A repeatedly unanswered question on religion for a Sunday afternoon.

[darkstar3]

To keep it short and simple:

Why does a person's religious affiliation automatically deserve more respect than political, sports, or any other group affiliation?

[greymattermom]

1. it doesn't

my daughter won't date a Republican but is tolerant of most religions.

[edhopper]

2. That doesn't ever seem to get answered.

I posted something similar. My GWB thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=277543&mesg_id=277543

And the point was missed by most replies.

[rug]

3. The question is backwards.

It is disrespect, not respect, that has to be earned.

[darkstar3]

4. False dichotomy.

[cleanhippie]

21. First time I have EVER heard that respect is not earned. WOW!

[rug]

29. Respect is a default position.

Unless, of course, you're a bigot.

[darkstar3]

30. Respect for people, not ideas.

Or are you telling me that you show respect to teabaggers, Raelians, and Scientologists?

No, you don't.

[rug]

35. Actually, when I meet one I do.

They are humans beyond their ideas and we usually have more in common than not. If and when they start snarling their sociopathic ideas, things change. When they snarl at me personally, repeating their sociopathic ideas, things change decisively. But you see, the disrespect has then been earned.

Often as not though, the conversations are about their jobs, their families, the shit they are dealt in their daily lives. That, I relate to and respect.

[darkstar3]

36. So you don't respect their ideas, because when they express them, they have earned your disrespect.

Thank you.

Now tell me how the R/T board is going to have threads related to jobs, instead of ideas?

[rug]

38. Actually, I disagree with the ideas. Disrespect is secondary and ultimately irrelevant.

What's more important to you, disagreeing or disrespecting? Doesn't matter if you're talking religion, theology, jobs or embryology.

[darkstar3]

41. The problem is, every time I disagree, someone religious calls it disrespect,

and we end up going in circles.

You've already admitted that you don't respect ideas. What you have yet to admit is that lack of respect, lack of the usage of kid gloves, does not automatically equal disrespect. You're still working with your false dichotomy. You also haven't answered how R/T here is going to deal with anything other than ideas.

[rug]

43. You and I both know it's easy to both disagree and disrespect simultaneously.

And it's the easier path to ignore the disagreement and plunge headlong into the disrespect.

I've never seen an idea get angry because it was disrespected.

The only suggestion I have for R/T is to keep remembering there's a person typing, not an idea.

[darkstar3]

45. You still haven't answered the question.

You say "it's the easier path to ignore the disagreement and plunge headlong into the disrespect."

Does that happen with other topics? Does it happen in GD? I don't see it. I see flamewars of incredibly disrespectful posts in GD going back and forth, and nobody cares that disrespect is being handed out on both sides of the argument.

It's only when the talk is of religion that people say "that's disrespectful" and then refuse to hear any further discussion. That's because the religious desire more respect for their affiliation than for any other type of affiliation. Why is that? What legitimate reason do they have for that demand?

[rug]

49. Go search GDP from January to June 2008.

Disrespect is rampant in all forums (maybe not the Cooking and Baking Group) and is rampant IRL as well.

If you are saying that religionists are more likely to assert sensitivity to topics on religion, you may be right. But it's not exclusive either. There are many sensitive subjects that people claim respect for.

I don't think that religious discussion should cease because someone blows the respect whistle. I don't think challenges to the government should cease because someone blows the patriotism whistle. There is no legitimate reason for that.

Howveer. Whoever is blowing that whistle still requires respect. And sometimes people are called disrespectful, not because of what they are saying, but because they are, indeed being disrespectful as they say it.

And from there, an entire different discussion ensues to its pointless end.

[darkstar3]

51. "I don't think that religious discussion should cease because someone blows the respect whistle."

Neither do I, and that's part of the reason I asked the question in the OP. So far, I haven't seen an answer, just people agreeing that it shouldn't be the case. Even you, surprisingly enough.

[rug]

54. A lot more was said than simply agreeing with you.

[cleanhippie]

40. So by your answer, we are no different at all. Not even a little bit.

When I hear a religious person snarling their sociopathic ideas, things change.

