NationStates Jolt Archive

In another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534544), I asked why religion gets so much respect. In that thread, I asked a specific person about why he respected religious faith, but now I'd like to question why we, as a society(if not as much on NSG, but then, NSG is not representative of society as a whole), give religion so much respect compared to other, non-religious ideas. To quote, as I did in the previous thread, Douglas Adams:
"Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? Because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument, but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down, you are free to have an argument about it, but if on the other hand somebody says "I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday," you say, "Fine, I respect that."
Many of us, even the non-religious, are taught nearly from birth that it is impolite or improper in some way to question religious ideas, and that we must respect them.

The idea is so widespread and so often repeated that most of us unconditionally accept it, and even allow religion to be a trump card. For example, if you want to register as a conscientious objector, by far the easiest route is through a religious reason for disagreeing with war. Somebody who has derived a pacifist belief from a secular philosophy, no matter how well thought out, doesn't get the same protection as somebody who happens to be (or is related to) a Quaker.

Even student religious organizations are often exempt from non-discrimination policies. At my university, the Christian group argued that they should be allowed to deny access to, and even harass, homosexuals because of their religious faith, when no other campus-sponsored organization is allowed to violate the non-discrimination policy.

Now, from the perspective of mematic evolution(that is, the evolution of memes), as I understand it (and I am no expert, so I ask you to forgive and correct me if I am mistaken), it makes sense because it aids in the survival of religion: if people are not supposed to question an idea or debate it or say anything against it, then it is far more likely to survive.

Evolutionary explanations aside, I am interested in any arguments for why we should continue the practice of respecting religion any more than we respect, say, political beliefs. Why is it rude to question or critisize them like we can any other idea?

...because when you question religion, religion gets angry and when religion gets angry, people DIE!

how about ...

because when you treat another person's deepest beliefs with a modicum of respect they are much less likely to punch you in the nose?

Many of us, even the non-religious, are taught nearly from birth that it is impolite or improper in some way to question religious ideas, and that we must respect them.

I wasn't.

Why is it rude to question or critisize them like we can any other idea?

It's not.

I wasn't.



It's not.
I would agree with you. Most of society does not, and that is what I'm tying to understand. In the mainstream belief, you can't question religion. It's simply "wrong" to do so.

There's always the good 'ol, why does it harm you what I believe? Not to mention I respect your silly ideas, I would hope that you would show the same respect to mine, just as another human if nothing else.

I would agree with you. Most of society does not, and that is what I'm tying to understand. In the mainstream belief, you can't question religion. It's simply "wrong" to do so.

You're not talking of the same society that I live in, it would seem.

There's always the good 'ol, why does it harm you what I believe? Not to mention I respect your silly ideas, I would hope that you would show the same respect to mine, just as another human if nothing else.

But you could also ask the same of political ideas, yet nobody thinks that it's not okay to question/debate those. You could argue that political beliefs influence the policy of a country, but with religious people, religion and politics are often intertwined. Remember, I am asking why we give religion undue respect, beyond that which we give to, say, political ideas.

But, if you want something that has less of a reason to debate it out of "what does it hurt," I'll use literature as an example. What harm does it do, if, say, somebody has a different interpretation of a poem or a novel or a short story than you do? None! Yet we don't consider it impolite to debate the interpretations of said poem/novel/short story. It's perfectly fine to do so in mainstream society. Why not the same with religion?

You're not talking of the same society that I live in, it would seem.

In that case, I envy you and your progressive society. I'm stuck living in Dumbfuckistan (http://megaz.arbuz.com/images/Dumbfuckistan.jpg) :( (though I have been told that some other places still have this trait of an unwillingness to debate religion, if in smaller degrees.)

But you could also ask the same of political ideas, yet nobody thinks that it's not okay to question/debate those. You could argue that political beliefs influence the policy of a country, but with religious people, religion and politics are often intertwined. Remember, I am asking why we give religion undue respect, beyond that which we give to, say, political ideas.

But, if you want something that has less of a reason to debate it out of "what does it hurt," I'll use literature as an example. What harm does it do, if, say, somebody has a different interpretation of a poem or a novel or a short story than you do? None! Yet we don't consider it impolite to debate the interpretations of said poem/novel/short story. It's perfectly fine to do so in mainstream society. Why not the same with religion?

if someone treats a person's sincerely held political beliefs with no respect he is likely to get punched in the nose.

havent you heard that one doesnt discuss sex religion or politics in polite company?

But you could also ask the same of political ideas, yet nobody thinks that it's not okay to question/debate those. You could argue that political beliefs influence the policy of a country, but with religious people, religion and politics are often intertwined. Remember, I am asking why we give religion undue respect, beyond that which we give to, say, political ideas.
The issue is though that politics do indeed have a profound effect upon the whole of the population, so debate is the right thing to do. And yes, currently, sadly, religion is intertwined with politics, but the debate there is more along the lines of if religion should be allowed to be so entwined (The whole my beliefs shouldn't be allowed to affect you without your say-so).

But, if you want something that has less of a reason to debate it out of "what does it hurt," I'll use literature as an example. What harm does it do, if, say, somebody has a different interpretation of a poem or a novel or a short story than you do? None! Yet we don't consider it impolite to debate the interpretations of said poem/novel/short story. It's perfectly fine to do so in mainstream society. Why not the same with religion?
I'm sorry, but unless you are the most rabid of fan, people don't tend to base their lives, moral code, and philosophy upon a short story (And if you haul out the "Well religion IS just a short story" I WILL slap you silly with the trout. ;) ).

There is a difference between respect and tolerance. I tolerate religious beliefs, I don't shit on them. Doesn't mean I sit around and say "gee, I have loads of respect for religious beliefs." Respect for me is earned, but respect as a simple mode of non-assholish behavior is granted until un-earned.

if someone treats a person's sincerely held political beliefs with no respect he is likely to get punched in the nose.

havent you heard that one doesnt discuss sex religion or politics in polite company?

But plenty of people don't have a problem with discussing politics. They'll debate their views, but won't feel aggrieved by somebody disagreeing with them, or even with their political views being criticized or even attacked. This isn't true with religion. Why the difference between the two?

I'm sorry, but unless you are the most rabid of fan, people don't tend to base their lives, moral code, and philosophy upon a short story (And if you haul out the "Well religion IS just a short story" I WILL slap you silly with the trout. ;) ).
All the more reason to debate it! That way, if you are convinced that you were wrong, you may find out and then modify your view to reflect that! Far better to find out that you were wrong and admit it than to linger in an incorrect belief, no? If it turns out that you are right, then what have you got to lose?

Somebody who has derived a pacifist belief from a secular philosophy, no matter how well thought out, doesn't get the same protection as somebody who happens to be (or is related to) a Quaker.
Quakers have been tricked and forced into serving every war that there's ever been a draft for so...

But plenty of people don't have a problem with discussing politics. They'll debate their views, but won't feel aggrieved by somebody disagreeing with them, or even with their political views being criticized or even attacked. This isn't true with religion. Why the difference between the two?


Uh, one is a political stance, the other is a spiritual/theological/traditional/philosophical way of life.

But plenty of people don't have a problem with discussing politics. They'll debate their views, but won't feel aggrieved by somebody disagreeing with them, or even with their political views being criticized or even attacked. This isn't true with religion. Why the difference between the two?

first of all, its seldom that you have a religious discussion that challenges someones beliefs that is done with RESPECT.

secondly when one discussed politics its more usually "what do you think of the budget deficit" and not "communism sucks". we seldom challenge anyone's basic political beliefs. if you DO so and dont proceed with respect, you will get a fight.

edit...

third, youve never been to a political discussion at my inlaw's house.

All the more reason to debate it! That way, if you are convinced that you were wrong, you may find out and then modify your view to reflect that! Far better to find out that you were wrong and admit it than to linger in an incorrect belief, no? If it turns out that you are right, then what have you got to lose?
You suddenly have found out a way to prove, definitively, the existence (Or non) of God?!:eek: Wow! And here I thought such a thing would be impossible!

I have about as much respect for religion as I do for any other sort of neurosis.

Uh, one is a political stance, the other is a spiritual/theological/traditional/philosophical way of life.

But what bearing does that have on whether it should be acceptable to debate it?

Fine, don't respect my beliefs. I could care less either way. It would be nice for people to accept you the way you are, but I guess you can't expect that anymore. What's the world coming to? ;)

There is a difference between respect and tolerance. I tolerate religious beliefs, I don't shit on them. Doesn't mean I sit around and say "gee, I have loads of respect for religious beliefs." Respect for me is earned, but respect as a simple mode of non-assholish behavior is granted until un-earned.

Good answer. I will tolerate anyone's right to delude themselves into whatever nuttiness they want, but what I won't tolerate is when they feel that these delusions give them the right to try and run someone elses life. Where your religion infringes on my freedom, we have a problem.

You're not talking of the same society that I live in, it would seem.

Well, Sweden is something like 69% atheist (according to trusty Wikipedia). I'm willing to bet Pirated Corsairs lives in the U.S., which is overwhelmingly religious.

Uh, one is a political stance, the other is a spiritual/theological/traditional/philosophical way of life.

All of which affects the way a person lives though, no?

Good answer. I will tolerate anyone's right to delude themselves into whatever nuttiness they want, but what I won't tolerate is when they feel that these delusions give them the right to try and run someone elses life. Where your religion infringes on my freedom, we have a problem.

Thirded. Religion becomes my problem when it's detrimental to the growth of society.

There's always the good 'ol, why does it harm you what I believe?

If it doesn't matter what you believe...what if you believe that God wants you to kill me? ALL irrational beliefs should be questioned, and should not be ignored merely because they are perceived to be "harmless".

Fine, don't respect my beliefs. I could care less either way. It would be nice for people to accept you the way you are, but I guess you can't expect that anymore. What's the world coming to? ;)

Respect, here, is not the same as acceptance. I accept you as you are, but don't necessarily hold your beliefs to be worthy of respect.

You suddenly have found out a way to prove, definitively, the existence (Or non) of God?!:eek: Wow! And here I thought such a thing would be impossible!

Irrelevant. I was talking about why beliefs that one bases their lives on should be debated even more. No, I cannot definitively prove it either way, but I can put forward arguments in favor of my position, and listen to the arguments that the other side gives, and see if they convince me.

Maybe my perspective is skewed because it was thinking and debate about religion that led me from being strongly convinced that there was a God to the position that there probably is not one. I realize I shouldn't generalize from my own experiences like that, but I really don't see what's so hard about being able to listen to another side's arguments about religion and, if they are convincing, modify what you believe, and do so without feeling angry about the subject.

If it doesn't matter what you believe...what if you believe that God wants you to kill me? ALL irrational beliefs should be questioned, and should not be ignored merely because they are perceived to be "harmless".
Well, one, there's the whole point of the as long as it isn't harming you thing.

And two, ALL irrational beliefs should be questioned? Are you sure?

Even student religious organizations are often exempt from non-discrimination policies. At my university, the Christian group argued that they should be allowed to deny access to, and even harass, homosexuals because of their religious faith, when no other campus-sponsored organization is allowed to violate the non-discrimination policy.
Man, I thought my school was bad for having a pile of religious organizations, but at least they're kept somewhat in check.

For instance, the Campus Crusade for Christ got sanctioned at least twice in one year. One for posting over the allotted number of flyers for an event (they plastered them all over campus as well as off campus where they aren't allowed to post flyers at all) and another for picketing the sexual health education centre and harassing girls who went in for the free pregnancy tests (they were prohibited from any activities on campus at all after that stunt). I'm not sure if they've ever got into it with the GLBT group or if they're well aware that they're off-limits. But they're not allowed to discriminate against anyone who wants in their group for any reason.

But what bearing does that have on whether it should be acceptable to debate it?

It's often acceptable to debate religion. Plenty of people on this very forum love to argue about how Islam is a dangerous death cult out to kill Democracy. Now I guess that isn't acceptable to me because it reminds me too much of similar arguments about how Judaism is an insidious blood-sucking cult out to destroy the Fatherland.

Plenty of people too, debate theology, spirituality, and any other aspect of religion.

So what exactly is your problem?

All of which affects the way a person lives though, no?

A political stance on abortion affects the way one votes.

A religious stance reflects on one's every day being and, one supposes, one's soul.

Religion encompasses more than politics and is far closer to home to most people than politics.

Good answer. I will tolerate anyone's right to delude themselves into whatever nuttiness they want, but what I won't tolerate is when they feel that these delusions give them the right to try and run someone elses life. Where your religion infringes on my freedom, we have a problem.

Oh, I absolutely tolerate and support everybody's right to believe whatever religion they want, even though I disagree with them, just as I support everybody's right to support, say, the Republican party, even though I disagree with people who do support them. However, that doesn't mean that I think it should be unacceptable to rationally examine said ideas and discuss/debate them.

secondly when one discussed politics its more usually "what do you think of the budget deficit" and not "communism sucks". we seldom challenge anyone's basic political beliefs. if you DO so and dont proceed with respect, you will get a fight.


Well, yes, you will get a fight, but people are MUCH more willing to say "communism sucks" (or, around here, how many threads have said "Bush sucks") than "Presbyterians suck".

Irrelevant. I was talking about why beliefs that one bases their lives on should be debated even more. No, I cannot definitively prove it either way, but I can put forward arguments in favor of my position, and listen to the arguments that the other side gives, and see if they convince me.
No, very much relevant because you speak of right and wrong (Or correct and incorrect), that means there's some sort of answer to find with proof to back it up.

Maybe my perspective is skewed because it was thinking and debate about religion that led me from being strongly convinced that there was a God to the position that there probably is not one. I realize I shouldn't generalize from my own experiences like that, but I really don't see what's so hard about being able to listen to another side's arguments about religion and, if they are convincing, modify what you believe, and do so without feeling angry about the subject.
Because, as NSG has proven SO DAMN WELL, it isn't a matter of bringing forth arguments for and against, it's a matter of screaming and snarky comments on BOTH sides without respect for either. Look at the comments made in this thread so far. Go look at ANY evolution vs creationism thread. I'll be willing to bet you'll find those with deep convictions stating that you'll be going to hell and comments about mental illnesses and belief in invisible friends.

It's often acceptable to debate religion. Plenty of people on this very forum love to argue about how Islam is a dangerous death cult out to kill Democracy. Now I guess that isn't acceptable to me because it reminds me too much of similar arguments about how Judaism is an insidious blood-sucking cult out to destroy the Fatherland.

Plenty of people too, debate theology, spirituality, and any other aspect of religion.

So what exactly is your problem?


But this forum is not represenative of the mainstream. Most people, if you attempt to debate religion (especially if you attempt to say that you disagree with their assertion that there is a God, not just a disagreement on doctrine), will say that it's not polite to debate or criticize religion.

That is my problem.

you (OP) seem to be suggesting that you should be able to debate anyone on any religious belief at any time.

IF someone is willing to debate with you, then they are out of line when they get angry at you for (respectfully) challenging their religion.

if you think its OK to force anyone into a debate about anything, you are sadly mistaken.

Oh, I absolutely tolerate and support everybody's right to believe whatever religion they want, even though I disagree with them, just as I support everybody's right to support, say, the Republican party, even though I disagree with people who do support them. However, that doesn't mean that I think it should be unacceptable to rationally examine said ideas and discuss/debate them.

I agree entirely. Religion should not be an 'off limits to debate' topic. It becomes so in the eyes of religionists mainly on the grounds that whatever particular set of rules they are working under are "ordained by god" and so not open to debate, but I agree that these things should be discussed, debated, and, where found to be excessively foolish or harmful, opened to ridicule just as any other overly idiotic system of beliefs would be.

No, very much relevant because you speak of right and wrong (Or correct and incorrect), that means there's some sort of answer to find with proof to back it up.
Well, no, there is no proof either away, but that does not mean that there is no evidence either way.


Because, as NSG has proven SO DAMN WELL, it isn't a matter of bringing forth arguments for and against, it's a matter of screaming and snarky comments on BOTH sides without respect for either. Look at the comments made in this thread so far. Go look at ANY evolution vs creationism thread. I'll be willing to bet you'll find those with deep convictions stating that you'll be going to hell and comments about mental illnesses and belief in invisible friends.

But it doesn't have to be that way. I would even go as far as to say that this might partially result from the special protection from criticism that religion often gets, that people grow frustrated and, when the opportunity to discuss it presents itself, people get angry. I would even say that it is possible to have a polite religious discussion, having done so before (when I find the somewhat uncommon person who agrees with my position that it's okay to discuss religion).

Well, yes, you will get a fight, but people are MUCH more willing to say "communism sucks" (or, around here, how many threads have said "Bush sucks") than "Presbyterians suck".

more people understand enough about bush to say that he sucks, few understand why presbyterians suck.

but christianity, judaism, islam and religion in general are often called into question here. often quite rudely.

you (OP) seem to be suggesting that you should be able to debate anyone on any religious belief at any time.

