Why, exactly, do I need to respect religious beliefs?

[Illuminatiprimus]

I'm not intending for this OP to come across as controversial - the question is simply as asked.

I don't have any religious beliefs, and fortunately I live somewhere that the majority of people are of the same mindset (or they're in the "don't know/don't care" category) so it presents no real difficulty. This means that when you do encounter someone with strong religious beliefs they stick out more than they might do where everyone is nominally religious (like in the US).

The debate about the place of religion in modern society (particularly in the narrative of multiculturalism and immigration), whether it's a force for good or not (islamic jihadism, catholic abuse scandal etc) continues, and often the debate between atheists who take the stance of being rationalists and people who profess to be religious comes down to the lack of evidence on the latter's part, and frequently how silly some of the beliefs held actually are.

When having these sorts of debates, or when there is a debate in society generally, it is often professed that religious beliefs should be respected (i.e. not mocked or strenuously challenged): but why? What is it about a religious belief that makes it different to any other than someone may not agree with? An obvious example is something like flat-earthism. There are people who seriously do profess to believe (key word) that the earth is flat and that no amount of "evidence" to the contrary is going to shake their faith. In general I don't think that many people would argue such a belief needs to be respected, yet it shares many of the components of religious belief that those who hold them maintain need special protection.

Sidestepping the question of whether a religious belief is a choice or not, it certainly is something you can choose to require others to listen to you talk about it, or have to work around you if you have religious beliefs. If others don't want to (and aren't just being intolerant dicks for the sake of it) what right do religious people have to demand their views, which others don't share, be given special protection against challenge, ridicule or condemnation? On a more serious level, when religions take stances that secularists think are contrary to the good of society or the individual (birth control, abortion, homosexuality, women's rights) can religions claim a special place of setting for their position that must be taken a priori, and that cannot be argued with at its root as flawed due to its foundation on belief? If I say "women should have less rights than men because I say so" is that actually less defensible than saying "women should have less rights than men because the Qur'an/Torah says so"? Using the "religious beliefs must be respected" policy I can criticise someone professing the former but not the latter, even though the impact on a woman due to these views is functionally the same.

Personally I can't see any reason particularly to respect religions and religious belief simply because they're religious in nature, even though I'm happy to respect a person's right to think what they want as long as it's not harming anyone else. Anyone got any arguments to the contrary? I'm keen to have some other perspectives I may not have considered.

[Martin Hyde]

All about venue to my mind.

In a formal debate or an informal debate on a message board or whatever, anything that exists outside the world of falsifiable evidence I think you can definitely reject as a matter of fact, and owe it no special respect.

In the realm of satire, commentary and etc, I think it fine to mock or ridicule essentially anything (some things may be in bad taste, but I still think you can do it and it's not an inherently horrible thing--satire is sometimes about offending a little bit.)

Now, at a funeral if someone is giving a religious sermon if you stood up and screamed "You're full of shit, grandpa is just a rotting hunk of meat, there is no God and no afterlife!" the venue there makes that lack of respect extremely inappropriate. It serves no point other than to upset people who have done you no harm.

[DigitalC]

Because they are the majority, simple as that. The reason we don't treat people who believe in god the same as people who believe in big foot is because there are tons of the first and very few of the latter, their whole delusion is supported by nothing other than having it be shared by others.

[Punoqllads]

Because very few wars have been fought over the dimensionality of the Earth. Very few riots have occurred due to a disagreement over the radius of this world. In short, respecting others' religious beliefs -- no matter how silly they seem to you -- leads to a more civil society.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

All about venue to my mind.

...

Now, at a funeral if someone is giving a religious sermon if you stood up and screamed "You're full of shit, grandpa is just a rotting hunk of meat, there is no God and no afterlife!" the venue there makes that lack of respect extremely inappropriate. It serves no point other than to upset people who have done you no harm.

If you chose to go to the funeral knowing it was religious you know what you're expecting to get. I agree it would be inappropriate but for that reason mainly. If you can't bear religious ceremonies so much that you know you'd feel compelled to shout in the middle of it about how bogus the sermon was then you could elect not to go.

Originally Posted by DigitalC

Because they are the majority, simple as that. The reason we don't treat people who believe in god the same as people who believe in big foot is because there are tons of the first and very few of the latter, their whole delusion is supported by nothing other than having it be shared by others.

With that reasoning we should happily let Africans continue burning children as witches whenever they experience problems in their communities at the insistence of their religious leaders, it's what the majority think after all.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Illuminatiprimus

When having these sorts of debates, or when there is a debate in society generally, it is often professed that religious beliefs should be respected (i.e. not mocked or strenuously challenged):

Those are two very different propositions.