[rug]

42. Whether you like it or not, we, humans, are more alike than different.

Which, of course, is not what you said I said.

[cleanhippie]

44. You are dishonest, rug.

A bullshit non-answer to my question here and no response to the other one.

Why should I bother even engaging you when you move the goalposts, avoid answering questions and when you do, reply with some total nonsense that has nothing to do with the discussion?

Why? Because I respect you, Rug. So I will ask again.

I already stated that I agree that PEOPLE deserve the default position of respect. How can I better verbalize that?

But ideas are a different matter. And when a person espousing an idea refuses to change their position about an idea, even in the face of direct contradictory evidence, or when they are unable to produce even a single shred of evidence to support their claims, then the lack of respect for the idea will naturally fall onto the person as well.

Again, I propose the example of the conservative ideal. Do you continue to respect the conservative person that continues to scream "death panels", "where is the birth certificate", and "drill baby drill" ?

[rug]

46. From your first sentence, I am once again awed by my powers of gentle persuaion.

Nevertheless, to answer your question, Yes, I do continue to respect the most rabid person, incuding bin Laden, as a person, regardless of their ideas or, more pertinently, their actions.

Of course, continue to resist the ideas, fight the actions, and if necessary, destroy the person still committing those acts. But respect for the person remains.

Respect means to look again. I have looked at myself often enough to know that I am not, nor is any living person for that matter, in a position to claim moral, intellectual or any other type of superiority over another.

So yes, respect is reserved for the person. It should not be stripped.

As for ideas, it really doesn't matter.

[darkstar3]

47. Contradictory.

To an earlier post, and also to your general history. Or do you consider calling someone a coward to be "respect reserved for the person"?

[rug]

50. No.

Do you consider calling someone privileged respect?

[darkstar3]

52. Do you think the two are remotely equivalent?

I don't. Only one of them used to qualify as "fighting words."

[rug]

53. Let me see, "Your post reeks of privilege."

"Your post reeks of cowardice."

Yeah, I'd say they're fairly equivalent.

I'm sure your post was meant as a compliment.

Maybe I just don't take compliments well.

[darkstar3]

55. Privilege is a systemically created position that often prevents perspective.

Cowardice is a character flaw often considered a universal undesirable. I'd say they're not remotely equivalent. Post-justification won't change that.

[rug]

58. Let's review.

1) My baptism as an infant placed me in a systemically created position.

2) Consequently, this baptism has prevented me from obtaining perspectice, a/k/a blinded, deluded, biased or other implications.

3) Ergo, my disagreement with you reeks of privilege.

Is that the swill you're peddling?

Out of respect, I will not state the basis for saying your post reeked of cowardice.

[darkstar3]

59. Not remotely close, as any cursory reading of that thread will show.

And out of respect for the DU rules, I will not continue that argument here. I will, however, point to it as an example of how your claim earlier that "respect is reserved for the person. It should not be stripped." is simple hypocrisy.

Have fun with that.

[rug]

60. Reek is such a gentle word.

As is hypocrisy.

Having revived an argument, you depart.

Adieu.

[Ninjaneer]

71. Seriously?

"...nor is any living person for that matter, in a position to claim moral, intellectual or any other type of superiority over another."

So I can't claim moral superiority over Bin Laden? we're both on the same level?

[cleanhippie]

72. You are awed by your ability to make me see your dishonesty?

Really?

Of course, continue to resist the ideas, fight the actions, and if necessary, destroy the person still committing those acts. But respect for the person remains.


REALLY?


Destroy the person if need be, but still respect him?


REALLY?

I just don't get it.


If that is really what you think, we will never see eye to eye. It is answers like these that make it very difficult for me to show you any respect at all, for anything.

[Ninjaneer]

73. I had initially said something about that in my post.

I deleted it though as I'm almost 100% sure he is being disingenuous and its just ulterior motives at play.

[darkstar3]

74. Bingo.

[rug]

76. Yes, you don't get it.

[cleanhippie]

34. Not for ideas, its not.

As human beings, yes, I agree 100%. But ideas? No fucking way. Ideas have to stand on their OWN merit.

