Some thoughts from Jürgen Habermas

F

flip

New Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
1,849
Reaction score
0
I have some thoughts about religion in the public space, not about religions itself, that bothers me. I get that the moderators here complains about the extra work with monitoring flamethreads in the religion section, and a overall hostile mood on their site, and that's ok with me as a reason.

The problem is that it's a choice between cohlera and pest to me. Slicing out religion is oppresive to the religious part of the human nature, where some are more religious than others. I now see AD as a playground for atheists and agnostics who are free to mock religious beliefs, and questions that policy on AD. If I try to question the world views atheists and agnostics got, I'm defined as a religious person, even if I'm not. What AD simply have done, is to remove religious worldviews, and letting the secular views stay. That's a way of saying that secular views are superior to religious views, and that's not a rational thought, to me. I am not even allowed to comment the religious nature and history behind some of the secular arguments in the politics section. My point, is that if AD want to be fair, they have to put down atheistic and agnostics world views as well.

If this post is against the rules of religious discussions on AD, then sorry, and feel free to close/remove this thread.


Jürgen Habermas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In an interview in 1999 Habermas stated that,

"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.".

The statement was later misquoted in a number of American newspapers and magazines as: "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization," which Habermas did not say.

Habermas now talks about the emergence of "post-secular societies" and argues that tolerance is a two-way street: secular people need to tolerate the role of religious people in the public square and vice versa.
Click to expand...
 
Pretty sure this is going to get locked down, since this does seem to be fairly explicitly against the "no religious discussions" rule.

To prevent myself from getting into any further trouble, I'll refrain from responding to the rest of your post.
 
StSapphire said:
Pretty sure this is going to get locked down, since this does seem to be fairly explicitly against the "no religious discussions" rule.

To prevent myself from getting into any further trouble, I'll refrain from responding to the rest of your post.
Click to expand...
Maybe.. At least, we get some insight how it's to live in China.
 
The problem does not arrise from the discussion of religion. The problems arise from the intolerance and condemnation of those that do not believe in a specific doctrine. The problems arise when an individual cannot discuss their belief system without denigrating other belief systems...as if that proves that their belief system is the only right one.

Comparative religion classes discuss religious beliefs in depth. It does not lead to the nastiness that religion discussions on this forum leads to. It is not the discussion of religion...it is the way that some people choose to participate in that discussion.
 
flip said:
Maybe.. At least, we get some insight how it's to live in China.
Click to expand...

I don't think most people are even interested in learning about, and understanding, things like that. Sadly.
 
jillio said:
The problem does not arrise from the discussion of religion. The problems arise from the intolerance and condemnation of those that do not believe in a specific doctrine. The problems arise when an individual cannot discuss their belief system without denigrating other belief systems...as if that proves that their belief system is the only right one.

Comparative religion classes discuss religious beliefs in depth. It does not lead to the nastiness that religion discussions on this forum leads to. It is not the discussion of religion...it is the way that some people choose to participate in that discussion.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. The point I am trying to make, is that the way this have been solved on AD got some downsides. Opinions based on religious beliefs are banned, while secular opinions are allowed. In the religious debates, both atheists and religious people couldn't behave, so the rule should be fair to both. It isn't at the moment.

For example, debating a specific topic or news, it's ok to say "It's something wrong with religious people because they believe that a God said it's right. They are lunatics. The nature works like this and that, and that's why it's like this."

But it's not ok to say "You people who don't believe in a God, have it all wrong, because you are not consistent about where good and evil is from. But the bible have some good explainations. In the bible, it says this and that, and that's why it's like this."

Both arguments are equally good or silly.

It's interesting how the Deaf Ed threads have been raging for years, with very insulting comments and questions in both directions, while religious threads are banned. Is it a problem getting more moderators to watch the religious subforum?

Another reason I want religion to be allowed on AD, is that we lack a discourse on deafness in the religious sphere. It's too many religious organizations that prey on deaf people lacking arguments and awarness, and AD limiting religious discussions aren't doing any good. A open discussion on deafness and transcendental issues would be a benefit for both deaf religious and secular people. I don't see how deaf theology is less important than deaf hood or ethnicity for all deaf people.