IF someone is willing to debate with you, then they are out of line when they get angry at you for (respectfully) challenging their religion.

if you think its OK to force anyone into a debate about anything, you are sadly mistaken.

What I meant was that, in general, people think that you just should debate or question religion at all. It's just "wrong" on principle, quite apart from "I just am not in the mood to debate" or whatever.

But this forum is not represenative of the mainstream.

Yeah, the latter is much worse.

Most people, if you attempt to debate religion (especially if you attempt to say that you disagree with their assertion that there is a God, not just a disagreement on doctrine), will say that it's not polite to debate or criticize religion.

I guess in the end it's because no debate ever changed someone's belief in God. So it just becomes a prick-waving dickfight.

Politics, there is room for change - the democratic, elections and voting systems are all based on the idea of debate.

That is my problem.

So your problem is someone believes in a God, you said there is no God, and they said that wasn't polite?

But this forum is not represenative of the mainstream. Most people, if you attempt to debate religion (especially if you attempt to say that you disagree with their assertion that there is a God, not just a disagreement on doctrine), will say that it's not polite to debate or criticize religion.

That is my problem.

Well, religion should be debated like everything else. But when you do so, it is nice to be polite about it. Don't go about saying "Your god is dead and doesn't exist nah nah nah" Challenge people, but do so in a decent mannered way. For instance, I don't agree with Islam, but yet I respect Muslims, and I debate them all of the time, and have only had one or two problems with things getting out of hand, mainly because of misinformation. See you can tolerate, AND respect someone's beliefs, although they are not you own. You can respectfully challenge them to debate those ideas as well. Religious views are just like political views, and should be respected.

snip What's the world coming to? ;)

Sense when have peoples beliefs been respected in the past?

more people understand enough about bush to say that he sucks, few understand why presbyterians suck.

but christianity, judaism, islam and religion in general are often called into question here. often quite rudely.

Errrr... are you suggesting that rudeness is not appropriate? Gotta say, after the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades and witch burning and all their other historically questionable actions, leading through to today when many branches of Christianity (just to pick one from your list) are still attempting to destroy the lives of so many people with their concepts of right and wrong (and, in some cases, with their fists and guns) that a little bit of rudeness in expressing how one feels about this behavior might well be justified.

I would agree with you. Most of society does not, and that is what I'm tying to understand. In the mainstream belief, you can't question religion. It's simply "wrong" to do so.

Fear of fancy with a dash of fear of fact is the problem, methinks.

Politcal Correctness can be a Bitch.

Sense when have peoples beliefs been respected in the past?

Well, just because it was that way in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't change our attitudes to bring forth a more peaceful, and tolerant society.

...because when you question religion, religion gets angry and when religion gets angry, people DIE!

Ted MAD!
Ted SMASH!
http://www.wolfblog.net/images/stevenshulk.jpg

So your problem is someone believes in a God, you said there is no God, and they said that wasn't polite?
It's not a specific time, though, or I'd not have posted. It's the general mentality, where, if the subject comes up and I attempt to present the reasons that I do not believe in God, I'm told that we must "respect religion, and therefore not debate it" or some such thing. Often, somebody uses their religion as justification for a political stance, and I reply "Religion shouldn't have any bearing on politics in the first place, however, I disagree with your religious views anyway," and, in the natural flow of conversation from there, if I try to say why I believe that their views on religion are incorrect (even if I put it perfectly politely), people invariably get impatient and insist that you just don't question religious belief. Why? Because you don't!

Well, religion should be debated like everything else. But when you do so, it is nice to be polite about it. Don't go about saying "Your god is dead and doesn't exist nah nah nah" Challenge people, but do so in a decent mannered way. For instance, I don't agree with Islam, but yet I respect Muslims, and I debate them all of the time, and have only had one or two problems with things getting out of hand, mainly because of misinformation. See you can tolerate, AND respect someone's beliefs, although they are not you own. You can respectfully challenge them to debate those ideas as well. Religious views are just like political views, and should be respected.

That's why I made sure to specify respect beyond the respect that we give to other, non-religious ideas. Sure, it'd be rude to say "Your god is dead and doesn't exist nah nah nah" just as it'd be rude to say "Hahah, being against net neutrality is stupid and I hate you!". However, most of society considers it rude to say "I disagree with your assertion that God exists, and here's why.....", but perfectly polite to say "I support net neutrality because...."

Religious views are just like political views, and should be respected.

Not necessarily. If those views are extreme, insane, unreasonable, (as they often are) then no, respect is not required. If you think that god is a planet sized watermelon who has commanded you to blow up bus stations, oppress all Canadians and launch small children off of catapults at government office buildings, I am afraid I would have say that this is not worthy of respect. I ACCEPT the fact that you hold this belief, I support your right to do so (up until you actually act on it) but I have no respect for the viewpoint.

I respect many people who are religious, but not simply because they are religious. :p It's not automatic, after all.

What I meant was that, in general, people think that you just should debate or question religion at all. It's just "wrong" on principle, quite apart from "I just am not in the mood to debate" or whatever.

most people arent in a position to debate religion. they arent all that interested. they are content to believe.

the same with politics for most people.

The real problem comes when this line about respect for religion is actually used.

Disregarding extreme arguments such as 'God doesn't exist moron', which is impolite whatever you substitute 'God' for - as in 'fairies don't exist moron' being just as rude though similarly true - that's impolite by default because you attack the person not the argument by calling them a moron.

The annoyance is when you're in a reasonable debate, pointing out all the pointlessness of religion only to finally be met with...

'Why do you have to attack my beliefs?'

Well often I don't get into a debate about religion unless someone starts harping on about why I should believe in God so, in fact, I have much more right to whine 'why do you attack my beliefs'.

It's the whininess in the face of a reasonable debate that bothers me - it's childish, because children sulk when they can't win as well.

Well, no, there is no proof either away, but that does not mean that there is no evidence either way.
But it is hard to say then that someone is correct or incorrect in their beliefs (Fundamentally I mean, there's a lot of wiggle room for interpretations of the letters and laws of such).

But it doesn't have to be that way.
No, but it often is.

I would even go as far as to say that this might partially result from the special protection from criticism that religion often gets, that people grow frustrated and, when the opportunity to discuss it presents itself, people get angry.
I'd hold it more to people being assholes, but that's just me. I've seen people on BOTH sides being so, many times without being provoked by the other side in the first place.

I would even say that it is possible to have a polite religious discussion, having done so before (when I find the somewhat uncommon person who agrees with my position that it's okay to discuss religion).
Big difference between discussing religion and calling for a debate on religion. Debating is, after all, confrontational and combative.

Treating a person's religion with respect is something you do because treating it with disrespect is generally looked down upon as juvenile and immature.

If you disagree, it is fine to voice your views, but why invite conflict by openly insulting those who follow that which you are criticizing? The same with political views. 'La La La Liberals Suck' and vice versa is a good way to earn a bad reputation. At least if the few others who would reply to such are not as disrespectful themselves.

Gross generalizations (such as 'presbyterians suck') are also good ways to get punched in the nose. (In case you didn't understand, not all Presbyterians, or any group for that matter, are bad/evil/stupid/they suck.) Its why racism is patently wrong.

This is exactly my point - calling anything sucky is rude - the difference is that if I'm in a reasonable debate about politics, the final refrain of my adversary is rarely 'why are you attacking my beliefs' whereas it practically always is with religion.

The annoyance is when you're in a reasonable debate, pointing out all the pointlessness of religion only to finally be met with...

'Why do you have to attack my beliefs?'
So pointing out that you think someone's deeply held beliefs are, from YOUR POINT OF VIEW, pointless, is somehow reasonable?

Errrr... are you suggesting that rudeness is not appropriate? Gotta say, after the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades and witch burning and all their other historically questionable actions, leading through to today when many branches of Christianity (just to pick one from your list) are still attempting to destroy the lives of so many people with their concepts of right and wrong (and, in some cases, with their fists and guns) that a little bit of rudeness in expressing how one feels about this behavior might well be justified.

yes i am suggesting that unless you are a crypto jew and your opponent is named torquemada, its wrong to be rude.

you have no grievance with the average believer.

Religion is a touchy issue with most people. As to why, most people find that religious views (theism and atheism included) are much more important than political ones. I'm not saying that one is more important than the other from a secular standpoint, its just that sometimes people mistake your disagreement for insult. Once you realize that disagreement is different than disrespect, than you find that debate is a whole lot easier (and less excruciatingly angering.)

So pointing out that you think someone's deeply held beliefs are, from YOUR POINT OF VIEW, pointless, is somehow reasonable?

No, not from my point of view, simple consistency of logic.

I can't argue that a God exists or not but I can argue that we can say nothing about what that God wants.

*snip*
The annoyance is when you're in a reasonable debate, pointing out all the pointlessness of religion only to finally be met with...

'Why do you have to attack my beliefs?'

Well often I don't get into a debate about religion unless someone starts harping on about why I should believe in God so, in fact, I have much more right to whine 'why do you attack my beliefs'.

It's the whininess in the face of a reasonable debate that bothers me - it's childish, because children sulk when they can't win as well.


That is the heart of it. "Why do you have to attack my beliefs?" is the question that so often drops the debate in its tracks, because it SOUNDS like "It is not appropriate to do so" when if fact, what it really means is "I can't win this argument and so I am resorting to using the probability that you will feel guilty about it and stop."

An appropriate response would be "Because here is what I feel is wrong about your beliefs. As I was saying..."

The difference between religion and politics or literature or art is that throughout history and up to the present, politics and literature and art haven't generally been relied on to assuage people's fears and doubts about the meaning of life, or about what follows it in death. People, I would say, think of politics and literature and art as being artifacts of humanity- created by us- and therefore open to judgements of personal taste and opinion, suitable for discussion and debate and even ridicule. Religion, however, unlike those other things, claims to offer answers that gives people a sense of purpose and security, so it's much more invested with emotion. Threaten the validity of their religion- no matter how preposterous it may sound to you- and to them you're attacking the meaning of their lives, their god(s), and the security of their promised afterlife. That's what makes religious believers so crazy-fanatical about their faith and prone to respond so much more violently (and in numbers) than someone with whome you disagree over politics or literature or art. And it's a problem that won't be solved until we as a species 'get over' our fear of death and insecurities that tell us we have to be special in the eyes of some supreme being.

Big difference between discussing religion and calling for a debate on religion. Debating is, after all, confrontational and combative.
Ah, but I'd still say those discussions were debates. We didn't just mention what we believed and left it at that-- we'd come up with points and counter-points to each others arguments, and, in a few cases, I've actually changed my mind on some point or another, or have convinced somebody else of something.
Debate doesn't have to be hostile, you can politely debate something. Even fairly heated debates don't have to result in ill will.

Religion only deserves as much respect as any other farcicle fancy i've ever had to deal with.
So, in like context:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/


See? Now it makes a great visual representation for such a concept.

Note : I blew up all my Legos with black powder and a few other things when i'd moved on ...
putting away a child's things.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i48/Lordgreyii/20070514.gif

I felt it was appropriate.

I question religion daily and I'm none the worse for it.

Hell, I've never even heard a religious person make a convincing case out of whatever it was I was questioning. All I ever got is either a blank stare, a offended huff, or mindless repeating of dogma drilled through the head of the person I was discussing with.

yes i am suggesting that unless you are a crypto jew and your opponent is named torquemada, its wrong to be rude.

you have no grievance with the average believer.

I try never to be rude to the "average" anyone.

However, if someone is expressing beliefs that are harmful to others and unwilling to listen to reasonable discussion, yes, I occasionally get rude.

No, not from my point of view, simple consistency of logic.

I can't argue that a God exists or not but I can argue that we can say nothing about what that God wants.

Well, technically, that is your point of view. When discussing religion, no matter which side you are on, it is entirely based on point of view.

The difference between religion and politics or literature or art is that throughout history and up to the present, politics and literature and art haven't generally been relied on to assuage people's fears and doubts about the meaning of life, or about what follows it in death. People, I would say, think of politics and literature and art as being artifacts of humanity- created by us- and therefore open to judgements of personal taste and opinion, suitable for discussion and debate and even ridicule. Religion, however, unlike those other things, claims to offer answers that gives people a sense of purpose and security, so it's much more invested with emotion. Threaten the validity of their religion- no matter how preposterous it may sound to you- and to them you're attacking the meaning of their lives, their god(s), and the security of their promised afterlife. That's what makes religious believers so crazy-fanatical about their faith and prone to respond so much more violently (and in numbers) than someone with whome you disagree over politics or literature or art. And it's a problem that won't be solved until we as a species 'get over' our fear of death and insecurities that tell us we have to be special in the eyes of some supreme being.

I've thought about this and I wonder how much religion not only assuages a fear of death but also a fear of life - I often hear people talk about religion relieving them of 'the burden'- in that they give their life to God and therefore feel so much better for it.

I feel it's because, for many, the burden of life is such a weight that if you stop worrying about consequences and give that aspect up to God, then you're so relieved that, perhaps, you are a little more charitable because you can be less selfish.

That's not to say God is a good solution to this, people should buck up a bit in my own opinion - but I feel people who question life as a burden, who see it as difficult are often most prone to religion because they can quit the questioning with the simple belief that 'God will provide the answer'. Either that or they become serious drug/alcohol addicts.

It's why the phrase 'God moves in mysterious ways' bugs me so often because, if not for the 'Why don't you respect my beliefs', it's the other answer that has no real response.

I should think this one out better before posting but I just don't care enough to do so.

Well, technically, that is your point of view. When discussing religion, no matter which side you are on, it is entirely based on point of view.

Technically what?

I go no further than 'God may exist or not' - I have no point of view beyond that because, as you say, everything else is simply a point of view.

Whether Jesus had brothers, the Devil is a God, animals could fit in the ark, how dinosaurs lived with humans - all that is simply fanciful discussion that anyone can have any point of view on because there is no answer - it's like discussing whether fairies have blue skin or green skin.

I try never to be rude to the "average" anyone.

However, if someone is expressing beliefs that are harmful to others and unwilling to listen to reasonable discussion, yes, I occasionally get rude.

so why the talk about the inquisition and the crusades?

that has nothing to do with the beliefs of people today.

so why the talk about the inquisition and the crusades?

that has nothing to do with the beliefs of people today.

To be fair, the inquisition and the crusades are often brought up in response to people who claim that (usually their particular) religion is the pillar for morality and all morality should be based on it, and if we do that, we will never err(any other ethical system will, of course, be wrong on just about everything).

To be fair, the inquisition and the crusades are often brought up in response to people who claim that (usually their particular) religion is the pillar for morality and all morality should be based on it, and if we do that, we will never err(any other ethical system will, of course, be wrong on just about everything).

to be fair they CAN be used for that purpose and are great examples of the failings of human insitutions

they are most often used to show how christianity (or the catholic church if the argue-er is a protestant) sucks.

so why the talk about the inquisition and the crusades?

that has nothing to do with the beliefs of people today.

No? They have certainly laid the groundwork for the supposed moral superiority of the Christian faith. It seems to me that the basis of both the Inquisition and the Crusades were "our way is right... so do it our way or else!" a belief that today makes it difficult for some women to get a safe abortion, homosexuals to marry or adopt, young people to get accurate information about birth control, certain middle eastern countries to be left alone to work out their own destinies, various illnesses to be cured through stem cell research...

Of course, we could do the same to other religions historical beliefs, but it happens that Christianity is the one with which I am most conversant.

so why the talk about the inquisition and the crusades?

that has nothing to do with the beliefs of people today.

No? They have certainly laid the groundwork for the supposed moral superiority of the Christian faith. It seems to me that the basis of both the Inquisition and the Crusades were "our way is right... so do it our way or else!" a belief that today makes it difficult for some women to get a safe abortion, homosexuals to marry or adopt, young people to get accurate information about birth control, certain middle eastern countries to be left alone to work out their own destinies, various illnesses to be cured through stem cell research...

Of course, we could do the same to other religions historical beliefs, but it happens that Christianity is the one with which I am most conversant.

I wasn't.



It's not.

It isn't questioning someone else's religious beliefs that's rude. It's the double standard that disallows religious people's questioning of YOUR beliefs that is rude.
...because when you question religion, religion gets angry and when religion gets angry, people DIE!

No, not all religions believe or practice that way (i.e. killing people for religious dissent or atheism). I personally don't believe in killing ANYBODY just because they criticize my religion or anything pertaining thereto. Unfortunately, some religions (not mine) ARE that way in practice, giving the rest a bad name.

Simply? Because everyone should mind their own business.

Slightly more elaborate. Because a given individual's personal religious convictions holds no bearing on you, whatsoever, you have no reason to go pester them about why they believe what they believe. It's when they start trying to shove it in your face that you should feel free to question them.

As a side note, I like the religion/sex comparison. Leave other people alone about it, and don't bring it into public spaces uninvited.

Simply? Because everyone should mind their own business.