If we apply your logic to ideas, then you have to respect every conservative idea as EQUALLY valid and deserving of EQUAL respect. Is that the case?

[rug]

37. Before you address the idea, you speak to the person.

There's plenty of time to attack and hate. Doesn't hurt to first learn who you're attacking.

[cleanhippie]

39. Are you moving the goalposts, rug?

It appears that you are.

I already stated that I agree that PEOPLE deserve the default position of respect. How can I better verbalize that?

But ideas are a different matter. And when a person espousing an idea refuses to change their position about an idea, even in the face of direct contradictory evidence, or when they are unable to produce even a single shred of evidence to support their claims, then the lack of respect for the idea will naturally fall onto the person as well.

Again, I propose the example of the conservative ideal. Do you continue to respect the conservative person that continues to scream "death panels", "where is the birth certificate", and "drill baby drill" ?

[Igel]

48. Probably not.

"Respect" has two meanings.

The first is courtesy or civility. Most of us are trained at an early year to show respect for our elders, to show respect for other people. Meaning "civlity" or "politeness."

The second is diluted admiration. That's the respect that needs to be earned.

A lot of people have taken these to be the same kind of thing. All it produces is rude people who demand respect but have no capacity to give it except in exceptional circumstances (which is to say, when showing it makes them look good or honors a person who makes them look good).

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. I'm not sure....

...but the Framers must have felt it somewhat unique.

Just as there's a uniquely privileged kind of ownership in the Second Amendment, there's a privileged species of affiliation in the First, and the Civil Rights act of 1964.

Must have mattered to someone.

[edhopper]

6. We are not talking about laws

abridging a persons right to believe. We are talking about the prevalent idea that somehow peoples religious beliefs are sacrosanct from the type of challenges you would place on their political or philosophical ones.
The Constitution has little to do with this question.

[darkstar3]

7. +1

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. The legal protection is there...

...only because the prevalent idea is prevalent, so to speak. The law codified, codifies, the belief of the community. Your problem seems to be that that community doesn't think quite the way you do.

Which will in fact happen.

[darkstar3]

10. That's not true.

Freedom of speech was a recognized requirement of a free society, and freedom of and from religion is an absolutely necessary component of that freedom of speech.

The law does not remotely codify the belief of the community. In fact it clearly states that the government cannot codify or sanction belief.

This is a majority rule nation with minority protections, which means that the will of the majority does not equal "right".

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. But it recognizes that differences in this area....

...unlike the difference between, say, Yankees fans and Red Sox fans, which is also a free-association-free-speech issue -- is suffciently something to require the positive attention of the organic law of the state.

[darkstar3]

14. Does it?

Or does it recognize that the previous governments they'd seen all squashed speech by sanctioning, codifying, and even institutionalizing specific religions?

You are reading into the First Amendment intent that wasn't there. The mention of religion was not meant to protect the church, but to protect the state from the church.

[edhopper]

13. There is no legal protection

from some one challenging the tenets of any religion. Only in preventing some one from practicing.
There is equal protection for journalist, yet it is absolutely fine to challenge anything in a newspaper.
Do you see the difference? Do you see the double standard?

This is just another red hearing. Do you or don't you think religious belief should be exempt from challenges?

[EC]

8. Because when one is asked to have faith in the

unbelievable, they tend to hang with people that believe in the same unbelievable things, so as not to feel foolish? And that's the most important thing to them.

[darkstar3]

11. True, but that hardly answers the question of why they demand uncommon "respect."

[digonswine]

15. Perhaps it is just a way to get ahead of or prevent criticism.

If they set this pretext-phony as it may be-it could serve to prevent SOME other folks from offering a different viewpoint.

[darkstar3]

17. That's an obvious side effect, and a possible motive, but certainly not legitimization.

[digonswine]

22. Correct-nothing makes it legitimate.

At least that I can think of.