Ok, this is hopefully my last word on this. If the moderators don't get this, it's not much to do.
 
Religions are different from politics. We can debate the politics more maturely and I've seen cases of religious debates getting out of hand because they're trying to stress their beliefs on others. I don't exactly see any atheists or agnostics on AD "mocking the religions." We have been respectful and want to be treated the same. I've found that if I allow someone to discuss religion with me, it usually ends up with them preaching it and trying to convert me. I don't enjoy discussing religions.

It'd be easier if you just found a separate forum geared towards your religion to share your beliefs because there are too many Gods to discuss on here and it'd just bring in more preachers.
 
Simply put, you're wrong. Nowhere has anyone responded to political topics by claiming that religious people are crazy simply for being religious, and if they did, that would still be engaging in a form of religious debate and wouldn't be allowed here. Feel free to link to any direct post where you saw that happening, but I've been here for about two months now and have been very active in the political forums, and I've yet to see anything of that sort break out.

As for the reasons for not re-opening the religion forums, that was addressed by the moderators in the last of these threads that was closed out. You're far more likely to get either a better response or an actual change by directly messaging Alex and trying to convince him, since the decision comes down to that.
 
lanapoo said:
Religions are different from politics. We can debate the politics more maturely and I've seen cases of religious debates getting out of hand because they're trying to stress their beliefs on others. I don't exactly see any atheists or agnostics on AD "mocking the religions." We have been respectful and want to be treated the same. I've found that if I allow someone to discuss religion with me, it usually ends up with them preaching it and trying to convert me. I don't enjoy discussing religions.

It'd be easier if you just found a separate forum geared towards your religion to share your beliefs because there are too many Gods to discuss on here and it'd just bring in more preachers.
Click to expand...
That's why we have stuff like subforums. If you ain't interested, just stay out of the forum?

I respect your opinion, and I'm aware that some people simply dislike religion, and that's fine with me.
 
StSapphire said:
Simply put, you're wrong. Nowhere has anyone responded to political topics by claiming that religious people are crazy simply for being religious, and if they did, that would still be engaging in a form of religious debate and wouldn't be allowed here. Feel free to link to any direct post where you saw that happening, but I've been here for about two months now and have been very active in the political forums, and I've yet to see anything of that sort break out.

As for the reasons for not re-opening the religion forums, that was addressed by the moderators in the last of these threads that was closed out. You're far more likely to get either a better response or an actual change by directly messaging Alex and trying to convince him, since the decision comes down to that.
Click to expand...
There were outbreaks before you came into here. The last two months, I haven't seen much. I think it's mostly due to one or two posters that were very active last year, but not at the moment. Especially Islam was critized.
 
My attitude on religious discussion has changed. I would like to see the opportunity to discuss it. I realize there are heated replies generated by supporters of various doctrines, but most people are civil. I see the CI debates get very personal. They are still allowed. Anyhow, I can understand how difficult it is to moderate a religious forum, but it would still be interesting to have. I accept the site rules here and have no plans to press the issue. There are other forums that cater to religious discussion. For those that are hoping to discuss those topics, for now we need to visit another website. So it goes.
 
flip said:
There were outbreaks before you came into here. The last two months, I haven't seen much. I think it's mostly due to one or two posters that were very active last year, but not at the moment. Especially Islam was critized.
Click to expand...

True and true.
 
Alex gave it a go until it got nasty then it was shut down. After a while we begged and begged him to re-open it, and he did with the warning that if it got nasty again, it would be shut down for good. Well it lasted all of what was it, three weeks I think? Alex shut it down again. I don't think it's even up for discussion. We were given a second chance with the warning/promise that if it got nasty again, it would be closed permanently. I believe it.

I think mods have been fairly lenient in allowing certain religious references to be made as long as the thread does not turn into a religious argument/debate. I believe it comes on a case by case basis. I am sure if any of my posts/threads came a bit too close I would receive a warning and a reminder of the rules. I've not received any such notification - yet. Nor do I want one, so I just respect the rules and what's expected of us as members.
 
Back
Top