Respect other peoples beliefs?

[Asimov]

Why?

 

If someone has a stupid idea, I"m going to tell them.

 

I expect the same in return.

 

Telling me to respect other peoples beliefs is like telling me not to learn anything ever again. If someone can't defend or justify their belief, how will they ever know if it's right?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I agree Asimov. I really feel the same way. For purley emotional reasons there are some religions that I won't criticize, but I will not get in the way of others who do, even though I am wincing at the spectical.

 

As far as the xer bible, tanach, and qu'ran go I'll show all the disrespect that is due to those books. I'll make fun of thier beliefs you betchya.

[Ouroboros]

Why?

 

If someone has a stupid idea, I"m going to tell them.

 

I expect the same in return. 

 

Telling me to respect other peoples beliefs is like telling me not to learn anything ever again.  If someone can't defend or justify their belief, how will they ever know if it's right?

There's different ways of showing respect. To show respect doesn't mean "not to talk about it", but there can still be a basic kindness and respect to a person, even if you believe that the person is an loonybin.

 

To respect other peoples beliefs is IMO more a question of not resort to ad homs and rude comments to believers, but I don't think respect means not questioning their belief or discussing it. But respect can sometimes lead to a position where both sides agree to disagree, and then arguing and debating wouldn't lead any further and can be discontinued.

 

In the same tone as x-ians: "We love the Christian, but we can't love Christianity!"

[Asimov]

There's different ways of showing respect. To show respect doesn't mean "not to talk about it", but there can still be a basic kindness and respect to a person, even if you believe that the person is an loonybin.

 

To respect other peoples beliefs is IMO more a question of not resort to ad homs and rude comments to believers, but I don't think respect means not questioning their belief or discussing it. But respect can sometimes lead to a position where both sides agree to disagree, and then arguing and debating wouldn't lead any further and can be discontinued.

 

In the same tone as x-ians: "We love the Christian, but we can't love Christianity!"

 

 

That's not respecting a persons belief...that's being courteous, HanSolo. I think we should be courteous to each other...but respect is earned.

[Mike D]

I respect people's right to believe what they want, but I don't necessarily respect their beliefs. Although I probably wouldn't tell them that unless they asked.

[Amethyst]

That's not respecting a persons belief...that's being courteous, HanSolo. I think we should be courteous to each other...but respect is earned.

 

Agreed. I am courteous to my cube mate, but he has yet to earn my respect. I don't go around challenging other Christians at work on their beliefs, though. My cube mate is the only one who has ever initiated any debates with me, so I challenged him. He lost the one where I asked him to prove god was real (and invisible pink unicorns, too).

[dogmatically_challenged]

[dogmatically_challenged]

There's different ways of showing respect. To show respect doesn't mean "not to talk about it", but there can still be a basic kindness and respect to a person, even if you believe that the person is an loonybin.

 

To respect other peoples beliefs is IMO more a question of not resort to ad homs and rude comments to believers, but I don't think respect means not questioning their belief or discussing it. But respect can sometimes lead to a position where both sides agree to disagree, and then arguing and debating wouldn't lead any further and can be discontinued.

 

In the same tone as x-ians: "We love the Christian, but we can't love Christianity!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will be nice if I thought I was talking to some one who is really wanting to question thier beliefs, but if I see prosylitizing in RT I'll make fun of that person and thier beliefs. Sometimes others who see it ask questions. I am nice to those folks and talk with them about it.

 

Still maybe name calling isn't the best thing to do.

[Checkmate]

I like this article titled The Lunacy of Religion. What he writes is directly on point and I'll let this excerpt stand on it's own merit:

 

Since when are people entitled to absolute respect for their beliefs just because they're entitled to have them?  I refuse to bite my lip in a display of mock civility just because I'm expected to embrace, tolerate, or respect the beliefs of others.  Tolerance and respect are earned, and are not necessarily warranted.  If I think a religious ideology or belief is moronic, then I will respond accordingly as I would with any other ideology or belief.  That is to say, I don't think context validates ones beliefs.  Christianity/Judaism, racism/equality, buy low/sell high; they're all ideologies and not entitled to respect or tolerance, by default, just because someone has the right (which we all do) to practice them.  I mean, should we respect racism just because a racist has the right to embrace and promote it?  Sorry folks, but the rule must be consistent.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I like this article titled The Lunacy of Religion.  What he writes is directly on point and I'll let this excerpt stand on it's own merit:

 

Since when are people entitled to absolute respect for their beliefs just because they're entitled to have them?  I refuse to bite my lip in a display of mock civility just because I'm expected to embrace, tolerate, or respect the beliefs of others.  Tolerance and respect are earned, and are not necessarily warranted.  If I think a religious ideology or belief is moronic, then I will respond accordingly as I would with any other ideology or belief.  That is to say, I don't think context validates ones beliefs.  Christianity/Judaism, racism/equality, buy low/sell high; they're all ideologies and not entitled to respect or tolerance, by default, just because someone has the right (which we all do) to practice them.  I mean, should we respect racism just because a racist has the right to embrace and promote it?  Sorry folks, but the rule must be consistent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Mr Grinch! So true!

[Ouroboros]

That's not respecting a persons belief...that's being courteous, HanSolo.  I think we should be courteous to each other...but respect is earned.

Isn't being courteous to someone is the same to show respect to that person?

 

That you respect a person and that you respect that he has a different view, even though you might have a different view but of course have the right to discuss it?

 

I guess we're using the word "respect" in different ways. I just see the word "respect" as a synonym for "showing courteous behavior". I guess I'm wrong.

 

So what does the word "respect" mean? And what does it entail when you show respect for someone that has earned it? You treat them equally or more courteous than before? What do you mean with respect?

[Vigile]

Frankly I don't know why this is such an issue. We are free to debate politics in the US and no one steps in and says "ah, come on man. Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?” We are free to offer up our opinions on myriad of issues, but with religion we can't call a spade a spade?

 

It's a misapplication of tolerance I believe. Being tolerant means letting them worship and believe without passing legislation that is discriminatory towards them or their pursuits as long as their pursuits don't infringe on the rights of others. It does not mean that we can't opening and vocally disagree with them. I agree that we shouldn't be rude; that's just good manners. But, if a xtian is going to tell me what he believes, I'm not going to bite my lip and not tell him that I disagree with him and here's why.

 

Xtianity is a self-replicating virus. It calls on members to "share their faith" and proselytize in every setting. That virus causes its victims to become vastly INTOLERANT of others to the point where they in fact do effect legislation towards their own ends. Never standing up to this virus means letting it grow freely in a hospitable environment.

 

It should not be allowed a hospitable environment. Challenging it and openly calling it for what it is can be a form of political activism. Christians are the main force behind the push to relieve a woman of her right to choose. They are the main force that pushes legislation that discriminates against homosexuals. They are the main force that fights tooth and nail to get ID in schools. Challenging and MARGINALIZING the root beliefs that cause them to fight for these things can be an effective method of fighting their position. Christians should be MARGINALIZED just like every other group of extreme idealists are. That they are not reveals the effectiveness of the virus in our society, the political spin they put on the debate, and their own quick rush to play the persecution card whenever someone disagrees with their positions.

 

Again, this is not intolerance. We don't need to define this word the way our teachers did when we were in kindergarten. We need to restrict the definition of intolerance to that which takes away or harms the rights of others. Telling them the truth about their phony beliefs is not intolerant. It is just good common sense.

[Ouroboros]

I like this article titled The Lunacy of Religion.  What he writes is directly on point and I'll let this excerpt stand on it's own merit:

 

Since when are people entitled to absolute respect for their beliefs just because they're entitled to have them?  I refuse to bite my lip in a display of mock civility just because I'm expected to embrace, tolerate, or respect the beliefs of others.  Tolerance and respect are earned, and are not necessarily warranted.  If I think a religious ideology or belief is moronic, then I will respond accordingly as I would with any other ideology or belief.  That is to say, I don't think context validates ones beliefs.  Christianity/Judaism, racism/equality, buy low/sell high; they're all ideologies and not entitled to respect or tolerance, by default, just because someone has the right (which we all do) to practice them.  I mean, should we respect racism just because a racist has the right to embrace and promote it?  Sorry folks, but the rule must be consistent.

Hmmm. I think it sounds a bit scary.

 

Yes, I agree racism and many other practices can't be tolerated, but do we actually see all faiths that way, that we can't tolerate them unless the people having those faiths de-convert and become atheists. i.e. Only atheists are accepted, tolerated and respected? Just because if they're not, they have to be considered a threat? Should we then include gnosticism, paganism, mysticism, astrology etc?

[Ouroboros]

I guess I see a difference between respecting someones faith and accepting someones faith.

