Beliefs don't have to be respected. That's my belief, anyhow, and you can't have it both ways. Well, you can, but you won't look very credible or ethically consistent.

P.S. There's no god. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2013 05:40PM by munchybotaz.

The fallacy of respect is one that is thrown about by causes everywhere. I don't respect beliefs because they require respect, I respect the right to believe which I think is different.

You are free to think that coffee is a hard drug, and I am free to think you are a dumb ass.

Atheism does not require belief.

Religious people are often nice people. Obviously, religion drives some people to be decidedly evil too, but the Mormons arround me are generally nice. They are respected by me as people. I don't respect Mormonism at all, but seldom have to discuss this with them. It's not out of respect, it's because they avoid any such discussions, as it makes them have cog-dis, which they've been taught is the influence of the Adversary. If they do want to talk about it, they'll get an earful though.

Not that I never disparage or make fun of religious and assorted woo-woo beliefs. When I do, in my mind, there's a difference between the belief or idea and people who have it--kind of like criticizing the behavior rather than the person. But in the majority of instances where I choose not to comment, no one should assume it's out of respect.

I have even less respect for the behavior of bashing atheists in the name of respect for others' beliefs. I'd call it passive-aggressive, but it's not passive at all. Are you really that insecure? It's a message board, fer crissakes, about recovering from a particular set of foolish beliefs.

Things that make a lot of sense don't usually get trashed that much.

I am respecting a belief when I apply the same rules to it as to my own.

But often when they say "respect" they mean special rules, a double standard in favor of their belief that we don't even apply to our own belief...a free pass.

"You have to respect a man's religion in the same way, and to
the same extent, that you respect his theory that his wife is
beautiful and that his children are intelligent"
--H. L. Mencken (from memory, so probably not verbatim)

Respect often seems to simply be a cloak for patronizing someone, and an excuse not to stand up for what you really think/believe/don't belive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2013 06:47PM by intjsegry.

“I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs.” - Johann Hari

Oh I like that!

I respect the person. Not so much the belief.

In one way, all ex-Mormons are atheists, in that they no longer believe in Elohim. The god created by Joseph Smith replaces the god of Christianity and Judaism. He bears little resemblance to that god. Technically, in spite of the fact that hardly any Mormons believe it, he is supposed to have been Adam, and has apparently been Adam many times, on each planet where he brought Wife No. ## as Eve. This would also make all Mormons non-Christians in that the Jesus of Mormonism bears less resemblance to the Jesus of Christianity, something that Mormons used to be proud of. The only resemblance to the traditional Jesus is the written record of his mortal life and the hoped-for Second Coming. But even the written record of his long-ago mortal life is changed via Mormonism by his appearance in America and God know where else after his resurrection. Born again ex-Mormons would do well to remember that they actually have more in common with ex-Mormon atheists than they might think.

And you don't need to respect my belief in this.

:)

So, Mormons are claiming that the Easter Bunny has pink fur and because of this the people who believe that the white furred Easter Bunny have kicked them out of their already irrelevant club.

All of the this happens while the rest of the thinking world is still confused about why anybody would believe in the Easter Bunny.

As for me, I'm baffled as to why so many Christians think it matters what they call or don't call Mormons.

I couldn't agree more. I've long thought that the aggressive attitude of some posters on this board who jump at anyone who disrespects theistic beliefs, calling them "rude atheists" or worse, is simply a reflection of not being able to or wanting to deal with the actual issues that non-believers bring up, and using this rudeness response as a way to deflect from those issues.

Or sometimes it is simply rude despite any issues that you may feel you are right about. It depends on what you say and how you say it.

I have the same respect for religion that religion has for atheists.

"An eye for an eye... a tooth for a tooth"?

More like a lie for a lie, and a truth for a truth.

+1000 They can dish it out, but the poor sensitive dears can't take it.

It's not the beliefs that are respected.

It's the people that are respected in spite of the difference in belief.

Otherwise we become like zealots and shunners who just cut people out of their lives and shun for no other crime than not sharing a belief.


Anagrammy

I will always respect our equal rights to our beliefs, re: religion, or none.

For some reason, that is difficult for some to grasp.

It's about our rights to our personal beliefs, or no specific religious belief, and our right to change them if we choose also.

I have no need to believe in any of them, but I can with sincerity respect their rights just as I want mine respected. That goes for a lot of other things besides religion, of course.

Everyone I know personally, no matter their religion contributes to my life. They are nice, kind, hard working people,"salt of the earth," so to speak, would do anything for me or you.

It's not about their religion,(or lack of it), it's about their concern and care for others and how they treat others.
It boils down to equal rights....again!

Being respectful of other's beliefs just requires that I be polite and civil at a minimum and kind and honor them as friends at a maximum.

"For some reason, that is difficult for some to grasp." Because you know what? That didn't feel respectful to me. It felt like a way of saying I and/or some unspecified others are dense or socially retarded or something.

Now I have a pretty high threshold for taking things personally, and I think that statement says more about you than it does about me and/or the others. This is the magic of critical, controlling parents who also tell you you're smart and beautiful. Bob and Charlie Botaz may have seemed incapable of recognizing their own quirks and offenses, but they did a really good job of getting me to look inside myself and consider mine. And if I were you, I'd be wondering if my need to defend believers isn't maybe just a bit pathological.

You contribute to my life, too, and I think you're a nice lady who enjoys sharing her wisdom. But I also get why you're always pissing people off, flogging the board daily with the idea that it's not OK to feel or say this, that, or the other thing about Mormons and their nonsense.

Which brings me back to my original point: Beliefs don't have to be respected, and it's ethically inconsistent not to allow those who see the nonsense to call it that.

munchybotaz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


Yes, it's hard for some people to understand my position, lds and non lds, and I've had discussions about it. I don't need validation, I know what my conclusions are based on and why they are important to my life.

Not everyone seems to be for: equal rights, either,it seems.

I certainly would never take anything anyone posts on the Internet personally. It's about that principle of "Owning my own power! I don't give anyone permission to mess with me - impossible to offend me also.

I can read different opinions and respect that people are different.They are sharing something about them, not me anyhow.
We can't all be alike.

It's mind boggling that people would get upset over something they read on the Internet on a posting board/forum or chat, etc.
I just don't get that at all. It's so beyond anything I would even consider doing.

It's just words on a page. Ignore them if they don't fit your situation, and recognize that it's the readers expectations that get in the way...not the words on the page.
That's how I see it.
So flame away. hehe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2013 04:32PM by SusieQ#1.

Another copy paste reply.
This is the stock response you always post, and it comes down to "Lalalala I can't HEAR you!!!"

Munchy made a good point without being rude, but you won't even deign to have an exchange. In fact baiting for ridicule.
"So flame away. hehe"

I know you're not for equal rights, some of us remember well your position on equal rights.
And again with "impossible to offend me also." But it's not. You just whine to Susan to clean up after you when you lose your temper.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------
> Yes, it's hard for some people to understand my
> position, lds and non lds, and I've had
> discussions about it. I don't need validation, I
> know what my conclusions are based on and why they
> are important to my life.

*****I have not seen *one* person on this board who doesn't get your position. Please name one. Quite frankly, you're full of shit.


> Not everyone seems to be for: equal rights,
> either,it seems.

****Excuse me WHO exaclty here has denied anyone equal rights or expressed anything you are accusing? Your "opinions" (read high horse) are the most offensive/minimizing/abusive I've seen on this board.

I don't care if I get through to you. Talking to you about how ABUSIVE you are is like talking to a brick wall. The ONLY reason I respond to your tripe is for the benefit of those you are gaslighting. I also refuse to call you #1 as you refer to yourself. What an ugly, ugly ego.

Over time I have become more and more suspicious of the demand that I be civil and polite.

For the most part, highly religious people do not think I am being civil and polite even when I am at my most deferential (deferential to the point of saying almost nothing while listening carefully as they lecture me). They are easily offended.

During the height of the civil rights marches, leaders that represented the status quo were constantly advising civil rights leaders to be civil and polite. Meanwhile, black leaders were engaged in protracted negotiations with white leaders, were using legal means like petitions and court challenges. Efforts to be polite were not recognized as such.

Actions considered to be offensive and provocative:

1960: "On February 1, four young African-American men, students at North Carolina Agriculture and Technical College, go to a Woolworth in Greensboro, North Carolina, and sit down at a whites-only lunch counter. They order coffee. Despite being denied service, they sit silently and politely at the lunch counter until closing time..."

"On Oct. 19, Martin Luther King, Jr., joins a student sit-in at a whites-only restaurant inside of an Atlanta department store, Rich's. He is arrested along with 51 other protesters on the charge of trespassing."

1961: The offensive and provocative action is simply riding the bus in a civil and polite manner. "On May 14, Freedom Riders, now traveling in two separate groups, are attacked outside Anniston, Alabama and in Birmingham, Alabama. A mob throws a firebomb onto the bus that the group outside Anniston is riding. Members of the Ku Klux Klan attack the second group in Birmingham after making an arrangement with the local police to allow them 15 minutes alone with the bus."

1962: The impolite action is attending college. "On September 10, the Supreme Court rules that the University of Mississippi must admit African-American student and veteran James Meredith.

On September 26, the governor of Mississippi, Ross Barnett, orders state troopers to prevent Meredith from entering Ole Miss's campus.

Between September 30 and October 1, riots erupt at over Meredith's enrollment at the University of Mississippi or "Ole Miss."

On October 1, Meredith becomes the first African-American student at Ole Miss after President Kennedy orders U.S. marshals to Mississippi to ensure his safety."

My point is that, really, we do not need to be told to be civil and polite. For the most part, the commenters at RfM are civil and polite in their interactions with other humans, including mormons. Instead, we need to be encouraged to stand our ground even when others demand respect for organizations or systems that have not earned that respect.

I do have to say that respecting someone, and respecting their beliefs ... that is a blurry line.

If someone walked up to me and said that they believed in Santa, and nothing I said could persuade them.... I am pretty sure my respect for them would go down automatically...

I have more respect for people who think and act intellectually than those who base their lives on superstition. Of course, this doesn't mean I stop talking to them, desire them to hurt, or anything along those lines... However, I would be lying if I said that my opinion and respect for them isn't altered when they say they believe in a supernatural being..

I wish I could find the quote--- I think either Dan Dennett said it, or Hitchens did, or someone was quoting one of them... about how the moment you stand up in an intellectual debate and claim that you are a person of faith, that should disqualify you from that intellectual debate, because, by your own admittance you are no longer debating through evidence and intellect, but through faith, which is not something that can be reasoned out.

that "beliefs must be respected" is a dangerous meme.

I've been thinking a lot about those lately. It started with me seeing something on Facebook and wondering if I should have a bigger problem with Islam. I spent a chunk of one weekend reading, only to get frustrated and wonder what Santa Dennett had to say on the subject (because he's someone whose judgment I trust, whose position I didn't know). That led me to the video of a "Four Horsemen"-style discussion with Santa, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I mention this video because, in it, Dawkins brings up the quote by Johann Hari that you mentioned earlier.

I also reviewed Santa's stuff on dangerous memes, and have really been noticing how different religious and political groups try to control the conversation. Liberals equating criticism of Islam with bigotry and labeling the critics as Islamophobes is one example. And here on RfM--this being one of the few places in the world where atheists have something resembling a majority--we have people trying to control the conversation with this idea that beliefs must be respected.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2013 03:43PM by munchybotaz.

By its nature, by its stated goals, religion does not respect the rights of others.

If we "respect" religious groups like mormons, we let them negatively affect education for everyone, equal rights for everyone, etc.

How about in France, how the streets stopped multiple times a day so that Muslims could pray. It was so disruptive to everyone else living there.

Streets were blocked and it was not only hazardous but offensive to a lot of people .... so guess what? They stopped respecting the "rights" of the Muslims to do so publicly and took back their streets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14945467



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2013 03:10PM by intjsegry.

Also, something said above caught my attention...

Isn't respect EARNED? I respect the basic human rights of others, like the right to live and live unharmed, to pursue your own path...

However, in my opinion, and in my life, my respect is extended to you, when you EARN it.

I've got this idea that overcoming a particular discriminative tendency requires a particular kind of change in attitude. It means being able to see the difference as trivial and something more fundamental as being the same.

For example, race. There really was a time, not long ago, people really didn't think skin color was skin deep. All sorts of differences were brought up between the races. Now, however, skin color is seen as skin deep. There are admittedly medical differences, say, between white and black, for example relating to anemia, but such differences are trivial and are irrelevant in nearly every context except medical diagnosis. Nearly everyone accepts this. Those who don't are extremely marginalized by society.

Regarding same-sex relationships, how adults choose to have sex has to come to be viewed as irrelevant. The "ick" factor, if there is one, is trivial, irrelevant. This was certainly helped along by the current availability of porn. Sodomy? Everybody's doing it. There's nothing to discriminate over.

Something similar is going to occur regarding beliefs. Everyone will hew to facts as the basis of opinion, which is now the case, mostly, anyway. Religious differences among people, for the most part, succumb to the narcissism of small differences. This must be overcome. The spectacle of couples divorcing over whether one goes to church or not, cannot stand. Nor can being unable to relate to our TBM relatives. We've got to find a common ground in our common humanity so we can overcome this religious/irreligious obstacle.

... those who don't believe in him, her, it or what.

Deal with it.