Religious beliefs do not deserve respect.

[NGC1300]

It's preposterous to me that we always have to hear about how people's religious beliefs should be 'respected'.

 

It's as if religion has been immunized from criticism, and is perhaps the only domain of discourse where we grant this respect without having the slightest defensible reason.

 

Do we "respect the beliefs" of people who think Elvis is still alive? Or those claiming alien abduction? Or how about those who think the Earth is flat? These beliefs don't hurt anyone, so we should respect them?

 

Ah, but this is the internet, where anyone can sound righteous and claim that, yes, I actually do respect those beliefs. Except you don't.

 

Respect faith? So, we should all respect someone crossing the street on faith, instead of looking both ways? We should respect someone denying their child medical treatment, because of faith in a god who will cure the child on his own?

 

Clearly, we don't respect faith. Of course, those above examples have real tangible negative consequences, whereas it might be argued quietly believing in Jesus does not. But faith in the unsubstantiated isn't magically deserving of respect. Again, in any other domain of discourse, respect is something earned; not freely granted just because a certain belief is consoling to someone.

 

Religious beliefs do not deserve respect.

[Emilia]

Agreed. Nothing that actively discourages critical thinking deserves respect. I don't understand the adult need for fairy tales.

[Yamaha]

First Amendment: An Overview

 

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

 

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

 

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

 

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

 

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.

 

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.

 

 

It's called the constitution. You don't have to respect religious views but the government has to according to the law. Welcome to America.

[Emilia]

I'm not American, don't live in the US and the world doesn't revolve around the US.

[TaraMaiden2]

I'm not American, don't live in the US and the world doesn't revolve around the US.

 

Quite. I can only agree with this.

[Smthn_Like_Olivia]

Actually...

 

The first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

 

Yet, whenever an agenda like "gay marriage" comes to the table, certain citizens of the U.S. believe their religious beliefs should hold more strength in the decision to pass such laws.

[writergal]

It's preposterous to me that we always have to hear about how people's religious beliefs should be 'respected'.

 

It's as if religion has been immunized from criticism, and is perhaps the only domain of discourse where we grant this respect without having the slightest defensible reason.

 

Do we "respect the beliefs" of people who think Elvis is still alive? Or those claiming alien abduction? Or how about those who think the Earth is flat? These beliefs don't hurt anyone, so we should respect them?

 

Ah, but this is the internet, where anyone can sound righteous and claim that, yes, I actually do respect those beliefs. Except you don't.

 

Respect faith? So, we should all respect someone crossing the street on faith, instead of looking both ways? We should respect someone denying their child medical treatment, because of faith in a god who will cure the child on his own?

 

Clearly, we don't respect faith. Of course, those above examples have real tangible negative consequences, whereas it might be argued quietly believing in Jesus does not. But faith in the unsubstantiated isn't magically deserving of respect. Again, in any other domain of discourse, respect is something earned; not freely granted just because a certain belief is consoling to someone.

 

Religious beliefs do not deserve respect.

 

I agree that religious-believers believe and act as though they should be exempt from criticism. Religious-believers act very entitled, and believe that their religious faith means they don't have to abide by the rules that everyone else follows. Got news for you religious folk, you do have to abide by the same rules and laws that everyone else follows. In fact, I find the all the messages of 'love others as you want to be loved' falls on to deaf ears of the very people who evangelize that message. Religious people don't walk their own talk, and rarely if ever do.

[Lernaean_Hydra]

Religious beliefs do not deserve respect.

 

 

Then at the very least, try to respect the person holding/sharing those beliefs. Moreover, I don't quite see what the issue here is. I mean, no one is legitimately saying you must respect others religious meaning you have to revere them. I think the general meaning is that you should attempt to not be outwardly disrespectful towards them.

[writergal]

Then at the very least, try to respect the person holding/sharing those beliefs. Moreover, I don't quite see what the issue here is.

 

Tell that to the religious people. They don't respect anyone who doesn't believe what they believe.

 

The issue is that religious people believe they are exempt from criticism. That is a serious issue too. Just look at the news. Look at how much damage religious people have caused to society by infringing upon the law with their religious views, which they hold exempt from the law and rules that everyone else follows.

