Serious question about "respecting beliefs"

[TechBear_Seattle]

This thread has gotten me curious as to the sense of DU.

If I am to respect all religious beliefs, then I must be respectful of those who call my mother a whore because she divorced my father and got remarried, for that is their understanding of the Bible. I cannot challenge those who state that my Jewish step-father is automatically damned to a special place in Hell unless he repents of his Christ-killer heritage. I am not allowed to speak out when someone screams from a pulpit that I, as a gay man, should be put down for the good of humanity.

If I am allowed to challenge the above beliefs, then why should I not be allowed to challenge the beliefs of those who assert the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful invisible being who loves humanity but takes no obvious steps to intervene in human affairs and act on that love?

If the matter of respecting religious beliefs is not absolute -- if there is, in fact, a line between what can be challenged and what should be respected -- who gets to decide where that line is drawn?

Your thoughtful input would be appreciated.

[Occam Bandage]

1. I think the 'your right to swing your arm stops at my face' guideline is fine. nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. So telling other people that you should be murdered is fine as long I don't act upon it?

This is, of course, a hypothetical question. :Hi:

But my point: as a gay man, I hear all to frequently about how I am a plague upon humanity, how I cause earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and high gas prices. I watch people hold up the Bible and gleefully condemn me to everlasting torment. I have personally witnessed "men of God" who stop a razor's edge away from ordering their flocks to go out and put every "sodomite" to death.

Because their arm stops just millimeters away from my face, I must respect those beliefs?

[Occam Bandage]

39. I didn't intend to be taken quite so literally.

I think that speaking is an action, and that such actions you have described are harmful for obvious reasons. As such, people should of course feel free to appropriately defend both themselves and their brothers. After all, if I go to punch you, and my fist stops millimeters from your face, it's true that I haven't committed battery. But I have committed assault.

On the other hand, if a member of that flock you mentioned personally believes that any sexual behavior short of sex within marriage for the express purpose of producing a child is immoral--but also is mindful of Christ's command to judge not, and so keeps such opinions only as a guide for their own behavior--then I don't think it's appropriate to attack them for their views.

[Dorian Gray]

61. Those people who say such things

are idiots.

I wouldn't say something of that nature, but I get frustrated hearing that my Catholicism must make me a bigot. It doesn't.

[Towlie]

2. Why not? Because you risk running afoul of the Argumentum Ad Baculum argumentative fallacy.

From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

Argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to force or fear)

An Appeal to Force happens when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to try and push others to accept a conclusion. This fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right." The threat doesn't have to come directly from the person arguing. For example:

"Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

"In any case, I know your phone number and I know where you live. Have I mentioned I am licensed to carry concealed weapons?"

[Occam Bandage]

4. Or, "appeal to the boner."

[BurtWorm]

13. I don't see the relevance of that fallacy to STB's 'why not?'

He's not threatening violence to anyone. He's wondering why criticism of a belief should be reserved for beliefs that threaten violence.

And I would add these relevant questions: What is the rationale for restricting criticism of beliefs to those a community generally considers repellent? What's the point of criticism in that case, besides stroking the community for its prejudices? And why should members of that community not have their own religious beliefs questioned or criticized? Why is not questioning or challenging another's belief considered "respect?" And if it is respect, what's the point of it?

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. Not quite. I am asking whether "respect" of religious beliefs is absolute...

And, if not, where the line is drawn between beliefs that can be ridiculed or challenged and beliefs that must be respected.

[BurtWorm]

35. In any case, you're not guilty of argumentum ad baculum.

[Towlie]

51. I trust that everyone else understood my post, even if you didn't.

[BurtWorm]

55. I see what you're saying now.

In other words, it's not STB who's guilty of the fallacy, but the ones he's criticizing--it's he who, you're saying, risks running afoul of people guilty of the fallacy. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

I still don't see how that's relevant to the question of whether or not *any* religious beliefs should be immune from criticism. The beliefs that pose the problem here are the "mild," "moderate" beliefs someone on DU might hold, not the ones most people on DU agree don't deserve respect: i.e., the ones STB referred to in the introductory paragraph of his OP.

Of course, I might still be misreading you. It's been that kind of day. :crazy:

[Dorian Gray]

62. I think

in general, we are all free to critique theology, rules, the power structure, the tenets, etc. of any religion.

What drives me crazy is sweeping generalizations about the population of various religions.

I don't think most people make those sweeping generalizations, but they are made at times. Often it is with internet bravado. Fuck the Church includes all the members of a church. While such a comment doesn't really or truly offend me, I do think that most members of any religious organization could take offense to someone who says: "Fuck Christianity," "Fuck the Jews (a comment actually made on DU not all that long ago)" or "Fuck the Church."

Though I also believe that internet posters need a thicker skin because what other people say really shouldn't matter all that much.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. Those generalizations are what always gets to me, too

I don't think I recall an instance in which such a generalization would hold up under examination. They usually tell me that the speaker (writer) is less than able to discuss the subject with any knowledge.

And of course, they take a conversation nowhere, usually.

[Dorian Gray]

66. Now we're veering into

generalizing about generalizations, and that gives me a headache at almost midnight. LOL!

[JerseygirlCT]

67. LOL! nt

[Buzz Clik]

3. Not every DUer hates religion and the religious, but many do. Likewise, not every religious person..

thinks that a divorced/remarried woman is a whore or that Jews are condemned to hell.

Feel free to dislike people who act like assholes, but the key is having the maturity to distinguish the offending individuals rather than placing broad labels on entire groups.

[polichick]

5. imo NOT calling out the crazies is unpatriotic - what a scam they've got going...

...pushing the idea that we should respect all religions.

(re-posted from the thread you mentioned)

[Occam Bandage]

6. Yes, tolerance is clearly a scam perpetuated by the insane. Down with religious tolerance!

[polichick]

9. "Tolerating" "religious" beliefs dangerous to others is pure stupid.

[Occam Bandage]

14. I agree. So you're saying you go no further than saying,

"we should not tolerate individual actions that harm others?" I think we can agree on that, and am not sure what "respecting all religions" has to do with it. Very few religions are in favor of harming others, and I would argue that those that are, are not religions in the proper sense, but rather are hate movements with a religious flavor.

[polichick]

16. Unfortunately, people hide behind religion to carry out their evil deeds...

Personally I have no use for organized religion at all ~ does much more harm than good. First steps in defanging religious extremists would be to stop giving tax breaks to religious organizations and to expect mainstream religious people to call out the crazies in their midst.

[Occam Bandage]

18. People hide behind the American flag to carry out evil deeds too. Bush did.

I don't think that's a justification to claim we shouldn't tolerate America or Americans.

[polichick]

20. My original post talks about "crazies" - Bush is a great example of...

...what happens when we fail to call out the crazies, whether they're hiding behind religion or the flag ~ or in Bush's case, both.

[Occam Bandage]

22. It also claims that "we should respect all religions" is a scam. I disagree.

It is entirely possible to respect all religions while not respecting harmful deeds or the people who perform them, just as it is possible to respect America while not respecting George W. Bush.

[polichick]

25. To each his own - I certainly don't respect all religions. Very few actually...

Insisting that we should respect all religions just enables those who use religion to further dangerous political agendas.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Definitions, please

can you define "scam" and "respect" please? I am trying to better understand where you are coming from. Thank you.

I also don't understand why discussing religion is either patriotic or unpatriotic. My definition of "patriotism" is "love of country-specifically the Constitution" and has nothing to do with religion.

[polichick]

19. When people turn a blind eye to the damage that "religious" people...

...are doing to a country, it's unpatriotic not to speak out.

By "scam" I mean it's trickery to hide behind religion in order to hurt others ~ say, the way the Christian Right hides behind a few Bible verses to persecute gays.

"Respecting" someone's religion often implies staying silent about their beliefs ~ I think that's a huge mistake when those beliefs seek to hurt or destroy others.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

40. Ah! Thank you so much for your clarification

I now understand your definitions. Yes, if anyone is damaging a country and its laws, then it is indeed unpatriotic not to let them and others know.

I really appreciate your definition of "scam"--may I borrow it? To me it is the perfect definition of what a con artist does--he or she hides behind a religion, a political party, or whatever--to hurt others.

Silence about hurtful actions is not respect in my book--it is adding to the problem.

[polichick]

50. "Con artist" is a good term for it! Many people don't like to think of it this way...

...but the world's mainstream religions have always been the refuge of con artists ~ hiding behind ancient passages in "holy" books in order to oppress certain people and keep others in power, tossing out writings that don't serve their purposes, killing those who speak up, etc.

As far as Christianity goes, Elaine Pagels (professor at Princeton) shines some light in her book, The Gnostic Gospels.

One of the Gnostic Gospels is believed to have been written by Jesus' partner/wife, Mary. Others taught that people could speak with God directly, without go-betweens. Had the early church included those Gospels in the New Testament, women would not be seen as second-class citizens in the church and priests wouldn't be seen as essential connectors to God.

What an elaborate con to choose only those Gospels that served the church's political purposes!!

From Amazon.com's review of Pagels' book:

"Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century A.D. Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ("gnosis" meaning "knowledge" in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the apostles. In The Gnostic Gospels, author Elaine Pagels suggests that Christianity could have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon. Without a doubt: Gnosticism celebrates God as both Mother and Father, shows a very human Jesus's relationship to Mary Magdalene, suggests the Resurrection is better understood symbolically, and speaks to self-knowledge as the route to union with God. Pagels argues that Christian orthodoxy grew out of the political considerations of the day, serving to legitimize and consolidate early church leadership. Her contrast of that developing orthodoxy with Gnostic teachings presents an intriguing trajectory on a world faith as it "might have become." The Gnostic Gospels provides engaging reading for those seeking a broader perspective on the early development of Christianity."

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

52. yes, I have personal knowledge of how con artists use religion

my father was a con artist and for a while was a lay minister. Religion attracts con artists because of its structure of looking to someone in authority to show you the way. However, there has always been an esoteric movement within religion that teaches individual responsibility to finding Truth. Mystics of most traditions agree that it is the cultivation of the Greater Self that one finds God.

[polichick]

56. I too learned about it first-hand, in parochial school...

I'll stick with the mystical truths & the cultivation of the greater self ~ and skip the religion! :)

[zipplewrath]

7. Respect beliefs, not actions

Someone thinks your mother is a whore, that's a belief. When they call your mother a whore, that's an action. Judge their actions. Confront their actions. They call your mother a whore, confront them on WHY the felt the need to inform you, or your mother about this. Why was this declaration important in whatever discussion/exchange/action that occurred. Furthermore, respecting others does not mean being silent yourself. A man speaks out from his pulpit and claims that you, as a homosexual, are an abomination before God you can confront this AND be respectful. And you can demand that he be respectful TO you in his disagreement. Force him to acknowledge first and foremost that you are ALSO a child of God, that God loves you, that we are all sinners, and we all have blind spots and failings. Remind him that Christ came for those who needed to be saved, not for the already saved. Christ dined with the tax collectors. Christ protected the sinner from those ready to throw stones. That regardless of what he thinks of your relationship with Christ, HE must still respect you as a fellow human, a fellow Christan, and as a child of God.


Then go back home and tell everyone what an asshole you just met ;-)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Calling people names is not a belief

but rather rudeness. So anyone calling your mother a whore is being rude and unkind, no matter what their religious affiliation.

However, legally punishing her for her divorce or you for your sexual persuasion is not to be tolerated. The only way to truly respect a faith is when that faith stays away from government. One can argue that strict separation of church and state is what has allowed the flourishing of so many sects in this nation. Curtailing this separation infringes upon the rights of those who do not share the belief system of the religion that is imposing itself upon the government.

As an individual speaking to another individual, I can treat their own personal belief system with respect, because those beliefs do not interfere with the way I live my life.

[enki23]

10. no idea. i don't respect their beliefs at all.

i can respect some believers for other reasons (much of my family, for instance) but i sure as hell don't respect their religious beliefs. since i'm a fairly polite person, i don't usually go out of my way to tell people what they believe is idiotic and/or offensive, but i'll be damned if i'll ever agree that any other schmuck's pronouncements are unassailable just because they slap an invisible magic label on it.

examples (by no means inclusive):

asshole: homosexuality is an abomination.
me: fuck you.
asshole: i believe in the bible, and the bible says...
me: fuck you, you piece of shit

tool: unrepentant sinners will be cast out.
me: you're an idiot and a prick.
tool: but, it's my "belief".
me: you're an idiot, a prick, and an asshole.

imbecile: i ain't descended from no monkey.
me: you're a moron.
imbecile: the bible says the world was created in six days.
me: you're a fucking moron.

vapid godbot: jesus loves you.
me: i'm not interested.
vapid godbot: for god so loved the world...
me: *walking away, shaking head*

some idiot: cs lewis has this awsome proof that there's a god...
me: jesus, you're fucking stupid.
some idiot: but, pascal's wager...
me: oh my god, make it stop.
some idiot: if i were an atheist, there would be nothing stoping me from raping and murdering...
me: you are one scary fuck. get away from me.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. I agree with your point

of respecting individuals without respecting their religious beliefs. I think people can have a civil, respectful discussion on many topics even if one person is a Christian, one a Muslim, and one an atheist, for example. In many instances, what your religious belief is or isn't doesn't even have to come into the discussion at all.

But I also think it is wise, especially if you engage in discussion, to understand where a person is coming from, and if religion is part of that, understand it and use it. The major world religions and philosophies I have studied have a social aspect to them. That aspect of their faith can be used, in many cases, to win someone over to help a given cause (such as feeding the homeless). That won't change the beliefs with which you disagree, but it can help you get something done that is positive for society.

[Jokerman]

11. Beliefs, Actions & Consequences

I would say that someone has the right to believe that my mother is a whore for being divorced. They also have the right to express that belief.

I, on the other hand, have every right to call them on their narrow-mindedness and boorish behavior. I may respect their right to a certain idea but I don't have to respect the idea or the actions taken in support of the idea.

Let's say that I believe that my best friend's new girlfriend is an idiot. If telling him that would only make him angry or hurt his feelings, I should probably keep that belief to myself or be prepared for the consequences.

[Marrah_G]

12. Respecting ones beliefs doesn't mean turning a blind eye to bad actions

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. Which begs the question: what are "bad actions"?

According to some people, any woman who relations with anyone other than her first husband is engaging in "bad actions." According to some people, my step-father's membership in a synagogue and his raising his children in his faith are "bad actions." According to some people, I perform "bad actions" every time I am with another man. I must repect these people when they refuse to turn a blind eye to "bad actions"?

[Marrah_G]

31. Bad actions are actions that interfere with others rights and /or cause harm

Thinking that your being with another man is "bad" becomes a bad action when that person decides to legislate away your rights.

[TechBear_Seattle]

32. So "bad actions" are only what YOU define as "bad actions"

The definitions of what others might call "bad actions" is irrelevant. You are respecting their beliefs how?

[Marrah_G]

36. I am respecting it by not actively trying to stop it.

You can believe whatever you wish to believe until it start to interfere with the rights of others.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. My questions have nothing at all to do with a right to belief

Rather, the question is whether respect for religious beliefs is an absolute and, if not, who gets to decide where the line is drawn.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

37. Yes

If a person has a belief but keeps it to themselves, that is one thing. If they act on that belief and harm is done, that is quite another thing entirely. Our actions and their consequences come back to us. High Priestess, what is the Wiccan way about that? I have heard something about consequences coming back seven times upon a person, but I know I don't have the particulars. Thank you in advance for explaining this to me. Blessed be.

[Marrah_G]

43. We believe that you are responsible for your actions

The three times or seven times is more of a pop culture sort of thing.

Instead we believe that all actions have consequences and that you will have to deal with them eventually, whether in this lifetime or in another. We strive to be very conscious about our actions and how they effect other people and nature.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

49. Much like a dervish, then

(something I don't claim to be)--but a dervish is responsible for their actions and the consequences of those actions 7 fold.

Thank you for the clarification about responsibility. I appreciate that.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. And isn't that a fascinating thing?

Seriously - look at the similarities - I love finding them.

And of course, without that respectful back and forth, how would they have been brought to light?

Cool.

[JerseygirlCT]

58. Absolutely correct

And it's important to separate beliefs from actions.

[cosmik debris]

21. It can't be "all or none"

You can't respect all beliefs because some beliefs don't respect your existence.

So a line must be drawn.

And I can't imagine letting someone else draw that line for me.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. So you assert the right to draw your own line

What if you believed that the blood sacrifice of puppies was necessary for the sun to rise every day? Would you have a right to draw your own line and say that criticism of puppy sacrifice must be stifled out of respect for your beliefs?

[cosmik debris]

41. I was approaching from a different direction.

I have the right to choose which beliefs I respect.

Everybody else has that same right.

But nobody has the right to expect me to respect their beliefs.

That would deny me the right to make the choice of what to respect.

[TechBear_Seattle]

46. Ah, got it

:hi:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

38. I agree with you on this

The only one that can draw that line is yourself.

