Does Religion Deserve Respect by Default?

[miodrag]

I like the distinction between reverence and tolerance that you make, but the following just does not feel right with what I consider respect was meant to mean.

However, I also believe that religion deserves respect as an act of tolerance just as well as any other ideological system does.

I don't see that as a respect for religion, but for freedom of any kind. You can value freedom as an ideal, but respect was meant for the conduct, for the ways how that freedom was used and the following effects. Tolerance is about good manners. It is a one way street. If you are tolerant, that shows that you are a gentleman. Respect is a relationship. It involves recognizing the credibility or value in others. And that respect opens the door for further action that may follow - you may not just tolerate the folly of others, but instead actively engage in praising the good qualities or conduct. Respect is on the entirely new level of engagement. In fact, you may even mimic or learn from the ones that you respect. In short, respect was meant for the authority. And authority is recognized according to one's own intelligence and qualities. So, not everyone can respect, nor everyone should be respected. You may love everybody or tolerate everybody. That is just appreciating their fundamental or spiritual nature. Respect was not meant for everybody. We are all different. Respect was meant for those that you recognize. And that is a two ways street. In respect, qualities are required from both sides. So, no respect by default for everybody. (Except in the spiritual world?) Everybody is valuable, or have equal rights etc. But not necessarily the equal qualities. Tolerance, respect, may seem like I am splitting hair introducing semantics to your words, but the difference matters. They are not synonyms, you are right, I just tried to elaborate why. In my interpretation, "respect as an act of tolerance" is an oxymoron.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The question is prompted by a remark atheist David Silverman made in an article on his book Fighting God. The article quotes him as saying:

“Some … people call me a (jerk) because I challenge the absurd notion that religion deserves respect by default. But religion is wrong for demanding respect simply for being, and even more wrong for demanding never to be questioned."
source​

What do you think? Think he has a reasonable point? ,,,,Why, why not?


.

I disagree. Religion is personal. When you respect the religion, you respect the followers.

Thats like calling my friend and saying your family is X; but, dont worry, Im not talking about you just your family.

She IS a part of her family. Likewise with the religious and our religions.

So, by default, they should be respected.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

The question is prompted by a remark atheist David Silverman made in an article on his book Fighting God. The article quotes him as saying:

“Some … people call me a (jerk) because I challenge the absurd notion that religion deserves respect by default. But religion is wrong for demanding respect simply for being, and even more wrong for demanding never to be questioned."
source​

What do you think? Think he has a reasonable point? ,,,,Why, why not?

The question begins with an error. It should be: Do the 'claims' of religion deserve respect by default? And there's the rub. For tradition have failed to prove or demonstrate their case to speak with divine authority even while they try and God, assuming there is a God, has not seen any purpose in confirming any such claim by any tradition of any faith, even while they all expect that to happen at the end of times. The world, even as it is, could not function even as badly as it does, is respect were given unconditionally to anyone. We come into the world and are expected to demonstrate our abiitiy to learn and conform with the laws and mores of ones culture. Not to do so brings us into disrepute, if not jail! Considering the history of religion, both ancient and modern, I find little to respect in any institutional form of faith. But unlike many who default to atheism, I've just concluded that tradition is no more than a theological counterfeit God has yet to sort out. And when that happens, we'll have judgement.


.

 

[Skwim]

The question begins with an error. It should be: Do the 'claims' of religion deserve respect by default?

No error at all. Silverman isn't addressing the claims of religion, but religion itself. However, if you feel yours is a better question then please feel free to create your own thread. This one deals with the question, "Does Religion Deserve Respect by Default?"

 

[roger1440]

The question begins with an error. It should be: Do the 'claims' of religion deserve respect by default? And there's the rub. For tradition have failed to prove or demonstrate their case to speak with divine authority even while they try and God, assuming there is a God, has not seen any purpose in confirming any such claim by any tradition of any faith, even while they all expect that to happen at the end of times. The world, even as it is, could not function even as badly as it does, is respect were given unconditionally to anyone. We come into the world and are expected to demonstrate our abiitiy to learn and conform with the laws and mores of ones culture. Not to do so brings us into disrepute, if not jail! Considering the history of religion, both ancient and modern, I find little to respect in any institutional form of faith. But unlike many who default to atheism, I've just concluded that tradition is no more than a theological counterfeit God has yet to sort out. And when that happens, we'll have judgement.
.

No religious person today should be held responsible for what others have done in the past. Please don’t blame me for the Inquisition or the Crusades. Trust me on this, I wasn’t there.

“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” (Ezekiel 18:20)​

 

[Pudding]

No religious person today should be held responsible for what others have done in the past. Please don’t blame me for the Inquisition or the Crusades. Trust me on this, I wasn’t there.

“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” (Ezekiel 18:20)​

Yet all human is to be blamed for the original sin for the mistake done by two people adam and eve.
Should all human responsible for what adam and eve have done in the past (as the Bible written)?
Is this a double standards?

 

[bain-druie]

I don't recall any religion asking for respect from anyone but it's adherent's?
Nor have I heard about the no question rule?

