Why should we have to respect religions?

[Kadagar_AV]

Why should we have to respect religions?

If someone would paint his toenails blue every odd week and bark at the moon we would label him crazy.

If someone can't work every 7th day and insists on a girl being pregnant from "god" we have to respect* him.

My humble question is, why do we have to respect religion? I mean, most educated people from where I come from would scream "are you nuts?!", but yet this board clearly regulates that we must respect religion.

What religion?

Can I make up my own?

Don't get me wrong, I really do not want to make a own religion... But the question remains, why do we have to respect religion?
Why can't we challenge it?
Why can't we laugh at it?
Why can't we mock it?

NOTE that the question is WHY, the reason of the thread is not to laugh or mock religion. I just wonder why we cant.

We can laugh at someone saying that there is an alien who will burn the USA in one year unless the states sacrifices 100.000.000 Nike boots, but we cant laugh at someone saying we have a life after life?

So again, why do we have to respect religion? Why is religion different from anything else?








* "respect" him in the same way you tell him his childs are beautiful and his wifes cooking is GREAT.

[pevergreen]

Its not polite to mock what someone believes in.

Different people take it to different levels. I have a friend IRL who won't see Clash of the Titans (the movie) due to it having 'pagan' gods in it. Its not polite to mock something she believes so whole-heartedly in.

Sure you can do all of them, theres a time and a place though. This, I guess, is not the place to mock it. Laugh and challenge sometimes, but not all the time.

I try to respect everyone's beliefs, and in turn I hope they respect mine.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Because like it or not, it's a big part of the foundation our society is built upon. Disrespect religion = disrespect society itself. With the "newer" examples you cited, they're really not part of that foundation, so they're considered fair game.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why should we have to respect religions?

If someone would paint his toenails blue every odd week and bark at the moon we would label him crazy.

Would we? What about someone who checks twice to make sure they have their keys before leaving the house, and in their spare time pretends to be a warlord in ancient Japan, sending thousands of men into battle? Is he an obsessive compulsive megalomaniac?

How many of our behaviors and beliefs would be "crazy" to someone from another culture or time?

With religion, people usually believe to the level of sophistication that works for them.

Many of our innate psychological beliefs/assumptions are actually just cognitive biases. Religion is just one of them.

You aren't crazy if you see a face in the clouds are you?

So it's difficult to make the determination of which beliefs are respect worthy.

[Reenk Roink]

You basically answered your own questions Kadagar (GH made it explicity). We respect these religions because they are such an innate part of our society, and the beliefs are so widespread.

I, for example, think it is is pretty odd that people don't believe in God, or believe that scientific theories actually describe the real world, or that there is a natural causality, etc, but these (except the first) are some pretty deeply ingrained beliefs in (our) society.

The fact is that the dominant world religions exercise such influence on so many people's lives, that even among those who don't hold to them, many (rightfully so) shy away from mockery (though they may engage in always tactful criticism). It's why, for example, those Danish cartoons were such a retarded idea.

Think about why say Catholicism is treated and dealt with differently then Scientology.

[PanzerJaeger]

Common courtesy.

[miotas]

There's no reason you have to hold any respect for them, just don't disrespect them.

[Lemur]

Common courtesy.

Can't improve on that for logic, sensibility or concision.

[Beskar]

I think you can insult religion all you like, however, just expect to recieve insults back from those following religion. As such, it boils down to common courtesy, if you want to get along with those people with those beliefs, you have to make sacrifices.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You don't have to respect religions. Everyone is entitled to speak their mind, but no one is entitled to have their ideas protected from insult, mockery or debunking. The only reason to respect religions is so you can receive the same respect back from religious people in your day to day life. If you don't care about constantly putting up a fight against the religious, then go ahead and disrespect them. It all depends on where you feel your time and energy is better spent. I know some who go about not challenging anyones religious beliefs because they want to actually do more productive things with such religious people and I know others who feel it is their duty to challenge every religious person thinking that reaching at least one person will be worth it (one less person inhibiting human progress in the short term, many less people in the future as now non religious person has children who are predisposed to not be religious either).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can't improve on that for logic, sensibility or concision.

I disagree, I don't think it is common courtesy to let everyone go about without their ideas challenged on a daily basis simply because you are too lazy to go along with having your own ideas challenged as well. How is a Democracy supposed to grow and flourish if the public's ideas are no longer in a free market of competition but instead in their own isolated bubbles becoming individual ideological Japan's circa Tokugawa shogunate?

[Lemur]

I don't think it is common courtesy to let everyone go about without their ideas challenged on a daily basis simply because you are too lazy to go along with having your own ideas challenged as well.

Allow me to expand on the point: It's common courtesy to let people worship and believe in peace, without mockery, debunking or rudeness. That said, there are times and occasions when courtesy does not apply. Satirists and comedians, for example, make their living by ignoring common courtesy, and I don't think they should be in any way held back. Scientology, for example, is such a ripe comedic target that it would be unkind to prevent comedians from ragging on it.

Likewise, there are times and occasions when it's appropriate to take a cold, hard look at a faith. But in general common courtesy dictates that we live and let live in matters of faith.

