL people who share a specific demographic quality with me. In other words, if I'm a Christian and a bad person, that doesn't make all Christians bad people, and it doesn't make Christianity itself bad, any more than it makes all white women bad people, or being a white woman a bad thing in itself.

Criticizing me is just that: criticizing ME. You might be bashing me as well, but that doesn't have to constitute bashing my religion.

On the other hand, if you're bashing me BECAUSE of my religion, that's different.
 
I've gotten the impression from a couple of posters, that they consider any criticism of the institutions of Christianity to be religious bashing. That doesn't make sense to me.

For example, is it bashing to say the Roman Catholic Church is wrong for harboring pedophile priests? Is it bashing to say the Magdalene Homes in Ireland, Catholic institutional imprisonment and slavery of young women and girls is wrong? Is it bashing of the Pope to say that he is wrong for saying that ordaining women as priests is as harmful to the Church and as deep a sin as priests who are pedophiles?

Your thoughts?

Is it EVER ok to criticise the institutions of religion without it being considered "bashing"?

IMO, there is a difference between criticism and bashing. I consider what Scott Lively did, in writing a book, The Pink Swastika, that claims gays caused the Holocaust to be gay bashing. The difference is Lively is not telling the truth.

But is not Criticizing a religion/members of the faith and "bashing" a religion basically the same?

Here we go. Scott Lively says gays called the Holocaust. That is gay bashing. It is not religion. Homosexuality may be a sin to Mr Lively, but spreading a lie that gays caused the Holocaust is bashing.

By pointing out what Lively has written, I criticise him. I am not bashing religion. I am not saying that ALL religious people are bigots. Clearly, Lively is, and it's not bashing to point it out.
 
Last edited:
I've gotten the impression from a couple of posters, that they consider any criticism of the institutions of Christianity to be religious bashing. That doesn't make sense to me.

For example, is it bashing to say the Roman Catholic Church is wrong for harboring pedophile priests? Is it bashing to say the Magdalene Homes in Ireland, Catholic institutional imprisonment and slavery of young women and girls is wrong? Is it bashing of the Pope to say that he is wrong for saying that ordaining women as priests is as harmful to the Church and as deep a sin as priests who are pedophiles?

Your thoughts?

Is it EVER ok to criticise the institutions of religion without it being considered "bashing"?

IMO, there is a difference between criticism and bashing. I consider what Scott Lively did, in writing a book, The Pink Swastika, that claims gays caused the Holocaust to be gay bashing. The difference is Lively is not telling the truth.

But is not Criticizing a religion/members of the faith and "bashing" a religion basically the same?

No. For one thing, criticism connotes a thoughtful, well-reasoned examination of flaws based on facts and logic, whereas "bashing" would be mindless attacks for no purpose other than to be offensive and hurtful.

For another, I am not my religion, any more than I am my race. I am an individual human being, and if I happen to be a bad person in one way or another, that hardly applies to ALL people who share a specific demographic quality with me. In other words, if I'm a Christian and a bad person, that doesn't make all Christians bad people, and it doesn't make Christianity itself bad, any more than it makes all white women bad people, or being a white woman a bad thing in itself.

Criticizing me is just that: criticizing ME. You might be bashing me as well, but that doesn't have to constitute bashing my religion.

On the other hand, if you're bashing me BECAUSE of my religion, that's different.

Scott Lively is a Christian pastor. He has every right to teach that homosexuality is a sin. When he lies about gays and brags that it's his mission to "set off a nuclear bomb on gays worldwide", it's appropriate to criticize him.

That is NOT religious bashing. I have NEVER stated that ALL Christians are bad people. Clearly, Lively is, and he does his evil in the name of Christ.
 
It appears there is a disagreement with calling the RC Church evil and saying that those in the Church have done evil.

You should never allow discussions about religion and politics to become a personality contest of a war between two posters.

The facts are that the Church hid the truth instead of punishing the guilty or handing them over to the law.
Human being will always do evil, it really does not matter how you dress it up.
The Church or any other organisation is not responsible as such.
Because the people make their own decision to do wrong.

HM

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Even if there is not an official decision by an organization at the highest levels to do something wrong and evil, that organization DOES still bear responsibility for actions taken by its members while representing it in an official capacity.

Not if it denounces the reprehensible actions.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top