[LuvNewcastle]

16. I'm not so sure religion does get more respect.

Differences in religion have been a root cause of wars over the centuries. People say that they respect other religions, but what they really mean is that they respect the truce that has been brokered between the various religions. If you don't make fun of my religion, I won't trash yours. No religion can logically be proven true, quite unlike a football championship. Tolerance allows me to believe my religion is true, while allowing others to believe in their religions as well.

[darkstar3]

19. It's not a question of war, it's a question of discourse.

What I want to know is why so many people feel justified in dismissing any criticisms, legitimate or otherwise, of their faith by calling them disrespectful and therefore unworthy of discussion.

[Boojatta]

23. I hope that you create a new thread for your new question.

[darkstar3]

26. It's the same question, booj, and this is a thread created to ask it.

[Boojatta]

64. I'm interested in questions of discourse.

You ask "why so many people feel justified ..."

There are a variety of different "why" concepts that you could have in mind.

For example, you might want to know what goal they have and how feeling justified is anticipated to help them achieve that goal. You might want to know what personality characteristics, not involving conscious pursuit of any particular goal, motivate them to feel justified. You might want to know what aspect of a particular ideological system motivates its adherents to feel justified, how such an ideological system is created, and how it spreads.

However, perhaps there's a simpler approach. Ask yourself: is it better to simply discard a bad habit, or to replace it with a good habit? Also: do we always have the power to cause a bad habit to simply disappear, without replacing it with anything? Think of a religion as being like a habit. Maybe it's not feasible to simply make the majority of adherents abandon it and not replace their faith with an alternative faith. In that case, it can be destroyed from the outside, such as by war and forcible conversion to an alternative religion. Or it can be "destroyed" by reforming it from the inside, making it different from and better than it was.

We seem to have arrived at an idea that I already posted about:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=268634

Jesus is the world's most famous martyr. The instrument that was used to kill him is a symbol of Christianity. Maybe his story is better as a lesson of what to avoid doing, rather than as a model to be imitated. After all, if he was the final and perfect sacrifice, then there's no need for anybody else to complete the job.

Jesus tried to reform Judaism via direct criticism that offended adherents of Judaism, aroused opposition, and annoyed the Roman authorities who wanted to govern conquered territory without having to deal with religious or sectarian conflict.

If you want to succeed in reforming a religion, then you need to anticipate the reaction of the religion's adherents. You should have a strategy that will avoid provoking conflict. Of course, if criticism of the religion is simply dismissed, then conflict can be avoided, but there might be no achievement of reform in the religion. If criticism provokes conflict, then (at least in the short-term) the criticism is likely to be counter-productive.

[darkstar3]

65. Your post rambles over a considerable amount of subject matter.

What exactly is your point? Is your point simpy your final sentence that you spent time working up to?

[Boojatta]

67. I can feed it to you in bite-sized pieces. Let's start with your question.

What did you have in mind when you asked "why"?

For example, you might want to know what goal they have and how feeling justified is anticipated to help them achieve that goal. You might want to know what personality characteristics, not involving conscious pursuit of any particular goal, motivate them to feel justified. You might want to know what aspect of a particular ideological system motivates its adherents to feel justified, how such an ideological system is created, and how it spreads.

[darkstar3]

68. The question was clear, as well as the motive.

You have several of your own threads to use in order to jump down the rabbit hole and investigate the myriad of uses of the word "why"? I won't join you in Wonderland here.

[westerebus]

18. Unconditionally, no.

It doesn't matter what the organization is. It stands or falls on its history and its actions.

But, what of those people inside it?

[darkstar3]

20. What of them?

[westerebus]

24. Exactly.

What of them? That I thought was the first part of your question in the other OP. Which got me to thinking. What of them?

Are all persons worthy of respect? In the strict context of religious belief.

Because a person identifies themselves as religious are they less worthy of respect?

I would say no. They are entitled to the same respect I would extend to anyone.

I would not extent that respect to the organization of religion though.

Based on the individual's actions, I could make an exception.

Given the history of religion, can I withhold my respect of all individuals who profess that religion?

Again, I would be subjective here and base it on their individual action.

My expectation is they would do the same.

Is this going to happen? May be.

