Religion and "Respect": When is it appropriate to respect each other?

[Skinner]

As the administrator of this website, I am careful not to pick sides in theological disputes. Since my primary goal is fostering thoughtful discussion on this website, I spend a lot of time thinking about the issue of respect, and the circumstances under which people should be expected to respect one another. In short: Due to my position, I publicly avoid taking a side on the question of God, but I am very pro-respect.

Yesterday, we had a long thread on the topic of religion and respect, specifically on the question of when it is permissible to disrespect someone with whom you disagree. I'm not going to re-hash that discussion here, because that's not the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is to ask: When it is appropriate to respect one another?

Does respect require that you agree? Is it possible to respect someone even if you completely disagree with them? Is it possible to disagree without holding a person or their beliefs up to ridicule or scorn? If you respect someone who holds a differing viewpoint, does it require you to respect *everyone* who holds a differing viewpoint? Where is the line drawn? What does it mean to respect another person or their beliefs?

When is it appropriate for a believer to respect a non-believer? When is it appropriate for a non-believer to respect a believer? Are there people on the other side whom you respect, and why?

We had a discussion about disrespect yesterday, so I thought we could try one about respect today.

[The Doctor.]

1. "Respect all things"

Which is to say, one does not need to 'like' a given thing to respect it. To respect something means to understand and appreciate it's innate value.
One does not need to 'like' a given individual to respect them.

But respect should always be mandatory.

Now politeness, on the other hand... that, I think, is the issue.

[MsConduct]

2. Respect is on the same level as politeness to me. I'll respect

someone and be polite to someone until until they give me reason not to. Of course, I am a total reactionary.

[Richard D]

3. My thought

Respect is always necessary up to a certain point. And that point is very much detirmined by the others level of respect. In other words if my neighbor is practicing their beliefs, I need to respect their right to practice their belief unless their belief is that I (or others) need to believe what they believe. At that point they have no respect for me, and in fact can become a threat to my way of life. So for respect to be viable, it must be mutual.

[ixion]

4. the difference between disrespect and disagreement

You can disagree with someone and still respect them.

Case in point: my father and I. We do not see eye to eye on most issues, yet we maintain respect for one another.

Though I feel that respect is not granted, as much as earned, that said, I don't think it's appropriate to disrespect other people's religious and spiritual beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their own. I guess it's only when they insist that I believe it as well that I begin to lose respect for someone in a debate, in that regard. However lowering my thesis to that of an attack is something I wouldn't do.

[swimboy]

5. I think respect carves out a space wherein it is safe to disagree.

I am a Christian, but I will take the part of people of other faiths so their rights are not denied. For that reason, I don't want Christian prayers required in schools, etc., because respect for those who do not agree with me motivates me to want neutral zones where we can calmly learn about each others beliefs.

The neutral zone where political differences can be meaningfully discussed seems to be disappearing.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

6. Respect is something that is a conscious choice

and it doesn't always come naturally, nor is it an altruistic stance. I believe you give respect in order to get it. I am a teacher. My students know I respect them, and I get it in return.

I believe our ancestors came her in order to be to worship as they pleased, and they knew if they were going to form a country where they had any chance at all of continuing to do that, they had to keep one's religious beliefs out of the mix.

I respect believers and non believers. I even force myself to "respect" (as in don't get in their face and bitch at them) hypocritical believers who talk the talk and don't walk the walk, because they are the most dangerous.

Where I am less respectful is of cults that find victims via coercion, brainwashing, etc. Like the whole Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes relationship (if you can believe MSM gossip) is very disturbing. She evidently has a keeper. Yuk. I can't give that respect.

[notadmblnd]

7. No, respect does not require one to agree.

and respect must be reciprocal. Everyone deserves respect until such a point that they become disrespectful and hurtful to other peoples beliefs.

Most people will not behave disrespectfully until they feel they have been disrespected. We've all seen it here with groups or individuals that come here not to discuss an issue but to create discourse. A topic starts off with respectful discourse and suddenly it's broken down to nothing more than a flame war.

We should to strive ignore people or groups that are disrespectful to others (the mods usually do a great job at tomb stoning these sorts) and many have attained the ability to do so. But I think it is only human nature to fight or flee when one perceives that they are being attacked.

[lcordero2]

8. respect has to be EARNED

the only thing that is owed to another individual is common courtesy and civility...and even that can be taken away if an individual proves that they don't deserve it.

[sam sarrha]

15. i believe this is a cultural behaviour.. one respected because it prevents

war and murder

[cosmik debris]

9. Your point yesterday

was that we should give the respect that we wish to receive. I thought that put the issue to rest. I guess I was wrong.

But I still agree with your position.

[sam sarrha]

17. I agree however Naive that may actually be

[Az]

10. Even we tolerant liberals are intolerant of things

The gold standard of individuals we are intolerant of would be Fred Phelps. This man pumps so much vile hatred into our society that it is impossible to hold back our contempt for him. So it is clear that even though we embrace the idea of tolerance there are things we as a group are intolerant of.

Further complicate the matter by the fact that our society is dynamic. The things we find tolerable today were not always so. In fact you do not have to go to far back in history to find a time where Fred Phelps would have been considered merely enthusiastic.

There is no clear answer. Some people are at different places in their understanding of right and wrong. While we each add our voice to and take direction from societies current balance we still maintain our own ideas of right and wrong derived from our own understanding.

The thing is we live in a diverse society. Even counting the fact that we mat believe that some aspect of another's belief is detrimental to our society it is a good idea to show them respect. But what if the threat is too great. What if they are a Fred Phelps.

Sometimes it is necissary to rise up and denounce someone who's actions or words are so reprehensible to our understanding of right and wrong. But to those who do not take an active roll in such reprehensible behaviour we should extend a level of respect.

This does not mean we agree with them. It merely means that there is some hope that we can deal with each other civily. There may be enough common ground that we can find some understanding of each other. This can never happen if we choose to ridicule them or dismiss them because some of their other beliefs do not mesh with ours.

Ours is the tent of diversity. We cannot expect everyone to be the same. So we have to have patience and struggle to find the common ground we do share. And from there we can build understanding to each others positions that we do not yet share.

I have been thinking about why we turn on each other. One of the things that I believe causes it is that our society has become stagnant. For a great period of time we advanced our understanding of ourselves. But as we advanced there were those that resisted or rejected the advances. At first they were not enough to effect the progress in society. But they accumulated.

Now they have grown to such a size and voice that they have halted the progress and threaten to undo it. The halt of advancement has left us feeling lost. We cannot seem to get this societ moving again and we become frustrated. In frustration we begin to look to each other to see what is wrong. As the stress rises we turn on each other. Finding fault due to shared ties with those that oppress us if in name only. Or perhaps trying to figure out which cause to jetison in order to save the rest.

The thing is when there is progress we do not think this way. We see that issues are being dealt with. We can focus on doing the good works and freeing more people. But we have ground to a halt. And so we fall on each other. If we are to overcome the forces that are inhibiting our societies advances we shall have to overcome our own internal squabbling. We shall have to make sure we do not jetison anyone that yearns to be free.

[I Have A Dream]

11. I will respect a person until he/she starts to take rights away...

from others or affects others' freedoms. If what he/she is doing only impacts him/herself, then I absolutely respect this and the person.

Nobody has the right to take away anyone else's right to choose. When this happens, I have a difficult time respecting the person. However, I still really try to stay civil when I'm discussing the situation with the person.

[arwalden]

12. Who Gets To Set The Standard Of What "Respect" Actually Is?

Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it?

If it is disrespectful to say "god is a myth"? Is there any way to directly express such a simple thought in a way that will appease the vanity of believers.

"In my opinion, and I could be wrong, but it would seem that due to the lack of evidence that I've personally observed, notwithstanding and acknowledging our limited ability to test such claims, I have strong doubts as to the validity that deities exist."

It's watered-down, clumsy, silly, and crippling.

[Skinner]

13. For the purposes of this thread...

...you get to set the standard.

[TreasonousBastard]

40. It is not disrespectful to say "God is a myth," but...

it is disrespectful to insist that I agree with you. Or to claim loudly and publically that I am some substandard being simply because I don't.

And it is extremely disrespectful for us to tell each other what it is that the other believes, or doesn't. There are, btw, many of us who do subscribe to the concepts of "Christian mythology" and don't take all that much of it all that seriously. We think that many common ideas about "God" are mythological, but we do not dismiss the concept of God itself, or the principles underlying the myths.

On discussion boards it is often forgotten that out there in meatspace there are billions of people who happily go on with their lives without confronting others over their beliefs, or lack of them. Admittedly, the news is full of the militants on both sides who scream that they should have the law on their sides so it seems that this is more of a problem than it may really be. And, admittedly, we are in the midst of a dominionist revolution where they are gaining some ground in idiocy like intelligent design and the insistance on public Christian symbolism,

But, in the long view, we've been through this before and sanity and the need for mutual respect prevail simply because we have to live with each other. We do not, at the moment, have a mandatory state religion. Nor do we have a mandatory lack of religion.

(Thank God for that.)

[sam sarrha]

14. definition:'Show' consideration for;..treat with deference, 'show' esteem,

willingness to 'show' consideration or appreciation. n/a feeling of deferential regard.

deference/deferential is a word that shows a lot..I think this a key aspect of the subject of 'Respect'...

"Deference:n/..Submission or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes, or judgment of another..." I think that you have to listen a bit then excuse yourself and run away..

I doubt there is anything 'Innate' here, i believe that is an opinion or some past life thing or something..

I can accept the fact that other people believe what they do however foolish that appears or is. Everybody has to start somewhere...

if they are profess to be Christians, then they have to tote that load.. they got to carry that cross... The life of Christ is said to have been Steeped in Tolerance, he only taught how important love and forgiveness was.. I must interject my own opinion here

i really feel that they only put the Old Testament in the bible to keep it from being confused with Buddhism.. Palestine was the western Crossroad of the Silk Road. there must have been lots of information coming down that pipeline.

the centuries old debate of the Greek diphthong which can be translated Christ "is/as" God. Christ as god denies any discussion of the teachings.. if Christ is God I must therefore show deference and not disturb disturb them.. at that point i can only talk football.

as a Buddhist i can not cause suffering to another, even if it is to help them out of the suffering the foolishness of ignorance..

but i DO NOT have to respect what they believe, only that they believe it and it makes them happy.

and i am not allowed to make that point to them..

I don't "Show" anything, i just do not interact with them.. i don't have to agree with them or talk to them about it.. i am polite and walk away

I suffer from PTSD from my childhood experiences in an Extremest Fundamentalist Church..at 50 i became a Buddhist and had the amazing revelation that the teachings of Christ came form India. where else could such a concept originate in a culture where one was obliged to stone their family and friends to death for what today are very minor or ludicrous actions.. i guess that is why they think he has to be a god.

[mestup]

16. Since religious beliefs tend to defy reason, it's more difficult

to find an explanation behind what may seem extreme to us. And understanding usually is the key to tolerance.

As a newbie here I'd say DU's forums are some of the most civilized and enjoyable on the web. The few times I see extreme or disrespectful posts, I see most DUers react like South Park characters who just turn to the camera and blink. At DU, out come the popcorn and bug-eyed icons. But rarely does anyone return the disrespect.