 

If a religious person doesn't believe medicine will cure their child from cancer, they break the law by praying over their child and with-holding medical treatment from their own child which would save that child's life. There are Faith Groups that advocate prayer instead of medicine. The law allows a religious parent the right to with-hold life saving medicine from their own child which could save that child's life. Yet the law protects that same child from being beaten, sexually abused or neglected.

 

So that is the flip-side of the Constitution, which separates Church and State. It's unfortunate that these moronic Faith Groups are allowed to exist, but because the Constitution says that these groups can exist, they do.

 

I mean, no one is legitimately saying you must respect others religious meaning you have to revere them. I think the general meaning is that you should attempt to not be outwardly disrespectful towards them.

 

Well that's not true. The religious people say that you must respect their opinion. They are outwardly disrespectful of people's opinions they don't agree with. So, if religious people want my respect, they have to earn it. So far, none of has made an attempt to earn my respect, so I reserve the right to with-hold my respect from religious people until they can show me they respect my view, and have earned my respect.

[Keenly]

My favorite is the so called war on Christianity.

 

 

When the people say No, we are not going to tolerate that, they cry wolf.

 

It's like they are the metaphorical pro soccer players.

[Woggle]

I am not a religious person but in the absence of religion people will just find another excuse to divide and oppress people. Religion has been a force of good as well. The anti'slavery and civil rights movements were rooted in religion and the families of the victims in Charleston showed that some do take love thy neighbor seriously.

[writergal]

Christians walk around with a superiority complex, and act like their faith makes them immune from having to walk their own talk, and follow the rules and laws set by society. Christians think they are morally superior to animals, and are morally superior to non-Christians. It's like the Catholic Church programs people to believe that their religious faith makes them infallible, as long as they obey the Christian God and do work in God's name.

 

But in my former life as a Catholic, I found myself surrounded by Christian hypocrites and that includes the priests who performed the Sunday services. I once had a priest tell me that being gay was a sin, despite the fact that my Catholic parents taught me that being gay was not a sin and that it was ok to be gay.

 

I'm not gay but I have gay friends. This priest was essentially trying to brainwash me to believe that my gay friends were sinners because he and the Catholic Church disapprove of the gay lifestyle. Yet then you have all the priests who sexually molest children, some of whom the Catholic Church has protected from being prosecuted.

 

So, religious people are not special. Sorry. They need to be held to the same civil laws and rules of society as everyone else, despite their faith in God. Despite the separation of Church and State. I have no respect for religion because it's a lie and it's used to control and manipulate people.

[Gloria25]

I find that people who don't respect and/or care for religion often have "self-serving" motivations behind their rationale...

 

Yes man has taken religion and twisted much of it for gain in the form of power, money, etc. That has resulted in some wars past and present.

 

But, at the end of the day and like anything else in this world - you, as a person - have to do your research and decide if there is support for a particular thing.

 

You use "Elvis" as an example and unfortunately, some people akin religion to fairy tales and people who believe in them are as silly as such.

 

Can you prove Elvis is dead or alive? I'm sure we can do that by digging up his body and doing some DNA testing. Once we do that then we have "facts" to support our belief that he is dead.

 

The thing with "religion" and "faith" is that it is a combo of "fact" and "faith". Fact is, the sun rises from the east and settles in the west. Can man make the sun rise in the west and set in the east? The example of the sun and religious tales/fables (i.e. Moses, Jonah, Jesus) are examples of prophets who came with signs of "fact" that a higher power exists and that just like now, people dissed.

 

If you look around, you see "fact" that a higher power exists - and that's where "faith" comes in. In other words, God shows you signs of His existence so that in times where you don't have "facts" you rely on your "faith" in Him.

 

Similar thing in a SO. You date them and get to know them, you develop "trust", so when they come home at 12AM on a particular Saturday, you can be rest assure that they were not out running the streets - that they were late on the job - like they told you they were...In other words, you have "faith" in them cuz there will be times you're just gonna have to "trust" them.

