Comments on: Religion, equality and diversity

By: Christophe Strobbe

Christophe Strobbe — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:52:47 +0000

brothercake’s comment reminds me that the Dutch author Anna Enquist once said that she regarded religion as a collective psychosis:
“No, I see this whole religion thing as a collective psychosis. It’s actually a delusion, but it isn’t recognized as a psychiatric illness because so many people suffer from it. Of course I say this somewhat banteringly, but isn’t it strange that real qualities are attributed to something that has absolutely no foundation in reality?”

Are the inmates running the asylum?

By: brothercake

brothercake — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:17:41 +0000

Is religion a lifestyle choice? I’ve tended to think of it more as a mental illness, like a kind of mild schitzophrenia.

So I wouldn’t discriminate, but I would consider the effect it has on a person when deciding whether to employ them.

In the specific case I would have asked the guy to pull over and let me out, I don’t feel safe being in the car with you if you don’t feel safe driving.

By: Shez

Shez — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:45:35 +0000

Religion, like vegetarianism, is a ‘lifestyle choice’, but perhaps this is something of an over simplification because certain religions, particularly the Jewish faith and Islam for example, are indelibly woven into the culture and politics of those people who practice these religions. So in essence to discriminate against a religion e.g. Islam, is to discriminate against a culture. In western culture religion and state and culture are generally separated and secularism has been an increasingly powerful force and Christianity has declined (although America is ‘enjoying’ a resurgence). In that respect we don’t have to deal with the paradigm of religion being an all encompassing way of life as we have the luxury of having the choice. That is not the case with other more deeply entrenched religions where children are literally born into those religions – they don’t have a choice about it.

Personally I’m with Richard Dawkins on this one – children are too young to make an informed choice about religion and to talk about Jewish, Christian or Islamic children is a nonsense. Children are born to parents with particular religious beliefs and sadly have them foisted upon them. Same goes for vegetarians who have ‘vegetarian’ children.

I don’t have any particular respect for religion, but I respect anyone’s choice to choose or live according to religious faith. Having that level of respect does not preclude me from questioning a faith or its practices, or disagreeing strongly with them. That does not make me intolerant. But I would not discriminate against anyone who makes a choice to follow a religion, just as I would not discriminate against vegetarians.

P.S: I haven’t got a particular hang up about vegetarians.

By: JackP

JackP — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:59:37 +0000

“And because religion activly discourages critical thinking..”

That’s a sloppy argument. It’s the standard hackneyed line trotted out by atheists who believe religious people are stupid and misguided. What about great philosphers, and scientist who were religious and believed that seeking the answers was trying to understand the mind of God?

Although I’m with Bruce on the job front. If your religion prevents you from carrying out some of the duties of your job, it may be inappropriate for you to take that job (depending on circumstances etc; I’d not like to generalise every case).

However, with fasting, would you also refuse to be driven by someone on a diet? Or anorexia? Or bulimia? Anorexia sufferers are probably more likely to collapse than someone fasting for religion – and it’s not so much a choice.

Oh, and I agree with Aaron. I believe we should be tolerant of others – except those who themselves are intolerant. Although it does remind me of a letter in Viz: “How come my local vicar is allowed to threaten me with an eternity in hellfire, but when I threaten to stab him up a bit with my stanley knife, he calls the police?”

But if you were to allow people to be discriminated against in the name of religion, are you not then legally opening up the option for those heretics who don’t believe whatever the current orthodoxy is (whether CofE, atheist, agnostic, pastafarian) to be subject to abuse/ pogrom?

By: Aaron Bassett

Aaron Bassett — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:47:18 +0000

I couldn’t agree more!
I have also never understood why its OK for religious nuts to preach to me in the street (normally telling me I’m going to burn in hell) but when I tell them that their views are non-sense and there is no magic sky pixie then I am being intolerant?

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:44:03 +0000

@David, thanks for the correction, It was an old friend, who’s Jewish, who told me that it was forbidden. He was obviously confused. Wikipedia says “The biblical regulations of Leviticus specify that a menstruating woman had to be separated from other people for seven days; anything she sat on, or lay upon, would become ritually impure during this period, and anyone who came into contact with these things, or her, during this period would also become ritually impure, until the evening came and the person making contact had washed themselves and their clothes in water”.

So my suggestion of misogyny is unfounded.