Slightly more elaborate. Because a given individual's personal religious convictions holds no bearing on you, whatsoever, you have no reason to go pester them about why they believe what they believe. It's when they start trying to shove it in your face that you should feel free to question them.

As a side note, I like the religion/sex comparison. Leave other people alone about it, and don't bring it into public spaces uninvited.

I disagree that people's religious beliefs never have any bearing on me, and I will return to this shortly, however, for the sake of argument, I will accept it for the moment. Returning to my literature example, somebody's interpretation of, say, Animal Farm or "Ozymandias" or any other work of literature has no bearing on me, it doesn't do me any harm at all, yet it's still okay to debate it and show why I interpret it differently.

Now, returning to your assertion that religious beliefs don't have any bearing on me. They do when they slow down science by insisting certain types of life-saving procedures are "murder" or that we must not teach evolution (both are exceedingly common)

Perhaps if discussion of religious beliefs did not go into directly attacking the other person's beliefs such disagreements would not occur.

Discussion and debate is all very well and should be encouraged. However, we should respect (as the OP has problems with) the other person's religious beliefs and maintain a level of tolerance so long as their beliefs and practices do not intrude into other people's rights and the laws of the country this is in.

Respect for his/her religion does not necessarily entail keeping away from discussion about questions and doubts. It just means keeping cool and reasonable about the discussion, even if the other person is not doing so. He/She may not (have) respect for your doubts/questions/stance but you could halt an escalating disagreement by keeping to the problems involved.

Furthermore, directly attacking a person's religion could be offensive to some people and it might be more pragmatic to not do so to those people who are offended by awkward questions. Though the presence of such people may be a detriment to society (especially in the OP's point of view) the fact is there are people like that and it would be practical to keep away from sensitive subjects.

Edit: Sorry in advance to OP if I misread your post...

The world would be a lot better off if there were no religeons.

The world would be a lot better off if there were no religeons.

and also, if people were literate.

Evolutionary explanations aside, I am interested in any arguments for why we should continue the practice of respecting religion any more than we respect, say, political beliefs. Why is it rude to question or critisize them like we can any other idea?
Personally, I don't treat religious beliefs with any more respect than any other belief system. I also don't think it's a sign of "disrespect" to criticize or question. If anything, that's a sign of respect because it shows that you're at least paying attention and are interested.

Because a given individual's personal religious convictions holds no bearing on you, whatsoever...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(deep breath)

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Personally, I don't treat religious beliefs with any more respect than any other belief system. I also don't think it's a sign of "disrespect" to criticize or question. If anything, that's a sign of respect because it shows that you're at least paying attention and are interested.qft

and btw, if anyone holds any belief or ideology that is at least based on something substantial then respect might be an option, while in certain religions the belief is just nonsensical crap that definitely does not deserve any respect for adherence.
e.g. if someone follows one of the abrahamic religion then that's rather a lack of education if not even a flaw of character and does not deserve respect in any way at all.

qft

and btw, if anyone holds any belief or ideology that is at least based on something substantial then respect might be an option, while in certain religions the belief is just nonsensical crap that definitely does not deserve any respect for adherence.
e.g. if someone follows one of the abrahamic religion then that's rather a lack of education if not even a flaw of character and does not deserve respect in any way at all.
What gets me is when some True Believer gets all mad and says, "How would you like it if I started questioning all of YOUR beliefs?!" Like that's some kind of threat.

Please do! I hold my beliefs precisely BECAUSE I have seen them stand up to critique and criticism. I've intentionally sought out forums where my beliefs will be raked over the coals. I've intentionally engaged people who I knew would attack and attempt to dismantle what I believe.

The whole point for me is to believe in something because I have really, truly thought about it, and I have allowed it to be criticized and examined from every possible angle, and it's still a good idea.

I don't have much respect for a person who believes in ideas that are so fragile they can't stand up to verbal critique. That's a person who is either lazy, cowardly, or just tragically unimaginative.

I don't have much respect for a person who believes in ideas that are so fragile they can't stand up to verbal critique. That's a person who is either lazy, cowardly, or just tragically unimaginative.


You just described like 95% of the population.

*snip*
I don't have much respect for a person who believes in ideas that are so fragile they can't stand up to verbal critique. That's a person who is either lazy, cowardly, or just tragically unimaginative.

Or simply a product of brainwashing without any real understanding of WHY they believe the way they do. I run into (and yes, because what they are doing is hurtful to others, regularly humiliate) a group of anti-abortion protestors outside the local Planned Parenthood offiice about twice a week. One waved his bible at me and told me that "Jesus said abortion was evil". After a short guffaw, I said "Seriously? Where? Show me that quote please!"

And, of course, the unfortunate fellow was flummoxed. His pastor had told him that, so it MUST be true, and how could I question the truth of the bible? He said to me in an indignant tone, "That is what I BELIEVE." My reply, "That doesn't make it TRUE."

I fear that I don't actually make a dent in the protestors, but I do entertain and provide moral support for the Planned Parenthood workers who are forced to stand outside all day to escort women who need their services past this nonsense so they won't be molested. I suppose that will have to do.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(deep breath)

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh this should be interesting. Bottle, I am at LEAST 5,000 miles away from you. Now please tell me just how my beliefs have ANY bearing on you whatsoever.

Oh this should be interesting. Bottle, I am at LEAST 5,000 miles away from you. Now please tell me just how my beliefs have ANY bearing on you whatsoever.

I know this one wasn't addressed to me but...

Your point is somewhat spurious. Perhaps YOU, as one individual 5000 miles away, who is not TRYING to have any effect on Bottle, will not. But there are other individuals, both near and far, who are demonstrably using their religious beliefs to attempt to restrict Bottle's freedoms, which makes your earlier statement both laughable and scary.

I know this one wasn't addressed to me but...

Your point is somewhat spurious. Perhaps YOU, as one individual 5000 miles away, who is not TRYING to have any effect on Bottle, will not. But there are other individuals, both near and far, who are demonstrably using their religious beliefs to attempt to restrict Bottle's freedoms, which makes your earlier statement both laughable and scary.
Let me see here, currently some 80+ percent of the population has SOME sort of religious convictions... so what, are people taking numbers to line up to oppress you or something? I mean, there's so many of us out there, those who believe in something after all. I must therefore assume from your tone of voice that you feel that most of us are lining up to get you into a religion of some kind, right?

The original statement was a "given person" well, I am a given person. So is Smunkee, so is LG, or JuNii for posters here whom I know also have deeply held faith who, guess what, not only DON'T try to restrict your freedoms but fight for them (Shock and horrors!).

Yeah, there are some assholes out there who do indeed try to force their religions down other peoples throats, just as there are those who fight them tooth and nail because we know it to be wrong and NOT what our faith is for.

But there's also folks on the other side who seem to be damn ready to condemn the whole lot of us and paint us all with the same brush, which is very ironic given how they scream about how it irks them when said assholes do the same to them.

I know this one wasn't addressed to me but...

Your point is somewhat spurious. Perhaps YOU, as one individual 5000 miles away, who is not TRYING to have any effect on Bottle, will not. But there are other individuals, both near and far, who are demonstrably using their religious beliefs to attempt to restrict Bottle's freedoms, which makes your earlier statement both laughable and scary.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I would have said.

Thanks to individuals with their individual religious convictions, my aunts cannot get married. Thanks to individuals with their individual religious convictions, I cannot exercise my right to bodily autonomy to the same extent that male persons are permitted to do in my country. Thanks to individuals with individual religious convictions, I have precisely zero chance of ever being elected to high political office, because I have the bad taste to lack superstition. Individuals with their individual religious convictions are the base on which the Bush presidency, and all its associated corruption, so firmly rests. Individual religious convictions are what elected the robber-barons that are peeing on our Constitution.

And that's the short list.

Individual religious convictions do not exist in a vacuum. Insisting that one person's individual religiosity can't possibly impact me is like saying that one person's racism can't possibly impact me. Fuck that noise. The individual religiosity of the individual citizens of my country has fucked with my life in countless ways, big and small.

Let me see here, currently some 80+ percent of the population has SOME sort of religious convictions... so what, are people taking numbers to line up to oppress you or something? I mean, there's so many of us out there, those who believe in something after all.

Exactly. And that impacts me.

What do you think you're arguing against?

My point was that it's ludicrous to pretend that the religious beliefs of others can't possibly impact me. You appear to be arguing on my side.


The original statement was a "given person" well, I am a given person. So is Smunkee, so is LG, or JuNii for posters here whom I know also have deeply held faith who, guess what, not only DON'T try to restrict your freedoms but fight for them (Shock and horrors!).

And guess what? Your actions, as "given people" impact me. My freedoms ARE IMPACTED by what you choose to do, in however small a way. If you choose to vote your convictions, that impacts my world.


Yeah, there are some assholes out there who do indeed try to force their religions down other peoples throats, just as there are those who fight them tooth and nail because we know it to be wrong and NOT what our faith is for.

But there's also folks on the other side who seem to be damn ready to condemn the whole lot of us and paint us all with the same brush, which is very ironic given how they scream about how it irks them when said assholes do the same to them.
I never said that, did I? I simply laughed at the suggestion that "a given individual's personal religious convictions holds no bearing on you, whatsoever".

I never said that their religious convictions MUST ALWAYS NEGATIVELY IMPACT ME. I laughed at the absolute assertion that somebody else's religious convictions "HOLD NO BEARING ON [ME] WHATSOEVER".

I never said that, did I? I simply laughed at the suggestion that "a given individual's personal religious convictions holds no bearing on you, whatsoever".
Then prove it. How does my faith impact you?

Then prove it. How does my faith impact you?
Already answered. Please reread preceding posts.

In another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534544), I asked why religion gets so much respect. In that thread, I asked a specific person about why he respected religious faith, but now I'd like to question why we, as a society(if not as much on NSG, but then, NSG is not representative of society as a whole), give religion so much respect compared to other, non-religious ideas. To quote, as I did in the previous thread, Douglas Adams:

Many of us, even the non-religious, are taught nearly from birth that it is impolite or improper in some way to question religious ideas, and that we must respect them.

The idea is so widespread and so often repeated that most of us unconditionally accept it, and even allow religion to be a trump card. For example, if you want to register as a conscientious objector, by far the easiest route is through a religious reason for disagreeing with war. Somebody who has derived a pacifist belief from a secular philosophy, no matter how well thought out, doesn't get the same protection as somebody who happens to be (or is related to) a Quaker.

Even student religious organizations are often exempt from non-discrimination policies. At my university, the Christian group argued that they should be allowed to deny access to, and even harass, homosexuals because of their religious faith, when no other campus-sponsored organization is allowed to violate the non-discrimination policy.

Now, from the perspective of mematic evolution(that is, the evolution of memes), as I understand it (and I am no expert, so I ask you to forgive and correct me if I am mistaken), it makes sense because it aids in the survival of religion: if people are not supposed to question an idea or debate it or say anything against it, then it is far more likely to survive.

Evolutionary explanations aside, I am interested in any arguments for why we should continue the practice of respecting religion any more than we respect, say, political beliefs. Why is it rude to question or critisize them like we can any other idea?

Because I like being nice to people.

Because I like being nice to people.
Curious:

You view it as "not nice" to question?

Curious:

You view it as "not nice" to question?

It's not nice to attack people's religious beliefs. Because then, if they're nice, they'll get into a heated argument, and if they're angry, they'll kick your ass behind the church. Besides, I can get along with religious people.

It's not nice to attack people's religious beliefs.

I didn't ask if it was nice to attack anybody. I asked if you thought it was "not nice" to question.

Any grown adult will be able to understand the difference between posing questions and attacking somebody. I believe it's quite possible to be polite while also asking questions about a person's beliefs. I'm wondering if this is an attitude others do not share.

It's not nice to attack people's religious beliefs.According to whom? The religious people?

I didn't ask if it was nice to attack anybody. I asked if you thought it was "not nice" to question.

Any grown adult will be able to understand the difference between posing questions and attacking somebody. I believe it's quite possible to be polite while also asking questions about a person's beliefs. I'm wondering if this is an attitude others do not share.

It is. Any and all beliefs should be questioned. I don't see why religious beliefs should be treated with any more or less respect than the biochemically-charged delusions of a schizophrenic unless they can provide some evidence for their assertions. I don't think it's right to criticize people for HAVING those beliefs, but I do think the beliefs themselves are fair game.

I've never thought or been taught that is impolite to question religious beliefs. To tell you the truth, I don't think anyone can truly hold religious beliefs without a great deal of questioning. The religious person (or the non-religious person) should be constantly questioning their own convictions, so why should it hurt if someone else questions them as well?

It is impolite to attack someone for their religious beliefs, just as it is impolite to do so for their political beliefs, their other philosophical beliefs, etc. You can certainly criticize and question any of those beliefs to your heart's content, but when it becomes an attack, rather than a discussion, it is impolite.


I fear that I don't actually make a dent in the protestors, but I do entertain and provide moral support for the Planned Parenthood workers who are forced to stand outside all day to escort women who need their services past this nonsense so they won't be molested. I suppose that will have to do.

I had a whole plan for the Pride Festival protesters, but they were gone by the time I got there. =( I was planning something a bit less obvious, though. Apparently, they didn't look very comfortable there, so my plan was to run up to them and exclaim, "Wow! Protesters! This is awesome! Can I have my picture taken with you?!?!?!" Then maybe I would have introduced them to my "fruits", since I'm a fruit fly and all. It would have been great fun. But protesters apparently don't stay out until dark.

I had a whole plan for the Pride Festival protesters, but they were gone by the time I got there. =( I was planning something a bit less obvious, though. Apparently, they didn't look very comfortable there, so my plan was to run up to them and exclaim, "Wow! Protesters! This is awesome! Can I have my picture taken with you?!?!?!" Then maybe I would have introduced them to my "fruits", since I'm a fruit fly and all. It would have been great fun. But protesters apparently don't stay out until dark.

I would try something like that, but the only protesters at the abortion clinic near my place (about two blocks away from where I live) are 4-5 geriatrics who do nothing more than hold signs. They're also usually gone by 8 or 9. I suppose that's when the local buffet place opens.

I didn't ask if it was nice to attack anybody. I asked if you thought it was "not nice" to question.

Any grown adult will be able to understand the difference between posing questions and attacking somebody. I believe it's quite possible to be polite while also asking questions about a person's beliefs. I'm wondering if this is an attitude others do not share.

Hmph. I guess so, I mean, I could probably do it, without attacking.

It would have been great fun. But protesters apparently don't stay out until dark.

According to fundamentalist belief, Dark is when the demons of lust, fun and 'TeH GaY Diseeze' may strike at will.

Because I like being nice to people.

But that's my whole point. If somebody says, "I think we should raise the taxes on gasoline" and you ask "On what do you base that? I think we should lower the taxes on gasoline, and here is why I think that," would that not be "nice?"

If somebody says "There should be a law for Net Neutrality," they are asked to defend that position, and there invariably will be somebody who challenges it and says "I disagree, here's why." Nobody thinks that that's not nice.

If somebody insists, "I think that we should have universal healthcare," they will have to defend that position, too. It's not impolite to bring up any challenges or questions about why the think that.

If you, to give the literature analogy I used, say "I believe that the fire in Frankenstein is a symbol for knowledge," you will be asked "Why?" I do not think I need to go further, as I am sure you get my point by now.

On the other hand, if somebody says "I believe that I must not allow homosexuals into my club or else God will be angry," you must, if you are polite, say "I respect your belief, which is equally valid as any other religious belief," and you certainly must not debate or question it. Why? Well, it's rude. Why is it rude? It just is!

But that's my whole point. If somebody says, "I think we should raise the taxes on gasoline" and you ask "On what do you base that? I think we should lower the taxes on gasoline, and here is why I think that," would that not be "nice?"

If somebody says "There should be a law for Net Neutrality," they are asked to defend that position, and there invariably will be somebody who challenges it and says "I disagree, here's why." Nobody thinks that that's not nice.

If somebody insists, "I think that we should have universal healthcare," they will have to defend that position, too. It's not impolite to bring up any challenges or questions about why the think that.

If you, to give the literature analogy I used, say "I believe that the fire in Frankenstein is a symbol for knowledge," you will be asked "Why?" I do not think I need to go further, as I am sure you get my point by now.

On the other hand, if somebody says "I believe that I must not allow homosexuals into my club or else God will be angry," you must, if you are polite, say "I respect your belief, which is equally valid as any other religious belief," and you certainly must not debate or question it. Why? Well, it's rude. Why is it rude? It just is!

What the fuck do you think I am? A reptile? I would definitely question intolerance, and other such hateful things spread by idiots who justify it with belief. But I'm not into questioning the belief itself. I leave that to Dan Brown.

I'd challenge the idea that criticizing religion is as much an anathema to society as the OP seems to indicate, but I would agree that in general, Religion tends to be treaded differently than other philosophies/points of view.