If others don't want to (and aren't just being intolerant dicks for the sake of it) what right do religious people have to demand their views, which others don't share, be given special protection against challenge, ridicule or condemnation?

Again, you're conflating different things. Personally, I think ridiculing or condemning are generally in poor taste. Challenging, depending on how it's done, is IMO generally fine.

On a more serious level, when religions take stances that secularists think are contrary to the good of society or the individual (birth control, abortion, homosexuality, women's rights) can religions claim a special place of setting for their position that must be taken a priori, and that cannot be argued with at its root as flawed due to its foundation on belief?

IME, most religious people (in the US, at least) do not think that. They do, however, insist that secularism or atheism not be taken a priori, either.

Since making every social issue hinge on a profound philosphical question that has been debated for centuries without resolution presents practical problems -- i.e., nothing will ever be decided -- ISTMost people that the best course is to attempt to address said issues while accomodating differernt belief systems as best we can. "Tolerance" or "respect" are common terms for this.

If I say "women should have less rights than men because I say so" is that actually less defensible than saying "women should have less rights than men because the Qur'an/Torah says so"?

It's entirely defensible. In a liberal democracy, you are free to think what you wish, vote accordingly, and attempt to persuade others to agree with you. And so is the rabbi.

Using the "religious beliefs must be respected" policy I can criticise someone professing the former but not the latter, even though the impact on a woman due to these views is functionally the same.

Says who? Sure you're not conflating "criticism" with, say "rude and gratuitious mockery?"

...even though I'm happy to respect a person's right to think what they want as long as it's not harming anyone else.

So, in other words, you DO respect other people's belief systems. All good then.

[TriPolar]

You don't. You should respect other peoples right to hold their beliefs.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Punoqllads

Because very few wars have been fought over the dimensionality of the Earth. Very few riots have occurred due to a disagreement over the radius of this world. In short, respecting others' religious beliefs -- no matter how silly they seem to you -- leads to a more civil society.

No, that's a matter of disrespecting religious beliefs by forbidding them to ram those beliefs down everyone else's throats or to attack people because their god wants them to. Civilized behavior in general requires that religion be disrespected and ignored since it is destructive and barbaric.

And really, all you are doing is rewording the "because they are numerous and powerful" argument to make it sound more noble.

[Trinopus]

Because you don't want to be the sort of person who doesn't respect other people's beliefs.

Trinopus

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Because you don't want to be the sort of person who doesn't respect other people's beliefs.

A rational person?

The fact is, there are few people who respect everyone else's beliefs, and they are accurately regarded as solipsist goofballs. For the great majority of people this has nothing to do with respecting the beliefs of others; it has to do with picking a particular kind of belief namely religion and demanding that it be given special treatment.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Originally Posted by furt

Those are two very different propositions.

Again, you're conflating different things. Personally, I think ridiculing or condemning are generally in poor taste. Challenging, depending on how it's done, is IMO generally fine.

IME, most religious people (in the US, at least) do not think that. They do, however, insist that secularism or atheism not be taken a priori, either.

Since making every social issue hinge on a profound philosphical question that has been debated for centuries without resolution presents practical problems -- i.e., nothing will ever be decided -- ISTMost people that the best course is to attempt to address said issues while accomodating differernt belief systems as best we can. "Tolerance" or "respect" are common terms for this.

It's entirely defensible. In a liberal democracy, you are free to think what you wish, vote accordingly, and attempt to persuade others to agree with you. And so is the rabbi.

Says who? Sure you're not conflating "criticism" with, say "rude and gratuitious mockery?"

So, in other words, you DO respect other people's belief systems. All good then.

Oh man - six posts in and we're already into line by line quotation. The main point you made that I think rings false was when you said "It's entirely defensible. In a liberal democracy, you are free to think what you wish, vote accordingly, and attempt to persuade others to agree with you. And so is the rabbi." Fine, but what if the Rabbi says when you start to challenge him "these are my religious views, please stop attacking my beliefs"? And don't say it doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by TriPolar

You don't. You should respect other peoples right to hold their beliefs.

I already said I do, and I don't see the tension between doing that whilst telling them that the specifics of their beliefs are bullshit when they attack me personally or are at odds with my own code of ethics or morality (which happen not to be derived from religion).

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Because you don't want to be the sort of person who doesn't respect other people's beliefs.