[Az]

18. I once walked into a book signing

It was by a author promoting a particular nonesensical belief about medicine. He was speaking before the signing. I caught the man in a deliberate lie. It was not a lie of misunderstanding. It was not a lie of ignorance. The nature of the lie was such that he would not have phrased it the way he did unless he was deliberately trying to misrepresent it.

I spoke out. But because the bulk of the audience was comprised of people that believed in his position it was I that was reviled. I tried to point out the nature of the misrepresentation he had presented and still no one would hear of it.

Respect is tricky. Particularly where beleif is concerned. We don't respect people on one simple plane. We can respect them as humans and we can respect their ideas. Sometimes these come into conflict with each other.

Peter Popoff is a conartist. He sells god, faith, and hope to people that are desperate. Business is good. He is a fraud. He uses radios and spies in the audience to gather information and convince the people that he has a pipeline to god and knows their ills. He steals their hope and their money.

My respect for these people insists that I stand up against the fraud. But they believe in him. I have to disrespect their beliefs to defend them from his predations. They may revile me for taking away their hope. But my respect for them as human beings demands I act.

The world is not black and white. Popoff and others represent extremes. Somewhere along the scale beliefs that we percieve as destructive become somewhat less immediate or dire. It is there that we can begin extending respect to the individuals beliefs even if we do not agree with them. This point is difficult to pin down.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Yes, you can respect someone or something with which you disagree.

Even with which you disagree strongly.

Before I talk about how this is possible I'd like to introduce a concept in the dynamics of conflict, that of class-one and class-two disagreements. A class-one disagreement is one in which one side cannot explain the other's position to the other's satisfaction. A class-two disagreement is one in which both sides can explain to each other's satisfaction the other sides position - a genuine disagreement.

It becomes pretty apparent as you examine the conflicts which cause a great deal of suffering in this world, that many of them are class one disagreements, and one gets the sense that almost all of them are preventably so.

Introducing personal attacks or taunting into the discourse is obvious disrespect. But where I think this concept of class-one disagreements plays into respect and disrespect is that it is a grave and unconscionable disrespect of your opponent to:

- Intentionally risk causing a class-one disagreement by fabricating or drawing unfounded inferences about unknown or unstated portions of your opponent's position.
- Intentionally cause a class-one disagreement by stating that their position is something opposite or ulterior to what they've stated.
- Carrying out an argument as if it is a class-one disagreement on the surface by misrepresenting your opponent's position, whether or not you believe your own representation of your opponent's position.

There are probably more, but any of these things shows that someone does not genuinely want to debate or even disagree.

[tx_dem41]

20. I can respect someone with whom I disagree with entirely, as long as

they are being intellectually honest with themselves and with me. That does not exclude religion, in which area I am an Atheist, because I believe that religion (and the lack thereof) can be discussed quite intelligently from both sides.

[bee]

21. the problem with respect,

imho, is that whether or not someone feels respected depends on their personal perception. I know a guy who wrote off a long time friend because he felt he was being disrespected. Why? Because his friend, who crashed at his place for a month between apartments, did things like leave his dishes in the sink and not pick up TP on the way home. It was silly. They lived across the hall from me at the time, so I heard both sides of the story. OK so maybe the guy was inconsiderate... but disrespectful? I didnt think so, really he was just off in lala land all the time. Good guy though, and he meant no disrespect. That was 4 years ago. They dont speak to this day.

Now we factor in the complications of interpreting the written word. Again based on ones own personal perception of the writings of a total stranger. Some times people "come off" differently than they intend to, but a stranger cant know that.

I try to respect everyone because Id like to be respected. I think a general lack of respect is one of the biggest problems in this country - but thats another issue. I do not respect Fred Phelp's views because hate completely offends me. But I do respect his level of commitment to his (albeit abhor-able) cause.

[jackthesprat]

22. All and any discussions should be respectful,

no matter what the subject. One problem is that those who are religious, or sympathetic to religion, think the very idea of rational discourse is antithetical to religion it. But in the end, respect has more to do with allowing that your "opponent" is just as knowledgeable as yourself; a rare thing unfortunately.

[shrike]

30. Maybe there's a difference between courtesy and respect

Although it may be difficult to be courteous on-line because one is typing one's replies to people one does not know and probably will never meet -- or may not even care to meet or even like in person.

I am courteous every day to people I don't particularly respect or even like because I work with them, must get information from them, live next door to them, etc. It's called being an adult. It's called getting along in this world. Doesn't mean I have to suck up to them, compromise my ideals, or anything of that nature. Sometimes I get royally ticked -- I'm a human being -- but adults control themselves when necessarily: part of being a civilized human being. And a civilized human being, in my view, shows a modicum of courtesy to one's fellow man.

Of course, I suppose someone else's view of courtesy may be different than mine. And how you would set a standard of courtesy at a place like DU -- well, better minds than mine are going to have to tackle that one.

[progressoid]

23. Respect. Tolerance. Acceptance. Politeness. etc

All vary according to the individual and even the subject matter under consideration.

The similarities within politics are interesting. I'm always taken aback when I hear Democrats say they respect Karl Rove's brilliance. Sorry, that doesn't wash for me. I don't respect anything about Karl. To me that would be tacit approval of his methods and beliefs. I can't do that. I might be polite to him if I ever met him, but I would not respect him. Nor should I accept or tolerate his policies.

Regarding religious beliefs - here's where things get sticky. Are we expected to respect others beliefs OR their right to have those beliefs? Even if we respect their beliefs, at some point, we all reach a breaking point. Ironically, even the most liberal and tolerant of us get to a point where we say, "well, that's just plain nuts". For many, that may be the Realeans, for others, Catholicism. So when we reach that point, does that make us less respectful? Or just sensible?

I can safely say that I am less patient of many (most?) religions today, than I was 20 years ago. However, I have accepted the fact that others need to believe. I tolerate some of it. I'm polite to nearly all...well, at least in person - online is another issue.

[Taxloss]

24. I think the Pharyngula piece in the original thread nailed it.

We atheists are happy to let people believe whatever they want to believe. If someone does believe in a god, then I might consider that person somewhat deluded or superstitious. However, their opinion of me would be that I deserve to burn in torment for eternity.

That's not respectful, and that's one of my chief problems with organised religion - it is, in that manner, exclusionary. So, to take an example at random, a good Christian would believe a good atheist was going to hell. A good Muslim would believe a good Hindu was going to hell. Why? That doesn't seem to be a rational system in the least. Yet to deny this belief is to kick away the key salvation/damnation prop of monotheistic religion.

I respect religion in general and individual religions a great deal. But I think they don't appreciate the vileness of some of their creeds.

[Az]

25. To be fair

The more liberal representations of belief seem to lean towards the idea of good and decent people do not get sent to the warm place even if they don't believe in the right god or believe at all. How they reconcile that with the doctrine they adhere to is their particular issue. And as long as they do not look upon nonbelievers in disdain or contempt then there really isn't an issue.

[Taxloss]

26. Fair enough.

It was one of the problems my faith foundered on, though.

[Solon]

116. In some religions, there is no need to "reconcile" two conflicting...

beliefs in regards to those of differing religions. In some, DEEDS far outweigh belief, usually to the point that belief doesn't much matter, others take a more unusual approach, whereas belief is important, to a certain extent, but in a different way. Basically you are bound to your religious "ethos" if you claim to be a member of said religion, even though you don't follow their tenets in the best way. For example, a Christian, who still believes, but kills indiscriminately may be destined for Hell, but an Atheist who used to be Christian, basically faces nothingness(or however his/her belief of afterlife pans out) after death. Think of it as changing jurisdictions of sorts, where Yahweh lost his reach, so to speak. Then again, I'm a Polytheist with no belief in Omnipotence or Omniscience beings, so this is no conflict for me, a Christian may have a conflict, I don't know. :shrug:

[polmaven]

121. Exactly!

I happen to consider myself a religious person with a deep and abiding Faith. I have my own reasons for that Faith. I will not try to shove them down anyone else's throat, and I will not insist that anyone else live by my Faith.

I know a lot of people, Those who believe and those who do not. My sister is what she considers to be a Humanist. She does not like organized religion.

Most (not all, but most) of the people I know who consider themselves to be atheists are moral, caring, loving people, who happen to have their own ideas about how the world works, just as I do.
(***edited to include that there are many alleged (IMO) Christians...Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, etc...who need to take lessons in what it means to be moral, caring and loving***)

I agree that most of the left wing religious people, especially those at DU, will not consider that those who do not believe will go to Hell...actually, personally, I don't even believe in Hell..at least not in the typically understood definition. That is, in my opinion, one great big myth.

The disrespect, on either side, comes when one or the other demeans the belief of anyone else...and by belief I mean the belief that God exists or the belief that god is a myth.

[JerseygirlCT]

123. And you are attributing a belief to all believers

that is not necessarily so. You're stereotyping all believers according to the beliefs of some.

I most certainly do not think you will burn in hell. Frankly, I don't think anyone will. But I also don't think anyone can know that or will know that now.

In fact, I wouldn't even go so far as you do -- although our beliefs differ, I would never assume you are deluded. We just don't agree -- and that's fine.

[Maat]

27. I feel that I can always discuss things on DU without ..

using terms like 'myth,''irrational,' or 'persecution.'

To me, 'respect' means staying away from incendiary language when referencing another DUer's beliefs.

That sums it up for me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. But sometimes you don't know what other DUer's beliefs are

until you say something you thought was acceptable, and then suddenly one DUer jumps on it. For instance, many Christians (all the ones I know personally, as far as I'm aware) regard the creation story in Genesis as a myth - and the Roman Catholic church has just reiterated that is its position. But a few DUers will still take offence at this description.

There are many criticisms of DUers' political views on DU - whether the DLC is acceptable, for instance. I don't think that religious views should get a pass, when political views don't.

[Maat]

50. Well, on the face of it, I agree with you.

I don't mind it when people disagree with me at all.

I'd prefer a DUer say something like, "I regard the creation story in Genesis as mythical," rather than "God is a myth."

Diplomacy is everything; a few words can mean everything. No one knows that better than I. I've worked in Dependency Court (which deals with kids taken into custody) on and off for thirteen years. When dealing with parents who are aggitated, likely high on meth., and yet who still love their kids, I'm very careful to be diplomatic, respectful, polite and focused on getting through the process one step at a time.

And I try to observe the same on DU. That's my two cents' worth.

[BurtWorm]

28. I respect someone who seems to make an effort to understand

what they don't understand or believe. I respect someone who takes pains to explain what they believe to someone who doesn't understand it.

[beam me up scottie]

29. I'm with him.

:thumbsup:

Until you make an effort to understand where someone else is coming from, there is no foundation for respect.

[FM Arouet666]

31. An interesting post.

I intentionally avoided the post about disrespect, becoming a bit unwieldily and overtly emotional. Your take on the discussion is far easier to address.

We should be clear on what is to be respected. Respect the argument, give consideration to what is being said, and avoid disrespect, holding in low esteem, the individual making the argument. Sounds like pedantic mental masturbation.

What I mean to say is we should avoid attacking the person, ad hominem, and concentrate on attacking the argument. Sounds simple, but reading some of the more heated debates on DU I realize that we all have different criteria for what constitutes a personal attack or an affront to our beliefs.

I agree with the pro-respect perspective and find the constant bickering to be very unproductive. I can only offer a few of the things I think about when posting to heated threads.

