Try me. 
I’m not sure what you mean by insulting Judaism. If it means saying that the Torah is a set of myths and outmoded laws written much later than claimed, and not by the mythical figure of Moses, I’m right with you. If it involves the history of my people, that’s something else. One can think the Book of Mormon is a crock while respecting the courage of the pioneers who went to SLC.
I suspect plenty of religious people insult religions thought to be odd also. The guy who said Obama was the anti-Christ last night on TDS is going to get laughed at by believers and non-believers. Ditto for Scientology. There is some critical mass of believers that makes it improper to laugh, it seems.
I think there is a difference between actively mocking, and mocking in response to someone sticking religion in your face. Someone who knocks on my door or who accosts me on the street is going to get scorned. Not so for someone worshiping in their church.
What he/she said.
So what about religions that call on their adherents to proselytize?
You never met my ex-husband, did you?
Well, I could argue that saying that “Benjamin Button is stupid” does imply that their fans are stupid enough to like it (Note: I haven’t seen Benjamin Button, by he way.) But mostly I agree with your statement.
It however, is not what StGermain said, and I quote:
Here, StGermain is against people expressing that they don’t like Benjamin Button if StGermain loves the movie. Which would automatically preclude any conversation but harmless small talk.
Let me put it this way:
If you’re an atheist or even just agnostic, do you particularly appreciate it when a religious person starts cramming their beliefs down your throat? Or suppose that someone is accosting your atheism/agnosticism – that is, not just politely questioning it or trying to persuade you to believe differently, but doing things like tossing around clichéd atheist stereotypes, making gross generalizations, and questioning your character or intelligence because of your stance. Whether or not you actually care what they think, be honest – isn’t that just a tad more obnoxious to you than giving you crap about your taste in, say, sports or music?
It’s a two-way street. You don’t have to respect anyone or anything. But not acting like a total dick to an entire swathe of diverse people is generally considered to be the decent thing to do, whether that swathe is religious people or non-religious people.
This is not meant as a substitute for what StGermain has said earlier, nor what she may say in response, but I will say what her quoted statement means to me.
Keywords: mock, sacred
If you poke fun at what other people believe (to the point of “holding sacred”) TO THEIR FACE, be braced for a swift kick to the nuts (if you’re so equipped). You have every right to be that rude and insensitive as long as you don’t mind getting abused in return. To expect another person to stand still and turn the other cheek while you ridicule their beliefs is way beyond stupid on your part.
Surely StGermain will clarify what I have misinterpreted about her statement.
Because religious beliefs are intimately tied to systems of morals, ethics, and guidelines for how to properly treat other people and behave in public.
So are a number of other belief systems, but most people get tetchy when you question their ethical fortitude, too, regardless whether their personal system of ethics derives from a religion or from something else.
FWIW, I don’t buy that it’s perfectly okay to question someone else’s sexuality either. Question your own, if you want, but most people I know get pretty pissy when you try to tell them you know better than they do who they are and how they feel. I’ve ended friendships over people who tried to do that to me.
(response to Zeldar): But that’s question begging, isn’t it? Redefining the topic under examination as “sacred” doesn’t actually explain anything.
Should you expect to get kicked in the nuts if you ridicule someone’s athletic affiliation or other things mentioned by the OP? If not, what’s the difference?
These days, people feel empowered by victimhood. So playing the victim is a shortcut to winning an argument.
And in true politically correct fashion, they hearken back to times when their group was an opressed minority and cast any current criticism as a continuation of that historical opression, context be damned. There was a fair amount of prejudice against Catholics up thru the 1950s in the US, so any criticism of Church doctrine (or parodies of familiar Christian icons) is cast as more “anti-catholic bigotry”.
And if a religious group doesn’t have much of a history of being opressed (yet even Protestants still complain about Romans throwing Christians to the lions), they’ll just borrow someone else’s victimhood as the basis for an analogy. Blacks are a group; evangelical Christans are a group. Blacks are indentified by skin color and you can’t critcize their skin color; evangelicals are identified by Biblical beliefs, so you can’t criticize the Bible.
