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