Always try to understand the other person's point of view. I often try to argue the opposite of my position, anticipating the counter argument, but occasionally altering my own point of view.

Absolutely avoid the logical fallacy of ad hominem, against the man. Arguing with someone with a completely different point of view often leads to a personal attack. I am as guilty as the next guy, but it should be avoided. Ad hominem is difficult because you can inadvertently attack a person through aggressive rebuttal of their position. Are you countering an argument or ridiculing their belief?

And the last thing I try to keep in mind is that the person whom I am debating has many things in common with me. we are progressives, we are on DU, they are not the enemy.

Just some thoughts....... :evilgrin:

[Az]

32. I used to be a mod for an atheist debate group

One rule we had that was iron clad was no ad-hominem attacks. You either dealt with the issue or you got a swift boot out of the channel. Persist in ad-hom attacks and you got a ban slapped on you.

That really cleared a lot of the trouble. It kept most debates civil. And it kept the discussion focused on the matter at hand.

[arwalden]

48. That Makes Sense...

... but when folks are seemingly incapable of separating themselves from the church, then any scorn or ridicule towards the church, its policies, or its leaders will be viewed (by them) as an ad-hominem personal slam.

With such an iron clad rule like that, it would seem to favor the believers, since just about any harsh word regarding religion could be viewed as some sort of personal slam and insult.

[Az]

60. I assure you disagreement and debate were still quite possible

The key is in not making proclomations that religion is wrong or a myth. That is an unsubstantiated claim. If on the other hand you lay out evidence showing how a particular religion is wrong or a myth generated by some means then the claims can be supported.

The simple pitting of your belief that it is wrong against their belief that it is right serves nothing. We already know each side disagrees. The proclaiming of this disagreement in such an unsupported manner is badgering and not debate. Thus they react to being told they are wrong as they do.

Now if instead you say something like you think their religion is wrong, they have no leg to stand on. You are accurately explaining your opinion and they really cannot correct your opinion. They may try to change it but they cannot tell you you don't know your own opinion.

Two rules of thumb I generally use when debating religion. You are not going to convince them their religion is wrong today and always leave them a dignified way out. Religion is simply too much a part of people's lives. And the way they come by it is not a deliberate thing. If the information you convey to them in debate has any effect it is going to take time for them to internalize the information and then only by their own hands will they rid themself of a religious belief. So you are not going to convince them today their dearest beliefs are wrong and if you don't allow them a way to back out of the matter with dignity they will have no choice other than to come through you.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Is it your intent to convert the believers?

You speak as if this is what we are trying to accomplish.

Granted, it would be wonderful, IMO, if the number of freethinkers swelled until we were no longer a tiny minority, but I would never attempt to convert a believer because I detest it so when they try to "save" me.

[Az]

64. Just explaining the rules I used in a debate channel

I do not engage in religious debate with someone unless invited or attacked.

[DanCa]

33. The line is drawn at personal attacks

I think that should be the main difference. We should never criticize and label some one stupid for following a particular belief or non belief pattern but we can and have every right to criticize any aspect of a persons belief system that affects our rights.
So if I have a problem with church a's policy on say stem cell I can call that but if person b is anti stem i shouldn't verbally attack person b no matter how tempted i might be. Note I am pro stem cell.
Anyhow Just food for thought.

[DanCa]

34. Please forgive the sloppiness of the above post .

It was really early in the morning and I was hammered when I wrote that. What I meant to say was the following. I think the line should be as follows. We should draw the line at personal attacks. We can criticize aspects of a religion that we dont agree with particulary if that religion is also a powerful lobbying group but lets see if poster Max belongs to that religion. I think it's wrong to call max stupid and other names because we disagree with his or her view points. I hope this clarify's the above statement and please forgive my above post. With grammer like that I should be sentanced to a punitentiary. :D

[arwalden]

35. (error)

(posted in the wrong place)

[arwalden]

36. I Think Religious Snake Handling Is STUPID and IGNORANT...

... I think drinking strychnine and arsenic in-the-name-of-the-Lord idiotic and foolish. I feel that exposing children to these things and forcing them to do the same is criminal abuse. Is it wrong for me to say so?

How can I "respect" such a thing?

[Skinner]

37. I'm pretty sure we all have similar opinions of snake handlers.

But instead of focusing on what or whom we feel deserves our disrespect, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the conditions when respect is possible.

[arwalden]

38. So How And When Is Respect Possible Under Those Conditions?

Surely there's going to be someone who's offended at my opinions of those religious practices and beliefs. Are such topics to be avoided? Are such opinions to be permitted?

<< But instead of focusing on what or whom we feel deserves our disrespect, >>

That's not really my "focus". Some of the examples and descriptions and definitions that have appeared in this thread are vague and nebulous and subjective. They could mean different things to different people.

But how do these concepts apply in real life when it comes to the topics one is most likely to encounter in this forum? What's wrong with using some real-life examples (like this one) to make the discussion more tangible and easier to relate to?

<< the purpose of this thread is to discuss the conditions when respect is possible. >>

Yes, I do realize that. But I think it would be helpful to also use examples of when it's NOT possible, (or when it would be exceedingly difficult) so that the two can be compared and contrasted.

The other possibility is that others might be able to give alternate examples of how everyone should speak and what is acceptable and what is no longer (or will be no longer) allowed. So that people will know when they should pay their respects by keeping silent, and so that people will know which topics to avoid entirely.

It seems that the fact this thread exists, and the implications of it, appear to be signaling that we can expect a stiffening of the rules in this forum. I suspect that such a clamp-down will most likely be to the benefit and advantage of believers.

Even if my suspicions on that matter aren't entirely true... isn't there anything to be gained from this approach as well?

[Skinner]

39. There is not going to be a stiffening of the rules in this forum.

As I said already, this thread exists because we had another thread earlier where people were discussing when disrespect is permissable, and I kinda thought it might be useful to discuss when respect is permissable.

With that in mind, I am merely doing what I can to keep this discussion thread on-topic. If your intent was to "compare and contrast" situations where respect is not possible to situations where it is possible, I think that is a good thing, and I agree that we can gain from that approach. I am looking forward to reading your thoughts about when respect is possible, so we may compare and contrast. Please feel free to share them.

[arwalden]

43. I do not know how to respond to that.

<< I am looking forward to reading your thoughts about when respect is possible, so we may compare and contrast. >>

With regard to the question on when respect is possible, any idea that I might have would not be formed well enough, or be coherent enough for me to verbalize here.

By posting questions (such as: 'How can I respect such a thing?') and giving other examples, I'm looking to this forum for guidance. Real-world examples of how one might apply the vague and nebulous ideas (that were described in previous posts) will help me to solidify, arrange, my own thoughts.

It will also help me to better understand what standards you have in mind when it comes to the changes you want to see in this forum, and what specific types of things are, and are not, going to be permitted.

[cosmik debris]

44. How do I tell the difference

As a victim of Christian bigotry and violence, I can't help but have fear and disrespect for anyone who claims Christianity without denouncing Phelps, Robertson, and Dobson et al.

But I will not accept the responsibility for determining whether they are liberal Christians or conservative Christians. Thats not my obligation. If Christians wish to define themselves as Christians, they will have to give me a lot more information before I will give them any respect.

To me, "Christian" is the name of a group of people who should be feared, not respected. I do not distinguish between snake handlers, cross burners and UCC Christians. If they want a distinction made, it is up to them. If they do not like that, they should define themselves better. (Lord knows they don't like it when I define them!)

[arwalden]

46. Is It Realistic Or Fair To Expect Someone To Respect

that which despises them so?

I find it difficult to imagine how any self-respecting homo, such as myself, can respect that which does not respect me; or that which labels me as being "evil" and mentally-ill; or that fosters a climate of hatred, intolerance, and violence; or that advocates against homosexuals having equal rights and for being treated as second-class citizens?

Is there a way to be respectful? Is this one of those times when it's appropriate to be respectful? If so, how does one do that?

I suppose the other option would be to simply remaining silent, or to merely use tepid or diluted language so as not to be disrespectful of those who support, approve and consent of these things.

<< To me, "Christian" is the name of a group of people who should be feared, not respected. >>

You'll get no argument from me on that observation.

[Skinner]

52. Of course it is not realistic.

I do not think any of us is obligated to respect that which does not respect us. Nor are we obligated to respect that which does not respect our fellow human beings.

But when we decide who is deserving of our respect and who is not, I think it is only fair to judge each person individually, rather than based on their membership in a very broad and diverse group. Just because someone calls himself or herself a Christian or an Atheist does not mean that that person shares the opinions and attitudes of any other Christian or Atheist.

[arwalden]

53. How Do You Reconcile This With The Notion That Some Folks Have...

... that "an attack on one is an attack on all"? Surely you've seen the folks who take great PERSONAL offense whenever the Pope is chastised or scorned. Do such claims of being personally disrespected have any merit?

What's the proper response for the individual who says nothing when it comes to her church's bigoted activism, yet feels deeply wounded when the church is attacked?

Does her inability to emotionally separate herself from the church validate her claims of feeling disrespected and persecuted? Does her delicate sensitivity trump my outrage and anger?

[Skinner]

55. An attack on one is not an attack on all.

I have seen the folks who take great personal offense whenever any member of their particular "team" is chastised or scorned. This sort of team mentality has infected many of the discussions here on Democratic Underground, and seems to be a fairly common human characteristic which is not unique to believers. But it is very clearly wrong. An attack on one person is not an attack on all.

This new Pope has adequately demonstrated already that he is an enemy of gay rights. That is a fact. It is not an attack against Catholics generally, or against any member of Democratic Underground to point out that fact. If someone is offended by that fact, the problem is their own.

As with any issue, there are ways of discussing it that are likely to lead to thoughtful discussion and maybe even change someone's opinion, and there are ways of discussing it that are guaranteed to make that outcome impossible. I think that the vast majority of DU members want to have thoughtful discussions that begin with a baseline expectation of mutual-respect. But those thoughtful discussions are made virtually impossible due to the tiny minority of people who are either ludicrously oversensitive, or who seem to go out of their way to be offensive. Quite often the oversensitive people are the same ones who go out of their way to offend. I think some people act that way because they don't know any better, while others do it just for shits and giggles.

[arwalden]

58. Generally Speaking...

<< This sort of team mentality has infected many of the discussions here on Democratic Underground, and seems to be a fairly common human characteristic which is not unique to believers. But it is very clearly wrong. >>

... I think folks are more likely to believe--and have more sympathy for--the believers who claim to be insulted and persecuted, than they do for for atheists, or for homosexuals who make the same claims.

You'll get no argument from me that such a human characteristic is not unique to believers, but I would argue that such a characteristic appears to be more common with believers. I think that our system has a built-in bias in favor of believers, more deference is given to them automatically for no other reason other than their religion. And somehow the believers almost instinctively know how to work this in their favor. It becomes second-nature for them.

<< I think that the vast majority of DU members want to have thoughtful discussions that begin with a baseline expectation of mutual-respect. >>

But I hope that not every R/T thread needs to lead to thoughtful and productive discussions and exchange of ideas. Some people just need to vent and find consolation by venting and expressing their anger, fear, and distrust of religion and its leaders with other like-minded folks.


<< An attack on one person is not an attack on all. >>

Thanks.

