By:Austin Cline

If Irreligious Atheists Should 'Respect' Religion, What Does That Mean?
What does it mean to 'respect' someone's religion or religious beliefs? Many religious theists insist that their religion deserves to be respected, even by non-believers, but what exactly are they asking for? If they are simply asking to be let alone in their beliefs, that's not unreasonable. If they are asking that their right to believe be honored, then I agree. The problem is, these basic minimums are rarely, if ever, what people are asking for; instead, they are asking for much more.

The first clue that people are asking for more is demonstrated by the fact that no one who asks to be let alone is denied this and few Christians in the West have any trouble with their right to believe being infringed upon. The second clue that people are asking for more is how they accuse atheists of "intolerance" not because atheists are infringing on anyone's right to believe, or because they are going around badgering others, but rather because atheists are being very critical of the content of those beliefs.

It can be argued, then, that what religious believers are really asking for is deference, reverence, high regard, admiration, esteem, and other things which their beliefs (or any beliefs, opinions, ideas, etc.) are not automatically entitled to.
Simon Blackburn describes this as "respect creep." Few if any irreligious atheists have a problem with "respecting" religion if we simply mean letting believers go about their rituals, worship, religious practices, etc., at least so long as those practices don't negatively impact others. At the same time, though, few irreligious atheists will agree to "respect" religion if we mean admiring it, having high regard for it as a superior way to live, or deferring to the demands believers make on behalf of their beliefs and practices. (Article Continues)

I don't think anyone I've met has ever claimed they were not allowed to believe whatever they wanted, or that they weren't allowed to carry out whatever ritual their religious beliefs required. And yet I have been accused of being hurtful, tactless, and intolerant nonetheless for my lack of "respect". The cause of the accusation is invariably a reaction to my disclosure that I do not believe in their god. Initially my non-belief in their god raises eyebrows, then it raises questions, and then when it is plainly obvious that my beliefs and theirs are chalk and cheese it has been a requirement that I keep mine to myself.

I have encountered problems when speaking with Christian friends who, whilst knowing I do not believe as they do, still require some participation from me when they are basking in their own faith. I have been told that my unwillingness to pray with them is intolerant, that my inability to keep my nonsense to myself is rude, and that my God is an affront to theirs.

I have a Catholic aunt who claims she requires only respect, but this respect involves everyone listening to her ranting about non-believers for all she's worth, accusing my mother of being a heathen (yup, she uses that word seriously) for not briging me up a Catholic, and saying thank you and meaning it when she gives you a mini bible for Christmas every darned year. And apparently she's going to give me one every year until I face her god and beg his forgiveness. This, apparently, is a part of the respect she deserves.

Respect also seems to involve listening to a believer judge you by the standards of a god you don't believe in. You are deliberately not believing because you are rebellious.

I do believe that what is required by some members of some relgions is much more than respect. They require that you acknowledge their god (and disbelief is an affront because this is a failure to acknowledge him), that you acknowledge what their god has done for mankind, and that you "respect" them when they openly dismiss your beliefs as rubbish while smiling and shaking their heads in the manner of those who arrogantly assert their wisdom without any actual claim to it.

One of the most exasperating claims made by the religious is that you are disrespectful for not showing fellow feeling. Someone tells you what they believe is a moving story about how their god has changed their life... they're gushy about it and expect you to be also. It is not their gushing all over you which is disrespectful (because a religious gushy moment can never be that), despite the fact that they know you don't believe as they do. No. It is your unwillingness to gush along with them which is disrespectful. After all, couldn't you pretend to believe in their god just for a little while... what would it hurt?

What do I want? Respect. What does that mean? Freedom to believe whatever I want (as long as it harms nobody). Why don't I have that respect? Because, apparently, there can be only one god... and it's never mine.

edited: for spelling

That has to be one of the best responses I've read on this topic, in a long while. I especially love the closing. What do I want? Respect. What does that mean? Freedom to believe whatever I want (as long as it harms nobody). Why don't I have that respect? Because, apparently, there can be only one god... and it's never mine.


You'll notice this thread has acquired 33 views, prior to your lone response.And I think that speaks volumes when respect and tolerance are keywords often used by mainstream practitioners especially, as they attempt to defend their faith while posting critical or even inflammatory, against people and topics about religion. Implying their attitude isn't actually tolerance, because monotheist dogma isn't particularly invested in tolerance, but rather sufferance, of others not of the faith, and that's for as long as it remains at least conceivably possible there might be a chance at conversion, of someone not of like mind.

Bush gave a pathetic example of what he believes his faith entails, when he said Atheists weren't patriots , nor should they be considered citizens. This, coming from a man that would later be a traitor to the very country he claims is not a home for Atheists, according to his understanding of religious freedom, that he clearly believes does not entail freedom from religion.




I think it speaks loudest , from a seat of faith, to decry people that are different or hold no faith at all. The attitudes are a reflection of what the faith engenders in the believer with the attitude. Making them the living example of scripture, they call holy. When someone can look at a fellow human being with contempt, for being inspired to be a different person than they, and then taking it upon themselves to ridicule that in the name of godly values, it is a living testament for many Atheists I know, to be even more confident in their personal sense of self and rejection of any dogma that would impart an illiberal anti-social dysfunction. Meanwhile , they have to endure so as to live free of contempt, scorn and assault, in many cases, from those that believe themselves tolerant, in the midst of exampling themselves to be quite the opposite.

Atheists are the most hated community in America, one article not long ago claimed. (Link) Given the religious majority in this country is said to be christian, that in itself speaks volumes for the interpretation of the spirit of the myth christ is said to have died to send to the world. But like anything, it's easy to claim the name. It's a matter of personal character, to live up to the spirit that gave it life.

Do not do to another what you would not like done to yourself.

That is respect

That's crap, if you're talking to a sadist.

I agree that the language of "respect" is open to interpretation.

What is meant by respect for one individual, is lacking for another.


I think the phrase "Your rights end at the other persons nose" apply here: If you wish to practice your faith, no one is stopping you. However, too many people seem to feel that out of respect YOU have to allow THEM to monopolize the field, while they pummel your beliefs/ideas/thoughts/feelings into the ground.

Consider that in a country proud of the 1st Amendment, there are 7 States that have laws making Atheism and as such Atheists, illegal. A translation in itself that unless one holds faith they are un-lawful.
It's illegal not to believe. That's just soooo quirky.

Which states GW? I'm interested to know in case I travel to them.

If I'm going to violate the law, I at least want to be aware that I'm doing it.

Including Massachusetts, there are 7 other States to be aware of. Source

funny how the" infamous Jesus PSP sig" is missing from your "respect post" GW....sorry if this is a (probable) repeat but I don't read these.....B







UPDATE:crap now I have to read this one!.....DOH! ....(if you take Tom and Oprah down I'll REALLY be pissed!)

a kinder gentler Barek on the horizon?.......NAH!

Oh my gawd... I thought you were kidding at first.

Wow... I'm stunned by that.

Shadow, you really need to find better people to sit with. If you find that people aren't willing to give you the same respect as they demand you give to them, then walk away from them. If it becomes too much for you, then eliminate the opportunity for them to show their intolerance. If absence can make the heart grow fonder, then perhaps it can make the soul more accepting. If not, then you will be rid of an accuser that doesn't value your company enough to value your decision.


(boldened and numbered for order of address)

How true. However, whether one can live up to his/her own beliefs is irrelevant to the basic level of respect he/she deserves. Whatever a person deems him/herself, each individual on the face of this earth is human and subject to the vices of our species. By birth, no man is better than another. Likewise, no woman is better or lesser than any man. It is the choices that each individual makes throughout life that determines his/her equality among others. To put oneself on a pedestal is to hold oneself up for scrutiny.

Is it wise to combat another's intolerance with more of the same? No one enjoys seeing his/her beliefs referred to as a myth. What is true for one may be falsehoods to another, but how much respect does an adversary show when discounting another's faith? Is it wise to toss aside another's beliefs if your own may be erroneous as well?

Um GW your link states that Atheists in those state can't hold public office. That's hardly making atheism illegal.

I haven't spoken to everyone so as to come to such a conclusion as no one enjoys seeing their beliefs referred to as a myth. However, religious mythology is what religious faiths are about. The word defines the structure of the articles believed. If it is a matter of sensitivity to verbiage, that is truly unfortunate. Because what else is religious faith,but mythology, by definition!? It isn't fact, and it's deific affiliation can not be proved to exist. Or perhaps the hundreds of books dedicated and or titled, Greek Mythology, Christian Mythology, Islamic Mythology, need be edited so as not to impart what is and has always been, fable, across the ages.

As for combat intolerance with more of the same; ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool, as they say. When someone claims to be the example of christian charity, and then proves they're not tolerant much less an example of christ like behavior, speaking up , pointing that hypocrisy out, takes a stand against that what believes itself entitled. I assure you it is not. However, the justice is one may choose to ignore such behavior, letting it speak for itself next time it claims to be a good christian or attempts to preach to anyone else about right(eous) conduct.

Really? So clauses in State Constitutions wherein the law of the land affirms freedom of religion, isn't making Atheism an unlawful practice that bars one from serving public office!?

Really?

Try substituting any of the following where it says atheist.
Black
Woman
Liberal
Conservative
Democrat
Republican
Jewish
Hindu
Divorcee
Single parent
Chinese



Still think its OK?

The laws are punishing people for NOT being believers in god. And, until GW posted that tidbit, I thought the only people who couldn't hold a public office were convicted felons and the mentally incompetant. Although, to look at the current political leadership, that last bit might be paradoxical

Not everyone's bothered. I don't have a problem with someone telling me they believe God doesn't exist. I question his existence all the time, and I believe it's reasonable to do so. My beliefs aren't so fragile that I need others to agree with me in order for me to maintain them. I have a Pagan friend who is just the same... she isn't affected by another person not believing as she does, and she's been attacked both verbally and physically for her beliefs. I also feel that being open to God's non-existence is necessary for growth - I do not want to continue in any belief if reason indicates that another is more valid. Ultimately reason is more important to me than belief in God.

I have never, not once in my entire life, felt compelled to be affronted by another human being's simple non-belief in my God.

Ah but see, were those restrictions applied in the clause of those State's Constitution, they would be promptly slapped with law suits and public attention, via the activist response of groups like the ACLU. Whereas, as we see here often enough, people that don't believe in any god, or honor any religious notions, are considered aberrant, and as such, as a minority amid a world population of the religiously inclined, are not considered worthy of the equal right to be Atheist, without penalty. It's sort of like those cult programming tactics. Assault someone's sense of self-worth long enough and eventually, so as to fit in, they'll convert to someone else's notion of how they should believe, so as to be accepted into the herd.

Ever read that analogy of the King and the Well? I found this not long ago, and it's fitting I think to the discrimination against Atheism, by the religious.

There was once a beloved king whose castle was high on a hill, overlooking the shire. He was so popular that the nearby townspeople sent him gifts daily, and his birthday celebrations were enjoyed throughout the kingdom. The people loved him for his renowned wisdom and fair judgments. One day, tragedy struck the town. The water supply was polluted, and every man woman and child went insane. Only the King who had a private sacred spring, was spared. Soon after the tragedy, the mad townspeople began speaking of how the King was acting “strangely” and how his judgments were poor and his wisdom a sham.

Many even went as far as to say that the King had gone crazy. His popularity soon vanished. No longer did the people bring him gifts or celebrate his birthday.

The lonely king high on the hill had no company at all. One day he decided to leave the hill and pay a visit to the town. It was a warm day, and so he drank from the village fountain. That night there was a great celebration. The people, all rejoiced, for their beloved King had regained his sanity.

these Christian and anti-christian threads are getting sooooooooo boring.

I imagine you'll promptly copy and paste that sentiment into every thread of the kind, in a forum that is designed to and critically discuss, religious topics.

Its about respect BNW, for ALL people regardless of their religious leanings, no?

I'm interested how you find this topic to be either "pro" or "anti" anything.

Indeed.

right so politics is no place for rational people anyway. useless law, case closed.

*edit* and if an atheist so desired to challenge said laws they would be struck down, so what are you waiting for. waving one's fist in the air accomplishes nothing.

Sorry rev, not "case closed" as long as such laws restricted the rights of law abiding citizens is being limited.

For those who care, I would recommend contacting your state representatives, in those states, to have these articles repealed.

Although I'm quite sure that there are some members of this board who would rather see them expanded..........

and have you written the ACLU?

Is that a reflection on the contemporary political environment, or just an opinion?!

Thinking of commander in chief visuals here. Flying in to land on a carrier, beneath a banner that says: "Mission Accomplished".
Lying about WMD's so as to murder men and women in our armed forces.
Revoking the citizen protection of the writ of Habeas Corpus
Convening secret military tribunals (one of the tactics of a fascist State)
illegal wiretaps
no-knock warrants,
sneak a peak warrants
Expansion of the authority of Immanent Domain
Property Tax (tantamount to Communism)
Indefinite detentions for "persons of interest", revoking the Constitutional protections of the 4,5 and 14th amendments to name just a few.

Yes, rationality in office, it may be said, e is certainly subject to speculation, as a requisite for holding office.

I just found out about this about a hour ago, and I do not live in the mentioned states.

Why then, would I try to initiate a legal battle?

Are there no citizens IN those states to carry the fight?

I don't have much time (I'm gonna play golf with my dad now), but in the end respect for me is recognizing the fact that there will be people that don't believe in the same thing as you and accepting it (not neccesarily agreeing with the belief itself).

I know it's not the most satisfactory answer of all but I'm kinda short on time

Because it all ends up being about organized christianity and the picking at it with a politically correct tool. Every third thread ends up being about organized christianity. Like what is there to say on this issue?

If an atheist is truly passionate about their beliefs they will be willing to die for them or undergo the ridicule because it will be for truth and the search for truth is the most noble of all mans passions or aspirations.

All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third it is accepted as self-evident. ---Arthur Schopenhaur

I say let the atheists protest and gather together collectively and protest how oppressed they are instead of whinging how bad they have it. The only reason they cant get office in those states is because they have accepted it that way. If they were truly upset they would be out there doing something about and willing to suffer torture, jail and death for their freedom for their beliefs.

Eventually the world is gonna realize that it is self-evident that God doesnt exist. Hence the atheist only needs to sit back and watch the look on all the believers faces.

both. you should have seen the reply I was sent by Sen. Barbara Mikulski(D. MD) concerning Net Neutrality. She couldn't even type in the same font consistently. I was left with the feeling that I was completely wasting my time.

Spammer

So it's a rights problem, but it's not your problem? That doesn't make sense to me man, you might have to explain that to me. I'll give you the time thing, I just found out myself.



Honestly, why does anyone?



I can think of one in Maryland.

Again, I'm not a Christian! So take that 'holier than thou' bull*hit somewhere else, won't you? You cry out for respect and give none in return. Wow! That's a lovely understanding of the ideal you have! You have the audacity to imply that my "sensitivity to verbiage" is the cause of all this trouble?
...perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding what you wrote, but I'm just a fool, so that can be expected. Oh well! Since you so openly ridicule religion and the people who follow them....no. Nevermind. I forgot that you're perfect! Go on talking about respect, GW, since you embrace it so well!

I know you think you understand what I said, but I'm not sure you understand how you took it is not how it was meant. I wasn't talking about you, implying you were a christian, or anything of the like.

Sensitivity to verbiage stands as written and intended. If I was taking issue with you personally, I would have preceded my address with your name.That's how direct communications work. Which is what was taken at issue, earlier in this thread, by flaming innuendos of the coward and the Troll(s).
As it was the response was directed at the blanket statement relative to all people of faith taking umbrage to the word, myth, being used in a sentence with religious faith.
It was a phrase used to communicate the implication one can not use a word to describe religion for what it is (Myth), which implies a PC policing of a topic, because people may take offense to a faith being called a myth. A title that has been applied longer than PC.

My Christian ex army chaplain friend is a truly beautiful man. The first conversation we had about religion went like this:

My friend: "Do you believe in God?"
Me: "Yes."
My friend: "Jesus?"
Me: "no."
My friend: "Fair enough."

He asked simply because he wanted to know. He did not feel that my beliefs were offensive to his own. He was genuinely curious.

He told me once that he feels Christians have a tendency to put a lot of energy into spreading the word, believing that their chief purpose, as Christians, is to make more Christians. He has joked that they keep little black books for jotting down names and keeping a score. He told me that he feels a Christian's true purpose is to live by Jesus' example... to spread love and kindness to all. He hopes others will find Jesus' teachings inspirational and that people will gain something from considering them, but he does not seek to convert, he does not wish to alter the beliefs of another, and he truly believes that we are all equal in God's eyes and are all loved. He believes that all roads lead to God.

I respect him. He respects me. He contrasts so strongly with some of the other Christians I have encountered that I am sometimes shocked that they can claim to be part of the same religion. I would never even dream of putting him in the same room as my aunt, for example... I like him too much to subject him to her.

Your friend sounds wonderful. And you sound wise for keeping him from your Auntie. I had a neighbor once, right before I moved here, that had the tailgate of his new Dodge Ram truck painted into a rolling billboard: "The Bible says it and I believe it. Nuff said!" Three crosses of calvary were painted in the background as the slogan took foreground attention. He lived beside me for 5 years, before being stationed overseas and in all that time never said a word to me. Meanwhile, I was love and light when ever he was in his yard. "Hi, how are you today? Beautiful Saturday in June, isn't it!?" That really ticked him off, I could tell because every time I spoke kindly, and I only ever did so, he'd acknowledge he was mute by replying only with the middle finger of his left hand. Lovely silver wedding band flashing on the ring finger beside it, he was proud he could afford that tailgate art.

Time to back pedal already? "No, I wasn't addressing you by responding to your post."

I apologize if I take the word myth to mean a person or thing having only an imaginary existence, the most commonly accepted meaning of the word among fools such as I. However, if we'll use outdated titling, then heathen is a title that has long been applied to nonbelievers. Heretic, as well. Should I use those titles when addressing you now, GW?

By reading most any of your many posts, it is evident that you are an intelligent person, GW; one more than capable of choosing her words to express her intended effect. Now, you tell me that I misunderstood what you wrote. I fear that I understood exactly what you intended. I am, as you implied so eloquently, a fool...so what would I know?

Ah, so now I'm the target of your angst, as you project and then attack what you imagine I really meant to say?! Is that so you might feel better cursing me when you thought you knew what you were talking about!? So be it. You think you know I meant every word you imagine was directed at you as a personal assault.
Meanwhile, I'll appreciate your crediting me with being smart enough to know how to communicate exactly what I meant.

And you are certainly welcome to call me heretic, or heathen and any number of names that you find suitable to exercise your frustration at what you imagine is an implied slight to your character, by me.

Heretic
Heathen


Edit to add, for threads sake & in the spirit of OT, if you have further personal issues you'd like to address to me, please take it to PM, rather than continue in a line that could get this thread closed by a moderator, for becoming OT and inflammatory. Thank you.

GW, you're already the target of many peoples' angst, what difference would it make if mine was added to it? I agree that any further "issues" that we have with each other should be left to PM's. However, since I have your permission, heathen, I can think of a number of suitable, appropriate names for you...I'll add them to the PM. Until then...take care of yourself!

Clearly no difference at all, if you choose to be a follower rather than a leader. And my being a target of anyone's angst effects their life in aiming for me, rather than mine by not permitting them to make the hit.





Feel free to take who you are and call me names, because you think you are entitled. A wise man once said you are entitled to your opinion, but it is an entitlement in name only, to my living my life without your permission.

And please, don't tell me to take care of myself after saying what you just did. Empty sentiments are weak, and an insult to the irretrievable moments of the lifes time, that it took to post them.

Gw and JMPD excellent posts...along with freedom of speech 'respect' is another joke.... what i ifnd intersting is that this is often defined as the behavior your parents find pleasing....


i don't often agree with
BNW but respect begins with the self....

I'm sorry , but I couldn't get passed this ! I laughed out loud !! Maybe you can use those mini bibles to level furniture and invite your Aunt over. then she may not be so inclined to give them to you.

you have my deepest sympathy , but it was such a good laugh for me. See ! everything does have a purpose !!

curious. I believe jesus was based on myth. since there is no proof of his existence and the fact that the messiah/saviour way of belief had others with similar stories long before the story of jesus.

In that way it is an imaginary existence. to say jesus wasn't a myth would mean there is proof he existed . so where is this proof? a book of 2000 year old hearsay and the only source isn't enough.

mind you I do believe in god. so I'm not an atheist . and was raised christian with 12 years of catholic school . so I'm not exactly a virgin to the bible and it's studies. Does the bible have some facts ? sure . but jesus isn't one of them.

is calling jesus a myth disrespectful or factual ? that is the question. is it disrespectful to want and seek proof? even the bible states to seek it out.

respect at least on the UM boards is a bit trickier than on the outside. In here we are allowed our opinions and what may not hurt you may hurt another.
as for the outside world - I haven't seen atheists picketing against peoples rights or at soldiers funerals or at abortion clinics. just to name a few. I don't see atheists funneling millions of dollars into politics in order to get their agendas met.

AHA..good question ripley..is it indeed disrespectful..or factual...stating your opinion uhhuh

Nothing short of me throwing myself on the altar of her church and confessing my wicked ways will prevent her from giving me one every year. And it's not as if I can recycle them and give them as presents to other people. I suppose I could sell them on ebay.

[size="5"][/size]

Omg!!!! lol hahahahah. fruitcake is easier to regift. and make great doorstops as they get older.

Or..... you could 're-gift' them. Right back to your Aunt. At every occaision ( birthdays, anniversaries, Cinco de Mayo, etc) you present her with a nicely wrapped mini bible with a comment like
"Oh someone gave this to me, and since I already have one, I thought you might be able to use it. >Smile brightly and add< I highlighted some passages for you"


And every time she gives you one, you give her one of the ones she has already given you.

Or perhaps you could donate your presents/Bibles to a local church that needs them. If you're not going to read it (or if you already have a Bible), why not pass it on to those who will read it? A lot of smaller churches are so short on funding that the addition of even a couple of Bibles will mean a lot to them

Hilarious!!! lmao

my former mother-in-law use to gift me a beautiful expensive rosary every christmas and easter. One day I shipped them all off to Madonna's agent and sent a "Thank You" note to the mom-law. Thank you for making the concert more real for the material girl. Never received another rosary all the time I was married to her son. (And yes, she was fully aware he was married to a bisexual Atheist. Hence the gift of beads to help me find my way to god. Like breadcrumbs strewn about on a trail, bead at a time.

I agree with PA's suggestion however. Gift the bibles where they might find use. You can always send a "thank you" card, to let her know what you did with her charity for the soul, in passing it on to those souls that care to read it.