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

[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]

@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]

@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]

@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!

@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]

@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]

@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.

[malm]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

@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.

:rolleyes: 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.

@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]

@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]

@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.