[ SECRET POST #3819 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3819 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 40 secrets from Secret Submission Post #547.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

First, in general, I tend to think about religions basically in social terms. Like... I think it's very difficult to talk about the eternal "core" of any religion.

Well yes, that's exactly what I've been talking about. How it's practiced, the general culture around the religion, the laws enacted in the name of that religion. I've stated this again and again. There are plenty of real world examples and statistics that back up my points. I'm not just theorizing here.

from a practical point of view there's no intrinsic tie between the Christianity and the homophobia.

I understand what you're trying to say here but it's just...wrong? People don't develop bigoted beliefs in a vaccuum. They're taught this stuff, from observing their parents and their peers. And if their parents and peers are a part of traditions and cultures (ie christianity and islam) where lgbt are considered sinners, then they're going to pick up on that too, no matter how "decent" they are otherwise. It's undeniable that religion is the main force driving the anti-lgbt crusade, and just because not ALL of them are doing it, doesn't mean the culture of religion has zero bearing on its existence and continuation to this day.

but I don't find them objectionable in a liberal society

There's a lot to find objectionable. Just because it's someone's faith or tradition doesn't mean sharia law is right. There are cultures that practice female genital circumcision and I sure as hell ain't gonna give them a pass cause it's their tradition. Cultural practices, religions, and traditions are absolutely not above reproach.

because Islamic law is a different thing in the West than it is in countries where it is the actual law of the land.

Well yeah of course it's not bad here. We do a fairly decent job of separating church and state in the west, and Islam is a minority religion out here. The point isn't that I feel threatened by Muslims in my country. My point all along is their religion is terrible and countries where it is practiced more strictly are human rights nightmares.
There is nothing worthwhile about a belief system where the less strictly you practice it, the better a person you are. How about just ditching the religion entirely at that point.

[(Anonymous)]

But the point is that if the connection between the religion and the bad shit (the homophobia and what have you) is social and contingent and mediated, then it doesn't make sense to criticize the religion in general, abstract, overarching, undifferentiated terms. My whole point is that I don't think it's true or useful to criticize Islam or Christianity as such. If you want to criticize conservative Islam and Christianity, and criticize the regressive world views which those particular interpretations of those religions promote, I think that's fine and I agree in many ways. But you need to make that distinction! It's a tremendously important distinction! Because where the regressive attitudes are a particular part of a society and a culture and a practice, that means that they can be reinterpreted and changed.

It is wrong to say that "their religion is terrible" because there is no such thing as "their religion" outside of how it's practiced and actually exists. Different ways of conceptualizing and practicing the religion exist, both in theory and in actual existing fact. So the problem must be with the practices and not with "their religion".

And I can't say why you wouldn't ditch the religion at that point, because it's not my job, and it's not your job either, to determine the validity of someone else's faith. Nor is it really possible. But when someone comes and says "I consider myself a Muslim, I believe this and this and practice in this way and this way, and that includes tolerance for LBGT and all that sort of thing", I don't believe it's correct either to say to them that they're not really a Muslim, or to say that Islam as such in the abstract sense conflicts with LBGT rights.

Bottom line, the point I'm making is - criticize the specific practices and cultures. But don't look at any of those socially determined, specific things, and assume that they're eternally linked to the religion, because they're not. And that distinction should flow through the criticism and everything.

[(Anonymous)]

The mental gymnastics you're going through to ignore all the suffering caused in the name of Islam is incredible. You keep saying that it's just these vague cultural things causing homophobia, but not religion, even though religion is a huge force that shapes culture and tradition. You seem to be saying that religion has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on a person's belief system or what types of things they advocate or dislike.

For the record, I'm not against religion. I think the Abrahamic religions are outdated and promote a lot of bigoted things, and the more people move away from them, the better off we'll all be. If it's to a more peaceful belief system, or none at all, so long as the culture promoted by that belief is good for all beings, it is good.

You've been really polite in this debate, and I appreciate that, but I feel this will be my last response here.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that religion is a huge force that shapes peoples' beliefs, but it also is shaped by those beliefs. I agree that specific religious traditions have played a significant role in many bad things, as a force in peoples' beliefs. I agree that suffering has been caused in the name of Islam. That does not mean that those things are intrinsically tied into any possible Islam. You can change it and people are changing it.

The point I'm making about religion being socially constructed - to be clear - is not denying that religion doesn't influence peoples' worldviews. It's a massive constituent part of their worldview - but it is also partly constructed by that worldview. So when you're talking about the role that religion plays in forming a worldview, it plays the same kind of role that any other social institution does. What it doesn't have - and this is really the central important point that I want to make - is any kind of transhistorical eternal core. There's no absolute, atemporal essence of Islamness that exists outside of particular social situations.

I agree with the ideal that you need to have a culture that's good for all beings. My whole point of view is that there's no intrinsic conflict between those beliefs, and any Abrahamic religion. They are not mutually exclusive. I recognize the harm that those religions have done when they don't promote that kind of culture. There's just no reason, at all, whatsoever, that they need to be regressive. And I don't see the point of rejecting those forms of them which aren't regressive. That's really my whole argument here.