Trinopus

Why not? Implicit in your post is the notion that there is something bad or wrong about not respecting someone's beliefs. If I said (to Godwinise my own thread in less than ten posts, a record for me) that I believe Jews are a scourge on society and that they need to be driven out of positions of power, oh and by the way this whole democracy thing is a waste of time and I should have unlimited power as the Fuhrer, zeing Heil, would you shrug and say "oh well, it's what he believes, gotta respect that"? I'm sure not.

The point of this thread is examining the no-go area of challenging religious belief in and of itself, you've not told me why you shouldn't, just that you shouldn't.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Illuminatiprimus

I already said I do, and I don't see the tension between doing that whilst telling them that the specifics of their beliefs are bullshit when they attack me personally or are at odds with my own code of ethics or morality (which happen not to be derived from religion).

Sounds about right to me.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Illuminatiprimus

Fine, but what if the Rabbi says when you start to challenge him "these are my religious views, please stop attacking my beliefs"? And don't say it doesn't happen.

Ok, so it happens. What's your point? You can "challenge" him. He can decline the challenge. Depending on the context and how the challenge is presented and/or declined, some people may think less of you and/or some may think less of the Rabbi.

You really need to be much, much more specific. You give no idea what kinds of "respect" you're talking about. Are you seeking the legal right to publically criticise religion? You have it. Are you seeking widespread tolerance of some practices anathema to mainstream religion? You have it. Are you asking social approval for walking naked into Westminster Abbey during services and screaming "Lies, Lies, all Lies?" What, exactly?

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Because you don't want to be the sort of person who doesn't respect other people's beliefs.

Trinopus

Using Christians and Muslims as an example?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

. . . For the great majority of people this has nothing to do with respecting the beliefs of others; it has to do with picking a particular kind of belief namely religion and demanding that it be given special treatment.

Well, that isn't what I had in mind. Just simple ordinary decent human respect, as opposed to bigotry. I can disagree with their beliefs. I can even fight like hell when their beliefs promote actions that are harmful to me. But up until the point where it makes a physical difference... Shrug... Live and let live.

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Using Christians and Muslims as an example?

Well, there are good, decent, respectful Christians and Muslims, as well as the bigots who pollute those faiths. I have met religious people who respect my atheism.

It just seems to me that the Golden Rule is a good first approximation to a moral system. I'd like others to respect my beliefs...

Also, bigots are ugly, nasty, small, hateful, stinkards -- and I do not want to be one!

Trinopus

[gonzomax]

I care less about the bigots than I do about the religious warriors. There are a lot of wars in our history that can be laid at the feet of religions. I think they do more harm than good.
What is there to respect?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Well, that isn't what I had in mind. Just simple ordinary decent human respect, as opposed to bigotry. I can disagree with their beliefs. I can even fight like hell when their beliefs promote actions that are harmful to me.

That's not the kind of respect most believers want, and it probably isn't the sort Illuminatiprimus is talking about, either. Disagreement or disapproval is disrespectful. Fighting back is also disrespectful.

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Well, there are good, decent, respectful Christians and Muslims, as well as the bigots who pollute those faiths. I have met religious people who respect my atheism.

Then they are good people, but bad Christians or Muslims.

[Punoqllads]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Then they are good people, but bad Christians or Muslims.

Coincidentally, they are also True Scotsmen.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Punoqllads

Coincidentally, they are also True Scotsmen.

No; being a good person contradicts the nature of both religions; they are both barbaric holdovers. Being a good person requires that you be a bad Christian or Muslim, much like how Oskar Schindler did good things, but was a bad Nazi for doing them.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Illuminatiprimus

When having these sorts of debates, or when there is a debate in society generally, it is often professed that religious beliefs should be respected (i.e. not mocked or strenuously challenged): but why? What is it about a religious belief that makes it different to any other than someone may not agree with?

Probably for a combination of reasons. First, we have a long history of religious discrimination here in the United States dating back to colonial days against Catholics, Jews and Mormons (as a few examples). Also, religion tends to be fairly private these days (with some exceptions) and we like to keep it that way. Other than creationist or anti-gay religious activist, religion seems to be in the background.

[MichaelEmouse]

Much of the confusion comes from the many meanings of the word "respect".


1) A respectful argument might be one where I state my opinion of your opinion without resorting to insults or mockery.

2) If I respect your right to do something, I may disagree with it but I will not use the law, violence of the threat of violence to stop you from doing it. I might still try to convince you or mock it.

3) If I respect a rule, I obey it. "Respecting religion A" would then mean abiding by its prescriptions.