<< If someone is offended by that fact, the problem is their own. >>

Thanks.

[Skinner]

51. The only way to tell the difference is by listening to what they say.

I think my personal opinion is the same as yours with regard to Phelps, Robertson, Dobson, and their ilk. In my opinion, if a Christian (or anyone, for that matter) is unwilling to denounce Phelps, Robertson, Dobson, and/or their agenda, then I believe it is safe to assume that that person does not see them as a threat, and I believe I am totally justified in holding that individual in low regard. Indeed, the Phelpses/Robertsons/Dobsons of the world hold people like me in low regard.

But having said that, I do not think that Christians should be required to volunteer *up-front* that they denounce extremists like Phelps any more than Atheists should be required to volunteer *up-front* that they denounce extremists like, say, Joseph Stalin as a prerequisite for respectful treatment. (The obvious flaw in this argument is that Phelps and his ilk are currently running the US Government and are therefore a threat, whereas Atheists are not. For this reason, and because Christians are the vast majority in this country, I think is is obvious that Christians have a much greater responsibility to respect non-Christians, and must be careful not to trample on the rights of the minority. It is virtually impossible for a non-Christian to trample on the rights of a Christian, because non-Christians are barely represented in Government.) Of course, if the issue comes up then an unwillingness to distance oneself from Phelps or Stalin would be more than enough to earn someone immediate disrespect. From me, at least. As I stated in that other thread, I don't feel we are obligated to respect those who do not respect us, or whose respect we do not desire in return.

I would argue that Christians are a large and diverse group, just as Atheists are a large and diverse group. It is my personal opinion that it is not fair to disrespect or judge any person based solely on their membership in either large group.

So, I guess I would basically agree with the overall point you are making -- that there are people whose viewpoints disqualify them from respect -- but I think we may differ in that I think we should assume someone is deserving of respect until they show otherwise, whereas you seem to be saying (if I understand you correctly) that someone is not deserving of respect until they show otherwise.

I guess I also think it is incorrect to lump all Christians into one group, just as it is incorrect to lump all Atheists into one group. I very much agree with you that there are plenty of Christians who should be feared rather than respected, and shockingly they are in charge of our government right now. Any moderately intelligent, fair-minded person should be extremely alarmed, regardless of whether they are a believer or non-believer.

[cosmik debris]

54. We are really close on a lot of common ground, but...

<<that someone is not deserving of respect until they show otherwise.>>

When a person opens the door by wearing Christianity as a badge, they have shown me otherwise.

When I hear that a person is Christian, I make certain associations i.e. They share a religious philosophy with a man who believes Hugo Chavez should be assassinated, with a man who believes Black people should be segregated, with a man who believes God has given him the duty to persecute Gays. If they chose to use the same label as these people, I would not believe that they are different from those people without more evidence.

We have had plenty of discussion on defining the beliefs of others, and I will not define Christians. But likewise I will not be defined as someone who shares a belief with Stalin. I may share a disbelief with him, but that is as far as it goes. The idea that Atheists share some belief is erroneous. (and bordering on disrespectful)

But, to the original question. The conditions for respect that I require are trust, security, and equality for ME. But victims always take it personally. We do not have the luxury of detached reasoning. Bigger picture concepts don't play a part.

[Skinner]

56. Point of order.

I did not say that Atheists share any belief, nor did I say that you share any belief with Joseph Stalin. All I said was that you belong to a diverse group of people (Atheists) which also happens to include Joseph Stalin. The point I was trying to make was that your membership in this group does not mean that you share any of Joseph Stalin's beliefs. Indeed, the only thing we know you have in common is that neither of you professes a belief in a higher power.

And that is the point I am trying to make about Christians (and about any large diverse group of people). The only thing we know they have in common is membership in that Group. I could be wrong, but my impression is that these days you can't really conclude that two Christians have any single thing in common, other than the name of the religion they profess to believe.

[cosmik debris]

57. I understand exactly

I believe that our disagreement is on who is responsible for distinguishing the Phelps Christians from the Unitarian Christians. Since I am not a member of that group, I am obliged by courtesy and politeness not to define or distinguish their beliefs one from another. If they wish to be distinguished, they should find their own distinction.

I did not mean to imply that you had been disrespectful. I understand that you did not make that accusation. If you took that the wrong way, it was my fault, I apologize.

Let me make another point, please. "Christian" is a group that you must volunteer to be a member of. Not so with Atheists. I did not volunteer to be an Atheist, I took no action, expressed no belief, there was no affirmative behavior that made me an Atheist. I did not join Atheism. Nothing I have done or said would associate me with other Atheists. Christians, on the other hand, do have affirmative behavior, they do take action, they do express belief, and they do join with some pretty disreputable people. For that reason, I don't accept the comparison of Atheists and Christians.

[Skinner]

59. Apology accepted. Now, with regards to your post...

I think you need to explain this to me, because I do not understand. I have always thought that courtesy and politeness oblige me to avoid making assumptions about someone else. Judge each person individually. Let them define themselves.

Your argument seems to start out in that direction. But then you come to a conclusion that is entirely the opposite. You seem to be saying that you are obliged by courtesy and politeness to assume that someone shares the attitudes and opinions of another member of their group. Why, in your opinion, is it courteous or polite to assume that someone shares the attitudes and opinions of someone else?

And how do you choose which Christian "template" to apply to that person? Why would you choose Pat Robertson and not, say, Mel White of Soul Force? Is it because the mainstream media pays attention to Pat Robertson and not Mel White?

[cosmik debris]

61. I am not making assumptions.

I am using the evidence at hand to conclude that all Christians have voluntarily joined a group that includes David Duke and Jerry Falwell, that they share some common belief with Pat Robertson. These are not unwarranted conclusions.

Because I am an outsider, it is not up to me to decide how much they share with Robertson. If they claim a common bond, it is their obligation to define that bond, not mine. If I define it improperly, I could rightly be accused of forcing my definition on them.

When I say SOME Christians hate Gays. I don't know how many and I don't know which ones. What I do know is that if a person is a Christian, Gay people have a right to expect a clarification before they offer the "respect" that we were talking about before.

As for the template, I use the template of the people who assaulted me, vandalized my vehicle, and cost me a good job. Mel White is not a threat to my security and can be easily ignored. Like I said, this is personal. My experience carries more weight than reasoned thought.

[arwalden]

65. For Me It's Difficult NOT To Make Assumptions...

Do I really have the luxury of not being on guard and not watching my back? Isn't it much safer and wiser to assume the tiger is hungry, and has sharp teeth and sharp claws... than it is to assume that it's well-fed and tamed.

What exactly do Christians expect? Isn't it a bit arrogant for so many of them to expect that everyone will immediately think of them as being benign and harmless? Are that many of them oblivious to what's going on around them and in their name?

If they aren't already fighting the Christian bigotry and hate, do they not have some responsibility to find some other way to differentiate themselves from the most aggressive and the loudest and the most influential Christian bigots?

I've got trust issues.

[Az]

67. Its understandable but

We build the world we live in. If you have trust issues you will have problems with trust.

How you approach a conversation determines how it will go. If you are looking for disagreement you will find it. If instead you look for common ground that is what you will find.

Trust comes from trusting people. I do understand how dangerous that seems. But its kind of how our brains are wired. In order to trust someone we have to see that they are somehow not a threat to us. Until that happens our guard is up. Thus we become untrustworthy. The only way to disarm this dilema is to offer your trust initially.

[arwalden]

71. Kinda Like The Wife Who Keeps Going Back To Her Abusive Husband?

How many times must she endure the abuse before she finally has had enough? Before she finally stops making the effort and giving away her trust?

Is it HER obligation to always make the first move? To always be the conciliatory one? That doesn't seem very fair. Nor does it seem very practical or likely.

<< We build the world we live in. >>

Surely I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're suggesting that distrusting atheists are the cause of their own misery. Isn't that a lot like blaming the abused wife for her abusive husband's actions? Does she build the world she lives in because she doesn't trust her husband? Is it her fault that because she flinches and cowers when he raises his hand, it angers him... so he hits her anyway?

I'm not sure if that's an analogy that fits perfectly... but maybe I'm getting at least part of my point across.


<< If you have trust issues you will have problems with trust. >>

I don't have trust issues in general. What I have are trust issues with most Christians. They are not unfounded or imagined.


<< The only way to disarm this dilemma is to offer your trust initially. >>

So the one with the LEAST amount of power, influence, and public support is supposed to disarm first? Unnh-uhh! That's the ONLY way?

Good grief! Who made up THAT rule? Christians?

No thanks... I'll continue to distrust and be on guard until the trustworthy ones prove themselves to be different.

[Az]

89. Strength

A battered wife remains in an intolerable situation. She has abandonned her strength by not leaving. When entering into a conversation with someone new offering trust is strength. You show that you are strong enough to risk yourself and able to defend yourself should the trust prove unaccepted.

I never met a man I didn't like. - Will Rogers

This statement makes sense. When you first meet a person you don't know them. How can you hate a person you don't know. It doesn't mean you have to like them going into the conversation but if you enter into it already hating them it can only go one way. So trust. Leave the door to a trusting relationship open. But not so open that your brain falls out.

Carl Sagan in his book Demon Haunted World talked about a moral system called the Tit for Tat method. Based on observations of game theory studying something called the prisoners dilema. We can show that trusting a person initially over time proves to be more rewarding that not trusting them. Offer them trust. If they spurn the trust consider the reasons and decide if they can be corrected by explanation, if not return the favor. In this way you educate people in how to deal with you. When trust is offered accept. When harm is offered return it.

[arwalden]

90. They Neither Need Nor Desire Trust

You do have a way with words, and all that sounds nice on paper... but considering everything that has gone before, it doesn't sound like a reasonable or prudent thing to do. I guess I'm just not noble enough to make such a gesture to those who would rather see me dead, or who think I'm evil, or undeserving of the same rights as everyone else.

I have no shame in my lack of trust.

<< When trust is offered accept.>>

IF trust is offered, I imagine you meant to say. Sure... if such a fanciful thing ever happens, I'd welcome it.

<< When harm is offered return it. >>

I have. I do. I will.

[beam me up scottie]

68. You bring up a good point.

And so did CD.

When I lived in New England, I would occasionally see a fish or some other sort of religious advertisement and I would think :
"Oh, okay. That's nice."

Now I live in the bible belt, fundie central.
I see their advertisements everywhere, and their messages of hate.
I hear them constantly.
I couldn't get away from them even if I wanted to.

Guess what I think now when I see one?

"Oh, great.

There's someone who probably thinks that they are better than me.

Part of the "club" that gives preference to its members in business transactions whenever possible.

Someone who wants to take away my Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Someone who probably hates me because I'm either a liberal, a GLBT person, an atheist, or even worse, all of those things."

The change in my reaction to those symbols did not occur until I felt personally threatened on a daily basis.

And while I realize most DU christians are not a threat to me, I now view anyone who advertises themselves as part of that club with suspicion.

[NMMNG]

131. It is much the same with me

Back when I "lost my religion" I held no animosity towards religion in general, or Christianity in particular. But with the uprising of the "religious right" (which is neither) and their attempts to take away my rights as a woman, a lesbian, an atheist, a liberal and whatever else they see as "wrong", I see Christianity as a distinct threat to my way of life, if not my life itself. And while the "liberal" Christians claim they are not part of that effort, they are doing little or nothing to stop it, which makes them complicit in it.

