Comments on: A Crisis of Faith - The Internet and Religion http://www.lloydmorgan.co.uk/2007/04/20/a-crisis-of-faith-the-internet-and-religion/ Life. From a Welsh Perspective. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:05:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Carl Tashian http://www.lloydmorgan.co.uk/2007/04/20/a-crisis-of-faith-the-internet-and-religion/#comment-314 Carl Tashian Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:35:35 +0000 http://www.lloydmorgan.co.uk/2007/04/20/a-crisis-of-faith-the-internet-and-religion/#comment-314 I think values and principles come from the community at large these days, not just from philosophy books and religions. I'm talking about my neighbors, who might scold me for littering, but I'm also talking about the media, which loves to push values and has a pretty strong grip. Sitcoms are at their core about exploring values and principles in an accessible way, in the safety of your living room. It seems like religions shaped these values for centuries, but in many parts of the world, their role is not what it once was. Art is not exclusively funded by religion anymore--like most things, it's funded by atheist existentialist capitalists. If nothing else, this means there is more diversity of viewpoints. We have a radio host scandal going on in the states right now -- the host Don Imus called a black women's basketball team, "a bunch of nappy-headed hos" and was subsequently sacked. Barak Obama, a huge first amendment supporter, said of the incident, "Just because we can say something doesn't mean we should." He was referring to both Don Imus and to rappers who cash in with misogynistic lyrics. And I totally agree with him. But how do you enforce the "shoulds" and "should nots" of free speech? You enforce it by having a strong community that won't allow hate-filled messages to get a wide audience-- in one of two ways: either they lash out against it and burn the radio host at the stake in the town square, or they simply ignore it and deprive the host of his economic value. Lashing out has a potential consequence: it's exactly what the radio host wants, up to a point. A reactionary public is, perhaps unknowingly, complicit with the provocateur's aim for attention. On the other hand, one who ignores the radio host--as I do--could be called complacent. (So, what will it be, complicity or complacency?) I think we have to be careful about where, as a culture, we draw the line between hate speech and speech that inquisitively reveals some inconvenient truths about culture. There is the Malcolm X way of putting things and the MLK way of putting things, and different people respond to each. You could say that Malcolm X was spewing hate speech--but to some degree that's overlooked because he had a very important impact on the civil rights movement. His messages were relevant, and his anger was to some extent justified because he was able to reach a huge group of people who MLK could not tap into. Anyway, what does this have to do with religion and values? Well, I feel religions arbitrarily draw the hate vs. inquiry line in the wrong place. It's not OK in many religions to talk about equal rights, or to bring up the idea that humans are animals. These are philosophical and scientific ideas with very important consequences. But through the theistic lens, saying "humans are animals" can be seen as closed-minded hate speech--something to be railed against or ignored. Closed-minded because the provocateur doesn't have faith, and hate speech because it goes against the religion's long-standing values and traditions. I guess I'm responding to your post with a couple questions. One, do you still feel you need religion to dictate a set of values, especially if you're going to go mucking around with them on your own? And second, while you are busy modifying your beliefs, how will you draw this line between hate speech and inquiry that you might not like hearing? I think values and principles come from the community at large these days, not just from philosophy books and religions. I’m talking about my neighbors, who might scold me for littering, but I’m also talking about the media, which loves to push values and has a pretty strong grip. Sitcoms are at their core about exploring values and principles in an accessible way, in the safety of your living room. It seems like religions shaped these values for centuries, but in many parts of the world, their role is not what it once was. Art is not exclusively funded by religion anymore–like most things, it’s funded by atheist existentialist capitalists. If nothing else, this means there is more diversity of viewpoints.

We have a radio host scandal going on in the states right now — the host Don Imus called a black women’s basketball team, “a bunch of nappy-headed hos” and was subsequently sacked. Barak Obama, a huge first amendment supporter, said of the incident, “Just because we can say something doesn’t mean we should.” He was referring to both Don Imus and to rappers who cash in with misogynistic lyrics. And I totally agree with him. But how do you enforce the “shoulds” and “should nots” of free speech? You enforce it by having a strong community that won’t allow hate-filled messages to get a wide audience– in one of two ways: either they lash out against it and burn the radio host at the stake in the town square, or they simply ignore it and deprive the host of his economic value. Lashing out has a potential consequence: it’s exactly what the radio host wants, up to a point. A reactionary public is, perhaps unknowingly, complicit with the provocateur’s aim for attention. On the other hand, one who ignores the radio host–as I do–could be called complacent. (So, what will it be, complicity or complacency?)

I think we have to be careful about where, as a culture, we draw the line between hate speech and speech that inquisitively reveals some inconvenient truths about culture. There is the Malcolm X way of putting things and the MLK way of putting things, and different people respond to each. You could say that Malcolm X was spewing hate speech–but to some degree that’s overlooked because he had a very important impact on the civil rights movement. His messages were relevant, and his anger was to some extent justified because he was able to reach a huge group of people who MLK could not tap into.

Anyway, what does this have to do with religion and values? Well, I feel religions arbitrarily draw the hate vs. inquiry line in the wrong place. It’s not OK in many religions to talk about equal rights, or to bring up the idea that humans are animals. These are philosophical and scientific ideas with very important consequences. But through the theistic lens, saying “humans are animals” can be seen as closed-minded hate speech–something to be railed against or ignored. Closed-minded because the provocateur doesn’t have faith, and hate speech because it goes against the religion’s long-standing values and traditions.

I guess I’m responding to your post with a couple questions. One, do you still feel you need religion to dictate a set of values, especially if you’re going to go mucking around with them on your own? And second, while you are busy modifying your beliefs, how will you draw this line between hate speech and inquiry that you might not like hearing?

]]>