What's The Ethics On This?

[R. S. Martin]

So secular humanism says everyone has a right to their own beliefs and we respect people's religion. What if that religion forces them to push their religion--they think they go to hell for not pushing it?

 

I read a cute little story quite a few years ago. This missionary was preaching in China. A few women attended. One woman urged a hesitant new-comer to humour the missionary so he gets more stars in his crown.

 

I can't do this. And I think there are a lot of others on here who can't or won't either. Does that make me a hypocrite when I say everyone has a right to their own religion?

[Kurari]

I don't think so. There are a great many ways to advertise your faith without getting in your face. You can push it without getting up in people's doorsteps and bothering them at home. You can keep your mouth shut at work instead of harping at your cubical mates. You can advertise in media. You can protest things you disagree with in your own churches and not at funerals.

 

When you start shoving your religion into other people's lives, then it's over the line. Even if your religion dictates it.

[Dave]

So secular humanism says everyone has a right to their own beliefs and we respect people's religion. What if that religion forces them to push their religion--they think they go to hell for not pushing it?

Where in Secular Humanism does it say that?

I can't do this. And I think there are a lot of others on here who can't or won't either. Does that make me a hypocrite when I say everyone has a right to their own religion?

No. They do have a right to their religion, but as with all other rights, that right stops where it interferes with the rights of others.

[ShackledNoMore]

That's a good question, and a tough one.

 

On one hand, I too hold to the tenant that people should have the freedom to do what they want, to make their own choices, so long as it doesn't hurt others, even if I personally find it distasteful. BUT, I think there's more to it than that.

 

Suppose, for example, their religion required them to make human sacrifices, as some religions have in the past. Should this be tolerated by those who are not members of the human sacrifice cult? I don't think so, and I think most people would agree, regardless of their beliefs.

 

What about holy wars, inquisitions, and conversions brought about by duress under the threat of death? Not much better, in my book.

 

What about laws enforcing a particular religious code, perhaps mandatory church attendance, etc? Now we're getting less egregious, but it's still pretty bad.

 

Switching to the other end of the spectrum, I agree that people have a right to subscribe to a religion even if it demands they spend 12 hours per day slapping their own face. I think it would be rather sad to see them ruining their lives in this matter, but if they don't try to impose it on others, they certainly have that right. I wouldn't personally approve, but I'd most certainly respect their rights to hold to their delusions.

 

And now we get down to your question: zealots indoctrinated into a cult that demands they impose their religion on others. There seems to be a lot more gray here. Here's where their rights to their beliefs start to extend beyond reasonable bounds. That's probably why xianity and islam have gained so much ground. A reasonable person will respect other's beliefs. Those with the agenda of the great commission will take advantage of this, and their relative numbers will grow, until they have the critical mass to NOT respect the beliefs of others, and to limit their freedoms through various sanctions.

 

So in spite of my socially liberal mentality, I do not respect those who impose their religion on others.

 

I bet if we started with the most egregious example and I asked you what you thought of human sacrifice in the name of religion, you'd be duly and resoundingly appalled. I think it's a matter of qualifying things so as not to excuse any sort of atrocity in the name of religion and recognizing the gray areas.

[Max]

I pretty much agree with Kurari. I think most of their beliefs are kind of goofy, but that's what they choose, it's their loss. As long as they don't hurt anyone else or try to cram their standards down everyone else's throat.

 

I've often thought taking the line that "I respect your right to your beliefs to the extent that you accept my right to mine." But that would really free me from the responsibility of respecting a lot of people!

[qadeshet]

I respect the right of everyone to believe whatever they wish-this dosen't mean I have to respect those beliefs.

[Unknowing1]

My understanding of Secular Humanism is not the same as yours. My understanding is that Secular Humanism is against belief systems that push hatred, bigotry, inequality, suppression and the like against any class of people. From what I've read they do not support religion at all especially when it enters into the treatment of others. Here is a quote from the Council for Secular Humanism website, A Secular Humanist Declaration: "We deplore the growth of intolerant sectarian creeds that foster hatred".