4) Another kind of respect is located in-between the 2nd and 3rd option; I don't have to obey it but I can't argue forcefully that it's erroneous.

Perhaps Illuminati has in mind the 4th kind of respect?


I can't think of many good arguments for allowing forceful argumentation against beliefs but not religious beliefs, at least in places that aren't close to civil war or where it just isn't appropriate (like the aformentioned funeral, where that's just being a disruptive cunt).

The people who want any but the 2nd type of respect are the same who protested The Life of Brian. They just don't want their beliefs challenged and use the powerful and vague word "respect" to get you to shut up.


Aside form the issue of respect, there are times when it isn't wise to challenge religious views. Sometimes, it just isn't worth it and is likely to make the situation worse. But that's a purely consequentialist consideration and not linked to any notion of respect. It's the same reason that in some situations, you shouldn't talk about potlics; too likely to make the social meeting awkward.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No; being a good person contradicts the nature of both religions; they are both barbaric holdovers. Being a good person requires that you be a bad Christian or Muslim, much like how Oskar Schindler did good things, but was a bad Nazi for doing them.

I'm impressed that someone who's grown-up in a Christian society like ours feels confident enough in his knowledge and understanding of Islam to make such a statement about it.

Have you read the Quran and most of the Hadiths?

Additionally, can we assume you've read several books on Islam to make it clear why you can say with full confidence that Akbar the Great and Irshad Manji were(or are in Manji's case) "bad Muslims".

I assume of course you know who they both are and don't need to go running to wikipedia(if you must please find a better source).

I say that because making such a comment about Muslims and Islam without knowing who Akbar the Great would show both extreme arrogance and extreme ignorance.

[Peanuthead]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No; being a good person contradicts the nature of both religions; they are both barbaric holdovers.

Excellent point Der. Religion is a primitive notion that has no business in the 21st century. And the ones demanding respect are no more entitled to it than VooDoo, or Satanism. It's all nonsense. There is no invisible man living in the sky. There are no spirits. It's all based on magic and there is no magic.
The only reason they actually do get respect is out of fear. They are afraid of each other. "If I don't respect your brand of Voodoo, you won't respect mine." is their mindset.
So, Illuminatiprimus. No, you do not have to respect religion. But you are outnumbered and that's the sad part.

[Indistinguishable]

You don't have to respect religious beliefs. However, the way things are, a great many people are religious and won't take kindly to your mocking religious beliefs (nor will a large number of non-religious people, for that matter). There's nothing more to it than that there are lots of people with that mindset around. If you already accept that there are lots of people around who believe some silly things (religion), then you should have no problem understanding that there are also lots of people out there (to a large degree, but not entirely, the same ones) who believe some other silly things (you shouldn't mock religion!). It's as simple as that.

In the world we live in, there are a great many people who I respect a tremendous deal who happen to also be quite religious. What I admire in them is other things than their religiosity, but it's understandable that they might not care to hear me mocking their religious beliefs all the time. (Their silly, silly religious beliefs...). And so, in deference to that, as social lubricant, as etiquette, as courtesy, I "respect" their religious beliefs. I don't really respect their religious beliefs, as such; I just shut up about it when it's not germane.

[Indistinguishable]

I imagine a common version of this dynamic is found in discussions between atheist children and their religious parents. Have you ever experienced situations of that sort where you found it easier to just let it go than to argue? You love your parents, you disagree with them on religion, but you'd rather just "agree to disagree" than argue about it? That's the same dynamic at play more generally in society.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

Much of the confusion comes from the many meanings of the word "respect". . . .

Excellent clarification: thank you. I was thinking almost entirely of the first option, "...without resorting to insults or mockery," but the second option, "...will not use the law...to stop you from doing it..." is also important. Freedom of religion is vital to a free society.

I fervently disclaim and disdain any obligation to follow options three or four, actually abiding by the religion's rules or to refrain from criticizing it.

An important spectrum of respect!

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

I imagine a common version of this dynamic is found in discussions between atheist children and their religious parents. Have you ever experienced situations of that sort where you found it easier to just let it go than to argue? You love your parents, you disagree with them on religion, but you'd rather just "agree to disagree" than argue about it? That's the same dynamic at play more generally in society.

Exactly so. I just don't see any advantage in being rude. So long as they don't try to pass laws against, say, the eating of pork (no bacon? Pfui! Some religion!) or whatnot, then, shrug. No harm, no foul.