And it should. To compare a person's religious views to a discussion on whether or not taxes should be raised is comparing apples and oranges. Religion is DEEPLY held to those to are committed to it, and it runs easily as deep as family.

Insult a person's religion and you may as well be insulting their mother. Is that so difficult to see?

At the same time, we live in a society of free speech, as it should be. The balance is somewhere in the middle. Sure, you have a right to criticize someone's beliefs in any way you want to, but by a sort of unspoken rule of thumb we avoid being truly abusive if our intent isn't to cause harm.

And this is where things get dicey. I've seen people speak of religion in the most shockingly derisive language the English tongue can generate, and then play the victim when someone calls them out on it. "I'm just exercising my free speech!" They cry. Well, they're also being an asshole.

In terms of asking questions... Never a bad thing. Ask away by all means, but keep this in mind: VERY often, an attack is disguised as a question. Sometimes the only difference is in the motive of the person asking. Are they asking for knowledge, or are they asking in an attempt to expose what they believe is an inconsistency in the person's belief?

Hopefully we're all on the same page as this, but I'm really not that optimistic.

There's a difference between "questioning" and "asking questions." The former is designed to deteriorate someone else's belief, the latter is seeking information.

I used to be on discussion threads revolving around religion. Specifically, Protestant Christianity vs. LDS/Mormon Christianity. When people were talking to each other, asking questions out of curiosity and a desire to build bridges of understanding, the talk flowed well and it was really great.

Things got ugly when the person asking already knew what answer they expected, and argued when they didn't get it. I don't know whether they were just in it to try and show off what they thought they knew, or whether they believed they were somehow exposing incisistencies that w ould shatter someone's faith and gain a convert to their side, but they always defended themselves with some permutation of the words "I was just asking. Are you afraid to answer?"

An attack disguised as a question is still an attack. Most people are intelligent enough to see the difference.

how about ...

because when you treat another person's deepest beliefs with a modicum of respect they are much less likely to punch you in the nose?

QFT and...

When you treat another person's deepest beliefs with a modicum of respect, they tend to reciprocate that respect for your beliefs. Or lack thereof. ;)

What I see all too often in these threads though is a complete lack of respect and attacking of beliefs, all under the pretense of "questioning". So tiresome to see such vitriol over and over... I'm not changing my mind, I'm not trying to change yours, get over it.

Let me see here, currently some 80+ percent of the population has SOME sort of religious convictions... so what, are people taking numbers to line up to oppress you or something? I mean, there's so many of us out there, those who believe in something after all. I must therefore assume from your tone of voice that you feel that most of us are lining up to get you into a religion of some kind, right?

The original statement was a "given person" well, I am a given person. So is Smunkee, so is LG, or JuNii for posters here whom I know also have deeply held faith who, guess what, not only DON'T try to restrict your freedoms but fight for them (Shock and horrors!).

I am not saying that EVERY person does it, but if you want an example of a single given person who uses his religious beliefs in a way that causes a great deal of harm, how about G.W. Bush?

Yeah, there are some assholes out there who do indeed try to force their religions down other peoples throats, just as there are those who fight them tooth and nail because we know it to be wrong and NOT what our faith is for.

But there's also folks on the other side who seem to be damn ready to condemn the whole lot of us and paint us all with the same brush, which is very ironic given how they scream about how it irks them when said assholes do the same to them.

Of course, folks on either side of any argument are going to scream when they get tarred with a single brush. So you get upset when we do it, we get upset when you do it...



I do know a LOT of religious people who are the good sort, the ones who fight for the rights of others, who object when laws are based on narrow religious values, who stand up for people who are knocked down by bigots... my father (who was a minister in a Protestant church) was one of those good folks. And he and I discussed religion at length, and on too many occasions to mention. And, quite often, I disagreed with him about his beliefs, as he disagreed about mine. No mention was EVER made that my disagreement was at all inappropriate, or that I should not express those views. And I think he learned things from me, as I KNOW I did from him.

Other people, however, upon finding out that we had such discussions, were scandalized and felt it necessary to tell me that I was out of line. So I understand what the OP means.

Maybe its because Religion has dominated the human race since the dawn of time, and still remains a huge influence. At any rate, I have atheists that question my faith all the time. As long as the Golden Rule is followed then its fine. Thats how it should be with all things, taxes, gay marriage, etc.

Other people, however, upon finding out that we had such discussions, were scandalized and felt it necessary to tell me that I was out of line. So I understand what the OP means.

Exactly. You aren't "supposed" to have religious discussion. Which really makes me sad; it was religious debate that convinced me that there is no God.

Exactly. You aren't "supposed" to have religious discussion. Which really makes me sad; it was religious debate that convinced me that there is no God.

perhaps reading through this thread you can now see why religious people avoid discussing their beliefs.

Exactly. You aren't "supposed" to have religious discussion. Which really makes me sad; it was religious debate that convinced me that there is no God.Well, i don't mean to sound disrespectful, but there's no other entity on earth (or likely other worlds) that really has the responsibility to prove or disprove "god"'s existence to you other than yourself and that god.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
When it comes to arguments of faith, it's the perpetuation of possibility AND NOT PROBABILITY that qualifies itself as the cornerstone.
Basically, they've just disqualified themselves from the worth of cognizant appreciation. Been there myself.

In another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534544), I asked why religion gets so much respect. In that thread, I asked a specific person about why he respected religious faith, but now I'd like to question why we, as a society(if not as much on NSG, but then, NSG is not representative of society as a whole), give religion so much respect compared to other, non-religious ideas. To quote, as I did in the previous thread, Douglas Adams:

Many of us, even the non-religious, are taught nearly from birth that it is impolite or improper in some way to question religious ideas, and that we must respect them.

The idea is so widespread and so often repeated that most of us unconditionally accept it, and even allow religion to be a trump card. For example, if you want to register as a conscientious objector, by far the easiest route is through a religious reason for disagreeing with war. Somebody who has derived a pacifist belief from a secular philosophy, no matter how well thought out, doesn't get the same protection as somebody who happens to be (or is related to) a Quaker.

Even student religious organizations are often exempt from non-discrimination policies. At my university, the Christian group argued that they should be allowed to deny access to, and even harass, homosexuals because of their religious faith, when no other campus-sponsored organization is allowed to violate the non-discrimination policy.

Now, from the perspective of mematic evolution(that is, the evolution of memes), as I understand it (and I am no expert, so I ask you to forgive and correct me if I am mistaken), it makes sense because it aids in the survival of religion: if people are not supposed to question an idea or debate it or say anything against it, then it is far more likely to survive.

Evolutionary explanations aside, I am interested in any arguments for why we should continue the practice of respecting religion any more than we respect, say, political beliefs. Why is it rude to question or critisize them like we can any other idea?

mmmmm I thin you should reference your work correctly or have it disqualified for plagiarism

sorry - I've just finished marking 100 assignments

Anyway - so you can type a quote from "the god delusion" - what do you want a medal?

In another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534544), I asked why religion gets so much respect. In that thread, I asked a specific person about why he respected religious faith, but now I'd like to question why we, as a society(if not as much on NSG, but then, NSG is not representative of society as a whole), give religion so much respect compared to other, non-religious ideas.
Evolutionary explanations aside, I am interested in any arguments for why we should continue the practice of respecting religion any more than we respect, say, political beliefs. Why is it rude to question or critisize them like we can any other idea?It really isn't a contrast between religions and non-religious ideas. Many non-religious ideas are just as 'sacred'. Denying the holocaust is at least as offensive to a lot of people as attacking their faith. It's just a matter of how much value they attach to an idea, by it religious or otherwise.
People that value something greatly will be offended when it's attacked. That's all there is to it. And when something is valued by a lot of people, it is prudent to treat it with respect, because offending a lot of people for no particular reason causes unnecessary grief, and may come back to bite you in the ass.

I was tempted to give a small list of non-religiously offensive statements; but frankly I offended myself just writing them down, so just use your imagination.

When you treat another person's deepest beliefs with a modicum of respect, they tend to reciprocate that respect for your beliefs.
[...]
I'm not changing my mind, I'm not trying to change yours, get over it.I agree, somewhat. See on one hand, some of the people I care most about in this world, happens to be fairly religious.

But on the other, I don't understand why religions are treated differently than, for example, the Flat Earth society or Leprechauns. It seems to be taboo to question the legitimacy of some superstitions, but not others. And I just don't see the difference, no matter how much I'd like to.

The bit about changing people's minds, I wholly agree with though. Thought policing is a loathsome idea.

perhaps reading through this thread you can now see why religious people avoid discussing their beliefs.they avoid discussing their beliefs because they are too afraid that others might find out that their opinions are in fact utterly insubstantial. most folks are not even capable of pointing out the sources of their beliefs, and they only hang on to their beliefs out of convenience and mental laziness.

In another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534544), I asked why religion gets so much respect. In that thread, I asked a specific person about why he respected religious faith, but now I'd like to question why we, as a society(if not as much on NSG, but then, NSG is not representative of society as a whole), give religion so much respect compared to other, non-religious ideas. To quote, as I did in the previous thread, Douglas Adams:

Many of us, even the non-religious, are taught nearly from birth that it is impolite or improper in some way to question religious ideas, and that we must respect them.

The idea is so widespread and so often repeated that most of us unconditionally accept it, and even allow religion to be a trump card. For example, if you want to register as a conscientious objector, by far the easiest route is through a religious reason for disagreeing with war. Somebody who has derived a pacifist belief from a secular philosophy, no matter how well thought out, doesn't get the same protection as somebody who happens to be (or is related to) a Quaker.

Even student religious organizations are often exempt from non-discrimination policies. At my university, the Christian group argued that they should be allowed to deny access to, and even harass, homosexuals because of their religious faith, when no other campus-sponsored organization is allowed to violate the non-discrimination policy.

Now, from the perspective of mematic evolution(that is, the evolution of memes), as I understand it (and I am no expert, so I ask you to forgive and correct me if I am mistaken), it makes sense because it aids in the survival of religion: if people are not supposed to question an idea or debate it or say anything against it, then it is far more likely to survive.

Evolutionary explanations aside, I am interested in any arguments for why we should continue the practice of respecting religion any more than we respect, say, political beliefs. Why is it rude to question or critisize them like we can any other idea?


I call bull shit on this one.

perhaps several hundred years ago this was the case, but today we can see that loooooooots of people question religion. If we are at a state where the religious and non religious can discuss the merits or not of their faith then your sentiments above are meaningless.

Ohh and I'm back again, who missed me? Who even noticed I was gone!

In terms of what we see in this thread, I don't think it's anything so much to do with whether questioning religious beliefs is acceptable- it should be- rather than simply basic politeness.

"Why are you religious?"- acceptable, or should be.
"Why are you religious? Religion is a crutch for stupid people." - no.

In terms of what we see in this thread, I don't think it's anything so much to do with whether questioning religious beliefs is acceptable- it should be- rather than simply basic politeness.

"Why are you religious?"- acceptable, or should be.
"Why are you religious? Religion is a crutch for stupid people." - no.

Indeed!

"Why are you religious? Religion is a crutch for stupid people."That's kind of funny. Normally when you ask someone "Why are you religious?" it will return you answers that clearly demonstrate that religion is a crutch for stupid people, so there is no need to say it yourself.

"Why are you religious?"- acceptable, or should be.
"Why are you religious? Religion is a crutch for stupid people." - no.

Hmmm...

"Why are you racist?"- acceptable, or should be.
"Why are you racist? Racism is ignorant and unreasonable." - no.

Hmmm...

"Why are you racist?"- acceptable, or should be.
"Why are you racist? Racism is ignorant and unreasonable." - no.ftw :D

ftw :D
I should be clear, though, that I don't much care for random insults. The whole "religion is the opiate of the yada yada" shtick is tired and lame, and I like boring people even less if they are arguing 'my' side of something.

For me, the harshness of criticism isn't really the sticking point. To be honest, if somebody just said, "Racism is stupid!" I'd be annoyed by their comments because they're not really offering up anything of interest. If you cannot improve on silence, kindly do not disturb it.

But if somebody says, "You're a jackass who's only pimping the out-dated and thoroughly debunked idea that the melanin content of one's skin is an indicator of innate intelligence because you're painfully aware of your personal short comings and you require validation by association, you prick," then I don't much have a problem with them. Yeah, they used naughty words. So? They're right.

I believe superstition is a pile of bunk that encourages adult humans to intentionally revert to infantile stages of intellectual and moral development. If a person is comfortable telling me that I'm going to burn in a torture dimension for the rest of eternity because I'm not as infantile as they are, then I'm comfortable "questioning" their beliefs in as blunt a manner as my mood dictates.

And no, telling me I'm hell-bound in a polite and loving manner does not fucking count. Telling me that you're oh so sorry I'll be burning in hell does not equate to politeness. Informing me that you'll "pray for me" is absolutely no different than a 5 year old informing me that he's gonna tattle to his Daddy on me, so don't be surprised when I respond to you in exactly the manner you have put out there.

And if you're a polite, rational, interesting person who happens to also be religious, then you know damn well this doesn't apply to you, so don't start. :D

Insult a person's religion and you may as well be insulting their mother. Is that so difficult to see?

Actualy that is very hard for me to see. How does one insult a religion anyway?

Just for the record I am religious, the particular brand of religion that I enjoy is Sikhi, I am a Sikh. Even if you insult the Sikh faith(How I can't even begin to comprehend) you have not insulted me, let alone my mum. Insult God(again how does one do this?) or the Sikh Guru's if you wish, it still does not effect me, all it tells me is that you do not think like me. Is that insulting?

Actualy that is very hard for me to see. How does one insult a religion anyway?
I'd say it's more like, how do you possibly AVOID insulting a religion?

No matter what I say about Christianity, I'm betting there will be at least one Christian somewhere in the world who will be deeply offended by my complete mischaracterization of their beliefs. Religion is as individual as the people who subscribe to it, and there's a wise old saying about how you can't please all of the people all of the time. No matter what I say about religion, there's bound to be some person who thinks I've insulted it.

Fortunately, "religion" doesn't have feelings. "Religion" can't possibly feel insulted, which is what (I think) you were getting at. Religion exists in the minds of those who choose to believe in it, and it is in those minds that other feelings may also happen to exist.

If a person who is religious feels insulted by what I have to say on the subject of religion, they should acknowledge the personal nature of their feelings. THEY feel insulted, but there are other religious people who probably don't.

I'd say it's more like, how do you possibly AVOID insulting a religion?

No matter what I say about Christianity, I'm betting there will be at least one Christian somewhere in the world who will be deeply offended by my complete mischaracterization of their beliefs. Religion is as individual as the people who subscribe to it, and there's a wise old saying about how you can't please all of the people all of the time. No matter what I say about religion, there's bound to be some person who thinks I've insulted it.

Fortunately, "religion" doesn't have feelings. "Religion" can't possibly feel insulted, which is what (I think) you were getting at. Religion exists in the minds of those who choose to believe in it, and it is in those minds that other feelings may also happen to exist.

If a person who is religious feels insulted by what I have to say on the subject of religion, they should acknowledge the personal nature of their feelings. THEY feel insulted, but there are other religious people who probably don't.


Thats about the gist of it. Am I a pedant? Well sometimes, if I can get some fun outa it.:D

mmmmm I thin you should reference your work correctly or have it disqualified for plagiarism

sorry - I've just finished marking 100 assignments

Anyway - so you can type a quote from "the god delusion" - what do you want a medal?

Actually, I quoted Douglas Noel Adams, and even said as much. Yes, I have read The God Delusion, but don't recall him using that particular quote, though I have not read it in in a few months, so I may be mistaken. I found this particular quote in The Salmon of Doubt, actually. I also recall that it mentions the mematic evolution at some point, but I only mentioned that to get it out of the way, because that's really not what I'm asking about.

So don't accuse me of something like that unless you actually know what you're talking about, please.

Actually, I quoted Douglas Noel Adams, and even said as much. Yes, I have read The God Delusion, but don't recall him using that particular quote, though I have not read it in in a few months, so I may be mistaken. I found this particular quote in The Salmon of Doubt, actually. I also recall that it mentions the mematic evolution at some point, but I only mentioned that to get it out of the way, because that's really not what I'm asking about.

So don't accuse me of something like that unless you actually know what you're talking about, please.
In a roundabout way, Adams apologized for his behaviour towards myself and my friend Punjab The Sane in that particular book - the part where Townshend is telling him to stop being such a prick and alter his perspective somewhat of his fans.

In another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534544), I asked why religion gets so much respect. In that thread, I asked a specific person about why he respected religious faith, but now I'd like to question why we, as a society(if not as much on NSG, but then, NSG is not representative of society as a whole), give religion so much respect compared to other, non-religious ideas. To quote, as I did in the previous thread, Douglas Adams:

Many of us, even the non-religious, are taught nearly from birth that it is impolite or improper in some way to question religious ideas, and that we must respect them.

