Respect and Religion

[subterranean]

After all what you said about other people's beliefs...


But I can't deny my self. Thus, I still respect you..

That's an interesting point Molko. I certainly would not be upset if someone I was debating with expressed the idea that atheism should not be respected. I would obviously disagree though, and therefore would not accept their opinion. I would tolerate it, provided it had a valid argument to back it up (if it didn't, I would probably just consider it too opinionated to deserve dialogue). I guess in a discussion where a believer claimed that atheism should not be respected, I would welcome a debate over these claims and see where that debate would lead.

AP

[atiguhya padma]

<What about respecting someone inspite of this weakness? Or does not being able to separate yourself from your beliefs forfiet AP's respect?>

Of course I always try to respect people. But how am I to behave, if somebody believes that my inability to respect their belief is synonymous with an inability to respect them? I cannot respect a person's belief JUST BECAUSE they would otherwise believe that I disrespect them. What is the point of giving such respect? Am I to falsify respect towards a belief (when I obviously don't respect it) in order to satisfy someone's inability to realise that beliefs and people are separate things? Again, if respect for belief should be universal, then I don't know how we are to respond to racists and sexists etc. If it is claimed that only respect for religious belief should be universal, then I would like to know why? What separates religious belief from any other belief, in such a way that we should see it as something special? Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of forms of racism and sexism in religious doctrines. Are we to respect these racist and sexist beliefs just because they are entwined with religious beliefs?

[IWilKikU]

In many ways it is admirable and courageous to stand up and disrespect publicly somthing that is accepted by the masses but not yourself. I applaud you for speaking your controvercial mind, but my point is that inevitably people are going to feel offended and disrespected by you. Your insistance that you are attacking their beliefs and not them themselves isn't going to fly. Being able to step back from Christianity and disassociate yourself from it when you are a devout Christian is for some people impossible. It's very open-minded of you to suggest, but in practice it doesn't work. Christianity is based completely and 100% on Faith. Not reason. Not logic. Faith. As you've pointed out, faith is different from knowledge, but you can't ignore something that you strongly believe for the sake of arguement anymore than you can forget something you know and have learned and know is factual. Belief is entrenched in people, and you are fortunate enough to not have, or have broken yourself of, these entrenchments, but others are not.

[atiguhya padma]

IWilKiku,

Thank you for your applause. And I fully agree with your comments. It is, of course, not an argument for silence though. Atheists, humanists and other secularists, cannot afford to stifle their opinions just because committed Christians apparently have an inability to discuss their beliefs in a reasonable manner.

[subterranean]

When speaking w/ to people about their belief, I'd expect that they'd throw irrational things, because the essence of religions is afterall illogical. Same if I talk to people about their political stands, I'd not expect people to be ridiculuos and said things like "I support Tony Blair because he looks like Kevin Costner"
I don't blame AP with his stands, and I totally respect him. But personally, when it comes to religions and beliefs seems that I have to extend the definition of "respect" to accomodate religious acts or opinions. I can laugh at loud when I try to apply the religious values to my self, but I can't do (try not to) that when people want to apply those values to themselves.

And I don't know, I have friends who are open enough to discuss about their religions and to answer questions and give arguments as well WITHOUT denyin their own beliefs. So...

Christianity is based completely and 100% on Faith. Not reason. Not logic. Faith. As you've pointed out, faith is different from knowledge, but you can't ignore something that you strongly believe for the sake of arguement anymore than you can forget something you know and have learned and know is factual. Belief is entrenched in people, and you are fortunate enough to not have, or have broken yourself of, these entrenchments, but others are not.

[IWilKikU]

And I don't know, I have friends who are open enough to discuss about their religions and to answer questions and give arguments as well WITHOUT denyin their own beliefs. So...

Your friends are fortunate. I attend a fairly conservative Christian University where questioning your faith or church or religion is synonomous with heresy. People here get very VERY defensive (more so than members of this forum) when you try and probe into spirituality or point out double-standards or self-contradictions inhearent in thier practice.

[subterranean]

Yes Kik, we are fortunate enough..but the kind of people you mentioned are the majority in our comunity...which is a shame thing...

