I guess it depends upon what you mean by "religion."
If you're talking about history and facts, well, those are worth discussing, but, where we know them, they're hardly "debatable."
Example: "Jesus of Nazareth"
Fact: The place that came to be called "Nazareth," was, at the time of Jesus-a pious Hebrew-a nascent necropolis. Fact of the matter is, from about 30 BC-70 or 100 AD,odds are good, and archaelogical evidence supports the idea that not much of anybody lived there, especially pious Hebrews like Jesus, whose cleanliness code would have forbidden him from living in such a place. There is, in fact, no archaeological evidence of anyone living in Nazareth during the period in question. .If we read the pasages of the Bible that speak of "Jesus of Nazareth," in the original Greek, we find that they often say "Jesus the Nazarene. The appellation "of Nazareth" is probably the result of mistranslation hundreds of years ago. Nazarenes were a sect of particularly pious Hebrews, and Jesus was apparently believed to be one.
Belief: Today, though, some will insist that Jesus was from Nazareth, and Nazareth is a site of pilgrimage for Christians, with tours speculating on where Jesus walked and grew up.People believe that Jesus truly was "of Nazareth," that his mother, Mary grew up there as he later did.
Facts are discussable-and, in the case of my example, somewhat debatable. "of Nazareth" is probably the result of mistranslation-that much is debatable. Nazareth the place was a nascent necropolis during the time of the "historical Jesus," a place where no pious Hebrew would live-that much is not subject to much debate. it is a cold, hard fact.
Beliefs, on the other hand, are not subject to rational discussion. They are, regardless of their basis in fact or lack thereof, sacrosanct.Jesus lived in Nazareth;it's where he was from.
I've brought up more than a few warts of different religions in the last year, and I've always been careful to point out that, for myself,what a person chooses to believe doesn't matter. The best example I have of this is the "Mormon racism" thread, where I pointed out that while it was a fact that Mormons once had some racist beliefs that were part of their faith and practice, and the greater body of the church had moved on from those particular doctrines, that I think that if anyone wanted to continue to make those articles of their faith, it was their right to do so. People can "believe" whatever they want, and I always have to put that out there-somehow, though, it gets lost in the argument over facts, and history.
History, of course,can be another thing altogether. In another thread, I broached a subject of some sensitivity: the roots of Christianity and Judaism in sacrifice. A few people took real offense at that, not because of the facts, in the end, but because they felt it wasn't appropriate for discussion-which is putting it mildly, I suppose. The same often takes place around Judaism, Christianity and Islam: people will fixate on aspects of their history of violence and militancy throughout history to try to make a point-that point often gets lost in "Oh it's in the past, though, we've grown past that" or "Two wrongs don't make a right." or "You don't really understand the whole story of what happened there" instead of simply sticking with the facts at hand. People have certain ideas and experiences from their contacts with various religions-we all have a few ideas attached to words lke Muslim, radical Muslim,Jew, Orthodox Jew, Christian, Fundamentalist Christian, Evangelical Christian, cult (it's interesting, that word, I don't think most people know what it really means)-and the list goes on. People find offense, or try to make offense with parts of those terms :"fundie," for example. I, personally, don't necessarily have a problem with "fundamentalist" anything, including Islam and Christianity: the Amish after all, are pretty fundamentalist, and they seem to follow the 11th commandment pretty well too:Thou shalt mind thine own business
Over the years, I've had people I worked with say to me, with the utmost conviction and sincerity,things like : "Oh, you're not a Buddhist, are you?" (I'm not) "That Buddha will send you straight to hell!"
Now, aside from my not being a Buddhist, and generally amused by just about all religious folderol -including my own-wasn't that a somewhat rude thing to say? More to the point: I haven't gone into the rest of the conversation (and I won't), or mentioned the person's religion, but which particular faith do you suppose they were bent on selling me? Go ahead and guess-odds are good you're right. Such behavior is always going to be subject to discussion, though.
Anyway, what people believe-and belief is about choice-is always going to be sensitive. Facts that challenge those beliefs are always going to rattle cages-upset people, etc. The impression that individuals have of one particular faith or another, or their interpretation of facts, are always going to upset people. Twin Fist insists that Mohammad was a "child molester," among other things, and that Islam is a religion of violence. Of course, I doubt he knows many Muslims in his part of Texas, though he may have known a few of one sort or another in the Navy, so he's going by what he's read. In the end, he can believe what he wants to, as far as I'm concerned, but by saying it-by posting his beliefs here-he's opened up the debate. The same holds true for me on any of the various religious topics I've brought up over the years.
In any case, criticism of Christianity is "bashing," mostly because (I think) a lot of Christians in the U.S. rather enjoy the idea of being persecuted, and because so much of their faith has become tied up in U.S. politics-leaving them open to "bashing" that is to say, argument from people who don't agree with them, and don't always express themselves well. We don't ever hear of "Islam bashing" because that's okay-protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, criticism of Islam has taken place in the media on an almost weekly basis since 9/11-that the government of a country that professes "religious freedom for all" has been careful not to color our near-decade long wars as "wars against Islam" is, under the circumstances, prudent, especially with a large segment of the populace ready to do just that. Somehow, though, that translates to some sort of injunction against criticizing Islam, when, in fact, it takes place all the time.
Frankly, I dunno, the subject can be kind of tiresome, even if I do find it fascinating. All the discussion in the world very often doesn't change anyone's mind about what they believe, and someone is always going to take offense. The whole "target shift" to Chrisitainity thing gets called deflection, when, in fact, calling it that is a deflection in itself: all of the three Abrahamic traditions are soaked in the blood of non-believers,some more recently than others, and that's a fact.
.