I seriously do see this as very much the equivalent of personal preferences or tastes in food, or music, or art. If you don't like Mozart, or Picasso, or Eggplant Alfredo, well, frankly, who cares? If you adore them, that's nice for you. Don't forbid, and don't inflict.

Trinopus

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Now, at a funeral if someone is giving a religious sermon if you stood up and screamed "You're full of shit, grandpa is just a rotting hunk of meat, there is no God and no afterlife!" the venue there makes that lack of respect extremely inappropriate. It serves no point other than to upset people who have done you no harm.

I'd hope every Atheist can agree yelling 'you're full of shit' at a solemn occasion is uncalled for, or for that matter, a certain religious groups classic hit 'your kid died in Iraq because this country loves fags'.

How about we don't dodge the question with fictional locations, the religious getting offended is an attempt at Special Pleading.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Because you don't want to be the sort of person who doesn't respect other people's beliefs.

Exactly. When I meet a child who believes in Santa, I wouldn't dream of shattering his belief in jolly old elves. But he better not bust my chops about being naughty or nice.

[málm]

Originally Posted by Illuminatiprimus

I'm not intending for this OP to come across as controversial - the question is simply as asked.


When having these sorts of debates, or when there is a debate in society generally, it is often professed that religious beliefs should be respected (i.e. not mocked or strenuously challenged):

The question shouldn't be controversial at all, very valid question.

Regarding mockery and challenging- my father taught me to not associate myself with christians(religious people) unable to laugh at their religion or accept a certain amount of mockery.

I hope this doesn't become witnessing or other bullshit.

My own religious view is more or less like this: I believe in God, the Christian one. This should bother the rest of you as little as I can manage. The Bible is not the literal Word of God. It is written by humans who at best were inspired by or talking with him, and I wouldn't trust someone who claims to talk to God.
God has given us reasoning and senses, and I believe he wants us to use these abilities. In my opinion, the greatest heresy commited by christians is to discount reasoned thought and science and such because it doesn't fit with the Bible or last weeks sermon etc.

I don't want people to respect my religious faith, I want them to respect my right to practice my religious beliefs as long as i don't break the law or step on other peoples rights.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Odesio

Probably for a combination of reasons. First, we have a long history of religious discrimination here in the United States dating back to colonial days against Catholics, Jews and Mormons (as a few examples). Also, religion tends to be fairly private these days (with some exceptions) and we like to keep it that way. Other than creationist or anti-gay religious activist, religion seems to be in the background.

Where have you been hiding, and can I hide there too? Rick Perry, a leading Republican Presidential candidate organizing a prayer meeting doesn't sound like private religion in my book. 40 years ago, yes, but today candidates have to wear religion on their sleeves (except in my Congressional District, that is.)

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by furt

Ok, so it happens. What's your point? You can "challenge" him. He can decline the challenge. Depending on the context and how the challenge is presented and/or declined, some people may think less of you and/or some may think less of the Rabbi.

You really need to be much, much more specific. You give no idea what kinds of "respect" you're talking about. Are you seeking the legal right to publically criticise religion? You have it. Are you seeking widespread tolerance of some practices anathema to mainstream religion? You have it. Are you asking social approval for walking naked into Westminster Abbey during services and screaming "Lies, Lies, all Lies?" What, exactly?

You can believe that a person has the right to believe in astrology, you may believe that it isn't a good idea to point and giggle whenever she opens to the horoscope in the paper, but you don't have to respect astrology as an accurate representation of the universe. And if she is the CEO of a company and you are on the board, if she is making investment decisions based on what house Jupiter is in, you do have the right to say "wait a minute, this is crap" whether or not it is respectful.

I've read plenty or reviews of books by new atheists (and the books themselves) and the reviews by mainstream theists (not rabid fundamentalists) seldom discuss religion but mostly criticize the author for being so harsh, or maybe for discussing a different brand of religion from that of the reviewer. The theme seems to be that it is somehow dirty to bring this stuff up.
In 35 years of on-line discussions I have never seen one atheist imply that it is improper to logically challenge our lack of belief. Mention the IPU, on the other hand, and see even quite moderate theists fly into a tizzy.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Illuminatiprimus

When having these sorts of debates, or when there is a debate in society generally, it is often professed that religious beliefs should be respected (i.e. not mocked or strenuously challenged): but why? What is it about a religious belief that makes it different to any other than someone may not agree with? An obvious example is something like flat-earthism. There are people who seriously do profess to believe (key word) that the earth is flat and that no amount of "evidence" to the contrary is going to shake their faith.