 

I can respect someone having a faith, but of course I don't accept their faith.

 

This means that I don't see a problem in challenging their faith and discussing it, but I consider "respect" as not attacking the person having the faith.

 

Maybe I'm totally off here...

[dogmatically_challenged]

Frankly I don't know why this is such an issue.  We are free to debate politics in the US and no one steps in and says "ah, come on man. Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?”  We are free to offer up our opinions on myriad of issues, but with religion we can't call a spade a spade?

 

It's a misapplication of tolerance I believe.  Being tolerant means letting them worship and believe without passing legislation that is discriminatory towards them or their pursuits as long as their pursuits don't infringe on the rights of others.  It does not mean that we can't opening and vocally disagree with them.  I agree that we shouldn't be rude; that's just good manners.  But, if a xtian is going to tell me what he believes, I'm not going to bite my lip and not tell him that I disagree with him and here's why. 

 

Xtianity is a self-replicating virus.  It calls on members to "share their faith" and proselytize in every setting.  That virus causes its victims to become vastly INTOLERANT of others to the point where they in fact do effect legislation towards their own ends.  Never standing up to this virus means letting it grow freely in a hospitable environment. 

 

It should not be allowed a hospitable environment.  Challenging it and openly calling it for what it is can be a form of political activism.  Christians are the main force behind the push to relieve a woman of her right to choose.  They are the main force that pushes legislation that discriminates against homosexuals.  They are the main force that fights tooth and nail to get ID in schools.  Challenging and MARGINALIZING the root beliefs that cause them to fight for these things can be an effective method of fighting their position.  Christians should be MARGINALIZED just like every other group of extreme idealists are.  That they are not reveals the effectiveness of the virus in our society, the political spin they put on the debate, and their own quick rush to play the persecution card whenever someone disagrees with their positions.

 

Again, this is not intolerance.  We don't need to define this word the way our teachers did when we were in kindergarten.  We need to restrict the definition of intolerance to that which takes away or harms the rights of others.  Telling them the truth about their phony beliefs is not intolerant.  It is just good common sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is self defense to expose the bible and xer religion for what it really is. Ridiculously bigoted. I whole heartedly agree here.

 

Xianity has earned such attention from those of us that have been abused. I think we have the right to tell it like it is.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I guess I see a difference between respecting someones faith and accepting someones faith.

 

I can respect someone having a faith, but of course I don't accept their faith.

 

This means that I don't see a problem in challenging their faith and discussing it, but I consider "respect" as not attacking the person having the faith.

 

Maybe I'm totally off here...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I respect an xers legal right to practice thier faith, but I do not respect thier faith. I do not respect bible teachings. I also feel that if thier religion is harmful it is my duty, and not just my right to talk to people about what the bible really is.

 

Maybe there is way to discuss without being angry or rude. I can't really do that yet. But I will eventually.

[dogmatically_challenged]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmmm. I think it sounds a bit scary.

 

Yes, I agree racism and many other practices can't be tolerated, but do we actually see all faiths that way, that we can't tolerate them unless the people having those faiths de-convert and become atheists. i.e. Only atheists are accepted, tolerated and respected? Just because if they're not, they have to be considered a threat? Should we then include gnosticism, paganism, mysticism, astrology etc? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Helping folks become atheist is a pipe dream. They will not give up some kind of higher power concept, even though they may change religions, as well as dump religion all together and just be spiritual.

 

Pushing atheism on folks IS-JUST-WISHFUL-THINKING. Aint gonna happen. Besides, who ever said anything about telling them what to believe if we do manage to deconvert someone? Let them search on thier own?

 

I share your fears. There are some religions that aint all that bad AND are not bigoted. I think its cool that deists, pagans, buddhists, Taoists, etc...are happy to work with us atheist/agnostics and give us support in our apostacy. I am grateful for it. Still, if some one wants to criticize thier religions I can't stop anyone, nor will I interfere other than sharing what I just did here.

[Vigile]

I guess I see a difference between respecting someones faith and accepting someones faith.

 

I can respect someone having a faith, but of course I don't accept their faith.

 

This means that I don't see a problem in challenging their faith and discussing it, but I consider "respect" as not attacking the person having the faith.

 

Maybe I'm totally off here...