[beam me up scottie]

133. Allen got it right

"I've got trust issues."

And he should, especially considering the fact that this is an election year and it's time to start throwing people off the bus.

And who usually gets the blame for costing Democrats elections?


GLBT people, immigrants, gun control advocates, godless liberals and the ACLU, of course.


I've got trust issues too.

Big ones.

[NMMNG]

134. Ah yes, the old "STFU about your issues or get off the bus

because we need to pander to the religious people to get votes" deal. :eyes:

I was reading this article in The Nation yesterday evening. It was yet another diatribe about how the left needs to get over its 'hostility' towards religion, tone down its love of "scientism" and allow faith to be openly expressed in political and public events.

So once again the very real needs of many groups are being ignored to pander to the demands of one.

[beam me up scottie]

135. Don't even get me started.

That is just the beginning of this year's political ploys to attract christians.


Those on the religious left are just as much a threat as the reichwingers.


Anyone who thinks we need to ignore the separation of church and state and promote religion is my enemy, no matter how liberal they pretend to be.


Politicians who preach tolerance while sacrificing minorities are worse than the ones who are honest about their despicable intentions.

[NMMNG]

136. I agree

The more people try to push religion into government the more suspicious I get. I've yet to see religiously based laws that enhance, rather than impinge upon peoples' freedoms and rights. And the more the Democratic Party caters to the religious, the less they care about anybody else.

[kwassa]

69. You make many assumptions, in my view

cosmikdebris:
"I am using the evidence at hand to conclude that all Christians have voluntarily joined a group that includes David Duke and Jerry Falwell, that they share some common belief with Pat Robertson. These are not unwarranted conclusions."

Oh, yes they are. Many, if not most people, become Christians because they were brought up in a Christian household. Choice had nothing to do with it. As adults, they might chose differently, in an active affirmative way, or they might not.

Secondly, most Christians are not fundamentalists. The people you describe are Christian fundamentalists. Most Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, which is a relatively recent historical phenomenon. The largest organization of mainline Protestent churches, the United Council of Churches, is quite liberal, as are many Christian organizations.

The word "Christian" in and of itself has many definitions, and there is no single agreement on what it means. Skinner is quite correct on that point. There are people that call themselves Christians who agree on almost no other point.

and I thought atheists were rational folk, or would like to be thought of that way. I see much emotionality among you, however.

My point is simply this: It is not the responsibility of all the people that call themselves Christians to define or defend themselves to you.

It is your responsibility to do your own homework, and find out what people really believe. Otherwise, you are indulging in prejudice and bigotry that is really just as bad as the bigoted people you attack. It is two sides of the same coin. If you are unknowledgeable, it is not the job of Christians to educate you. It is your own job.

[arwalden]

72. Interesting.

<< and I thought atheists were rational folk, or would like to be thought of that way. I see much emotionality among you, however. >>

[kwassa]

73. and, arwalden, I think emotionality can be a good thing.

[arwalden]

77. Having Emotions And Being Rational Are Not Mutually Exclusive.

... yet your words indicate your surprise at discovering something that you had previously thought to be untrue. That's... uh, interesting.

[kwassa]

81. and where did I ever say that they were?

[arwalden]

86. In Post 69, Paragraph 5, you said...

<< and I thought atheists were rational folk, or would like to be thought of that way. I see much emotionality among you, however.>>

Your meaning here is clear. You're suggesting a certain level of surprise to discover that there is "much emotionality" among atheists. After all... you "thought atheists were rational folk".

You thought one thing about atheists (that they were rational folk) HOWEVER, you see another thing (emotionality among them).

No, you didn't actually use the words "mutually exclusive"... those are my words. Those are the words I used to accurately summarize what you had previously suggested.

[Zhade]

111. I hope you see the irony of your statement.

"The word "Christian" in and of itself has many definitions, and there is no single agreement on what it means. Skinner is quite correct on that point. There are people that call themselves Christians who agree on almost no other point."

And yet, you have had the audacity and arrogance on many occasions to attempt to define what our atheism means to us.

That's called hypocrisy.

Hopefully you've just taught yourself a lesson.

[kwassa]

114. No, I'm not defining what atheism is to you

I'm defining what athiesm looks like to me, from where I stand, as it appears to be an affirmative belief rather than a lack of belief.

[Zhade]

127. Please see my thread in the R&T lobby.

I think it could help explain why your inaccurate representations of what we think are so maddening and insulting to some of us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. However, other Christians can't stop Robertson etc. being Christians

A specific church might be able to expel a member that doesn't live up to its standards, but they can't stop them being a Christian - which is a self-proclaimed status. Most Christians don't claim a bond with Robertson - they are members of their own churches (Catholic, Orthodox etc.) and Falwell et al. are independent of them. You may claim to be a patriot - but that does not mean you should be classed with Bush, who claims the same.

Fred Phelps ran in Democratic primary elections, so presumably described himself as a Democrat. That shouldn't be a basis for assumptions about all Democrats.

[JerseygirlCT]

124. Those are YOUR associations, though

Is it fair to ask a very large and diverse group of people to undergo some sort of litmus test because your associations lump them into a group with some really bad people?

The vast majority of Christians are not at all represented by the likes of Phelps and Robertson. These are a small minority of Christians. They are a loud minority, I'll grant you. But they are most certainly NOT representative.

And I do not wish to cede to them the name "Christian" because you've now associated that name with them. Do you see what I'm saying?

Perhaps if you come to know some of the Christians here at DU better, you might develop a more diverse idea of what being a Christian is. And realize that those of us here present no threat to you whatsoever. And in fact, have your back.

But I shouldn't have to prove that first. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[madeline_con]

75. But, do we respect the snake handler, if he is respectful to us?

:shrug:

IOW, can't we discuss his faith that the snake won't bite, our contention that it's been refrigerated, etc. in a civilized manner?

EDIT: snake misspelled. :eyes:

[TreasonousBastard]

42. It is always appropriate to respect another's views...

on matters of faith, but there are moving lines on when one's beliefs, or disbeliefs, extend beyond faith and become problematic.

"I believe," is usually fine, but "I believe that you must..." usually crosses one of those vague lines. Most of that is silliness I casually dismiss, but it becomes problematic in several areas.

Evangelical religions, largely some Muslim and Christian sects, insist that they are the only way and proseletize, often to the extent of insisting on a state religion. Converting people and maintaining the faith is fundamental to their understanding of their religion, and does become bothersone-- often dangerous. There is no ready answer on how to deal with them, except to keep up the watch that they don't get State approval for their beliefs, and to just say "No" when they approach.

Public policy is much trickier. It was to a large extent religious fervor that fought slavery and racial discrimination, got women the vote, protested against unjust war, started major charities, and other stuff that we now acknowledge were Good Things.

But it is that same fervor that fights against abortion, fights for the death penalty, gave us Prohibition, occasionally calls for unjust war, and other such things that are either Bad Things, or at least highly debatable with or without religion. What to do?

Then, there is the matter of what may seem to be incredibly stupid and dangerous beliefs, and there is a very shaky line there. Some people are attracted to charlatans, or just wander into some misguided nonsense by themselves and what should we do, if anything, to save them from themselves?

[beam me up scottie]

45. Religious fervor got women the vote?

I think Elizabeth Cady Stanton would disagree.

She spent a good deal of her life fighting against the religious oppression of women.

The Woman's Bible is a personal favourite of mine.

THE WOMAN'S BIBLE.
By Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Revising Committee
<1898>
http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/wb/


Some quotes:

• The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation.

• The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion.

• Among the clergy we find our most violent enemies, those most opposed to any change in woman's position.

[cosmik debris]

47. Should we "respect" the oppressors of women?

We are getting into the subject of "what do you have a right to believe?"

Do you have the right to believe that withholding medication from a child is OK because God will save her? No, but you do have the right to believe that black cats cause bad luck.

Maybe we are just talking about who the victim is, and are they powerful enough to throw off their oppressors. The weak have to "respect" their oppressors.

[beam me up scottie]

49. I don't.

I have tremendous respect for people who possess the courage to stand up to those in their religion who would deny me my rights as well as the rights of others.



edited grammar

[TreasonousBastard]

91. I think she would agree that...

it was her Quaker faith, along with that of her best friend Susan B. Anthony, (who became a Unitarian) and her inspiration from the faith of Lucretia Mott, Jane Hunt, and others that helped her with her work. Back then, the Peace Churches and many Methodists, Baptists, and others were leading the charge against discrimination of all sorts.

Nowhere do I say that the established churches were all on one side of any issue. Slavery and women's rights were huge issues that the churches divided on for hundreds of years, and both sides used Biblical authority to argue their cases. The leaders of the abolition and suffrage movements were mostly devout people, and I argue tht their religious leadings took them to their political positions, while many of the others simply cynically used religion to maintain the status quo.

If you wish to disagree and insist that religion had nothing to do with much progressive thought throughout history, go right ahead, but history might not always agree with you.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Quaker ??? LOL! Check your facts; she was a militant atheist.

One who courageously fought against the christians who refused to allow women to progress beyond their roles as wives and mothers.

The same christians who have ALWAYS led the way in the battle to prevent women from gaining equal rights.

And you know what?

They're STILL there, right out front, rallying the christian soldiers.

As I type this, they're discussing the best strategy for assuming complete control of the government so that they can take away the rights that good woman spent her life fighting for.


So, if you wish to disagree and insist that religion was largely responsible for the success of women's suffrage, go right ahead.

But history is on my side.

You forget, women wouldn't have had to fight for the right to vote, not to mention for their very lives, both then and now, if YOUR religion hadn't kept society and governments in a stranglehold since its invention.


Your religion is responsible for our oppression.


And now I'm supposed to be grateful, because a few good people stood in defiance and helped us escape its persecution?


Not a chance.

[BurtWorm]

96. I think the Bible pretty much challenges a woman to choose

between eternal salvation and self-respect. (Come to think of it, it challenges every would-be Christian to make that choice.)

[beam me up scottie]

97. In her own words:

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Born in 1815, young Elizabeth Cady was sent to a girls seminary after graduating from the local school. While she was there, a "hell and damnation" preacher was making the rounds of the area and was invited to speak at the school. Young Elizabeth was innocent and believed what he had to say. Later, she wrote "...we learned the total depravity of human nature, and the sinner’s awful danger of everlasting punishment. This was enlarged upon until the most innocent girl believed herself a monster of iniquity, and felt certain of eternal damnation."

Elizabeth was so terrified by his words, she was physically affected, and began having nightmares. Her condition became so poor that the school sent her home, hoping she might recover there. Her family members were so concerned that they sent her on a trip with her sister and brother-in-law, who talked with her about rationalism until she overcame the damaging words of the preacher.

After she had married, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote of the incident that "my religious superstition gave place to rational ideas based on scientific facts, and in proportion as I looked at everything from a new standpoint, I grew more happy day by day. ... I view it as one of the greatest crimes to shadow the minds of the young with these gloomy superstitions, and with fears of the unknown and the unknowable to poison all their joy in life." She also said that "Only those who have lived all their lives under the dark clouds of vague, undefined fears can appreciate the joy of a doubting soul suddenly born into the kingdom of reason and free thought. Is the bondage of the priest-ridden less galling than that of the slave, because we do not see the chains, the indelible scars, the festering wounds, the deep degradation of all the powers of the God-like mind?"