Obviously, I think this should be a matter of consideration and courtesy, not of law. There's a reason it's the first amendment.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Allow me to expand on the point: It's common courtesy to let people worship and believe in peace, without mockery, debunking or rudeness. That said, there are times and occasions when courtesy does not apply. Satirists and comedians, for example, make their living by ignoring common courtesy, and I don't think they should be in any way held back. Scientology, for example, is such a ripe comedic target that it would be unkind to prevent comedians from ragging on it.

Likewise, there are times and occasions when it's appropriate to take a cold, hard look at a faith. But in general common courtesy dictates that we live and let live in matters of faith.

Obviously, I think this should be a matter of consideration and courtesy, not of law. There's a reason it's the first amendment.

Well I agree with that with the exception of the in general part. I would never walk into a church or disrupt someone during their prayer and start criticizing their faith, that to me borders on prosecution. But when I hear a story about how a lets say...a spinal surgeon (just watched LOST so thats why I think I chose that) is able to save someone's ability to walk after a brutal car crash and someone comments saying something to the point of "thank the lord he save his/her ability to walk!", is it my common courtesy to not say anything? Should I just live and let live and let this commenter continue praising god instead of suggesting the doctor who studied and trained for over a decade in order to help this person actually did the miracle (brought my modern science) and not god?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Some very good answers have already been given, so let me make the forum policy clear.

The relevant section explaining the rules reads:

Nation and Religion Bashing

This occupation, a variant of trolling behaviour, deserves special mention. It is perfectly acceptable to take issue with a government or religious grouping, but we frown upon generalised insults. "I can't stand the Lilliputian government's excessive use of hemp rope against innocents" is fine; " Lilliputians are small-minded pygmies - just look at the rope abuse they allow" is not. Examples don't really help here - just remember that Respect thing we talked about. Would you like what you wrote said about your own nationality?

Religion is another powder keg. Please remember that we have patrons of all religions and none here, and that their beliefs are sincerely held. They are also very often very important to a person's self-image - literally "sacred" - and insults aimed at fellow believers (and we include atheism as a belief here - you know what we're getting at, so don't start that again!) provoke hurt and upset. There's nothing wrong with using historical and factual data to make a point, but with care please.

There is nothing about respecting "religions". The rules are about respecting members and their beliefs. That does not mean one has to agree, but that one can challenge with due regard to the importance of those beliefs to the individual so engaged.

It is all too easy to trot out simplistic and insulting stereotypes designed merely to troll for angry reactions rather than bring understanding. This is easiest using national and religious stereotypes, which is why we highlighted them. One might read the Roman Catholic Pedo Sex Scandals thread for some excellent examples of both challenging posts and those peeking from under bridges in the hope they might find a choice morsel upon which to snack. There is little there about respect for a religion, but most patrons have shown a decent respect for our members of that religion.

It has been a most difficult thread to moderate, but luckily the vast majority of Backroom members understand the concept of respect, even when arguing passionately. And I for one, am enormously grateful for that.

[Scienter]

Common courtesy.

This.

I try to respect other people's beliefs when they differ from mine because I expect the same treatment from them. I don't expect people to believe what I do, and so long as they don't demand that I conform to their beliefs, everything is ok. To each their own, so long as they're not impacting or harming others.

[drone]

What about the reverse? Do religions have to respect us? There generally isn't much of that going on.

[Lemur]

Do religions have to respect us?

Absolutely not; silly question. Religions are and always have been free to disrespect, belittle, demean and crush believers since the beginning of time.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think it's about respecting people and not beliefs yeah? I think it is right to say that certain beliefs are ridiculous. The person may take offense, but the backroom is all about arguing which beliefs are ridiculous and which aren't. You can kick the ball as hard as you want as long as it's clear you aren't playing the man.

[Strike For The South]

Common courtesy.

+1

The more some of you talk the more I think I'm surrounded by social shut ins.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hmm, a consensus being reached before page two, let me ask another question (well three):


'Should religion deserve more respect, or special respect, over other opinion?'

Is it more respectable for a state to put 'In God we Trust' on its currency than to put on 'In the Monster of Loch Ness we Trust'?

Or, to reverse it, should the theocratic 'One Nation under God' deserve less respect than the people's democratic 'One Nation under Socialism'?

[Strike For The South]

Hmm, a consensus being reached before page two, let me ask another question (well three):

'Should religion deserve more respect, or special respect, over other opinion?'

No

Is it more respectable for a state to put 'In God we Trust' on its currency than to put on 'In the Monster of Loch Ness we Trust'?

More respectable? No, but you wouldn't look crazy

Or, to reverse it, should the theocratic 'One Nation under God' deserve less respect than the people's democratic 'One Nation under Socialism'?

It would depend which side of the fence you fell on, but I submit one respects money for the financial power it has not for the words written on it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

More respectable? No, but you wouldn't look crazy

Do you mean that cryptozoologists are (/look) crazy?

Why the difference in respect for those who believe in one unsees creature over those who believe in others?