The idea is so widespread and so often repeated that most of us unconditionally accept it, and even allow religion to be a trump card. For example, if you want to register as a conscientious objector, by far the easiest route is through a religious reason for disagreeing with war. Somebody who has derived a pacifist belief from a secular philosophy, no matter how well thought out, doesn't get the same protection as somebody who happens to be (or is related to) a Quaker.

Even student religious organizations are often exempt from non-discrimination policies. At my university, the Christian group argued that they should be allowed to deny access to, and even harass, homosexuals because of their religious faith, when no other campus-sponsored organization is allowed to violate the non-discrimination policy.

Now, from the perspective of mematic evolution(that is, the evolution of memes), as I understand it (and I am no expert, so I ask you to forgive and correct me if I am mistaken), it makes sense because it aids in the survival of religion: if people are not supposed to question an idea or debate it or say anything against it, then it is far more likely to survive.

Evolutionary explanations aside, I am interested in any arguments for why we should continue the practice of respecting religion any more than we respect, say, political beliefs. Why is it rude to question or critisize them like we can any other idea?

Personally I think it would be wonderful if people actually started respecting religion and spiritual beliefs as opposed to only respecting their own and closely allied religions. As it stands now, the concept of respect for religion is little more than lip service and is enacted in a way that is pretty much equal to "respect for the religion(s) which is(are) most closely descriptive of the ruling political class." For example, if religion were actually respected, the Christian group at your school would not be claiming they should be allowed to harrass homosexuals - as thier are some religions wherein homosexuality is perfectly acceptable. Instead those Christians would simply abide by the tenants of their faith (ie, not engage in homosexual relations) while respecting the rights of people of faiths where there is no prohibition on homosexuality to live according to their own beliefs.

Personally I think it would be wonderful if people actually started respecting religion and spiritual beliefs as opposed to only respecting their own and closely allied religions.

Why?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be snarky with this question. Why should religion and spiritual beliefs be respected?


As it stands now, the concept of respect for religion is little more than lip service and is enacted in a way that is pretty much equal to "respect for the religion(s) which is(are) most closely descriptive of the ruling political class." For example, if religion were actually respected, the Christian group at your school would not be claiming they should be allowed to harrass homosexuals - as thier are some religions wherein homosexuality is perfectly acceptable.

So you're saying that religious people can't be expected to simply respect other human beings, but maybe we could get them to respect other abstract religious belief systems enough to stop actively oppressing others?


Instead those Christians would simply abide by the tenants of their faith (ie, not engage in homosexual relations) while respecting the rights of people of faiths where there is no prohibition on homosexuality to live according to their own beliefs.
Hmm. Christianity also contains a few passages about how you're not supposed to steal things. Does this mean that a "good Christian" would simply refrain from stealing, but wouldn't worry about it if somebody else's religion directed them to steal?

Why should religion and spiritual beliefs be respected? What in it is respectworthy?

Why should religion and spiritual beliefs be respected? What in it is respectworthy?

Like most things I guess you don't have to respect an idea you see no merit in, but respecting a persons right to his ideas, well perhaps that is the way forward huh.

Like most things I guess you don't have to respect an idea you see no merit in, but respecting a persons right to his ideas, well perhaps that is the way forward huh.
Not really.

I respect another person's right to have whatever the fuck ideas they want. However, if they choose to act on their beliefs in particular ways, I will not be willing to just stand aside and nod and say, "Yeah, that's your personal choice!"

That's pretty much the problem with every kind of ideological clashes. The anti-gay movement, for instance, is totally cool with people staying in the closet and repressing their feelings. They're pretty well convinced that all sexual feelings are sin anyway, so no big deal. But if you actually ACT on those feelings...well, now Baby Jeebus is crying, you fag!

Not really.

I respect another person's right to have whatever the fuck ideas they want. However, if they choose to act on their beliefs in particular ways, I will not be willing to just stand aside and nod and say, "Yeah, that's your personal choice!"

That's pretty much the problem with every kind of ideological clashes. The anti-gay movement, for instance, is totally cool with people staying in the closet and repressing their feelings. They're pretty well convinced that all sexual feelings are sin anyway, so no big deal. But if you actually ACT on those feelings...well, now Baby Jeebus is crying, you fag!

Heh you just said exactly the same as me, but added extra stuff!

And if you're a polite, rational, interesting person who happens to also be religious, then you know damn well this doesn't apply to you, so don't start. :D

And I was getting all fired up for a response.

Curses.

Heh you just said exactly the same as me, but added extra stuff!
No, you suggested that "the way forward" lies with respecting a person's right to have their ideas even if you don't respect the ideas. My point was that it doesn't actually solve things to do that, because how people ACT on their ideas will directly impact others.

There is a big problem with respecting people's ideas and beliefs.

I believe that everyone should be treated with respect. Except those that hurt others. And those that are opposed to my beliefs. And those that are just plain nuts.

The only thing is, I decide what goes into which category. What if I'm nuts?

There is a big problem with respecting people's ideas and beliefs.

I believe that everyone should be treated with respect. Except those that hurt others. And those that are opposed to my beliefs. And those that are just plain nuts.

The only thing is, I decide what goes into which category. What if I'm nuts?
EXACTLY.

Respecting "beliefs" is easy enough. But respecting other PEOPLE is a bitch, particularly when they're acting like assholes or are actively hurting somebody else.

I respect somebody else's right to hate fags. They have the right to feel whatever they feel. But if they're going to act on their beliefs by standing outside the children's wing of our medical center and loudly remarking on how filthy and sinful a pair of gay parents are (yes, this happened), then I'm going to go over and tell them to shut the fuck up. A kid with cancer doesn't need to listen to some asshole insulting her dads.

And that's just a tiny example of me refusing to "respect somebody's beliefs" because I wasn't prepared to watch them act like an asshole.

The issue is though that politics do indeed have a profound effect upon the whole of the population, so debate is the right thing to do. And yes, currently, sadly, religion is intertwined with politics, but the debate there is more along the lines of if religion should be allowed to be so entwined (The whole my beliefs shouldn't be allowed to affect you without your say-so).


I'm sorry, but unless you are the most rabid of fan, people don't tend to base their lives, moral code, and philosophy upon a short story (And if you haul out the "Well religion IS just a short story" I WILL slap you silly with the trout. ;) ).

It isn't JUST a story.








It's a way of life.

No, you suggested that "the way forward" lies with respecting a person's right to have their ideas even if you don't respect the ideas. My point was that it doesn't actually solve things to do that, because how people ACT on their ideas will directly impact others.

Heh well to be pedantic I suggested that perhaps the way forward would be to respect people's rights to their own ideas. Which you agreed with.

I left it there and made no mention of anything else. All rest, that came from you.

So I say, Meh! You said the same as me but added extra bits!:D

Heh well to be pedantic I suggested that perhaps the way forward would be to respect people's rights to their own ideas. Which you agreed with.

I left it there and made no mention of anything else. All rest, that came from you.

So I say, Meh! You said the same as me but added extra bits!:D

Unfortunately, without Bottle's qualifiers, it SOUNDS like what you mean is to condone bad behavior by respecting people's rights to their own ideas. So I think the "extra bits" are the important parts.

Unfortunately, without Bottle's qualifiers, it SOUNDS like what you mean is to condone bad behavior by respecting people's rights to their own ideas. So I think the "extra bits" are the important parts.

Ahh well yes, they are important for the fully rounded discusion.

Really though my original,'Heh you just said what I said' post was because that is what she done.

She said bascialy no you are wrong, and then went on to repeat what I had said.

This I found funny hence my post.

Heh man ever get that missunderstood feeling.

And that's just a tiny example of me refusing to "respect somebody's beliefs" because I wasn't prepared to watch them act like an asshole.Why do beliefs necessarily warrent respect? I'll tolerate insane crap, but I won't respect it and I won't remain quiet in the face of it. I will not, however, resort to violence unless I'm forced to do so.

As a mate of mine is fond of saying: "I'll tolerate anyone who tolerates everyone".

Why do beliefs necessarily warrent respect? I'll tolerate insane crap, but I won't respect it and I won't remain quiet in the face of it. I will not, however, resort to violence unless I'm forced to do so.

As a mate of mine is fond of saying: "I'll tolerate anyone who tolerates everyone".

Thanks. That's what I've been trying to say.

Why do beliefs necessarily warrent respect? I'll tolerate insane crap, but I won't respect it and I won't remain quiet in the face of it. I will not, however, resort to violence unless I'm forced to do so.

Oh, I'm with you on this.

I respect people's right to have whatever feelings or beliefs they want. That's their business.

But I don't necessarily respect the beliefs they choose to hold.

If you want to love broccoli and believe it is a wonderful food, I will respect your right to hold that completely disgusting and obviously wrong opinion.

Oh, I'm with you on this.

I respect people's right to have whatever feelings or beliefs they want. That's their business.

But I don't necessarily respect the beliefs they choose to hold.

If you want to love broccoli and believe it is a wonderful food, I will respect your right to hold that completely disgusting and obviously wrong opinion.

You say this, but you're probably never tried Broccoli and Green Peas prepared by an indian cook. It's quite good, I assure you.

Like most things I guess you don't have to respect an idea you see no merit in, but respecting a persons right to his ideas, ...only if that person keeps those ideas to him/herself.

You say this, but you're probably never tried Broccoli and Green Peas prepared by an indian cook. It's quite good, I assure you.

I gotta agree.

I'm one of those people who 'has an imaginary sky-friend', but I don't think that my religiousness is respected by anyone. Nor do I believe that my spirituality affects anyone. But I would be foolish to think that this is the case for all who profess belief in a deity.

I agree with Bottle that the religious beliefs of individuals can impact the lives of others. Ask the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., or the Baptist minister Tommy Douglas, or such Catholic personalities as Mother Theresa or Archbishop Romero. Or Anglicans such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Famous US civil rights activists such as Paul Robeson also held deeply religious convictions.

These are all examples of people who positively impacted the lives of others with their religious beliefs. A cursory reading of history or the newspaper can provide you with many examples of people impacting the world negatively due to their religious views.

Then there are those such as I, whose religious beliefs have almost no impact at all on society. Most of my actions that impact society stem from my atheist/activist background, and not my 'religion'.

Consequently, we see that the impact of religion on society operates along several lines, some of which are: the amount of impact, and the nature of that impact. Each example of an impact has to be judged on its own merits. When people attempt to respect or disrespect religious ideas due to the religiousness of the ideas, we experience problems such as bigotry. When we judge them by their impact, we tend to see more clearly.

Does universal emancipation suffer as an idea if people come to it from their religious roots? Not at all. Is genocide made more noble because god wills it? Again, not at all.

All this to say that respecting people's religious beliefs should have more to do with the impact they have on society than how deeply held or fanciful they may be.

Oh, I'm with you on this.

I respect people's right to have whatever feelings or beliefs they want. That's their business.

But I don't necessarily respect the beliefs they choose to hold.

If you want to love broccoli and believe it is a wonderful food, I will respect your right to hold that completely disgusting and obviously wrong opinion.

Broccolisit!:eek:

only if that person keeps those ideas to him/herself.

Heheh now theres the rub huh. It is your belief that one should keep their belifes to themselves, yet here you are expounding that belife.

Surly then if you are free to not keep such a belief to yourself, I, him, her, that strange man in the corner over there(yeah you, you there you), should all be afforded the same curtaise?

When people attempt to respect or disrespect religious ideas due to the religiousness of the ideas, we experience problems such as bigotry. When we judge them by their impact, we tend to see more clearly.I disagree. I don't think a religion is any basis for making decisions that influence people that aren't part of the religion. No matter how much or how little those may agree with the decision.

"I have a dream" isn't such a hot idea when the dream is some kind of religious vision, because it is embracing political irrationality, and for religions themselves, it can presumably fairly easily have the result that some religions aren't socially acceptable, while it's not socially acceptable not to endorse or believe in other religions.

I disagree. I don't think a religion is any basis for making decisions that influence people that aren't part of the religion. No matter how much or how little those may agree with the decision.

"I have a dream" isn't such a hot idea when the dream is some kind of religious vision, because it is embracing political irrationality, and for religions themselves, it can presumably fairly easily have the result that some religions aren't socially acceptable, while it's not socially acceptable not to endorse or believe in other religions.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the second paragraph.

People run pretty hot & cold on this, though religion itself doesn't.

Religion is neither worthy nor unworthy of respect. What is to be respected (or not) is the individuals' rights to hold it.

If you mean religion as individual organizations, then there again, you must look at the individuals and go by that. Some Catholics are truly amazing people who bring nothing but positive imact to the world around them. Some Catholics are terrorists who would only do us all a favor by falling off a cliff.

So it goes with any religion. You can talk about the history of such-and-such religion until you're blue in the face but ultimately members of a particular religion come in three flavors: zealots, apathetics and the majority which are just people who are members because it's how they were raised and don't really think much of it.

Often when people want to attack a religion they treat it as if the very worst examples of its membership are an example of all.

Is religion a positive force in the world? Absolutely. Like it or not, (and historical revisionism aside) Most of today's structures of Law & Order in the West derive from the 10 Commandments. The founders of the USA were Christians whose religious nature guided them in their desire to build a Government of liberty. The various organized churches of the world donate more time, money and effort to feeding the world's hungry, educating the world's uneducated and reaching out to those in poverty than all Governments and secular institutions combined.

Have wars been fought because of religion? Of course they have, but wars are temporary and short, while the generosity of the faithful is consistent over centuries.

There are exceptions to what I've said above (there are exceptions in any general statement), but overall the concept is true.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the second paragraph.You're saying I have all the eloquence of a 3 year old? .. Oh well, you're right I guess.

I was trying to say that for better or worse, secular rule is the only way for people as diverse as us to cooperate in societies not based on free association. And none of our societies are based on free association.

I'm sure someone more articulate can elaborate.

You're saying I have all the eloquence of a 3 year old? .. Oh well, you're right I guess.

I was trying to say that for better or worse, secular rule is the only way for people as diverse as us to cooperate in societies not based on free association. And none of our societies are based on free association.

I'm sure someone more articulate can elaborate.

I totally agree that secular rule is the way to go. Historically, we can see that theocracies had more of a negative impact than secular democracies.

But you noticed how I judged them according to their impact on society? The fact that theocracies are religious is not the problem. The fact that they are a shitty way to govern is the problem.

But you noticed how I judged them according to their impact on society? The fact that theocracies are religious is not the problem. The fact that they are a shitty way to govern is the problem.My point was that, regardless of how nice they may be, political decisions should never have a non-worldly basis. Anything else is, as I believe every last comma of human history proves with dread finality, a slippery slope. Usually in the form of decreasingly nice policies and decreasing tolerance of both religious and non-religious diversity of thought and opinion.

Have wars been fought because of religion? Of course they have, but wars are temporary and short,


like you said. there are expetions but I'm pretty sure that the Crusades were not short and have repercutions today because of religion such as Terrorists who are Muslim and were considered the enemy by Christians.

and what did the Crusade really gain?. Nothing. Expet the right for Christians to travel to Jerusalem. As much of a Good thing this was for Christians it was a Compromise because the Crusades had set out to take Jerusalem.

like you said. there are expetions but I'm pretty sure that the Crusades were not short and have repercutions today because of religion such as Terrorists who are Muslim and were considered the enemy by Christians.

and what did the Crusade really gain?. Nothing. Expet the right for Christians to travel to Jerusalem. As much of a Good thing this was for Christians it was a Compromise because the Crusades had set out to take Jerusalem.

I'm really glad somebody mentioned the Crusades. They always do. When somebody wants to demonstrate the evils of religious wars, the first place they turn to is the Crusades (Especially when it's Christians that are the object of said vilification).

Now I might be mistaken, but I keep hearing rumors that the first Crusade took place almost a thousand years ago, and the last one of any significance something like 800 years ago. if you have to go back that far to make your point, then I humbly suggest that your point isn't valid for our day and age.

And yes, they were short, in the scale of decades and centuries. My point stands.

My point was that, regardless of how nice they may be, political decisions should never have a non-worldly basis. Anything else is, as I believe every last comma of human history proves with dread finality, a slippery slope. Usually in the form of decreasingly nice policies and decreasing tolerance of both religious and non-religious diversity of thought and opinion.

Martin Luther King's vision of a USA free from racism had a non-worldly basis. So do many charities. Should we then not allow these?

Of course we should. These things make the world a better place.

If we start assuming that slippery slopes are the inevitable conclusion of any act, we have to also assume that the slippery slope can slide the other way. Therefore, positive and good things stemming from religion would inevitably lead to a theocracy where everything is perfect and wonderful with bunnies and lollipops (or lots of sex and chocolate if you follow cabra West's religion). Such an idea is ludicrous (unfortunately, no sex and chocolate for everybody), and to assume that the slippery slope will inevitably lead to a theocratic hellhole is also ludicrous.

In reality, sometimes religion leads to good things and sometimes religion leads to bad things. So, rather than dismissing things simply because they have a religious or spiritual basis, examine their impact.