From Children of Freethought by Carol Gray
http://www.americanatheist.org/

[jonnyblitz]

98. yeah, I had a hard time believing she was a quaker.

I had never heard that one. I had read lucretia mott was but not stanton..

[TreasonousBastard]

99. Outlandish and completely wrong...

Just simply wrong. Stanton's inner circle was largely from the religious left at the time, and any battles she had with religion were against the oppressive side of the aisle. It was her meeting with Lucretia Mott that fired her up, and Susan B. Anthony, the Quaker turned Unitarian, was hardly a rabid atheistic anti-religionist.

You are not supposed to be grateful for anything, but it would help to simply accept the fact that religion is not responsible for all the world's ills and has occasionally had a hand in ameliorating some of them. In the matter of the suffragette movement, most of the early leaders did have profound religious leadings toward equality, and without them who knows when women would have had the vote. It took long enough as it was.

Next up-- the case for Martin Luther King's atheism and how it drove him in the civil rights struggle.

[beam me up scottie]

101. You read her words and still refuse to accept her atheism?

What a coincidence, that's exactly what many of her christian friends did, Susan Anthony being a notable exception:

In 1896, the 81-year-old Ms. Stanton suffered the sting of having the organization she founded, the National American Woman Suffrage Association, condemn The Woman’s Bible. Before the vote Susan B. Anthony left the chair she held as President, in order to speak against the resolution. She pleaded with the delegates, "What you should do is to say to outsiders that a Christian has neither more nor less rights in our Association than an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself shall not stand upon it ... " In spite of the plea the resolution passed 53 to 41.

It is fitting that the words, that finally granted woman suffrage, found in the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, were written by Ms. Stanton. When it passed, in 1920, she had been dead for 18 years. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a woman without superstition. Her epitaph could be the poem she quoted on the title page of her diary —

I live ...
For the cause that lacks assistance,
For the wrong that needs resistance,
For the future in the distance
And the good that I can do.

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON (1999)
by John Patrick Michael Murphy
http://www.infidels.org/l


"Stanton's inner circle was largely from the religious left at the time, and any battles she had with religion were against the oppressive side of the aisle. It was her meeting with Lucretia Mott that fired her up, and Susan B. Anthony, the Quaker turned Unitarian, was hardly a rabid atheistic anti-religionist."

So you're saying one cannot be an atheist if one has theist friends?

How illogical.

"You are not supposed to be grateful for anything, but it would help to simply accept the fact that religion is not responsible for all the world's ills and has occasionally had a hand in ameliorating some of them."

When did I say that religion was responsible for all the world's ills?

"Next up-- the case for Martin Luther King's atheism and how it drove him in the civil rights struggle."

Amusing.
Really.
But might I suggest you don't quit your day job?

[jonnyblitz]

107. "LA LA LA HE CAN"T HEAR YOU!!!"

[beam me up scottie]

108. I'd like to know why some people are so intolerant

of anyone who is different from them.

Why do they find atheism offensive?

The reactions are amusing.

Like a bigot finding out one of his heroes is bi-racial.

Or a homophobe finding out his best friend is gay.


SHE WAS AN ATHEIST???

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!


Jeesh, there are worse things to be.

[Az]

102. She did fight for atheists and others to be included

And she did have issues with religion. In her own words "The religious persecution of the ages has been done under what was claimed to be the command of God."

This is the critical issue religion runs into. When it pronounces something good or ill you better hope you are on the right side of it. For there is no questioning a dogmatic claim.

We can hope that people that are angry at religion can learn to deal with religious people that are not a threat. But you cannot expect them to simply let go of the hurt they have found at the hands of religious minded people.

After enough intolerance heaped upon them their psyche simply denounces anything similar to whatever has impacted them. Blacks did the same thing when they suffered at the hands of an oppressive society. To this day there are still African Americans that simply cannot trust whites. Yes its prejudice but it is understandable where it came from.

So what to do? There are angry atheists that hold grudges against religion. Are they unjustified in being angry? Even believers turn their noses in revulsion to how some practice their faith. And they are not the targets of their hatred. While angry atheists may not be justified in hating all religion it is certainly understandable where their anymosity comes from. We are not perfect people. In some cases we are wounded people struggling to find ourselves.

Anger does not justify rude behaviour. But by the same token rude behaviour does not mean others need to respond in kind. Its a cycle. If you want to break a cycle you have to respond in a different way. That is if you want to do something productive.

[jonnyblitz]

106. you obviously did not read beam me up's post

but then again proof of anything was never a requirement for religionists so I guess it's probably just a waste of time providing it.. :eyes:

[TreasonousBastard]

112. Actually, I did, but that still doesn't make him right...

and while cherrypicking quotes seems to make the case, it doesn't. Many sects were started and grew simply because the hellraising bible thumping just didn't cut it with a lot of people.

Proof, btw, is fundamental to gnostic Christians of the old school and quite a few others, but why bother with actually knowing something before you talk about it? Much easier to simply insult it.

[beam me up scottie]

113. So her own words don't matter to you?

Why does that not surprise me?

Susan Anthony knew her friend better than anyone, are you suggesting she is a liar as well?

If you consider wishful thinking a substitute for evidence, I sincerely doubt you're an atheist.

[bloom]

128. Stanton, the Quakers and respect

One thing that is good to keep in mind - is that history is often re-written so that the more radical people among us are sugar-coated.

I was reading this exchange and googled "Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Quaker" and what comes up points out one of problems with the whole religious/respect issue. If a person were to read this passage - they might get the idea that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a Quaker - or that Quakerism was an important part of her story. It's one of the ways that atheists and socialists and people out of the mainstream are disrespected. (Quakers can be somewhat out of the mainstream as well - which would explain why Stanton would have found Quakers who were also interested in the same cause.)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton


Elizabeth Cady Stanton(1815-1902) is believed to be the driving force behind the 1848 Convention, and for the next fifty years played a leadership role in the women's rights movement. Somewhat overshadowed in popular memory by her long time colleague Susan B. Anthony, Stanton was for many years the architect and author of the movement's most important strategies and documents. Though she became increasingly estranged from the mainstream of the movement, particularly near the end of her career, she maintained to the end her long time friendship with Anthony.

Stanton had an early introduction to the reform movements, including encounters as a young woman with fugitive slaves at the home of her cousin Gerrit Smith. It was at Smith's home that she also met her husband Henry Stanton. Soon after their marriage in 1840 they traveled to London, where Henry Stanton was a delegate to the World Anti-Slavery Convention. There she met Lucretia Mott, the Quaker teacher who served in many of the associated Temperance, Anti-Slavery, and Women's Rights organizations with which Stanton is associated. Denied her seat at the convention, as were all the women delegates, Mott discussed with Stanton the need for a convention on women's rights. The plan came to fruition when Mott again encountered Stanton in the summer of 1848 in the home of fellow Quaker Jane Hunt. After a month of missionary work on the Cattaraugus Reservation of the Seneca Nation, James and Lucretia Mott were attending the annual meeting of the Religious Society of Friends at Junius, near Seneca Falls, and staying at nearby Auburn with Lucretia Mott's sister, Martha Coffin Wright.

http://www.nps.gov/wori/ecs.htm

The Mainstream culture will often conveniently forget that a lot of social change and inspiration comes from the left. Helen Keller is another example. I just recently read where she was a socialist and that she helped found the ACLU. But that isn't the story that is generally taught in schools.

It's interesting to read about Stanton's dissecting of the Bible - and that also - that was too far out there for most of the women at the time.

(In regards to much of the preceding discussion -> I don't think it hurts a bit for atheists to know what denominations of Christians are the ones who make up the Christian Left. Just as I think Christians should be aware of how the Christian religion is used against women and gays, esp. and non-Christians in general - so some people are going to have a blanket condemnation about it - regardless).


more lefties:

Most Americans are unaware that much of our patriotic culture--including many of the leading icons and symbols of American identity--was created by artists and writers of decidedly left-wing and even socialist sympathies. A look at the songs sung at post-9/11 patriotic tribute events and that appear on the various patriotic compilation albums, or the clips incorporated into film shorts celebrating the "American spirit," reveals that the preponderance of these originated in the forgotten tradition of left-wing patriotism.

Begin with the lines inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Emma Lazarus was a poet of considerable reputation in her day, a well-known figure in literary circles. She was a strong supporter of Henry George and his "socialistic" single-tax program, and a friend of William Morris, a leading British socialist. Her welcome to the "wretched refuse" of the earth, written in 1883, was an effort to project an inclusive and egalitarian definition of the American dream.

The words to "America the Beautiful" were written in 1893 by Katharine Lee Bates, a professor of English at Wellesley College. Bates was an accomplished and published poet, whose book America the Beautiful and Other Poems includes a sequence of poems expressing outrage at US imperialism in the Philippines. Indeed, Bates identified with the anti-imperialist movement of her day and was part of progressive reform circles in the Boston area concerned about labor rights, urban slums and women's suffrage. She was also an ardent feminist, and for decades lived with and loved her Wellesley colleague Katharine Coman, an economist and social activist. "America the Beautiful" not only speaks to the beauty of the American continent but also reflects her view that US imperialism undermines the nation's core values of freedom and liberty. The poem's final words--"and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea"--are an appeal for social justice rather than the pursuit of wealth.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020603&s=dreier

[madeline_con]

76. I can't respect DUH-bya's view that God tells him to "f" up....

everything.

Now what?

[TreasonousBastard]

93. Well now, that's one of those lines...

that shouldn't be crossed, isn't it?

Personally, I can sit back and "respect" his religious beliefs (if indeed he actually has any) but such things as taking the country to war because of them are anathema.

That goes far beyond "belief" and becomes action, and action does not automatically demand respect. In most cases with Shrub, action seems to demand condemnation, no matter what in his miserable little mind justified it.

[Zhade]

62. I will always respect a person's right to their opinion or belief.

I will NEVER be coerced into respecting beliefs I don't, be it by societal pressure or guilt trips.

There is absolutely no requirement that I respect religious beliefs, just as there is no requirement that believers respect my lack of belief.

[madeline_con]

78. I respect your lack of belief...

I can't handle the shoving down our throats the beliefs of fundies, just as they would not appreciate if you were to tell them they had to change to be more in line with your beliefs, or lack of them as it were.

It's the infringement that bugs me no end!! :mad:

[arwalden]

95. I'd Like To Comment About That Word...

... it always bugs me when someone describes atheists as "lacking" belief. Perhaps they don't consciously mean anything derogatory by it, but the the word "lacking" seems to imply that the atheist is somehow less than perfect, or that the atheist is deficient of something that he or she ought to be desirous of.

This car "lacks" air-conditioning.
Your job "lacks" retirement benefits.
My house "lacks" good insulation.

We are, simply, WITHOUT belief in deities or myths of any sort. We do not lack anything.

[Zhade]

103. In fairness, I used the phrase, too.

See, I lack tentacles. I don't see that as a BAD thing. I have no desire for tentacles.

I think the poster meant no harm.