 

When I look at all these people who wanna diss religion to "fairytales" I must wonder what do they have to offer instead of religion? Nothing...And, they want it that way. So, when they wanna dress like a guy, girl, fire hydrant - no one can hold them accountable for their actions because who is man to judge man, right?

 

Thing is, no matter how much man has twisted religion - it still provides us a source of guidance, morality, and/or support. Man didn't come up with the mores that most of us know now a days (i.e. be kind to your neighbor, don't kill). And, of the cultures/people/etc that were left to their own devices to worship whatever, look at what happened to them...

 

But, like I posted in other thread, I'm cool with Christianity, morality, etc being taken out of our society now a days - especially here in the U.S. I say fly your freak flag, have sex all over the place, dress half naked, smoke all the pot you want, marry your sister/brother/child/dog/cat....It won't be able to sustain itself, there were be people running amuck and when militant Islam comes in to take over like it is in Europe, people will look back to these days and wish they didn't push it this far.

[loveweary11]

were be people running amuck and when militant Islam comes in to take over like it is in Europe, people will look back to these days and wish they didn't push it this far.

 

This is an interesting idea.

 

If that happens, I'll become a terrorist. An anti militant terrorist.

Edited June 28, 2015 by loveweary11

[jay1983]

You can criticize whoever and whatever you want and you can do so on the internet without worrying about repercussions.

 

But, I'd caution you if you do it person. If you talk laud, make sure you can back yourself up.

[Gloria25]

This is an interesting idea.

 

If that happens, I'll become a terrorist. An anti militant terrorist.

 

It is happening...

 

Check out this video from 60 Minutes...

 

60 Minutes Video - Clarissa Wards speaks with Islamic radicals in London about accusations they recruit British citizens for battlefields in Syria and Iraq - CBS.com

 

They are doing Shariah night patrols and even harassing non-muslims and demanding they "conform" to Islamic practices.

[carhill]

Religious beliefs do not deserve respect.

If you want to explore that option, spend some time in the ME where it's practiced every day. See how it goes. Try not respecting, actively. If you survive a day, I'd be surprised. With billions of people in the world, sure one can overtly disrespect belief systems, deservedly or not, but I fervently hope you don't run into a marked minority who enforce consequences of that disrespect.

 

Think about your everyday interactions, in general. Without a modicum of respect for fellow humans, there'd be anarchy, destruction and death. Why delineate between belief systems and any other system relevant to human existence? Why specify? Well, because, behind the safety of our keyboards and internet connections, we can pretty much do or say anything we want to. Get out in the real world and do it. Good luck!

[Gloria25]

Actually...

 

The first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

 

Yet, whenever an agenda like "gay marriage" comes to the table, certain citizens of the U.S. believe their religious beliefs should hold more strength in the decision to pass such laws.

 

Because the institution of "marriage" has religious ties to it....

 

Like I said, allow gays to marry - but call it a "civil union" and reserve "marriage" for people who value what "marriage" is about.

 

The thing with this gay marriage thing is that it's not about a "right" being denied homosexuals. I already went into extensive detail in the other thread how the benefits and protections afforded in marriage were created for a certain reason and many homosexual marriages will not and do not fall within that circle. Quite frankly many heterosexual marriages don't even fall within that circle as both husband and wife work and no one is "sacrificing" a thing to stay home, raise the kids and make the family a "home".

 

And lastly, this raises a big issue for many because the LGBT community don't simply want a "right" to get married. They want people who don't agree with gay marriage to compromise their religious beliefs to accommodate LGBT beliefs.

 

Going to a small-time bakery, demanding a gay wedding cake, and suing the people to the brink of destroying their business does not sound like a group of people simply asking for a "right" to be given to them. Especially when the baker told them they would bake them "any" cake EXCEPT a wedding cake. That is NOT discrimination. That is LGBT forcing people to compromise their religious beliefs.

[Gloria25]

You can criticize whoever and whatever you want and you can do so on the internet without worrying about repercussions.

 

But, I'd caution you if you do it person. If you talk laud, make sure you can back yourself up.

 

Well, I encourage discussion like this - Internet or in person - because when I debate, I am glad to be able to disprove a particular post/point with a grown up discussion.

 

And yes, quite frankly, when I saw this thread, I was about to say "pass" because I just saw a lot of smoke with no fire to back it up. But, even though I'm sure more posting will come of a bunch of one-liners with no rationale to back it up, I am happy to have the opportunity to respond and for the few that may actually read my response(s) - give them something to think about.

 

But unfortunately, I am quite sure that off of the Internet, the same dialogue that lacks any rationale to back it up is taking place every day. Don't get me started on what happened to me in one of my college classes.

[Weezy1973]

I think what we have to respect is the right for anybody to believe whatever they want. And it really doesn't matter if we agree with it or not. This includes beliefs that we think are particularly vile like racism.

 

We are of course free to criticize and ridicule those beliefs. And that has to be respected as well.

[writergal]

If you want to explore that option, spend some time in the ME where it's practiced every day. See how it goes. Try not respecting, actively. If you survive a day, I'd be surprised. With billions of people in the world, sure one can overtly disrespect belief systems, deservedly or not, but I fervently hope you don't run into a marked minority who enforce consequences of that disrespect.

 

Think about your everyday interactions, in general. Without a modicum of respect for fellow humans, there'd be anarchy, destruction and death. Why delineate between belief systems and any other system relevant to human existence? Why specify? Well, because, behind the safety of our keyboards and internet connections, we can pretty much do or say anything we want to. Get out in the real world and do it. Good luck!

 

So, is your advice to respect religion, or be killed for not respecting it?

 

You couldn't pay me to travel to the Middle East for any reason -- I have no desire to pray in a Mosque. I lived in southern China and chose to study Buddhism with Buddhist monks because it interested me. But I don't consider myself a Buddhist monk. And the Buddhist monks didn't threaten my life either.

 

Actually, people are being murder because they don't respect radical Islam religious beliefs, in every country in the world. ISIS is like a plague that no gov't can seem to contain.

 

Do you think ISIS respects the people they kill? Nope. To me, that is a perfect argument for why religious should not be respected. Look at how insane people use religion to further their own insane agendas.

 

Examples I can think of:

 

-Je Suis Charlie

-All the journalists ISIS have killed

-Boston Marathon Tsarneav Brothers killed innocent people and children

 

 

ISIS and other radical Islam individuals and groups kill innocent people for any of the following religious reasons:

 

Those who insult the prophet Muhammed and/or the Islamic religion.

Those who oppose following Sharia Law, including teachers, college professors, political leaders, judges, lawyers, engineers and doctors.

Those who misinterpret Islam wrongly in speeches and written articles, including writers, poets, intellectuals, newspaper and magazine editors, actors, journalists, and movie and television producers and directors.

Those who wrongly represent the rulings of Sharia Law in their writings or speeches.

Those who denigrate Muslim social values by introducing nudity and extramarital sex among Muslim youths.

Those who attempt to reverse Sharia rulings in existing Islamic cultures and economies.

 

So, religion has become a tool used for murder from the 1980s to present day.

 

Why should I respect a spiritual institution like Islamic Religion that justifies murdering innocent lives so that it can propagate it's brainwashing like a plague across human civilization.

[veggirl]

Because the institution of "marriage" has religious ties to it....

 

Like I said, allow gays to marry - but call it a "civil union" and reserve "marriage" for people who value what "marriage" is about.

 

The thing with this gay marriage thing is that it's not about a "right" being denied homosexuals. I already went into extensive detail in the other thread how the benefits and protections afforded in marriage were created for a certain reason and many homosexual marriages will not and do not fall within that circle. Quite frankly many heterosexual marriages don't even fall within that circle as both husband and wife work and no one is "sacrificing" a thing to stay home, raise the kids and make the family a "home".

 

And lastly, this raises a big issue for many because the LGBT community don't simply want a "right" to get married. They want people who don't agree with gay marriage to compromise their religious beliefs to accommodate LGBT beliefs.

 

Going to a small-time bakery, demanding a gay wedding cake, and suing the people to the brink of destroying their business does not sound like a group of people simply asking for a "right" to be given to them. Especially when the baker told them they would bake them "any" cake EXCEPT a wedding cake. That is NOT discrimination. That is LGBT forcing people to compromise their religious beliefs.

