There have been quite a few articles about attacks on
religion recently and I know it's ill-advised
to discuss either politics or religion in
public forums. However, I thought it may
prove interesting because I feel that a
person's political views and/or religious
beliefs should not exist in a bubble where
they're protected from criticism or scrutiny.

Beliefs can be irrational, unfounded and even dangerous
at times. There are those who want religion to fall
into the same category as one's sexual orientation,
biological sex, and race, and have the same protections.

However, people don't choose their race, sex orientation,
or biological sex. They do however choose whether or not
they want to adhere to a believe in particular
religious narratives.

Your thoughts please.

They do however choose whether or not
they want to adhere to a believe in particular
religious narratives.
Foxy,
Well, we must not dismiss the power of indoctrination on the vulnerable young.
My view is that religion should remain within the walls of the home !
I would not criticise religion as such however, when it is abundantly clear that religion is hijacked for political & other power-related manipulation then the manipulators need to be criticised & exposed !

Hi Foxy,
We can't discriminate against people for their religious beliefs,
But that doesn't mean that religions themselves cant be criticised.

Freedom of speech means that everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
- But it doesn't mean that people are free from being offended by other peoples opinions.

So religions can be criticised without any issue on a basis of their own merits;

If what you're saying is an extension of what you truly believe,
- then there's no limitations upon your right to hold an opinion and speak your mind.
- At least not as far as I'm concerned anyway.

I think religions and the beliefs associated with them should be challenged
- Against ethics.

I think that to try to prevent criticism of
religion is virtually impossible. Ironically it
seems to unleash greater intolerance and
discrimination. However I do support laws that
are meant to protect individuals from
discrimination and religious institutions from
being attacked.

Having said that however, I also believe that
religious institutions should comply with the laws
of the land. They receive government funding and
are supported by the state.

However, Religious schools for example,
should be able to teach their core values.
The state should not interpret what's in the
Bible or the Koran. Religious institutions should
not discriminate against students or teachers
because of their sexual orientation. There are
respectful ways of dealing with problems that
may arise.

A distinction should also be made between hate speech
which amounts to an attack on a religious group that is
sufficiently hateful or extreme and may incite
violence on the group's beliefs. Of course to
criticise a group's beliefs that are irrational
and dangerous must be allowed to be criticised.
For example:

" I believe anybody who denies my God should be
put to death..." incites violebce.

Criticism of religion is a complex issue.
Hopefully in this discussion critical comments will
help us to understand and think about different views
on the issues.

But it's not easy - where to draw the line. If the
criticism is too general - all members of a
particular faith community may be thought of in the
same negative way. And that would not be fair.

It's not only right to criticise ANYTHING, it is essential to do so for democracy to survive.

My main criticism of many Christians (I won't blame the religion for what some of its adherents do) is that they have allowed their beliefs to be tainted by Marxism; even the Catholic denomination. And for the critics of Christianity I say: stop the 'far-right-Christian' nonsense. There might be some far right Christians, but the influential ones are of predominately on the Left.

Other religions? Mumbo jumbo, cruel and ignorant.

Dear Foxy,

It is indeed wrong to criticise others.
I am not saying that it should be banned by law, but it is wrong, it wastes one's time and energy, creates bad vibrations and never achieves anything.

«Having said that however, I also believe that
religious institutions should comply with the laws
of the land. They receive government funding and
are supported by the state.»

Fair enough, those who accept hand-outs from Caesar should also follow his whims - but what about the others?