Romans 1:18-32 makes it pretty clear that the christian god demands exclusive recognition and respect from not only believers, but all of humanity, because he has supposedly made his glory obvious through the creation so that none of us have an excuse for failing to respect and honor and worship him. Saying we have no excuse not to believe is pretty much saying no one should question him. And we can't just blame it on Paul, there are lots of examples of this narcissism throughout the Bible. I'm not as familiar with the Koran, but I've read it, and the overall flavor of childish demands for universal unearned respect and reverence is similar.

 

[bain-druie]

No religious person today should be held responsible for what others have done in the past. Please don’t blame me for the Inquisition or the Crusades. Trust me on this, I wasn’t there.

“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” (Ezekiel 18:20)​

On the other hand, the same god said this not long before that: "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me," Exodus 20:5.

So which is it? If someone chooses to despise all Christians for the atrocities committed by the church in the past, they can actually justify it biblically. I'm not suggesting it's right, because I believe it's very wrong; but scripture disagrees with me there. At least SOME scripture ... *cough*

 

[Aquitaine]

The question is prompted by a remark atheist David Silverman made in an article on his book Fighting God. The article quotes him as saying:

“Some … people call me a (jerk) because I challenge the absurd notion that religion deserves respect by default. But religion is wrong for demanding respect simply for being, and even more wrong for demanding never to be questioned."
source​

What do you think? Think he has a reasonable point? ,,,,Why, why not?


.

No ideology should be granted respect by default, nor should any be granted direspect by default. Respect should be earned, especially with ideologies which claim "divine authority/inspiration".

 

[bain-druie]

And pertaining to the OP: I believe in granting provisional respect to all creatures and all creeds. However, when it is proven that respect is misplaced, I reserve the right to withdraw it.

 

[roger1440]

Yet all human is to be blamed for the original sin for the mistake done by two people adam and eve.
Should all human responsible for what adam and eve have done in the past (as the Bible written)?
Is this a double standards?

The very people who wrote that story have no concept of "original sin".

 

[roger1440]

On the other hand, the same god said this not long before that: "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me," Exodus 20:5.

So which is it? If someone chooses to despise all Christians for the atrocities committed by the church in the past, they can actually justify it biblically. I'm not suggesting it's right, because I believe it's very wrong; but scripture disagrees with me there. At least SOME scripture ... *cough*

Yes, but only if the descendants following in their ancestors footsteps. You do know the clichés “like father like son” or “the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree”? Also read the next verse. “but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” God’s mercy is far more abundant then his wrath.

 

[Pudding]

The very people who wrote that story have no concept of "original sin".

Your interpretation is acceptable.

Yet all human is to be blamed for the original sin for the mistake done by two people adam and eve.
Should all human responsible for what adam and eve have done in the past (as the Bible written)?
Is this a double standards?

If "original sin" doesn't apply here, lets replace it with "consequences of mistake".

Yet all human have to bear the consequences of mistake which done by two people adam and eve.
Should all human have to bear the consequences of mistake which done by adam and eve in the past (as the Bible written)?
Is this a double standards?

 

[leibowde84]

Just another ignorant, arrogant moron in a world full of them. *yawns*

Why do you think that religions deserve respect by default merely for the reason that they are religions?

 

[leibowde84]

I'm in favor of giving people a measure of respect by default. I don't see how you have a civil society without that. But religions are not people, and I'm kind of uncomfortable with the notion of giving them a measure of respect by default. I'm uncomfortable with it, but still open to reasoned argument about it.

I feel the same way. People should be respected by default. But, it is extremely dangerous to automatically demand respect for any idea/belief without question. And, if we are forced to grant legitimacy to religious beliefs out of fear of offending those who adhere to those beliefs, progress will be impossible.

I watched a "Big Questions" debate about evolution, and one person pointed out that, to adherents, scripture is fact. So, just as we respect scientific discoveries based on empirical evidence, we must respect those who consider scripture to be fact as well. Imho, it was an absurd request, especially when children of adherents are taught that scripture is fact without question. Everyone should be responsible for supporting their beliefs with reasoned arguments, no matter where those beliefs originate.

 

[viole]

The question is prompted by a remark atheist David Silverman made in an article on his book Fighting God. The article quotes him as saying:

“Some … people call me a (jerk) because I challenge the absurd notion that religion deserves respect by default. But religion is wrong for demanding respect simply for being, and even more wrong for demanding never to be questioned."
source​

What do you think? Think he has a reasonable point? ,,,,Why, why not?


.

Any idea that demands respect by default is, by default, wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

The question is prompted by a remark atheist David Silverman made in an article on his book Fighting God. The article quotes him as saying:

“Some … people call me a (jerk) because I challenge the absurd notion that religion deserves respect by default. But religion is wrong for demanding respect simply for being, and even more wrong for demanding never to be questioned."
source​

What do you think? Think he has a reasonable point? ,,,,Why, why not?.

More than just reasonable, it is a badly needed attitude that I fully support and agree with.

 

[Mister Silver]

The question is prompted by a remark atheist David Silverman made in an article on his book Fighting God. The article quotes him as saying:

“Some … people call me a (jerk) because I challenge the absurd notion that religion deserves respect by default. But religion is wrong for demanding respect simply for being, and even more wrong for demanding never to be questioned."
source​

What do you think? Think he has a reasonable point? ,,,,Why, why not?


.

I agree with the quote posted. Religion does not deserve respect by default.

 

[columbus]

In case I forgot to post this

Tom