John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
And why do they feel the need to censor?
Last edited:
Which religion likes censorship more?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
Sure censoring can be a good thing. It can also be a very bad thing, used by manipulative people who don't have your better interests at heart.
maybe a more appropriate OP would be "who doesn't have your best interests at heart?
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
There are people who view ideas like viruses - hell, even Richard Dawkins does. They think we are 'really' bad and that if we are exposed to bad things or temptations our early nature will come out. They see life and being good as a successful control of our natures. most religions have a serious split between the holy and the natural, the sacred and the body, the good and desires. Most rationalists for that matter also.
Itseemstome
Registered Senior Member
The answer to ‘Which religion likes censorship more?’, I am sure, would very much depend upon to which religion the answerer belonged.
‘Why do they feel the need to censor?’, however, may be open to a more general response.
All religions tend to come in the pattern ‘my man said his God told him this’, and I am now telling you what he meant by that. The need to argue arises when somebody either suggests that he didn’t say that, or that’s not the correct interpretation. Whilst the discussion is maintained at that level everybody is happy because they ‘know’ what their man, and hence their God, said.
The need to censor arises when somebody comes along who suggests that the story is completely wrong, gives a possible reason why the whole idea arose and offers a plausible alternative, offering evidence to back his claim. This , if allowed to develop, could bring the whole house of cards a’tumbling and that must never happen. Hence ridicule and censorship.
Just as a small example, I’ve spent about 35 years musing on the nature of reality and come to the conclusion that most of the world’s religions completely under-estimate the enormity of the truth. So, for that matter, do I. How can a 3-dimensional creature possibly have any comprehension of the workings of a 9, 11, or for that matter 26 dimensional universe. (9 – Discourse on the 8th and 9th, Nag Hammadi Library, 11 – String Theory, and I don’t remember who postulated the 26)
I can, at least, put forward an explanation of how the religions originally came about. I did just this under the topic ‘What is the heart of the major religions’, and even our easy going moderator felt the need to censor such opinions with the comment, ‘’This thread has become erratic. If anyone wants to discover, what is the heart of the major religions, I suggest you turn to more reasonable and authoritative sources of information - like books on world religions.
Thread closed.’’
I rest my case.
‘Why do they feel the need to censor?’, however, may be open to a more general response.
All religions tend to come in the pattern ‘my man said his God told him this’, and I am now telling you what he meant by that. The need to argue arises when somebody either suggests that he didn’t say that, or that’s not the correct interpretation. Whilst the discussion is maintained at that level everybody is happy because they ‘know’ what their man, and hence their God, said.
The need to censor arises when somebody comes along who suggests that the story is completely wrong, gives a possible reason why the whole idea arose and offers a plausible alternative, offering evidence to back his claim. This , if allowed to develop, could bring the whole house of cards a’tumbling and that must never happen. Hence ridicule and censorship.
Just as a small example, I’ve spent about 35 years musing on the nature of reality and come to the conclusion that most of the world’s religions completely under-estimate the enormity of the truth. So, for that matter, do I. How can a 3-dimensional creature possibly have any comprehension of the workings of a 9, 11, or for that matter 26 dimensional universe. (9 – Discourse on the 8th and 9th, Nag Hammadi Library, 11 – String Theory, and I don’t remember who postulated the 26)
I can, at least, put forward an explanation of how the religions originally came about. I did just this under the topic ‘What is the heart of the major religions’, and even our easy going moderator felt the need to censor such opinions with the comment, ‘’This thread has become erratic. If anyone wants to discover, what is the heart of the major religions, I suggest you turn to more reasonable and authoritative sources of information - like books on world religions.
Thread closed.’’
I rest my case.
Religion is just a system of beliefs. It can't like or dislike anything - people do or don't.
So this is not a question about religions, but about particular people at a particular time deciding to censor particular things. Implying that religion means censorship imho is stupid.
So this is not a question about religions, but about particular people at a particular time deciding to censor particular things. Implying that religion means censorship imho is stupid.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
The first three sentences I can't argue with at all.
And religion certainly does not mean censorship. But members of the larger organized religions have tendencies that are related (that they relate) to their religions involving censorship.
THOU SHALT NOT is censorship at its most basic - it dictates what you can or cannot do.
http://www.gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/
By definition religion seeks to control ideas.
And "thou shalt not worship graven images"?
Control: no other gods - no freedom of thought.
That is a law, not censorship. I don't disagree with the actions you mention, I just don't agree those actions are called censorship.
Censorship is when you have information and you don't transmit it as is further, but edit it according to your agenda and then transmit it. A law telling you not to do that and that is not really limiting your potential in the first place to do that, you can know of other gods and worship them, with censorship you are already given edited base information, you are never in your life ever informed that other tribes have other deities, there's a big difference.
Censorship is when you have information and you don't transmit it as is further, but edit it according to your agenda and then transmit it. A law telling you not to do that and that is not really limiting your potential in the first place to do that, you can know of other gods and worship them, with censorship you are already given edited base information, you are never in your life ever informed that other tribes have other deities, there's a big difference.
And doesn't the law (in many cases) promote/ defend enforce censorship?
Censorship as "I don't want you you to see this" is nothing until it is backed up by law or tradition.
If there's no law behind its enforcement then its an opinion.
The law itself is not censorship. Yes, there can be censorship laws, but a law stating "don't kill" is not censorship. Censorship may be spontaneous, of psychological reasons, etc. Actually censorship laws themselves are quite a recent thing. Please don't try to persuade me any further in this, I'm a lawyer and my head hurts from your argument.
Discuss with someone else, thanks.
Discuss with someone else, thanks.
Last edited:
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
I'm guessing this was a response to me.
The religious idea of the sacred can lead to censorship more directly than non-religious beliefs. God, Jesus, Mary, Allah, etc. must be treated very specially in images and words. Notions of heresy and blasphemy circling around many types of language use flow pretty naturally from religiuos ideas. I do see this in secular contexts, but not generally with as much force, not in defense of beings who are (by definition) vastly better at defending themselves than we are them, and not so strictly. When we had kings and queens similar kinds of knee jerk censorship were also common - you can see this today if you go even to the Buddhist Thailand and say something bad about the King or step on his photo. You stand a good chance of getting a graceful kick to the teeth from what had seemed the most gentle of persons seconds before.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
I do think religious people have a greater tendency to decide that something should not be said or written.
Religious people (from big organized religions) have a tendency to want to silence and censor.
Rationalists have a tendency to want to mock and belittle.
Religious people (from big organized religions) have a tendency to want to silence and censor.
Rationalists have a tendency to want to mock and belittle.
All religions have their taste of censorship of certain behavior patterns. This leads to the repression of desires, and this generates unhappiness. You can easily manipulate an unhappy person, the purpose of religions.