[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Do I feel comfortable, in such a situation, criticizing your religion? Yes, I do. I try not to be outright mean about things, but when it gets down to it, strong words bleed into political/religious debate: sarcasm, facetiousness, even ridicule. I feel comfortable calling any particular religious claim unbelievable, silly, risible, unevidenced, briandead, unthinking. In short, I feel perfectly comfortable criticizing your religious beliefs, as you should feel criticizing mine.
On the other hand, do I feel comfortable criticizing your fat wife? Do I feel comfortable expressing disgust with you kissing the person you’re dating, whoever that may be? Do I feel comfortable pointing out that your relationship with your fat wife is gross, wrong, or horrible, even if I actually believe those things?
No, I do not.
Which is to say that the parallel does not even hold up.[/quote]
A couple of thoughts on that…
I find it acceptable to criticize religion as a social institution, or its overall value or lack thereof to society and how it might impact one as a member of society, but personally criticizing a person’s own personal religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is as off limits to me as criticizing one’s choice of a spouse. It’s part of a person’s core beliefs as a human being and, quite frankly, none of my business. However, again, I am separating religion as a social institution from religious beliefs as part of a person’s identity.
On the second topic, I find the ad hominem attacks and passive-aggressiveness to be immature and indefensible where mature, civil debate is concerned, be it in propria persona or electronically. I am surprised at how much of it goes on on the forums, which is why I participate less than I could. I wholeheartedly agree that these topics elicit “strong words” at times, but those words should be directed at the ideology or the argument itself, not the poster. As a sometimes neutral observer, SexMachine does seem to be on the receiving end of an inordinate amount of ad hominem attacks whenever he posts. Sure, he appears to be a right-wing social conservative, but so what?
Of course, I should note that the aforementioned observation is NOT a tacit implication that you are particularly guilty of said behavior, as I’m not sitting here keeping tabs or playing forum cop, but it’s something I’ve been observing in general and thus felt it appropriate to note as a response to your mention of “strong words” in e-community debates. As I often tell my students, if one has nothing valuable to add besides a passive-aggressive snippet or ad hominem jab, then perhaps it’s best to ignore engaging in the debate.
[/quote]
A couple points:
–I agree with regard to not insulting individual people for believeing whatever they believe.
–However, there is a measure of inevitability at play. You have created a false dichotomy between religion as a social institution and religion as personal belief. There is also religion as philosophical truth or falsity. This is perfectly legitimate area for argumentation, and in the course of such a debate, it is not uncommon for an otherwise considerate poster to characterize a particular belief as unreasonable. By necessity, there is an element of insult implied, because the holder of that belief is being said to hold an unreasonable belief. It was this kind of thing that I was referring to, and it is this kind of thing that I often–without alternative–do. The Christians hereabouts understand that I like them no less, and I understand the same when they counter that what I’m saying is in turn unreasonable.
–I don’t think you mean me re: Ad Homs launched in SM’s direction. He and I disagree starkly on almost everything, but we have always been careful to note that we respect each other. I enjoy debating him even though I think he’s very often wrong, and I think he feels the same. Furthermore, I’ve meant every kind word and well wish I’ve ever sent his way.