I think that one should be respectful OF the religion of others. That doesn't mean we actually respect their religion. It simply means that there is little or nothing to be gained by anyone by being disrespectful of someone's deeply held beliefs. So, unless there is some direct threat posed by the religion (or other belief, for that matter) then, unless you are invited to debate the matter, you should mind your own business. [emphasis added]
This raises the very important question: what does it mean, to be "invited to debate the matter"? Is this limited solely to cases where a person comes up to you and specifically requests, in so many words, a debate about religion? That's not reasonable. I would argue that any time a person puts their beliefs into the public arena -- by arguing for them, by offering them as a reason for some action, or simply by declaring them to be a good idea -- then they are implicitly inviting debate, discussion, and critique.
No one gets to publicize their ideas, beliefs, or opinions and then also say "because these are deeply held beliefs, you can't disrespect them, question them, criticize them, etc." On the other hand, if a person generally keeps their opinions to themselves, then it would be quite rude of me to make the effort to discover them and then go out of my way to criticize them. Unless there is a real concern about someone being harmed, I agree that such people should be left alone.
There is also the obvious question of what constitutes "disrespect." Do the believers get sole jurisdiction over this? That also wouldn't be reasonable -- let's keep in mind that however deeply held a set of beliefs are, in the end they are still a set of opinions and should be handled similar to how other opinions are. Democrats don't get to shut down conservatives' critiques of their political beliefs because such critiques are "disrespectful," do they? Some progressive and liberal political beliefs are very "deeply held" too, after all.
What does it mean to be "respectful of," though? I've yet to see a definition of "respect" which is both justified and which atheists are not generally doing. In nearly every case, the "respect" being demanded is really a form of high esteem or deference, and it is unreasonable for adherents to demand that of their religion from outsiders.
To me, it is about freedom. I've spent enough time in my life (as a cult member) of knowing for sure that everyone outside my religion was wrong and going to hell for being wrong. It was up to me and the allegiant few to save them, to dismantle their false beliefs and bring them into the light of the One Truth.
Sorry, I've been there and done that. Those atheists who would seek to purge the world of all religion are misguided. Extremism, fundamentalism, and "Chosen Few" (nice way of saying "cultic") ideologies.... well, we should try to rehabilitate those people. But to purge all religion? Sorry, it cannot be done. And, even if it could be done, I don't think it should be done. History has shown that when one religion fails a people, they don't often resort to freedom from religion. No, they either adopt another religion or invent a new one. Better the devil that you know, than the devil you don't: new religions have a tendency toward being cultic.
For the rest... non-extremists, despite a variety of beliefs, tend to live decent lives and their fanciful beliefs give them some comfort. How dare I be so arrogant as to say that I should be obliged to "free" them of their beliefs -- especially when those beliefs don't really matter all that much anyway. Yes, it is obviously true that a great many religious beliefs cause oppression and repression. We should encourage moderation in such cases.... help them see the value of toleration for those with whom one might disagree.
It's true that all religion won't be purged. Is this a reason not to argue against religion and superstition? All murder won't be eliminated, but we still have laws against it and still work to stop it. Total success isn't a standard which should have to be met in order for a goal to be pursued, is it? Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.
My position is that I’m respectful of others and their beliefs unless they do something that, in my opinion, demonstrates they are unworthy of my respect.
Respect, to me, means don’t ridicule, don’t express anger, don’t be condescending, don’t try to change their mind. Live and let live.
In my life, I get to decide who is and who isn’t worthy of my respect.
Somehow this discussion brings the following H. L. Mencken quote to mind: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion,but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
>”I would argue that any time a person puts their beliefs into the public arena — by arguing for them, by offering them as a reason for some action, or simply by declaring them to be a good idea — then they are implicitly inviting debate…”
I totally agree. I do not proactively go out and attack other people’s beliefs; but if the time/place is appropriate, and they are telling me what they think, and it’s nuts, I will tell them as much in a civil fashion.
The truth is that NOBODY “respects” everyone else’s beliefs. The person practicing crystal healing thinks the alien abductee is a crackpot. Is it unreasonable to think most Xians wouldn’t think the Raelians are nutjobs?
That doesn’t mean I can’t offer criticism in a respectful manner–without name calling and ad hominems (just expressing rationally why I think it’s unreasonable). But to say I can actually have respect for all ideas is preposterous. I can respect people, but there will always be ideas that are just too ignorant to respect. What those ideas _are_ may vary from person to person–but I guarantee you, we all have them.
I treat Christians with the same amount of respect that I do any grown-up who professes a belief in Santa Claus.
I think it is good to be disrespectful of religion by joking about it in general terms. For instance, “I would never join a religion that would have me” Or, “religion tells people about things that nobody knows anything about.” Or, “I wouldn’t trust a bronze age book about how to fix my car.” Develop some pat lines and then use them.
Additionally, the reason for bearing witness to atheist ideas is not to convert the theist heathen so to speak. The basic reason is to let others know that they are alone when they are following along the same path. Otherwise the road to skepticism and enlightenment is a very lonely one, and it doesn’t have to be so. It is the people who overhear a conversation who matter most a lot of the time.
I’m prepared to be polite to everyone. I reserve respect for what I believe is respectable, not on demand for what may be odious to me. Polite, yes; Respect, conditional.
I don’t respect religion. I don’t respect people’s beliefs in daft unsupported ideas which are so obviously untrue. A belief in god is not value free, it has consequences. And often these consequences are absolutely unacceptable…….
I am extremely open about my atheism, but don’t ridicule people who have religious beliefs, whether Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, Buddhist, Animist, Muslim or just plain Theists–
Unless they try to “convert” me or are condescending to my opinions. Fortunately, most of the believers I’ve met respect differing POVs as long as they lead to a less violent world.
Respect is always an interesting concept. I feel that in public schools students don’t get any respect. I sport the idea that just because one is young, doesn’t mean one doesn’t deserve the same respect older people do.
I think public schools is a breeding ground for one sided views the disrespect others and force them to one idea in the guise of being neutral. I think neutrality is a myth when in comes to education, history, politics, and basically anthing. The fence just doesn’t existst.
I maintain a website where I share many of my ideas and other’s ideas on education. My video section is one of the best parts. If you are interested, check it out at
http://www.americaneducationreform.com
Yeah, when someone starts espousing their views – whatever they may be – in public, they are implicitly inviting debate and have to deal with that. When they try and force their views on others (whether through legislation or any other means), they are subject to the full brunt of logic, however respectfully or disrespectfully it is presented.
The big problem with religion arises when the religious claim their personal identity is so wrapped up in their beliefs that disrespect of their religion is disrespectful of them personally. Or that their beliefs require them to make the entire world live by laws proscribed by those beliefs. Quite why they can’t see both of these are unreasonable on any number of levels (e.g. the former is their problem for entwining their sense of self so deeply with their beliefs) is a mystery to me.
It occurs to me, however, that we as atheists might – in cases where people take criticisms of their religion as attacks on their person – legitimately throw one of their tired old catchphrases back at them. Where they say they “love the sinner, hate the sin” we should reply atheists “love the religious, hate the religion”.