Protestantism

» pink101 - Hey Katharine

In response to Hey Katharine posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Glad to see you sitting up and taking nourishment.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - parallels

In response to Responding to Gatharms posted by pink101:

I can't pretend to be right across this issue but I'm catching up.

It seems to me 'racism' and 'religionism' may well be more comparative, than contrasting, terms. A naturally biased "devotion to religion" may manifest itself in a debate where accusations of racism abound, sometimes fairly, sometimes not. But it seems to me a simple devotion to religion causes no angst for the term, where 'faith' and 'religion' are interchangeable terms.

The 2nd definition ("...pretense...") you offer conflicts with the first...not an uncommon predicament as evidenced with the dictionary I have. I agree the conflicting definitions are not as helpful to us in these times as they once may have been. Our formal language is evolving but is it keeping pace with usage.

It's claimed that the true Muslim finds terrorism abominable. Maybe the terrorist belongs to the 2nd definition, the freedom fighter to the first?

And politics is probably a core element in both racism and religion:
A religion which admits not of toleration cannot be safely tolerated, if there is any chance of their obtaining a political ascendency."
One's actions probably dictates which of the umbrella -ISM apply.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - parallels

In response to parallels posted by redback:

.
Maybe I'm missing the point; but, it looks to me as though Gatharms is trying to say that the use of religionism as term of definition is hate speech.
.
????
.
How about it, Gatharms?

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - parallels

In response to parallels posted by pink101:

.
By its usage in the context of this thread, it connotes a negative (i.e. racISM, sexISM, religionISM, etc.). A believer can argue that religionISM is a positive, not a negative. But, IMO, that depends on one's perspective on religion.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - parallels

In response to parallels posted by Migisi:

.
I use the word, religionism, as a put down. I have no respect for religionism; but, it is not like racism which has no intelligent foundation in fact.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - parallels

Hugh Mackay** talks of "a widespread belief in the value of belief", that people feel lucky to have their faith. But Mackay feels its reactionary. That they retreat to a black & white faith as a means of having some control over their lives when the world around them is losing control. Follow x doctrine and you're a Christian...don't and you're not. Maybe there's faithism? And its secular counterpart?

He states we are all 'racist' (some more rabid than others?) and given his range of examples, we probably fiddle with that term too. "I mean it's OK if they settle in the USA (or OZ) but if they misbehave, they really ought to take their disrespect back to their own country etc etc."

"religionism as term of definition is hate speech..."

My earlier post simply highlighted the terms have conflicting meanings without intending to disagree with you.

What I see in 'religionism' is the risk of focusing on all the processes that make up the moral & 'righteous' authority and the non-spiritual aspects of a 'faith'. (Some call Christianity a faith, others a religion) They are therefore not focussing on the higher ideals. Presents as benign but it aint as per your posts. You know, certain racism presents as benign too.

When the term is used in a negative sense, a derogatory sense, tis only an opportunity away from being used in a hate sense. It's all about degrees and context. And what the OTHER person means when THEY use it. This is the sort of stuff that caused that rush to political correctness to dilute meanings further.

Mackay also refers to the desired 'spirituality' being achieved by some young people by the use of drugs. Maybe that's what BJ was getting at for me in the other topic???
-------------
**This is the book I referred to elsewhere that I credit you with inciting me to read. Hugh Mackay: 'Advance Australia...Where?' Almost through it. It covers a range of issues including (is it) postmodernism in OZ and all the reasons why we may be the way we are. Plenty of cited stuff.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Hate Speech?

In response to parallels posted by redback:

.
Hate speech is a legal term in the U.S.A. and persons that use it can be prosecuted under the law. Homosexuals and other minorities are protected against hate speech. At least that is the gist I get from what I see in and hear on the media.
.
Religionism is a belief that has gone to the extreme in which the central aspect of faith is lost to the structure of the organization.
.
Is that what you are saying in your most recent post here?
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Hate Speech?

In response to Hate Speech? posted by pink101:

"Is that what you are saying in your most recent post here?"

It doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Can religionism go to an "extreme" like you say...YES...or at least go to an internal dysfunction. Depends on the external problem or perceived problem it causes.

'Hate speech' eg racial vilification laws here that prohibit incitement to violence or hatred. Bear in mind laws don't 'protect' in ordinary robust overheated, misunderstood etc dialogue. They simply provide a legal recourse to protest after the event, maybe for some forms of compensation. for those not intimidated enough to complain. We've had some pretty (good?) examples of race riots here and who gets away with it.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Hate Speech?

In response to Hate Speech? posted by redback:

.
Religionism is the force that is presently operational in Iraq and tearing that fatally injured society to shreds. It does the same thing where ever it rears its ugliness.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Hate Speech?

In response to Hate Speech? posted by pink101:

Religionism could well be a core stream in operation in Iraq but boring as it is, I can't exclude other core streams. And what of the relative or perceived lack of political and moral will to fully counter those forces if in fact that's what's desired.

For me to ponder the terms "fatally injured society to shreds" from a million miles away seems arrogant or needing an anger where I can't centre the blame stick.

Aim for average? There seems to be unrealistic expectations when we seek a society that meets all our needs yet gives lip service to the costs/compromises needed to achieve it. The collateral damage needed for the "Greater Good" may well range from the utter destruction of a community...or sense of harmonised community if it ever existed within Iraq...to the level of death and injury and the impact that has on a single widow or mother...within Iraq and abroad.

As you suspect, I don't claim to have any solutions nor do I feel I'm a political or philosophical force to be reckoned with on this issue.

-- posted by redback