More on my Anti-Halal Manifesto - Religion and "Respect"

More on my Anti-Halal Manifesto:

ceci: Did I say tolerance and respect were the same thing? If I thought they were the same why would I say tolerance AND respect?

You missed my point:
"Yes, no one should suppress you, but you should be respectful when discussing others' belief systems"

which negates alot of your points because I am saying we can discuss, but surely there is a tactful way of doing it.

You're not going to engage a Muslim in meaningful discussion about his religion if you start of by saying "Let me tell you about my "anti halal manifesto".."

Any fool can point out the absurdities in others' religions, there's nothing special about the ability to nitpick.

What the world NEEDS to achieve more peace is less of telling others what to do, and more of trying to understand the underlying principles of why people do things.


Much as I enjoy Rowan Atkinson's shows, he is saying that nothing is sacred, anything can be material for satire. In a perfect world, yes, we have the right to say anything, but then we must bear the consequences of our actions, and that includes the backlash from communities which do not take lightly to being made fun of. Change will only come from within the organization, not because someone outside says so. If someone criticises your family, your first instinct is to tell the person to shut up. However, if you adopt a amiable tone when engaging someone in conversation, that person is likely to be more receptive. Basic human trait.

And there is always something worth respecting. Even if you don't agree with the contents of the religion, sometimes the dedication and faith is worth respecting. You can disagree with the clauses in a religion, but I'm sure the 5 great sects of the world have their merits.


u said : "Me: The way to achieve religious harmony is not to shut up, say nothing and pretend that valid questions about religion do not exist. Discussion and debate are surely ways to achieve greater understanding. We cannot hide behind religion and pretend that if keep mum everything will be alright."

I'm saying: I'm sick of people fighting over beliefs, right now there is plenty of debate and discussion over religion, and plenty of fighting and bombings, because let's face it, when people debate no one gets convinced of the others' viewpoints. Have your views ever shifted because of a point someone else mentioned? You assume the beliefs you hold dear are "correct", and others are wrong and need your wise correction. Why doesn't the world try a new tack? As tempting as it is to blabber and point, why not hold your piece if you cannot say it tactfully?

All this fighting nowadays is because of clashing beliefs, so don't you worry that there is insufficient criticism of religions in our world.

agagooga, ur "facts" are not so much facts as hypotheses. Mine are observations of what is actually happening in the world.

NiHL: @ceci: you tell agagooga to be more tolerent of other people's beliefs and all, but you yourself is the one who is reacting so violently to it. For god's sake, this is his blog, he sure has freedom to put anything up on his site, but you seem so darn affected by everything you are saying, and so offensively eager to prove your point at that too..

uh, a slip of the finger.. i mean you are affected by everything he is saying. Anyway, I went back to read his anti halal manifasto and I find it a totally credible argument - i.e. they are built on valid premises. Your attack on his article seems more like trying to attack him on the basis that the article is "haram". Somehow, it is kinda you kind of people who inhibits people from having hearty discussions..

Me: ceci: Since you said tolerance AND respect, would you respect someone who believed that the world was flat? How about one who thought that women should have bound feet? Or that witches should be burned at the stake? Respect is not a given - it cannot be demanded, no less than anyone can be told what to think

Besides which, you said that I should be respectful when discussing others' belief systems. Re-reading my Anti-Halal Manifesto, I do not find it disrespectful in the slightest, but merely a reasoned discussion of certain pertinent points. I would even go so far as to say that it would be well-nigh impossible to deal with the relevant issues in a more reasoned or less hysterical way. As I said earlier (albeit phrased in a different way): critical evaluation and discussion is not the same as attack or disrespect. The only way in which I could have been more tactful would be to avoid mentioning the subject altogether, which would, I trust you agree, defeat the point. Gathering everyone together in a round table to talk about how their religions differ, without examining why they differ or to enquire into religious dictates is not meaningful discussion - it's politically correct and sanctimonious trite; religio-spiritual masturbation in a vacuum.

Your advocating of "respectful" discussion sounds more like pretending that differences and conflict do not exist. If we just accepted at face value what religions told us, we would still believe the world to be flat, the earth to be at the centre of the solar system; that slavery was justified, women were inferior and that miscegenation was wrong - all because we were being "respectful".


I am not telling other people what to do: I am just examining it. I am not going around with a sword, threatening to lop off Muslims' heads; I am merely pointing out why I personally am opposed to Halal food, just as many of them are opposed to alcohol and gambling - if you read most Muslim criticisms of the two, I'm quite sure you'll find a lot of vitriol and disrespect (not to mention logical fallacies and appeals to emotion) than in my Anti-Halal manifesto. Indeed, I did try to understand the underlying principles of Halal food, but found many suspect (which was one reason why I wrote my Anti-Halal manifesto). One cannot assume that people always do things because of underlying principles, and then work backwards to come up with politically correct spiel: one must actually examine the evidence before coming to a conclusion. If everyone is right, despite holding (sometimes self-)contradictory beliefs, no one is right. In any case, if everyone followed your philosophy, debating, academia and politics (not to mention many or even most other meaningful and productive spheres of human life) would be killed off. Life itself is about disagreement.

Without honest discussion without the bounds of political correctness, what happens when two religions are in conflict? Papering over the differences is not always possible, even if one is willing to ignore underlying problems, leaving them to fester under the surface. For example: when two people of different religions want to get married, and both may not marry people of another religion. Pretending that the problem and conflict does not exist does not solve the problem. What is the alternative, then? The violence (physical or otherwise) that you seem to dislike so much?

Or what about cults? Cults, after all, are merely religions with a small following. People show no hesitation to lambasting cults and showing how ridiculous they are.

Of course there is probably something to be gained from most religions, but dedication and faith might not be that: "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche


You claim that conflict arises because people disagree about religion. Besides my earlier point about intra-religious conflict, which you seem to have blithely ignored, I daresay that deeper examination will show that in most of these conflicts, religion is but a contributory factor. If disagreement leads to conflict, we should stop debate and disagreement in all areas: not just religion. In any case, following your logic the best way to end conflict would be to ban religion *g* (which is a stand I am totally against, incidentally).



Once again: the unexamined belief is not worth having.