But your sense of right and wrong has to come from somewhere, the Bible, the Torah, the Kama Sutra, or just years of television, I would not fault anyone who tried to influence politics based on their idea of right & wrong, that’s what politics is all about.
I’m sort of hearing that if your sense of right & wrong comes from a secular humanist point of view, no problem, but if it comes from a religious conviction, shut up.
…if you unilaterally break a trade agreement or military alliance with one civ, your reputation suffers in foreign relations with all the civs after that.
If you mean that you wish to quietly have no respect for my beliefs, you certainly have that right. But if I give some outward sign of having such a belief (such as wearing a cross on my lapel or saying “Bless you” when you sneeze) and you show overt disrespect by mocking or disparaging me, I will punch you in the nose. So I would say pain avoidance is a good reason to respect other people’s religious beliefs.
If, on the other hand, you mean you shouldn’t have to openly honor someone’s religious beliefs, well, that’s another matter. When I attend weddings or funerals in Catholic and Episcopal churches, I don’t receive communion because I don’t believe what Christians believe. I don’t cross myself or genuflect or recite the Nicean Creed. But I do sit or stand quietly, out of respect for my family and friends who do believe.
You see, restraining oneself from openly mocking or disparaging someone’s deeply held religious belief – a belief that is usually integral to one’s identity – is a sign of a civilized person. You may privately pity them or silently damn them, but it’s best to keep your lack of respect to yourself.
But if a Christian did that, he would be going against the teachings of Jesus (“turn the other cheek”; “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”). So then you could disrespect his failure to live up to his beliefs.
I sensed it sounded that way which is why I added another post. Did you read it?
Concerning passing of laws I don’t care where someone gets there sense of right and wrong and I completely expect people to express their convictions in that area no matter where they come from. My concern is how does a particular law effect others who are equal citizens. Those laws that all citizens share should be judged for the realistic merit of how they affect society as whole rather than making a particular religious group feel good because it aligns with their view of what their God wants.
Case in point is gay marriage. Here is a group of US citizens who are simply asking for the same rights already extended to most of the citizens in this country. To legally marry the person of their choice and take advantage of certain rights that go along with that. It is primarily religious groups campaigning hard to deny these others citizens their human rights. Is there any statistical or factual evidence that gives us *any * reason to this would be harmful to our society? None that I have ever seen. Instead it is based on a couple of passages in a 2000 year old book that they point to to then claim they know what their God thinks. So, regardless of the source of their convictions, when any group wants to push their beliefs on others in a way that damages other citizens or denies them equal rights , then those beliefs should be challenged. If you try to get a law passed you better be able to point to something other than your version of a holy book.
Per my other example , if a religious group pressed to pass a new law to feed or educate the poor as part of their conviction of what is right and wrong then at least those who don’t share their religious convictions can consider the merits of their proposal from a common point of view. If they want to promote gun control because they believe love thy neighbor then there can be common discussion.
If they want to insert their god in school prayer for all children, or deny the rights of others based on what they think their God wants then how can there be a common discussion on it’s merits for all? It only has merit in their religious view.
See the difference?
Mock and double mock hehe
You’re hearing wrong, if I know my cosmosdan’s. As an analogy, let’s consider jams. By taste, I may like strawberry jam and hate grape jam, the secular humanist position. I will never try to make anyone follow my preferences. My favorite holy book might tell me that strawberry jam is good and grape jam is the work of Satan, and I, being religious, may choose to follow this. However, being a liberal jammie, I’d still not try to make anyone else follow my religious beliefs…
In the third case my holy book says the same as the second, but I am convinced that the God I believe in wants everyone to eat strawberry jam and eschew grape jam, so I will try to have grape jam banned. Both options 2 and 3 are religious, but I personally would only disrespect the purveyor of option 3. I believe cosmosdan falls into option 2. I fall into option 1, and we get along famously.
In all these cases the preference is not factual. It’s only factual in the religious case if the religious person proves that there is a god who cares. If you want to affect the type of jam I eat, it damn well better be for some reason better than that you have faith that god doesn’t like my jam.
If you want a more realistic example, substitute various sex acts for jam.
ETA that his response was just what I expected, and I agree all the way - but it’s less jammy. 
This reminds me of something else. It surprises me that religious groups who have the freedom to worship as they choose don’t really appreciate it or necessarily want others to have that same rights.
I was talking to a friend of mine who belongs to a denomination that believes in present day revelation and their prophet president brings what he perceives to be new guidance from God to the world church conference. The church conferance fasts and prays and then votes on whether to accept it or not.
When the prophet brought revelation saying it was time to allow women in the priesthood my friends particular congregation chose not to accept it even though the church as a whole did. They also rejected a name change for the church that the church as a whole accepted.
My point to her was this;
In your church you believe your prophet president receives revelation and new directions from God, even though lots of Christian denominations reject that as false doctrine. Yet, when your own prophet brought forth a new directive, and the majority approved it as “from God” your particular congregation felt some need to reject it. They and you felt that regardless of the claimed source of this directive you still must claim your own right to worship according to the dictates of your own personal beliefs and conscience.
Don’t you think that claiming that right for yourselves in this way places some moral imperative on you to extend that same right to everyone else?
I didn’t get a definite Yes but I knew she got my point. Many religious people don’t understand the real power and beauty of separation of church and state and freedom of worship. If someone imposed upon them in the way they want to impose upon others they would eagerly cry foul and feel giddy at their imagined martyrdom. In fact it’s already happening with the whole War on Christmas and War on Christianity mess.
I’m not a Christian, so there is no such stricture for me. Nor for Muslims. Nor Jews, for that matter. And who knows at what point a Christian will figure he’s turned all the cheeks he’s going to turn? Do you want to take that chance? I don’t.
Besides, who but a crass, boorish knave would want to “disrespect” someone’s religion? I mean, is that really something to be proud of?
Well, that advanced the debate no end, and was well worth bumping the thread for. :dubious: