Article: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?

[stopbush]

Why should I respect these oppressive religions?
by Johann Hari

The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.

Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah . It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".

In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.

Incredibly, they are succeeding.

(snip)

All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.

I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.

When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.

But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.

But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.

full article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html

[jobycom]

1. Isn't he doing what he's complaining about others doing?

"I'll respect you as long as I agree with you."

Another whiney hater trying to sound like the reasonable one.

[Hollow Shells]

7. There is a difference between words and actions.

Between harsh criticism and oppression. Between respecting people and respecting ideas.

[moggie]

8. Rubbish

If someone said to you "women are property, gays should be killed, and Hitler was right about the Jews", would you respect those beliefs? Why do you choose to side with censorship?

[jobycom]

12. I grew up in the South hearing the same crap to excuse racism.

I still heare the same crap to excuse homophobia and sexism. The issue isn't over disagreeing with specific statements, the issue is over whether we allow people and groups of people the right to self-determinacy, or whether we force our views on them and treat them as less than human over our disagreements. Every mass-murdering tyrant in history has believed he was enforcing his own superior morality on lesser people.

And that's the problem. The feeling of superiority and inferiority will never lead to a world of rights and equality.

[Silent3]

34. Are you one of those people who confuse speaking one's mind...

...boldly and clearly, without a lot of diplomatic dancing around, without diluting what you have to say to near meaninglessness in order to avoid any possible offense, with "forcing" one's view on someone else?

And that's the problem. The feeling of superiority and inferiority will never lead to a world of rights and equality.

Should I believe that when you make the above pronouncement that you're not feeling at all superior to the people you think are heeding your "wisdom" here? You sound like you think you're pretty superior to those annoying superior-acting atheists and others.

If you focus on who you think is acting "superior" or not, and think that that's the central core of all terrible conflict, you'll never get to the real meat of any problem, because anyone who speaks with any passion on any subject wouldn't do so if they thought they weren't offering something of value, something that's *better* than some other alternative. There's very little of importance at all that can ever be discussed with any depth in utterly confrontation-free "sharing" -- something you should know, as you're engaged in the very same superior posturing you're condemning.

[DeSwiss]

9. What? Another religionist rationalizer???

How droll.

- Here's an idea that might help: READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.

[jobycom]

13. Are you complaining about or supporting my post?

Could go either way. As an atheist, a sometimes writer, a former scholar who focused on religious history, and a liberal, none of those words you uttered apply to me in the slightest.

[DeSwiss]

22. Considering how you apparently and overwhelmingly missed.....

...the underlying thesis of the article, it comes as no surprise to me now that you could not determine whether my comment on your observation was a complaint or a sign of support. To clarify, it was the former, not the latter. My take upon your comment was that it seemed to reduce the author's essay points down to a tired cliche' having little or no merit, nor relation, with respect to his essay's points.

Indeed, can you explain to me why should anyone be required under the auspices of the UN's Declaration of the Rights of Humanity, respect the ideals and/or beliefs of any religion whose purpose is to advance the power of the state in the suppression of free speech on their behalf?

The only instance in which I could see anyone supporting free speech suppression, is in the case of intelligence gathering against our enemies. And even here we must always be circumspect and on our guard against its abuse. In actuality, I thought that maybe you hadn't read the article (i.e. - reading is fundamental), and this was the reason for your slight. Because if you had read it, then I see little point in the furtherance of discussion. Clearly we do not see the world in the same way.

And not to belabor the point: The article wasn't about ONLY respecting someone when they agreed with one's own views. It was about the institution of religion attempting to usurp the very underlying motivation and intent of the UN's Declaration of the Rights of Humanity, turning those lofty goals for humanity inside out, and then DEMANDING that we respect their religions irrespective of what they stand for.

And in the case of Islam in particular, this distinction is a daily matter of life and death:


Adultery - Woman


Adultery - Man


Witchcraft

- How can any HUMAN respect this?????

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. No. He's trying to preserve free speech

while those he complains about are trying to suppress free speech, and they are also trying to abuse women, and kill people, in the name of their religion.

The difference is so vast, I can't think how you could possibly confuse them, if you'd actually read the article. Maybe your knee jerked before you got that far.

[Deep13]

36. No, he's asking a question.

Why should someone restpect that which is detestable?

[mike_c]

2. recommended-- tjhe kindest thing you can say about religion...

...is that it is institutionalized superstition. Certainly not one of humanity's best intellectual endeavors. I'm sick and tired of folks demanding "tolerance" for delusional beliefs that, more often than not, are themselves firmly grounded in intolerance, bigotry, and hatred. All human actions should be open for critical examination-- and condemnation if they deserve it.

[The Traveler]

3. Excellent article

I find myself in large agreement with this article, except in the following

But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.

This I challenge in two parts. First, the faithful do often have evidence to consult, that evidence being the form of inner experience. Interior experiences are difficult (if not impossible) to transmit in a form that provides direct evidence to another human, nor are they necessarily reproducible but that does not render them any less valid or compelling.

Second, the article completely underestimates both the arrogance and ambitions of religious leadership. The arrogance comes from the presumption that their faith and skill at weaving doctrine gives them the right and the means to tell others in specific terms how to live their lives. Their ambition is fueled both by this ego fueling presumption, and by their love for the power they have achieved thereby.

When one expresses doubt or contradicts doctrine, one threatens the foundation of their power. Doubt cannot destroy faith ... it is a human impulse that for whatever reason seems to be nearly hard wired in the human brain. But doubt CAN destroy a particular interpretation of what it means to be faithful ... and this places the theological authoritarians at risk.

It has nothing to do with the great philosophical or existential issues. It has nothing to do with those big questions with which Rilke wrestled in the quiet late hours. It has everything to do with ego, lust for power, and greed. Religion is, for the most part everywhere, corrupted by priests who seek not the betterment of their fellows, nor the growth of Divine love, but only the extension and preservation of their own power and the privilege that purchases.

[provis99]

4. "inner experience"? Thats pure crap.

[The Traveler]

5. really? Prove that statement. (n/t)

[dmallind]

11. Google "god center of the brain"

Religious visions can be stimulated artificially.

It's a neurological misfire not "inner experience".

[FiveGoodMen]

16. +1 !!!!!!!!

People can enjoy their own little feelings, but shouldn't expect anyone else to believe that they have validity.

[Why Syzygy]

28. And you base all your ideas on pure outer reality.

No internal dialog influences your decisions.

Is that correct?

Modern man fancies that he has escaped the myths through his conscious repudiation of revealed religion in favor of a purely rational natural religion (read: Natural Science). But consider his theories of human origin. In the beginning, there was a Big Bang, a cosmic explosion. This is an image from which reason may begin to work, but it is not itself a rational statement. It is a mythical construct. Consider the theory of biological evolution. Man's ancestors emerge from the seas, and they in turn emerged from a cosmic soup of DNA. The majority of creation myths also begin with the same image of man emerging from primordial oceans. See Genesis 1 or the Babylonian creation epic. Consider the Modern tendency to call ourselves persons from the Latin persona. The term derives from the "mask" of Dionysus. Moderns are the wearers of masks! The reality is concealed in the darkness of mystery. This too is a mythical construct.
http://www.iloveulove.com/psychology/jung/jungarchetypes.htm

[DeSwiss]

10. While I agree.....

...totally on your second point, because almost all religions (particularly of the Abrahamic variety), are a very serious threat to personal liberty. And while they always have been, they are now more dangerous than ever, in all of human history. Because this is the first time that any religion had atomic bombs and other WMDs. And I further believe that if we are to survive at all, it will only be at the demise of one faction or the other. And they will never yield. Because for them -- there is no where else for them to go. But away.

However, as to your first point, I believe you're mixing apples with kumquats. I agree that my own inner experiences are valid, but they are not evident to anyone but myself. As are your own. But the author isn't speaking to concerns involving inner journeys or beliefs, but rather externalized and institutionalized beliefs, which run counter to verifiable evidence and reason. And to which fealty and respect is nonetheless being demanded.

To paraphrase the example used by the author: my inner experience of Australia is not evidence of Australia. Therefore, no one need "respect" my inner experience as validating the existence of Australia. Because no matter what my experience is, it has no effect on the validity of Australia's existence.

Anyone can go to Australia. They can see Australia. They can touch Australia. And one can prove that the experience of Australia exists within space and time. There's even a map showing one how to get to Australia.

There are no maps to my inner experiences though. Or anyone else's. Because we only make the maps of our inner experiences, as we go. And as soon as we leave those experiences, we can never go back, except through our own memories.

- But Australia is still there and can be returned to -- physically. By anyone....

on edit: spelling

[Goblinmonger]

14. One of my favorite online cartoons takes on this issue

[DeSwiss]

6. K&R!!!

- Damn that was good!!!

[progressoid]

15. k/r

[Festivito]

17. I think this confuses ideas with acts. Do respect other's ideas.

You don't have to respect their acts. All the complaints of import listed here are of acts.

[Goblinmonger]

18. I would clarify the confusion even more

I respect other people's right to have whatever ideas they want. I don't have to respect the ideas they come up with, though.

[Festivito]

23. Not so much clearer, and, well, yes, you do...

We the people have the right to speak our ideas, and you must (as much as you might live in accordance to such law) respect that speech, even if you do not wish to respect that idea.

Also the right as a people to chose and practice our choice of ideas is to be respected, again regardless of whether or not you wish to respect those ideas.

It becomes interesting where practices of ideas conflict. But, until then, respect is a part of our existence as a country.

[moggie]

27. What does that even mean?

We the people have the right to speak our ideas, and you must (as much as you might live in accordance to such law) respect that speech, even if you do not wish to respect that idea

The speech is the expression of the idea, so the only way in which your statement makes sense is "you have a great speaking voice, but your idea sucks". I'm sure that's not what you meant. Goblinmonger put forth an idea, and you're responding by telling him that his idea is wrong: you're exercising your right to visibly disrespect his idea. Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Johann Hari wants to see a world in which citizens of currently repressive theocracies can say things like "hey, we should give women more rights", or "hey, we should stop executing homosexuals", without facing reprisals from the state. The UDHR won't achieve this, any more than the UN Convention Against Torture has rid the world of torture, but it enshrines principles we should aspire to. I don't want to see the UN give the nod to countries who will imprison someone for saying "perhaps Mullah x is wrong about y". But once you give people the right to question received wisdom, disrespect will be expressed. It's inevitable.

[Festivito]

33. I see your point. Let me rewrite that line.

We the people have the right to speak our ideas, and you must (as much as you might live in accordance to such law) respect that right to speak that idea, even if you do not wish to respect the meaning of that idea

Parenthetical expressions sometimes obscure context.

Kudos upon your humorous example, you have me LOLing.

I hope this clears the proposed contradiction.

I don't like the attempt to limit free speech as described in the article. It should make for a much more interesting debate between belief systems. I wish I had more time. I feel like pursuing it.

[Goblinmonger]

30. The Constitution

does not tell me that everyone has the right to have their ideas respected. People can say whatever they want within the SCOTUS limits on free speech. I'm fine with that. But as soon as they say it, I am not legally, morally, or otherwise required to respect those ideas. I can criticize them. That would be my right.

As to practicing your religion, again, I have no problem. Go to your church, believe whatever crazy shit you want, and I will leave you alone. Engage me in a conversation about your crazy-ass ideas, and I get to say they are crazy if I want. I would not go into your place of worship and tell you the ideas are crazy. But outside that, if you don't want your ideas challenged, then keep them to yourself or in your own echo chamber.

I don't agree that we have to respect the ideas. We have to respect the realization that people can think those ideas. We have to defend a person's right to believe those ideas. We need to assure that people can freely speak those ideas. I'm on board for all of that. But if by "respect" you mean that I need to listen to some ahole tell me that the world is 6000 years old and I have to treat that like it is as valid as, oh, I don't know, actual fact, then I would argue that you are wrong. But again, go to your backass church and watch The Flintstones like it is a documentary and I'll leave you alone. Enter the Marketplace of Ideas with that (which I firmly support you have the right to do) and it's fair game.

ON EDIT: The "you" I speak of is not directed at anyone person. I should have gone with the British "one" instead.

[Strong Atheist]

31. Well said!

:applause:

[Festivito]

32. This has become a game of what does respect mean.

Respect their right to think it, yes.

Respect their right to make me think it, no. (But, that is such a silly notion I would dismiss it as a given.)

Respect their right to speak it, yes.

Respect their right to make me speak it, or make me not speak it, no, neither. (And, yes, that means I do not like what is happening, where certain speech is being limited by a certain group of others.)

Respect these oppressive religions, yes. (..as questioned in the title)

Respect these oppressive religions saying that I cannot speak, no.

...
Perhaps the title could have been: Why should I respect these oppressing religions?