I would argue that a key difference between flat-earth claims and typical religious belief is that the claims made about God are not falsifiable, and the flat-earth belief is falsifiable.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Punoqllads

Because very few wars have been fought over the dimensionality of the Earth. Very few riots have occurred due to a disagreement over the radius of this world. In short, respecting others' religious beliefs -- no matter how silly they seem to you -- leads to a more civil society.

So, wait, if I'm reading this right your argument is "when you disrespect religious folk, they riot and/or start wars, therefore you should humour them ; that way they don't try to kill you". That... doesn't sound like a good argument. And not entirely unlike craven.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I would argue that a key difference between flat-earth claims and typical religious belief is that the claims made about God are not falsifiable, and the flat-earth belief is falsifiable.

Some claims about God are falsifiable.

The bible says that God flooded the Earth. We have seen no evidence for the flood and great evidence contradicting it. So that claim isn't true.

The bible says that the sky is a rock dome that has water above it. That claim isn't true.

The bible says that we were descended by one couple. Modern genetics show that the genetic Adam and Eve didn't live at the same time. Further it shows that they weren't created, but rather evolved from previous forms. So that claim isn't true.

The trouble is that religious people have little desire to argue honestly. They can just dodge and weave and let bits drop off until the definition of God becomes a phantom.

[Indistinguishable]

Falsifiability is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing is falsifiable except insofar as there exist conditions under which I can get a particular listener (or community of listeners) to declare it false. But what those conditions are, well, they depend on the listener. Absent prior explicit agreement about the conditions requisite, they aren't simply intrinsic in the statement to be judged.

So the same argument that might convince you to say "Ah, yep, these Biblical claims are false" won't convince some others. Those others might potentially be convinced by different arguments, or they might instead be playing such a different language game as that they would never be led to call those claims false. For example, I imagine, though I would not want to put words in his mouth, that Bricker would not consider many Biblical claims to be falsified, even by the very same arguments that lead you to consider them manifestly falsified. What's falsifiable for one person isn't necessarily falsifiable for another.

[Candyman74]

Originally Posted by Illuminatiprimus

When having these sorts of debates, or when there is a debate in society generally, it is often professed that religious beliefs should be respected (i.e. not mocked or strenuously challenged): but why? What is it about a religious belief that makes it different to any other than someone may not agree with?

Interesting you used the word "mocked". You feel it's OK to mock people?

The issue is one of common courtesy.

Regarding the mocking: generally, the status quo should be "don't be an asshole and mock people". I'm sure people could find something to mock about you, too. We don't mock fat people, we don't mock the disabled, we don't mock people of different ethnic backgrounds, we don't mock nerds and geeks, or the weak, or the poor - we don't mock people (yes, I know people do, but we shouldn't).

Mocking other people is being a dick. Do you want to be a dick? Do you like being mocked?

Well, we can mock people who make morally questionable decisions. But "believing in God" isn't one of those.

Regarding strenuously challenging them - what on earth makes you think people don't strenuously challenge them? The average religious person is barraged with people who feel the need to "strenuously challenge" them every day.

Think of it like saying to a tall person "how's the weather up there?" They've heard it several dozen times already today. You ain't saying anything they haven't heard, and mainly they just want to get on with their lives without being attacked about their beliefs everywhere they go.

Atheists are often assholes.

Sure, fundamental Christies often are, too. Doesn't make it right for them or you.

You can challenge their beliefs in an appropriate venue. But your job isn't to tell people Why You Are Right and They Are Wrong Wrong Wrong and Not Living Life The Way You Think They Should.

When they do something bad - then feel free. They will too, after all. But if it's just belief - as opposed to immoral action - leave them to it.

"Respecting religious beliefs" doesn't mean agreeing with them. It means not being a dick because someone else believes differently to you. Especially when their belief causes you no harm.

It's basic courtesy and politeness. Values which are, sadly, on the wane. Mocking people is bad. Save it for the bad people.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

I'm impressed that someone who's grown-up in a Christian society like ours feels confident enough in his knowledge and understanding of Islam to make such a statement about it.

I also feel justified in judging the Aztec religion, Communism, Nazism, Scientology, the KKK, and other groups that I've never been a part of. Because their evil and stupidity are so extreme, so blatantly obvious and incontrovertible. Which is why people rather than defending them, prefer to try to shut down the conversation and demand respect by fiat.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Candyman74

Well, we can mock people who make morally questionable decisions. But "believing in God" isn't one of those.

It most certainly is. It's highly destructive to the world and corrupts people both morally and intellectually.