 

Here is a link to the Declaration. Secular Humanist Website

 

Edit: I could be wrong but Humanism may be what you are referring to. Secular Humanism and Humanism have some differing views.

[ShackledNoMore]

I know that I'm not an expert on either humanism or secular humanism, and in fact, I just quickly skimmed both Unknowing1's link and the Wikipedia article on Humanism. Most of the stuff I read I already knew, especially about secular humanism, but I also learned some stuff. It seems like secular humanism is a subset of humanism which emphasizes rejection of principals of theism, deism, etc.

 

I was, and continue to be very well disposed to secular humanism in particular based on what I know. If I didn't have a tendency to shun labels for myself, I could conceive of calling myself a secular humanist. (On the other hand, when I was a xian, my church presented it as a doctrine the devil sent straight from hell, heh, heh.)

 

Still, having broken from the shackles of xianity, I'd never accept the tenants of ANY philosophy without scrutiny, including ones I am well aligned with. So if secular humanism made such a claim, I'd ponder that along with everything else and do my best to come up with some rational, ethical conclusion. Needless to say, I find philosophies that encourage inquiry vastly preferable to ones that try to suppress it.

[Checkmate]

I respect the right of everyone to believe whatever they wish-this dosen't mean I have to respect those beliefs.

If I may be allowed to tweek a couple of words in this statement...

 

"I TOLERATE the right of everyone to believe whatever they wish - this doesn't mean I have to ACCEPT those beliefs."

 

It's not about "respect", but "tolerance" and "acceptance." Just because you TOLERATE (endure) something, that doesn't mean you must ACCEPT (approve) it.

[Dave]

My understanding of Secular Humanism is not the same as yours. My understanding is that Secular Humanism is against belief systems that push hatred, bigotry, inequality, suppression and the like against any class of people. From what I've read they do not support religion at all especially when it enters into the treatment of others. Here is a quote from the Council for Secular Humanism website, A Secular Humanist Declaration: "We deplore the growth of intolerant sectarian creeds that foster hatred".

I think part of the problem is that around here there is a confusing hatred of Secular Humanism. I cannot understand why they feel that way. Secular Humanism is not a religion. It tells no one what to believe. It's very core is Atheism (or agnosticism if you prefer). Every argument I've seen brought up against SH has been a strawman argument.

Edit: I could be wrong but Humanism may be what you are referring to. Secular Humanism and Humanism have some differing views.

I'm not sure what they are referring to. I've been a Secular Humanist since the mid 70's when I read an article and said to myself; "Hey! They agree with me." In all those years I've never seen any of what these guys bring up.

[Dave]

I know that I'm not an expert on either humanism or secular humanism, and in fact, I just quickly skimmed both Unknowing1's link and the Wikipedia article on Humanism. Most of the stuff I read I already knew, especially about secular humanism, but I also learned some stuff. It seems like secular humanism is a subset of humanism which emphasizes rejection of principals of theism, deism, etc.

"Emphasizes" would not be the correct word. "Includes" would be much better. In the local meetings, of which I've been to many different ones, the god stuff rarely comes up. Sure, we enjoy a good god bashing, but that's not even near being "emphasized" or more than, at most, 2% of our time.

I was, and continue to be very well disposed to secular humanism in particular based on what I know. If I didn't have a tendency to shun labels for myself, I could conceive of calling myself a secular humanist. (On the other hand, when I was a xian, my church presented it as a doctrine the devil sent straight from hell, heh, heh.)

Yes, a doctrine that cares more about people than gods would be seen that way by christians.

Still, having broken from the shackles of xianity, I'd never accept the tenants of ANY philosophy without scrutiny, including ones I am well aligned with. So if secular humanism made such a claim, I'd ponder that along with everything else and do my best to come up with some rational, ethical conclusion. Needless to say, I find philosophies that encourage inquiry vastly preferable to ones that try to suppress it.