 

You're not off here Hans. I'm not suggesting a faith war. I am suggesting that when faced with it, we don't need to quietly back down. If someone older than 10 who has normal mental capacity still believes in Santa I'm probably going to laugh at them. I can't help it. Again, I'm just saying that we shouldn't accomodate them so much that the virus grows unchallenged. We know where they stand. We know their gospel by heart. They for the most part know nothing about us other than the strawman their preacher built for them. I wish like hell someone would have challenged me when I was running around half cocked in my self assured faith. Again, read my definition of tolerance. If someone wants to have faith, they can keep it to themselves or I will challenge it.

[Vigile]

Yes, I agree racism and many other practices can't be tolerated, but do we actually see all faiths that way, that we can't tolerate them unless the people having those faiths de-convert and become atheists. i.e. Only atheists are accepted, tolerated and respected? Just because if they're not, they have to be considered a threat? Should we then include gnosticism, paganism, mysticism, astrology etc? 

 

But they are a threat. We live in a democracy and the more of them who vote and pressure politicians to appoint judges and enact legislation that promotes their intolerance toward others who don't believe like them they will remain a threat. Like DC said, we can respect their LEGAL right to their beliefs.

 

I can agree to see this differently than you though and don't need you to come around to my way of thinking on this. I respect you and your opinions on these matters. This is just me and how I see it.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I respect people's rights to hold beliefs different from mine. However, I respect the actual beliefs they hold only if those beliefs seem reasonable and are not harmful.

 

I do not respect fundamentalist christianity, but I strongly believe that people should have a right to be fundamentalist christians if that's what they choose to believe.

[Checkmate]

Hmmm…I think I see the problem. Maybe we need to stop using the word “respect” and rather use “honesty”. We are NOT being disrespectful, nor mean-spirited just by being HONEST. I’m not advocating insulting behavior, censorship nor legislation against religious speech. I just believe we OWE IT to both ourselves and our opponents to be HONEST in our appraisal of their beliefs.

 

Allow me to utilize an analogy.

 

We’ve all probably heard the phrase, “It’s not you, it’s ME”? This catch-phrase has become popular in the art of break-ups. It’s used in an effort to cushion the blow of rejecting someone. Rather than tell them the TRUTH about how you don’t like their looks, their smell, the way they suck their teeth when they eat, or something like that, you shift the blame to yourself and claim that YOU are the defective party. “I’m just not ready to have a relationship right now. I’m too immature.” Or what have you.

 

Thus leaving the person you just rejected believing that there is nothing wrong with THEM. It’s YOU who has the problem. They may now continue living their life as if NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THEM.

 

Now overlay this same tactic with faith rejection.

 

You’ve just told your Christian friend/spouse/parent/Pastor that you no longer believe in Christianity. You have done your homework and believe it to be a ridiculous belief system, full of lies, hate, bigotry and so on. You believe that only gullible fools would ever believe such tripe. But when confronted with telling anyone who IS Christian, you trot out ye olde, “It’s not YOU, it’s me” canard. You don’t DARE “insult” them by speaking the truth in love. Let’s seal this relationship instead with a passel of LIES.

 

You SAY to them, “I just can’t bring myself to believe anymore. It doesn’t make sense to ME. While it may be alright for YOU, I just can’t do it anymore. I just don’t get it.”

 

Using this disingenuous tactic you have just given your listeners the impression that their religious beliefs are valid, but that there is something wrong with YOU! You have given them the false impression that you don’t REALLY think anything is amiss with the religion and their beliefs. It’s just YOU. YOU are the defective one, not THEM.

 

You also have given them a false HOPE, as they now set upon a re-conversion campaign to “win you back to Christ”. They will now see it as their duty and responsibility to pray for you, witness to you, send you e-mails, and MAKE you come to church to be smothered by the “body of Christ.”

 

YOU must now be “fixed” and “rescued from the grip of Satan”!

 

And WHY are they doing this? Because you didn’t tell them the Truth. And why didn’t you tell them the truth? Because you didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Because telling someone you reject their beliefs is tantamount to rejecting them. At least it is in THEIR mind.

 

But who’s fault is this? Is it OUR fault that THEIR religious beliefs make ZERO sense? Why should we be subjected to further abuse just because THEY can’t tolerate honesty?

 

Again I’m talking about HONESTY. Not DISrespect.

 

Is it SO wrong to tell someone KINDLY, “Thank you, but no thanks”?