Originally Posted by Candyman74

Regarding strenuously challenging them - what on earth makes you think people don't strenuously challenge them? The average religious person is barraged with people who feel the need to "strenuously challenge" them every day.

Please. They live in a society that wraps them in a protective bubble, making hard for them to even come across anything even mildly disrespecting their beliefs much less "strenuously challenge" them. They live in a sea of praise for their beliefs where the idea that someone, somewhere honestly disagrees with them is often difficult for them to even imagine.

Originally Posted by Candyman74

When they do something bad - then feel free. They will too, after all. But if it's just belief - as opposed to immoral action - leave them to it.

So you wouldn't challenge the claims of someone who claimed that black people are subhuman half apes unless they actually went up to a black person and assaulted them?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I also feel justified in judging the Aztec religion, Communism, Nazism, Scientology, the KKK, and other groups that I've never been a part of. Because their evil and stupidity are so extreme, so blatantly obvious and incontrovertible. Which is why people rather than defending them, prefer to try to shut down the conversation and demand respect by fiat.

You did a little more than that.

You insisted that any tolerant Muslim was "a bad Muslim".

Obviously, you must have thoroughly read the Quran and the various Hadiths in order to make such a claim.

So, please tell me what books you've read on Islam that would lead you to be able to say with authority that I am "a bad Muslim".

Also, please explain to me why Akbar the Great was "a bad Muslim" and tell me what books you've read which has led you to such a conclusion.

[Punoqllads]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

So, wait, if I'm reading this right your argument is "when you disrespect religious folk, they riot and/or start wars, therefore you should humour them ; that way they don't try to kill you". That... doesn't sound like a good argument. And not entirely unlike craven.

Not exactly. Not so that they don't try to kill anyone, but so that we can all get along as a society -- heterogeneous society of dogmatically irreconcilable earnestly-held unfalsifiable philosophies.

[Candyman74]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It most certainly is. It's highly destructive to the world and corrupts people both morally and intellectually.

I disagree with you. I'm not religious in the slightest. But I recognise that religion has good points, and I firmly dispute that it morally corrupts people as an absolute. I will agree that there are examples of morally corrupted religious people; there are also examples of morally exemplary religious people who do crap loads of good for their communities and, indeed, for people outside their own communities. They feed the poor, give aid to third world countries, and more.

As for "intellectually" - I've met some friggin' intelligent religious people and some friggin' dumb atheists.

I don't believe that religion has any effect either way on morals and intellect. Certainly not the latter, and if I had to posit the former I'd argue that it tends towards morals, not away from them.

Please. They live in a society that wraps them in a protective bubble, making hard for them to even come across anything even mildly disrespecting their beliefs much less "strenuously challenge" them. They live in a sea of praise for their beliefs where the idea that someone, somewhere honestly disagrees with them is often difficult for them to even imagine.

This is not true. Just look at this messageboard for proof. Religious people are both challenged (OK) and mocked (not OK) on a daily basis here.

So you wouldn't challenge the claims of someone who claimed that black people are subhuman half apes unless they actually went up to a black person and assaulted them?

1) This is a false equivalence. While both might be wrong, one is harmless while the other is harmful.

2) I didn't say don't challenge religious viewpoints. I said don't be a dick about it. Thus, strawman. I would totally mock a racist.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Candyman74

. . . The issue is one of common courtesy.

Exactly: this uses MichaelEmouse's first definition of "respect," "not resorting to insults and mockery."

Atheists are often assholes.

Sure, fundamental Christies often are, too. Doesn't make it right for them or you.

In my youth, I was an asshole atheist. I went as far as chopping down crosses on hilltops. Major league asshat. My opinions were softened by having meaningful conversations with (very patient!) Christians. The good kind.

It's basic courtesy and politeness. Values which are, sadly, on the wane. Mocking people is bad. Save it for the bad people.

A writer once said that it's impossible to write "comedies of manners" for Americans today, as we have none. I hope it isn't true; I think that some vestigial remnant of etiquette exists, even in the "Limbaugh Era" of aggravation, irritation, aggression, and name-calling. I'm with you on this one: let's at least try to be genteel.

Trinopus ("Genteel? Genteel? What kind of s*** is that?")

[bldysabba]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

I'm impressed that someone who's grown-up in a Christian society like ours feels confident enough in his knowledge and understanding of Islam to make such a statement about it.

Have you read the Quran and most of the Hadiths?

Additionally, can we assume you've read several books on Islam to make it clear why you can say with full confidence that Akbar the Great and Irshad Manji were(or are in Manji's case) "bad Muslims".

