by Bartlett Meeks

Created on: December 18, 2008

Allow me to answer this question with another question: When is criticism not warranted? Perhaps when your loved one asks if this dress makes her look fat, or at the funeral of a person you did not really care for, but these are social conventions. A subject as broad and important as religion needs to be discussed, debated, and yes, criticized.

We as a culture have recently become afraid of debate and rational discussion. When a difficult question is asked, it is almost an embarrassing experience. Worse yet, it is often seen as an affront or an insult. This may not be the case.

Given that you live in a country that has freedom of (and from) religion, it is reasonable to assume that criticism of any given religion is legal, if not polite. Were I writing this in a theocracy, my answer would be an emphatic "No!" Not because I believe that, but rather because I am an avowed coward. One more reason, in my opinion, to criticize any and all beliefs.

With this in mind, something as important, personal and life defining as religion needs criticism. If someone's faith is so shallow that it can be rocked by a few probing questions, maybe they need to do some homework. In many traditions, debate is an open and wonderful thing; Both Judaism and Islam have rich histories of debate between scholars. The 95 Theses of Martin Luther redefined Christianity, and even most Christians would say for the better. And THAT was a criticism.

Bear in mind that when a critism is raised, it is a time to respond, reflect and answer, not whine and moan about it. A well designed criticism can actually help the offended target. A poorly designed critism shows the ignorance of no one but the person who criticized. Perhaps that is what we can take away from this- if you are going to be a critic, be a good one. It is vastly different to say (for instance) "your god teh suxorz!" as opposed to "Please explain how you reconcile these perceived contradictions in your holy book..."

In one of the more delicious ironies of recent life, it seems that the recent atheist movement has taken these ideas to heart, and learned from past critics. While in the past atheists were seen as either moralistic Grinches or uninspired automatons, there is now a sense that they too can be moral, ethical and philosophical. Why? Because they've been brow beaten for 300+ years by their "morally superior" brothers and sisters that have an avowed religious belief. They've listened to their critics and reacted to the more salient criticism.

Most religion's adherence to a Holy Book, and doctrine derived from that source is another aspect of this debate. To a religious person "Because God says so" is good enough. It should be. That is the basis for faith. But if I am not of your religion I expect more than that as an answer, and if your only response is blind adherence to a dogma I do not buy into, you are on shaky ground in trying to convince me you are right, or even respecting you. When you make the subject something that is politically active, that just multiplies this whole mess. So who gives in? Does the critic allow "Because God said so" to be a reasonable counter to debate, or does the religious person disregard their religious beliefs when confronting a non-believer?

Learn more about this author, Bartlett Meeks.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.