I think the premise is weak. If you criticized someone’s decision to [get married at 19][move in with one’s unmarried SO][come out as gay][remain a virgin into adulthood], I suspect you’d get a lot of flak. If you attacked someone’s college major/career choices, you’d get pushback. If you criticized someone’s parenting philosophy, you’re liable to get your ass handed to you. Basically, if you say unfriendly things about aspects of someone’s character that mean a lot to that person, it shouldn’t be a surprise that you get an unfriendly response.
And if you don’t know the other person well enough to know how strongly they’re going to react, it might be best to hold off on the ridicule and mockery until you do.
I’m missing your point about “sacred.” It’s what was said.
As for ridiculing someone’s athletic affiliation, assuming theirs was a rival team, and they took what I was saying as a comment on their intelligence or sanity, and warned me to back off calling their team a bunch of idiots or whatever, then yes, I’d be grabbing my nuts or looking for the door or at least trying to change the subject. I’ve seen people sent to the hospital for dissing another’s T-shirt, so calling their team something nasty would definitely qualify as dangerous.
Of course, here in the safety and anonymity of the Internet, you can pretty much say what you please. But if you start getting too pissy with other people’s beliefs, you’re setting yourself up to be ignored or bypassed for having poor social skills.
Please clarify your comment about “sacred.”
Sorry, but I’m just now seeing this response to my comment above:
Again, I’m not following your question about the statement. What is it you’re asking? What do I think of proselytizers? What do I think about religions that stress proselytizing? How do their beliefs differ from mine? What?
ETA: Please quote what you want me to respond to. I have quite a few posts above but I believe my points are consistent.
That’s my point - there is a distiction between disrespecting the ideology of a religion, and the identification that people have with their religious heritage.
Your atheist Jew isn’t going to mind if someone says that the notion of god - including the Jewish god - is pure myth, and the Torah a bunch of outmoded laws writen by iron age priests; they are going to mind (in general) if someone who isn’t Jewish proclaims that Judaism is dumb and anyone who is Jewish is an idiot.
That wasn’t clear, but with your explanation, I agree. However, there is a fine distinction between calling someone an idiot and saying his beliefs are unfounded. This seems to happen all the time:
Atheist: Your belief in God is irrational.
Theist: Stop calling me irrational and insane.
What respect means here is in the eye of the beholder.
Would you mind explaining what any of this has to do with respecting other people’s beliefs? I’ve read it several times and don’t see a connection.
Is it that if you feel that other people are unwarranted in their beliefs that gives you the privilege of ridiculing or disrespecting them? Surely that’s not what you meant, is it?
-
As said, religion is powerful.
-
Religion is fragile. It’s baseless and nonsensical, and can’t survive critical thinking very well.
-
Evolution. Religions spread and survive much better when they contain the “The Faith MUST be respected !” meme than if they don’t.
Well, that’s a different issue than what I was talking about, but I dunno if it is subjective as all that. One person can be tactful and another tactless, and impartial bystanders can usually tell the difference.
On the Internet of course it is a lot easier to be horribly tactless.
Put it this way: if I was visiting a tribe of New Guineans, I would not laugh at their tribal rituals, even if I happened to privately find them absurd and their belief in the spirits of their ancestors baseless; for one, it would not be polite, and for another, they may take offence.
Similarly, if visiting my sincerely Catholic friends, I refrain from pointing out that their belief in God is irrational; what good object would be achieved by that? In return, I’m sure, they refrain from pointing out that I can only be saved by conversion to their religion - even though I’m sure that they must think this is true.
If either New Guinean tribesman or Catholic friend was to sincerely question me about my beliefs - that’s a different issue; I’m not going to patronize them by simply humouring 'em, I’ll tell them what I think - hopefully, tactfully enough, and seeking at least some common ground (for example, while I do not believe in the literal existance of any God, I’m perfectly willing to state that Jesus had some useful things to say about morality).
Hmm, I imagine it actually depends on the religion.
I remember when I was taking classes, preparing to become an Episcopalian. The priest leading the class said “Being Episcopal means you don’t have to check your brains at the door.” 