I assume of course you know who they both are and don't need to go running to wikipedia(if you must please find a better source).

I say that because making such a comment about Muslims and Islam without knowing who Akbar the Great would show both extreme arrogance and extreme ignorance.

It would seem you're the one displaying the extreme ignorance here. I do not know who Manji is, but while Akbar was no doubt a great man, there is also no doubt that he was a 'bad muslim'. Unless you think deciding that Islam is insufficient and founding your own religion somehow makes you a 'good Muslim'. Reinforcing DT's point somewhat aren't you?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by bldysabba

It would seem you're the one displaying the extreme ignorance here. I do not know who Manji is, but while Akbar was no doubt a great man, there is also no doubt that he was a 'bad muslim'. Unless you think deciding that Islam is insufficient and founding your own religion somehow makes you a 'good Muslim'. Reinforcing DT's point somewhat aren't you?

He didn't "found his own religion".

[PBear42]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No; being a good person contradicts the nature of both religions; they are both barbaric holdovers. Being a good person requires that you be a bad Christian or Muslim, much like how Oskar Schindler did good things, but was a bad Nazi for doing them.

Huh? I'm a card-carrying atheist, but I can't imagine what you think supports this claim. As a simple first approximation, being a good person means following the Golden Rule. No need for religion to recognize the justice of this principle, obviously. There, the religion-is-the-foundation-of-morality crowd goes off the rails. Conversely, though, since Christianity and Islam also cleave to the Golden Rule, they seem to accept the same definition of good person as do you and I. No win to them. No win to us. On this issue, it's a draw.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I would argue that a key difference between flat-earth claims and typical religious belief is that the claims made about God are not falsifiable, and the flat-earth belief is falsifiable.

Perhaps you say that because the Catholic Church has skillfully modified its belief system to be unfalsifiable over the past couple of hundred years. From a geocentric creationist system they moved to one accurate astronomically speaking and where even Adam and Eve aren't quite the way they are in the Bible. One has to think that the Catholic hierarchy realized that many of their previous god beliefs were indeed falsified and they moved on. You surely acknowledge that many religions in the US aren't nearly so clever.

[Zoe]

Some might question whether Manji is a "good" Muslim, but I think that she is a wonderful leader who keeps pointing to the original meaning of Islam (peace). She challenges people to take responsibility for ridding Islam of the violence of the extremists. And so much more than that...

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Zoe

Some might question whether Manji is a "good" Muslim, but I think that she is a wonderful leader who keeps pointing to the original meaning of Islam (peace). She challenges people to take responsibility for ridding Islam of the violence of the extremists. And so much more than that...

And some question mine.

I'm asking DT to provide evidence to support his claim to being versed enough in Islam to be able to authoritatively claim that I'm a "bad Muslim" for tolerating non-Muslims and that Islam is comparable to Nazism.

[Indistinguishable]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

He didn't "found his own religion".

I've often heard he did (Din-i-Ilahi), but I see now on Wikipedia there is some debate as to whether this really was an attempt to found a new religion. So I'll mention it, even though I imagine you already know far more about it than I do, and, indeed, I do not know enough to speak any further.

[Jragon]

I, personally, think all beliefs should be treated with respect insofar as they're not harmful. That doesn't mean immune to challenge or mockery (in the correct context, such as a movie or book), but at least treated as something that people can talk about and respectfully disagree on. And before anybody asks, this includes bigfoot, fair folk, witches, and invisible pink unicorns.

Now, not all religion is immediately harmful. Just the mere belief in a silly invisible sky man isn't bad, trying to force beliefs on others, or use it to dictate justice systems IS silly, and those should definitely not be protected under society, law, or anything else from question and ridicule. But the more positive aspects (respect your fellow man blah blah), no matter if they stem from a completely illogical sky faerie or not. I think we can respect parts of religion (God says to help the poor) while challenging and ridiculing the less desirable parts (no, your magic sky faerie did NOT tell you to crusade).

Unfortunately, since these beliefs are linked, if you encounter someone that believes their sky faerie tells them both to murder and love the poor, well, I think it's more important to stand against the bad beliefs than it is to respect the good ones despite their source. So, it really depends on the person. I don't think any broad brush belief system ("religion" or even "Christianity" since many Christians like to pick out and focus only on the positive rhetoric in the bible) is necessarily open to unrepentant mean-spirited attack and ridicule just for existing and being illogical, just a more fine-tuned or personal one that espouses unsavory things.