chefranden Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Respect, real respect, is a quality that must be earned via your behavior and not via the particular delusion you might be partial to. It is by your fruits that you shall be known, not your creed! Religions don't deserve special treatment AC Grayling October 19, 2006 03:45 PM http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_gra...acgrayling.html It is time to reverse the prevailing notion that religious commitment is intrinsically deserving of respect, and that it should be handled with kid gloves and protected by custom and in some cases law against criticism and ridicule. It is time to refuse to tip-toe around people who claim respect, consideration, special treatment, or any other kind of immunity, on the grounds that they have a religious faith, as if having faith were a privilege-endowing virtue, as if it were noble to believe in unsupported claims and ancient superstitions. It is neither. Faith is a commitment to belief contrary to evidence and reason, as between them Kierkegaard and the tale of Doubting Thomas are at pains to show; their example should lay to rest the endeavours of some (from the Pope to the Southern Baptists) who try to argue that faith is other than at least non-rational, given that for Kierkegaard its virtue precisely lies in its irrationality. On the contrary: to believe something in the face of evidence and against reason - to believe something by faith - is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect. It is time to say so. It is time to demand of believers that they take their personal choices and preferences in these non-rational and too often dangerous matters into the private sphere, like their sexual proclivities. Everyone is free to believe what they want, providing they do not bother (or coerce, or kill) others; but no-one is entitled to claim privileges merely on the grounds that they are votaries of one or another of the world's many religions. And as this last point implies, it is time to demand and apply a right for the rest of us to non-interference by religious persons and organisations - a right to be free of proselytisation and the efforts of self-selected minority groups to impose their own choice of morality and practice on those who do not share their outlook. Doubtless the votaries of religion will claim that they have the moral (the immoral) choices of the general population thrust upon them in the form of suggestive advertising, bad language and explicit sex on television, and the like; they need to be reminded that their television sets have an off button. There are a number of religious TV channels available, one more emetic than the next, which I do not object to on the grounds of their existence; I just don't watch them. These remarks will of course inflame people of religious faith, who take themselves to have an unquestionable right to respect for the faith they adhere to, and a right to advance, if not indeed impose (because they claim to know the truth, remember) their views on others. In the light of history and the present, matters should perhaps be to the contrary; but stating that religious commitment is not by itself a reason for respect is not to claim that it is a reason for disrespect either. Rather, as it is somewhere written, "by their fruits ye shall know them"; it is this that far too often provides grounds for disrespect of religion and its votaries. The point to make in opposition to the predictable response of religious believers is that human individuals merit respect first and foremost as human individuals. Shared humanity is the ultimate basis of all person-to-person and group-to-group relationships, and views which premise differences between human beings as the basis of moral consideration, most especially those that involve claims to possession by one group of greater truth, holiness, or the like, start in absolutely the wrong place. We might enhance the respect others accord us if we are kind, considerate, peace-loving, courageous, truthful, loyal to friends, affectionate to our families, aspirants to knowledge, lovers of art and nature, seekers after the good of humankind, and the like; or we might forfeit that respect by being unkind, ungenerous, greedy, selfish, wilfully stupid or ignorant, small-minded, narrowly moralistic, superstitious, violent, and the like. Neither set of characteristics has any essential connection with the presence or absence of specific belief systems, given that there are nice and nasty Christians, nice and nasty Muslims, nice and nasty atheists. That is why the respect one should have for one's fellow humans has to be founded on their humanity, irrespective of the things they have no choice over - ethnicity, age, sexuality, natural gifts, presence or absence of disability - and conditionally (ie. not for intrinsic reasons) upon the things they choose - political affiliation, belief system, lifestyle - according to the case that can be made for the choice and the defence that can be offered of the actions that follow from it. It is because age, ethnicity and disability are not matters of choice that people should be protected from discrimination premised upon them. By contrast, nothing that people choose in the way of politics, lifestyle or religion should be immune from criticism and (when, as so often it does, it merits it) ridicule. Those who claim to be "hurt" or "offended" by the criticisms or ridicule of people who do not share their views, yet who seek to silence others by law or by threats of violence, are trebly in the wrong: they undermine the central and fundamental value of free speech, without which no other civil liberties are possible; they claim, on no justifiable ground, a right to special status and special treatment on the sole ground that they have chosen to believe a set of propositions; and they demand that people who do not accept their beliefs and practices should treat these latter in ways that implicitly accept their holder's evaluation of them. A special case of the respect agenda run by religious believers concerns the pubic advertisement of their faith membership. When people enter the public domain wearing or sporting immediately obvious visual statements of their religious affiliation, one at least of their reasons for doing so is to be accorded the overriding identity of a votary of that religion, with the associated implied demand that they are therefore to be given some form of special treatment including respect. But why should they be given automatic respect for that reason? That asserting a religious identity