Martin Luther King's vision of a USA free from racism had a non-worldly basis.

His vision of such a nation was based in his religion. But the principle it self need not be based in religion. There are plenty of people who feel very strongly about making a world free from racism who have secular reasons for doing so.

If the only reason for such an endeavor were, "God said so," then it would be completely inappropriate to make it a matter of law. Luckily, that isn't the only reason.

So do many charities. Should we then not allow these?

Charities are not a basis of government. I don't think Similization was arguing that people should not be able to act on their religious beliefs - simply that they should not be able to enforce those religious beliefs by law.

Jesus suffered and died for you. Isn't that enough?

Charities are not a basis of government. I don't think Similization was arguing that people should not be able to act on their religious beliefs - simply that they should not be able to enforce those religious beliefs by law.I'm afraid you have me all figured out :) If the only reason for such an endeavor were, "God said so," then it would be completely inappropriate to make it a matter of law. Luckily, that isn't the only reason.Exactly my point. I wasn't trying to argue that it matters if some political decision can also have a non-worldly basis. Only that non-worldly stuff shouldn't play any part in politics, at least not in the politics of a community not based on free association.

Jesus suffered and died for you. Isn't that enough?

No.

This has been another edition of "Simple answers to incredibly stupid questions." Tune in next time.

His vision of such a nation was based in his religion. But the principle it self need not be based in religion. There are plenty of people who feel very strongly about making a world free from racism who have secular reasons for doing so.

If the only reason for such an endeavor were, "God said so," then it would be completely inappropriate to make it a matter of law. Luckily, that isn't the only reason.



Charities are not a basis of government. I don't think Similization was arguing that people should not be able to act on their religious beliefs - simply that they should not be able to enforce those religious beliefs by law.

But we are not solely discussing government. In fact, Similization and I already agreed that a completely secular government is better than any theocracy.

My point has nothing to do with the role of law or government, though it can be applied to a discussion of the separation of church and state.

The thread is about respect for religion in modern society. I am arguing that any such respect should be based on the impacts such a religion has on society, rather than its inherent religiousness. When we dismiss religious ideas solely because they are religious, we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

To use the example of Martin Luther King, we would have to dismiss his idea of a racism-free USA simply because it was a religious idea for him. This would be foolish, and very few people do this. Instead, people who came to the same conclusion, without the aid of religion, allied themselves with his movement to bring about social change. Does the secular motivation of the others have more social validity than the Reverend King's did? Is it less worthy of respect?

Jesus suffered and died for you. Isn't that enough?

Mppphhhfft! Bwahahahah!

Obviously not, coz apperantly we still have to repent of our sins for our selves!

To use the example of Martin Luther King, we would have to dismiss his idea of a racism-free USA simply because it was a religious idea for him. This would be foolish, and very few people do this. Instead, people who came to the same conclusion, without the aid of religion, allied themselves with his movement to bring about social change. Does the secular motivation of the others have more social validity than the Reverend King's did? Is it less worthy of respect?

Excellent point.

I find it strange that those who feel that religion is a negative in society generally hesitate to point to terrorism by Jihadists and IRA and instead point to differences in belief between themselves and Christians in the context of everyday life. Examples like the above are an excellent way of gaining perspective. Who among Jihadists is analogous to MLK?

Excellent point.But "My deity sayz so!" doesn't make anti-racism a good thing. No more than "My deity (same one, ammusingly) sayz so!" makes slavery a good thing. It's not the presence of otherworldly shit that makes an idea applaudable or even just remotely relevant in a diverse social context.

That it still happens just means the public is more concerned about self-glorifying religious shit than with the well being of their peers and their community. And that's hardly a good thing.

I completely fail to see why religious reasons can or should ever be of any interest to people who don't already share and agree with them. Not because they can't be nice, but because they have nothing what so ever to do with the real world. I'll use my wife and I as an example: we're in complete agreement that in an involuntary representative democracy, universal health care and universal education are basic necessities. We disagree that Allah wants us to take care of each other to the fullest extent that we can, without usurping each other's autonomy, but we agree that whether or not there's an Allah and it wants what she thinks it wants, such reasons should play no part in the public debate that informs us on how to make our political decisions.

Does it mean her religious reasons are bad or good? No. It means they're not relevant to making the decisions and not relevant to a whole hell of a lot of people beyond herself. And it'll stay that way to Allah, Thor, Vishny and the rest of the bunch, deigns to come and justify why they think X is a good idea.

Two (sort of related) thoughts:

Firstly, the English attitude to religion has been surmised as "One respects the other fellow's religion in the same way that you respect his belief that his children are beautiful and talented". I can't remember who said it originally, although I think Dawkins might have quoted it in one of his books.

I quite like this view: I don't go round telling people that they have ugly, useless children for the hell of it, but if they keep bragging about how wonderful their children are or start claiming that they're better than my (hypothetical) children then I'm going to speak my mind.

Secondly, although have no respect for religions in themselves, they can gain a certain amount of reflected respect. For example: I have no inherent respect for Christianity, but one of my best friends is a Christian and I have a lot of respect for her, so when I'm around her (and to a lesser extent when I'm not) I'll give her religion a portion of the respect I give her. As I tend to treat everyone with a certain amount of respect (at least until they've demonstrated themselves to be complete asshats) this means that I don't gratuitously insult their religion in their presence. This reasoning also avoids Bottle's fiendish point about respecting racist beliefs as I wouldn't respect a racist.

But "My deity sayz so!" doesn't make anti-racism a good thing. No more than "My deity (same one, ammusingly) sayz so!" makes slavery a good thing. It's not the presence of otherworldly shit that makes an idea applaudable or even just remotely relevant in a diverse social context.

Then we agree. The presence, or absence, of otherworldy concerns are not relevant when assessing the validity of an idea. The impact on society determines the validity of the idea.

That it still happens just means the public is more concerned about self-glorifying religious shit than with the well being of their peers and their community. And that's hardly a good thing.

That seems to be a bit of an oversimplification. While some people are more concerned about glorifying their own belief system, many other religious people are concerning themselves with the well being of their peers and community for religious reasons. I would limit the first sort of behaviour due to its impact on society, and allow for people to do as much of the latter as they want, for the same reason.

You see, you are doing it too. You are judging religious involvement in politics by its impact. It's not a good thing when the public is more concerned about self-glorifying religious shit than with the well being of their peers and their community. You are completely correct. Why? Because it has a negative impact on society. An obvious example is teaching creationism in science class, which makes people ignorant about scientific methodology.

I completely fail to see why religious reasons can or should ever be of any interest to people who don't already share and agree with them. Not because they can't be nice, but because they have nothing what so ever to do with the real world. I'll use my wife and I as an example: we're in complete agreement that in an involuntary representative democracy, universal health care and universal education are basic necessities. We disagree that Allah wants us to take care of each other to the fullest extent that we can, without usurping each other's autonomy, but we agree that whether or not there's an Allah and it wants what she thinks it wants, such reasons should play no part in the public debate that informs us on how to make our political decisions.

And my religious beliefs also tell me that my religious beliefs should have no role in law or government. But according to you, my opinion should be removed from the public debate because it has a religious basis. Your opinion, which is the exact same opinion, should be part of the public debate because it apparently has some other secular basis.

The logical extension of your argument would be to separate political protestors according to their motivations for protesting. Anyone who does so for religious reasons should not be allowed to protest, regardless of the cause.

Does it mean her religious reasons are bad or good? No. It means they're not relevant to making the decisions and not relevant to a whole hell of a lot of people beyond herself. And it'll stay that way to Allah, Thor, Vishny and the rest of the bunch, deigns to come and justify why they think X is a good idea.

Do you dismiss all of your wife's ideas about politics and society if they have some sort of religious basis? Or, do you judge them first by how they would impact society?

To me, the religiousness of an idea is irrelevant compared to its effect on society.

Now I might be mistaken, but I keep hearing rumors that the first Crusade took place almost a thousand years ago, and the last one of any significance something like 800 years ago. if you have to go back that far to make your point, then I humbly suggest that your point isn't valid for our day and age.Why? Has the concept of god in the name of which these atrocities were committed changed since then? And what about Northern Ireland? What about Bush?

Jesus suffered and died for you.No, he didn't.

Why? Has the concept of god in the name of which these atrocities were committed changed since then? And what about Northern Ireland? What about Bush?

Similization: the post I quoted shows my point. UB here has looked at an event (the Crusades), judged it by its impact on society (bad because of countless deaths and causing hatred between Muslims and Christians), assumed a religious basis for the decision, and then assumed that the negative impact stemmed solely from this religious basis.

He has not even attempted to show that the event actually had a religious basis, nor has he shown that this alleged basis was the cause for the
negative impact. It is muddy thinking and dismissive of the political and social realities surrounding the event.

The Crusades were bad because they were a horrible series of bloody conflicts, not because of their religious nature.

Similization: the post I quoted shows my point. UB here has looked at an event (the Crusades), judged it by its impact on society (bad because of countless deaths and causing hatred between Muslims and Christians), assumed a religious basis for the decision, and then assumed that the negative impact stemmed solely from this religious basis.

He has not even attempted to show that the event actually had a religious basis, nor has he shown that this alleged basis was the cause for the
negative impact. It is muddy thinking and dismissive of the political and social realities surrounding the event.

The Crusades were bad because they were a horrible series of bloody conflicts, not because of their religious nature.Religion made humans commit these horrors. And religion created the mindsets that thought these horrors to be righteous. Religion demonized the "enemy" and thus enabled aggression without remorse. And demonizing "the others" has always been one of the most prominent features of the abrahamic religions.

Religion made humans commit these horrors. And religion created the mindsets that thought these horrors to be righteous. Religion demonized the "enemy" and thus enabled aggression without remorse.

I bet religion wears a trenchcoat, and has gold teeth. Religion is such a badass.

Religion doesn't do anything because religion is not a sentient being capable of action.

You would have been more correct if you had said: People used religion to inspire humans to commit these horrors. And powerful people used religion to create the mindsets that thought these horrors to be righteous. They also used religion to demonise the "enemy" and thus enabled aggression without remorse. You could say the same about Hollywood movies.

Religion made humans commit these horrors. And religion created the mindsets that thought these horrors to be righteous. Religion demonized the "enemy" and thus enabled aggression without remorse. And demonizing "the others" has always been one of the most prominent features of the abrahamic religions.

You are acting as if religion is the ultimate source of the problem, ideology is the problem. Ideology causes atrocities be it religious based or not, you don't need religion to demonize the enemy (for instance, using terms like "betrayers of the revolution" worked just as well).

Then we agree.Yups :) That seems to be a bit of an oversimplification. While some people are more concerned about glorifying their own belief system, many other religious people are concerning themselves with the well being of their peers and community for religious reasons. I would limit the first sort of behaviour due to its impact on society, and allow for people to do as much of the latter as they want, for the same reason. In a society where the governed aren't governed on the basis of free association, I don't see how you can argue that the letter isn't identical with the former. In other words, I agree in theory, but not in practice. Why? Because it has a negative impact on society. An obvious example is teaching creationism in science class, which makes people ignorant about scientific methodology.No. It's a bad thing because it forces the rest of society to de facto conform to the superstitions of some, because decisions are no longer made on the basis of the natural world. Whether or not the decisions reached are stupid, is only incidental. And my religious beliefs also tell me that my religious beliefs should have no role in law or government [...]This is what I was trying to say. I didn't mean religion mustn't play a part in public life, I was trying to say superstitious wank shouldn't inform the public debate, which at least where I once lived, means it shouldn't play any part in policy making. And no, I judge neither yours nor anyone else's opinions on whether or not they may have religious reasons for holding them. I just ignore such reasoning if it is there. Obviously that leaves no opinion to evaluate in some cases, but only in some.

I'm pretty sure we're really splitting hairs and wouldn't be having this discussion if either one of us could articulate our opinion in a clear, concise manner. But hey... Nobody ever said gibberish isn't fun, yeh? :)

You are acting as if religion is the ultimate source of the problem, ideology is the problem. Ideology causes atrocities be it religious based or not, you don't need religion to demonize the enemy (for instance, using terms like "betrayers of the revolution" worked just as well).Religion is ideology. And in the case of the abrahamic religions it is one setting up a deadly division between "us" and "them", where the followers of God are always righteous and do as God wills it. And given the biblical God as a role model, people murdering in his name are not something unexpectable. How could anyone trust or follow a god who drowned almost the entire human species (in fact all land-inhabiting species) when this species is allegedly the focus of his, um, love?

Religion is ideology. And in the case of the abrahamic religions it is one setting up a deadly division between "us" and "them", where the followers of God are always righteous and do as God wills it.

Easily disprovable nonsense. A vast majority of religious people don't give the whole "God wills it" crusading cry as you imply. Thus you are, once again, taking the opinions of a minority and extrapolating it to the entirety.

As for the "us versus them" dichotomy, you clearly love that. For you it's "abrahamic Jew-ish fanatics!" versus you and anyone else who shares your rather communistic hatred of religions.

How could anyone trust or follow a god who drowned almost the entire human species (in fact all land-inhabiting species) when this species is allegedly the focus of his, um, love?

How could anyone trust or follow a guy who would gladly kill (indirectly) someone just because they're religious? As you yourself said in another thread, you wouldn't lift a finger. I guess your only recourse to your own immorality is to point accusing fingers at the Old Testament and say, "see? See? I'm not the only murdering, bigoted, hateful bastard!"

Yups :) In a society where the governed aren't governed on the basis of free association, I don't see how you can argue that the letter isn't identical with the former. In other words, I agree in theory, but not in practice. No. It's a bad thing because it forces the rest of society to de facto conform to the superstitions of some, because decisions are no longer made on the basis of the natural world. Whether or not the decisions reached are stupid, is only incidental. This is what I was trying to say. I didn't mean religion mustn't play a part in public life, I was trying to say superstitious wank shouldn't inform the public debate, which at least where I once lived, means it shouldn't play any part in policy making. And no, I judge neither yours nor anyone else's opinions on whether or not they may have religious reasons for holding them. I just ignore such reasoning if it is there. Obviously that leaves no opinion to evaluate in some cases, but only in some.

I'm pretty sure we're really splitting hairs and wouldn't be having this discussion if either one of us could articulate our opinion in a clear, concise manner. But hey... Nobody ever said gibberish isn't fun, yeh? :)

We would probably communicate more easily over a table with several beer on it. We probably agree on more things than we think we do. I also think teaching creationism would be a bad thing because it forces the rest of society to de facto conform to the superstitions of some. And I see you agree with me that religion should paly a part in the public debate, as long as we make and enforce a clear separation between religion and state.

I guess I could still pick apart UB's posts, but that's too easy.

Thanks for the chat.

Religion is ideology.

Is an ideology. That is the whole point, not all ideology is religious.


And in the case of the abrahamic religions it is one setting up a deadly division between "us" and "them", where the followers of God are always righteous and do as God wills it.

This is untrue for the vast majority of religious people.


And given the biblical God as a role model, people murdering in his name are not something unexpectable.

True.


How could anyone trust or follow a god who drowned almost the entire human species (in fact all land-inhabiting species) when this species is allegedly the focus of his, um, love?

Thats an entirely seperate question and has little to do with the debate.

The founders of the USA were Christians whose religious nature guided them in their desire to build a Government of liberty.


Untrue. Some of the founders were Christians, yes. But these were men of the Enlightenment, many of them were deists, agnostics, or even atheists. But one thing they all had in common is that they were secularists, and didn't believe an idea should get special protection just for being religious.

I think, too, that a lot of the posts actually do seem to agree with me-- religion shouldn't get respect beyond what any other belief gets. On the flip side, nor should it get less respect simply because a religion endorses it. The problem is, much of society condemns those who criticize any part of a religion. I probably have a skewed perspective on this, living in Georgia, but it seems to be true, at least to some extent, in other places as well.

In another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534544), I asked why religion gets so much respect. In that thread, I asked a specific person about why he respected religious faith, but now I'd like to question why we, as a society(if not as much on NSG, but then, NSG is not representative of society as a whole), give religion so much respect compared to other, non-religious ideas. To quote, as I did in the previous thread, Douglas Adams:

Many of us, even the non-religious, are taught nearly from birth that it is impolite or improper in some way to question religious ideas, and that we must respect them.

The idea is so widespread and so often repeated that most of us unconditionally accept it, and even allow religion to be a trump card. For example, if you want to register as a conscientious objector, by far the easiest route is through a religious reason for disagreeing with war. Somebody who has derived a pacifist belief from a secular philosophy, no matter how well thought out, doesn't get the same protection as somebody who happens to be (or is related to) a Quaker.

Even student religious organizations are often exempt from non-discrimination policies. At my university, the Christian group argued that they should be allowed to deny access to, and even harass, homosexuals because of their religious faith, when no other campus-sponsored organization is allowed to violate the non-discrimination policy.