From my experience there are no tenants that SH demands you follow. They are usually presented as a collective belief rather than laws. You don't have to follow the exact words of every statement. It's more a collection than a codex.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks for your responses, everyone. I see now that Secular Humanism is more than just a casual label for a value system outside of religion. I would not know the difference between secular humanism and just plain humanism. I am not even sure that I know what humanism is. What I know is that in the general public I encounter a level of respect for the space and rights of others that I never encountered inside the Old Order Mennonite community. I encountered it in self-help books and when I took social work courses I saw it lived out by the college on the level of daily interaction. I was allowed to think for myself and to have different opinions and feelings from the people around me. This was in a Christian institution.

 

(I'm taking the following from Dave's post but this quote thing has gone crazy for this post so I'll try this so people know who said what:)

 

Ruby's Post:

 

So secular humanism says everyone has a right to their own beliefs and we respect people's religion. What if that religion forces them to push their religion--they think they go to hell for not pushing it?

Dave replies:

 

Where in Secular Humanism does it say that?

 

Maybe I answered this question above. I don't know what philosophy it is that teaches this but it came up all the time in the social work courses. The social work courses teach that people cannot be faulted for their religious beliefs. I understand that is the law of the land but it's certainly NOT Old Order Mennonite law. In fact, the OOM openly disagree vehemently with this law. They don't seem to mind religious freedom on the public level but they seriously disagree that my beliefs and opinions are outside their jurisdiction. I order them off my property so they have no say in the matter. That does not stop the letters from coming in the mail.

[R. S. Martin]

So secular humanism says everyone has a right to their own beliefs and we respect people's religion. What if that religion forces them to push their religion--they think they go to hell for not pushing it?

Where in Secular Humanism does it say that?

I can't do this. And I think there are a lot of others on here who can't or won't either. Does that make me a hypocrite when I say everyone has a right to their own religion?

No. They do have a right to their religion, but as with all other rights, that right stops where it interferes with the rights of others.

 

Dave, you have me all confused here. In the first quote you ask where humanism says people can have their own religious beliefs--as though it were an outrageous idea. In the second you say secular humanism believes people have a right to their religion.

 

In another post you say:

 

From my experience there are no tenants that SH demands you follow. They are usually presented as a collective belief rather than laws. You don't have to follow the exact words of every statement. It's more a collection than a codex.

 

This supports what I said in my question, i.e. that: Secular Humanism says we need to respect the religious belief of others.

 

The fault you find seems to be in the exact wording yet here you say exact wording is not part of SH. I find this extremely confusing. Can you clarify what you mean in the different places? Perhaps you misunderstand my question in the OP?

[smellincoffee]

There's a terrific quote in an issue of the International Humanist News. It's been a while since I've read it, so I'll paraphrase: absolute tolerance will lead to the death of tolerance. we must therefore claim in the name of tolerance the right not to tolerate intolerance.

[Unknowing1]

IMO Secular Humanism/Humanism isn't about not allowing people to practice religion it's about trying to keep the inequitable beliefs that arise from religion to enter into the world and hurt others. For example the belief by some adherents to religion that women and gays are not equal. There has been and still is discrimination against them in public.

 

While I do agree that it seems a contradiction to say you can practice religion but just not certain aspects I can understand it. If a religion has a componant that preaches inequitable treatment, it's fine if you want to do that within your own circle of adherents, it's when you do it to me, my friends, my neighbor, my family, or joe or josephine blow that I do have problem. I'm a woman and I sure as heck don't want some fanatic passing laws that say I have to be submissive to a man just because that's what their good book says. If a woman who believes that wants to follow it that is their business but don't limit my right not to do it. You can still be submissive without limiting another womans freedoms.

 

Sorry for the rant.

[R. S. Martin]

There's a terrific quote in an issue of the International Humanist News. It's been a while since I've read it, so I'll paraphrase: absolute tolerance will lead to the death of tolerance. we must therefore claim in the name of tolerance the right not to tolerate intolerance.

 

Wow! that's a mouthful. I like it, though. I think it answers my original question. However, I can see the fundies charge me with being intolerant. In fact, it has happened. They think they have a right to be as intolerant as they want and if we don't like we are being intolerant of them and thereby violating our own principles. And they will be quite smug about it. They think they are using our own ammunition against us. And it looks to me like they're right about that. That bothers me.