Blueberry farm, Surrey, BC
Religion, Ethics, and Blogging
I have been in email contact with a fellow Christian blogger who has a site which examines and critiques a major world religion with more than a million adherents, according to adherents.com.
This blog appears to point out some of the differences between Biblical Christianity and the world religion. This person informed me that someone had set up what I would view as a satirical parody blog of the Christian blogger’s site, which used a similar colour scheme, the Christian blogger’s picture and name, and an unflattering URL title. I urged this person to complain to Blogger and at least have the Christian blogger’s picture removed from the satirical parody site. This person stated that a complaint had been made before with Blogger and would be made again. Thankfully, the satirical parody site has been removed and is off the internet, at least for now.
I think that the use of this person’s photo was unethical, because there was no disclaimer mentioned that I could see that clearly stated that the blog was a satirical parody and not an actual website from the Christian blogger. Simon Blackburn primarily defines ethics as the study of concepts within practical reasoning which includes ideas concerning good, right, duty, obligation, virtue, freedom, rationality, and choice. Blackburn (1996: 126). I would think that since dishonesty and misrepresentation were used in the satirical parody blog that this is not the use of the good, ethically speaking, but instead the use of improper ethics. Satire is hard hitting humour that makes folly of another’s view. The idea is that by ridiculing someone’s falsehoods, a truth can be demonstrated in contrast.
Putting the above story aside, here are some of the philosophical problems created by someone who attempts to defend their religion or attack another’s religion unethically.
For this article I will use the story as a framework, but I do realize that the roles could be reversed. This is not an exhaustive list.
1. If a satirical parody blog is established to demonstrate supposed falsehoods in the material of a Christian’s blog, then it must use proper ethics. However, if in the process of trying to demonstrate falsehoods, the publishers of a satirical parody blog pretend to be the Christian blogger without using a disclaimer, then the satirical parody blog publisher’s credibility is severely damaged.
2. The publisher of the satirical parody blog may or may not actually be a member, adherent, or sympathizer of the world religion being examined and critiqued by the Christian blogger. However, for many who understand the falsehoods being presented by the satirical parody site, it will be assumed that the publisher is an adherent of the religion being criticized by the Christian. The unethical behaviour of the publisher will influence some observers to question the ethics of common people who are adherents of this world religion. I realize that all religious groups, including Christian ones, have adherents that habitually commit unethical acts as a lifestyle, and this does not mean that most or all the adherents are this way, but unfortunately in the eyes of some observers they will have a negative view of some or perhaps all within the world religion. A satirical parody blog’s use of falsehoods is basically bad press for the world religion being critiqued by a Christian blogger even if the publisher of the satirical parody site is not an actual adherent of the world religion, or is simply one of a few people within that religious group who is unethical.
3. Observers on the internet who realize that a satirical parody site was established with falsehoods may begin to question the ethics of the founders and leaders of that world religion. The dishonesty of one possible adherent does not mean that the ethics of the founders and leaders of the world religion are wrong, but this will raise questions in the minds of some observers, if not many. At the same time the ethics of the founders and leaders of a religion are questioned, so may their doctrines.
4. If a satirical parody blog lacks significant reasonable counter argumentation to a Christian blogger’s examination and critique of the world religion, it does not give the satirical parody site much credibility. Now the fact that the publisher does not reasonably defend the world religion does not make it untrue, but if the world religion is understood to be true by the publisher then it should be worth defending through reason for the publisher. Certainly if the publisher cannot defend the criticized world religion, then the site should present a humble approach in regard to religious dialogue. The publisher should acknowledge that there is much more that needs to be learned, and I as well admit that a humble attitude is a good thing to have for those of us who have been involved in religious studies for years. A good approach for a satirical parody blog is to openly explain what it is and then use argumentation to counter what is being said on a Christian blogger’s site.
5. A satirical parody blog that uses dishonesty and falsehoods by misrepresenting itself may appear to be intolerant. The fact that it has to use falsehoods against a Christian blogger would seem to indicate the possibility that the publisher of the satirical parody blog cannot tolerate the critical reviews of the world religion and therefore must attempt to discredit the critic. A tolerant approach would in no way mean that the publisher of the satirical parody site agrees with or accepts the views of the Christian blogger, but it means that the publisher will not harass the work of the Christian blogger or use falsehoods in an attempt to discredit the critic. Tolerance is defined by J.E. Wood Junior, as the indulgence of belief or conduct other than one’s own. This would include respect for the opinions and practices of others when they are in conflict with one’s own. Wood (1996: 1098). I think that tolerance is for the most part essential for dialogue between people of different religious views to take place. This tolerance in no way means that all religious philosophies must be viewed as true, rather people are respected for holding a religious view even if views are considered false by others on several points.
Must all religious philosophies be tolerated? I think not, if a religion advocates murder for example, it should not be tolerated. So, I do not think that religions that offer human sacrifice should be tolerated. Jesus Christ as both God and man was the sacrifice for sins, but as God he has the power and right to take someone’s life, so I admit he has the right to offer himself as a human sacrifice on the cross for the sins of humanity.
6. If a site calls a critic ignorant or an idiot without the use of reasonable argumentation against the critic’s views, this quite possibly could be ad hominem. Blackburn defines ad hominem as attempting to disprove what a person holds by attacking the person (less commonly, supporting a person's contention by praising the person), or, more generally arguing in a way that may or may not be forceful against a person's particular position, but does not advance matters for those who do not hold that person's particular combination of beliefs. Blackburn (1996: 23-24). This type of approach is viewed as a fallacy, which is a false notion.
There is an ad hominem attack in one of the comments on this blog, and I left it on the site in order to demonstrate it’s fallacious nature. The type of attack does not in a reasonable way disprove the assertions or arguments of the person being attacked, nor does it help to prove the assertions or arguments of the attacker.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Argumentum Ad’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Ethics’, in
Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
WOOD J.E. JUNIOR. (1996) ‘Tolerance’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