[arwalden]

105. Here's The Definition Of "Lack"...

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=dictionary&va=lack

Main Entry: 1 lack
Pronunciation: 'lak
Function: verb

intransitive senses
1 : to be deficient or missing <time is lacking for a full explanation>

2 : to be short or have need of something <he will not lack for advisers>

transitive senses : to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or deficiency of <lack the necessities of life>

===================================

Main Entry: 2 lack
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English lak; akin to Middle Dutch lak lack, Old Norse lakr defective

1 : the fact or state of being wanting or deficient
2 : something that is lacking or is needed


<< I think the poster meant no harm. >>

I don't think the poster *intentionally* meant any harm either. Still, the harm is being done, even by atheists who use the word.

<< In fairness, I used the phrase, too. See, I lack tentacles. I don't see that as a BAD thing. I have no desire for tentacles. >>

That's a funny image... BUT... If you have no desire or want for tentacles, then you're using the word incorrectly. (In the past I've also used that word to describe my state of being without religion or belief in deities. And there are probably times that I still slip-up and use it.)

But I think we need to be aware and more conscious of things like that. I think it's dangerous to accept the theists definitions of atheists and to start using their language... allowing THEM to frame me and the issues.


edit: formatting, definitions and additional thoughts added

[Zhade]

109. Agreed - just as when theists arrogantly try to define my atheism for me.

"I don't have to respect someone's beliefs just as they don't have to respect that I don't believe in unproven gods."

Better, I think?

[arwalden]

110. Well Said.

:thumbsup:

[CarbonDate]

125. I lack a tail.

Then again, I think a tail would be kind of cool to have.

[bertha katzenengel]

66. Respect doesn't require agreement. IMO it requires tolerance.

Tolerance is something that the most rabid of RW fundamentalists will never show. Just look at the "Christian" bumper sticker "TRUTH - NOT TOLERANCE" -- they'll die holding onto their "truth" when all of mankind is better served by tolerance.

My two sisters and I grew up in a Baptist church and are now atheists. My eldest sister and I are married to followers of Christ. My sister's husband is a fundamentalist. These facts do not alter our marriages because we live (for the most part) in tolerance of our mates' beliefs. I think my sister has a harder time than I do, because I don't think her husband equally tolerates her atheism. But they get along.

[shrike]

117. I'm married to an agnostic

with no use for religion. I'm a practicing Catholic; church most Sundays, doing volunteer work at a local Catholic college, etc. Sometimes he helps out with the volunteer stuff because he likes all the social justice projects the college undertakes.

We, too, are tolerant of each other's beliefs. I've never asked him to attend church with me. The last time he went, he was bored out of his skull, so that was that. Then again, I'm ready and willing to admit the lousy things Christians (and Catholics) have done throughout history. He, too, says the problem is not with Christianity itself (or any religion) but the people who practice it. (There are some who beg to differ, but that's another post.)

It's part tolerance, but all courtesy, I think. There are a lot of personality quirks of his which drive me crazy, but I tolerate them because they are part of who he is -- and because it's the nice thing to do. Not that I have any personality quirks, though ...

[bertha katzenengel]

119. "Not that I have any personality quirks, though ..."

LOL Neither do I...

:hi:

[kwassa]

70. Another take on respect

My general approach to the world is that everyone deserves my respect until they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't deserve it. It has worked very well for me so far.

I also respect someone of very different views from myself IF:

1) They have thought long, hard, and deeply about an issue and come to a different conclusion than me. Most people don't apply themselves seriously to any issue. Those that have will sit down and talk, and most are also honest and are without agendas. I often learn from exchanges with them, and sometimes my view is altered.

2) I might disagree with them on Issue A, but they have many other admirable qualities than to engender respect in me in Issues B - Z.

I will actually give greater respect to a thoughtful conservative than to a knee-jerk liberal. I am for anyone who strongly applies themselves to an issue.

[arwalden]

74. I Guess I Should Just Give The Pope A Pass On His Anti-Gay Rhetoric...

... because in all likelihood, he's thought "long, hard, and deeply about the issue" and he's come to a different conclusion than I have.

[madeline_con]

79. "long, hard, and deeply..."

yep... :evilgrin:

[kwassa]

80. You can do whatever you like ...

but I know that in the Episcopal church I attend that there are gay clergy everywhere. Most of the seminarians that came through my church were either gay or female or both. We actually teased the last one, a white male heterosexual, for being different.

Our bishop is farther left than much of this discussion board. He is a Christian. So is everyone else in the church.

I don't care whether or not you respect him or me or anyone else, but as far as I am concerned, if you lump all Christians together as having the same view towards gay people or anyone else, or of having a certain political view, then, quite simply, you don't know what you are talking about. And, it is not our job to educate you, but yours to educate yourselves.

And if you want to attack Benedict, have at it, because I think he is a shit.

[arwalden]

83. Do The "Liberal Christians" Want To Stand Out Of The Crowd?

Or just quietly blend in? Surely the "Liberal Christians" are smart enough know how most people perceive the majority of the fundies in charge.

<< And, it is not our job to educate you, but yours to educate yourselves. >>

They don't have to educate me... but they do have to do SOMETHING that lets me know that they are different. But still... for the most part... I see nothing. No uprising, no challenging, no speaking out... just passive silence.

Silence = approval and consent.

"Quite simply"... it's their job to DIFFERENTIATE themselves instead of just sitting there like a bump on a log.

[kwassa]

85. The publicity machine is not in our hands

Media depends on controversy for coverage. Christians who are also liberal humanists get no play, but they don't control the media, either.

We are not silent at all, but we do get a lot less attention.

We do differentiate, and it is important that you do, too.

[arwalden]

87. I Do Not Understand.

<< "The publicity machine is not in our hands" >>

How does that stop people from rising up against their own church's bigotry? I do not understand.. is everyone waiting for a live-feed news crew before they will confront their church leaders, or stop donating money and stop attending?

<< We are not silent at all, but we do get a lot less attention. >>

What kind of attention do you need? Is attention a prerequisite for taking action, standing up and fighting church bigotry and hate?

<< We do differentiate, >>

Not all. Not enough.

<< and it is important that you do, too. >>

I REALLY do not understand what this means. How would being GAYER than everyone else help? I don't know that it's possible to differentiate myself and be MORE ATHEISTIC to stand out from the rest of the atheists.

[kwassa]

115. I ask you to differentiate between Christians and Christian denominations

As to rising up against bigotry, it is again important to look at different churches, and different denominations.

The Episcopal church in America is dealing with the gay issue right now, through the ordination of Gene Robinson as the first gay bishop in the US. It has caused a large and vocal split within the US dioceses, and threats of being tossed out of the Anglican communion by larger and more conservative groups such as the African prelates, who are very anti-gay.
Internally, despite the dissension, the church overall is hanging tough on the issue, and not backing down in its support of Robinson. The vote for his ordination was roughly 60% for, 40% against. There are some extremely conservative elements within different dioceses, and some dioceses that are altogether conservative, including, not surprisingly, Texas. Nonetheless, the church took an affirmative stand and is sticking to it.

I think most of your anger is directed towards the Catholic Church, which to me is the most hypocritical, and ruled by a reactionary pope, currently. Outside Catholicism, though, most churches haven't anything like that hierarchal structure, taking orders from one central authority, but have more collective decision-making. I know the Methodists and Presbyterians are going through some of the same work on gay ministers, relationships, marriages, etc. though I don't keep up exactly with what is going on there.

There are denomminations that are virtually completely fundamentalist, however, who are the ones who take the literal view of the Bible, though it is really only the literal view of the parts of the Bible they like. These are the ones to be more fearful of.

[Az]

82. I see the Catholic church as a complex situation

Yes there is a lot of rhetoric that comes from the pope that is lamentable. A lot of the issues we find ourselves under siege by in our society comes from the vatican. But then Catholics are not the vatican. Nor are they the pope.

But then why do the contiune to bind themself in name, association, and even financial support of such a belief?

The short and dirty answer is tradition. Though it doesn't properly cover the entirety of the problem. The Catholic church is a strong tradition that goes back generations in families. The very idea of leaving the church is an anathema to members. Its like turning your back on your family. And the Pope is a constant presense in their lives much like a father figure.

Just because you disagree with your father doesn't mean he stops being your father. You honor and respect him and strive to make yourself heard by him.

As nonbelievers we often see religion as something you just believe in or not. But religion is as much an external family as a belief system. Disagreements are common in families but you still love them.

So what to do? Do they walk away from the church (and in so doing cause many of their real family members real emotional strife)? Or do they stay and struggle to turn the tide within the church?

Lets be fair. The Catholic church does do a lot of good. Within the structure of the church members can find niches that serve the community in a very real way. Their experience with the church can be entirely progressive an supportive of society.

But there is still the mar of a multitude of social positions that are just not in keeping with progressive social values. I can only imagine the turmoil it causes those that support progressive values and still remain in the church. To us it may seem disengenuous. It may seem their support of the church grants support of even the most retrograde positions. But its their family. The community is where part of their heart is. They cannot simply walk away without tearing our a part of themself.

Its a complex situation. I do not envy them their plight. I can only offer them a broader community to rest and find solace in when they cannot find comfort in their own.

[kwassa]

84. The cafeteria Catholic

who takes what they like and leaves the rest.

There are liberal Catholics, lots of them, who practice birth control and might get an abortion if they needed one. There are certainly many gay Catholic priests. They support liberal causes.

And there are the conservative Catholics, who fight hard against a women's right to choose, but at the same time don't follow the Church's injunction against the death penalty, but in fact support it and fight for it.


it is not entirely rational thing, but an important thing to be Catholic for those Catholics that I know.

[arwalden]

88. Heh-heh... Ya Beat Me To It...

Cafeteria Catholic... that's what I was going to say.

They compartmentalize and put on blinders. They have the "but everything's okay in MY parish" world-view... yet they ignore the real effects that the Vatican and the church leaders have on establishing a global climate of hatred and intolerance towards atheists, homosexuals, etc.

[shrike]

118. There's also the Catholic faith itself

There's so much of the faith, and the mass, that's absolutely beautiful -- to me. I don't expect you to understand it, and why should you -- you don't believe and are not Catholic.

Many of us differentiate from the faith and the church leadership. Also, the church works a bit differently than a lot of people think. Many folks think it's a dictatorship -- it's not. The pope is considered infallible on matters of faith, and the papacy has not issued a proclamation on faith in a few hundred years, if memory serves me correctly.

The trouble is with political and social positions. I understand everyone's frustrations with that. But as I've said, the church is not a monolithic force. There are liberal bishops, conservative bishops. There are bishops who've covered up sex abuse cases (from what I've read, about 1-2 percent of priests have been accused of abuse, so we had the same guys running rampant in different diocese) and those who've spoken out against it. (My diocese has currently relieved two priests who've been accused -- though the charges have not yet been proven. But they've been put on indefinite leave, no contact with children of any sort.) We have nuns who play footsie with dictators and nuns who get themselves killed in rainforests. As I've said, the church is not a monolithic entity. Like my husband the agnostic says, the biggest problem with Christianity is Christians.

There is change that happens in subtle ways, and in not so subtle ways. Right now, we have conservative leadership at the church's helm, just as we have in many aspects of American society. But this changes, do mostly to the sea change within the clergy -- and the laity.

Thank you much for your support, Az. I always enjoy your posts. There are many who say the church is crumbling and becoming obsolete. Well, religion itself has become obsolete in certain ways -- and that may be a good thing. Perhaps faith can become the realm of the individual; one's relationship with God if one chooses to have one or believe in one.

I think many well-meaning folk had hoped that religion would curb man's baser nature. That obviously hasn't happened. We'll have to try something else. Because greed, avarice, hatred, etc., aren't going anywhere.

[Leeny]

100. On one of the questions

You asked "If you respect someone who holds a differing viewpoint, does it require you to respect *everyone* who holds a differing viewpoint?"

I think the answer's no. It's two different things.

I can respect the PERSON holding a different viewpoint. Or I can respect THE RIGHT of that person to hold that viewpoint, although I don't respect him.

Does that make sense? (It's late Friday, rought week.)

I am an atheist/agnostic, don't know what the hell I am. And I respect the right of others to hold their own beliefs about religion, the existence of God, the cosmic whatever. I think a person's worldview or spirituality is a very personal and private thing.

However, I start to lose respect for others when their views are pushed upon or imposed on me, or judged to be better or more true. Or when my own right to hold my own beliefs are questioned.

I hesitate to use the word atheist because people instantly make judgements about me. So I tend to be vague, or say agnostic. Some days I think I could practice Buddhism. The eastern religions are much more interesting. I digress ...

I expect the same respect (but don't often get it) when I express my own views on religion. I get the sense that because I wasn't raised "Christian" I am not "moral". Quotes intended.

[NAO]

104. We need to respect people, We DO NOT NEED to respect their beliefs

When I was a child, they told me in church that "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin". Well, I love the Christian, but I despise Christianity. The respect question really comes down to this distinction. It is always right to respect people. We do not need to respect beliefs we believe to be erroneous. There are people I respect greatly who hold beliefs which I do not respect at all.

If someone believes the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth, do I have to respect those beliefs? Of course not. When I say, "the earth is a sphere", do I show disrespect for the flat-earther? No. Similarly, when I tell the Christian that his beliefs are mistaken, I do not disrespect the Christian. But even though I respect Christians, I do not respect their supernatural notions or their superstitious beliefs.

When a Christian tells me that unless I accept Jesus as my savior, I am going to burn in Hell forever, does he intend disrespect? No, he is just stating the facts of the situation as he understands them. When I say that God is only pretend, just like the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, I am just stating the facts as I understand them. Being told that you are going to burn in Hell forever, or that the being you worship is imaginary might seem harsh or disrespectful , but in both cases they are just statements of matters of fact.

The thing about matters of fact is that they are true regardless of who believes them or even if no one believes them. When everyone believed the earth was flat, it was a sphere. If something is true, belief by people is neither necessary nor sufficient for it's being true. If something is not true, belief by people is neither necessary nor sufficient for it's being not true.

If I think someone is making a statement that is false, and I say so, that does not indicate disrespect for that person. If this criteria of respect were applied in the scientific community, or the academic community, or the economic community - or any community - there would be no possibility of discourse or progress whatsoever. I would hope that the moderators see that when someone states their opinion on a subject - even if it is religious belief - that to disagree with someone's opinion is not to disrespect them. You can denounce a belief without denouncing the people who hold that belief. Christians do exactly this every time they "witness to the unsaved".

[PsychoDad]

120. We need to respect the right of a person to their conscience.

Even the "Flat earthers". :)

You are spot on.

We may disagree, even dislike the viewpoint and we may even try to educate, rationally argue or share our perspective, but we must always remember that we and they have a right to that viewpoint.

Doesn't mean we have to agree to their view, just agree to respect their right to it.

If we don't ensure that each person and their due rights are respected, who will?

Peace and Ramadan Mubarak

[JerseygirlCT]

122. Respect is always appropriate

in this forum, at this site.

Respect does not equal agreement. Many an enlightening conversation can occur when people who disagree are able to discuss respectfully. I would hope that is the goal here.

Respect means listening, being somewhat open to another's point of view -- enough to hear it. It means refraining from name-calling (which never furthers a conversation). Disagreement, even passionate disagreement is fine. Name calling is not.

Honestly, I don't understand why one's religious beliefs or non-religious beliefs ought to engender in someone else the sort of vitriol I've seen here. I'm a believer -- one who probably has many differences with other believers -- and neither differing beliefs nor athiesm nor agnosticism are threatening to me.

The truth is, no one has the answer to these questions. No one can prove or disprove the existence of a diety. No one can categorically state what any said diety wants from us. Whether one is a believer or one is not, we ALL choose our beliefs.

It is helpful to try to keep the discussion on the ideas and not on the person holding the ideas.

[CarbonDate]

126. That depends on how you define "respect".

If by "respect", you mean simple tolerance, then I would say always. If by respect, you mean ascribing validity to their beliefs, I would say that I would never do that. I'm assuming that your definition lies somewhere in between, since the first is a fairly obvious affirmative, and you have stated in the past that you do not believe that I have to validate another's beliefs with which I disagree.

As far as respecting people goes, I respect all people's humanity (including G.W. Bush's) at a very basic level. Beyond that, I might respect people (theists or atheists) for any number of reasons, but their belief (or lack thereof) in gods is completely beside the point, IMO.

As far as people who believe that gods, demons, angels, or even (as I discussed in a thread on the A&A forum) trees talk to them, I would be concerned that their beliefs go beyond simple "faith" and cross into active delusion. As a matter of fact, there is a strong possibility that this delusion may be clinical, and I will say so.

Is that disrespecting their beliefs? I suppose it is, but I regard it more as a concern for their well-being, and I'm not inclined to reinforce people's delusions.

Beyond that, I'm inclined to live and let live as far as other people's religious beliefs are concerned.

[dattaswamI]

129. A comprehensive analysis of all the religions to show their unity

A comprehensive analysis of all the religions to show their unity

The spiritual knowledge should come directly from the Lord. If He sends His messenger, the messenger is not capable of delivering all the points as told by the Lord and is also incapable of explaining in excellent manner as explained by the Lord. Therefore, the knowledge delivered by the messenger is not as excellent as delivered by the Lord directly. This is the main reason for the Lord to enter the human body to preach the divine knowledge. But if the Lord in human body declares that He is the Lord directly speaking, people become jealous because they think the human incarnation as human being only, since they always see the external body only. They misunderstand that the human being is claiming himself as God.

They cannot tolerate this due to their inherent jealousy and egoism towards the co-human beings. To solve this problem of majority of the people, the human incarnation has to say that He is only the messenger of God. Prophet Mohammad was really the human incarnation. But he never claimed himself as God due to this problem of majority. He said that He was only the messenger of God and that Q'ran was massage of God. Therefore, this Holy Scripture belongs to the angle of majority. The devotees who can realise the human incarnation are always very few only. To this minority the prophet can personally say that he is God or at least he is son of God. The message to minority need not be recorded, which can be orally delivered in person. Thus, Q'ran is a scripture for the majority. On the other hand Gita was the scripture of extreme minority, since Gita was told to Arjuna only.

In Gita, Krishna told that He is the Lord. Here you must realize that the Lord is speaking through the human body of Krishna. In between the Q'ran and Gita lies Bible. Jesus told that He is the messenger of the God, which is the message for the majority. He also told that He is God, which is the message for extreme minority. In between lies the minority for which He said that He is Son of God. Thus, Bible is the message covering all the three phases of public, which are majority, minority and extreme minority. As we pass from one end to the other end in the above order, the egoism and jealousy reduce from 100 to 50 to 0.

For majority dualism (Dvaita), for minority (Visista Advaita) and for extreme minority monism (Advaita) are preached by the human incarnation. Thus, in Christianity and Hinduism you can find all the three concepts. But in Islam you can find only Dvaita. You should not mistake that Islam is incomplete due to absence of the other two concepts. The merit in Islam is that no human being can claim himself as God and thus there is no danger of false human incarnation. But in Hinduism and Christianity there is always danger of fraud human incarnations. Again you should not criticize Hinduism and Christianity due to this danger. Assuming the possibility of danger of accident, will you avoid journey by bus or train or aeroplane? Thus, the positive and negative angles must be understood according to the context. However, in Christianity also, the danger is avoided because the Christians do not accept any other human incarnation as God except Jesus. Hinduism accepts every human incarnation as God. Thus, you can pass from Islam to Christianity to Hinduism.

There is no danger in Islam and Christianity. In Islam no human incarnation is accepted. This is extremity to avoid the danger. In Christianity Jesus was accepted as human incarnation but no other human incarnation was accepted to avoid the danger of exploitation of fraud human incarnations. Thus, in Islam the concept was not admitted. In Christianity the concept was admitted but was limited to Jesus only to avoid the danger. In Christianity the statement “Jesus will come again” completes the concept because it indicates that the human incarnation is again possible. Thus, the concept is completed in Bible. But by believing that Jesus comes only at the end of this creation, all the other human incarnations till the end are rejected.

Thus, the concept is completed in theory but not completed in practical. In Hinduism the concept is completed in theory as well as in practical. Gita says that Krishna will come again and again whenever it is necessary (Yadayadahi..). This means that the human incarnation will come again and again in several places and in several religions in even one human generation, because there is necessity for such facility. Thus, in Hinduism the concept is completed in theory and practical, but the danger is always full.

Thus, Hinduism recognises several human incarnations of Lord Datta (Krishna) as in the case of Sri Pada Vallabha, Sri Narasimha Saraswati, Sri Akkalkota Maharaj, Sri Sai Baba, etc. Hinduism recognises Buddha also as the human incarnation. Broad minded Hinduism recognises even Jesus, Mohammad, Mahaveer etc., also as human incarnations born in different religions. The universal spirituality is such broad minded Hinduism which is the broad minded Christianity, the broad minded Islam, the broad minded Buddhism and broad minded science. The Universal Spirituality contradicts and is prepared to argue with all religions limited with conservatism, provided these religions are prepared to accept the truth with open mind. The science with conservatism is atheism. When you realize all the three religions, namely Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, you will achieve the total concept, which is the universal spirituality. All the religions are different angles of the same central concept. You must observe the centre through all the angles from all the sides. Then only you can realise the total comprehensive central concept. Now you must see through the angles of Buddhism and science also.

Buddhism speaks about the God present in the human incarnation by keeping silent about God. Silence means that God is beyond words and imagination. It does not indicate the absence of God. Buddhism is misunderstood as atheism. The time wheel (Kala Chakra) and the revolving bright wheel (Sudarsana Chakra) indicate that the time is constantly moving and that you will meet the death certainly one day or other. It indicates that you should hurry in detaching yourself from the world and that you should attach to the Lord as early possible.


At Thy Lotus Feet His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
[email protected]

[TallahasseeGrannie]

130. I enjoyed reading this

I didn't understand it all, but I enjoyed it!

[NMMNG]

132. "When it is appropriate to respect one another?"

As long as they are respectful--or longer if you are willing and able.


Is it possible to respect someone even if you completely disagree with them?

While it's challenging, it is possible.

Is it possible to disagree without holding a person or their beliefs up to ridicule or scorn?

Indeed it is. There is no guarantee the other person won't misinterpret your efforts though.

If you respect someone who holds a differing viewpoint, does it require you to respect *everyone* who holds a differing viewpoint? Where is the line drawn?

I draw the line at someone whose viewpoint advocates an unnecessary/unfair restriction of my rights/others' rights, imposes their beliefs on me via the law, or causes harm to me/others.