Moral implicaitons of using religious rhetoric

[Athelwulf]

Recently, I've been contemplating the idea of preparing for myself some religious-based arguments showing how Christianity (or theoretically any religion) inherently discredits conservative viewpoints and supports liberal ones — for example, "Jesus would've embraced peace". I know exactly the man I can ask for help, too.

But I have a moral dilemma.

I think that religious thought tends to be a harmful thing, and indeed great atrocities have been committed in the name of [insert religious figure here], even when they began with good intentions. Also, one of the reasons I so despise the right-as-in-wing wing is the use of religious ideology as a weapon to peddle their harmful politics and garner support. It would be a case of becoming the enemy, and I would like to think that I'm better than that.

However, I also realize the practicality and power of using this weapon for a better cause. The fact of the matter is that some people are deeply religious, and using religious rhetoric would really speak to them. There's also the fact that radical religious right ideology is a minority among the religious community, and that they're tarnishing the good Christians' reputations.

Since my dilemma is a moral one, and since this is the EM&J forum, I figured I'd come here for feedback.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the morality of an atheist using religious rhetoric with people.

 

[Beryl]

That is a tough one. I'd say it's alright, but I'm really not sure...

The reason why I'd think it's alright is that I assume it would be used as a return to their argument. Many conservatives use religion as an explanation for their opinions and then attempt to impose/enforce this on people who they have no reason to believe even share their basic religion, which is kind of the problem. I think arguing with someone using their religion is okay... not so much arguing with someone using your religion.

 

[Athelwulf]

Thanks, Beryl.

A friend of mine who's not a member here gave me some interesting points.

According to her, the enemy will sometimes learn something when you use their own weapon against them, when you fight fire with fire. It would be particularly useful against someone who relies on religion and religious rhetoric as a crutch, a case of one's greatest strength also being their greatest weakness. Furthermore, she thinks that the saying "All is fair in love and war" applies: If your enemy uses a weapon against you, it's okay for you to use the same weapon back.

She also says that a good rhetorical tactician and negotiator should get to know his opponent and know how to talk to him: "Know your enemy, and you have already won". This means that if your opponent can't help but bring up religion in his arguments, you talk to him as such. You counter any claims based in religion with another claim that's also based in religion.

I'm initially wary about fighting fire with fire, because it can sometimes become a matter of an eye for an eye. However, I think a distinction can be made between using someone's weapon against them and hurting them, and using it against them as a force for good. If your opponent is using a weapon unjustly and is harming many people in the process, it's alright to use the weapon on him back if you do no harm.

After talking to her, I'm now leaning in favor of using religious rhetoric. But there's still the nagging fact that someone else can take the weapon and start using it with ill intentions. I suppose to resolve this, I should decide how likely and how easy that is.

I still want feedback, so you know! The more the merrier.

 

[Oniw17]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

 

[Athelwulf]

That's a good quote. You voted that using religion for a good cause is morally right. Does that quote tie in?

 

[Oniw17]

Wll, my philosophy is to do whatever it takes to win. The fact that you have to use scripture to make your point means that you have to humor them by assuming that the scripture is right in the first place. Religious thought isn't harmful, as long as you don't embrace it.

 

[Athelwulf]

Oh, now I get it. I thought it was in reference to the thought of using religion to support your point, and not to the rhetoric itself.

 

[lightgigantic]

Recently, I've been contemplating the idea of preparing for myself some religious-based arguments showing how Christianity (or theoretically any religion) inherently discredits conservative viewpoints and supports liberal ones — for example, "Jesus would've embraced peace". I know exactly the man I can ask for help, too.

But I have a moral dilemma.

I think that religious thought tends to be a harmful thing, and indeed great atrocities have been committed in the name of [insert religious figure here], even when they began with good intentions. Also, one of the reasons I so despise the right-as-in-wing wing is the use of religious ideology as a weapon to peddle their harmful politics and garner support. It would be a case of becoming the enemy, and I would like to think that I'm better than that.

However, I also realize the practicality and power of using this weapon for a better cause. The fact of the matter is that some people are deeply religious, and using religious rhetoric would really speak to them. There's also the fact that radical religious right ideology is a minority among the religious community, and that they're tarnishing the good Christians' reputations.

Since my dilemma is a moral one, and since this is the EM&J forum, I figured I'd come here for feedback.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the morality of an atheist using religious rhetoric with people.

"seeing the value of humility's cloak, pride sometimes borrows it"

 

[Athelwulf]

Meaning you think it's not morally right?

 

[Athelwulf]

I'm still playing with this in my head, and I think it would be relatively easy to make these religious arguments, or even find some already in use. So I would love more feedback about the morality of this.

 

[spidergoat]

All you are asking is for, it seems, is the political right not be hypocrites.

 

[Zephyr]

Dipping too much into the psyche of those you argue with can be a frightening experience...

You can say "Jesus would've embraced peace", but if you don't see Jesus as a significant figure yourself, it may come across a bit falsely. Maybe you could say "Most of the Christians I know think that Jesus would've embraced peace"...

 

[Athelwulf]

Dipping too much into the psyche of those you argue with can be a frightening experience...

You can say "Jesus would've embraced peace", but if you don't see Jesus as a significant figure yourself, it may come across a bit falsely. Maybe you could say "Most of the Christians I know think that Jesus would've embraced peace"...

That's an interesting twist. I wouldn't be using the weapon directly, in this case. But then, this would mean I would purposely become a proxy for religious thought, and that opens up another question of ethics.

Decisions, decisions.

As for coming across as fake, I might be able to work on that. Then again, would these people notice?

 

[Athelwulf]

I'm bumping this because I think I could get a lot more input!