[drone]

Absolutely not; silly question. Religions are and always have been free to disrespect, belittle, demean and crush believers since the beginning of time.

And unbelievers, or believers of a different philosophy, or even believers of the same philosophy with a very minute difference of opinion on how worship is to be performed.

Quid pro quo, Dr. Lecter.

[Lemur]

And unbelievers, or believers of a different philosophy, or even believers of the same philosophy with a very minute difference of opinion on how worship is to be performed.

Sure, but it's the crushing of the believers I find the most creepy. I'm really sick, so I'm not having much Google-fu right now, but I know for a fact that there's a Jewish prayer women are supposed to say where they apologize to God for being born female. Stuff like that always creeps me out.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

'Should religion deserve more respect, or special respect, over other opinion?'

It depends on what the other opinion is.

Is it more respectable for a state to put 'In God we Trust' on its currency than to put on 'In the Monster of Loch Ness we Trust'?

Yes, certainly.

The monster of loch ness is a supposed to be a physical creature, so it's existence is judged by the evidence. The evidence is that it's a hoax. It doesn't inherently have reasons to trust in it either.

In God we trust is much more vague, it isn't easily disprovable, and it at least makes sense theoretically. i.e., if god exists in a certain way, it makes sense to trust him, while if the loch ness monster exists, it doesn't make sense to trust in him.

Or, to reverse it, should the theocratic 'One Nation under God' deserve less respect than the people's democratic 'One Nation under Socialism'?

These seem pretty similar.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It depends on what the other opinion is.

So respect for opinions are not based on respect for the person holding them, but on the worth of the opinion itself? And there is also a hierarchy in the worth of opinion?

The monster of loch ness is a supposed to be a physical creature, so it's existence is judged by the evidence. The evidence is that it's a hoax. It doesn't inherently have reasons to trust in it either.

In God we trust is much more vague, it isn't easily disprovable, and it at least makes sense theoretically. i.e., if god exists in a certain way, it makes sense to trust him, while if the loch ness monster exists, it doesn't make sense to trust in him.

Should respect for a religion be based on the theoretical / theological worth of the religion then?
Do monotheistic religions deserve more respect than polytheistic ones? More than animismtic? Or are they all, however fundamentally different, of equal theoretical / theological worth?

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Does Scientology deserve as much respect as Lutheranism? Is it common courtesy to respect Scientology? If a weak-minded person, socially isolated, in adverse circumstances, is recruited by Scientology, do we respect this as a common courtesy, or do we faill him?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So respect for opinions are not based on respect for the person holding them, but on the worth of the opinion itself? And there is also a hierarchy in the worth of opinion?

The words respect and opinion are a bit troublesome I think. Are we talking about respect in a "live and let live" sense, or in a "I admire this" sense? Are we talking about opinions as things that people believe, or purely subjective beliefs?

You can respect a person and think that their beliefs are false or ridiculous.

Should respect for a religion be based on the theoretical / theological worth of the religion then?
Do monotheistic religions deserve more respect than polytheistic ones? More than animismtic? Or are they all, however fundamentally different, of equal theoretical / theological worth?

A religion that supports doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is (arguably) more respectable than one that doesn't support it.

Does Scientology deserve as much respect as Lutheranism? Is it common courtesy to respect Scientology? If a weak-minded person, socially isolated, in adverse circumstances, is recruited by Scientology, do we respect this as a common courtesy, or do we faill him?

This is why "common courtesy" isn't really an answer.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In terms of legal status and the right to free speech etc, all beliefs deserve the same respect. You respect peoples' right to say them, without having to respect the content of what they say.

On these forums, it's more about your tone. For example, I made a thread suggesting the Pope might be the antichrist, you can't get much more critical of a religion than that. But if I just made a thread saying "Catholics are retardz" it would have got locked. Here in the Backroom, you have to attack the ideology, not the person that holds to it.

In RL, do what you want, we live in relatively free countries. In the US, religion has come to have a somewhat privileges position because people appeal to the First Amendment as if it is a 'positive right' at times (for example when they want to wear religious symbols to school that are otherwise against dress codes). In France, religious beliefs are persecuted because they are not allowed outwith the private sphere (I don't see why people think this is acceptable, what if free speech in general was only allowed in the private sphere?).

[LittleGrizzly]

I think you should be respectful of the thing as a whole. I wouldn't snigger if someone introduced themself as either a catholic, scientologist or a pagan. Now if we are going to take it down to individual parts of the religion, for example the story of Noah's Ark, or the removal of thetans from your body then it does get a bit silly. Ill be respectful of the whole but i really can't respect some of the crazier thinhgs religions claim...

[Strike For The South]

Do you mean that cryptozoologists are (/look) crazy?

Why the difference in respect for those who believe in one unsees creature over those who believe in others?

There is a stark differnce in looking for proof and deciding it would be a good idea to put ol nessie on currency. I mean if Scotland wanted to come out with a commerative coin that'd be fine, However, I was under the line of thought that it would be changed from one or the other.

The whole point is religion is a private issue and the state should neither help nor hinder it provided it does not begin to physically harm people the state has a duty to protect (I.E. minors)