Now, from the perspective of mematic evolution(that is, the evolution of memes), as I understand it (and I am no expert, so I ask you to forgive and correct me if I am mistaken), it makes sense because it aids in the survival of religion: if people are not supposed to question an idea or debate it or say anything against it, then it is far more likely to survive.

Evolutionary explanations aside, I am interested in any arguments for why we should continue the practice of respecting religion any more than we respect, say, political beliefs. Why is it rude to question or critisize them like we can any other idea?

This is a very good topic! I never really thought about this before. I believe that all viewpoints need to be respected. Even if someone's viewpoint makes them the sort of person that needs to be hunted down and killed (such as an Islamic terrorist) we should nevertheless respect them for their religious views even as we may find ourselves gunning them down.

Any religious faith should be respected because unless you are the sort that has conversations with burning bushes your relationship with the Divine needs to be pursued through faith instead of a more objective and imperical path. We can never consider faith to be evil. However, some of the actions that stem from conclusions based upon a faith can be subject to plenty of punishments. I do not think that this in anyway limits people fom debating different religious points. Instead, I think people just avoid those discussions because they can get rather heated and rarely end up with anybody changing their mind.

Religious conscience is a basic human right. Regardless of whether you believe in Judaism, Protestantism, Islam, Catholicism, or other faiths, you have to recognize that each of these faiths produced martyrs who died in unspeakably gruesome ways because they would rather die horribly than betray their faiths. It is never ok to put people in that position.

If we want people to respect our own faith, we need to respect the faiths of others. As a society we should never force someone to commit a sin.

As far as conscientious observers go, to my knowledge no American CO ever got a free pass from the draft on that basis alone. Many of these folks went to serve as medics. For those that could not serve as medics, they served honorably in non combat civilian roles that were certainly not for the squeamish. The job that comes to mind most readily was that of Park Service smoke jumpers who would parachute into forest fires to fight the fires.

I think, too, that a lot of the posts actually do seem to agree with me-- religion shouldn't get respect beyond what any other belief gets. On the flip side, nor should it get less respect simply because a religion endorses it. The problem is, much of society condemns those who criticize any part of a religion. I probably have a skewed perspective on this, living in Georgia, but it seems to be true, at least to some extent, in other places as well.

Rural GA? I'm so used to Atlanta these days, and it's not much like the rest of the state.

This is a very good topic! I never really thought about this before. I believe that all viewpoints need to be respected.

What if that's not my viewpoint? ;)

Any religious faith should be respected because unless you are the sort that has conversations with burning bushes your relationship with the Divine needs to be pursued through faith instead of a more objective and imperical path.

What about those of us who don't have faith and don't believe in the 'Divine'?

We can never consider faith to be evil.

Why not?

As a society we should never force someone to commit a sin.

What do you mean by this? Sin is subjectively defined by the individual, does this mean that anyone can opt out of any law by declaring it to be sinful?

Rural GA? I'm so used to Atlanta these days, and it's not much like the rest of the state.

Nah, not even so much. Suburban-- Peachtree City to be exact. Or, that's where I lived from 5-18, and therefore formed the bulk of my ideas. And Athens more recently, so people here are rather more liberal (and sane) than much of the rest of the state.

Nah, not even so much. Suburban-- Peachtree City to be exact. Or, that's where I lived from 5-18, and therefore formed the bulk of my ideas. And Athens more recently, so people here are rather more liberal (and sane) than much of the rest of the state.

Ah, the Republicanville parts of Atlanta. =)

Of course, I've never heard Athens ever described as liberal or sane. I'll have to think about this....

Ah, the Republicanville parts of Atlanta. =)

Of course, I've never heard Athens ever described as liberal or sane. I'll have to think about this....

Compared to most of the rest of the state? Definitely. We've got all these university students and such here. Now, it doesn't always *vote* so much that way, cause, well, students often don't vote. But as far as what opinions they express, it's quite nice.

But plenty of people don't have a problem with discussing politics. They'll debate their views, but won't feel aggrieved by somebody disagreeing with them, or even with their political views being criticized or even attacked. This isn't true with religion. Why the difference between the two?

In short:
Because my religious beliefs are none of your fucking business.

The only time they would be is if I was trying to force them on others, which I'm not since I firmly think that politics and religion should have nothing to do with one another. If one tries to force particular religious views upon others, those beliefs then affect people besides oneself and therefore become everyone's business.

But until I'm trying to shove some spiritual viewpoints down your throat, my religious beliefs are a private matter and should be none of your concern.

I think the issue is kinda misconstrued. To paraphrase one of the great philosophers - is it not more important to respect the rights/autonomy of others to have a religious belief, rather than respect that belief itself. As a long term (and extremely qualified) student of Biblical scholarship and Christian history, I know for a fact that the religion is completely baseless and untrue. Ergo, I do not respect the religious beliefs of Christians (or the other Abrahamic religions), but respect their right to their beliefs. My children are taught this in the home and can grasp the concept, so I don't see why it is a problem for so many adults.
I recall our 6 yr old daughter quizzically informing us that "a priest came to the house and gave gran a biscuit." "Yes, well...your gran believes that biscuit is actually god,in a strange magic way." "But thats...whaa??" "We know, it's nonsense - but your gran believes it so we just leave her to it."
Wonderful thing, the mind of a child. To quote another great philosopher ;)

I respect your right to believe whatever you want. However, that respect need not extend to your beliefs, if I find them distasteful, foolish and/or irrational, it is my right to express my disdain for them in any appropriate manner.

Note that's the manner I find appropriate, not you.

In short:
Because my religious beliefs are none of your fucking business.

The only time they would be is if I was trying to force them on others, which I'm not since I firmly think that politics and religion should have nothing to do with one another. If one tries to force particular religious views upon others, those beliefs then affect people besides oneself and therefore become everyone's business.

But until I'm trying to shove some spiritual viewpoints down your throat, my religious beliefs are a private matter and should be none of your concern.

But if I'm not hostile in questioning and/or debating, what harm does it do? Why is it inherently wrong to ever criticize religious beliefs?

Why?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be snarky with this question. Why should religion and spiritual beliefs be respected?

So you're saying that religious people can't be expected to simply respect other human beings, but maybe we could get them to respect other abstract religious belief systems enough to stop actively oppressing others?

I'm not sure it is so much about "can't be expected" as the evidence that many people are NOT respecting other human beings, and are justifying that lack of respect and the right to hold that lack of respect in the name of their particular variation on a particular religion - and while in some areas members of certain religions are more guilty of this than others, there seems to be no religion completely free of people who exercise this type of hypocrisy. Personally, I feel that such individuals are not only disrespecting other human beings, but disrespecting their own religion(s) when they do this. Respect isn't liking or agreeing with. Respect simply involves the idea that people have the right to hold or not hold any set of beliefs.




Hmm. Christianity also contains a few passages about how you're not supposed to steal things. Does this mean that a "good Christian" would simply refrain from stealing, but wouldn't worry about it if somebody else's religion directed them to steal?

No. In the first place legal/civil code may overlap with religion, but isn't necessarilly the same as religion, and does not even come from religous belief where there is overlap. Just as many religions hold many of the same general ideas, but from widely different philosophical sources. But in the case of some religion that was okay with stealing, stealing from anyone who didn't belong to that religion and expecting them to be okay with it would be forcing the tenants of one's own beliefs onto another person. The stealer in this case would be acting a lot like the pharmacists who currently tear up presciptions for plan B. Only instead of forcing the patient to act as though she believed a possibly conceived fetus was a sacred life, forcing the person stolen from to act as though a doctrine of communal property was held equally.

No.

This has been another edition of "Simple answers to incredibly stupid questions." Tune in next time.

Is there a newsletter? I'm free this weekend and am planning to hang around the market a bit. I could do some circulating.
:)

Jesus suffered and died for you. Isn't that enough?

It is way too much. I never asked him to. Had he checked in with me first, I would have said, "Don't bother, thanks!"

Similization: the post I quoted shows my point. UB here has looked at an event (the Crusades), judged it by its impact on society (bad because of countless deaths and causing hatred between Muslims and Christians), assumed a religious basis for the decision, and then assumed that the negative impact stemmed solely from this religious basis.

He has not even attempted to show that the event actually had a religious basis, nor has he shown that this alleged basis was the cause for the
negative impact. It is muddy thinking and dismissive of the political and social realities surrounding the event.

The Crusades were bad because they were a horrible series of bloody conflicts, not because of their religious nature.

First, UB is a she, but that is beside the point.

Are you trying to suggest that the Crusades were NOT religious wars? Wikipedia has a good article about it, so I will link, rather than go into a long dissertation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Yes, there were political and social triggers to the Crusades, but they were BASED on the idea that Christians needed to take the Holy Land back from the Muslims. How is this not a war that is based on religion? And they certainly would not have been a horrible series of bloody conflicts if religion had NOT been a part of it, since they wouldn't have happened in the first place.

The Crusades became the basis for Christian dealings with the Muslim world. To this day, that impact is felt. The antipathy and mistrust still flows through the Middle East and the rest of the world. And it is all, at it's core, a religious conflict. Other factors (economic, social...) are certainly involved, but the origins of the conflict are religious.

First, UB is a shenope.

But plenty of people don't have a problem with discussing politics. They'll debate their views, but won't feel aggrieved by somebody disagreeing with them, or even with their political views being criticized or even attacked. This isn't true with religion. Why the difference between the two?

Simply because politics are far less important in the long run. If you think about it, many religions have some concept of an afterlife, and of a/many superior being/s which in some way (great or small) influence lives. Politics is a bunch of regular individuals which can gain perhaps "power" over the way a nation functions.

Lets say for example, you believe in an afterlife which is all good and merry, with golden harps and french toast. You also want the Pacifist-Party to win the next election.
Now, if someone were to ask you which you would rather have, you would probably take the afterlife over the election.
Religion is simply more important to religious people, than politics.

However, there are all sorts of people. To some, confronting their political ideas is near blasphemous. To others, trying to disprove their religious beliefs is suicidal.
But there are also reasonable people out there, who don't mind discussing such 'sensitive' topics.

The best thing we can do is simply respect the right of people to hold opinions, wether we agree with them or not.


I personally don't get offended when I discuss or even argue religion. I am always open to new ways of looking at things. However, as of yet, I don't give a damn about politics.

It is way too much. I never asked him to. Had he checked in with me first, I would have said, "Don't bother, thanks!"

Now, if someone like Cheney or Shrubya asked if they could die for my sins ...
one of my responses might just be "Yes, post haste, there's a lot of sin-free living i need to get down to, chop chop.
And keep the receipt."

Simply because politics are far less important in the long run. If you think about it, many religions have some concept of an afterlife, and of a/many superior being/s which in some way (great or small) influence lives. Politics is a bunch of regular individuals which can gain perhaps "power" over the way a nation functions.

Lets say for example, you believe in an afterlife which is all good and merry, with golden harps and french toast. You also want the Pacifist-Party to win the next election.
Now, if someone were to ask you which you would rather have, you would probably take the afterlife over the election.
Religion is simply more important to religious people, than politics.

However, there are all sorts of people. To some, confronting their political ideas is near blasphemous. To others, trying to disprove their religious beliefs is suicidal.
But there are also reasonable people out there, who don't mind discussing such 'sensitive' topics.

The best thing we can do is simply respect the right of people to hold opinions, wether we agree with them or not.


I personally don't get offended when I discuss or even argue religion. I am always open to new ways of looking at things. However, as of yet, I don't give a damn about politics.

Hm, I guess that makes sense, to a degree, but I've had people who have told me not to debate religion with other people who were willing to-- you just "don't do that" because it's not "respectful of somebody else's beliefs" to attempt to logically examine them. Often, it is somebody who holds the same beliefs as said person, and doesn't even want to hear or know of so blasphemous a conversation.

The main problem is: when people like you debate religious people, the invariably expect you to immediately insult their beliefs. Why? Because it's typical. Especially for you guys. And most atheists I've met in RL act almost exactly the same way. So, instead of watching you viciously insult their beliefs, they'd just prefer you don't talk about them.

You mean people don't WANT to start bawling from an interaction with people about their deepest beliefs?

You mean people don't WANT to start bawling from an interaction with people about their deepest beliefs?

Not generally, no.

The main problem is: when people like you debate religious people, the invariably expect you to immediately insult their beliefs. Why? Because it's typical. Especially for you guys. And most atheists I've met in RL act almost exactly the same way. So, instead of watching you viciously insult their beliefs, they'd just prefer you don't talk about them.

Waitwaitwait.... so, "All you atheists are arrogant pricks" is fine? Cause I'm sure "All you Christians are stupid, ignorant sheeple" would not go over so well. Unless I'm misreading your post?

People, people. Calm down. I am a devout Christian but I can still respect a non-religious person's views. Jesus in the Christian belief, however, wants other people to convert to Christianity, but not force it upon them. Shame to Christians who keep forcing God's ideas on others, even if its the truth.

Hm, I guess that makes sense, to a degree, but I've had people who have told me not to debate religion with other people who were willing to-- you just "don't do that" because it's not "respectful of somebody else's beliefs" to attempt to logically examine them. Often, it is somebody who holds the same beliefs as said person, and doesn't even want to hear or know of so blasphemous a conversation.

Well, fuck them.

Hm, I guess that makes sense, to a degree, but I've had people who have told me not to debate religion with other people who were willing to-- you just "don't do that" because it's not "respectful of somebody else's beliefs" to attempt to logically examine them. Often, it is somebody who holds the same beliefs as said person, and doesn't even want to hear or know of so blasphemous a conversation.

It should be acceptable to discuss different religious-point-of-views. The people who say that you should not are actually what they are trying to "Prevent" by being intolerant to both sides. A discussion is perfectly fine as long as it does not get out-of-hand.

It should be acceptable to discuss different religious-point-of-views. The people who say that you should not are actually what they are trying to "Prevent" by being intolerant to both sides. A discussion is perfectly fine as long as it does not get out-of-hand.Christians have no basis for discussion. So why waste time on them?

Hey. I have been in several serious discussions. We can make a good point.

Hey. I have been in several serious discussions. We can make a good point.Discussions about what? The accuracy of the biblical depiction of ancient peoples' beliefs?

Not generally, no.

Whoa .... uhm, whoa ....

This ... TOTALLY ... shifts my paradigm without a clutch.

It hurts to think i've been going about it all wrong.

You mean people don't WANT to start bawling from an interaction with people about their deepest beliefs?

The best friends I've had are the ones I can have these kinds of arguments with and still be friends.

The best friends I've had are the ones I can have these kinds of arguments with and still be friends.

I agree, actually. :)

The merits of each side of a "real" argument are worth presenting in context, and with support. As is, i often try to approach any particular argument from both sides, and usually end up siding with not only the most sensible attitude but the one with the most support of evidence.
I have several friends who are like that, even like to argue for the fun of it *looks in Indisputability's direction*.
It's good exercise, and real friends can appreciate it, imnsho.

Besides, how's that saying go ... "the unexamined life is one not worth living", or something like that?

But if I'm not hostile in questioning and/or debating, what harm does it do? Why is it inherently wrong to ever criticize religious beliefs?

It's not if the holder of those beliefs is making them a public concern and preaching to everybody.

If the religious person is private about their beliefs, I see no reason to dig them out and pester them about it. Just seems kinda rude to me. Like asking about someone's genitalia. My genitalia is very important to me, but I don't want you asking about it or criticizing it or what have you.

I'll answer questions about my spiritual views, but I'm not interested in being ridiculed for something that affects you in no way whatsoever.

If the religious person is private about their beliefs, I see no reason to dig them out and pester them about it. Just seems kinda rude to me. Like asking about someone's genitalia. My genitalia is very important to me, but I don't want you asking about it or criticizing it or what have you.

You know how great a thread topic this idea is? :)

You know how great a thread topic this idea is? :)

What, that I just used genitalia as an analogy for private religious views?

What, that I just used genitalia as an analogy for private religious views?

No, not that ... since i think it's been done myriad times already in one fashion or another :D

asking about someone's genitalia. My genitalia is very important to me, but I don't want you asking about it or criticizing it or what have you.

More the difference in thinking which is a more sacrosanct - what could be and what is, and what kind of "exposure" you're willing to have for it, whatever the value.
:)

No, not that ... since i think it's been done myriad times already in one fashion or another :D



More the difference in thinking which is a more sacrosanct - what could be and what is, and what kind of "exposure" you're willing to have for it, whatever the value.
:)


Despite how flattering the notion would be, I remain unable to see how my genitalia would have any ramifications on the political world.


Now, in all serious, I'm not sure about whether a thread to the subject of genitalia, and making such public, would be well received by the powers that be.

After all, when DerfuhrerDyszel (who is a woman) made a topic with the title "If I had a Penis" they changed it to "If I was a man," which was not at all what she was saying, she just meant if she woke up one day with a penis.