As the crux of the matter is that they are enacting their oppression. The questions need to be addressed to them include how are these censors picked and replaced. Are they deemed perfect people, as good as a god, and if not, then this censorship cannot be effected until that perfection is reached or we can agree on the system surrounding the censorship by a group of the few.

We are not in a position to argue that no censorship is ever allowed. We don't allow yelling "fire" in a crowd. We don't allow troop movements to be disclosed at critical moments. We don't like countrymen revealing the name of a spy.

ASIDE: That one, one uses, used to be well used in America, but, we became lazy and dropped it. Now it sounds affected. I'd like it to return.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. Acts grow out of ideas.

For instance, lynchings wouldn't happen without the notion that black people should be 'kept in their place'.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

-- Voltaire (French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778))

[Festivito]

25. Indeed they do. And we do Constitutionally respect such acts.

One does not have to believe such idea in order to respect the that someone else holds that idea.

And, yes, some ideas do grow acts. Such as people conspiring to overthrow British rule and then act to declare their independence. I am certain some saw this absurdity lead to a commission of a vast atrocity.

[starroute]

20. Asking for "respect" mean they know they're losing

It's a fallback position. When you can't win an argument on the merits, you retreat into "everyone has the right to their own beliefs, and how dare you make fun of mine."

It's not only offensive to be asked to observe that sort of request, though -- it's outright impossible. Who can keep up with all the religions in the world well enough to know what straightforward scientific or historical position might violate some obscure tenet of one or another of them?

Quite simply, truth will always out in the long run -- and asking for non-believers to cater to your private delusions out of respect for your exquisite sensibilities is only an invitation to get your own nose rubbed in it by people with no sensibility at all.

[DeSwiss]

24. BINGO!!!

They are attempting to create a legal framework that countenances no arguments or discussions about their religions and interpretations of their respective texts. Because as many lay people are now learning, there are no words sufficient to support their insanity. And the reason that this is the case today, is because more people than ever are coming to realize this. And to speak out about it.

- And they're scared shitless......

[nichomachus]

21. I will respect them, if they can defend them

We need to distinguish the ideas into two classes -- self-regarding and other-regarding. Self-regarding are the ones that affect only the individual. Other-regarding are the ones that affect other people, including me.

I can respect self-regarding ideas just because you hold them. For me to respect other-regarding ideas, you must give me reasons with which I can't reasonable disagree.

For example. If you join a church that requires you to give 50 percent of your income to your "pastor" so he can buy a new condo in Hawaii, I may think you're an idiot, but I will respect your right to hold that nonsensical belief.

However, if you now want to pass a law that says everyone must give 50 percent of their income to your pastor, then you need to have some pretty good reasons, ones with which people can't reasonably disagree. If you can't, then we don't need to respect that loopy idea.

The same goes for people like Christian Scientists. I used to live in an area with a lot of Christian Scientists. I don't agree with their views on medical care, but I respect their right to live their lives the way they want. However, when they want to deny much-needed medical treatment to minor children, it's a different story.

Along the same lines, if you believe that god doesn't want you to marry someone of the same sex, please don't do it -- and I will respect that. But, when you come into the public forum to demand that I be prevented from marrying the person I love -- and you cite superstitious mumbo-jumbo to support that claim -- I feel that I have the right to call bullshit. Once you move from self-regarding to other-regarding behavior with your beliefs, you need to have defensible arguments or I have no obligation to "respect" your beliefs.

[Why Syzygy]

29. Along that line of thought ...

This essentially defines the positive and negative paths. The positive path preserves balance by maximizing freewill in the system, the other creates imbalance by diminishing the freewill of others through the use of force, deception, and assimilation; the first advances self by also advancing others, the second advances self at the detriment of others.

I didn't write that, but won't post the source. Food for thought.

[Silent3]

35. Australia? Proof? Hah!

Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof.

I've never seen this alleged "Australia". It's obviously just a story made up to entertain children. How could anyone else believe in a country that's upside down? Anyone trying to live there would fall off into space!

I expect, of course, the usual "I've been there" or "I live there" claims, but that's all just the expected response from the massive conspiracy known as the "Australian Tourism Industry".

And I mean really, Bush was obviously thumbing his nose at all of us when he listed Australia as a member of the "coalition of the willing". How many real countries could have actually gotten sucked into that?

[jrobert484]

37. This Article Had me Belly Laughing

Talk about Sexual Oppression. The Saddleback church is definitly gonna be infamous now!

http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4535

[anonymous171]

38. .