 

“I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe what you believe, because it makes no sense. Don’t bother trying to convince me. I’ve examined it every which way it can be examined. It is absolute hogwash, and I won’t be believing it in this lifetime. Sorry.”

 

No insults. Just truth. And if that makes them feel like retards for believing…then GOOD! That’s the whole idea, AND it is STILL not your fault, NOR is it “rude”. And who knows? Maybe this event will cause them to THINK and re-evaluate their beliefs.

 

And THIS is why I believe it is vitally important that we be HONEST in our rejection and refutations of religion. Just rolling over and being “polite”, shifting the "blame" back upon ourselves, is only opening the door to mass confusion and miscommunication.

[Japedo]

I can respect others beliefs so long as those beliefs don't encourage,force or advocate harm on others, then well then, I become a little (okay extreamly) opinionated...

[Ouroboros]

But they are a threat.  We live in a democracy and the more of them who vote and pressure politicians to appoint judges and enact legislation that promotes their intolerance toward others who don't believe like them they will remain a threat. Like DC said, we can respect their LEGAL right to their beliefs.

Some are a threat, I can agree to that, but to consider all of them being a threat and to treat them all accordingly is not good. Democracy and freedom of religion is the guideline, even for our personal life. But I agree that some religious people are not only a small threat, but a big one to democracy and freedom.

 

If you with "respect" mean "acceptance", then it can only be given on certain levels in society. We can't accept/respect certain behaviours or cults, but we can't outlaw all of them and create communism again, since that experiment failed due to peoples willingness to be corrupted by power, and not their religious beliefs.

 

Again, I don't say "respect" means "be quiet" or "non challenge" attitude. Respect to me is only what you're saying next here:

I can agree to see this differently than you though and don't need you to come around to my way of thinking on this.    I respect you and your opinions on these matters.  This is just me and how I see it.

That's what I mean with respect. You show respect to me, even though we, IMO very superficially, differ in opinion. And I respect your opinion also (just to make sure you know that). Besides I haven't really thought a lot about were the borderlines go for respect and why.. So I'm not totally firm in my view here, I'm using this discussion to learn about myself as much.

 

I was thinking this morning about one of the earlier posts in this thread: "Respect is earned". But how does that jive with the topic? Again my question is what do you mean with respect? What benefits would I get in your "respect club" when I have earned your respect? What is respect?

 

My interpretation of the topic was: respect = non confrontational acceptance

And if respect means that and you have to earn it, then I'll give you a little situation here:

 

You meet person A, you don't know him, he's Christian, you confront him because you don't respect him yet. He has to earn your respect.

 

After some time A has earned your respect, but he's still Christian. According to above statements in this thread, now you would go quiet and not confront him anymore about his faith.

 

So again the word "respect" doesn't jive with the definition "be quiet", but it's a word for how you treat people even if you don't agree to what they believe.

[Vigile]

I respect people's rights to hold beliefs different from mine.  However, I respect the actual beliefs they hold only if those beliefs seem reasonable and are not harmful. 

 

I do not respect fundamentalist christianity, but I strongly believe that people should have a right to be fundamentalist christians if that's what they choose to believe.

 

Absolutely. No one should legally interfere with their right to believe whatever it is they want to believe. I don't think that debating them respectfully and questioning the validity of their beliefs takes away their rights. It may make the price of their belief a little bit higher, but according to their beliefs they should be prepared for that.

 

In any case, I know that many here want to live and let live. I respect that. I've been arguing this issue because I believe that the virus of xtianity imposes itself on the rest of the nation. If we had a form of government other than democracy it might not be such an issue. But when they are training up political leaders, demanding a place at the political table, writing letter campaigns and using political blackmail and boycotting methods to get their way - and they are getting their way - I think the virus may just have found itself a bit too hospitible environment to grow in and it needs to be challenged.

[Ouroboros]

I respect people's rights to hold beliefs different from mine.  However, I respect the actual beliefs they hold only if those beliefs seem reasonable and are not harmful. 

This is what I mean. "Love the person, not their opinion."

 

I feel it could be dangerous only to respect people that believe exactly like I do. Because no one could match up to my personal and unique beliefs, so we have to respect people of different opinion no matter what. You can't avoid it. So the question is rather where do you draw the line? How far out can an opinion or belief go before they don't deserve respect anymore?

 

I do not respect fundamentalist christianity, but I strongly believe that people should have a right to be fundamentalist christians if that's what they choose to believe.

Yup. Again, where do we draw the line?