[sunglider]

Hi, I'm new here. I just chanced upon this thread. I was doing a research on cults. I'v not gone through all the topics, but on the theological arguments going on here, I noticed is centered mainly on the Judea-Christian concept of what God is. There is another concept of God that is not anthropomorphic, more cosmological like that of The Force in Star Wars. In the ancient Hindu tradition in particular all deities are mere representationals of the divine that is beyond understanding (transcendental). That's why it's not uncommon for some hindus to worship objects, people or animals they deem are worthy representations of the divine. When they bow to a guest in the house or pay respect to a stone or give reverrence to a cow, a westerner will find it buffling or backward. God as an emanation of the life force that is all within us and in all matters in that respect, that I may not have a problem believing, or even illogical. But for a person who governs the whole universe and at the same time will seek us among these billions and billions of galaxies to interfere in our human affairs, that maybe too far-fetched. I cannot be that too arrogant to believe in it.

[Pendragon]

Not to rock the boat, but AP is correct in stating that many of the things we Christians hold dear sound foolish to others. If you read the Bible, Paul in the New Testament states, "God chose the foolishness of preaching to confound the wise." A direct quote. Instead of Christians turtle shelling up when a skeptic says something you dislike, or becoming enraged with so-called “righteous anger”, why not just accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you? They called Jesus a devil when He was here, and crucified Him. Do you think you are any better? I guess what I’m really trying to say is, “People are going to find something faulty with whatever you believe. Either deal with it, or maybe your convictions are not as strong as you thought they were.” And AP, you have a wonderful day!

[weepingforloman]

I wanted to post this on the 10 commandments thread but notice that it has been closed. So I've decided to create a new thread

On the 10 commandments thread amuse said:

<let atheists be atheist and christians be christians, hindus be hindus, and the undecided be undecided. freedom of expression is so important.>

I think that is an admirable statement, provided it means that these groups should be free to criticise each other, free to express themselves in an open and transparent way.

In the UK, there is a big debate going on at the moment regarding incitement to religious hatred. The Govt, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, are trying to placate many of the religious groups in the UK, especially, it is believed, the Muslims. Many people have written letters of complaint against this bill, including the comedian Rowan Atkinson, the author Salman Rushdie and many others.

When the BBC aired Jerry Springer the Musical, a concerted protest was orchestrated by a Christian group, who circulated BBC employees addresses and other personal details among activists, because of the irreverent nature of the piece. Salman Rushdie himself has had his life threatened over writing a novel, and had that novel burned publicly in the streets of Britain. In Birmingham, there was a public disturbance by Sikhs a little while ago, protesting against a play being staged there, which showed scenes relating to bride burnings in India. These are just three incidents off the top of my head, where religious people have caused public disturbance, offence and even violence because someone somewhere has dared to criticise their belief. Can anyone give me an example where atheists or agnostics have done the same when a religious person or group has staged a nativity play or presented biblical mystery plays or dramas?

The fact is, religious groups are getting support from political parties which is itself threatening freedom of expression. It may soon be an offence in the UK, for someone like me to make a statement against a religion that a follower finds offensive.

It is despicable that religions should be granted such protection. Does anyone protect us atheists? No. And I'm sure we wouldn't want it either. If your belief stands up to scrutiny, then that is the best protection you can have. As I have said before, and as Salman Rushdie recently wrote in this article http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-5-57-2331.jsp , it is important to be able to criticise, probe, even ridicule a belief, whether religious or secular, if the content of that belief is flawed, invalid, improbable etc. There should always be a distinction made between a person and a person's belief. I recently wrote this to a friend:

<I would not condone an individual being persecuted for his personal, spiritual or religious beliefs. I would condone the ridicule of, or argument against, religious doctrines which are either illogical, inconsistent or degrading to other people, sexes, etc. I think there is plenty of reason to be vigorously against much in the OT, the Koran, some of the NT and even Buddhist scriptures (don’t know anything about Hindu scriptures unfortunately). If you can argue vigorously against a religious doctrine, can that be interpreted as prejudice? Can it be seen as incitement of hatred? And even if it can, should it really be wrong to hate such religious doctrines as the stoning of adulterers? Or the stoning of rebellious offspring? Surely there is a difference between hating religious doctrines and hating people. As long as the proposed bill can establish that distinction, then it might well be a piece of positive legislation. I am not at all convinced that it can.>

Didn't you hear about the guy who wanted to remove "under God" from the US pledge of alleigance? Did you hear that the giant Christmas tree they put up annually in Boston was briefly renamed "The Holiday Tree?" Haven't you noticed how all of pop culture consistently depicts any religious devotion as fanatacism and hypocrisy? Look around-- religious people aren't getting any favors done for them (except in campaign season ).