as one's primary front to the world is divisive at least and provocative at worst is fast becoming the view of many, although eccentricities of dress and belief were once of little account in our society, when personal religious commitment was more reserved to the private sphere - where it properly belongs - than its politicisation of late has made it. From this thought large morals can be drawn for our present discontents. But one part of a solution to those discontents must surely be to tell those who clamour for a greater slice of public indulgence, public money and public respect, that their personal religious beliefs and practices matter little to the rest of us, though sometimes they are a cause of disdain or amusement; and that the rest of us are as entitled not to be annoyed by them as their holders are entitled to hold them. But no organised religion, as an institution, has a greater claim to the attention of others in society than does a trade union, political party, voluntary organisation, or any other special interest group - for "special interest groups" are exactly what churches and organised religious bodies are. No one could dream of demanding that political parties be respected merely because they are political parties, or of protecting them from the pens of cartoonists; nor that their members should be. On the contrary. And so it should be for all interest groups and their members, without exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 If the topic is 'respect': 1. What necessitates the topic? 2. What is the void that the topic fills? 3. What relation, correlation or causation, is necessity to the void? Maybe I'm taking this too deep, but this could be useful for anything: respect, belief, fear, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 If the topic is 'respect': 1. What necessitates the topic? 2. What is the void that the topic fills? 3. What relation, correlation or causation, is necessity to the void? Maybe I'm taking this too deep, but this could be useful for anything: respect, belief, fear, etc. I thought of 2 sarcastic ways to answer. I can't decide which to use so I'll do both. 1. Ah so, Grasshopper, when you have answered these questions about your questions, then you will know the answer. 2. Hmm, I was unaware of these restrictions on topics. I shall be more careful in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Well then, I say problem solved and case closed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior_of_god Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 My only comment is that respect should be nearly universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 There is nothing in any belief system that entitles someone to respect. Only one's actions are respectworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 There is nothing in any belief system that entitles someone to respect. Only one's actions are respectworthy. Agreed. Deeds are what earns one honor. To try and claim that one's religion (or race, ethnicity, nationality, family name, etc) gives one special status is bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknowing1 Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 There is nothing in any belief system that entitles someone to respect. Only one's actions are respectworthy. Agreed. Deeds are what earns one honor. To try and claim that one's religion (or race, ethnicity, nationality, family name, etc) gives one special status is bullshit. Yes but don't member's of churches feel they are doing good deeds? Aren't they making disciples of the rest of us. Aren't they feeding the poor and taking care of the sick? Aren't they forcing the literal interpretation of the bible upon us all by grouping together to censor anything they don't agree with. They throw their support to those conservative politicians to keep the rest of us from having certain freedoms. To them they are doing good deeds. I'd be interested in knowing how many of those who profess they aren't given respect because of their religion actually go out and do good for the world that isn't related to their religion. I'm not talking about giving a handful of dollars here and there, actually are out in the community feeding the hungry and poor, working in shelters for battered and abused women, working with immigrants or at risk youth without it actually being planned through their church. While I am not saying the help they give isn't appreciated, I am saying how dare you expect respect because you do the least you can do so that you look good to your lord. There are plenty of people out there who do good deeds every day because they feel it will help their fellow man and they do a lot. They don't do it to get a get out of Hell card. So who actually deserves my respect? Not the hypocrite sitting in the pew who belongs to a church that plans one or two acts of kindness per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 One or two good acts is meaningless - many such acts regularly is another story. Even a Jebus-blinded Xian I can respect for doing good things regularly, even if part of the reason said Xian does said deeds is to score bonus points in Heaven And how are Xians "making disciples of the rest of us"? Last time I checked, Xianity overall was dwindling and losing members, not gaining them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 I'd be interested in knowing how many of those who profess they aren't given respect because of their religion actually go out and do good for the world that isn't related to their religion... While I am not saying the help they give isn't appreciated, I am saying how dare you expect respect because you do the least you can do so that you look good to your lord.Exactly. Most of it seems to be one part good deeds diluted with nine parts "LookAtHowGoodIAm". There are exceptions. There's a local minister who has devoted enormous amounts of his time to rebuilding a run-down neighbourhood in my town, giving decent-paying jobs to people and renovating many derelict houses. I can and do respect him. Unfortunately, this chap is also waging a battle with cancer and may not be around much longer. I'm hoping that at least one of his students picks up the ball and runs with it, but I'll believe that if and when I see it. (wonders if that religious crowd could tolerate a bitchy valkyrie and her framing hammer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Respect should be earned, not blindly given. If people want to be respected, then let them earn it by their actions, not their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts