Tell me why I should respect people's "deeply held" religious beliefs?
What makes religious beliefs so special and immune from criticism compared to any other belief? Why can Truthers and Birthers, and UFOologists be made fun of but not people who belief in a sky daddy who answers their prayers?
= new reply since forum marked as read
... consider a more explicitly religious dietary restriction, though (kosher, ital, etc.) for full effect of how 'respect' might play a role in such a situation. First, though, we need to define respect well. I'll take it to mean 'tolerance plus diplomacy' as a relation in, i.e., "I respect your belief..." (ambiguous implication: the next clause could start with "and" OR "but"
. It's more than mere tolerance, but less than an endorsement.
Then with this definition of 'respect,' if you had a kosher Jewish relative pop by at suppertime, and all you have to serve are frozen pizza, or leftover pork-loin and sauerkraut (mmm)... what're you gonna do?
Probably offer them whatever they want, right? But if you were planning dinner for them, most folk's would probably take their dietary restrictions into account. ("Oops, Uncle Fred is allergic to strawberries. Let's make pumpkin pie, instead." So it's the individual who has a dietary restriction, because they fall (voluntarily or not) into a category of folks with restricted diets.
Then we've reduced the whole problem of respect to one of tolerance and diplomacy.
In which case we can look at when respect ISN'T warranted. Namely, whenever tolerance isn't warranted (i.e., when accommodating the belief would be tolerating intolerance), or diplomacy isn't warranted (there is no realistic chance of reducing intolerance by diplomatic means).
I think the tolerance issue is usually pretty clear, but it's a lot harder to know when it's OK not to be diplomatic (i.e., rude or dismissive), because from a strategic point of view, it could be argued that rude and dismissive reactions to intolerable religious demands serve a diplomatic purpose in the larger scheme of things (the Kid Glove and the Gauntlet approach to diplomacy). Also, in the case of a bully forcing a belief, disrespect and confrontation is often the only way to win 'bully respect'... that is, a modicum of grudging tolerance and clumsy diplomacy.
You don't have to respect their beliefs, but unless you are deliberately trying to alienate them or "prove" your superiority, the attack mode is unnecessary. For one thing, you cannot argue people out of deeply held beliefs.
Example: If a friend of mine wants to get her astrological chart done, I may think she's wasting money, but since she's not forcing me to get one or proposing that astrology be the national belief system, no big deal.
Example: If a friend of mine joins the Jehovah's Witnesses, the friendship may end because she's no longer allowed to go to birthday parties or out for a drink, but again, she's limiting only herself. The JWs avoid involvement in politics and may be annoying (If such a friend were to try to convert me, I'd tell her politely but firmly that I wasn't interested), but aren't trying to impose their beliefs on society. I actually faced this kind of situation with a Japanese friend who became an ardent Nichiren Buddhist (extremely evangelical Buddhists--yes, they exist). I just deflected her attempts to convert me, and eventually she turned back into a normal person.
Example: If a friend of mine were to join some fundamentalist or Pentecostal group that wants to impose its practices on the whole country, then I would have problems. I have in fact argued about things like homosexuality and religion in the schools with fundamentalists. Have I changed any minds? No, but I hope that by giving "try being in their shoes" examples ("Would you want religion in the public schools if you lived in Hawaii, where you could easily end up in a Buddhist neighborhood, or in Dearborn, Michigan, where the majority is Muslim?" or "If you really chose between being gay or straight, perhaps you are bisexual" I have planted seeds that lead to doubts. That's all any of us can do. Telling them that they or their beliefs are stupid is what they expect and are trained to ignore. In the end, it's up to them to evolve. Badgering and ridicule are counter-productive, even if they make the badgerer and ridiculer feel superior.
I think it boils down to the First Amendment. We are allowed to hold beliefs that seem crazy to others. We are allowed not to have religious beliefs. But the First Amendment also says that the government may not mandate that the populace hold any particular views. That's where I draw the line.
OK, I've given you a thoughtful answer, but you probably will reject it. So be it. That's my final answer.
Don't think those should count.
(Pay particular attention to the table marked "In the last six months, my prayers have related to:"
Large majorities in each of the major faiths are praying to a kindly figure who might grant them their wishes for health, fortune, or other personal enrichment.
Apparently, to ask such things is rude, uncivil, and does not lead to meaningful conversation.
between respecting people and respecting their religious beliefs.
I respect people (unless they're bigoted Republicans :evilgrin
but I don't respect any religious beliefs - I think they're all nonsense.
I can respect the Catholic priest who happens to be kind and generous to the poor and supporting progressive causes, without respecting the Roman Catholic Church or its deity.
See how that works?
Odin rocks!