If the religious person is private about their beliefs, I see no reason to dig them out and pester them about it.Religious persons are never private about there beliefs. They always have someone they share their beliefs with or who they pass their beliefs on to, especially their kids.

at the very root of sacredness; reverence for the land, the infinite humility of the dust beneath our feat, and the spritness of the land and of all places, there is an intimate acknowledgement of our dependence and surivival.

beliefs, those which have become dominant, have all wandered parillously far from that. by doing so they seem to me, to have lost much of their otherwise inhierent value and sacredness.

but i still think the land, the vastness of the universe, the spirtness of spritness, i don't know how better to say or express that, these things, their real inheirent sacredness, and that of the unknown and unknowable, of mystery as mystery itself too, do deserve inheirently a degree of loving and favorable reguard, even if, beiliefs in the sense of organized belief, have tossed that out with trying to appeal to our having so surrounded ourselves with our own artifacts, as to have lost touch with our connectedness, and our survival's connectedness, with the rest of existence.

=^^=
.../\...

But "My deity sayz so!" doesn't make anti-racism a good thing. No more than "My deity (same one, ammusingly) sayz so!" makes slavery a good thing. It's not the presence of otherworldly shit that makes an idea applaudable or even just remotely relevant in a diverse social context.

That it still happens just means the public is more concerned about self-glorifying religious shit than with the well being of their peers and their community. And that's hardly a good thing.

I completely fail to see why religious reasons can or should ever be of any interest to people who don't already share and agree with them. Not because they can't be nice, but because they have nothing what so ever to do with the real world. I'll use my wife and I as an example: we're in complete agreement that in an involuntary representative democracy, universal health care and universal education are basic necessities. We disagree that Allah wants us to take care of each other to the fullest extent that we can, without usurping each other's autonomy, but we agree that whether or not there's an Allah and it wants what she thinks it wants, such reasons should play no part in the public debate that informs us on how to make our political decisions.

Does it mean her religious reasons are bad or good? No. It means they're not relevant to making the decisions and not relevant to a whole hell of a lot of people beyond herself. And it'll stay that way to Allah, Thor, Vishny and the rest of the bunch, deigns to come and justify why they think X is a good idea.

Common sense in action huh. You are of course perfectly correct, if you are not religious, then you do not need to respect religious ideas. If such ideas do cross over into the realm of socialy good ideas, and you feel the need to respect them, then go ahead and do that, the fact that they may stem from religoin is really no big deal.

Why? Has the concept of god in the name of which these atrocities were committed changed since then? And what about Northern Ireland? What about Bush?

Yes of course it has.

Religion made humans commit these horrors. And religion created the mindsets that thought these horrors to be righteous. Religion demonized the "enemy" and thus enabled aggression without remorse. And demonizing "the others" has always been one of the most prominent features of the abrahamic religions.

That is quite rubbish. War has always been about advancement. Advancment of land, or riches, or resources. religion has been used as an excuse for war more than other excuses, but religion being the cause of the crusades, not a chance. The cause was greed, the tool used to get people out there and killing was religion.

Simply because politics are far less important in the long run. If you think about it, many religions have some concept of an afterlife, and of a/many superior being/s which in some way (great or small) influence lives. Politics is a bunch of regular individuals which can gain perhaps "power" over the way a nation functions.

What? Are you certian?

I can't remember who said 'Politics is life' but that is certianly correct. Politics seeps through every aspect of life, and is in fact the most important thing for those who live.

Religoin is the most important thing for those who want to look out for after they live, politics is important for everybody.

Religious persons are never private about there beliefs. They always have someone they share their beliefs with or who they pass their beliefs on to, especially their kids.

Most of them do, yes. However when you think of why people have such belifes. It is afterall all about the saving of the soul. What sort of person would not wish this for their children?

If the religious person is private about their beliefs, I see no reason to dig them out and pester them about it. Just seems kinda rude to me. Like asking about someone's genitalia. My genitalia is very important to me, but I don't want you asking about it or criticizing it or what have you.


That's an excellent way to think of it, in my opinion.

If religious people "keep it in their pants," I am not going to forcibly unzip them and start criticizing their equipment.

If a religious person decides to whip it out in public, on the other hand, they'd better be prepared for me to offer scathing clinical commentary on what they're packing.

That's an excellent way to think of it, in my opinion.

If religious people "keep it in their pants," I am not going to forcibly unzip them and start criticizing their equipment.

If a religious person decides to whip it out in public, on the other hand, they'd better be prepared for me to offer scathing clinical commentary on what they're packing.

Isn't the same then true of any idea that you disagree with? Can't exactly the same be said about racism?

So basicaly what you are saying is, religion is an idea that I just can't get with, so don't even mention it to me.

Umm seems incredibly closed minded to me.;)

Isn't the same then true of any idea that you disagree with? Can't exactly the same be said about racism?

Actually, it can be said about ideas I agree with, too. If you whip them out around me, I'm probably going to have something to say.


So basicaly what you are saying is, religion is an idea that I just can't get with, so don't even mention it to me.

Quite the opposite. I'm saying that you should feel free to mention it to me, just don't expect me to be a mute who will nod along with you indefinitely. If you want to talk to somebody who doesn't talk back, buy a cat.

Actually, it can be said about ideas I agree with, too. If you whip them out around me, I'm probably going to have something to say.


Quite the opposite. I'm saying that you should feel free to mention it to me, just don't expect me to be a mute who will nod along with you indefinitely. If you want to talk to somebody who doesn't talk back, buy a cat.

Heh or a nodding dog! Don't know if I could live like that, some times I start rows with the wife, so we'd have stuff to fight 'bout!;)

It's not if the holder of those beliefs is making them a public concern and preaching to everybody.

If the religious person is private about their beliefs, I see no reason to dig them out and pester them about it. Just seems kinda rude to me. Like asking about someone's genitalia. My genitalia is very important to me, but I don't want you asking about it or criticizing it or what have you.

I'll answer questions about my spiritual views, but I'm not interested in being ridiculed for something that affects you in no way whatsoever.

define "being private" about religious beliefs.

Religious persons are never private about there beliefs. They always have someone they share their beliefs with or who they pass their beliefs on to, especially their kids.

My ex-partner and I were married five years or so before my ex found out that I believed in God. I didn't try to keep it a secret. It just never came up in conversation. I don't know if our children are even clear on the idea of god, and I have never discussed my beliefs with them.

I am sure there are many people like me. But you will never hear about us quiet ones because we are quiet.

Are you trying to suggest that the Crusades were NOT religious wars?

Yes, there were political and social triggers to the Crusades, but they were BASED on the idea that Christians needed to take the Holy Land back from the Muslims. How is this not a war that is based on religion? And they certainly would not have been a horrible series of bloody conflicts if religion had NOT been a part of it, since they wouldn't have happened in the first place.

The Crusades became the basis for Christian dealings with the Muslim world. To this day, that impact is felt. The antipathy and mistrust still flows through the Middle East and the rest of the world. And it is all, at it's core, a religious conflict. Other factors (economic, social...) are certainly involved, but the origins of the conflict are religious.

I am suggesting that at their core the Crusades were no more religious than any other war. When the Church and royalty spoke of access to the Holy land, they may have been speaking of pilgrims, but they were thinking of the trade routes. There was no Suez canal then. No Capetown, either. All the riches of the east and Africa swept through the Holy land on their way to Europe. I think that controlling the Holy land was less about religious sentiment and more about controlling the nexus of trade for the entire known world.

I am sure there are many people like me. But you will never hear about us quiet ones because we are quiet.Depends on where you're from, really. In northern Europe, people typically don't try to involve other people in their religion, and those who do are usually thought to be a bit addled. Southern Europe's much the same, 'cept it's more socially acceptable to try to involve random strangers in one's religion. Eastern Europe and south west Asia is the opposite. There people are typically thought to be a bit addled if they don't try to drag strangers into their religious stuff, and protesting such behaviour can be outright dangerous. I haven't travelled much outside those regions, so beyond that I wouldn't know. I am suggesting that at their core the Crusades were no more religious than any other war.I don't think you can separate it like that. I don't see any indication the religious people of the time were simply sneaky atheists exploiting the masses.

Depends on where you're from, really. In northern Europe, people typically don't try to involve other people in their religion, and those who do are usually thought to be a bit addled. Southern Europe's much the same, 'cept it's more socially acceptable to try to involve random strangers in one's religion. Eastern Europe and south west Asia is the opposite. There people are typically thought to be a bit addled if they don't try to drag strangers into their religious stuff, and protesting such behaviour can be outright dangerous. I haven't travelled much outside those regions, so beyond that I wouldn't know. I don't think you can separate it like that. I don't see any indication the religious people of the time were simply sneaky atheists exploiting the masses.

Here in Canada, we get all types. The crazy street preachers on the corner at one end of the spectrum and people like me on the other.

As for the Crusades, I would assume that the Church and royalty responsible for the war did believe in the holiness of their cause. I just don't think that it was the most important reason. There were several. I mentioned trade routes. Pope Urban II may have also wanted the disparate armies of the feudal lords under one command (i.e. his command). He may also have wanted to reunite the Roman and Byzantine Churches (again, under his command).

I should clarify that I am making a distinction between the Christian community that did believe that the religious reasons were the important ones, and the Church hierachy and its allies in the nobility which focused on more earthly goals.

Because arguing about religion is a good way to alienate friends and get onesself burnt at the stake.

(The latter hasn't happened to me yet)

Long time, no see, NSG religiony types. As usual, my stance encorporates the necessary division between Religion and God. Well, I say God. What I mean, really, is whatever the real truth is behind the inspiration of spiritual/religious awareness/belief/superstition. Lot of slashes there, primarily because that to which we refer is a fundamentally difficult thing to explain. In fact, the uncertainty behind religious respect lies in the great difficulty which we, as individuals, have in reconsiling the difference between the truth that is and the speculation and mythology that we and those before us have applied in attempted description of that truth.

We must be under no delusion that our Religions (or lack thereof) are the former of these; this, regardless of whether or not it should be respected, would be a stance of the most blatant disrespect. Respect is, after all, a property not of ideologies or beliefs, but rather of attitude. For my two cents, respectful discourse can include challenges to this speculation and mythology, but is always built upon a genuine interest to converse and share our ideas rather than to impose or exploit.

I had a bigger rant, but it was just that, so we'll leave that for another time. :D

What? Are you certian?

I can't remember who said 'Politics is life' but that is certianly correct. Politics seeps through every aspect of life, and is in fact the most important thing for those who live.

Religoin is the most important thing for those who want to look out for after they live, politics is important for everybody.

I am 95% certain, until someone proves a decent point otherwise. Then the percentage drops a bit.

Let dictionary.com define politics ..

pol·i·tics /ˈpɒlɪtɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pol-i-tiks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun (used with a singular or plural verb) 1. the science or art of political government.
2. the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
3. political affairs
4. political methods or maneuvers
5. political principles or opinions
6. use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.
7. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with the structure, organization, and administration of the state, esp. the city-state as known in ancient Greece.

Some parts of politics include ways of dealing with people, this obviously affects us through all our lives. However, the politics that one would discuss is something more like one's choice of political party, and what one thinks should be done in the government to change the way politics are practiced. That side of politics hardly something that "seeps through every aspect of life, and is in fact the most important thing for those who live".

"Religoin is the most important thing for those who want to look out for after they live", is also untrue to a degree. As you probably know, a religion is a way of life as well. Generally religions have a set of rules or moral guidelines, sometimes religion and religious communities help people through hard times.


If anyone has anything to add (or subtract), don't hesitate.

My ex-partner and I were married five years or so before my ex found out that I believed in God. I didn't try to keep it a secret. It just never came up in conversation. I don't know if our children are even clear on the idea of god, and I have never discussed my beliefs with them.So what do you tell your kids about your god? And do you inform them about the alternatives?

So what do you tell your kids about your god? And do you inform them about the alternatives?

Well, since I have never discussed my beliefs with them, I guess the answer to your first question would be: I don't tell my kids anything about my god. When they are older and have already formed critical thinking skills, I will then tell them about my spirituality. Then we can have at it with the hammers and tongs. I hope my children will be subversive enough to give me a run for my money.

As to the alternatives, I read them many stories from many mythologies. Since I have daughters, I try to find those with empowering female role models, but that is not the main idea. What I am trying to do for my children is to inform them of the vast diversity of stories with which humans attempt to describe the unknown. It also helps that if they were ever to take a class in comparative religions, they'll already have become familiar with the stories. My children are still quite young, so they only get the stories for now.

Despite how flattering the notion would be, I remain unable to see how my genitalia would have any ramifications on the political world.


Now, in all serious, I'm not sure about whether a thread to the subject of genitalia, and making such public, would be well received by the powers that be.

After all, when DerfuhrerDyszel (who is a woman) made a topic with the title "If I had a Penis" they changed it to "If I was a man," which was not at all what she was saying, she just meant if she woke up one day with a penis.That's a good point ... the powers that be HAVE changed a few thread natures since i've been here.

Actually, I quoted Douglas Noel Adams, and even said as much. Yes, I have read The God Delusion, but don't recall him using that particular quote, though I have not read it in in a few months, so I may be mistaken. I found this particular quote in The Salmon of Doubt, actually. I also recall that it mentions the mematic evolution at some point, but I only mentioned that to get it out of the way, because that's really not what I'm asking about.

So don't accuse me of something like that unless you actually know what you're talking about, please.

I apologise - as stated I have just finished marking assignments and you would not believe how many students believe lecturers don't know that google exists.

BTW Richard Dawkins does quote Adams quite a lot and one chapter makes much the same point.

Well, since I have never discussed my beliefs with them, I guess the answer to your first question would be: I don't tell my kids anything about my god. When they are older and have already formed critical thinking skills, I will then tell them about my spirituality. Then we can have at it with the hammers and tongs. I hope my children will be subversive enough to give me a run for my money.

As to the alternatives, I read them many stories from many mythologies. Since I have daughters, I try to find those with empowering female role models, but that is not the main idea. What I am trying to do for my children is to inform them of the vast diversity of stories with which humans attempt to describe the unknown. It also helps that if they were ever to take a class in comparative religions, they'll already have become familiar with the stories. My children are still quite young, so they only get the stories for now.
What is a mythology for you and why is your own belief basis none?

I am 95% certain, until someone proves a decent point otherwise. Then the percentage drops a bit.

Let dictionary.com define politics ..

pol·i·tics /ˈpɒlɪtɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pol-i-tiks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun (used with a singular or plural verb) 1. the science or art of political government.
2. the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
3. political affairs
4. political methods or maneuvers
5. political principles or opinions
6. use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.
7. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with the structure, organization, and administration of the state, esp. the city-state as known in ancient Greece.

Some parts of politics include ways of dealing with people, this obviously affects us through all our lives. However, the politics that one would discuss is something more like one's choice of political party, and what one thinks should be done in the government to change the way politics are practiced. That side of politics hardly something that "seeps through every aspect of life, and is in fact the most important thing for those who live".

"Religoin is the most important thing for those who want to look out for after they live", is also untrue to a degree. As you probably know, a religion is a way of life as well. Generally religions have a set of rules or moral guidelines, sometimes religion and religious communities help people through hard times.


If anyone has anything to add (or subtract), don't hesitate.

Then I guess we are in disagreement! :D

Politics is life. Unless you live of course away from eveybody where there is no goverment, and are 100% self sufficient?

Please tell me any aspect of living which does not involve politics?

What is a mythology for you and why is your own belief basis none?

A mythology is a set of things we tell ourselves that help us to explain things we don't understand. Please note that my definition of mythology has nothing to do with its veracity. For example, science acts as a mythology for many nonscientists who believe that science can explain things that they don't understand. I don't know how atomic bombs work, but Science does.

So my mythology may be factually correct or it may be factually wrong, but that doesn't matter. What matters is how useful it is to my life and my community. By looking at the mythologies of ancient peoples, one can understand the problems they faced and how they resolved them. The Bible is a useful book if you want to learn how to be the most powerful of all the nomadic desert tribes.

How does this all reflect on my beliefs? For me, the only viable path to knowledge about spiritual things is through personal revelation. And visions tend to provide very few answers and a lot of questions.

So, my spirituality isn't really about providing answers. It creates questions. What is the nature of god? Is God sentient? Does the word 'sentient' even apply? How do you reconcile the idea of an omnibenevolent god with the horror we witness every day? How do we approach god? Are there concrete ways of knowing god even if there are no concrete ways of communicating such an experience? Any answer to these questions is outside the scope of my spirituality. It is the questions themselves that form the spirituality.

Getting back to my kids...

You can see how difficult it would be to explain this to a five year old. So you can see why I don't really discuss it with them yet.

I apologise - as stated I have just finished marking assignments and you would not believe how many students believe lecturers don't know that google exists.

BTW Richard Dawkins does quote Adams quite a lot and one chapter makes much the same point.

Heh, I might have been slightly more defensive than I should have been anyway. That's something I've developed after all the start of term warnings "If you plagiarize, you will be chucked out of the University."