Stop the Mean Tweets But Continue Religious Satire

Posted on by

Stop the Mean Tweets But Continue Religious Satire

177269705The Archbishop of Canterbury is concerned about the acerbic tone on social media and the potential lasting damage to relationships that can result. The Most Reverend Justin Welby has blogged that everyone should be mindful of the lasting interpersonal damage that can follow from heated discussions in electronic forums.

 

Cautioning against the temptation to “set everyone right on everything,” the Archbishop also advised that there is “a point at which we need to leave it to those who know people to speak to them personally and quietly—in a space where the tone is subtle and full of love.”

 

Noting that the “subtleties, tone and access all get muddled up” in tweets or posts, he advised caution when responding to social media debates and controversies. The results of nastiness remain in a public forum, he notes, essentially permanent and for all to see, making healing and forgiveness even more difficult. “Electronic media breaks through locked doors and pierces people painfully,” he said.

 

Cruel Religious Parody OK With Most Americans, Some Groups Differ

 

A recent survey found that a strong majority of Americans as a whole are OK with satirizing religion in print. Of the roughly 1,000 people surveyed, 76 percent were aware of the recent attacks in Paris that were related to a religious satire. A solid 60 percent of all respondents were OK with the actions of the newspaper that published cartoons of the prophet that offended so many in Islam.

 

Divided out by the race of the respondent, results differed somewhat:

  • 70% of white Americans are OK with harsh religious satire.
  • 48% of non-white respondents are opposed to humor at the expense of religion.
  • Just 37% of non-whites agreed that religious satire in print is acceptable.

 

Experts and scholars differed somewhat on conclusions reaching from the data. They generally agree that non-white groups in America have a range of historical grievances with their general treatment in popular culture and media. A long history of mistreatment could account for some of the reticence among minorities in America; they may recognize a free speech right for what could be seen as “hate-speech” targeted at a particular religion or group.

 

Religion and Violence

 

A new book considers whether religion is inherently violent. Karen Armstrong takes on tough questions in history and sociology in Fields of Blood: A History of Religion and Violence (link)

 

The subject is on the minds of many people, with religion and violence seeming to share direct links in many news events from terrorist attacks to elections in Africa. Somewhat surprisingly—for many who believe that religion contributes to violence—Armstrong scrutinizes both modern and ancient civilizations, and determines that there is no substantive evidence of a link between religious belief and violence.

 

The author sees one of the primary functions of religion as a force to critique the state on its use of violent coercion. Religion is, in Armstrong’s view, a means by which citizens may present alternatives to the use of force that governments generally use to control or dominate society. The traditional view, what Armstrong calls the “founding myth” of modern society, saw the endless wars of the religious reformation in Europe as evidence of the violence inherent in faith. This is simply not accurate, she concludes.

 

The author sees the roots of those allegedly religious wars and other historical disputes that seem to have a great religious component as related to the balance of political power, rather than stemming from actual religious differences. Similarly, the violence that many in the west associate with Islam is, in Armstrong’s view, a product of nationalism arising out of ignorance of Islam, rather than flowing from the religion itself.

 

The Nation Is the Violent Entity

 

As Armstrong points out in Fields of Blood, the secular nation-state has proven to be a much more violent and coercive organization than religion. Faith can have a positive and affirming role in human affairs. Alongside positive education about the deep connections among all people, religion may be among one of the best ways to help societies avoid violence.

Stop the Mean Tweets But Continue Religious Satire

177269705The Archbishop of Canterbury is concerned about the acerbic tone on social media and the potential lasting damage to relationships that can result. The Most Reverend Justin Welby has blogged that everyone should be mindful of the lasting interpersonal damage that can follow from heated discussions in electronic forums.

 

Cautioning against the temptation to “set everyone right on everything,” the Archbishop also advised that there is “a point at which we need to leave it to those who know people to speak to them personally and quietly—in a space where the tone is subtle and full of love.”

 

Noting that the “subtleties, tone and access all get muddled up” in tweets or posts, he advised caution when responding to social media debates and controversies. The results of nastiness remain in a public forum, he notes, essentially permanent and for all to see, making healing and forgiveness even more difficult. “Electronic media breaks through locked doors and pierces people painfully,” he said.

 

Cruel Religious Parody OK With Most Americans, Some Groups Differ

 

A recent survey found that a strong majority of Americans as a whole are OK with satirizing religion in print. Of the roughly 1,000 people surveyed, 76 percent were aware of the recent attacks in Paris that were related to a religious satire. A solid 60 percent of all respondents were OK with the actions of the newspaper that published cartoons of the prophet that offended so many in Islam.

 

Divided out by the race of the respondent, results differed somewhat:

  • 70% of white Americans are OK with harsh religious satire.
  • 48% of non-white respondents are opposed to humor at the expense of religion.
  • Just 37% of non-whites agreed that religious satire in print is acceptable.

 

Experts and scholars differed somewhat on conclusions reaching from the data. They generally agree that non-white groups in America have a range of historical grievances with their general treatment in popular culture and media. A long history of mistreatment could account for some of the reticence among minorities in America; they may recognize a free speech right for what could be seen as “hate-speech” targeted at a particular religion or group.

 

Religion and Violence

 

A new book considers whether religion is inherently violent. Karen Armstrong takes on tough questions in history and sociology in Fields of Blood: A History of Religion and Violence (link)

 

The subject is on the minds of many people, with religion and violence seeming to share direct links in many news events from terrorist attacks to elections in Africa. Somewhat surprisingly—for many who believe that religion contributes to violence—Armstrong scrutinizes both modern and ancient civilizations, and determines that there is no substantive evidence of a link between religious belief and violence.

 

The author sees one of the primary functions of religion as a force to critique the state on its use of violent coercion. Religion is, in Armstrong’s view, a means by which citizens may present alternatives to the use of force that governments generally use to control or dominate society. The traditional view, what Armstrong calls the “founding myth” of modern society, saw the endless wars of the religious reformation in Europe as evidence of the violence inherent in faith. This is simply not accurate, she concludes.

 

The author sees the roots of those allegedly religious wars and other historical disputes that seem to have a great religious component as related to the balance of political power, rather than stemming from actual religious differences. Similarly, the violence that many in the west associate with Islam is, in Armstrong’s view, a product of nationalism arising out of ignorance of Islam, rather than flowing from the religion itself.

 

The Nation Is the Violent Entity

 

As Armstrong points out in Fields of Blood, the secular nation-state has proven to be a much more violent and coercive organization than religion. Faith can have a positive and affirming role in human affairs. Alongside positive education about the deep connections among all people, religion may be among one of the best ways to help societies avoid violence.

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.