Is it ethical to disgrace a religion and its Teachings?

Answer 1

It all depends on exactly what you mean by "disgrace." If that means to ridicule as ridiculousness, then yes. It is entirely ethical. Also practical, and often necessary. Even wise.

Heaven's Gate was a group that thought a spaceship was following the Hale-Bopp Comet in 1997. You can read about their specific beliefs here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28cult%29

You can read about other suicidal religious cults here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_suicide#Notable_mass_suicides

Maybe some people would rather that these people killed themselves for no good reason than to rish hurting their feeeeeeelings by demeaning their religion. I think it would have saved lives.

The mark of all religions is to gain more adherants to it. This is no less true for christianity. Right now, there are more than 22,000 different denominations (otherwise known as "Sects") of christianity. All of them, although they share the common myths that Jesus was born from a virgin, performed miracles, died for our sins, and was raised from the dead, differ enough on other parts of the bible that in many cases, each says its own way is the only way to get to Heaven, despite the other similar beliefs.

In summary, no religion has any problem "disgracing" any other religion, based on the fact that each considers their own religion to be the only true one of its kind.

That still doesn't answer whether it is ethical.
There isn't an answer for that. It can only be a personal view. I am an atheist, but I don't get all bent up and file lawsuits when I drive by a nativity scene during Christmas. I wouldn't care if I had to show up in court to face a traffic ticket or any other charge and walk past a monument to the Ten Commandments. I don't get my feathers ruffled if someone at a public, private, government, or work-related event offers a prayer. Personally, I think people like that should lighten up. As long as I am not forced to join them, nobody should be forced to refrain from their own manner of worship of whatever God or Gods they believe in, as long as it doesn't interfere with the peace and safety of others.

The words are freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion.

However, for some very ODD reason, we are expected to give people the utmost respect of their beliefs. Imagine if I told you that at 40 years of age, I still believed in a fat guy in a red suit, that flew around the world on a sleigh, pulled by nine reindeer, the lead on having a glowing red nose, that crawled down chimneys to leave gifts for every child in the world at Christmas Eve. You would likely not just say, "OK. I respect that." You would probably call me immature, superstitious, foolish, and easily persuaded.
And you would be right. Just like I was taught to believe in Santa Claus, I was taught to believe in God. The only difference was that my parents eventually came clean about Santa being a fraud that they perpetrated.

Yet, for some ODD reason, it must be treated with kid gloves when someone proclaims belief in God, which is just as unlikely as Santa. Belief in Santa is just as much an indoctrination as belief in God.

The only way the whole of humanity will ever know lasting peace is when we can all either respect each other's different theistic views, or when we all share a common one. I see only the latter as a viable option, and that religion could only be atheism.

But even that won't bring lasting peace. People will still find reasons to start wars over greed, pride, territory, food, or breeding rights, just like the animals we are supposedly superior to.

I leave you with the words from Bertrand Russel, and then from Richard Dawkins.

Bertrand Russell wrote...
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Richard Dawkins wrote...
"The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first."

While I disagree with Dawkins that religion deserves hostility, I do agree that it deserves no greater respect than any other belief which one may find ludicrous.

El Chistoso

Answer 2

Ethical to disgrace a religion? I think not, however i find nothing wrong with discussing beliefs, differences, or lack of beliefs...

)o( Trinity

Answer 3

It can be
Jesus critisized the Pharasees pretty severely at some times, but he honored Moses

There is probably a right way and a wrong way to criticize.
It would depend on what you mean by disgrace. Humiliate?
Elijah poked fun at Baal not being able to call down fire and suggested he was indisposed and going to the bathroom to a crowd which included a king and queen. Would you consider that a disgrace? but it was appropriately done at the time

Answer 4

The only way a religious group can be disgraced is by it's own actions. Exposing disgraceful actions is not unethical.

Answer 5

Since religions are the source of such great misfortune in the world, it's probally unethical NOT to disgrace them.

Answer 6

Most religions disgrace themselves with the behavior of their members.

Answer 7

If their teachings are in direct opposition to the scriptures and promote abominable behavours... I think you are doing them a favor by exposing them. For example the practice of polygamy is an abomination to God... and if a church officially promotes it they deserve public disapproval.

Answer 8

Yes it it, it morally right to point out that people are delusional. Religion should not be any kind of special case.

Answer 9

It depends on whose ethics we're talking about.

Answer 10

The truth always comes out in the end.