[Redzeppelin]

Hi, I'm new here. I just chanced upon this thread. I was doing a research on cults. I'v not gone through all the topics, but on the theological arguments going on here, I noticed is centered mainly on the Judea-Christian concept of what God is. There is another concept of God that is not anthropomorphic, more cosmological like that of The Force in Star Wars. In the ancient Hindu tradition in particular all deities are mere representationals of the divine that is beyond understanding (transcendental). That's why it's not uncommon for some hindus to worship objects, people or animals they deem are worthy representations of the divine. When they bow to a guest in the house or pay respect to a stone or give reverrence to a cow, a westerner will find it buffling or backward. God as an emanation of the life force that is all within us and in all matters in that respect, that I may not have a problem believing, or even illogical. But for a person who governs the whole universe and at the same time will seek us among these billions and billions of galaxies to interfere in our human affairs, that maybe too far-fetched. I cannot be that too arrogant to believe in it.

1) The problem with the "life force" idea is that it cannot account for morality in human beings because morality involves the idea of ought, which involves rational discrimination amongst moral choices; a force can do no such thing.

2) It is not arrogant to believe in a God whose love is so boundless that the "one lost sheep that strayed" (us) is worth the effort God has had to put forth to ennact a "rescue." We're important to Him because He created us and He loves us - just as any parent would go through Hell and back for his/her child.

[weepingforloman]

When speaking w/ to people about their belief, I'd expect that they'd throw irrational things, because the essence of religions is afterall illogical. Same if I talk to people about their political stands, I'd not expect people to be ridiculuos and said things like "I support Tony Blair because he looks like Kevin Costner"
I don't blame AP with his stands, and I totally respect him. But personally, when it comes to religions and beliefs seems that I have to extend the definition of "respect" to accomodate religious acts or opinions. I can laugh at loud when I try to apply the religious values to my self, but I can't do (try not to) that when people want to apply those values to themselves.

And I don't know, I have friends who are open enough to discuss about their religions and to answer questions and give arguments as well WITHOUT denyin their own beliefs. So...

True: God cannot be proved
True: Religions are based on faith.
False: Religions are illogical.

In fact, Christian apologetics has been among the most excellent of logical arguments. Theological thought has been among the most excellent of logical arguments. Some of the most brilliant thinkers in history have been extremely devout people (I refer you to Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, C.S. Lewis, John Tolkien, Mel Gibson [joking]).

[Turk]

How would that compare to the 'damage' done in the name of religion?
Crusades, holy wars, jihads, oppression, female circumcision, Church's refusal to sanction protection against AIDS, forced celibacy which leads to unacceptable acts... don't want to carry on...

There's a lot of arguable/wrong informations under this thread. But i choosed this Şehrazad, don't take it personally.

Jihad is completely different than crusade or holy war. Also Jihad is not equal to war too. Plus the biggest Jihad is the Jihad that you do against yourself. Suicide bombings and terrorism are definetely out of İslam. Also İslam is peaceful, because if anyone wants to live in peace with Muslims; Muslims are not allowed to attack them. Though crusades or holy wars were organized by Roman Church, official representator of Christianity.

Also female circumsion is not something related to İslam too. It's a tradition in Sudan and partly Egypt. In fact it's only in these lands and has no relation with İslam.

[weepingforloman]

The Catholic Church is NOT the official representation of Christianity-- that would be Christ. Even at the time of the Crusades there were other major churches-- the Ethiopian Orthodox/Coptic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[kiobe]

In my opinion, when you brand someone or their way of life as 'unacceptable', you stop respecting them. There are so many people who advocate a so-called-policy of 'tolerance' yet fail to do so themselves. They bitterly attack other religions or target people who follow those. I am more wary of those than of fanatics.

Yea, the problem with tolerance is that often times it is only temporary. Tolerance is not a subsitution for acceptance.