 

Marriage is a government thing not a religious thing. Why don't religious people "marry" in the church w/o involving the government if they want it to be so exclusive?

 

and have people STILL NOT REALIZED that when you run a company and provide a service you must do so equally? Are you okay with people saying "no cake for you, you are Mexican, it's against my religion!" "none for you, you're a WOMAN! Against my religion!" PLEASE.

[writergal]

Because the institution of "marriage" has religious ties to it....

 

Like I said, allow gays to marry - but call it a "civil union" and reserve "marriage" for people who value what "marriage" is about.

 

The thing with this gay marriage thing is that it's not about a "right" being denied homosexuals. I already went into extensive detail in the other thread how the benefits and protections afforded in marriage were created for a certain reason and many homosexual marriages will not and do not fall within that circle. Quite frankly many heterosexual marriages don't even fall within that circle as both husband and wife work and no one is "sacrificing" a thing to stay home, raise the kids and make the family a "home".

 

And lastly, this raises a big issue for many because the LGBT community don't simply want a "right" to get married. They want people who don't agree with gay marriage to compromise their religious beliefs to accommodate LGBT beliefs.

 

Going to a small-time bakery, demanding a gay wedding cake, and suing the people to the brink of destroying their business does not sound like a group of people simply asking for a "right" to be given to them. Especially when the baker told them they would bake them "any" cake EXCEPT a wedding cake. That is NOT discrimination. That is LGBT forcing people to compromise their religious beliefs.

 

Gay people want access to ALL of the same civil rights that heterosexuals have access to. It's that simple. There's no evil gay agenda here. They aren't going to burn down churches and kill journalists in the name of homosexuality.

 

All gay people want and deserve is access to the same civil rights that the U.S. Constitution promised all of its citizens a right to have. Yet, our society has not done that. America was founded on slavery. America promised equal rights but with-held those equal rights from women, from Black people and other ethnic minorities.

 

And now the Religious Right are up in arms as though the world is coming to an end, just because the Supreme Court granted the civil right of marriage to the gay community, which is their civil right.

 

Marriage is both a civil and a sacramental right. If gay people don't want to get married in a church they won't have to. They can get married in a civil ceremony now and not have to call it 'gay marriage' anymore, because it's just 'marriage.'

 

So, I think religious people are mad because they can no longer get away with their discrimination of gay people, because now the gov't has imposed legal consequences if those religious people discriminate against gays. If a religious college discriminates, or a bakery with a religious owner discriminates, both risk being closed down and denied access to funding from the government, and for good reason.

 

Religious people preach tolerance yet refuse to show that to anyone -- especially the gay community -- whom they deem as 'evil' because they judge their lifestyle as morally corrupt based on their religious beliefs.

 

How can you justify denying a community of persons their civil rights, especially if you are a minority.

 

Women were not allowed to seek an education or to vote or even own their own business because the rules of patriarchal society said so. But now women can do those things, because it is their civil right.

 

Blacks are not segregated from Whites like they were until the Civil Rights movement. I could go on with other examples but what would be the point? Religious people don't want to hear it.

[TaraMaiden2]

....

Do you think ISIS respects the people they kill? Nope. To me, that is a perfect argument for why religious should not be respected. Look at how insane people use religion to further their own insane agendas.

 

Examples I can think of:

 

-Je Suis Charlie

-All the journalists ISIS have killed

-Boston Marathon Tsarneav Brothers killed innocent people and children

 

Permit me to add:

 

French beheading

Tunisia massacre

[Emilia]

It is happening...

 

Check out this video from 60 Minutes...

 

60 Minutes Video - Clarissa Wards speaks with Islamic radicals in London about accusations they recruit British citizens for battlefields in Syria and Iraq - CBS.com

 

They are doing Shariah night patrols and even harassing non-muslims and demanding they "conform" to Islamic practices.

 

It's full of stupid ads, can't watch it. However I can tell you that what is in your post is absolutely ridiculous. We heard about this before from some American that apologised for the stupidity after. When the newsreaders read out the allegations about these patrols, they openly laughed on BBC Radio 4. Please don't believe it, I can't tell you how stupid it is.