[MineralMan]

24. What someone believes has no effect on me.

It is what that person does that affects me. I respect the right to believe any darned thing you can or want to believe. That right, however, does not entitle you to act in any particular way that affects anyone else, unless the other person consents to it.

It's that simple. Believe whatever you wish. Leave me out of it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. So you will respect a person's right to believe than an invisible pink unicorn lives in his garage..

But consider it your right to challenge that belief if it is expressed in any way?

[MineralMan]

33. Please read more carefully...

If you tell me you believe in an invisible pink unicorn, how does that affect me? It's a matter of no import to me what you believe, so I remain unaffected.

So, you may express your belief as you wish. I will, no doubt, simply ignore you when you do so.

If, however, you stand in front of a place where I am compelled to be and espouse the divinity of your unicorn, then I am affected and will protest. If your belief means that I cannot marry, hold public office, or profess a differing belief, then I am affected, and will protest.

The response is according to the affect.

[Marrah_G]

34. That is exactly how I feel

[stray cat]

30. Try inserting any racial or sexual group into a statement instead of a religious group

and see if you deem it offensive is probably a save guide. If it would offend you if a republican said it about a group based on sexual orientation, skin color etc you saying it about religious persuasion may also be bigoted.

[Why Syzygy]

42. I don't expect respect for my beliefs.

I'm still working on myself and have no rights to make demands of others.
I am nowhere close to being able to follow instructions.
Why would I expect someone who doesn't love God to have abilities I do not?

Matthew

38 'You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
39 But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well;
40 if someone wishes to go to law with you to get your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
41 And if anyone requires you to go one mile, go two miles with him.
42 Give to anyone who asks you, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away.
43 'You have heard how it was said, You will love your neighbour and hate your enemy.
44 But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;
45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on the bad as well as the good, and sends down rain to fall on the upright and the wicked alike.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even the tax collectors do as much?
...
1 'Do not judge, and you will not be judged;
2 because the judgements you give are the judgements you will get, and the standard you use will be the standard used for you.
3 Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never notice the great log in your own?

[ZombieHorde]

44. "I am not allowed to speak out"

According to who? Who has more authority than you on this subject?

[TechBear_Seattle]

45. According to the people who insist that I must respect the beliefs of others

Again, the question is about whether the alleged requirement to respect the beliefs of others is absolute and, if not, where is the dividing line.

[ZombieHorde]

48. "requirement to respect the beliefs of others is absolute and, if not, where is the dividing line"

The requirement is an illusion. The dividing line is based on your ethics. Are you OK with saying something which may make someone uncomfortable or angry? Would you rather attack people or ideas? Etc.

[JerseygirlCT]

53. Respect for people

Means having that conversation in a respectful way.

of course, you don't have to accept or even respect someone else's beliefs. But it would be good to respect their right to hold them - even when to you they seem strange - and to deal with them respectfully if you feel the need to challenge those beliefs.

I think the sort of respectful disagreement that can be had tends to lead toward more understanding - on both sides. The sort of name-calling, childish stuff - from either side - only leads toward people cementing themselves into safe havens of like-minded people, and closing themselves off from any not like them.

To put it shortly - I personally don't think it's the challenge, it's how the challenge is made. Thoughtfulness and respect is usually met with the same, and that's a good thing.

[Evoman]

54. I tolerate most ideas, as long their not actively harmful. Apart from that, I rarely give ideas

respect. It's a known fact that most ideas are complete bullshit and aren't deserving of respect. Including the idea that most ideas are bullshit.

...
..
.

Hmmm.

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Careful dude, you're going to get dizzy!

(good to see you)

[Rob H.]

60. I respect peoples' right to believe whatever they like, but

if I think their beliefs are dangerous and/or stupid I won't respect those beliefs.

[More Than A Feeling]

63. You are not required to respect Religious Supremacism

for it does not respect you. If, on the other hand, someone treats their religious beliefs as a matter of taste and does not require you to enjoy it as well, then it would be bit...tacky? Is that the word? to insist on attempting to change those tastes. Short of that, considered critique done in a way that invites reasoned discussion should be welcomed by all who value ideas.

[benEzra]

64. Respecting others' beliefs is about civility and courtesy,

NOT submitting yourself to the abuse or rule of others. If someone is in your face yelling at you, respect does not require you to take it. But if you and someone else can agree civilly to disagree, you're respecting each others' beliefs, as I see it.