I'm hopeful humanity will continue to evolve to the point it won't matter.

[darkstar3]

25. To read more on my thoughts on this aspect of the topic,

read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x240069

In short, respect for people does not extend to respect for beliefs, religious, political, or otherwise.

[westerebus]

27. Having re read it, I remember it.

That's called a senior moment. LOL

Have you come to any conclusions?

Or is the question still unanswered in your opinion?

[darkstar3]

28. No one has satisfactorily answered the question from the believers' POV.

I can certainly speculate, as others on this thread have done, but I'm waiting to hear/read an answer that clearly states from the POV of a believer why they believe that their religious affiliation deserves more respect than their political affiliation.

[struggle4progress]

31. Just checked a few of the sports forums here: there don't seem to be contingents hanging out

in any of them, arguing that Baseball (say) is responsible for most of the world's problems

[darkstar3]

32. Now that's funny.

Get back to me when you can say that no one vehemently denounces someone else's sports team.

Or wear a Cubs jersey in Saint Louis and see what happens...:rofl:

[Ninjaneer]

33. Because no such case can be made against Baseball. eom

[dimbear]

56. OK. I'll name a famous person, and you ask yourself honestly how much respect wells up. Ready?

Mitt Romney.

(could have been any outlier.........no dig at the Mormons)

[darkstar3]

57. Yet another example of the special pleading I was talking about in the OP.

[dimbear]

61. As closely as I can judge, that would be "not too much"?

The way old Mitt gets zinged on late night makes me think his religion isn't getting a cartload of respect. Just possibly because it's not a kind of national team, the way mainline Christianity would be.

[darkstar3]

70. Precisely.

[Meshuga]

62. I'm not saying that religious affiliation deserve respect

(and, of course, you agree with respecting the person) but religious affiliation is part of what the person is so it is natural that the person is going to react negatively when someone badmouths or simply questions his or her religion. I'm not saying it is justified but the reaction shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Political affiliation works in the same way and that is why some people refrain from political and religious discussions since the exchange can get hairy.

But this is a Religion and Theology forum so (as I have been saying around here) people have to grow a skin if they wish to read the R/T threads and participate. In forums like this you are mostly free to write what you want to write but you might also read what you don't want to read.

[darkstar3]

63. It's not a surprise to me at all.

It's a problem because the veil of "disrespect" is used to avoid, denigrate, debase, or simply quash criticism.

Also, I disagree with your premise here: "religious affiliation is part of what the person is". My affiliations do not define me, and are not a part of who I am. And when I was a religious man, I felt the same.

[Boojatta]

66. If you had six fingers on each hand ...

then you would probably disagree with the premise that people have five fingers on each hand. However, you would nevertheless be in a small minority, and people who want a clear picture of reality, and who are able to live with the knowledge that their picture of reality isn't a perfect portrait of reality, would be better served by a picture of reality that includes five fingers on each hand.

People often connect their personal identity and sense of self-worth to their ideology, and this connection helps explain the psychology of ideological commitment.

Also, I disagree with your premise here: "religious affiliation is part of what the person is". My affiliations do not define me, and are not a part of who I am. And when I was a religious man, I felt the same.

[darkstar3]

69. That's one of the stranger false parallels I've read.

There are no genetic traits, whatsoever, that dictate affiliation, ideological or otherwise. And anyone who ties their self-worth to their ideology has a poor opinion of themselves, which isn't the fault of those who disagree with them.

[Meshuga]

75. I have seen people who is offended when...

...I dislike their favorite musician and/or music. They seem to think my criticism is about them and not the music/artist. The defensiveness and push back I get is unbelievable. Like you answered to Boojatta below, it is not the critic's fault but it happens.

Perhaps you are not like this but you should not always judge others using yourself as an example.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

77. Christopher Hitchens asks this question.

He says that we should not excuse bad behavior justified by religious practice.

Such as Mother Teresa's sham hospital, which provided no medical care, but just let people suffer and die, while she raked in millions of dollars from the gullible.

He also mentions circumcision as a particularly egregious practice justified by religion.